Tourists warned about Florida's "shoot first" law

Florida's "shoot first" law goes into effect on Saturday. Soon, Floridians won't have to flee before using deadly force in self-defense.

Some opponents of the law want to make sure that tourists know exactly what they're getting into.

"It's a particular risk faced by travelers coming to Florida for a vacation because they have no idea it's going to be the law of the land," said Peter Hamm, communications director of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "If they get into a road rage argument, the other person may feel he has the right to use deadly force."

In a flier the group plans to pass out at Miami International Airport and possibly Orlando International Airport, tourists will be admonished to take precautions that include: "Do not argue unnecessarily with local people." Newspapers ads, billboards and the Internet will also be used to spread the word. [Newsday]

"Do not argue unecessarily with local people." Damn. They're stealing New York's core brand idea. But for a good cause.

Comments

[Sean Hurley]

How about giving every tourist at free "target" T-shirt?

For a state that is so reliant on sales and hotel tax revenues, it is amazing that they would pass the "shoot first, ask questions later" law. Glad I no longer live there.

[Bob Koepp]

How about, "Do not argue unnecessarily with people." That's good advice wherever you happen to be, and doesn't stigmatize "locals."

[Njorl]

But isn't arguing with people unnecessarily the one true joy of retirement community living?

[Ken]

"This law ... sends a message to people who are potentially unstable and have an itchy trigger finger that as long as they can make a reasonable case they were in fear, they can use deadly force against somebody."

Yeah, and if they can make a reasonable case that someone else was actually doing something that gave them reason to fear for their lives, then they would be within their rights to shoot that someone else. Whether "they" are "potentially unstable" or not. If they can't make such a reasonable case, of course, they're rightfully SOL.

"It's a particular risk faced by travelers coming to Florida for a vacation because they have no idea it's going to be the law of the land," said Peter Hamm, communications director of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "If they get into a road rage argument, the other person may feel he has the right to use deadly force."

So it's really a particular risk faced by travelers who get pissed off and try to force their way into someone else's car to assault them. I wouldn't be too worried about losing out on tourists who consider this activity to be part of a "vacation". Although I guess it is only right to warn them first.

[pecunium]

I've not been able to find the text (nor the number of the law) so I can't say what it actually says, nor what the law it, theoretically, replaces says, but in Calif., one is allowed to use, reasonable force, which may include lethal, when one is threatened.

If Florida says much the same, this is rhetorical posturing, on both sides.

If the law says one is allowed to meet any percieved threat with deadly force, well it's over the top and likely to be thrown out by the courts.

I recall the ballyhoo some twenty years ago when Florida passed its right to concealed carry law, and the rivers of blood flowing down the gutters have yet to appear.

So I'll wait a bit before I come to any real conclusions.

TK

[Philip Brooks]

I'm completely on board with the liberal approach to just about everything except gun control. If after decades of analyzing more data than one can shake a stick at statisticians still can't convince one another of what relation, if any, firearm posession has to violent crime, I'm inclined to think that there isn't much of a there there. As far as I can tell all it does is drive an unnecessary wedge between us liberals and others who might otherwise be inclined to stand with us.

[Steven]

..."it is amazing that they would pass the "shoot first, ask questions later" law. Glad I no longer live there".

I am sure there are a lot of people who are glad you don't leave there either.

If we had laws like this in every state, Oh my, perhaps we would all be a little bit safer...But I am sure people like you would rather the police have all the power -- guess what? They seldom protect anyone, they usually come once you are already dead!

Have fun protecting yourself with the police force...try calling them up while you are being assualted, and you will find a gun is a lot better than a cell phone!

[Steven]

..."it is amazing that they would pass the "shoot first, ask questions later" law. Glad I no longer live there".

I am sure there are a lot of people who are glad you don't leave there either.

If we had laws like this in every state, Oh my, perhaps we would all be a little bit safer...But I am sure people like you would rather the police have all the power -- guess what? They seldom protect anyone, they usually come once you are already dead!

Have fun protecting yourself with the police force...try calling them up while you are being assualted, and you will find a gun is a lot better than a cell phone!

[GaijinBiker]

In a flier the group plans to pass out at Miami International Airport and possibly Orlando International Airport, tourists will be admonished to take precautions that include: "Do not argue unnecessarily with local people."

This is what is meant by "An armed society is a polite society."

[rob helpychalk]

One of the things that makes laws like this seem reasonable is that everyone imagines applying it in a clearcut good guy/bad guy situation. A bad guy is coming at you and will do anything to get what he wants. You, the good guy, want authorization to defend yourself, because you obviously are pure of heart and will only do what is absolutely necessary.

But most situations where guns are used aren't like this. Here's something more common: x-boyfriend visits x-girlfriends house. In his own mind, he is trying to "patch things up." In her mind, he is stalking her. They both carry guns for safety. She carries a gun specifically so that she can feel safe from him.

The couple talks in the doorway. They start to argue. Right now either one could shoot the other without warning and claim self defense.

As I understand it, the most common use for a privately owned handgun is suicide, and the second most common use is domestic violence. Has anyone else heard this statistic?

I don't see gun control as an issue "we liberals" can "give in" on. Violence is a core issue for me. In foreign contries, on our streets and in our homes we see violence as a solution, not a problem. Again and again our response to violence is to pour more violence on it. And we wonder why our society has collapsed into a bunch of paranoid loners and sealed off gated communities.

[rob helpychalk]

Answering one of my own questions:

Here">http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm">Here is a source for the claim that the most common use for a privately owned handgun is suicide. Their source is Hoyert, DL, Kochanek, KD, et al. Deaths: Final Data for 1997. National Vital Statistics Report, 1999.

[paperwight]

This is what is meant by "An armed society is a polite society."

It's so true. The Somalis, the Afghans, the tribes in the North-Western Frontier Province: all heavily armed, all extremely polite.

[Davis X. Machina]

...compared to the savagery of Scandinavia, and the lawless streets of the Netherlands.

[notyou]

"And we wonder why our society has collapsed into a bunch of paranoid loners and sealed off gated communities."

First all only a small portion of our society can afford to live in gated communities or "exclusive preserves" (which BTW exist in many parts of Europe, too). Perhaps it is because we know that law enforcement cannot protect us against armed criminals, who will find a way to get lethal weapons even if guns were outlawed for ordinary citizens.

Of course, the crime rate in our society has absolutely nothing to do with cultural moral decline, the "anything goes no matter how degenerate", "everyman for himself", "I am entitled to steal (by force if necessary) from those who have more than me if I am poor" and ever present race and class warfare mentality promoted by some liberals.

I sincerely doubt that tourists will be the target of law abiding citizens who decide to defend themselves against criminals.

As for the lawlessness of the Netherlands, their "apparently superior" justice system sure did fail to protect or secure justice for Natalee Hollway. But I forget...she is a middle class white girl and therefore is an unimportant nonentity to liberals.

Keep up the good work NRA! We need to keep a few shreds of our Bill of Rights freedoms safe from the American Criminal Liberties Union. If the cops and the courts can't do anything about criminals, we are sometime forced to resort to "private protection." Unfortunately, I am afraid, it is going to become even more common as liberals convince whole segments of society that they are entitled to take by force that which they believe they have been deprived of by other average Americans.

Let me put it to you this way. If some SOB attempted to assault or rape me, I would blow both his heads off without batting an eye lash. It has nothing to do with being polite. Its called not being a victim.

[Constantine]

On one hand, I don't, in theory, have a problem with private gun ownership, or even the responsible carrying of a concealed weapon. On the other hand, all of these people who talk about how great it is that in Florida you have such permissive "shoot first" laws make me worried that I might in some way run afoul of them and be at risk of getting shot because, I don't know, maybe I tripped over them while jogging or something and someone decided suddenly that they "felt threatened." I swear, these people write as though they look forward to having the chance to kill someone. That's a bit on the creepy side.

[gcomnz]

Congratulations, Lindsay, you have quite a few right-wing readers. You must be hitting a nerve.

[Naked Ape]

Paranoia will destroy ya.

Hey, if you are one of the heavily armed and paranoid contingent that thinks your police departments are useless, why not lobby for disbanding them and using the cash to supply guns to the less fortunate?

I mean if you believe that unrestricted free market access to guns is the solution to public safety (like they have in beautiful downtown Mogadishu, such a nice safe place), shouldn't you be doing a little more to arm everyone?

"I sincerely doubt that tourists will be the target of law abiding citizens who decide to defend themselves against criminals."
What about Japanses exchange students looking for Haloween parties? You can't be to careful with those people, better to shoot first and ask questions later.

Oh and pardon my french but what the living fuck does a white girl missing in Aruba have to do with the Netherlands gun laws? Nice grasp of logic you have there. It really highlights the sort of thinking that supports your "cold dead hands" worldview.

[Chris Clarke]

I am sure there are a lot of people who are glad you don't leave there either.

An armed society is a polite society.

[M.]

Philipp writes: "I'm completely on board with the liberal approach to just about everything except gun control. If after decades of analyzing more data than one can shake a stick at statisticians still can't convince one another of what relation, if any, firearm posession has to violent crime, I'm inclined to think that there isn't much of a there there."

I just can not believe this, it takes a moment reflection of a five year old to figure out that fire arms do not belong in households (and ammunition must not be sold in Wal mart - as I think is the custom (?!) in the US), these weapons will get used. if a scoiety is really so rotten that the self defence argument is sound: So be it, but then your off to the stone age anyway.
This my sound odd, but totally naturally when you live in a civilized continent (as I do, so apologies for my English :))

M.

[notyou]

"Oh and pardon my french but what the living fuck does a white girl missing in Aruba have to do with the Netherlands gun laws?"

Has nothing to do with Dutch gun laws per se; has everything to do with what some on here seem to see as a superior Dutch criminal justice system. BTW, for the benefit of the ignorant, Aruba is a Dutch territory and applies the Dutch legal system.

As for the Japanese boy looking for the Halloween party; that is one incident...just like Natalee Holloway was one incident that too many liberals attacled as inconsequential because she was (in their opinion) an over publicized privileged white girl. You know what, I'd bet money that Natalee's parents love her just as much as the Japanese boy's parents do. I'll bet they have virtually bankrupted themselves in their efforts to secure justice on her behalf. Both are tragic stories and to my way of thinking neither individual is more or less important than the other. Additionally, one might reasonably suspect that Natalee was murdered without benefit of a fire arm. Oh, well, criminals will find a way, won't they? Where is your consistent application of compassion? Or does compassion only come into play when it is part of a liberal agenda or the oppressed individual is one of color, and therefore by extention automatically oppressed and disadvantaged (an illogical conclusion-but one to which many liberals seem to subscribe)?

BTW, the vast majority of gun owners in the United States are law abiding citizens who aren't out to kill people. They use their firearms for sporting purposes. And, please don't give me the "poor Bambi" argument if you are not a vegetarian!

Question: Do some of you use illegal drugs for recreational purposes? If, so does this make you morally superior to gun owners just because you think drugs are essentially harmless when used "responsibly" for recreation while being well aware of the substantial amount of destruction (probably much more significant than that caused by firearms) caused by those who sell or abuse drugs?

Almost anything can be abused. And if people are bent on self or any other kind of destruction, they will find a way. Quite frankly, I wish the fucking government would leave the choices of how I abuse myself up to me, as long as I don't abuse anyone else in the process. Anytime government regulation gets involved in the personal affairs of the individual, there is always a point somewhere down the road where there will be mass violations of civil rights in the name of "public good." Betcha can guess from that comment that I not opposed to legalizing drugs, although I have never abused drugs of any kind.

As for Lindsay hitting a nerve. I probably disagree with her on more issues than I agree; but you gotta admit the kid has chutzpah, drive, and an inquiring mind. For an individual of that quality, I'm happy to go "slumming" on liberal blogs occasionally. She has the potential to mature and get a bit more rounded in judgement with age and experience. On the other hand, some of the posters here are some real doozies. Got ALL the answers to all social ills and, like a first cousin to God, are NEVER wrong. I ain't prognosticating on their ability to mature and take on some seasoning.

My opinion: Libertarian is better than Liberal. The only reason I like conservatives better than Liberals is that they by their nature of resistance to change put a bit (but only a tiny bit) of drag on the liberal propensity for believing that government and in particular activist courts are the answer to all of society's ills.

I don't even think Bush is a true conservative. He looks much more like a big goverment-big spender to me. Only difference is, he is like the old style fiscally unconservative liberals who did not believe in tax and spend, just deficit spending. Not a whole hell of lot of difference. The thing about Liberals and Bush that annoys the shit out of me, is the nit-picky personal things they choose to try and discredit him in the press. Sneaky, low life, low brow, crap..and it demeans well meaning liberals.

Morality and ethics cannot be legislated. The answer to society's ills is for individuals to respect the life and property of others, assume responsibility for their own actions, clearly understand that nobody gets a free pass in this life, that along with "rights" come equal "responsibilities" both to self and others, and that degredation of self or others leads to a cultural cesspool in which people sink to the lowest common denominator.

Again, if given no alternative, would I kill in self-defense or defense of a loved one. In a heartbeat. Would I enjoy it? No. Would it probably affect me in an emotionally detrimental way? Surely. But, reason tells me the alternative would be both worse and permanent.

Now have fun with this post kiddies

[v]

So does it have to be a gun?

I was thinking more along the lines of a large can of oven cleaner?

[StealthBadger]

Okay. Speaking as a Liberal, on-again-off-again vegetarian handgun owner - This is screwed up.

If you're carrying a deadly weapon, the ONLY time to use it is in response to the threat of deadly force, whether imminent, such as a mugging, or chronic, such as a physically abusive spouse who is escalating (as they often do). A gun is not a debating tool. Pulling a trigger is not expressing an emotion, it's trying to kill someone. If the Florida authorities believe that the enactment of this law is going to result in people getting shot in yelling matches... then something is very obviously wrong.

Personally, I've been waiting for the Republicans to make a grab for being the firearms responsibility party (as opposed to gun control), and I suspect that a few road-rage shooting sprees in Florida would be just the excuse they would like to have. After all, it would fit the pattern of the GOP manufacturing crises and then "rushing in to the rescue."

Yes. I'm strange.

[StealthBadger]

Commenting with considerably more coffee:

I suspect I'm more worried about the sensationalizing of the act with "warning tourists what they're getting into" than anything else. I need to do more research... and get more sleep. Apologies for ranting.

[bob]

Does the new law apply only to Floridians? Or does it apply to everyone? Can tourists shoot first, think later? Why doesn't some organization hand out guns to tourist when they arrive?

Man, this is an insane law based on an insane concept.

[Jeff]

I haven't read the exact text, either, but from descriptions of the law, it sounds very similar to the laws on the books in any number of states. Basically, they have taken away the requirement that you flee from an attacker. You still have to have a objectively reasonable fear of harm or death. I live in Texas, where you can actually kill someone to protect your property in some cases, without the requirement of fearing for your own life-- I don't necessarily agree with that broad a law, but even in Texas, you'd be amazed how many people do not get gunned down in the streets. This is all posturing over nothing. And the campaign to "inform" tourists is simply a campaign to make Florida fear a loss of tourist dollars.