Gun Control Roll Call

[??????????]

I am strongly opposed to mandatory trigger locks, assault weapon bans, concealed carry restrictions, mandatory waiting periods, and so forth. Frivolous lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers should be prohibited.

All federal gun laws whatsoever (including federal background check requirements) should be repealed.

^^^^^^^^^

[??????????]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them. 

I also believe all new guns of any type should be registered, with a record of a sample bullet shot from the gun.   

I do not, however, support law suits against people legally manufacturing or selling guns if the gun is not defective.

You would have done well in 1940s Germany.

[??????????]

I would support repealing the 2nd amendment so that we can institute sensible gun control law. 

I support banning all hand guns and automatic or semi-automatic weapons, and any other gun that can be easily concealed on your body, except for people specifically authorized to own them. 

I also believe all new guns of any type should be registered, with a record of a sample bullet shot from the gun.   

I do not, however, support law suits against people legally manufacturing or selling guns if the gun is not defective.

You would have done well in 1940s Germany.

Why should you be able to buy your murder weapons when I can't legally purchase a harmless BJ?

I don't use my weapons to murder anyone.

[??????????]

Not yet.

If someone were to invade my house or property with the intention of harming me or my family and I shot them that wouldn't be considered murder by any civilized society.

[??????????]

Not yet.

If someone were to invade my house or property with the intention of harming me or my family and I shot them that wouldn't be considered murder by any civilized society.

Define "harming".
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of fiscally harming you or your family by stealing food from your fridge, and you shot them, that would be considered murder by any civilized society, and most uncivilized ones too.
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of raping you, and you shot them, that would be considered excessive use of force in self-defense by most civilised societies. Not murder, but still a felony. However, views will differ from country to country.

Not under Florida law, thank god.

[??????????]

Not yet.

If someone were to invade my house or property with the intention of harming me or my family and I shot them that wouldn't be considered murder by any civilized society.

Define "harming".
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of fiscally harming you or your family by stealing food from your fridge, and you shot them, that would be considered murder by any civilized society, and most uncivilized ones too.
If someone were to invade your house or property with the intention of raping you, and you shot them, that would be considered excessive use of force in self-defense by most civilised societies. Not murder, but still a felony. However, views will differ from country to country.

Not under Florida law, thank god.

Second one or both?

Under new Florida law if a person is acting in a way in which you feel threatened for life or limb you have the right to defend yourself using whatever force necessary.

[??????????]

 New Deadly Force Law Takes Effect In Florida Oct. 1

A new anti-crime law that allows people to kill in self-defense without first trying to flee will take effect in Florida on Oct. 1.

The law, signed by Gov. Jeb Bush in April, reverses the longstanding law that a person acting in self-defense has a "duty to retreat" from the danger before resorting to deadly force. In signing the bill, Bush said it "defies common sense" to force people to retreat when they're in a life-threatening situation.

The new law expands the long-existing "castle doctrine", a common law principle that allows homeowners who fear for their lives to use deadly force to defend themselves from an intruder in their homes. A person is justified in using deadly force when the force is "necessary to prevent death, great harm or the commission of a forcible felony".

While the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups are in favor of the new measure called the "Stand Your Ground" bill, not everyone supports it. While critics don't oppose allowing people to protect themselves in their homes, they say that some residents may shoot first and ask questions later, creating a "Wild West" atmosphere.

The Florida courts have held that homeowners have the right to defend themselves in their homes as in many states and Florida jurists have held that employees can defend themselves in their workplace as can drivers who are attacked in their vehicles but that outside those places, potential victims had to first attempt to escape before using deadly force. That provision has now been removed under the new law if the person has a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.

Gun control advocates are planning a campaign to tell travelers to Florida about the new law. The Washington, DC-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will hand out fliers at the Miami International Airport and will use newspaper ads, billboards and the Internet to advise travelers to Florida to "not argue unnecessarily with local people". As of Wednesday, when the phrase "Florida Vacation" is typed into some search engines, a link to www.shootfirstlaw.org appears.

The bill had been unanimously passed by the Florida Senate 39-0 and by a vote of 94-20 by the House. http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html 9-28-05
 
© 2005 North Country Gazette

[??????????]

Shooting someone in the leg is not a very good idea in this sue happy society we live in.

[??????????]

Shooting someone in the leg is not a very good idea in this sue happy society we live in.

Still better than shooting them dead, right?

Actually, no. Thats why police are told to shoot a violent suspect dead instead of wounding him.

[??????????]

And I dare you to argue that you wouldn't dramatically reduce the number of accidental gun deaths.

My understanding is that they don't happen all that much anyways. At most a couple thousand annually. I read that in 2004 it was around 700 in the U.S.

Accidental deaths as a result of doctor negligance in hospitals is much more costly to human lives then gun accidents.

[??????????]

... but for some reason still a common reaction among gun advocates.