why is it i had to read a UK newspaper to find out about this?
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2014492005

Quote :

"Florida tourists warned that locals could shoot them IT IS Britain's most popular transatlantic holiday destination, attracting more than 1.5 million visitors a year with its sun-drenched beaches, theme parks and wildlife. But Florida's £30 billion tourism industry is under threat from a campaign launched by a gun-control group which warns visitors they could be killed. A series of alarming adverts, to be placed in British newspapers, warns potential tourists about a new law allowing gun owners to shoot anyone they believe threatens their safety. It means thousands of British families who travel to the Sunshine State are now caught up in the ongoing political row over gun control in the United States. The Florida law, supported by the National Rifle Association, was approved by the state legislature in April. The state's governor, Jeb Bush - whose brother is the US president - described it as a "good, commonsense, anti-crime issue". Critics call it the "shoot first" law and say it allows gun owners to shoot if they engage in a simple argument in public. Supporters call it the "stand your ground" law and say criminals will think twice before attacking someone. Previously, gun owners could only use their weapons if they first attempted to withdraw and avoid a confrontation, and were permitted to shoot threatening individuals only inside their home or property. Now they can use "deadly force" if they "reasonably believe" that firing their gun is necessary to prevent a crime or serious injury. The law also effectively prevents civil legal action by victims of such shootings. The Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence, based in Washington DC, has pledged to "educate" tourists by placing adverts in US cities, and in key overseas markets such as Britain. "Warning: Florida residents can use deadly force," says one of the adverts. Another reads: "Thinking about a Florida vacation? Please ensure your family is safe. In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads." The Brady Campaign - named after Jim Brady, the spokesman for Ronald Reagan who was paralysed by a gunshot during the 1981 assassination attempt on the then-president - promises to also run adverts in French, German and Japanese newspapers. The campaign officers also plan to hand out leaflets on roads leading into the state. Peter Hamm, the communications director of the Brady Campaign, said: "It's a particular risk faced by travellers coming to Florida for a vacation because they have no idea it's going to be the law of the land. If they get into a road rage argument, the other person may feel he has the right to use deadly force." Tourism officials in Florida are furious at the move. Bud Nocera, the executive director of Visit Florida, said: "It is sad that such an organisation would hold the 900,000 men and women who work in the Florida tourism industry, and whose lives depend on it, hostage to their political agenda." The Association of British Travel Agents yesterday said the posters were "a matter of concern", but said there was unlikely to be a drop in the number of visitors to Florida. It said 1.4 million Britons made the journey last year, attracted by the weather and resorts such as Disneyworld and the Kennedy Space Centre. A spokeswoman said: "We would offer the same advice about Florida as we would any other part of the United States. As far as we are concerned, nothing has changed." More than 80 million tourists from around the world visited Florida last year, boosting an industry that accounts for one-fifth of the state economy."

thats crazy
but i think my favorite part is:

Quote :

"A spokeswoman said: "We would offer the same advice about Florida as we would any other part of the United States. As far as we are concerned, nothing has changed." "

9/30/2005 9:47:59 AM

Where have you been, this law is seriously old news.

Quote :

""It's a particular risk faced by travellers coming to Florida for a vacation because they have no idea it's going to be the law of the land. If they get into a road rage argument, the other person may feel he has the right to use deadly force.""

He may feel he has that right, but he doesn't. The law doesn't allow you to shoot someone that annoys you, it mostly removes the "duty to retreat" parts of florida's lethal force laws. Of course, what else should we expect from the Brady Campaign

9/30/2005 9:58:41 AM

When law-abiding citizens are allowed to defend themselves with deadly force, the violent crime rate goes down.

Will people in Florida start shooting everything that moves? Past experience says no. 30 states have conceal-carry laws and we do not hear stories of people with conceal carry permits going on rampages. For the most part, tight gun control laws only remove guns from law-abiding people.

The bigger issue is this. Do we have a right to defend ourselves, our property, our families from those who would kill, rob and rape us? We have seen recently in New Orleans that the police cannot always protect us. How will you protect yourself in those gaps where the police aren't there? Self-defense is a basic right that of which gov't shouldn't have a monopoly.

9/30/2005 10:07:54 AM

This is a picture of the actual ad

Nevermind, the picture is on Yahoo. (I couldn't get it to work)



[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 10:54 AM. Reason : pic broken]

9/30/2005 10:52:02 AM

also, yeaaars ago, tourists were getting killed in florida so i dont think this new law is gonna chang anything

but yeah i agree with EarthDogg...criminals are going to be less likely to mess with people if they fear they might get shot

9/30/2005 11:15:00 AM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=312968

n00b

9/30/2005 11:44:02 AM

If they can't figure out how to vote, I doubt they can figure out who to shoot either.

9/30/2005 12:23:53 PM

Or how to shoot. "Which lever do I pull? It's all so confusing!"

9/30/2005 1:18:30 PM

But seriously, I think this law is stupid.

Sure, people have the write to use leathal force to protect themselves. If somebody breaks in your home, I have no problem with you shooting them. If someone is trying to kill you, I have no problem with you killing them first. But that was already legal.

I do think it was very clever to put the pressure on these gun nuts by scaring away their tourists.

9/30/2005 1:25:15 PM

Quote :

"Of course, what else should we expect from the Brady Campaign"

What, so Reagan's press secretary is an anti-american liberal commie now?

9/30/2005 1:27:28 PM

There's nothing wrong with this law. It simply removes the duty to retreat, which was retarded anyways (as it was written). If you are legally allowed to be somewhere, and you are attacked, you should be able to respond with as much force necessary.

Contrary to what the MMM/Brady Campaign would have you believe, this law does not allow you to just go around shooting people who talk shit to you. Your life still has to be in danger to shoot someone.


[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 1:50 PM. Reason : 2]

9/30/2005 1:48:25 PM

what I first thought of when I read the title:

9/30/2005 2:08:03 PM

Quote :

"If someone is trying to kill you, I have no problem with you killing them first. But that was already legal. "

no, without this law, you would be obligated to run away or do whatever else you could to avoid shooting until you ran out of other options. with this law, you don't have to do that. you can shoot an aggressor without having to attempt to get away first.

9/30/2005 4:23:28 PM

God Bless America

9/30/2005 4:33:40 PM

that article is taken so out of context its retarded

9/30/2005 5:07:35 PM

Goddamn I hate the brady campaign. However, it's not like they're going to be saying anything that those spineless, defense-hating english piss-stains don't allready think.

10/1/2005 7:21:01 AM

hey guys guess what

this is one of those issues that I'm AGAINST gun control

hell yeah I get to be "conservative" for a minute

...this is a lot like the other day when I got uncomfortable around girls who were talking about abortion like it was like getting braces

10/1/2005 3:10:57 PM

SQUEEZE FIRST ASK QUESTIONS LAST

10/1/2005 3:18:27 PM

What, so Reagan's press secretary is an anti-american liberal commie now

I dont know about James but Sarah has major beef with Americans owning guns.

FWIW this has been the law in NC for a long long time. If your life is threatend in your own home, you can use deadly force to defend yourself without having to retreat away from the threat, lock the bedroom door or otherwise try to escape. your home is your castle.

do you shoot to kill? No, you shoot to live.

10/1/2005 8:29:23 PM

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/chuckwagon.html

Quote :

"In Praise Of Florida's New Deadly Force Law In my home state of Florida, a new law just took effect which strengthens the right of citizens to use deadly force in protecting themselves. The new law has been nicknamed the "stand your ground" statute, because it changes the state requirement that a person try to avoid or escape an assailant before using deadly force. [...] Ever since Florida passed its concealed carry law back in 1987, serious crime across the state has plummeted. Furthermore, Florida's concealed carry law has spawned similar laws in more than two thirds of the states across the country, and crime rates nationwide reflect it. Crime rates are down to their lowest levels in decades. In fact, the state with the lowest crime rate in the country is a state which allows its citizens to carry a concealed weapon without even requiring a permit: the state of Vermont. It is also no coincidence that the cities and states with the highest levels of violent crimes are those places that have the strictest forms of gun control. Washington, D.C., Chicago, and New York City come to mind. Instead of ushering in "vigilante justice," as one liberal predicted, the "stand your ground" law actually makes our state safer. One can only hope that other states will follow suit."

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 11:14 AM. Reason : 1]

10/4/2005 11:13:53 AM

Surely strict gun laws aren't a result of high crime rates.

Do you really think that liberal gun laws are the sole reason for low crime in Vermont?

10/4/2005 1:07:02 PM

Liberal gun laws alone won't result in low crime, but they help.

10/4/2005 1:25:35 PM

Gun Control causes INCREASE in violent crime
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002/05/09/ncoppf.htm

Quote :

"Gun laws don't reduce crime Too often calls for "reasonable" gun control or "sensible" gun-safety laws ignore that such legislation can actually result in increased crime. Guns are used defensively about 2 million times a year, according to national surveys. Physically weaker victims (women and the elderly) and those most likely to be victims of crime (particularly poor blacks) benefit the most from owning a gun. Unfortunately, rules that are primarily obeyed by law-abiding citizens and not would-be criminals make crime easier. [...] Around the world, from Australia to England, countries that have recently strengthened gun-control laws with the promise of lowering crime have instead seen violent crime soar. In the four years after the U.K. banned handguns in 1996, gun crime rose by an astounding 40%. Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%. Gun-control advocates conveniently ignore that the countries with the highest homicide rates have gun bans."

It's real simple. Gun bans only result in peaceful/law-abiding citizens not having guns. Criminals will continue to be armed, and it makes it easier for would-be criminals to rape, rob, and murder the peaceful/law-abiding citizens. Banning guns doesn't mean that guns disappear from society, just as banning crack cocaine doesn't mean it disappears. Banning guns means only criminals will have guns.

[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 1:44 PM. Reason : 1]

10/4/2005 1:43:25 PM

that's why japan and the uk have such have rates of violent crime. it's their strict gun laws. gotcha.

i'd like to see some numbers beyond percentage increases over short time periods.



[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 1:45 PM. Reason : .]

10/4/2005 1:43:52 PM

Comparing Vermont to Great Britain is silly. They are radically different people inhabiting a radically different culture.

Comparing Vermont to New York, on the otherhand, is less silly.

10/4/2005 1:55:54 PM

although still somewhat silly.

10/4/2005 1:58:09 PM

More accurately, wealth and opportunity are preventers of violent crime. Vermont's median income is around $54k. The median income in Washington DC is $40k While that is still fairly high, that median is raised significantly by the very wealthy "Washington Elite". While I couldn't find specific numbers, I'm sure the inner city is significantly lower. Home ownership, population density, and education are also factors.

Japan is a bad comparison, with a criminal convition rate well above 90% and a culture of very strict disclipline, you're comparing apples to cherry blossoms.

People don't suddenly get an urge to kill as soon as a gun is put in their hands, that urge has to come from somewhere else. The gun just increases their lethality

10/4/2005 2:56:43 PM

Don't forget. It also increases the lethality of everyone else with a gun.
And since the vast majority of people are not criminals, even in Washington, the more people with guns the more likely a criminal is to get shot.

10/4/2005 5:39:31 PM

I'm a little mixed on the issue. I think most people are intelligent enough not to take this as a license to kill, but then there are those that will undoubtably abuse this law.

10/4/2005 6:40:08 PM

And when they do the DA can still charge them with manslaughter.
The only difference is that now people that did act in self defense won't go to jail anyway for failure to retreat.

10/5/2005 1:02:30 AM

I agree Snark, I wasn't arguing that guns should be banned, far from it. Call it MAD on a minature scale, but it worked during the Cold War.

10/5/2005 5:06:55 PM

Yes.

Bloodfueds really did settle a lot of local disputes.

10/5/2005 5:13:30 PM

Quote :

"And since the vast majority of people are not criminals, even in Washington, the more people with guns the more likely a criminal is to get shot."

ahahaha, so good. i mean, the statement is stupid, but its soooo damn funny and right.

10/5/2005 5:58:09 PM