Gun Controll question.

[Jubal_Harshaw]

... 'proper' training would have to be done by some sort of [probably scumbag] 'certified' trainer.

I happen to be one of those scumbags.

While I have and still do charge for regular gun safety/self-defense classes I have also offered those same classes to battered women at no charge provided I am fairly certain they are not looking to learn how to murder their abuser.

Most of my own training came from my father, my grandfather and The US Air Force. All of it free of charge. My own cetifications were the result of taking a few classes and taking the required tests. Yes those classes cost me money, but that is not to say it will cost you a "fortune" to learn to use a gun properly.

The gun control advocates don't want ANYONE to have access to firearms, but specifically to your point, they don't want untrained children getting dad's pistol out of the night stand to play cops and robbers with their friends.

I dare say that 11 yr old girl is more responsible for her words and actions than you as you can't even spit out a fact without distorting it, misquoting it, or leading it in the wrong direction.

I'm still confused as to which side you're actually on over this issue but from what I see you're not doing either side any good.

 

[lt1nut]

Gun control is not desirable. First you have to look at what gun control is. Gun control is a law(s) that keeps guns out of the hands of the law abiding. The politicians pass laws that make it almost impossible for the average law abiding citizen to legally own a gun. [If you have never lived in New York City, you really can't understand the situation.] Once the laws are passed, it is necessary to jump through all kinds of hoops in order for an ordinary citizen to even possess a gun. The gun must be registered with the scumbags and the decision to allow a citizen to possess a gun rests in the hands of an unelected person with no background or training to decide who should and should not have a gun. If you are rich, you can have a gun, even if you have no training and no mental check. If you are poor, the requirements are such that you really can't have a legal gun.

The we have the question, are guns necessary? The US Constitution thinks so. Howeer, there are many, like Rosie O'Donnel, who don't believe that private citizens should every have guns. Rosie does employ an armed bodyguard, but that is different [Can't you see? Her family is at risk.]

What happens when a law abiding citizen awakes in the middle of the night and hears a criminal breaking into their home? Call the scumbags? Right, then wait for the scumbags to finish their doughnuts before responding, while the intruder kills the householder and rapes his wife and kids. But wait, the householder has a gun and orders the home invader to stop. The home invader does not stop. The householder shoots in self defense and inside his or he own home. The householder is then going to jail for the felony crime of possessing and unregistered gun. [Thuis scenario happens frequently in NYC and you read about it in the papers.] If you think that the above scenario is tight and proper, I will agree with you that you should never own a gun. You are insane.

What about the criminal, the non-law abiding citizen? If you turn me loose, unarmed and penniless, at sunset, in any major US city, I will have a loaded, usable weapon by the time the sun rises. Will the scumbags stop me? The scumbags are the best source of the weapon I need. The scumbags will not stop me, they will supply me with a weapon [Whazzat? No, actually I don't eat doughnuts.]

+1
Except for the anti cop verbage...

Criminals are criminals because they create and commit crime. What makes one believe that a "gun criminal" will abide by a new gun law when they obviously are not and do not abide by any of the 10,000+ U.S. gun laws currently on the books. Enforce what we already have, then let's see what needs improvement in addition or subtraction of the current laws.

I'll stop for now as i have not read the entire thread, yet.

 

[lt1nut]

I have seen reports from reasonably reliable sources that UK crime reports are politicized up the yingyang, and are not to be taken seriously. I don't have any conclusive evidence, though. Any thoughts/info on that?

The UK, along with many other countries the US is often compared to, does not count gun crime as it is reported to Law Enforcement; it reports it when the case(s) are SOLVED. You know the logic: if we can't prove it happened by finding the perpetrator then we can't prove it happened at all, therefore it must not have happened.

On a second note: one of the first things every moder-day despot (not sure about further back in history) did was to enact tyranical, very strict gun control. Bad, very bad, things soon followed.

On a third note: Mexico has had stringent gun control laws for centuries. How's that working for them?

On a fourth note: what happened after Canada enacted strciter gun control? Are they still adhearing to it or are they resigning it?

On a final note, for now: what happened to the violent crime rate when Australia enacted it draconian gun control?

I lied, one more note: what would happen to the First Ammendment of the US Constitution if the Second Ammendment were not right behind it? Also, be sure to notice that the First Ammendment was granted while The Second Ammendment was an aknowledgement...

Trying to stay off a soapbox, trying VEEERRRWY hard!!!!!!!!

How many folks are accidentally killed by the use of a fire starting device each year? How many folks are accidentally killed by the use of a powder fired projectile each year?

Boiled Linseed Oil and a carrier (think rag, paper towel, etc.) can/will start a fire just sitting all alone, together. A gun and a bullet do nothing by themselve's, even when combined. I would be much safer leaving a bullet IN a gun sitting in my house or agrage than I would leaving Linseed Oil sitting in a rag in the same, or any, location!

As we all know: one can not regulate morality. Taking the life of another human being is a question of morality no matter the mode of said taking.

Still trying to kick the soapbox!!!

 

[lt1nut]

Federal law already requires background checks before you can purchase a gun. The only real hole that would be plugged is the purchase of weapons at gun shows (which currently are almost unregulated). So...

A fire arms dealer (FFL Holder) is required to perform the same checks as required by law no matter where the gun is sold, at his/her store or at a gun show. An individual may sell a gun to another individual, provided the seller is not selling guns other than those used for his personal use or collection, with out a background check being performed. There are a few localities that do require the transaction to do through a dealler though. IF a person is selling guns on a regular basis, ie. at gun shows, that person is considered a dealer and must therefore posess a Federal Firearms License (FFL Holder). Trust me, the BATFE (was called the ATF) is at every gun show and keeps a VERY close eye on this. There is no such thing as buying and selling guns as a legal "hobby". It is very obvious to the agents when a person's hobby crosses the line from being a collector into being a buyer/seller.

I should probably mention that I owned and opperated a gun store not long ago. I should also mention that my interest in guns has always been a freedom and responsibility one as opposed to one of the mechanics and/or skill of shooting. On top of that, right handers with a dominant left eye tend not to be skilled amrksmen unless they do so left handed; I do not...

Done, for now?

 

[R. Richard]

+1
Except for the anti cop verbage...

Criminals are criminals because they create and commit crime. What makes one believe that a "gun criminal" will abide by a new gun law when they obviously are not and do not abide by any of the 10,000+ U.S. gun laws currently on the books. Enforce what we already have, then let's see what needs improvement in addition or subtraction of the current laws.

I'll stop for now as i have not read the entire thread, yet.

Some time ago, I was bitten by a dog. I reported the incident, because I was afraid that I might have contracted rabies. The scumbags didn't give a damn. In fact, nobody really gave a damn, except me and I couldn't afford the anit-rabies shots. The public health people finally forced the scumbags to track down and monitor the dog, because of the public health problem. For the next 11 months, everytime I woke up with a sore muscle or sneezed, I figured I had rabies. After 11 months, the dog got rabies. It took two weeks for the public health people to get the results of tests on the dog back from the lab. The dog had a common form of rabies that normally causes symptoms to appear within no more than 12 weeks, but possibly as long as two years. I figured that I was OK and more than two years has passed since the dog bite.

The scumbags don't care if I die. I care if a scumbag dies, but I want it to happen.

 

[SeaCat]

Some time ago, I was bitten by a dog. I reported the incident, because I was afraid that I might have contracted rabies. The scumbags didn't give a damn. In fact, nobody really gave a damn, except me and I couldn't afford the anit-rabies shots. The public health people finally forced the scumbags to track down and monitor the dog, because of the public health problem. For the next 11 months, everytime I woke up with a sore muscle or sneezed, I figured I had rabies. After 11 months, the dog got rabies. It took two weeks for the public health people to get the results of tests on the dog back from the lab. The dog had a common form of rabies that normally causes symptoms to appear within no more than 12 weeks, but possibly as long as two years. I figured that I was OK and more than two years has passed since the dog bite.

The scumbags don't care if I die. I care if a scumbag dies, but I want it to happen.

Your last line was well over the Line R. Richard. Well over the line.

Cat

 

[rgraham666]

Your last line was well over the Line R. Richard. Well over the line.

Cat

Scary dude, isn't he, Cat.

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

Scary dude, isn't he, Cat.

Sounds like one of those irresponsible assholes I wouldn't trust with a gun.

 

[SeaCat]

Scary dude, isn't he, Cat.

Actually no.

Cat

 

[cloudy]

Actually no.

Cat

The only thing that scares me about him is that non-Americans might think we're something like him.

That's scary.

 

[shereads]

I hate messing with the Constitution, including my least favorite amendment, so rather than overturn Amendment 2 I'd like to see Congress specify that the right to bear arms refers specifically to flintlock muskets.

No one ever took out a roomful of people with a sudden spray of musket-fire.


Edited to add: R. Richard, your posts to this thread are the most effective argument I've ever read in favor of strict gun control. Please write to the NRA and explain about the scumbags and the rabies.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I will throw my 2 cents in, or 2 bullets, or whatever.

I live in texas, which is the real america. In texas you can have a gun legally in your own home, it doesn't have to be registered or nothing. you can pick a gun up at a pawn shop easy, just have no felony convictions and wait the 3 day "cool down/background check" thingie. You can get a "concealed carry" permit, which I have to take your gun with you when you go out. To get the permit you take a class that teaches you when and how and where you can take your gun, and you have to take a test at the firing range to make sure you can shoot semi-straight without blowing your foot off whilst re-loadin.

The governor here in texas is trying to make it easier by passing laws for a concealed carry permit-holder to take thier guns more places legally. Which I don't really agree with because you can take your gun most places you would need it already. And attempting to pass more laws starts politicrap, which sometimes gets loud and some nuts on both sides of the fence get all worked up. Any business here can simply post a sign saying "no guns allowed" and they should have that right, especially little mom&pop convenience stores and stuff. And of couse you can't take a gun into schools or courthouses or even to pick up someone at the airport, common sense stuff. So Governor Perry should probably leave things as is.

When you use deadly force in texas rules apply, but different from other states I am sure. Here it is mostly what you say as to why you used it.

There was a guy in a parking lot, he saw a man shoot a woman. The woman had been trying to divorce the shooter. The witness sees that the gunman shoots her in the head at close range with a large caliber weapon, clearly murder. The witness jumps out of his car and fires at the murderer's car, killing the murderer.

But then the witness who shot the murderer drives away.

I know why he drove away, he was scared he broke the law. But he turned himself in and said the right things and was released. He probably talked to a lawyer. He didn't have a concealed carry permit, but he said he was going to the mall there to get some bullets to go practice at the firing range, which it is legal to take your gun to do that without a permit. It is also legal to use deadly force to stop a criminal from fleeing the scene of a crime if you have witnessed a felony, murder clearly applies. So he did the right thing, but if he had not said all the right things he might have been in trouble.

The police can and will protect you, average citizen, when they can. They are overworked and undermanned and often unable to get to you until after the crime has been committed, if the crime is murder your sympathy for the overworked police does you little good, unless you have a weapon to stay alive until they reach you, AND, you should have that right.

Joe and Jane Homeowner are victims sitting in thier house waiting to be raped, robbed and murdered if only the police and the criminals are armed.

Check the police reports of arrests for other offenses where the suspects were in possesion of guns, and handcuffs. These suspects were going to pick a house for a home invasion, maybe yours, maybe they just want your money and valuables, or maybe your wife or daughter is pretty, and of course, these days many criminals figure leaving no living witnesses to any crime is safer. You should have the right to protect your home, wife and children, thier lives and your own.

The police will protect you when they can, patrol your neighborhoods and arrest violent criminals before they kick in your front door. They will get some, hopefully, if you do not have a weapon for self-defense, they will get the ones looking at your house.

 

[R. Richard]

Edited to add: R. Richard, your posts to this thread are the most effective argument I've ever read in favor of strict gun control. Please write to the NRA and explain about the scumbags and the rabies.

Why would I do that? The only people who were ever concerned about my possibly having rabies were the public health people. The public health people were not concerned about me [or any other individual citizen,] just the possibility of a rabies outbreak. The life of a pet dog was considered more inportant than the life of a US citizen [they test for rabies in an animal by cutting off the animal's head.]

Shereads, if you consider the life of a pet dog more important than the life of a US citizen, please post your reasoning. TIA.

 

[R. Richard]

The police can and will protect you, average citizen, when they can. They are overworked and undermanned and often unable to get to you until after the crime has been committed, if the crime is murder your sympathy for the overworked police does you little good, unless you have a weapon to stay alive until they reach you, AND, you should have that right.

Joe and Jane Homeowner are victims sitting in thier house waiting to be raped, robbed and murdered if only the police and the criminals are armed.

Lisa:
I agree with most of your post. However, I do not agree with the above. At least every place I have lived, the police's only concern is the issuing of traffic tickets and the protection of the police.

In the area where I currently live, the scumbags will respond to a nighttime home breaking. They will wait until they have at least two black and whites and a supervisor car outside the residence before they even attempt to investigate. The typical time before a physical scumbag presence in response to a call for help is nearly a half hour, although they time only until the first black and white arrives at the location.

NOw, the police here are concerned with rape. I got a written posing in a web site that threatened me with homosexual rape with a foreign object. I reported the crime to the scumbags, more or less for form. They though the crime was a funny joke. Later, the criminal ran his car into something solid [a bridge abutment, I think] at high speed. The scumbags were at my door in the wee hours of the morning to make sure that I was home and not involved in a crime a couple of states away. The scumbags do look after their own, but only their own.

 

[Liar]

There was a guy in a parking lot, he saw a man shoot a woman. The woman had been trying to divorce the shooter. The witness sees that the gunman shoots her in the head at close range with a large caliber weapon, clearly murder. The witness jumps out of his car and fires at the murderer's car, killing the murderer.

But then the witness who shot the murderer drives away.

I know why he drove away, he was scared he broke the law. But he turned himself in and said the right things and was released. He probably talked to a lawyer. He didn't have a concealed carry permit, but he said he was going to the mall there to get some bullets to go practice at the firing range, which it is legal to take your gun to do that without a permit. It is also legal to use deadly force to stop a criminal from fleeing the scene of a crime if you have witnessed a felony, murder clearly applies. So he did the right thing, but if he had not said all the right things he might have been in trouble.

Am I the only one who find that scary as fuck?

What if I had driven by when the second guy shot the first guy, but I weren't there when the first guy shot the woman? What if I didn't see the dead woman? What if I thought "Hey, Guy B shoots Guy A. A felony!" and shot Guy B when he speeded off in his car, apparently a criminal, a dangerous, armed murderer no less, fleeing the scene of the crime?

 

[Liar]

Yeah yeah, rr, we get it now. Fuck tha poh-leece, and all that jive.

 

[R. Richard]

I hate messing with the Constitution, including my least favorite amendment, so rather than overturn Amendment 2 I'd like to see Congress specify that the right to bear arms refers specifically to flintlock muskets.

No one ever took out a roomful of people with a sudden spray of musket-fire.

Shereads:
So, you want to limit the law abiding citizen to a flintlock musket. If course, criminals are not going to limit themselves to flintlock muskets. Thus, you are advocating restrictions on law abiding citizens where such restrictions will not reasonably apply to criminals. Are you then a criminal, or just one who supports criminals by advocating restrictions on the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves?

There are historical reports that British troops under the command of Woodes Rodgers 'took out a roomful of people with a sudden spray of musket-fire.' I have read extensive reviews of the time and the situation. Please furnish your insight into what actually happened. TIA. [I thirst for knowledge. I find that learning and knowledge are very useful to me in the conduct of my life. Education, on the other hand, is mostly a crock of shit.]

 

[shereads]

I will throw my 2 cents in, or 2 bullets, or whatever.

I live in texas, which is the real america. In texas you can have a gun legally in your own home, it doesn't have to be registered or nothing. you can pick a gun up at a pawn shop easy, just have no felony convictions and wait the 3 day "cool down/background check" thingie. You can get a "concealed carry" permit, which I have to take your gun with you when you go out. To get the permit you take a class that teaches you when and how and where you can take your gun, and you have to take a test at the firing range to make sure you can shoot semi-straight without blowing your foot off whilst re-loadin.

The governor here in texas is trying to make it easier by passing laws for a concealed carry permit-holder to take thier guns more places legally. Which I don't really agree with because you can take your gun most places you would need it already.

I lived in Texas and felt vulnerable the entire time because of your state's strict gun control laws. If I had shot someone, I would almost certainly have had to explain my reasons. Here in Florida, thanks to former Gov. Jeb Bush, I am legally entitled to shoot someone if I feel threatened. And I do! Feel threatened, I mean.

I think the perceived threat has to occur just prior to the shooting, but I'm not sure.

Which brings me to my question:

If I feel threatened by something you might do to me in the future, should I come to Texas and shoot you there, or should I wait until you come to Florida?

Sincerely,

shereads

BTW, your governor's hair is most impressive. I can see why Ann Richards' nickname for him was "Good Hair."

 

[R. Richard]

I lived in Texas and felt vulnerable the entire time because of your state's strict gun control laws. If I had shot someone, I would almost certainly have had to explain my reasons. Here in Florida, thanks to former Gov. Jeb Bush, I am legally entitled to shoot someone if I feel threatened. And I do! Feel threatened, I mean.

I think the perceived threat has to occur just prior to the shooting, but I'm not sure.

Which brings me to my question:

If I feel threatened by something you might do to me in the future, should I come to Texas and shoot you there, or should I wait until you come to Florida?

Sincerely,

shereads

Shereads, it would appear that you have a lot of strong opinions about laws that you obviously have not even read. Why don't you just take a few moments to learn about the law in your own state of residence?

In April 2005 the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 436, which was signed into law by the governor. This law went into effect on October 1, 2005, and has made some important changes in Florida law. Here’s a synopsis of the legislation written by the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice:

“The bill permits a person to use force, including deadly force, without fear of criminal prosecution or civil action for damages, against a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters the person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. Additionally, the bill abrogates the common law duty to retreat when attacked before using deadly force that is reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

“The bill creates a presumption that a defender in his or her home, in a place of temporary lodging, as a guest in the home or temporary lodging of another, or in a vehicle has a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when the intruder is in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or enters. It also creates a presumption that the intruder intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. These presumptions protect the defender from civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of force or deadly force in selfdefense."
“These presumptions about the intent of the intruder, however, do not apply when the intruder:
• Has a right to be in the home, place of temporary lodging, or vehicle, unless there is a domestic violence injunction or written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; (Note: No longer is a written restraint order just a piece of paper. A weaker party to domestic violence can now use Sam Colt's appliance to enforce the written restraint. Perhaps you don't agree with this and would like to explain your reasoning.)
• Is seeking to remove a person lawfully under his or her care from a home, place of temporary lodging, or vehicle; or
• Is a law enforcement officer, acting lawfully, and the defender knew or had reason to know that the intruder was a law enforcement officer.
“Additionally, a defender is not entitled to the benefit of the presumptions created by the bill if the defender was engaged in unlawful activity at the time . . . or was using his or her home, place of temporary lodging . . . or vehicle to further unlawful activity. The bill does not require any connection between the unlawful activity and the unlawful and forcible entry. “This bill expands the castle doctrine by expanding the concept of what is a “castle” and by expanding the group of persons entitled to the castle’s protection.

“Under the castle doctrine, a person has no duty to retreat from his or her “castle” (a person’s home or workplace), before resorting to deadly
force necessary for self-defense. The bill expands the concept of the castle to include attached porches, any type of vehicle, and places of
temporary lodging, including tents. “Under the castle doctrine, only persons lawfully residing in a dwelling have no duty to retreat before resorting to deadly force necessary for self-defense."

 

[shereads]

Shereads:
So, you want to limit the law abiding citizen to a flintlock musket. If course, criminals are not going to limit themselves to flintlock muskets. Thus, you are advocating restrictions on law abiding citizens where such restrictions will not reasonably apply to criminals. Are you then a criminal, or just one who supports criminals by advocating restrictions on the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves?

There are historical reports that British troops under the command of Woodes Rodgers 'took out a roomful of people with a sudden spray of musket-fire.' I have read extensive reviews of the time and the situation. Please furnish your insight into what actually happened. TIA. [I thirst for knowledge. I find that learning and knowledge are very useful to me in the conduct of my life. Education, on the other hand, is mostly a crock of shit.]

What I want, my paranoid compandre, is to make it difficult for a criminal or crazy person to spray a crowd with bullets. It ain't rocket science.

So far, we've made it difficult for criminals to acquire weapons-grade uranium and tiny vials of smallpox virus. Anthrax is do-able, but we make them work for it.

Sadly, the same methods used to prevent criminals from owning nukes and bio-weapons have made it nearly impossible for law-abiding citizens to acquire them for home use. No system is perfectly fair.

Perhaps you can list some cases in which automatic weapons, "cop-killer" bullets and non-x-rayable plastic handguns were all that enabled a law-abiding American citizen to defend his family or stock the freezer with venison. That would be helpful.

Minus that information, one wonders why a run-of-the-mill hunting rifle, a single-shot handgun and a box of plain ol' bullets (non armor-piercing) are not sufficient for the self-defense and hunting needs of law-abiding homes. Add a yappy little dog for good measure.

Edited to add: Troops, or any other group of shooters armed with single-shot weapons can definitely spray a room with bullets. I should have been very, very, very specific and made it clear that I was referring to incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech, in which one or two shooters were able to kill or disable a roomful of people without pausing to reload or switch weapons. Got it?

 

[shereads]

Shereads, it would appear that you have a lot of strong opinions about laws that you obviously have not even read.

That was a joke post. Satirical. Teasing. Tongue-in-cheek. Not intended to be taken seriously. With a few years of post-graduate study in Internet Forum Communications, it becomes easy to distinguish between teasing posts and serious posts.

 

[shereads]

Am I the only one who find that scary as fuck?

No, and for good reason.

It is scary as fuck because eye-witnesses to crimes are so often dead wrong about what they thought they saw (two or more witnesses frequently give contradictory accounts of the same incident.) Inviting a witness to what appears to be a felony to impose the death penalty on the person who appeared to commit it seems to be jumping the gun. So to speak.

What if I'm running away because I think the person waving the gun around is the one who committed the felony, and she scares the bejeezus out of me? I can legally be shot for that?

 

[R. Richard]

What I want, my paranoid compandre, is to make it difficult for criminals and crazy people to spray a crowd with bullets. It ain't rocket science.

I presume that a compandre is a co-panderer and I am insulted. In Los Angeles a bunch of criminals [who were not permitted to possess firearms in any case] were able to obtain automatic weapons which they used to rob a bank. The scumbags were basically helpless against said criminals. Thus, the scumbags went into a nearby sporting goods store and obtained high powered rifles to enable them to fight back. [It was not to protect the bank, the fear was that the criminals might raid a nearby doughtnut shop.]

You have not addressed my question. "Are you then a criminal, or just one who supports criminals by advocating restrictions on the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves?" Is this an oversight or is it just your usual tactic of begging the question?

Perhaps you can list some cases in which automatic weapons, "cop-killer" bullets and non-x-rayable plastic handguns enabled a law-abiding citizen to defend his family or stock the freezer with venison. That would be helpful.

Minus that information, one wonders why a run-of-the-mill hunting rifle, a single-shot handgun and a box of plain ol' bullets (non armor-piercing) are not sufficient for the self-defense and hunting needs of law-abiding homes. Add a yappy little dog for good measure.

I am going to let you do your own Google search here. However, criminals are now using body armor. Yes, dear heart, the same mental defectives who are trying to bring you gun control never addressed the problem of a criminal using body armor while committing a crime. You will find that "cop-killer" bullets work very well on criminals using the same body armor that the 'cops/scumbags' use. Now, let us assume that a single householder [his wife is upstairs trying to calm the kids] must face a group of home invaders. Shereads [and apparently you don't read your own state laws,] a single homeowner can't really be effective against multiple invaders with a single shot firearm. [No, yelling 'time out!' while he reloads aint gonna' get it done here.] Even a restricted magazine multiple shot weapon is a handicap, since not all homeowner fired bullets necessarily find their mark.

I have never heard of 'non-x-rayable plastic handguns.' If x-rays will not penetrate plastic, then there have been some recent advances in plastic technology. Please do go on. TIA.

Edited to add: Troops armed with single-shot weapons can definitely spray a room with bullets. I should have been very, very, very specific and made it clear that I was referring to incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech, in which one or two shooters are able to kill or disable a roomful of people without pausing to reload or switch weapons. Got it?

Yes, Shereads, I got it. Let me edit your remarks into some sort of meaningful form. You reference, "incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech, in which one or two shooters are able to kill or disable a roomful of people without pausing to reload or switch weapons." What you actually mean is, "incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech, in which one or two shooters are able to kill or disable a roomful of unarmed people without pausing to reload or switch weapons." In said Colombine and Virginia Tech incidents, the shooters were either unable to legally obtain firearms [Columbine] or able to obtain firearms because the 'gun control laws' had loopholes that only a person who is insane or possesses a single digit IQ would allow to exist. [Now that the horse has been stolen, there are extreme efforts to lock the barn door.] However, as has been proven again and again, there is no practical way to prevent would-be shooters from obtaining firearms illegally. There was an incident that started similarly to the Virginia Tech incident in a college not too far from Virginia Tech [Gogle it up yourself you lazy bitch.] However, a couple of students [faculty?] had legal firearms in their vehicles. They got the legal firearms and prevented the shooter from killing more unarmed people.

 

[R. Richard]

That was a joke post. Satirical. Teasing. Tongue-in-cheek. Not intended to be taken seriously. With a few years of post-graduate study in Internet Forum Communications, it becomes easy to distinguish between teasing posts and serious posts.

The problem with 'joke posts' are multiple. First, your joke post ignores the actual Florida law and addresses a 'Florida law' that apparently exists only in your mind. Secondly, post-graduate study is normally permitted only for those who have completed undergraduate education with sufficiently goods marks. I am almost totally lacking in education, as I have stated many times. Thus, your suggestion is insulting in the extreme.

 

[ChristopherMaxwell]

Shereads, it would appear that you have a lot of strong opinions about laws that you obviously have not even read. Why don't you just take a few moments to learn about the law in your own state of residence?

In April 2005 the Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 436, which was signed into law by the governor. This law went into effect on October 1, 2005, and has made some important changes in Florida law. Here’s a synopsis of the legislation written by the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice:

“The bill permits a person to use force, including deadly force, without fear of criminal prosecution or civil action for damages, against a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters the person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. Additionally, the bill abrogates the common law duty to retreat when attacked before using deadly force that is reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

“The bill creates a presumption that a defender in his or her home, in a place of temporary lodging, as a guest in the home or temporary lodging of another, or in a vehicle has a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when the intruder is in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or enters. It also creates a presumption that the intruder intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. These presumptions protect the defender from civil and criminal prosecution for unlawful use of force or deadly force in selfdefense."
“These presumptions about the intent of the intruder, however, do not apply when the intruder:
• Has a right to be in the home, place of temporary lodging, or vehicle, unless there is a domestic violence injunction or written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; (Note: No longer is a written restraint order just a piece of paper. A weaker party to domestic violence can now use Sam Colt's appliance to enforce the written restraint. Perhaps you don't agree with this and would like to explain your reasoning.)
• Is seeking to remove a person lawfully under his or her care from a home, place of temporary lodging, or vehicle; or
• Is a law enforcement officer, acting lawfully, and the defender knew or had reason to know that the intruder was a law enforcement officer.
“Additionally, a defender is not entitled to the benefit of the presumptions created by the bill if the defender was engaged in unlawful activity at the time . . . or was using his or her home, place of temporary lodging . . . or vehicle to further unlawful activity. The bill does not require any connection between the unlawful activity and the unlawful and forcible entry. “This bill expands the castle doctrine by expanding the concept of what is a “castle” and by expanding the group of persons entitled to the castle’s protection.

“Under the castle doctrine, a person has no duty to retreat from his or her “castle” (a person’s home or workplace), before resorting to deadly
force necessary for self-defense. The bill expands the concept of the castle to include attached porches, any type of vehicle, and places of
temporary lodging, including tents. “Under the castle doctrine, only persons lawfully residing in a dwelling have no duty to retreat before resorting to deadly force necessary for self-defense."

As one who has witnessed home invasions in a very real and personal sense, I am firmly in favour of any law that entitles one to whatever means of personal self-defence that one desires. Bravo for the good people of Florida!

Automatic weapons are nice to repel invaders of any sort, not to mention thugs in the employ of a dictator or police state. For instance, Mr. Mugabe.