'Shoot first law' in Florida

Remove all ads!

Let's say you catch someone breaking into your house. Cant you just say "Freeze, I have a gun" or something instead of shooting the supposed burglar dead? Hasnt there been cases when people have shot their own spouses in the dark simply because they couldnt see who they were shooting at?

 

If somebody came over and beat on my car, I'd turn on the engine and back over them. Nothing beats the irony of a trunk that hits back. There are so many other things you can do besides pull out a gun and empty it at someone.

And as for chev's mugger, I'd capitulate so long as he was at least marginally reasonable. Watch, wallet, cell, etc.; but I keep my ID and other things that he just plain can't use. But if the blowhard starts demanding ridiculous things like my house keys (when he either doesn't even know where I live, or has already gotten into the house without them), I'd pop a cap in his a$$.

 

Probably only because they can't afford them. Gun control is good, but with the black market in play, after a certain point it has very little effect on whether criminals can get guns or not, while simply making it a heck of a lot harder to get one legit. There are always loopholes to be exploited, barring such extreme measures as outlawing firearms completely (which will never happen here in the US, and I'm glad for that).

 

You mean you've never heard of gun shows? No checks, no limits, no safeguards of any kind except the ones that the shopkeepers impose on themselves out of conscience. And it's legal. But still most petty crooks don't bother to get a gun because a knife would work just as well (or in close situations, better) and costs considerably less. They would also be easier to ditch if you need to, because they cost so much less to replace. It's not the gun-control laws so much as the affordable alternatives that keep guns out of criminals' hands.

 

Gun shows are just a legalized black market. Anyone can get a handgun or "hunting" rifle if they've got the money.

And while they're certainly more effective at long range, and can do more lethal damage, guns simply aren't necessary for most crimes. The survival instinct turns people into wimps; threaten them with a letter-opener and they'll collapse in a wimpering pile on the floor. ( :shake Well, not really, but you get my point.) As chevalier said, it's not worth your life for a few measly belongings.

Now, I'm not saying most crooks don't have guns, I'm just talking about the low-level muggers that you're likely to find. People robbing a store or a bank would likely have guns for the range factor, but simple muggings or B&E don't require that level of firepower, and can be easily pulled off with a knife to the throat or a simple threat of violence.

They also don't require the level of brainpower we're putting into this discussion. While we have the opportunity to analyze the situation and find all of the loopholes, most petty criminals don't put that much thought into it. The simple impediment of finding someone who will sell them a gun on the sly takes too much time for those who need money quickly to support a habit. Those who actually put the thought into it would probably be committing more serious crimes, for which a gun is almost required, but the little stuff would be easier carried out with the non-existent hassle of a knife from a drug store.

 

Thats not always true, we have restrictive gun laws for cities, but since most of us (the Irish) live in the countryside, most would keep a shotgun or rifle for hunting.

I would say that most guns in the cities here belong to Republican or Loyalist terrorists, and crime in general is very low in Ireland, even if you count 'terrorist crimes'.

It would appear to me that people have guns in the US due to a lack of trust from from their fellow citizens, or else guns would not be such a big deal. When I return home from work, I don't expect to come home to my house being burgled, or being attacked in the middle of the night, and I live on the edge of a housing estate.

 

I have to point out once again, that not everyone in the U.S. is walking around carrying a gun. In fact, for the 99+% of law abiding citizens, hardly any of them are carrying a gun. Most people who own guns do so for home defense only. Most law abiding citizens cannot even obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun on their persons.

That means that the only people (except criminals) who have them are people like police officers, who are authorized to carry their handgun even while off duty, and people who work in such conditions where it is reasonable to need a gun. Examples of such are people who make money pick-ups and drop-offs for businesses. Armored car drivers always carry handguns, many security officers do, and if you have to work late at night and go to dangerous parts of town, you can probably get a permit to carry a handgun.

But that's it. Yes, I can go to a gun show and buy any type of gun I'd like. However, the only thing I'd be able to use it for is home defense. Now obviously the problem with this line of thinking is if you are already a criminal committing felony level crimes (such as breaking into people's homes, robbing banks, etc.), then the crime for illegally carrying a handgun is small potatoes by comparison. The most an illegal possession of a handgun can get you is 5 years in prison, and seeing as how burgularly or grand larceny (robbing a bank) carry stiffer penalties than that, committing such crimes while using a gun is not much of a deterent.

My personal opinion is that the only people who stop owning guns because of gun laws are honest people. Criminals, by dint of their activities are not dissuaded by gun laws and will obtain them anyway. Since most law abiding people aren't allowed to carry guns anyway, the idea that two people can have a disagreement and draw firearms on each other isn't a very realistic point of view.

@ Darkwolf - I know that there are definitely means to get a handgun with 13 or more rounds in it. My confusion was that 13 seems like an unusual number to fire it total. I didn't think about loading one in the chamber, which seems the most reasonable explanation. I doubt the woman would have reloaded, and barring a 12-cartridge magazine with one already in the chamber, it seemed that 13 was an usual number to fire.

 

I would very much like to see evidence backing up the claim that most burglars in the U.S. have guns. Guns cost money. It is not like we give coupons for them along with the welfare check. Most burglars cannot afford a gun, and the fact that they get substantially longer prison terms if armed is enough to see that they don't.

Can no one see the simple logic that -- if there is a law allowing people to shoot home invaders -- criminals will be less likely to invade homes? The concept of deterrence is important here.

 

I see. I thought that when you said two people with opposing views you meant something similar to the example cited earlier, where the woman pulled out the gun on the guy after the traffic encounter. Or in a bar fight. Or whatever. But I didn't think you meant a burglar breaking into your house.

In such a situation, every police officer I have ever talked to has said in such a situation, you shoot to kill. If you are absolutely positive that the person is not a friend or a family member (and let's face it, if it's in the middle of the night, wouldn't a friend or family member call first?) then you shoot. No warning shots, no yelling, "stop or I'll shoot", just fire. If he's in your house, you can even shoot him in the back if needs be. Ideally, you would shoot him from the front, because then you can make up any story you want for an explanation.

"Officer, I called out 'Stop or I'll Shoot' and he spun around and reached into his pocket. I thought he was going to draw a weapon, so I shot him. If I waited to verify that he had a gun, he likely could have shot me first."

Even if the guy didn't have any weapon at all, there's no way you're getting in any trouble for that. Pretty much the only instance where you can get in trouble for shooting someone who has broken into your home is if he attempts to flee. You cannot shoot someone who runs out the back door as he is running from your porch.

The law is very clear in the U.S. It states that it is reasonable to assume that an intruder in your home is hostile, and potentially armed. By definition, you and your family's life is in peril so long as he is in your home. Thus, you are within your rights to use lethal force to defend your home. That's why you can't shoot him in the back as he runs from the house, because at that point, your life is no longer in peril.

I also have a question for the Europeans on the Boards. Everyone says it's very difficult to obtain a gun. Any gun? Handguns? What about rifles? I imagine there are a good number of hunters in Europe, just like in the U.S., and hunters need a rifle.

 

Aldeth, that is also why it is wise to have an unregistered gun to stick in the burglar's pocket.

 

How devious! I like it!

(Just kidding of course.)

 

Didn't you ask the same question about 6 month ago?

Obviously, that would depend on the country. But Italy, particularly Southern Italy, anyone who does not have a rifle to hunt? Then in my country, it might happen you meet someone on the train, riding on a bike or just walking past you with a gun or a rifle. Nothing unusual really.

In fact, I actually start to believe that in Europe, it's generally easier to get and have a gun then in the USA.

At the end of the day, the mythology makes all the difference. This burglars at home and killing them stories sound just so absurd and ridiculous. Practically, I know no one having even considered such ideas. Quite the contrary, as the careful and diligent way to keep the weapon demands to keep the munition far away from the rifle or the gun when not using the weapon. And that's military law. And no one would mess with military law.

And that's, in my mind, the reason why there are so much rifles and so few shootings. Every burglar can rest assured that owner of the house won't shoot at him, because otherwise he would be caught disobeying a military order. And that's not funny.

 

But why would that matter if you aren't in the military? And if the intent was actually to use the weapon, then is it not logical that you can access both the rifle and the ammunition quickly? I can understand keeping them separate - that makes sense - but keeping the two "far away" seems like a very nebulous definition. Far away relative to what? Does that mean you can't keep them in the same house? In the same room? In the same drawer? Hardly seems like an enforcable law.

Regardless if rifles ARE common in Europe, then what difference does in make if you shoot someone with a handgun or a rifle, other than the fact that you'd probably be more accurate and do a lot more damage with a rifle.

 

It's easy to get an illegal gun in Poland, I think, but not a legal one. Hunters have it easier but they get their licenses through hunting clubs, so I guess there's some special screening. Other folks get their permits from the police unless carrying a gun is part of a job.

Edit: Perhaps I should mention the great self-defence limits crisis we were having recently. And I doubt it's over yet. Basically, the jurisprudence looks strange and inconsistent. It looks like there's not much consensus between judges.

[ October 03, 2005, 22:23: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Take the military part as a given. That's more than 0.5 million guns and rifles that are connected to the military. If not, its' get mainly cantonal and a little federal and that means a lot more complicated. But as a approximation... taking the rules of the military and the gun-clubs/gun-societies as usus, i.e. the way one should handle a weapon, might more or less describe the situation.

Far away -> I've been instructed with the example to put one in the attic and one in the cellar. And you have to do some regular shooting. That's plenty of time to rehash the rules.

Enforcable. Ex-post enforcable. Usually, a shot gets fired by accident. In this case, there was a clear way to handle the weapon diligently. That's pretty tough then to get rid of the negligience and please the courts and the assurances if any damage was done. And please the military.

Gun/Rifle. -> It's not supposed to defend your privately against some intruders. I'm talking mainly about rifles... because I don't have a handgun.

The difference in the mythology, that's the intersting part. As the roots are the same, yet the concept of defending private property instead of defending the community or the country, that's the difference.