Not Again

[IceGrog]

Originally Posted by CB..

fair enough
but it does rather beg the question...
if it is not the polices job to protect the citizen then who are they there to protect..?

in the US they are supposed to enforce the law, which in some cases does come down to protecting the citizen, but all citizens should have the right to protect themselves, which brings up the gun thing again

[Bort]

Bort, I think I can speak for most of the people of FL when I say, if it bothers you so friggin' much, STAY THE ******* OUT OF FLORIDA!

Why do you guys in the nanny states spend SO much time worrying about laws in other states? Is it the typical liberal/elitist mentality that says other people can't govern themselves?

First, since you are not from Florida, I don't think you speak for them. Second, Florida has an important tourist industry which means that they might not be that happy if all people in favor of sensible gun control laws (like myself and a hefty portion of the American populace) simply bypassed their state and spent their tourist dollars elsewhere. I myself have spent perhaps a dozen summers vacationing in Florida, and have not once been asked to leave because of my opposition to their concealed carry laws, even if I had been, I would have invoked my own right to move freely from state to state, a right far more important and precious than the right to have a firearm. As far as "nanny states" and "typical liberal/elitist mentality" I'm not exactly sure what your getting at. Illinois is no more "nannying" (whatever that means) than any other state. Just because we have decided that it is not in our best interest to have civilians carrying loaded weapons around in public should be viewed as a reflection of the way we go about ensuring our own safety, through law and order and not independent vigilante action. I'm not sure how that is elitist, in fact I might argue that it is elitist to think that you can mete out justice with your .357 magnum on the street better than the police and courts can.

[ASWnut101]

Originally Posted by *[FOX]* Bort

First, since you are not from Florida, I don't think you speak for them. Second, Florida has an important tourist industry which means that they might not be that happy if all people in favor of sensible gun control laws (like myself and a hefty portion of the American populace) simply bypassed their state and spent their tourist dollars elsewhere. I myself have spent perhaps a dozen summers vacationing in Florida, and have not once been asked to leave because of my opposition to their concealed carry laws, even if I had been, I would have invoked my own right to move freely from state to state, a right far more important and precious than the right to have a firearm. As far as "nanny states" and "typical liberal/elitist mentality" I'm not exactly sure what your getting at. Illinois is no more "nannying" (whatever that means) than any other state. Just because we have decided that it is not in our best interest to have civilians carrying loaded weapons around in public should be viewed as a reflection of the way we go about ensuring our own safety, through law and order and not independent vigilante action. I'm not sure how that is elitist, in fact I might argue that it is elitist to think that you can mete out justice with your .357 magnum on the street better than the police and courts can.

Well I can speak for Florida as it IS my home state. Why wouldn't someone like when people have the legal right to carry? People who usually carry a gun legaly are their for self protection. People who don't carry legally, criminals in paticular, are there to rob you. What is so scarry about a perfectly legitamite person carrying a gun? How is it so scarry? I'd fell safer when I'm around citizens who legally carry weapons. They're more likly to shoot the person tring to kidnap you than sit there and freak out over the kidnapee with a gun. Florida's gun laws are protecting people, not making the place a "Wild West" State. And yes a .357 will do perfectly fine in quick justice making. What are you suggesting? That you call the police? Normal response time is about 3 minutes average....thats more than enough time for a criminal to do his work. You should be feeling safe.

[STEED]

I would just like to say the biggest number one criminal in the U.K. is


The Motorist or better known as the car owner.

[madDdog67]

Originally Posted by *[FOX]* Bort

First, since you are not from Florida, I don't think you speak for them. Second, Florida has an important tourist industry which means that they might not be that happy if all people in favor of sensible gun control laws (like myself and a hefty portion of the American populace) simply bypassed their state and spent their tourist dollars elsewhere. I myself have spent perhaps a dozen summers vacationing in Florida, and have not once been asked to leave because of my opposition to their concealed carry laws, even if I had been, I would have invoked my own right to move freely from state to state, a right far more important and precious than the right to have a firearm. As far as "nanny states" and "typical liberal/elitist mentality" I'm not exactly sure what your getting at. Illinois is no more "nannying" (whatever that means) than any other state. Just because we have decided that it is not in our best interest to have civilians carrying loaded weapons around in public should be viewed as a reflection of the way we go about ensuring our own safety, through law and order and not independent vigilante action. I'm not sure how that is elitist, in fact I might argue that it is elitist to think that you can mete out justice with your .357 magnum on the street better than the police and courts can.

The state of FL passed a law that, apparently the legislature and the majority of citizens are quite happy with. Whether or not you think it sensible isn't important...but you seem to equate the right of self protection to vigilantism, in a manner that I can't fathom. Obviously, the states of Fla, VA, and a host of others disagree with your view as well, since they've all *eased* the requirements for their citizens to carry concealed if they choose to do so, whether or not they've implemented a Castle type law of their own.

You opined earlier about how stupid you thought the FL law was, which is certainly within your rights, but you're implication then, and in again in this post, is that there is something wrong with Florida's approach...the term "vigilante action" is a dead givaway. Your tone seems to be, "any other state that does it differently is too stupid to know any better"...or did I read too much into it?

And it's a .45, thank you very much. One in the pipe, 13 in the mag, 13 more in the spare mag. I won't even tell you what's in the trunk of my car.

[Bort]

I won't even tell you what's in the trunk of my car.

What, a bazooka? I didn't know concealed carry went that far...

You opined earlier about how stupid you thought the FL law was, which is certainly within your rights, but you're implication then, and in again in this post, is that there is something wrong with Florida's approach...the term "vigilante action" is a dead giveaway. Your tone seems to be, "any other state that does it differently is too stupid to know any better"...or did I read too much into it?

I just think that, unless all other options have been exhausted, use of lethal force should not be authorized by any state. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm not calling the entire state of Florida stupid, but I am saying that they may be misguided in the course of action they have pursued in the name of personal protection.
Self protection is vigilantism if it is used in a manner disproportionate to the threat, which I believe carrying a concealed weapon makes far more likely. People make mistakes in charged situations, even without firearms being part of the equation, and lets face it, there are plenty of people out there that neither you nor I would want carrying guns in public around our families, whether it is legal or not.

[madDdog67]

Originally Posted by *[FOX]* Bort

What, a bazooka? I didn't know concealed carry went that far...

I just think that, unless all other options have been exhausted, use of lethal force should not be authorized by any state. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I'm not calling the entire state of Florida stupid, but I am saying that they may be misguided in the course of action they have pursued in the name of personal protection.
Self protection is vigilantism if it is used in a manner disproportionate to the threat, which I believe carrying a concealed weapon makes far more likely. People make mistakes in charged situations, even without firearms being part of the equation, and lets face it, there are plenty of people out there that neither you nor I would want carrying guns in public around our families, whether it is legal or not.

no bazooka lol...actually the only thing in my trunk usually is my subwoofer...but it's a Kicker, not a Bazooka.

Even in the states that grant them, a Concealed Carry permit isn't a license to shoot people willy nilly...and the fact remains that it's only the honest, law abiding folks who go through the trouble of getting a permit...the bad guys don't worry about stuff like that. I really don't think the removal of the requirement to flee is that big of a deal, personally...you'd still have to answer for murder charges if you just haul off and shoot someone for no reason.

Look at the crime rates of permit holders .vs the general public, and the permit holders are much much less likely to commit a crime, in every comparison that I've ever seen. And, seriously, real world stats just don't bear out the gunfight at the OK Corral mentality that the VPC always says will follow the easing of CC laws, and now the Castle Doctrine.

[Yahoshua]

...even if I had been, I would have invoked my own right to move freely from state to state, a right far more important and precious than the right to have a firearm....

Those firearms will guarantee your rights. Blood was spilled to get them, and it will cost only a few hundred dollars worth of deterrence to keep it.

Self protection is vigilantism if it is used in a manner disproportionate to the threat...

So if a knife-wielding criminal breaks into my home, it would be disproportionate for me to respond with a firearm?

Along the same lines, is it disproportionate for a LEO to respond with a .45 against an armed and dangerous criminal armed with a .22?

It is the responsibility of the citizens to protect the country. Always has been. That is even part of the second amendment.

Besides, if the citizens are not req to protect the country, than who is? The government is also the citizens.

Yes, agreed. And although we're doing a ho-hum job of it, Switzerland is what the United States should be like. Where the population of the United States itself is a standing army. Criminal problem solved right there, since everyone will have the discipline necessary to being a law-abiding citizen.

[Bort]

Self protection is vigilantism if it is used in a manner disproportionate to the threat...

So if a knife-wielding criminal breaks into my home, it would be disproportionate for me to respond with a firearm?

Along the same lines, is it disproportionate for a LEO to respond with a .45 against an armed and dangerous criminal armed with a .22?

I don't think you understand what I meant by that. By acting in a manner disproportionate to the threat I meant using lethal force to confront a likely non lethal one. Its the same rules police officers follow, they are only allowed to shoot if their life or that of another is in danger. Weaponry and caliber have nothing to do with it. I fear that an untrained civilian would be unable to understand the proper way to react, which is one of the major reasons I oppose concealed carry and the Florida castle doctrine. If you absolutely must carry a weapon in order to protect yourself, I would suggest a tazer or pepper spray, both of which disable attackers without killing them.

[SUBMAN1]

My 2 cents - This is the good 'ol USA. Don't like it, leave. Its not like we are holding a gun to your head to make you stop from leaving or anything! :p

-S

[Bort]

My 2 cents - This is the good 'ol USA. Don't like it, leave. Its not like we are holding a gun to your head to make you stop from leaving or anything! :p

My suggestion to you, is to learn how to have a proper idealogical conversation with someone else without telling him to leave the country he was born in and loves dearly. I can honestly think of few other things more offensive than what you just said. You may wish to reconsider what this country and your fellow countrymen means to you, I hope it is more than just a place where everybody who disagrees with you should leave.

[madDdog67]

[quote='*[FOX]* Bort']

Self protection is vigilantism if it is used in a manner disproportionate to the threat...

I don't think you understand what I meant by that. By acting in a manner disproportionate to the threat I meant using lethal force to confront a likely non lethal one. Its the same rules police officers follow, they are only allowed to shoot if their life or that of another is in danger. Weaponry and caliber have nothing to do with it. I fear that an untrained civilian would be unable to understand the proper way to react, which is one of the major reasons I oppose concealed carry and the Florida castle doctrine. If you absolutely must carry a weapon in order to protect yourself, I would suggest a tazer or pepper spray, both of which disable attackers without killing them.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, there is nothing in these laws that give a CCW holder permission to shoot anyone unless his/her life, or the life of someone else, is in immediate danger. If I shoot you for cutting me off in traffic, I will no doubt (deservedly so) be charged with murder. If you cut me off, then jump out of the car and come at me with a metal pipe, and I shoot you, I won't be charged with murder...the metal pipe is a lethal weapon, and I can say with sincerity that I felt my life was in danger when you came at me with the pipe...all you need is one good hit with it, I go down, then I'm completely at your mercy...you could beat me to death with the pipe quite easily. *You*might want to risk your life by trying to mace some PCP/crack crazed, pipe weilding yahoo intent on doing you grevious bodily harm, but I'm gonna choose 230gr of FMJ, thank you...I trust its stopping power a little more.

You *personally* might think this is using disproportionate force, but the states with CCW laws don't, obviously. Once again, that fact that 80% of states in the US have concealed carry laws, it's a fairly well established principle that grants citizens the right to protect their own life. Now, if you think shooting a man who comes at you with a knife/club/pipe is unfair, somehow, just head down to the local morgue and check out a few stabbing/bludgeoning victims...they're just as dead as they would be had they been shot.

EVERY shooting like this is investigated, and if the DA/powers that be have the slightest notion that things are hinky, they can/will bring charges against the shooter, as well they should. But, in the end, if the state sanctions it, it can't be "vigilantism" by definition.