Florida lawmakers pass take your guns to work law

[NeoDevin]

Once you find the sources supporting it. If you could find sources which list that alongside the number of times a permit holder was involved in such a shooting as well, that would be even better.

I don't actually have a strong opinion either way, I was just pointing out the (nearly) complete lack of facts presented in the last 5 pages of discussion here.

 

[Andre]

I remember reading "on aggression" of Konrad Lorentz

In short, his take is that aggression within the same is a normal element of the evolution, those who prevail pass on their genes. However if aggression amongst strongly armed species causes too many fatalities that's bad for the survival of the species too, therefore these species may get a build-in resistance to kill the opponent at the sight of surrender or alterrnatively the fights get symbolic, like a running contest.

When species are not equipped with deadly weapons, they have usually enough possibillity to flee, and that's enough for the winner. Those species don't need a build in restistence. He then gives an example that two doves in a cage, unable to fly away, may peck each other to death.

So in what category is a man with a gun?

 

[turbo]

Here is a fact sheet with sources and citations regarding gun deaths (not specifically related to concealed-carry, but to gun ownership, population growth and incident rates).

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=120

* Firearm accident deaths have been decreasing for decades. Since 1930, their annual number has decreased 80%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 89% since 1975.
* Firearm accident deaths are at an all-time annual low, while the U.S. population is at an all-time high. Therefore, the firearm accident death rate is at an all-time annual low, 0.2 per 100,000 population, down 94% since the all-time high in 1904.
* Today, the odds are a million to one, against a child in the U.S. dying in a firearm accident.
* Firearms are involved in 0.6% of accidental deaths nationally. Most accidental deaths involve, or are due to, motor vehicles (39%), poisoning (18%), falls (16%), suffocation (5%), drowning (2.9%), fires (2.8%), medical mistakes (2.2%), environmental factors (1.2%), and bicycles and tricycles (0.7%). Among children: motor vehicles (45%), suffocation (18%), drowning (14%), fires (9%), bicycles and tricycles (2.4%), falls (2%), poisoning (1.6%),environmental factors (1.5%), and medical mistakes (0.8%).

 

[drankin]

Unfortunately, a great deal of people have an unreasonable, unsupportable bias regarding gun ownership. These same people have very little, if any, experience with guns. Not more than four years ago I shared the same view towards guns as many of you that find gun ownership unneccessary or unreasonable in our society.

And then one night my fiance at the time was chased from college campus several blocks to her car (she's frugal, parked off campus) after a late class. She is a small woman and thankfully she recognized the situation was able to get far away soon enough that nothing came of it. I bought my first gun and gave it to her to keep with her. I was then intrigued about the whole idea of owning a gun and studied up on it. I had very little experience prior. Since then I've had training, gotten a permit and carry regularly. I KNOW how to safely possesses and operate a firearm (there is always more to learn, of course) and have educated my children and often take them target shooting. This experience gives you a proper context to understand a persons rights and obligations concerning ownership. And you quickly begin to see how unreasonable and ignorant the bias that many folks have. Statistics alone show how insignificant guns are in comparison other dangers we contend with everyday.

I would encourage anyone here (of sound mind and maturity) to get themselves a pistol or rifle if for no other reason than to shoot for fun. You will quickly get a rational perspective on what it's about and what it's not about.

 

[daveb]

If the guy is coming at you with a gun and you fire in self defense without premeditation that's one thing, but if you get a gun and go after the guy, no matter how noble the cause, isn't that at least manslaughter?

This is an interesting point I've never heard in the whole gun debate. I know that self defense can be claimed if the person is threatening your own life, etc. But, in this case, if the person was able to get out to their car, they are obviously no longer in danger. Going back inside then means they are no longer acting in self defense.

 

[NeoDevin]

You seem to be making the assumption that everyone who carries a weapon is as smart about it as you. That every family does as much to educate their children. I don't know what the regulations are there (or here for that matter, not something I ever looked into), but I wouldn't count on your average gun owner to be much smarter than your average person, which is mildly disconcerting.

 

[drankin]

This is an interesting point I've never heard in the whole gun debate. I know that self defense can be claimed if the person is threatening your own life, etc. But, in this case, if the person was able to get out to their car, they are obviously no longer in danger. Going back inside then means they are no longer acting in self defense.

But, it is justifiable if you are defending others. Defending your own family members would be an obvious example, but you are justified in defending anyones life. You can kill someone who is trying to kill another. Don't even have to bring guns into the equation. The only way to defend yourself or anyone else against a gun toting bad guy, is with your own gun.

 

[daveb]

There are very few home-invasions in Maine because we have one of the highest rates of gun-ownership in the country.

That's a bold statement to attribute it to gun ownership. Do you have any studies that correlate the two? Perhaps other factors are the cause instead.

 

[drankin]

You seem to be making the assumption that everyone who carries a weapon is as smart about it as you. That every family does as much to educate their children. I don't know what the regulations are there (or here for that matter, not something I ever looked into), but I wouldn't count on your average gun owner to be much smarter than your average person, which is mildly disconcerting.

Gun owners are typically average people. Nothing to do with intelligence. But, you only hear about the stupid ones because that's what gets all the attention. It's the average owner who gets the bad rap because of the stupid folks. And the average makes the case that because there are stupid people with guns out there, all the more reason to not take ours away or unreasonably restrict them. This is why the idea of a permit is such a good one, we can distinguish between the average and the stupid.

 

[NeoDevin]

Provided the requirements for getting such a permit are sufficiently stringent.

 

[daveb]

Here's http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm" an interesting website that defines what self defense is and isn't. I particularly find this part interesting.

Secondly, if after having taken such proper precautions, a party should be assailed, he may undoubtedly repel force by force, but in most instances cannot, under the pretext that he has been attacked, use force enough to kill the assailant or hurt him after he has secured himself from danger; such as if a person unarmed enters a house to commit a larceny, while there he does not threaten any one, nor does any act which manifests an intention to hurt any one, and there are a number of persons present who may easily secure him, no one will be justifiable to do him any injury, much less to kill him

 

[turbo]

That's a bold statement to attribute it to gun ownership. Do you have any studies that correlate the two? Perhaps other factors are the cause instead.

It's common sense that if you want to burglarize a home, you would be hesitant about doing so in a state with 1.4 million guns (more than enough for every single resident). Though that 1.4M is the most commonly-cited figure, it is probably far too low because there are lots of families handing down lever-action hunting rifles, revolvers, shotguns, etc that are used for hunting and target practice and have been in the family for many years. It is not uncommon to see people out deer-hunting with Winchesters that are over 100 years old and nobody (except hardware store owners and gun companies) were counting gun sales back then.

Here is a study that concludes that states with shall-issue gun permit laws have lower overall crime rates, including burglaries. It also states in the conclusion that states that allow concealed carrying of handguns experience an increase in property crimes involving stealth, in which the possibility of the perpetrator confronting an armed victim is minimized. Bad guys are motivated by fear of getting shot and they modify their behavior.

http://hematite.com/dragon/Lott_ORDu.html

The results are large empirically. When state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent. In 1992, there were 18,469 murders; 79,272 rapes; 538,368 robberies; and 861,103 aggravated assaults in counties without "shall issue" laws. The coefficients imply that if these counties had been subject to state concealed handgun laws, murders in the United States would have declined by 1,570. Given the concern that has been raised about increased accidental deaths from concealed weapons, it is interesting to note that the entire number of accidental gun deaths in the United States in 1992 was 1,409. Of this total, 546 accidental deaths were in states with concealed handgun laws and 863 were in those without these laws. The reduction in murders is as much as three times greater than the total number of accidental deaths in concealed handgun states. Thus, if our results are accurate, the net effect of allowing concealed handguns is clearly to save lives. Similarly, the results indicate that the number of rapes in states without "shall issue" laws would have declined by 4,177; aggravated assaults by 60,363; and robberies by 1,898. [26]

On the other hand, property crime rates definitely increased after "shall issue" laws were implemented. The results are equally dramatic. If states without concealed handgun laws had passed such laws, there would have been 247,165 more property crimes in 1992 (a 2.7 percent increase). Thus, criminals respond substantially to the threat of being shot by instead substituting into less risky crimes. [27]

 

[drankin]

Provided the requirements for getting such a permit are sufficiently stringent.

That is determined by the state of residence. All of which require actually going into a police station, getting fingerprinted and FBI background checked. This pretty much weeds out your typical wacko.

 

[lisab]

It seems this Florida law disregards the property owner's rights.

Of course citizens have a second amendment right to own a gun; I always thought their right stopped at my property line, though.

 

[drankin]

It seems this Florida law disregards the property owner's rights.

Of course citizens have a second amendment right to own a gun; I always thought their right stopped at my property line, though.

This is where there is a compromise. An employer cannot restrict the right of an individual to carry their firearm to and from work. If one cannot have their gun at work they wouldn't be able to have one getting to and from. It's a reasonable compromise that doesn't violate anyones right. No different than employer saying he doesn't want golf clubs on his property in my opinion. If it's in my vehicle, it's none of his concern.

 

[NeoDevin]

That is determined by the state of residence. All of which require actually going into a police station, getting fingerprinted and FBI background checked. This pretty much weeds out your typical wacko.

I was thinking of at the very least mandatory safety training, as well as available education for everyone in the family/household. Possibly also with a refresher exam or something every five years to ensure that everyone is still familiar with safety and regulations.

 

[drankin]

I was thinking of at the very least mandatory safety training, as well as available education for everyone in the family/household. Possibly also with a refresher exam or something every five years to ensure that everyone is still familiar with safety and regulations.

I believe most states require some training requirement as well, though my state does not. The state could certainly require this is if it shows to be an issue. Personally, I'd rather be responsible for my own education on my own time rather than have to jump through more hoops to make other people "feel" better to my expense.

 

[NeoDevin]

Not everyone will be as responsible about it as you are.

 

[drankin]

Not everyone will be as responsible about it as you are.

A reasonable compromise might be if the state ok'd a list of 3rd party training companies(which are generally better anyway) that could certify people. This would allow them to compete for the business via price and training times rather than having to schedule with a state run agency and pay that new beauracracy pig that's only open Saturdays at 7am pending available slots, etc. Take the burden off the state and it's taxpayers at the same time making the cost lower for better training at place that was designed for it. I'd be ok with that.

 

[NeoDevin]

As would I, as long as these 3rd parties were held to some standard in order to be able to certify people, and not just to the lowest bidder.