Why do we believe what we do? (+ An apology)

[Callisto32]

So the guns board is an emotional place. I learned that right quick in regards to myself. I took a lot of venom, and spat my share. I tried to remain polite, truly, but in the process came off like an utter jerk. I then made a snap decision in an emotional moment (when I felt under personal assault), and made a total ass out of myself. What's done is done, and can never be taken back, and I only hope that you will forgive my conduct, and give me another chance to, as I said before, not be a dink.

This comes from my deciding to take a step back for a day and cool my head about the issue, staying away from any controversies in which I feel personally invested. I thought about why I feel the way I do about this topic, and why I get so emotionally involved, so quickly. On thinking about it, I realize that it is not an easy answer, and I presume that it is the same way for most of the people here, no matter where they come down on the issue. In light of this, I would like to ask people why exactly it is they come down on whatever side of this debate. I think that this may make it easier for people (like me) who quickly become emotionally invested in things to keep things in perspective.

I'll start: A common phrase within the pro-gun community is "when seconds count, help is only minutes away." For me, this is more than just a catchphrase, it is a situation that I have personally encountered on several occasions. Growing up, I was subject to a step-father who eventually developed a cocaine habit, and on several occasions he would come home after a 4-day bender and terrorize the household. In two specific instances of this, (he was usually violent, but these were particularly bad) he threatened the other three of us with death via firearm. Of these two I remember one the best, where my mother and step-brother were left playing a macabre game of monkey in the middle with a box of rifle shells as I was sent out to run to the neighbors' to call the police, as he had preemptively cut the phone lines to prevent summoning help. If it sounds like one of those movies about the guys that seem really great, but turn out to be total psychos...well that is EXACTLY what it was like. I remember being at the neighbors' just being terrified about what was going on back at home, waiting for the police to arrive. We lived pretty well out in the middle of nowhere, as far as police patrols are concerned, and so it took about 20 minutes for them to arrive. By then, of course, things had calmed down and the only evidence of what had occurred was the cut phone cords, and the bruises yet to appear on my mother's body.

I had always been told that, in an emergency, you call the police/medics/fire department and what have you. But I realized then that those people can't really be counted on to help you, at least not right now, when you need it. This later developed into the idea that I needed to be self-reliant, and not count on others to take care of my problems, whatever they may be. So, partially in response to iverglas' comment about my origins I'd like to say that you could not be more off the mark as to my upbringing, and that I do care very much about the wellbeing of others. However, I think that they best way to look out for the wellbeing of others is to make them self-reliant. I don't mean that we are all islands, and should always rely only upon our own powers, but rather I mean that I strongly subscribe to the idea of teaching a man to fish. Part of this, for me, is that I feel that everybody should have access to the best tools available for whatever purpose they may have. One of these purposes is the defense of life and limb of yourself, and those in your immediate vicinity. Further, I think that the personal firearm is the best tool available for such a purpose.

If I was unclear at all in the above, I am sorry. Those that know me can tell you that I am notoriously bad at communicating in text, lacking the social context of real conversation.

I am really, very sorry for acting the way I have,

Zane

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Thank you for your story.

I missed the post you're referring to, but I also appreciate the apology - a lot of things are said in haste here, and too few people recognize their own part in it. Whatever the discussion and the remarks, I appreciate a step toward civility.

A question. It sounds as though you are firmly on the side of firearms possession, yet in your story a recurrent theme is the struggle over a firearm in the house -- being threatened by it, keeping the out-of-control user away from it and/or ammunition. If there were no weapon in the house, it would not have been a threat. How do you reconcile these?

(On Edit) I seldom post on the guns issue, because I believe the right to own guns should be balanced by strong controls on guns - entirely too many crazies out there. That makes me, or at least my posts, unpopular.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. His stepfather was still beating his mom.

the cops still showed up late and didn't do anything.

David

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. That does not address this:

"In two specific instances of this, (he was usually violent, but these were particularly bad) he threatened the other three of us with death via firearm. Of these two I remember one the best, where my mother and step-brother were left playing a macabre game of monkey in the middle with a box of rifle shells as I was sent out to run to the neighbors' to call the police, as he had preemptively cut the phone lines to prevent summoning help."

The weapon exacerbated the problem - so the solution is more weapons?

What I see here is a child being taught that power comes from having a gun, and despite that power being wielded against him his response is to claim that power for himself. The only lesson taught by an abuser is abuse.

[iverglas]

10. and that

is pretty much exactly what I was saying.

Choosing to identify with the abuser rather than the victim, as a way of protecting one's self from the shameful self-image of "victim".

[Longtooth]

48. Could you please restate that for an old guy that talks a little less "post modern"

I'm not sure exactly what you were saying there.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. The solution is less guns in the hands of criminals.

And the choice of more guns if they choose for the law abiding.

David

[Longtooth]

49. That makes sence to me.

[unpossibles]

2. well, thanks for clearing it up. It does help, I think

For the record, I don't consider myself in either camp, or rather I consider myself in both camps. I agree with and support individual gun rights, but also feel that there needs to be better education and safety concerns, as well as ease of obtaining guns addressed in a rational way.

For the record, I've never needed a gun to defend myself. I own one, but I don't carry it. I have had to defend myself physically a small handful of times, but guns were never brought into it, and even had I one on me, if someone had drawn a gun on me already, I'm not sure that (a) I could react in time or (b) I'd want to escalate matters. Yes, there are instances where it may be a good idea, and frankly it's crossed my mind as my neighborhood has some violence issues, but... I don't know. I'm just not sure it's a good idea, and frankly the thought of something happening because of me carrying a gun does bother me a bit.

What pisses me off about this topic is how it seems the extremes on both sides are so loud it makes it difficult to hear the more sane voices in the center.

Welcome to DU.

[SteveM]

3. I appreciate your frankness...

I share your concern about the practicality of "waiting" for the police. When I grew up, my Dad taught his sons how to use firearms before the age of 12; a year past that milestone, we all had our own shotguns (kept in a locked cabinet) and handguns (kept safely in a place of our choosing).

This early training is the best way to avoid tragedies and missteps. Beyond that, one should take stock of who will be in their residence and consequently, where and how one should keep a gun. As for me, living alone, I keep a fully-loaded revolver by the bed when I am home. When I leave, I lock it up and stow the box. Though a little inconvenient, it minimizes the chance of threat and maximizes my ability to use it if necessary.

I've been on this board for a year and-a-half and have learned that much of the diatribe aimed at strong 2A folks is personal and directly aimed at character. Clearly, it is a way for one to exorcise deep-seated animosity toward others in an "acceptable" way (as opposed to using race, sex, creed, etc.). Also, it is an attempt to spoil the atmosphere in the Guns Forum to repel those who might have wish to drop in and learn what the Second Amendment is about. While folks on both sides (including myself) get caught up in the "emotional" approach, those who are for gun-control have the most explaining to do.

Hang around. You will be baited, asked wife-beating questions and framed in Rove-ian manner. But these guys know they are losing the social issue and are now bent on the gratuitous. They won't let up because they enjoy it. The goal for 2A folks in this forum is to continue to reach out to progressives and try to change minds with good argument. That goal is being accomplished.

[slackmaster]

4. I'm sorry you had to go through an experience like that growing up

:hi:

[iverglas]

5. I'm at a complete loss

Evidently, you and your mother had access to firearms throughout the entire time this abuse was being perpetrated.

And yet the abuse continued. Somehow, access to firearms didn't solve the problem.

Access to firearms surely did exacerbate the problem, though.

And from this you conclude that access to firearms should be facilitated so that it is easier than it now is.

Well, it me over the head with a baseball bat, but I don't get it.


I do get that you're very young and think you have all the answers, even when they don't make sense. And I suspect that you share a feeling common among victims of violence / witnesses to violence against close family and friends: "never again", the I am not / will not be a victim response.

Acknowledging that one has been a victim, or identifying with the victim, can be difficult for people who see that as a sign of weakness, particularly, in the latter case, if they were unable to prevent harm being done to someone else. There is no shame in a child not being able to protect a parent from abuse, but children do often feel shame (guilt). They refuse to identify with the victimized parent, at least partly because of the shame they would feel for not saving her. Progressing from there to crusading for the "gun rights" cause is hardly unforeseeable. The person with the gun is the strong person, the winner. The person without the gun is the victim, the loser.

Hopefully, as you mature and experience more of the world and the people in it, your response to them will become less conditioned by your early experiences.


Unfortunately, your experiences are all too common -- particularly in those tranquil rural areas where firearms "crime" just isn't a problem like in the big bad cities, but everybody needs guns within reach in case a big bad burglar busts in.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2007/10/02/nb-rural-abuse.html

Guns influence abused women's decisions to seek help: study
Last Updated: Tuesday, October 2, 2007 | 4:23 PM AT
A new study of abused women in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island shows that having firearms in the home made them more fearful and less likely to seek help.

The study was conducted for the Canadian Firearms Centre by Fredericton researchers Jennie Hornosty and Deborah Doherty. It surveyed 283 women living in transition and 108 crisis workers, police officers and child protection workers to gain a better understanding of family violence in a rural context.

The results show:

* 25 per cent of the abused women knew firearms were in the house.
* 40 per cent of those firearms were not licensed.
* 11 per cent of the firearms were kept loaded.
* 66 per cent of the women said firearms made them fear for their safety.
* 70 per cent said the firearms' presence affected their decision to seek help.
* 64 per cent thought firearms would be used to harm a pet or farm animal.

The study sheds light on an area rarely researched in Canada, said Hornosty, and demonstrated the ways firearms can be used as instruments of control, intimidation and abuse in family situation.

Women in rural areas can become trapped in abusive relationships out of fear about what their partner might do to them, to himself or to pets and farm animals if a rifle or shotgun is handy and loaded, she said.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Why didn't they report the abuser?

From your exceedingly small study
The study was conducted for the Canadian Firearms Centre by Fredericton researchers Jennie Hornosty and Deborah Doherty. It surveyed 283 women living in transition and 108 crisis workers, police officers and child protection workers to gain a better understanding of family violence in a rural context.

The results show:

* 25 per cent of the abused women knew firearms were in the house.
* 40 per cent of those firearms were not licensed.
* 11 per cent of the firearms were kept loaded.
* 66 per cent of the women said firearms made them fear for their safety.
* 70 per cent said the firearms' presence affected their decision to seek help.
* 64 per cent thought firearms would be used to harm a pet or farm animal.

The study sheds light on an area rarely researched in Canada, said Hornosty, and demonstrated the ways firearms can be used as instruments of control, intimidation and abuse in family situation.

Women in rural areas can become trapped in abusive relationships out of fear about what their partner might do to them, to himself or to pets and farm animals if a rifle or shotgun is handy and loaded, she said.




Why didn't the 40% report the abuser that they knew to be in violation of the law? Wouldn't the police have come and removed the unlicensed firearm from the house and arrested the abuser? Also why do you think he will mature and his responses will be less influenced by his early experiences? The early experiences that you have posted about on this board clearly still affect your responses, so are you immature?

David

[iverglas]

9. for someone who claims to have worked in emergency services

you don't seem to have learned much.

Executive summary of the study:

http://www.acswcccf.nb.ca/english/documents/EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY%20Short.doc

I'm afraid it's a little outside my brief to be educating you in the realities of violence against women in general.


Also why do you think he will mature and his responses will be less influenced by his early experiences?

He's an undergraduate student. I was an undergraduate student nearly 40 years ago. An undergraduate student has a whoooole lot of maturing to do.

The early experiences that you have posted about on this board clearly still affect your responses, so are you immature?

I don't know. DID SOMEONE SAY THAT BEING AFFECTED BY EARLY EXPERIENCES MAKES *ANYONE* IMMATURE?

NO.

So why are you asking me this?

Did I say that my own responses to early experiences are immature? NO.

An immature response is to look at the world as if it revolves around one's self.

Gaining more experience, as one matures, often has the effect of opening one's eyes to the fact that the world does not revolve around one's self.

What I said was:

Hopefully, as you mature and experience more of the world and the people in it, your response to them will become less conditioned by your early experiences.

CONDITIONED. Not "affected". Haven't learned to copy and paste yet?

Someone whose response to the world consists of "I'm gonna get mine" and "Nobody's gonna get me" is not mature, and in some cases is obviously CONDITIONED by trauma that has not been examined and is not being dealt with maturely.

I have a conditioned response to sudden loud noises. They scare me. But my response to the world and the people in it is not conditioned by any trauma I have experienced. It is based on wide and long experience and a lot of knowledge and much analysis of the things I have experienced and learned. "I wanna gun so bad people don't hurt me" is not a mature response to traumatic experiences, particularly when the experiences are in fact widespread social phenomena; it is an infantile response.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. Sounds like rural women in Canada don't report abuse for the same reasons

that women (especially black women) in the inner city don't. The are scared of the police, they are dependent on their abusers, the police in Canada don't enforce the firearms laws there, etc. Maybe I need to make my question more clear, of the 283 women in the study 40% reported unlicensed firearms in the home, these women were in transition. I assume that means not living with the abuser, so why wouldn't they report the crimes at this point? You call his response infantile, did you read the last paragraph of his post? He doesn't want a firearm so the big bad wolf won't hurt him. He wants a firearm because he knows the police won't be there to help, we call that self reliance, it is generally not a trait that we equate with the immature. You call him immature but felt fine making fun of him in other posts, that's mature. You continually accuse people of lying when they disagree with you, that's mature. Let's see a young man came here for some reasoned discussion on a variety of topics including firearms, he has by and large been polite, apologized when he hasn't been and has generally behaved maturely. You on the other hand are a middle aged woman who met his politeness with sarcasm and ridicule, and you are the mature one. Yeah right.

David

[iverglas]

13. talk about infantile

I'm sorry. I've had my blockheadedness quota for this year.

40% reported unlicensed firearms in the home

No, they didn't. 25% reported firearms in the home, and of that 25%, 40% were reportedly unlicensed (which would mean that the owner was not licensed to possess them).

I assume that means not living with the abuser, so why wouldn't they report the crimes at this point?

I assume you don't have a crystal ball, so how would you know they didn't?


He wants a firearm because he knows the police won't be there to help, we call that self reliance, it is generally not a trait that we equate with the immature.

Maybe you should educate yourself a bit. I've found it invaluable, myself.

And then go back and ask him how come the firearms that he and his mother obviously had access to when the abuse was occurring didn't solve the problem then.


Let's see a young man came here for some reasoned discussion on a variety of topics including firearms, he has by and large been polite, apologized when he hasn't been and has generally behaved maturely. You on the other hand are a middle aged woman who met his politeness with sarcasm and ridicule, and you are the mature one. Yeah right.

Blah de fucking blah blah blah.

Couching, er, intellectual dishonesty in fine words does not conceal what it is. And what it is, is not polite. To say the extreme least.


number typo fixed

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. Thanks for the mature response.

Did I lay the sarcasm on thick enough?

You wrote, "And then go back and ask him how come the firearms that he and his mother obviously had access to when the abuse was occurring didn't solve the problem then." Maybe at that age he was mature enough to know that shooting his step father wasn't necessary. They kept the gun from being loaded and no one was killed. I know it surprises you that some people actually show restraint when they are in a stressful situation. Again with the allegations, no one on this board has ever said that everyone should have guns and that guns are the solution to all problems. Clearly a cocaine addict and alcoholic with a history of domestic violence shouldn't have access to firearms. Guess what, we actually have that law on the books, people convicted of domestic violence are prohibited from possessing firearms. I'll have to apologize for laughing at you Iverglas, but you calling someone impolite was just too much for me to handle. Have a nice night, is it finally warming up in the north country?

David

[iverglas]

18. dog have mercy

Maybe at that age he was mature enough to know that shooting his step father wasn't necessary.

I've been under the impression that having access to firearms is supposed to enable people to prevent crimes from being committed, without anyone having to be shot. Seems to be the case in any other situation (e.g. robber accosts gun-toter while gun-toter is unloading groceries from trunk of car, would-be assailant pries open sliding door with intent to commit sexual assault, etc. etc.).

Why not in this situation?

In all those homes where abusive men had access to firearms, so did their victims, pretty obviously. And yet it didn't help.


They kept the gun from being loaded

Good lord. You are referring to one discrete incident in what was obviously a years-long pattern of abuse.

and no one was killed.

Good lord. You are referring to one discrete incident in what was obviously a years-long pattern of abuse.


I know it surprises you that some people actually show restraint when they are in a stressful situation.

Do you also know that the moon is made of green cheese?

What I think *should be* surprising me is that people with ready access to firearms suffered, and suffer, from abuse for years.


Guess what, we actually have that law on the books, people convicted of domestic violence are prohibited from possessing firearms.

Guess what? THIS INDIVIDUAL HAD NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. Not so far as I can tell. So your point is?


Clearly a cocaine addict and alcoholic with a history of domestic violence shouldn't have access to firearms.

DUH, eh?

BUT MEANWHILE, people with access to firearms were abused and terrorized by a cocaine addict/alcoholic with a history of domestic violence AND FIREARMS.

And as that study shows, women who are intimidated by intimate partners who have firearms are LESS LIKELY to try to escape from the situation.

If you think the study population was small or have any other problems with it, find yourself one you like better. I understand that a study was done in Alberta here, some years ago, that found that 40% of rural women who were victims of abuse experienced this kind of intimidation. I've been looking at one from Montana that I haven't had time to digest yet. Do your own research.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. Didn't mind your study just pointed out that it was a small one.

You wrote, "I've been under the impression that having access to firearms is supposed to enable people to prevent crimes from being committed, without anyone having to be shot."

They can and often do. Sometimes they don't, sometimes they are misused by people who shouldn't have access but do, sometimes they are misused by criminals who posess them illegally. No one ever asserted that guns are the cure for all that ails society. Our Constitution and the laws in my state, give me the right if I choose to posess a weapon for self defense. I would guess that the reasons that the victims don't shoot their abusers are the same reasons they don't report their abusers to the police. I'm happy for them to do either one. What do you propose to do about this problem?

David

[Callisto32]

15. Clarification

Understand, first, that I have no problem with the fact that this happened to me. Some may choose to not to believe this, but I'm pretty well over it. It still hurts to think about, and colors my judgments, obviously; but I am becoming better at determining when such things lead to my personal bias...anyway.

NCivilDUer: This may not make much sense but for as long as I can remember I have been one who embraces those things with which I had a negative experience. For example, when I was about 4 years old, I was bitten by a copperhead. Luckily it was a dry bite (no venom), and thank God it must have been a mature snake with control over its musculature. While I did not fully understand what had happened at the time, I understood "snake, poison, got bit, dangerous, thank goodness I'm still alive." My response, even at that age, was not to become more afraid of the threat of snakes, but to learn as much about them as possible, their habits, biology (for instance, copperheads smell like cucumbers so if you smell that in the woods, be on the lookout), how to safely handle them when avoidance is not an option. This, obviously, was a process that took place over a number of years.

It is the same thing with firearms.

Wow, guns can be really scary. I wonder how I can make them safe, useful tools for the betterment of my life and the lives of those around me. I chose not to blame the firearm, or the availability or whatever, but rather the choices of the person with the firearm.

It seems that you suggest that all I learned from this was that a firearm imposes some level of power on the bearer, and abuse. Frankly, I already knew that first part, and so did everybody else. This was not a new idea. What I feared was a firearm used improperly, violently, in anger. I feared a coked-up wacko with a rifle and a paranoid vendetta. I did not fear the weapons carried by the police that responded to the situation. Why? They harbored no ill intent. I do not view the defense of oneself, or of others from violent attack as ill intent. Thus, I view weapons in the hands of the vast majority of the citizenry as analogous to those of the police, not the violent offenders, such as my former step-father.

As far as the abuse...I learned just how hard it is on people when such things take place, and as such I abhor even the slightest of that kind of behavior that I see in myself. I spend a good amount of time feeling pretty terrible if I so much as lose my patience and raise my voice with someone (which is what I essentially did here, and what I apologized for). Frankly, after the incident leading up to this post, I spent a good amount of time crying and feeling pretty terrible with myself. Why? Because I saw something that I don't like in myself.

I HATE violence, really, truly loath it. However, I think that it is a good idea to learn (reluctantly) how to fight. Some day, as I learned early on, someone may decide to bring violence your way, and it comes as a thief in the night.

iverglas: I do not identify with the abuser, nor do I identify with a victim. In this case I was a victim. There is no shame, in my philosophy to admitting that when it is the truth. Do I have somewhat of a nie wieder mindset because of it, I suppose so. However, I also realize that there are times when becoming a victim of something is utterly unavoidable. I simply wish for the law-abiding among us to be able to be as prepared as possible for whatever may come around the corner. That includes the good as well as the bad. We should be just as ready to jubilate at the arrival of an old friend, long away as to defend ourselves from harm. As with many things, the middle path is probably the best.

Evidently, you and your mother had access to firearms throughout the entire time this abuse was being perpetrated.

And yet the abuse continued. Somehow, access to firearms didn't solve the problem.

Access to firearms surely did exacerbate the problem, though.

And from this you conclude that access to firearms should be facilitated so that it is easier than it now is.

Well, it me over the head with a baseball bat, but I don't get it.

Understand that this is a situation of being woken up by violence, not knowing that it was going to be occurring. Such situations are sometimes unavoidable, no matter what tools are available or how prepared you are.

I think the exacerbation point is debatable. The willingness and ability to cause harm were already there. Certainly, having access to a firearm makes it easier to inflict damage, but it does not increase the will to do so. Also note that even without the weapon, he managed to beat a woman to within an inch of her life. (well, not quite that bad, but you get the idea) However, such a woman, of the physical stature of my mother, would lack the ability to do such damage to a man of the stature of my step-father, lacking tools. Just as personally, is my fiancee (May 24, ye olde big day) is a slight woman of 5'3 115 lbs. Physically, she has no method of resisting a physical attack from an average, healthy male. I would prefer women (or whomever: elderly, handicapped, et cetera) have whatever tools they can get to level the field of available force. Force has, I believe, NO place in civilized discourse, however there are those among us who are less than civilized.

No, I don't think I have all the answers (and I know I am disgustingly young, by some standards). One of the most common phrases to cross my lips is "I'm sorry, I just don't know." I am not sure that I have the answer to this. What I do believe is that I have weighed the different sides, and have come to the conclusion that best fits the situation as I see it.

Finally, I certainly agree that I have a lot of maturing to do. In fact, it is one of the things that I look forward to in life, becoming a better, (here's that word again) gentleman. However, I do not believe that this experience has conditioned me to my current outlook on this matter. If anything, I think that the conditioning occurred with my knee-jerk reaction to being afraid of guns. Yes, that happened, for a long time after this, I didn't like them one bit. But just as with the snakes, I eventually reasoned my way to a new outlook on the matter. The old one only encompassed fear. From the new one, I picked up a number of new sports, a hobby, a personal "expertise" as much as I hate that word and something new to spend my time learning about, as I find it fascinating.

unpossibles: Yes, it is very difficult (impossible) to outdraw a weapon that is already pointed in your direction. But if he as already made the decision to kill you, you might as well fight back and have a hair's breadth of a chance, than to give up and be murdered for certain. If it is a matter of maybe living to go back to my family and friends, I'll bite the man if I have to. Maybe it is just the testosterone talking, but I'll take being a cornered cat over a statistic any day.

Thank you all for your condolences, but my point was not to receive them, but to post what I think was my key formative moment concerning my stance on this issue. But again, thank you.

Zane

[Callisto32]

16. Just busting up the length.

Also, I think that I should state exactly where I place the line for when it is alright to respond with deadly force. Simply: when one has legitimate fear of being killed or maimed or raped (yes I believe this would be alright) by another. This does not require that the other person has a weapon, nor does it allow a lethal response simply for the presence of a weapon. I am essentially talking about following the rules of engagement adhered to by the police. As with the example from my personal life. Had one been armed, would it have been a "clean shoot" in the event of him simply having the rifle? No, the weapon was known to be unloaded. Had he loaded the weapon, or attempted to, then this would have indicated a clear intent to cause death or grievous bodily injury. If it was not possible to stop that action by LESS THAN LETHAL MEANS, then it would be justifiable to use deadly force. Had he used it as a club, see above. Killing, or even injuring another person is always a last resort.

[spin]

19. Florida law on deadly force...

Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

* Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

[Callisto32]

21. I would have to say those are good guidelines.

[iverglas]

22. unfortunately

they actually bear little resemblance to reality. That is not what Florida law says. If you need more, try searching for posts written by me with the word "Kentucky" in them (same discussion, easier to find).

[Callisto32]

23. Query:

What part are you referring to as not being law. The post, or the page to which the post links?

[iverglas]

24. I was referring to the post

But having then read the page, I'll extend it.

Florida law allows for a whoooole lot more than what the post said, and the page linked to is just incoherent.

[iverglas]

25. to elaborate some

The page linked to also says:

Q. What if someone is attacking me in my own home?

A. The courts have created an exception to the duty to retreat called the “castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, you need not retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. The castle doctrine applies if you are attacked in your own home by an intruder or an invited guest.

The page seems not to have been updated since new legislation was enacted a couple of years ago, i.e. the so-called "castle doctrine" is legislation now, not common law.

And it applies not only "if you are attacked in your own home by an intruder or an invited guest". It applies if you are not attacked but otherwise meet the requirements of the totally incoherent legislation in question.

The legal officers of the govt of Florida might very much wish that is what their legislation said (as I recall, the legal advisors to the legislature recommended against certain problematic components of the proposed legislation before it was enacted), but it is not what it says.

[spin]

28. The advise on the legal use of deadly force comes from...

the web page of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services...the agency that issues concealed weapons permits in Florida.
homepage: http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/ index page: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/index.html

Note the disclaimer on the bottom of the page: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

This is not a complete summary of all the statutes and court opinions on the use of deadly force. Because the concealed weapons statute specifies that concealed weapons are to be used for lawful self-defense, we have not attempted to summarize the body of law on lawful defense of property. This information is not intended as legal advice. Every self-defense case has its own unique set of facts, and it is unwise to try to predict how a particular case would be decided. It is clear, however, that the law protects people who keep their tempers under control and use deadly force only as a last resort.

However, I firmly believe that in most circumstances the following is a quick and dirty summary of the legal use of deadly force in Florida:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

* Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

But you have to realize that the decision to use deadly force will face intense scrutiny from the legal system.

Suppose, for example, you're walking down the street and you encounter two people, one with a drawn weapon. You assume a robbery is in progress. You draw your weapon and shoot the bad guy. It turns out the bad guy is an undercover cop. That's one big "ah shit"!

Or let's say a bad guy approaches you with a knife. You draw your revolver and cock the hammer. The bad guy doesn't run. You believe that he makes a threatening move so you shoot. In court the prosecuting attorney, who is on an anti-gun crusade, points out that you had the trigger pull on the weapon lightened for target shooting. He states that you applied too much pressure to the trigger because adrenaline had saturated your system. The shooting was unnecessary. Prepare to spend a lot of your hard earned money on a really good attorney.

A prosecuting attorney taught a concealed weapons course in the Tampa Bay area. All the students who took the course gave him a high rating. He did emphasize that if they ever made a mistake with their weapon and he got the case, he would prosecute them unmercifully and to the full extent of the law.

The decision to use deadly force may save your life or the life of another individual. But your split second decision may be analyzed and questioned for hours in a court room.

As to the comment

The page seems not to have been updated since new legislation was enacted a couple of years ago, i.e. the so-called "castle doctrine" is legislation now, not common law.

And it applies not only "if you are attacked in your own home by an intruder or an invited guest". It applies if you are not attacked but otherwise meet the requirements of the totally incoherent legislation in question.

The "castle doctrine" is the law in Florida. Examine the following balanced link:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20050502.html


And one link from the NRA-ILA:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=188



Further information on Florida weapons laws can be found at the following links from the Florida government:

concealed weapons or firearms program:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html

For the curious...Florida weapons and firearms law (2007):
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0790/titl0790.htm&StatuteYear=2007&Title=%2D%3E2007%2D%3EChapter%20790

[iverglas]

29. no shit

You're assuming I didn't read the link? That would be a dumb assumption.

If you happen to want to address what I actually said, do feel free.

[spin]

31. O.K. , I'll try once more...

You said:

The page seems not to have been updated since new legislation was enacted a couple of years ago, i.e. the so-called "castle doctrine" is legislation now, not common law.

The page is current. Maybe it didn't need updating.

The "castle doctrine" is law not legislation. It was signed into law by Jeb Bush in 2005.

On March 23, 2005, The Florida Senate passed SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" unanimously, by a vote of 39 YEAS to zero NAYS. They know something about this bill.

On April 5, The Florida House passed SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" by a vote of 94 YEAS to 20 NAYS, a margin of better than four to one.

On April 26, Governor Jeb Bush SIGNED SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" into law (Chapter No. 2005-27) It takes effect on October 1, 2005.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

You also said: And it applies not only "if you are attacked in your own home by an intruder or an invited guest". It applies if you are not attacked but otherwise meet the requirements of the totally incoherent legislation in question.

Actually you can "stand your ground" in Florida, if you are in a place where you can legally be and face the threat of death or severe bodily injury from an assailant. Therefore, you have no "duty to retreat" even on the street.

In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/florida-self-defense-law.htm

You suggest that the law could be misused to kill a person who wasn't attacking you. Certainly this is possible. The police would investigate the situation and if there is any doubt that your actions were not appropriate you would face action by the Florida legal system.

You state that the law is "totally incoherent". Most laws are difficult to understand and open to interpretation. I feel that lawyers like to provide employment opportunities for other lawyers. A quote from one of the links I provided agrees with you on this point.

Florida’s law, like countless others from legislative sausage grinders, could have been better drafted. It unquestionably will be challenged in court, over and over again, by those who abhor even the concept of applied individual self-defense or by legal gadflies with nothing better to do with their time. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/florida-self-defense-law.htm

[iverglas]

32. good lord

The "castle doctrine" is law not legislation. It was signed into law by Jeb Bush in 2005.

I don't think I'll be discussing law with someone who speaks nonsense like that.

The mind boggles.

[iverglas]

33. but wtf

You suggest that the law could be misused to kill a person who wasn't attacking you.

I do no such thing.

Can you fucking READ???

Since the law DOES NOT REQUIRE that anyone be under attack in order to claim the protection of the "castle doctrine" legislation, it would not be "misusing" the law to claim its protection after killing someone who was not attacking one.


This is so cute:

Florida’s law, like countless others from legislative sausage grinders, could have been better drafted. It unquestionably will be challenged in court, over and over again, by those who abhor even the concept of applied individual self-defense or by legal gadflies with nothing better to do with their time.

and from such an absolutely charming source!!

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/flash_2.htm

Anybody who can't guess what they'll find at the website of the "CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM" ... well, let me just assure you, it isn't going to be promotion of liberal / progressive / d/Democratic ideas or candidates.

So I'd be interested in its noxious opinion about anything because ...?

Read and learn (including the links provided):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=125237

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=127275

[spin]

34. So I asked two people who ought to know...

Your statement:

Since the law DOES NOT REQUIRE that anyone be under attack in order to claim the protection of the "castle doctrine" legislation, it would not be "misusing" the law to claim its protection after killing someone who was not attacking one.

I questioned two people who happened to room with us in this rather large house. One is a active duty police officer and one is a dispatcher for the Sheriffs Dept. Now I recognize that these two people are not legal experts or attorneys, but they have some knowledge of the law and how it is interpreted in real life here in Florida. When asked about the castle doctrine they told me that:

(1) If a person breaks into this house, I have no requirement to flee. I can stand my ground and use deadly force.

(2) If I invite a person into the house and I decide to shoot him without cause, I'm in serious trouble.

(3) If however, a person that I invite into the house picks up a knife and attacks me than I can use deadly force to stop him.

In situation #2 I could claim that man attacked me, but a very thorough investigation would result and I would undoubtedly face an expensive legal battle. If I were to place a weapon in his hands and claim an attack, forensics would in all likelihood prove I was lying. I believe that I would be "misusing" the law if I were to attempt to claim self defense in a situation where I had just committed murder. The odds are that the legal system here in Florida would discover the truth, laugh at my attempt to use the "castle doctrine" as a defense and throw me in prison for a long time.



The links you provided were interesting and informative. I found the history of the castle doctrine as revealed in the Harvard Journal fascinating.

I could point out that while the Harvard Law School is an impressive source, the opinions expressed by their professors have little bearing on Florida law. The considered opinion of some judge from Kentucky is also interesting but irrelevant.

The judicial system in Florida could have overthrown the law. They didn't. In fact many more states are enacting laws similar to Florida.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html (Note: this link is balanced and you might find some of the information valuable in your current or future arguments.)

[iverglas]

35. enjoy yourself

Just don't go charging anybody for any of that legal opinion of yours. You'd be done for fraud.

You could always try reading the NYT article, of course:

The central innovation in the Florida law, said Anthony J. Sebok, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, is not its elimination of the duty to retreat, which has been eroding nationally through judicial decisions, but in expanding the right to shoot intruders who pose no threat to the occupant’s safety.

Perhaps you will get an idea of what I have been talking about.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. So we should take legal advise about Florida from the NYT?

[apocalypsehow]

37. Bizarre stuff one encounters down here, as always.

"You see, Sir, in your Universe what Fire_Medic_Dave posted would be considered a big, blinking red lights example of 'Hypothesis Contrary to Fact,' with a splash of 'non-sequitur' thrown in for good measure. All adding up to a plump, swollen, ripe doozy of a logical fallacy."



"But in our Universe - down here in the Gun Forums - we simply call it 'fascinating'."

Monday morning the memo goes out: "friends, neighbors, and colleagues, lend me your double-blinds, and tell me just who among you are currently conducting trial studies on the internet regarding how many posted absurdities and logical fallacies one human mind can encounter in a 24-hr period without laughing itself to death?"

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

41. speaking of "dilusion"s

Hmm.

[apocalypsehow]

47. I was out of the building for #40. Why do I always seem to miss all the fun?

x(

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. A little reading class for those who have trouble.

It is impossible to make a hypothesis by asking a question. I know you are really fond of fallacies though.

David

[iverglas]

45. so sticking a question mark at the end of a statement makes it a question?

Guess the answer to that one.

[apocalypsehow]

46. Oh, will ya take a look at this? Pretend logic from our resident "Fire Medic."

Let's do a little intellectual EMT real quick:

"So we should take legal advise (Sic) about Florida from the NYT?" - Fire_Medic_Dave

Here's the definition of a "Hypothesis Contrary to Fact": "arguing from something that might have happened, but didn't."

No one suggested you or anyone else "take legal advise (Sic)" regarding any legal matter from the New York Times. That was, however, the very hypothesis you advanced with your faux "question."

Things are just so much easier when someone has the slightest scrap of knowledge about things they post about before they post about them, you know?


Edited in a little spelling advisory for our respondent.

[spin]

38. I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on TV...

Any advise I give on any subject is free. You get what you pay for.

I'm glad you read the NY times link. As I pointed out it was balanced and would provide you ammunition for further discussion.

Almost all professional and most amateur criminals have little problem figuring out if a residence is unoccupied. Therefore, if a person breaks into my house while I'm there, I can assume he is a threat. If he merely wanted to steal my possessions, he could wait until the house was unoccupied.

I can also assume that since I live in Florida, the person breaking in knows there's an excellent chance that I'm armed. He has probably made plans on how to deal with an encounter with an armed homeowner. Those plans may or may not include running for his life.

So if something goes bump in the night and wakes me up, I normally open the same gun safe in the drawer of the table by my bed, drop a loaded .38 snub into my pants pocket, grab my surefire flash lite and a small canister of Sabre Red OC spray and go investigate. (Yes, I do wear a pair of cargo shorts when I sleep.)

Most often the noise that woke me up was caused by one of our dogs tipping something over, or one of the grandchildren or their friends dropping something on the floor. Sometimes I find no reason and suspect the good natured ghost that lives with us in this old house of pulling one of his little pranks.

Several times I have encounter a stranger. The cop who rooms with us works the graveyard shift and sometimes stops by and brings in one of his EMT friends or an acquaintance. It's fairly easy to determine that the stranger presents no threat. Since the gun and the spray are in my pants pocket out of sight, I don't scare the hell out of them.

If the intruder is a bad guy who turns aggressive and the shit hits the fan, I plan to, at the minimum, make enough noise to wake up the other adults in the upstairs bedrooms. Things will go downhill rapidly for the intruder even if he gets past me. The other adult occupants of this house will come downstairs with enough firepower to take on a small group of militant Taliban. The grandchildren are trained to stay in their bedrooms.

All the adults in this house are familiar and competent with the weapons they own. Some have had professional training in the military and police forces.

So I like the new law. I face fewer legal hassles if I make a good decision to use deadly force.

No, I don't plan to blow away some teenager with a TV in his hands, nor would I shoot an intruder running for the door to escape.

As Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said:

“If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

While you make some good and well reasoned arguments against the "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws in Florida, like most other laws that empower citizens and enable self defense...the new laws have proved effective. Many other states are following Florida's lead and enacting similar legislation. None of those states has suddenly resembled the Old West or had numerous "shootouts at the O.K. corral" as the liberal media predicted.

I've previously said several times in the discussions on DU that we need to address the root causes of violence in our society. If we solve or reduce the poverty level, improve education, reduce racism and provide meaningful well paying employment, we could reduce the demand for guns. Draconian gun laws are a simple solution to the violence problem. Unfortunately, they are ineffective. Criminals, like extreme liberals, favor laws that take guns from the hands of honest law abiding people. Criminals fear armed homeowners or armed citizens far more than they fear police. Extreme liberals merely fear guns regardless of whose hands they're in.

We need to elect politicians who work together to solve problems, not merely use them as wedge issues to win elections. As citizens we can do this. I feel the Democratic Party is more interested in supporting the People rather than the Big Corporations. That's why I'm a registered Democrat.

I hope the Democratic Party will adopt a reasonable approach in gun laws. I fear that if they don't, they will continue to loose close elections. We have seen the result of this over the last several decades.

[iverglas]

39. and now Wayne LaPierre!

I bow in admiration of your sources.

“If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side".

And once again ... if I were talking about someone who was being attacked, I might give a crap what Wayne LaPierre had to say about someone who was being attacked. Unlikely, but you never know.


While you make some good and well reasoned arguments against the "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws in Florida, like most other laws that empower citizens and enable self defense...the new laws have proved effective.

Fascinating. No idea what you might base that conclusion on, but whatever, eh?


I hope the Democratic Party will adopt a reasonable approach in gun laws.

The present little discussion has nothing to do with "gun laws". Oh well.


Extreme liberals merely fear guns regardless of whose hands they're in.

On really can't think of what to say to that. I mean, one can, but why would one bother?


Criminals, like extreme liberals, favor laws that take guns from the hands of honest law abiding people.

Well, whatever these "extreme liberals" might be, they're obviously one dumb bunch of dodos!

Sure glad I'm a democratic socialist.

[spin]

42. May I point out that the NRA endorses Democrats...

on occasion.

For example they endorsed Governor Bill Richardson: It's a shame he didn't do better in the primary.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Gun_Control.htm

Some interesting info about pro-gun Democrats at this site: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/17/democrats_recast_gun_control_image/

Candidates opposing gun control ''are depicted by some in our party as a bunch of yahoos, and we're not," said Paul Hackett, a Democratic Senate candidate from Ohio and a member of the National Rifle Association. ''We are just good Democrats who are pro-gun.

''As a party, our lack of understanding of gun sports is hurting us," said Hackett, a former Marine who owns about 20 guns.

Democrats' ability to attract rural voters in the West is a key to their hopes in 2006. In Montana, where Democrats hope to pick up a US Senate seat next year, candidates must be pro-gun to have a chance at winning, said the state's Democratic governor, Brian Schweitzer, an avid hunter who has ''more guns than I need but not as many as I want."

''I guess I kind of believe in gun control: You control your gun, and I'll control mine," Schweitzer said.

I'm glad that you are glad that you are a democratic socialist. Your politics are probably quite popular in Canada.

I'm glad that I am a pro-gun Democrat. Pro-gun Democrats comprise a sector of the Democratic Party that seems to be growing in popularity.

[iverglas]

43. can you direct me

to where the conversation you're taking part in is happening?

I might want to join in, you never know.

[spin]

17. We are all a product of our own experiences and upbringing...

After reading your story, I am surprised that you are not totally against firearms. I believe that I would hold an anti-gun position had I experienced your childhood.

You have to understand that when you post on this board you will encounter people who will attack and challenge your views. Nothing you say will change their minds. They may insult you. They may question your background, knowledge or experience. (By the way this applies regardless of your orientation, pro or anti-gun). You could always post your views on a board that agrees with your opinions, but what would be the fun in that.

Remember that you can learn something from everyone you talk to (on the net or in real life). Those who oppose your views will make valid points. If you consider and weigh their viewpoints fairly, your knowledge and your understanding of the issue will grow.

Firearms and the right to own lethal weapons is a serious issue. It would be nice if we all lived in a nonviolent society where only those who were interested in target shooting, hunting, or collecting felt the need to own weapons. Unfortunately we live in a violent society where some people obtain weapons to make their criminal activities easier or safer.

Many people believe sincerely that guns should be outlawed or at a minimum severely restricted. Others believe that gun ownership should be totally unrestricted. In my case, I believe in a compromise. Honest responsible citizens who don't suffer from anger management problems, drug or alcohol addiction or serious mental problems should be allowed to own firearms. I also believe that gun owners should be required to pass a safety course and be familiar with all laws pertaining to the use of lethal force. They should also undergo a background check, be fingerprinted and provide a passport photo for use on a identity card. The requirements I suggest are similar to those required for a conceal weapons permit. The people who meet these requirements should also be allowed to carry concealed if they so choose.

I find your comments on self reliance interesting. I hadn't really considered it before, but maybe that is a defining issue between the pro-gun and anti-gun segments of our population. Pro-gunners are self reliant. Anti-gunners are more government reliant. Americans, as a whole, are self reliant.

As John Steinbeck once said "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".

So I hope you keep posting on DU. I look forward to reading your views.

[SteveM]

26. I missed that quote by Steinbeck. What is it from?

[spin]

27. Several sources on the net...

http://www.urcaptainspekin.com/FFDO.htm

http://www.gs2ac.com/WhyOwnAGun.html

http://www.marijuana.com/legal-issues/97352-should-students-carry-weapons-3.html

[SteveM]

30. Thanks, I though it might be in one of my "hard copies." (nt)

[iverglas]

50. I think Steinbeck did too

Loads o' "sources" on the net ... well, a good dozen ... not one of which actually qualifies for the title.

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22I+carry+a+gun+because+a+cop+is+too+heavy%22+steinbeck&btnG=Search&meta=


Edit to add the more common version:

http://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&q=steinbeck+gun+cop+heavy&btnG=Search&meta=


But wouldn't you really think *somebody* could have cited a source?