This is not good at all....

**sequoias** · 10-13-2005, 11:40 PM

Here's my response to this....they're talking about shooting people in the public that they feel threatened BUT they can still shoot someone that they judged wrong, that goes to the inoccent people who has done nothing. Florida is repeating the same thing as it happened in the 1960's...lot of mobs, riots, etc. I don't want that happen again! I hope it doesn't spread over the US! It's not a junk e-mail, it's real! I got it from a friend.

FLORIDA: THE LAND OF SUNSHINE, ORANGES, AND DEADLY FORCE

Contribute
Help us distribute educational materials to Florida travelers

Dear friends,

October is here and the scariest thing is not Halloween, but the Shoot First law that has taken effect in Florida.

The law, which is another example of the craziness of the NRA, allows people in Florida to use deadly force in public places as a first resort to counter perceived threats. The law, which is being marketed by the NRA as allowing people to protect themselves, is so overly broad and expansive that everyday occurrences such as road rage incidents or a fistfight in a bar during spring break could have deadly consequences for the people involved and innocent bystanders.

By allowing the use of deadly force as a first resort, the law has removed the time-honored duty of citizens to walk away, call the police, or find a safe refuge. Finally innocent bystanders and their families have no civil recourse against the shooter if they are injured or killed in the crossfire even if the shooter initiated the confrontation and fired recklessly on a crowded street. To learn more about this law, go to www.ShootFirstLaw.org.

The NRA, with its usual arrogance, has annnounced plans to bring this law to all 50 states.

We have launched an aggressive campaign to educate tourists and others who may be considering traveling to Florida, about this law. We have placed ads, created billboards and are leafleting tourists arriving in Florida with flyers urging them to be careful.

Governor Jeb Bush has called our campaign "ridiculous" and a "gimmick." But the largest newspaper in Florida, the Miami Herald, has said this about our campaign and the law:

"Florida's new shoot-first law was a bad idea from the start - and state lawmakers should revoke the law at their first opportunity. So don't blame the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for warning visitors to stay calm if they become involved in a public confrontation after the law takes effect on Saturday."
They went on to say that our campaign "is a timely reminder to change this dangerous and unnecessary law."

That is what we intend to do. For the safety of all Floridians and unsuspecting tourists, this law must be changed. This is where you come in. We need you to:

1. Contribute to our campaign to repeal this dangerous law and stop the NRA from exporting it across the country.

2. Call Governor Bush at (850) 488-4441 and demand that he "make Florida safe again and repeal the shoot first law."

3. Send this email to family and friends, especially if they are thinking about visiting Florida.

4. Go to www.ShootFirstLaw.org and sign our petition to help keep this law out of your state.

We must work together to get this law repealed in Florida, and make sure it doesn't come to other states.

Sincerely,
Your Friends at StoptheNRA.com

ella · 10-14-2005, 12:07 AM

well flordia sounds scary i think i'll cross that state off to buy a nice winter home in the future.

**Reba** · 10-14-2005, 01:20 AM

The "Stand Your Ground" law looks OK to me.

http://www.packing.org/community/law...hresholdLo=2.5

**sequoias** · 10-14-2005, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

The "Stand Your Ground" law looks OK to me.

http://www.packing.org/community/law...hresholdLo=2.5

No thread in that link, Reba.

BTW, I disagree with you. Look at my response above...that's what lot of people are afraid of. It could bring back uncecessary crime.

Tousi · 10-14-2005, 03:40 AM

I am sure Reba will be back to fix the link. You should know by now that when she posts something, there must be a good reason. Your post shows only one-side; it appears to be an extreme view and alarmist and I am sure it is just politics as usual. Wait for the other side of the story.

CODAchild · 10-14-2005, 08:22 AM

I hope there is another side to this story Tousi, I would hate to see innocent people, especially, children being hurt or killed for nothing. I never heard of such a thing in my life that would allow a person to shoot first if they were confronted. Most states, would have that person who shot first in jail. Here in R.I. several years ago, an elderly couple's home was broken into while they were sleeping. It was a young man in his 20's who broke into the house according to the newspaper article. Well, the elderly man got his shotgun and shot at the burglar, getting him in the leg. The burglar pressed charges against the elderly man, and the burglar won!!! Even though he broke into someone else's home, he was trespassing, stealing. He still managed to beat this and win because he was shot at, and there was no evidence that the burglar was armed. Boy, talk about keeping your own home safe huh?

**Liebling:-)))** · 10-14-2005, 08:51 AM

*goose pump* It's very scare for the poor innoncent people...

Tousi · 10-14-2005, 11:33 AM

Good morning, CodaChild and thanks for the response. Umm, about the elderly couple you mentioned in your post, truly responsible and knowledgeable gun owners would not have gotten into trouble in that scenario. At best, the case probably turned on a technicality.....most likely what happened was that the man shot the burgular as he was RETREATING. Beyond that point (the retreating), the need to pull the trigger vanishes, legally, because there's no longer the presence of danger. It's a real difficult thing, tho, I imagine because, in a situation like that, one's just woken up, confusion reigns, emotions inflamed and all that........still, the law compels one to take great care or suffer the consequences. That's why I always say that people, if they want to have firearms for recreational purposes but in times like your scenario, that they get some training and be familiar with the laws governing same.....

**Reba** · 10-14-2005, 11:50 AM

Sorry, I don't know why the link didn't "hold". I'll try this one; it's a little different but the same general idea:

http://www.packing.org/oldnews/article/?article=10119

If that doesn't work, I'll find a different source or do a copy and paste.

I am not always "tech-savvy" enough on this link stuff.

**Reba** · 10-14-2005, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liebling:-)))

*goose pump* It's very scare for the poor innoncent people...

The concept of the law is to protect innocent people from rapists, muggers, car jackers, etc.

Most of my friends who have conceal carry permits actually very rarely have their guns on them in public places. Hubby and I rarely carry ours. Part of the reason is the law restricts where we can carry. The other reason is we just don't feel it is always necessary. So the image of hoards of gun-toting, blood-thirsty hotheads roaming city streets is not accurate. Even if I have my gun on me, if I am confronted with a dangerous situation, if I can escape without shooting, I will choose that option. But the beauty of the new law is, I would have an option!

**sequoias** · 10-14-2005, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

I am sure Reba will be back to fix the link. You should know by now that when she posts something, there must be a good reason. Your post shows only one-side; it appears to be an extreme view and alarmist and I am sure it is just politics as usual. Wait for the other side of the story.

it's not all about politics! It's MY response and views. Look at the society today, think about it...If you go to St. Louis (which already has very high crime), and if that law allows it and you could end up dead!

Oh I forgot to add...they would think it's okay to have guns in the public because they're not too smart to understand the law. They could have a scary shooting rampage and end up killing a innocent bystander.

**Reba** · 10-14-2005, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CODAchild

... I would hate to see innocent people, especially, children being hurt or killed for nothing.

Innocent people, especially children, don't attack other innocent people, so gun-carrying citizens won't shoot them.

Quote:

I never heard of such a thing in my life that would allow a person to shoot first if they were confronted.

Hmmm...If you, as a woman, were alone in a parking garage, and a large strange man threatened you, when should you shoot? After he rapes you? After he kidnaps you? After he stabs, chokes, or shoots you?

Quote:

Here in R.I. several years ago, an elderly couple's home was broken into while they were sleeping. It was a young man in his 20's who broke into the house according to the newspaper article. Well, the elderly man got his shotgun and shot at the burglar, getting him in the leg. The burglar pressed charges against the elderly man, and the burglar won!!! Even though he broke into someone else's home, he was trespassing, stealing. He still managed to beat this and win because he was shot at, and there was no evidence that the burglar was armed. Boy, talk about keeping your own home safe huh?

That is exactly why the laws need to be changed. In South Carolina, if you try to break into someone's home and are shot, TOO BAD! The homeowner is legally protected. It doesn't matter if the bad guy was armed or not. The residents in the house are still in danger. Guns aren't the only way to kill someone.

**Reba** · 10-14-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sequoias

...If you go to St. Louis (which already has very high crime), and if that law allows it and you could end up dead!

Laws don't prevent the bad guys from carrying guns; I think the good guys should have an equal chance at defense.

Maybe if St. Louis had a "stand your ground" law, the criminals would think twice about attacking citizens.

Steel X · 10-14-2005, 12:15 PM

I heard a similar story where someone broke into a man's house and he got out his gun and slowly walked downstairs and seen him stealing the silverware, he shot him in the head! so he's obviously dead so I don't think he was pressed charges with what he did to the theif as long as he's a legal citizen who got legal rights to protect himself and his house.

**Reba** · 10-14-2005, 12:21 PM

For other opinions:

http://www.mothersarms.org/commit.html

http://www.aware.org/

http://www.2asisters.org/

http://www.wagc.com/

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

jazzy · 10-14-2005, 01:01 PM

I change my mind after what was happened to my son and his girlfriend two weeks. I dont want guns in hand of people at all now even law biding citizens. Too many people are so screw up and cloud their judgement. I do not trust them at all. I consider them dangerous people.

**Reba** · 10-14-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzy

I change my mind after what was happened to my son and his girlfriend two weeks. I dont want guns in hand of people at all now even law biding citizens. Too many people are so screw up and cloud their judgement. I do not trust them at all. I consider them dangerous people.

The problem is, laws only stop law-abiding honest citizens from having guns. Laws don't stop the criminals from having and using guns.

Yes, there are many "screwed up" people in this world. That doesn't mean I have to give up my rights for them. Besides, "screwed up" people can do a lot of damage in other ways, without guns.

When one of those "screwed up" people bangs on my door, I want to be ready to defend myself.

10-14-2005, 02:01 PM

Just remember that guns do not kill people. People kill people.

Vance · 10-14-2005, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

Your post shows only one-side; it appears to be an extreme view and alarmist and I am sure it is just politics as usual.

And Reba's links are not?

Right

sequoias, they will change this stupid law or retract it in the future when they realize their grave mistakes (that IF they have any common sense). I can understand that they need guns to protect theirselves but in THEIR houses or private properties. NOT in public places.

I never thought that it is possible for retards to be more 'retarder' but Jeb Bush & certain politicans just proved me otherwise. To think that I joined NRA *shudder*. I have this thought to not renew my membership...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookie Monster

Just remember that guns do not kill people. People kill people.

Yep but which is more easier to kill more than one person with gun or knife when s/he gets out of control in the public?

Indeedy.

10-14-2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookie Monster

Just remember that guns do not kill people. People kill people.

(This is Chris)

I caught a guy wore this t-shirt

10-14-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magatsu

Yep but which is more easier to kill more than one person with gun or knife when s/he gets out of control in the public?

Guns do kill people much easier/faster than knives or bare hands however it is the person's own sheer idiocy that always kills themselves when they are out of control in public.

To quote you.. "Indeedy".

10-14-2005, 02:36 PM

Fear is major reason, play with their minds, probably never have an ability to feel secured.

**Reba** · 10-14-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magatsu

And Reba's links are not?

Just trying to provide balance.

Quote:

sequoias, they will change this stupid law or retract it in the future...

Michigan might be the next state to pass the law.

Quote:

I can understand that they need guns to protect theirselves but in THEIR houses or private properties. NOT in public places.

Rapists, murderers, and car jackers don't attack in public places?

Quote:

Yep but which is more easier to kill more than one person with gun or knife when s/he gets out of control in the public?

That's why we need to protect ourselves.

Vance · 10-14-2005, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookie Monster

Guns do kill people much easier/faster than knives or bare hands however it is the person's own sheer idiocy that always kills themselves when they are out of control in public.

That would be 'before' kill more than just a innocent bystander in the public. And 'always'? Hmm, not according to the history.

'Indeedy' awards back to me

Vance · 10-14-2005, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Just trying to provide balance.

I know but I want to point out one thing that tousi apparently missed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Michigan might be the next state to pass the law.

As I said above, "in the future". It certainly does not mean 'right now'. Right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Rapists, murderers, and car jackers don't attack in public places?

That's why we need to protect ourselves.

I don't buy your excuse at all. Actually... no offense but it is lame. Policemen had a number of training sessions to keep themselves in the control when situation(s) fires up on them while 'normal' civilians don't have that opportunity. So, in the words, most of civilians are incapable of get in control of themselves when situation happens. It is a matter of common sense which I think many people don't have that luxury (what else there are many warning labels on medicines, toys and such

)

Look, I think we all know that this 'argument' is endless... but what I do know that this law will be retract or change in time. It is just a matter of time. It didn't solve the problem, it is just creating a new problem but bigger.

Steel X · 10-14-2005, 03:08 PM

I'm abit surprised Jack Thomspon didn't say anything about this one when he always bitched about violence in videogames...

Steel X · 10-14-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cookie Monster

Just remember that guns do not kill people. People kill people.

so much for some kid saying "guns kill....guns kill...." in the animated film, "The Iron Giant".

Tousi · 10-14-2005, 03:21 PM

Magatsu said, "I know but I want to point out one thing that tousi apparently missed."

I don't think I missed anything; I did say "to wait for other views" and now we have a balance. You got a problem with offering other views for AD'ers to consume?

**sequoias** · 10-14-2005, 03:39 PM

Finally someone who agrees with my views...Magatsu and some others have a good point. Most people don't understand it UNTIL something actually happens when a innocent bystander or a mob raid happens, then things will change. Here in the US, they believe things change when something actually happens....like the example: A kid gets struck by a car because he/she darted out across the street behind a school bus in front and got hit by a car, when the bus didn't have a "STOP" sign on the bus. It went into a law when it HAPPENED, not what people saw and ignored the safety of the people, they do it when it happens.

Vance · 10-14-2005, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

I don't think I missed anything; I did say "to wait for other views" and now we have a balance. You got a problem with offering other views for AD'ers to consume?

You got a problem with reading other people's comments without misunderstanding anything?

*sigh* I guess I have to work a bit more by copying/pasting comments. Here's a part of your comment that I responded to (in other words, I don't care or concern about other part of your comments):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tousi

Your post shows only one-side; it appears to be an extreme view and alarmist and I am sure it is just politics as usual.

Then here's mine (respond to yours):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magatsu

And Reba's links are not?

Now... where did I say that I have any problems with other views from AD'ers? Hmm? Reba's links certainly show only one-side, hers appear to be an extreme view and alarmist (what if rapists attack others in the public, we need to protect our asses with a .50 caliber rifle! blah blah, that's alarmism style). And... politics that created this law in Florida and yet you were implying that it is just politics as usual... Flash News: Everything is politics nowaday. Ask any politicans. That's where someone missed the point.

I don't see how you twisted my comments into that childish comment, "You got a problem with offering other views for AD'ers to consume?". Oh grief.

10-13-2005, 11:40 PM	#1 (permalink)
sequoias Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Iowa, the land of the cornfields and pigs Posts: 21,854	This is not good at all.... Here's my response to this....they're talking about shooting people in the public that they feel threatened BUT they can still shoot someone that they judged wrong, that goes to the inoccent people who has done nothing. Florida is repeating the same thing as it happened in the 1960's...lot of mobs, riots, etc. I don't want that happen again! I hope it doesn't spread over the US! It's not a junk e-mail, it's real! I got it from a friend. FLORIDA: THE LAND OF SUNSHINE, ORANGES, AND DEADLY FORCE Contribute Help us distribute educational materials to Florida travelers Dear friends, October is here and the scariest thing is not Halloween, but the Shoot First law that has taken effect in Florida. The law, which is another example of the craziness of the NRA, allows people in Florida to use deadly force in public places as a first resort to counter perceived threats. The law, which is being marketed by the NRA as allowing people to protect themselves, is so overly broad and expansive that everyday occurrences such as road rage incidents or a fistfight in a bar during spring break could have deadly consequences for the people involved and innocent bystanders. By allowing the use of deadly force as a first resort, the law has removed the time-honored duty of citizens to walk away, call the police, or find a safe refuge. Finally innocent bystanders and their families have no civil recourse against the shooter if they are injured or killed in the crossfire even if the shooter initiated the confrontation and fired recklessly on a crowded street. To learn more about this law, go to www.ShootFirstLaw.org. The NRA, with its usual arrogance, has annnounced plans to bring this law to all 50 states. We have launched an aggressive campaign to educate tourists and others who may be considering traveling to Florida, about this law. We have placed ads, created billboards and are leafleting tourists arriving in Florida with flyers urging them to be careful. Governor Jeb Bush has called our campaign "ridiculous" and a "gimmick." But the largest newspaper in Florida, the Miami Herald, has said this about our campaign and the law: "Florida's new shoot-first law was a bad idea from the start - and state lawmakers should revoke the law at their first opportunity. So don't blame the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for warning visitors to stay calm if they become involved in a public confrontation after the law takes effect on Saturday." They went on to say that our campaign "is a timely reminder to change this dangerous and unnecessary law." That is what we intend to do. For the safety of all Floridians and unsuspecting tourists, this law must be changed. This is where you come in. We need you to: 1. Contribute to our campaign to repeal this dangerous law and stop the NRA from exporting it across the country. 2. Call Governor Bush at (850) 488-4441 and demand that he "make Florida safe again and repeal the shoot first law." 3. Send this email to family and friends, especially if they are thinking about visiting Florida. 4. Go to www.ShootFirstLaw.org and sign our petition to help keep this law out of your state. We must work together to get this law repealed in Florida, and make sure it doesn't come to other states. Sincerely, Your Friends at StoptheNRA.com

10-14-2005, 08:51 AM	#7 (permalink)
Liebling:-))) Sussi 7.7.86 - 18.6.09 Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 31,038	goose pump It's very scare for the poor innoncent people... __________________

10-14-2005, 12:15 PM	#14 (permalink)
Steel X Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: The Carolinas/Rochester, NY. Posts: 13,821	I heard a similar story where someone broke into a man's house and he got out his gun and slowly walked downstairs and seen him stealing the silverware, he shot him in the head! so he's obviously dead so I don't think he was pressed charges with what he did to the theif as long as he's a legal citizen who got legal rights to protect himself and his house. __________________

10-14-2005, 03:08 PM	#26 (permalink)
Steel X Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: The Carolinas/Rochester, NY. Posts: 13,821	I'm abit surprised Jack Thomspon didn't say anything about this one when he always bitched about violence in videogames... __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

10-14-2005, 12:07 AM	#2 (permalink)
ella Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: detroit ,michigan Posts: 1,083	well flordia sounds scary i think i'll cross that state off to buy a nice winter home in the future.

10-14-2005, 01:20 AM	#3 (permalink)
Reba Granny Terp Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: South Carolina Posts: 39,130	The "Stand Your Ground" law looks OK to me. http://www.packing.org/community/law...hresholdLo=2.5

10-14-2005, 03:40 AM	#5 (permalink)
Tousi Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 15,731	I am sure Reba will be back to fix the link. You should know by now that when she posts something, there must be a good reason. Your post shows only one-side; it appears to be an extreme view and alarmist and I am sure it is just politics as usual. Wait for the other side of the story.

10-14-2005, 08:22 AM	#6 (permalink)
CODAchild Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Location: Cranston, Rhode Island Posts: 2,767	I hope there is another side to this story Tousi, I would hate to see innocent people, especially, children being hurt or killed for nothing. I never heard of such a thing in my life that would allow a person to shoot first if they were confronted. Most states, would have that person who shot first in jail. Here in R.I. several years ago, an elderly couple's home was broken into while they were sleeping. It was a young man in his 20's who broke into the house according to the newspaper article. Well, the elderly man got his shotgun and shot at the burglar, getting him in the leg. The burglar pressed charges against the elderly man, and the burglar won!!! Even though he broke into someone else's home, he was trespassing, stealing. He still managed to beat this and win because he was shot at, and there was no evidence that the burglar was armed. Boy, talk about keeping your own home safe huh?

10-14-2005, 11:33 AM	#8 (permalink)
Tousi Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 15,731	Good morning, CodaChild and thanks for the response. Umm, about the elderly couple you mentioned in your post, truly responsible and knowledgeable gun owners would not have gotten into trouble in that scenario. At best, the case probably turned on a technicality.....most likely what happened was that the man shot the burgular as he was RETREATING. Beyond that point (the retreating), the need to pull the trigger vanishes, legally, because there's no longer the presence of danger. It's a real difficult thing, tho, I imagine because, in a situation like that, one's just woken up, confusion reigns, emotions inflamed and all that........still, the law compels one to take great care or suffer the consequences. That's why I always say that people, if they want to have firearms for recreational purposes but in times like your scenario, that they get some training and be familiar with the laws governing same.....

10-14-2005, 11:50 AM	#9 (permalink)
Reba Granny Terp Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: South Carolina Posts: 39,130	Sorry, I don't know why the link didn't "hold". I'll try this one; it's a little different but the same general idea: http://www.packing.org/oldnews/article/?article=10119 If that doesn't work, I'll find a different source or do a copy and paste. I am not always "tech-savvy" enough on this link stuff.

10-14-2005, 12:21 PM	#15 (permalink)
Reba Granny Terp Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: South Carolina Posts: 39,130	For other opinions: http://www.mothersarms.org/commit.html http://www.aware.org/ http://www.2asisters.org/ http://www.wagc.com/ http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/ http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

10-14-2005, 01:01 PM	#16 (permalink)
jazzy Registered User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: High desert in Calif Posts: 4,208	I change my mind after what was happened to my son and his girlfriend two weeks. I dont want guns in hand of people at all now even law biding citizens. Too many people are so screw up and cloud their judgement. I do not trust them at all. I consider them dangerous people.

10-14-2005, 02:01 PM	#18 (permalink)
Cookie Monster Guest Posts: n/a	Just remember that guns do not kill people. People kill people.

10-14-2005, 02:36 PM	#22 (permalink)
Cookie Monster Guest Posts: n/a	Fear is major reason, play with their minds, probably never have an ability to feel secured.

10-14-2005, 03:21 PM	#28 (permalink)
Tousi Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 15,731	Magatsu said, "I know but I want to point out one thing that tousi apparently missed." I don't think I missed anything; I did say "to wait for other views" and now we have a balance. You got a problem with offering other views for AD'ers to consume?

10-14-2005, 03:39 PM	#29 (permalink)
sequoias Premium Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Iowa, the land of the cornfields and pigs Posts: 21,854	Finally someone who agrees with my views...Magatsu and some others have a good point. Most people don't understand it UNTIL something actually happens when a innocent bystander or a mob raid happens, then things will change. Here in the US, they believe things change when something actually happens....like the example: A kid gets struck by a car because he/she darted out across the street behind a school bus in front and got hit by a car, when the bus didn't have a "STOP" sign on the bus. It went into a law when it HAPPENED, not what people saw and ignored the safety of the people, they do it when it happens.