Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maddog
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by John Carter
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maddog
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by John Carter
As it also says in the article linked, this is the way it already is in most parts of the US.
|
And therefore wholly unnecessary. Except to give the impression, as lunachick says, that "you can kill anyone now - just say that you felt threatened or whatever and w[ere] simply doing what you had to do." That it was the brain-child of the NRA should tell you something. |
It still sounds like hysteria to me. Also, resorting to ad hominem fallacies does not help you convince me that you have a solid argument. |
Well, it just seems to me that if the extant law already says that it is permissible to meet deadly force with deadly force, and it already says it is permissible to meet force with force, what is the need for this law? Why would anyone promote it? What is its purpose? We don't presume that the Legislature is performing idle acts. Whose ox is going to be gored? |
According to the article linked to in the OP, this is not the way it already is in Florida. That was my oiriginal point; according to the information given, this only brings Florida in line with most of the rest of the US.
[quote]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JohnCarter
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by maddog
Maybe it *should* but in my experience, it doesn't. When people are "packing," they tend to USE those guns. Statutes like this one make people feel more "justified" in resorting to the guns they're carrying. I've seen it so many, many, many times, that guns are used impulsively, with deadly consequences, and often tragic results for the citizen-user, who then must face a criminal trial.
|
Quote:
|
In your experience? How much experience do you have with people who habitually carry weapons? In my own experience, I know nobody who does so that has used a weapon impulsively. So we have two opposing sets of anecdotal evidence, together with a slippery slope fallacy.
|
I've seen things like this a lot in 25 years of reviewing criminal (and civil) appeals (and, in the course of research, reading hundreds, if not thousands of other cases). The testimony of the people who just "lost it" and reacted is quite common -- "it happened so fast" "I did it without thinking" "I don't remember what I did, I was so scared/angry" etc. And you don't have to carry weapons "habitually" to have bad things happen.
#408 |
All this says is that some people who carry weapons misused them. It does not indicate, as you want to imply, that everyone who does so cannot be trusted.
I don't know whether or not this legislation is redundant or not, as I do not know exactly what current Florida Law states. All I meant to point out was that Lunachick's post was at the very least over reacting. I cannot see how any reasonable person could possibly conclude that they can now kill anyone they want. But then again, I gather from your "gun nut" rhetoric earlier that you don't feel that anyone who has weapons is reasonable anyway.