Responsible gun owners don't have to brandish their guns or fire warnings, right?

[Daverino]

Apparently not/

This is the shit that flies back in the face of all the 'responsible gun owners' out there. I'm supposed to be perfectly comfortable that there are more guns than people in the country because most of those owners are calm reasonable folks. I've been told that a 'responsible gun owner' would never threaten people with their weapons. Only in the most life threatening of situations would they resort to their firearms and they are aware of the gravity of using deadly force.

Then this bullshit rolls around.

This contradicts EVERYTHING that I've been told about responsible gun ownership, but it's a bill sponsored by the NRA and making its way through Florida's legislature. All this does it make dumb people with guns more of a threat to public safety than they already were. I'm not interested in the responses of the members who look at guns the same way Nehalem looks at his toaster. I want someone with a strictly platonic relationship with their guns to explain how this could possibly be a good idea.

 

[highland145]

Warning shots? Why? Dangerous and stupid. Just kill the thug if it's justified.

that I've been told about responsible gun ownership

OP doesn't believe there is such a thing regardless.

 

[BUnit1701]

Sounds extreme to me. That being said, if you don't like it, don't move to Florida/do move to New York/California/Chicago.

 

[SlickSnake]

So if everyone else has to fire a warning shot before defending themselves, then the cops will have to do it too, and they will have to prove they did that before killing a suspect.

Meanwhile, the armed suspect, after the warning shot is fired, will have the opportunity to shoot back and kill the person who is defending their life.

Does that pretty much cover it?

 

[chucky2]

I don't know if I can click on that link at work. Based on the comments, am I to understand the NRA who supposedly wrote FL law is now requiring warning shots before shooting someone?

 

[KB]

The NRA and Florida don't speak for every gun owner. I would also not point to Florida and say they are the pininicle of gun ownership laws any more than new York is. Warning shots to me are not a good idea.

You either feel your life is threatened and thus you can shoot the person/animal or your life is not threatened and you should not shoot anything. Warning shots can be dangerous to those around you from ricochets or unintended targets. Firing a warning shot either means you shoot in a direction in which you do not know your target and what is behind it, or you are taking your eyes off of the threat, neither of which is a good idea. I hope they don't continue with this.

 

[KB]

I don't know if I can click on that link at work. Based on the comments, am I to understand the NRA who supposedly wrote FL law is now requiring warning shots before shooting someone?

Nope.

"The current bill would amend the state's expansive Stand Your Ground law—which permits residents to use deadly force in numerous circumstances—so that it also allows the nebulous "threatened use of force." In effect, it means that gun owners could walk free for brandishing their gun in a threatening manner or firing a shot indiscriminately to "warn" a potential assailant."

 

[BurnItDwn]

NRA is run by crazy extremist fvcks (ok, more realistically, run by the gun industry, so, anything that can result in more gun or bullet sales is money in their pocket.)

I think warning shots may have a place say, if you are in the woods and you are frightened by a bear, it's less savage to scare the bear away rather than to hurt it...

But I'm not so sure about the context of this being applied to crowded cities/neighborhoods. Just too much chance of errant shot hitting some bystander.... Or situation may escalate much quicker....

Overall, I agree, this law does not make sense, it sounds like it would benefit criminal types rather than responsible people.

 

[chucky2]

Nope.

"The current bill would amend the state's expansive Stand Your Ground law—which permits residents to use deadly force in numerous circumstances—so that it also allows the nebulous "threatened use of force." In effect, it means that gun owners could walk free for brandishing their gun in a threatening manner or firing a shot indiscriminately to "warn" a potential assailant."

I'm not 100% opposed to that. I'd much rather pull my shirt to the side and brandish if I think it is going to diffuse a situation or fire a warning shot into something I'm 100% sure is going to stop said bullet if I think I can do that w/o shooting someone...

...but I see potential for not only abuse but also improper excited use. Really I'd rather people all hopped up on anti-gun policy just focus their energy on failed liberal social policies that result in people having loose ethics and morals. If they'd do that, they could really help us all out, and save people from being shot. Oh well, continued votes are too important... :'(

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Hmmmm I could have sworn that's what many questioned (in the long thread here as well) when the news that GZ shot TM broke.

Why didn't GZ show TM he had a pistol?

Why didn't GZ give a warning shot or shoot Tm in the leg instead of the chest?

Looks like the Florida legislator may give these people exactly what they asked for in 2012/13.

 

[chucky2]

Haha too funny and true.

 

[SlickSnake]

The current bill would amend the state's expansive Stand Your Ground law—which permits residents to use deadly force in numerous circumstances—so that it also allows the nebulous "threatened use of force." In effect, it means that gun owners could walk free for brandishing their gun in a threatening manner or firing a shot indiscriminately to "warn" a potential assailant.

That also means gun owners would get blanket immunity from the state's "10-20-life" law, which mandates an automatic 10-year sentence for anyone accused of flashing or using a gun in the commission of a felony. Numerous Florida politicians, including Jeb Bush, have long credited that measure with significantly decreasing the state's gun crimes.

The current bill would amend the state's expansive Stand Your Ground law—which permits residents to use deadly force in numerous circumstances—so that it also allows the nebulous "threatened use of force." In effect, it means that gun owners could walk free for brandishing their gun in a threatening manner or firing a shot indiscriminately to "warn" a potential assailant.

Bizarrely, Evers, the bill's key Senate sponsor, told Gawker that he doesn't believe in firing warning shots. When asked whether the practice was contrary to common gun-safety protocols, he said: "Does it run counter to my beliefs? Yes. You don't pull the gun unless you're willing to use it, and I don't mean [for] warning shots."

Nevertheless, he said, the right to fire wide was a "constitutional right" that "should be left up to the individual."

So basically, they are not requiring it, but allowing it? I guess that's a bit more reasonable then. But still a stupid idea. Only one shot, or what if they need to empty the magazine to scare the bad guy off, and hit a crowd of innocent bystanders in the process?

This still sounds like something that might be to legally shield the cops and give them another means other than deadly force all the time.

 

[SlickSnake]

Hmmmm I could have sworn that's what many questioned (in the long thread here as well) when the news that GZ shot TM broke.

Why didn't GZ show TM he had a pistol?

Why didn't GZ give a warning shot or shoot Tm in the leg instead of the chest?

Looks like the Florida legislator may give these people exactly what they asked for in 2012/13.

Yea, that may be the reason then.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't know but One thing I can say is that during my time as a professional thief warning shots were among the the best ways to get my attention.

 

[chucky2]

They better have the law written then that if you fire a warning shot and it wounds/kills someone, you are responsible for it. No deflect responsibility 'But I wouldn't have fired if the other guy wasn't <x>, so really the other guy is responsible'...you fired the warning, you better have fired it someplace that wasn't going to release the bullet. I can just see some idiot firing a warning shot, fires, and it goes through his wall into the neighbors house and wounds/kills someone. Or same thing in a public place. Will have to read this when I get home...

Chuck

 

[Venix]

Nice job verifying the integrity of your source:

Gawker Got Literally Everything Wrong About Florida&#8217;s New Warning Shots Bill

&#8220;If you&#8217;re in a self-defense situation and you pull a gun and show it to make a bad guy go away, you should not be arrested under aggravated assault and be subject to 10 years mandatory minimum,&#8221; Hammer said. &#8220;And if you make an unwise shot to warn someone, you certainly shouldn&#8217;t be going to jail for 20 years.&#8221;

That's completely reasonable. And since you clearly didn't even read the bill before raging about it, let me summarize: it simply modifies the existing self-defense statute to change every instance of "use of force" to "use or threatened use of force." That's it.

The hypocrisy of gun haters is astounding. They whine about Marissa Alexander's 20-year mandatory prison sentence for a warning shot, then complain when the legislature attempts to fix the problem. They cry about how gun owners should hold criminals at gunpoint instead of killing them, then rage when the law is changed to legalize it.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

good change in the law

 

[senseamp]

Nice job verifying the integrity of your source:

Gawker Got Literally Everything Wrong About Florida’s New Warning Shots Bill

That's completely reasonable. And since you clearly didn't even read the bill before raging about it, let me summarize: it simply modifies the existing self-defense statute to change every instance of "use of force" to "use or threatened use of force." That's it.

What if your warning shot hits an innocent bystander?

 

[spidey07]

What if your warning shot hits an innocent bystander?

Then that's wanton or reckless behavior and would be charged as such.

 

[BUnit1701]

What if your warning shot hits an innocent bystander?

If it hits someone, its by definition NOT a warning shot, regardless of intent.

 

[desertdweller]

Was this in response to that chic that went to prison for firing a warning shot? If I remember right, her ex broke into her house and was about to attack her, so, she fired a shot in the air instead of shooting him and went to jail for it.


Edit: Link
Here is an article about it 20 Years

 

[spidey07]

Was this in response to that chic that went to prison for firing a warning shot? If I remember right, her ex broke into her house and was about to attack her, so, she fired a shot in the air instead of shooting him and went to jail for it.

In about every state, firing a warning shot is a felony and why you never do it.

This great law is about protecting somebody who is forced to have to use their weapon in self defense from prosecutors who want to charge them with any crime they can.

The only downside is if now prosecutors will use it against justifiable use of deadly force because "why didn't you fire a warning shot if you really feared for your life?"

Double edged sword really.

 

[BUnit1701]

In about every state, firing a warning shot is a felony and why you never do it.

This great law is about protecting somebody who is forced to have to use their weapon in self defense from prosecutors who want to charge them with any crime they can.

The only downside is if now prosecutors will use it against justifiable use of deadly force because "why didn't you fire a warning shot if you really feared for your life?"

Double edged sword really.

There is no language compelling one to brandish or fire a warning shot first, only adding those to the acceptable responses to a perceived threat.

 

[irishScott]

I'd like to point out that there was a recent case in Florida of a woman who admitted to firing "warning shots" at her physically abusive boyfriend in their apartment and was jailed for it after being sentenced to 20 years. Granted there was a mistrial, but it still doesn't look good for her under current law.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/28/justice/florida-stand-your-ground-release/


Also that article doesn't quote any segment of the law concerning warning shots, despite the title. So I'm skeptical this is as big as deal as it says it is. No time to do Gawker's homework for it, so I could be wrong, but given the obvious opinion of the author I have substantial doubts.

For my part, warning shots are stupid and dangerous outside of very specific circumstances; but I'm all for brandishing. If I'm carrying and have the opportunity to point my gun, get the assailant to back off or surrender as opposed to shooting him, then it's a happier outcome for everybody no?

 

[highland145]

Was this in response to that chic that went to prison for firing a warning shot? If I remember right, her ex broke into her house and was about to attack her, so, she fired a shot in the air instead of shooting him and went to jail for it.


Edit: Link
Here is an article about it 20 Years

Wasn't that the one the left the house and came back with a gun?