Florida passes self-defense bill

[Elie]

Sorry Umfriend it's too late for that in the U.S..

There are too many guns out there and only law abiding citizens would turn them in. How the heck are you ever going to collect all the guns in this country anyway.

In Canada... crime rate is so much lower and there is an equal or greater amount of guns circulating.

I know the US has twice the population or more, but still it's all a matter on how you were brought up as a kid that make a difference, oh and strict laws on gun ownership.

Regards,
Elie

[DukeP]

Is this for real??

This is BY FAR the most ........ law I have ever known to be passed in a country whitch we call our allies.

John Wayne's world seems lawabiding and safe, comparable.

Im.

Well. Speechless. lets just keep it at that.
J.H.C!!!


~~DukeP~~

[Wombat]

Is this for real??

This is BY FAR the most ........ law I have ever known to be passed in a country whitch we call our allies.

1. Woman gets cornered by rapist in some alley.
2. Rapist pulls knife.
3. (Now) woman can hit him over the head with a pipe or something before she has to wait and see if he actually stabs her.

This is bad how exactly?

[DukeP]

Or just shoot him dead on the spot.

Cute.

~~DukeP~~

[TransformX]

1. Woman gets cornered by rapist in some alley.
2. Rapist pulls knife.
3. (Now) woman can hit him over the head with a pipe or something before she has to wait and see if he actually stabs her.

This is bad how exactly?

Or a brick or anything she might find handy. Just don't throw an angry cat at him or she'll have all the animal rights activists all over her for mentaly hurting the poor animal

[Dr Mordrid]

Are you aware that somewhere north of 10% of all homocides in the US are committed using a knife?

Also, the fastest growing gun-owning population in the US is women. They are purchasing guns and taking classes in high numbers and for good reasons; the police cannot be everywhere all the time.

The police cannot protect anyone in realtime on the street 99% of the time, and likewise the police cannot protect women from stalkers, soon-to-be ex-husbands or boyfriends with a grudge. Many of those men have protection orders on them, which of course more often than not cannot be enforced to the degree that would actually prevent the woman from being injured or killed.

The police can only "protect" people from street crimes or stalkers in the abstract: after the fact, and very often this means after someone has been beaten within an inch of their life or killed.

In the example of the rape: what's wrong with her using as much force as necessary to prevent him from attacking her? Rape these days can be as lethal as getting shot given the spread of AIDS.

As such I'm inclined that she should have the right to assume her life is at risk and be allowed to counter him by any means at her disposal.

IMO the means should also include a Walther PPK or Baretta.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian R.]

We know what the NRA opinion is. Let's hear from people who may accidentally get killed by the idiots with weapons who would rather shoot you than take a chance on getting beaten with a fist over a traffic accident.

[Dr Mordrid]

Brian R,

Like it or not this isn't just the NRA opinion; it's the mainstream opinion in the US now. It's also not one of those Democrat vs. Republican/Liberal vs. Conservative issues anymore. Lots of people on both sides of the political aisle as well as moderates feel the same way.

This is why the political will has been present to get such laws enacted in at least 37 states, which by the way is also enough to enact a constitutional emendment

Those public officers who have taken the opposite point of view, regardless of party or philosophy, have very often lost their office, mainly because most people are realizing that personal protection is a civil right.

Dr. Mordrid

[Wombat]

Or just shoot him dead on the spot.

Maybe. Are you implying that her getting raped is preferable?

One dead assailant, please.

[The PIT]

Shocking, disgraceful. Your denying the human rights of the attacker. Why should the attacker expect his victimn to defend himelf/herself? This is a facist/racist law and if it was in Europe would be thrown out striaght away.

[DukeP]

Wombat, How can you even compare rape with murder?
Off course rape is wrong!!!
But Murder is also wrong!

This aint mathematics - two wrongs doesnt make a right.

And Selfdefense?


There IS no selfdefense. The Germans used selfdefense as the reason for their attack on Poland. They might have been right! Poland WOULD have attacked Germany. Maybe. Sometime.

There is only attack. Attacking back is still attacking.

Its wrong to attack, IE when you are swearing to selfdefense, you are still doing something wrong.

If you get attacked, RUN.

If you get attacked and you shoot the attacker, you are a murderer.

There is no other way around this.

Except.
If you prefer to live in a state of no society. In a state of no morality. In a state of no humanity.
If you choose to live like animals, then yes. Attacking back is only the call of the wild, may the best manbeast win, survival of the fittest.
Get a bigger gun - land.

I choose to live in a civilized state. To follow civilized rules. To do good, for goodness sake, as one might call it. Or as I would say it: To do good to preserve civilization.

You cannot uphold a good a civil society based on violence and or the threat of violence.

You can only uphold a good society based on compassion and, yes, goodness.

Which also shows: The contries in the world that are the most civilized, are the ones with the most lenient punishment systems, the ones with the least murderers (Ie Finland, f.ex.).

/rant.
~~DukeP~~

[TransformX]

Wombat, How can you even compare rape with murder?
Off course rape is wrong!!!
But Murder is also wrong!

This aint mathematics - two wrongs doesnt make a right.

And Selfdefense?


There IS no selfdefense. The Germans used selfdefense as the reason for their attack on Poland. They might have been right! Poland WOULD have attacked Germany. Maybe. Sometime.

There is only attack. Attacking back is still attacking.

Its wrong to attack, IE when you are swearing to selfdefense, you are still doing something wrong.

If you get attacked, RUN.

If you get attacked and you shoot the attacker, you are a murderer.

There is no other way around this.

Except.
If you prefer to live in a state of no society. In a state of no morality. In a state of no humanity.
If you choose to live like animals, then yes. Attacking back is only the call of the wild, may the best manbeast win, survival of the fittest.
Get a bigger gun - land.

I choose to live in a civilized state. To follow civilized rules. To do good, for goodness sake, as one might call it. Or as I would say it: To do good to preserve civilization.

You cannot uphold a good a civil society based on violence and or the threat of violence.

You can only uphold a good society based on compassion and, yes, goodness.

Which also shows: The contries in the world that are the most civilized, are the ones with the most lenient punishment systems, the ones with the least murderers (Ie Finland, f.ex.).

/rant.
~~DukeP~~

So cops shooting back at villains are murderers.
If someone kidnaps and kills, no retribution shall be made, let him do that more.

Oh, please...

[xortam]

It used to be that you had to drag the corpse back into your home after killing an intruder but Sheriff Jeb is changing all that.

We've also now got "vigilante" task forces monitoring the Mexican border for illegal immigrants and many of them are armed.

[Umfriend]

Wombat, How can you even compare rape with murder?
Off course rape is wrong!!!
But Murder is also wrong!

This aint mathematics - two wrongs doesnt make a right.

And Selfdefense?


There IS no selfdefense. The Germans used selfdefense as the reason for their attack on Poland. They might have been right! Poland WOULD have attacked Germany. Maybe. Sometime.

There is only attack. Attacking back is still attacking.

Its wrong to attack, IE when you are swearing to selfdefense, you are still doing something wrong.

If you get attacked, RUN.

If you get attacked and you shoot the attacker, you are a murderer.

There is no other way around this.

Except.
If you prefer to live in a state of no society. In a state of no morality. In a state of no humanity.
If you choose to live like animals, then yes. Attacking back is only the call of the wild, may the best manbeast win, survival of the fittest.
Get a bigger gun - land.

I choose to live in a civilized state. To follow civilized rules. To do good, for goodness sake, as one might call it. Or as I would say it: To do good to preserve civilization.

You cannot uphold a good a civil society based on violence and or the threat of violence.

You can only uphold a good society based on compassion and, yes, goodness.

Which also shows: The contries in the world that are the most civilized, are the ones with the most lenient punishment systems, the ones with the least murderers (Ie Finland, f.ex.).

/rant.
~~DukeP~~

Oh, phuleezee!. Putting myself in the position of a woman, raped once, shot the rapist dead the second time he tried: what the f*** are you comparing me to Nazi-Germany for?? I'll cooperate with the police and submit to the courts, see what happened and rule then.

Run. Run? RUN? What makes you think I have not doe anything I could to avoid getting raped? REALLY! SOmeone is trying to HURT me, SERIOUSLY HURT me, but if I shoot him in the leg, something HE could have AVOIDED by not trying to RAPE/HURT me, I'm a criminal?

More obejctively, when you state that you cannot uphold a good society based on violence or the threat of it, you are wrong. It's simply not the case here. It may just be part of the enforcement of a good society (when the state has a monopoly on violence) and I challenege to find me one society that has endured, say, 10 years without the threat of violence. What is society to me if it can't protect me enough to feel secure?

Call it wrong all you want, but I'd better be wrong dead or wrong not raped than right victimised.

Anyway, I get the idea that over here, with us, in Europe, the level of cfime, violent crime is just a lot lower than it is in the US. Back home where I live, I'm against guns concealed weapeons etc. That's not cuase it is neccisarily _right_, but because it works here. We have enough protection IMO. Does not mean that is the case anywhere else, does nto mean it will always be that way.

I would want the police to check for unlicensed guns/knives etc much more, if only so that we can continue to afford us the luxury of living in a (relatively) safe and weaponless society.

[Wombat]

Wombat, How can you even compare rape with murder?
Off course rape is wrong!!!
But Murder is also wrong!

This aint mathematics - two wrongs doesnt make a right.

Ahh, where to start. No, I don't compare rape with murder. I think rape is worse.

But killing someone in self-defense is not murder.

There IS no selfdefense. The Germans used selfdefense as the reason for their attack on Poland. They might have been right! Poland WOULD have attacked Germany. Maybe. Sometime.

What a crappy analogy. First, in your example, Germany made a pre-emptive attack, at best. They weren't fighting Poland off, therefore, it's not defense.

There is only attack. Attacking back is still attacking.

Its wrong to attack, IE when you are swearing to selfdefense, you are still doing something wrong.

If you get attacked, RUN.

Running is not always an option. Have you never been cornered?

If you get attacked and you shoot the attacker, you are a murderer.

No, you're not. You're trying to get out of something alive.

Join reality. What "civilized society" would allow a woman to get raped, just to avoid further violence?