H
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
boyscout399
Regular Member
"Florida's self defense related homicides have tripled."
How many of those self defense shootings saved the life of the shooter? If they all did, then the law is working as intended. The people that are getting shot aren't the good guys. They're getting shot because they're attacking other people. Criminals will eventually learn that the consequences of attacking someone is death.
How many of those self defense shootings saved the life of the shooter? If they all did, then the law is working as intended. The people that are getting shot aren't the good guys. They're getting shot because they're attacking other people. Criminals will eventually learn that the consequences of attacking someone is death.
MSG Laigaie
Campaign Veteran
"'Shoot-first' laws have already cost too many lives.
In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted."
On the first one, What shoot first law?? Never heard of it, never seen a law that said I could shoot first.
on number two, I would like to see something to back that up senator. Sounds like someone yelling fire in a theatre.
I did a background check, and they did go from about twelve justifiable homicides a year(2005)to thirty five. Justifiable, that means it was OK to shoot the BG and now they are shooting more than ever. What is bad about that?
In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted."
On the first one, What shoot first law?? Never heard of it, never seen a law that said I could shoot first.
on number two, I would like to see something to back that up senator. Sounds like someone yelling fire in a theatre.
I did a background check, and they did go from about twelve justifiable homicides a year(2005)to thirty five. Justifiable, that means it was OK to shoot the BG and now they are shooting more than ever. What is bad about that?
Last edited:
ManInBlack
Regular Member
I totally agree; federal money shouldn't be spent supporting the states at all. Fiscal federalism has gutted state sovereignty in precisely the way Grijalva and Ellison describe with regard to seat-belt laws (also involving transportation funds, the drinking age). Threats to pull federal funds, which make up huge portions of state education budgets, are frequently used to enforce unconstitutional federal mandates.
Sometimes, it's hard to be a Constitutionalist...
223to45
Regular Member
My first question is, can congress make a law to do this in the first place???:cuss:
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
D'you mean like the national speed limit of some years ago, enforced in the same manner?
ManInBlack
Regular Member
All they are doing is threatening to take away stolen money from all the states, which they had no authority to redistribute in the first place, from some of the states which are displeasing their master. What is the old saying, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you?"
merc460
Regular Member
But it will be spent supporting the criminals in prison until they are released only to repeat their actions that put them there in the first place. Never mind the families they destroyed along the way.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
This is flat out deceptive manipulation.
If you watch this seminar at the CATO institute one of the experts offers a good explanation of this "triple in self defense homicides". I haven't verified what he said but he said that the numbers come only from the initial charge against the shooter. Not from the end result of the investigation/trial.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=9141
So the plausible answer for the increase in numbers come from those people who would have been charged for murder then found not guilty because of the reason of self defense. (In the old system they would NOT have counted toward the official numbers of self defense shooters.) Under the new system they are never charged with the murder and there numbers DO count toward the self defense tally.
BTW I sent my Congresswoman an email about this amendment.
Last edited:
Backpacker Joe
New member
The Communist party is alive and well in the United States today! They call themselves DEMOCRATS!:banghead:
H
Herr Heckler Koch
Guest
That bit of bathos is on a par with calling GOP repugnicans fascists.
Why encourage the SPAMMER?
since9
Campaign Veteran
"House Democrats said Tuesday they will offer an amendment to push to overturn stand-your-ground self-defense laws in states like Florida."
Unconstitutional. State's territory, not the Feds. Of course that hasn't stopped Jacksonville's supreme allied commanding prosecutor general from violating the Constitution and illegally charging Zimmerman...
This brings me to my theory of political parties: Those who know the Constitution tend towards Republicanism. Those who don't tend towards Democracy.
Unconstitutional. State's territory, not the Feds. Of course that hasn't stopped Jacksonville's supreme allied commanding prosecutor general from violating the Constitution and illegally charging Zimmerman...
This brings me to my theory of political parties: Those who know the Constitution tend towards Republicanism. Those who don't tend towards Democracy.
Aknazer
Regular Member
I would say there's far more to it than just that. I've had people who know the Constitution but don't fully agree with it and thus lean towards Democracy. Or those that don't know it but hate having the gov all up in their life and thus lean towards Republican.
If anything I would say that the uninformed are more likely to lean towards whatever party promises them things that seem to help them regardless of what the real costs are. And currently that would be towards the democracy/democrat side, but don't forget that a lot of these programs that the democrats tout were started by the Republican side.
MedWheeler
Regular Member
Actually, the main reason for the jump in SD-related shootings in Florida is that the so-called SYG law does not exclude shootings by people involved at the time in unlawful activity; in fact, it includes them. Previously, a drug dealer who shot and killed a would-be robber was rarely, if ever, considered to be acting in lawful self-defense, and was typically charged with at least second-degree murder. True, as Aknazer pointed out, many were either acquitted or had the charges dropped or reduced to something that did not apply to the statistic.
Another major factor is simply the increasing number of people arming themselves and exercising responsibility for their own safety and security. The law was enacted in Florida in 2005. Quite a few people have armed up since then, with the largest surge occuring in the years since mid-2008. This part is a no-brainer, at least, to those of us who actually use brains.
Another major factor is simply the increasing number of people arming themselves and exercising responsibility for their own safety and security. The law was enacted in Florida in 2005. Quite a few people have armed up since then, with the largest surge occuring in the years since mid-2008. This part is a no-brainer, at least, to those of us who actually use brains.
Last edited:
BFDMikeCT
Regular Member
And let's not forget the crappy economy we are face with. Robberies have gone way up in my neighborhood as I am sure they have in Florida also. More BG more SD shootings! Simple 2+2 no?
Jack House
Regular Member
The republicans are just as bad about burning the constitution as are the democrats. They just burn different parts. Two sides of the coin and all that.
MKEgal
Regular Member
I agree!!
Any state that restricts the right of its citizens to lawful, armed self-defense shouldn't get a dime of their stolen tax money back.
::cough Illinois cough::
It's clear from decades of stats from across the country that places where it's easier for a citizen to act in self-defense are safer for EVERYONE than places where it's hard for good people to protect themselves.
So only states with Constitutional Carry would get any money from fedgov.
I'm pretty sure that's not what those 2 Dems had in mind...
since9
Campaign Veteran
Hey! Are you ok? Sounds like you have an Obama stuck in your throat...
I had a dream like that, once. Mere seconds before a mortar round went off about 50 feet from our tent.