?

Log in

Stay Safe: Cock, Pull, Bang! (I'm Talking About Guns, Pervs) - Think Before you Type [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Think Before you Type

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Stay Safe: Cock, Pull, Bang! (I'm Talking About Guns, Pervs) [May. 9th, 2005|04:31 pm]
Think Before you Type
think_then_type
[wantonsacrarium]
[music |System of a Down- Byob]

[Protection of Persons/Use of Force;
authorizes person to use force including deadly force, against intruder or attacker in dwelling, residence, or vehicle under specified circumstances; provides that person is justified in using deadly force under certain circumstances; provides immunity from criminal prosecution or civil action for using deadly force; defines term "criminal prosecution", etc.]
Link to the House 0249 General Bill                                                     
Jeb Bush, the governor of my state, Florida, signed a new bill that is supposed to reduce crime by making it legal for people to shoot an attacker without first trying to escape. This, of course was greatly supported by the NRA .

This "Stand Your Ground" bill has expanded on the "Castle" Doctrine, which is a legal concept that allows you to protect yourself than have to retreat from an assailant who confronts you within your home, hence the reason why it is called the "Castle" doctrine, as in the saying that a man's home is his castle.
Castle Doctrine Explanation

First, the Castle Doctrine allowed a person to use deadly force if attacked in one's own home.
For instance, if a woman were attacked by a man, she would not be allowed to shoot him, if she were able to retreat. And thus came the "Stand Your Ground" bill.

Now, the rules are that deadly force could be used if one were attacked outside of one's own home or vehicle. (by expanding the meaning of "castle") .

Could this law be justified for people who are guilty of crimes such as when "Levin, 40, is charged with shooting and killing his 16-year-old neighbor as the boy rang his doorbell as a prank."?
Source: 2nd Amendment News 12/26/2003

With all of the hectic traffic and frustration in the highways of Florida, there are already enough accidents as there are with 2-ton vehicles, that can do enough damage as it is. We all know that people get into a different state of mind with "Road Rage". Must their anger be settled with the use of guns while already in a 2-ton, 4-wheel killing machine?

This law should be restricted to only protection for an individual in his home, with fear for his or his family's life, and not to be used out of home with risk of shooting an innocent individual, or risk of abuse of the privelege.

Then again, I am against guns period. The selling of firearms to the general public has always been a bad idea from the start.
  • With crime, there is a fear of one's life and property.
  • With fear of one's own life and property, there are guns to protect that life and property.
  • With crime, there are guns to threaten the owner of that life and property.
So therefore, when guns are available to the public, they are used for protection from crimes. But because these guns were available to the public in the first place, crimes were commited, eventually starting a chain of chaos.

      The root of this dilemma doesn't nessecarily lie in the gun itself....
 
             But instead, the merchants of the gun.



                                      You may not agree with me, but at least this 6 year old does

                                                               
linkReply