No more gun permits needed

[BobnBev]

Very scary new law. Gun permits are no longer required in Florida. There is still a waiting period to purchase a handgun if you don't have a CCW. Got to be a nightmare for Law Enforcement. Every person they stop is a potential shooter.

[Hardlyworking]

Criminals with guns don’t have permits. Who are you more worried about?

[Bogie Shooter]

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[Get real]

Every person they stop is a potential shooter.

and has been since there were guns.

[Get real]

Well, it is Florida....

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP. JgBIM5wZixqksaCeTfh58AHaFu%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=b432e72756cdd34834eac0c51b7b78cc1fd075907146e2 dbfc8f92a2d1244a04&ipo=images

[ThirdOfFive]

Well, it was inevitable that The-Sky-Is-Falling folks were going to be weighing in today. It is, after all, the first day of Armageddon. Bodies in the streets. The Childerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn in even more mortal danger than they were on June 30. October 26, 1881 Tombstone, AZ will be remembered as an idyllic oasis compared to what Florida in general, and The Villages in particular, will become.

Except that we've heard it all before.

What will happen?

Nothing.

[John Mayes]

Very scary new law. Gun permits are no longer required in Florida. There is still a waiting period to purchase a handgun if you don't have a CCW. Got to be a nightmare for Law Enforcement. Every person they stop is a potential shooter.

Perhaps you haven’t been outside of Florida in a while. There are 25 other constitutional carry states besides Florida.

[dewilson58]

Criminals with guns don’t have permits. Who are you more worried about?

:bigbow:

[D&BSmith]

Perhaps you haven’t been outside of Florida in a while. There are 25 other constitutional carry states besides Florida.

Almost half the Country.

Constitutional Carry States
Throughout the United States, each individual state legislature has their own select rule on constitutional carry and whether or not a permit is required to carry a handgun in public.

The states that allow permitless concealed carry for 21 year olds are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Some states make exceptions for those who are 18 years of age and in the military, allowing them to conceal carry without a permit, these states are: Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Other states allow permitless concealed carry for 18 year olds, these include: Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota (only for residents of the state however), South Dakota, and Vermont. Only one state allows concealed carry for 19 year olds, Missouri.

Both governors of Florida and Nebraska have recently signed a law that will also allow residents to conceal carry weapons without a permit.

List of states that allow for permitless concealed carry (PC), followed by age:

Alabama – PC 21 years old
Alaska – PC 21 years old
Arizona – PC 21 years old
Arkansas – PC 18 years old
Georgia – PC 21 years old or 18 for military
Idaho – PC 18 years old
Indiana – PC 18 years old
Iowa – PC 21 years old
Kansas – PC 21 years old
Kentucky – PC 21 years old
Maine – PC 21 years old
Mississippi – PC 18 years old
Missouri – PC 19 years old or 18 for military
Montana – PC 18 years old
New Hampshire – PC 18 years old
North Dakota – PC 18 years old for residents only
Ohio – PC 21 years old
Oklahoma – PC 21 years old or 18 for military
South Dakota – PC 18 years old
Tennessee – PC 21 years old or 18 for military
Texas – PC 21 years old
Utah – PC 21 years old
Vermont – PC 18 years old
West Virginia – PC 21 years old
Wyoming – PC 21 years old

[Maker]

One could move to Chicago or New York City or Detroit if highly restrictive gun control laws make you feel safer.

[mraines]

Very scary new law. Gun permits are no longer required in Florida. There is still a waiting period to purchase a handgun if you don't have a CCW. Got to be a nightmare for Law Enforcement. Every person they stop is a potential shooter.
This, combined with Florida's stand your ground law make Florida a dangerous place.

[n8xwb]

I believe your assumptions are false. " Every person they stop is a potential shooter..."

The July 1 concealed carry changes makes no difference. Every person they stop has always been a potential shooter! Do you think that criminals have chosen to not carry a weapon because they don't have a permit???? If you do, you are sadly mistaken!!!

[ThirdOfFive]

This, combined with Florida's stand your ground law make Florida a dangerous place.
In what way?

[Hardlyworking]

This, combined with Florida's stand your ground law make Florida a dangerous place.

If you can’t protect yourself, your family, your property, who is going to do that? The police? They aren’t there to protect you. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. The only people who are in danger Florida’s stand your ground law are criminals. I have zero sympathy or compassion for them.

[BobnBev]

Criminals with guns don’t have permits. Who are you more worried about?

I'm worried about all the old drunks in The Villages who can now carry guns. Can you think road rage?

[tophcfa]

Cool, I can now bring my sig down to Florida and put it in the bed stand drawer instead of a tomahawk. I feel safer already if someone breaks into the house in the middle of the night : )

[Kenswing]

Very scary new law. Gun permits are no longer required in Florida. There is still a waiting period to purchase a handgun if you don't have a CCW. Got to be a nightmare for Law Enforcement. Every person they stop is a potential shooter.

What part of the new law do you find "Very scary"? Police already view everyone as a potential shooter. It's part of their training.

[MrFlorida]

A criminal will carry a gun without hesitation, law abiding citizens should have the same right. Equal footing as far as I can see.

[dewilson58]

I'm worried about all the old drunks in The Villages who can now carry guns. Can you think road rage?

If "you" are drunk and carrying a gun, "you" have not been waiting for this change in law........drunk & carrying are not law abiding citizens.

[Michael G.]

Every person they stop is a potential shooter.

If you mean stopped for speeding, they stopped that years ago.

[Bogie Shooter]

If you can’t protect yourself, your family, your property, who is going to do that? The police? They aren’t there to protect you. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. The only people who are in danger Florida’s stand your ground law are criminals. I have zero sympathy or compassion for them.

A young mother and her son approach a neighbor to apologize for her kids encroaching on the neighbors property and she is shot dead. Shot fired thru a closed door……..defense stand your ground. Yep a criminal in danger………….
I have zero sympathy for the old lady with a gun!

[Michael G.]

Police already view everyone as a potential shooter. It's part of their training.

So is pulling speeders over part of their training.
They must have missed the memo.

[ithos]

Very scary new law. Gun permits are no longer required in Florida. There is still a waiting period to purchase a handgun if you don't have a CCW. Got to be a nightmare for Law Enforcement. Every person they stop is a potential shooter.

Why are people so obsessed with guns?

The key for safe communities is to have effective law and order. More gun control means the ratio of bad guys with guns over good citizens with guns goes up.

If you are afraid of guns then here is a tip. Don't live in any of these cities at the top of this list.
Highest murder rates in the U.S. - The most deadly cities (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/)

The key to lowering gun crime is to wipe out generational poverty caused by terrible government policies. No child should be deprived of a quality education in a safe neighborhood.

[Hardlyworking]

A young mother and her son approach a neighbor to apologize for her kids encroaching on the neighbors property and she is shot dead. Shot fired thru a closed door……..defense stand your ground. Yep a criminal in danger………….
I have zero sympathy for the old lady with a gun!

This does happen unfortunately. The inverse is far more likely to happen. I am armed and will do whatever I have to in order to protect me and my wife from personal injury or death.

[Hardlyworking]

Why are people so obsessed with guns?

The key for safe communities is to have effective law and order. More gun control means the ratio of bad guys with guns over good citizens with guns goes up.

If you are afraid of guns then here is a tip. Don't live in any of these cities at the top of this list.
Highest murder rates in the U.S. - The most deadly cities (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/)

The key to lowering gun crime is to wipe out generational poverty caused by terrible government policies. No child should be deprived of a quality education in a safe neighborhood.

The key to safe communities is to remove the revolving doors at the courthouse that let criminals back out on the street. We also need to elect district attorneys who will enforce the law and not be a puppet for the likes of George Soros.

Anyone who buys a gun and then skips the most important part, learning how and when to use that gun, is asking for a world of hurt.

[BobnBev]

What part of the new law do you find "Very scary"? Police already view everyone as a potential shooter. It's part of their training.

To answer your question, Gun permits are no longer required in Florida.

[dewilson58]

To answer your question, Gun permits are no longer required in Florida.

Continue.............& why is that scary??

[Bill14564]

This does happen unfortunately. The inverse is far more likely to happen. I am armed and will do whatever I have to in order to protect me and my wife from personal injury or death.

"unfortunately?" I suspect it is "unfortunate" right up until you are related to the person on the receiving end. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect you will find a different term to describe it then.

I have no problem with protecting oneself from personal injury or death but shooting through a closed door, shooting through the back window of a car, shooting at a young person because he is black, or shooting 30 rounds through a sliding door without seeing if anyone is on the other side is not protecting oneself. No, it doesn't happen often but again, if you or someone you care about is on the receiving end then I suspect it will feel like it happens too much.

[Bill14564]

Continue.............& why is that scary??

If they never prevented anyone from obtaining a permit then why were they seen as a problem in the first place?

If they *did* prevent some from obtaining a permit then it's scary that those people may now be carrying a weapon.

At the very minimum (and I think it was a minimum) there should have been training on the laws and responsibilities for carrying a weapon. Seeing some of the incidents around the country these days, ANY awareness training might save an innocent person's life.

[Hardlyworking]

"unfortunately?" I suspect it is "unfortunate" right up until you are related to the person on the receiving end. Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect you will find a different term to describe it then.

I have no problem with protecting oneself from personal injury or death but shooting through a closed door, shooting through the back window of a car, shooting at a young person because he is black, or shooting 30 rounds through a sliding door without seeing if anyone is on the other side is not protecting oneself. No, it doesn't happen often but again, if you or someone you care about is on the receiving end then I suspect it will feel like it happens too much.

All common sense observations. First rule. Know your target. Shooting through a door will not accomplish that. All the other scenarios are talked about during the classroom portion for obtaining a carry permit. I am all for gun safety training.

[dewilson58]

If they never prevented anyone from obtaining a permit then why were they seen as a problem in the first place?

If they *did* prevent some from obtaining a permit then it's scary that those people may now be carrying a weapon.

At the very minimum (and I think it was a minimum) there should have been training on the laws and responsibilities for carrying a weapon. Seeing some of the incidents around the country these days, ANY awareness training might save an innocent person's life.

1) They did prevent some.

2) those people would carry with or without a permit.

3) many, many states did not require training and those states have/had reciprocity with Florida.

I think you have been living with a false sense of security as to what a permit to carry was.

[Papa_lecki]

But, you need to undergo a Federal background check to legally BUY a gun.

[JoMar]

Almost half the Country.

Constitutional Carry States
Throughout the United States, each individual state legislature has their own select rule on constitutional carry and whether or not a permit is required to carry a handgun in public.

The states that allow permitless concealed carry for 21 year olds are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Some states make exceptions for those who are 18 years of age and in the military, allowing them to conceal carry without a permit, these states are: Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Other states allow permitless concealed carry for 18 year olds, these include: Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota (only for residents of the state however), South Dakota, and Vermont. Only one state allows concealed carry for 19 year olds, Missouri.

Both governors of Florida and Nebraska have recently signed a law that will also allow residents to conceal carry weapons without a permit.

List of states that allow for permitless concealed carry (PC), followed by age:

Alabama – PC 21 years old
Alaska – PC 21 years old
Arizona – PC 21 years old
Arkansas – PC 18 years old
Georgia – PC 21 years old or 18 for military
Idaho – PC 18 years old
Indiana – PC 18 years old
Iowa – PC 21 years old
Kansas – PC 21 years old
Kentucky – PC 21 years old
Maine – PC 21 years old
Mississippi – PC 18 years old
Missouri – PC 19 years old or 18 for military
Montana – PC 18 years old
New Hampshire – PC 18 years old
North Dakota – PC 18 years old for residents only
Ohio – PC 21 years old
Oklahoma – PC 21 years old or 18 for military
South Dakota – PC 18 years old
Tennessee – PC 21 years old or 18 for military
Texas – PC 21 years old
Utah – PC 21 years old
Vermont – PC 18 years old
West Virginia – PC 21 years old
Wyoming – PC 21 years old

Will be interesting to see how the reciprocity agreements in other states are changed or if they will still require a permit if you carry in their state.

[Number 10 GI]

If they never prevented anyone from obtaining a permit then why were they seen as a problem in the first place?

If they *did* prevent some from obtaining a permit then it's scary that those people may now be carrying a weapon.

At the very minimum (and I think it was a minimum) there should have been training on the laws and responsibilities for carrying a weapon. Seeing some of the incidents around the country these days, ANY awareness training might save an innocent person's life.

If an individual couldn't qualify for a carry permit, they can't legally carry under the new law. For "constitutional carry" you have to meet the same requirements for a carry permit.

[Number 10 GI]

A young mother and her son approach a neighbor to apologize for her kids encroaching on the neighbors property and she is shot dead. Shot fired thru a closed door……..defense stand your ground. Yep a criminal in danger………….
I have zero sympathy for the old lady with a gun!

I don't know what your understanding of the stand your ground law is, but it isn't what you think it is. It does not say you can shoot through a closed door at someone. That is why she is being charged.

[Hardlyworking]

Will be interesting to see how the reciprocity agreements in other states are changed or if they will still require a permit if you carry in their state.

Idaho, North Dakota and Wyoming are constitutional carry states but limit that right to full time residents.

[Kenswing]

If an individual couldn't qualify for a carry permit, they can't legally carry under the new law. For "constitutional carry" you have to meet the same requirements for a carry permit.

Except there is no longer a requirement to prove that you’re at least a little bit proficient in the safe handling and operation of a firearm.

[Bogie Shooter]

I don't know what your understanding of the stand your ground law is, but it isn't what you think it is. It does not say you can shoot through a closed door at someone. That is why she is being charged.

That’s her defense…..

[retiredguy123]

But, you need to undergo a Federal background check to legally BUY a gun.
That only applies if you purchase the gun from a licensed firearm dealer. If it is a private sale, no background check is required.

[Boomer]

If "you" are drunk and carrying a gun, "you" have not been waiting for this change in law........drunk & carrying are not law abiding citizens.

:1rotfl: Oh, but, I beg to differ — from experience — once having had to disarm a couple of friends who had too much to drink at a party at our house……..

They were off-duty cops. Most certainly law-abiding, and they were not mad at anybody — yet. Mr. Boomer did the disarming — in a charming, disarming way…..

No problem getting their guns — although they were a bit miffed when they sobered up, said they would never have used them — probably right, but not worth taking the chance.

Next morning, we gave them breakfast (no-hair-of-the dog though) — and gave them back their guns and their car keys. (Mr. Boomer had taken those, too.)

It was one helluva party. (a very long time ago) But, at least, we were responsible hosts, even in our much younger days, sort of.

Boomer

[Number 10 GI]

Except there is no longer a requirement to prove that you’re at least a little bit proficient in the safe handling and operation of a firearm.

True, but we don't require people to prove they will be proficient in raising children, no requirement to prove they are competent to vote, no requirement to prove they know to eat healthy foods and to maintain proper health.
Driving tests for a driver's license are a joke. In many areas if you can start the car and drive around the block using turn signals, you are good to go. You don't have to demonstrate how to react in an emergency situation. There are far, far more people driving motor vehicles than carry firearms.

[Number 10 GI]

That’s her defense…..

So? She could claim the Devil made her do it. That doesn't change the fact that the stand your ground law says her action was illegal.

[Bill14564]

1) They did prevent some.

2) those people would carry with or without a permit.

3) many, many states did not require training and those states have/had reciprocity with Florida.

I think you have been living with a false sense of security as to what a permit to carry was.

No, no sense of security. More of a sense that every little bit helps and this new law removes a little bit.

Not sure I agree with your #2. If those people went to the class to obtain the permit then they had not immediately disregarded the law. Now, perhaps when the permit was denied they chose to disregard the law but then again, perhaps not.

[Number 10 GI]

:1rotfl: Oh, but, I beg to differ — from experience — once having had to disarm a couple of friends who had too much to drink at a party at our house……..

They were off-duty cops. Most certainly law-abiding, and they were not mad at anybody — yet. Mr. Boomer did the disarming — in a charming, disarming way…..

No problem getting their guns — although they were a bit miffed when they sobered up, said they would never have used them — probably right, but not worth taking the chance.

Next morning, we gave them breakfast (no-hair-of-the dog though) — and gave them back their guns and their car keys. (Mr. Boomer had taken those, too.)

It was one helluva party. (a very long time ago) But, at least, we were responsible hosts, even in our much younger days, sort of.

Boomer

I don't see the relevance of this story.

[Bill14564]

If an individual couldn't qualify for a carry permit, they can't legally carry under the new law. For "constitutional carry" you have to meet the same requirements for a carry permit.

There are requirements to purchase a firearm and there were requirements for the carry permit. While very similar, the requirements were not the same. At the very least, as others have pointed out, there was a requirement to demonstrate proficiency in handling the firearm that no longer exists.

Then I go back to what I wrote earlier: If the carry permit did not add stop anyone then it was not a roadblock and there was no need to do away with it. If the carry permit *did* stop some then those individuals who were not eligible to carry firearms last year are suddenly able to carry today and that's scary.

[Bill14564]

True, but we don't require people to prove they will be proficient in raising children, no requirement to prove they are competent to vote, no requirement to prove they know to eat healthy foods and to maintain proper health.
Driving tests for a driver's license are a joke. In many areas if you can start the car and drive around the block using turn signals, you are good to go. You don't have to demonstrate how to react in an emergency situation. There are far, far more people driving motor vehicles than carry firearms.

Whataboutism is not a strong argument.

[Bill14564]

I don't know what your understanding of the stand your ground law is, but it isn't what you think it is. It does not say you can shoot through a closed door at someone. That is why she is being charged.

Unless you are shooting an AR-15 through a closed slider and closed blinds. (Note: every case is different and we don't have all the details of either case but on the face of it, things don't look as absolute as the statement above)

[dewilson58]

:1rotfl:

They were off-duty cops. Most certainly law-abiding, and they were not mad at anybody — yet.

Oh So Wrong.................If in Florida, and in most other states........it is against the law to be carrying and under the influence. They were not and are not law-abiding.

Florida law 790.151 prohibits carrying a firearm while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.

[dewilson58]

:1rotfl: They were off-duty cops. Most certainly law-abiding, and they were not mad at anybody — yet. Mr. Boomer did the disarming — in a charming, disarming way…..


Just read, it's a Federal Law that officers can not drink and carry their gun.
Have not found the HR reference, but it sounds like they are criminal dirt-bags, not law-abiding.

:oops:

[JoMar]

Idaho, North Dakota and Wyoming are constitutional carry states but limit that right to full time residents.

There are states that allow concealed carry if you you have a permit....and I believe the same applies here. If you are out of state and travel here I believe you will need to show your permit from the state that has a reciprocity agreement with FL. I will keep my CC permit since I do travel outside FL

[Hardlyworking]

There are states that allow concealed carry if you you have a permit....and I believe the same applies here. If you are out of state and travel here I believe you will need to show your permit from the state that has a reciprocity agreement with FL. I will keep my CC permit since I do travel outside FL

All 25 states except the 3 mentioned will allow concealed carry for anyone of age and is legally allowed to have a weapon. Look it up.

[Number 10 GI]

There are requirements to purchase a firearm and there were requirements for the carry permit. While very similar, the requirements were not the same. At the very least, as others have pointed out, there was a requirement to demonstrate proficiency in handling the firearm that no longer exists.

Then I go back to what I wrote earlier: If the carry permit did not add stop anyone then it was not a roadblock and there was no need to do away with it. If the carry permit *did* stop some then those individuals who were not eligible to carry firearms last year are suddenly able to carry today and that's scary.

The reason for eliminating the requirement for a carry permit is that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. Do you need a permit to vote which is a constitutional right? Do you need a permit to stand on the corner and express your opinion, that is a constitutional right.
If an individual was not eligible to carry a firearm last year, how are they legally allowed to do so now? In order to legally carry without a permit, you still have to meet the federal and state requirements to own a firearm. The same requirements for obtaining a concealed carry permit.
So what are the reasons a person was not eligible to carry a firearm last year that aren't there now?

[Number 10 GI]

Whataboutism is not a strong argument.

That what all your posts have been.

[Kenswing]

True, but we don't require people to prove they will be proficient in raising children, no requirement to prove they are competent to vote, no requirement to prove they know to eat healthy foods and to maintain proper health.
Driving tests for a driver's license are a joke. In many areas if you can start the car and drive around the block using turn signals, you are good to go. You don't have to demonstrate how to react in an emergency situation. There are far, far more people driving motor vehicles than carry firearms.Not sure why you felt you needed to lecture me with all that. I was just noting the difference in the requirements between having a CCW and the new law since you stated the requirements were both the same.

[Kelevision]

Well, my mother was able to get a gun. But don’t worry, it’s the kind that won’t kill anyone. ( her words) It’s a Glock and she’s never fired a gun in her life. It shouldn’t be that easy and the person shouldn’t believe there are guns that won’t kill.

[Byte1]

This, combined with Florida's stand your ground law make Florida a dangerous place.

.............for the bad guy/gal/it. :D

[Remembergoldenrule]

Very scary new law. Gun permits are no longer required in Florida. There is still a waiting period to purchase a handgun if you don't have a CCW. Got to be a nightmare for Law Enforcement. Every person they stop is a potential shooter.

They already assume this! The difference is when a bad person decides to use a gun then there are fewer good guys to stop them before police get there. Even in countries with no guns there are guns or bad guys resort to using machetes, cars, and chemical sprays. You don’t want protection your choice, but I want a chance to protect myself.

[Remembergoldenrule]

Criminals with guns don’t have permits. Who are you more worried about?

Perfect analysis!

[defrey12]

This, combined with Florida's stand your ground law make Florida a dangerous place.

You’re free to leave. Sorry about the pun, but no one’s holding a gun to your head to make you stay.

[defrey12]

This, combined with Florida's stand your ground law make Florida a dangerous place.

Personally, I like the fact that I can protect my family and my property…NO questions asked! As long as I’m smart about it…

[rsmurano]

Well, it was inevitable that The-Sky-Is-Falling folks were going to be weighing in today. It is, after all, the first day of Armageddon. Bodies in the streets. The Childerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn in even more mortal danger than they were on June 30. October 26, 1881 Tombstone, AZ will be remembered as an idyllic oasis compared to what Florida in general, and The Villages in particular, will become.

Except that we've heard it all before.

What will happen?

Nothing.

Agree! We should eventually have less crime because the robbers don’t know if you have a gun and they don’t want to be surprised. I suggest the OP move to Chicago where they have the strictest gun laws and we all know the shootings that go on there every day. Chicago isn’t the only city that’s bad, NYC, LA, SF and many others that have strict gun laws that protect the criminals and screw the law abiding citizen

[OETTING]

One could move to Chicago or New York City or Detroit if highly restrictive gun control laws make you feel safer.

These are the 20 states with the highest firearm homicide rates in the country along with their gun-friendliness scores:

Louisiana: 11.0 (3)
Mississippi: 10.2 (5)
Alabama: 9.5 (4)
Missouri: 8.5 (5)
Maryland: 7.4 (1)
South Carolina: 7.4 (3)
Tennessee: 6.7 (4)
Illinois: 6.5 (2)
Arkansas: 6.2 (3)
Georgia: 6.2 (4)
Alaska: 6.0 (5)
New Mexico: 5.7 (4)
Oklahoma: 5.7 (4)
Indiana: 5.3 (4)
Delaware: 5.1 (2)
North Carolina: 5.0 (4)
Nevada: 4.8 (3)
Ohio: 4.8 (4)
Kentucky: 4.7 (4)
Florida: 4.6 (4)

[jimkerr]

Very scary new law. Gun permits are no longer required in Florida. There is still a waiting period to purchase a handgun if you don't have a CCW. Got to be a nightmare for Law Enforcement. Every person they stop is a potential shooter.

What’s your point? Every stop had always been a potential shooter. This new law doesn’t change that.

Criminals don’t pay attention to laws. If guns were illegal to have only the criminals would have them.

[Dantes]

Citizens with guns is the reason for the 4 th of July

[dewilson58]

These are the 20 states with the highest firearm homicide rates in the country along with their gun-friendliness scores:


The point was, highly restrictive gun control does not reduce crime.........what's your point?? No one says gun-friendly reduces crime. :popcorn::popcorn:

[lpkruege1]

One could move to Chicago or New York City or Detroit if highly restrictive gun control laws make you feel safer.

But those cities let criminals run free, at least Florida locks them up. Milwaukee, WI is almost as bad with several shootings a night. You do need a permit to concealed carry. Felons and those under 21 are not allowed to carry a gun. It doesn't seem to stop them, after all criminals don't abide by laws. In Milwaukee, most gun crimes are dropped or pled down. I'd rather take my chances in Florida.

[Dantes]

Dangerous For criminals

[donfey]

This, combined with Florida's stand your ground law make Florida a dangerous place.

Bullspit. If you were a "career criminal" would you choose to "do business" in a State like Florida? Or, might you feel more at ease someplace with harsh gun laws, like Chicago, New York, St. Louis? Sorry, but the ONLY thing that will deter bad guys with guns is good guys with guns.

[ThirdOfFive]

Citizens with guns is the reason for the 4 th of July
Bulls-eye! (to coin a phrase...)

[Andyb]

Very scary new law. Gun permits are no longer required in Florida. There is still a waiting period to purchase a handgun if you don't have a CCW. Got to be a nightmare for Law Enforcement. Every person they stop is a potential shooter.
You still have a background check to purchase a gun, so not everyone can buy a gun. The “bad” guys already have guns. Most crimes are done with stolen weapons.

[ThirdOfFive]

Agree! We should eventually have less crime because the robbers don’t know if you have a gun and they don’t want to be surprised. I suggest the OP move to Chicago where they have the strictest gun laws and we all know the shootings that go on there every day. Chicago isn’t the only city that’s bad, NYC, LA, SF and many others that have strict gun laws that protect the criminals and screw the law abiding citizen
Yep.

Proof of that was some years back when permit-to-carry went into effect in Minnesota. Minnesota is super-restrictive in a lot of ways but surprisingly not when it comes to carrying firearms. You can open carry in that state if you have a permit and some did, though my personal opinion is that the ONLY person who needs to know if I am carrying or not is me.

Anyway, there were all the usual doleful predictions about what horrible things were going to be happening once permit-to-carry went into effect. The anti - 2nd. Amendment folks spared no effort in trying to convince other Minnesotans that the street departments of the various Minnesota cities were going to be sweeping up dead bodies on a routine basis every morning. Didn't happen, of course. But one thing that DID happen was that there were a lot of businesses that had signs prominently posted in their windows "Guns Not Allowed On These Premises". They came down right quick when it became apparent that those were the businesses being targeted by the criminals!

Bad guys don't like their victims shooting back.

[Andyb]

Statistically, the opposite is true.

[Bill14564]

The point was, highly restrictive gun control does not reduce crime.........what's your point?? No one says gun-friendly reduces crime. :popcorn::popcorn:

Maybe not "no one;" I counted at three posts with that assertion on the last two pages of this thread.

[Wondering]

Criminals with guns don’t have permits. Who are you more worried about?
Pathetic response! You a lobbyist for the NRA/Gun industry? There is no truth to what you have stated. Again, Pathetic!

[JRcorvette]

Very scary new law. Gun permits are no longer required in Florida. There is still a waiting period to purchase a handgun if you don't have a CCW. Got to be a nightmare for Law Enforcement. Every person they stop is a potential shooter.

Why is it so scary??? Do you really thing the Bad Guys out there have Carry Permits? People have been carrying guns without permits for a very long time. Nothing will change.

[JRcorvette]

“Ignorance is Bliss”

[Kenswing]

Pathetic response! You a lobbyist for the NRA/Gun industry? There is no truth to what you have stated. Again, Pathetic!

Overreact much? :1rotfl:

[ffresh]

True, but we don't require people to prove they will be proficient in raising children, no requirement to prove they are competent to vote, no requirement to prove they know to eat healthy foods and to maintain proper health.
Driving tests for a driver's license are a joke. In many areas if you can start the car and drive around the block using turn signals, you are good to go. You don't have to demonstrate how to react in an emergency situation. There are far, far more people driving motor vehicles than carry firearms.

The most important part of the equation, however, is that the Second Amendment enshrined in our Constitution attests to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You don't have to prove yourself or hit a target at so many yards to exercise a Constitutional right - although proficiency with your chosen weapon makes a LOT of sense. One does not have to prove proficiency with the English language, for example, to exercise free speech, etc.

Fred

[Bill14564]

Why is it so scary??? Do you really thing the Bad Guys out there have Carry Permits? People have been carrying guns without permits for a very long time. Nothing will change.

I'm not worried about the Bad Guy who ignored the law anyway. The people I'm worried about are the ones who own guns but were denied carry permits, the ones who own guns but didn't apply for the permit because they believed they would be denied, and the ones who didn't own guns but will now because the new law paired with old rhetoric makes it fashionable to carry. Some number of those people may be carrying now.

The Bad Guy with the gun has been there all my life. The Good Guy who is now carrying but doesn't have a clue how to react in a bad situation is what will worry me going forward.

[Larchap49]

I'm worried about all the old drunks in The Villages who can now carry guns. Can you think road rage?

Most of those old drunks are veterans and have permits and already carry guns.

[Larchap49]

Cool, I can now bring my sig down to Florida and put it in the bed stand drawer instead of a tomahawk. I feel safer already if someone breaks into the house in the middle of the night : )

News flash you've always been allowed to have it in your nightstand and or your car providing you don't have a criminal record. Now you can put it in a holster in your waistband.

[Larchap49]

A young mother and her son approach a neighbor to apologize for her kids encroaching on the neighbors property and she is shot dead. Shot fired thru a closed door……..defense stand your ground. Yep a criminal in danger………….
I have zero sympathy for the old lady with a gun!?

What does a shot fired thru a closed door have to do with a concealed carry discussion?

[Larchap49]

To answer your question, Gun permits are no longer required in Florida.

And never were for criminals

[MrFlorida]

Will be interesting to see how the reciprocity agreements in other states are changed or if they will still require a permit if you carry in their state.

Read the law ! You still will need your CCW for travel in other states.... and Florida will still issue CCW's for this purpose.

[coconutmama]

I'm not worried about the Bad Guy who ignored the law anyway. The people I'm worried about are the ones who own guns but were denied carry permits, the ones who own guns but didn't apply for the permit because they believed they would be denied, and the ones who didn't own guns but will now because the new law paired with old rhetoric makes it fashionable to carry. Some number of those people may be carrying now.

The Bad Guy with the gun has been there all my life. The Good Guy who is now carrying but doesn't have a clue how to react in a bad situation is what will worry me going forward.

Amen to that.

One can abide by the 2nd amendment but still should have to take a course, and hopefully have no criminal or mental health issues. We are supposed to have a license to drive a car but don’t need one for a gun? Does a license stop all bad drivers? Of course not. But it has to help.

Additionally, look at all the anger, fear & hate in society now. People being shot because they turn in a driveway or came to a door. It isn’t the bad guy I will encounter on a daily basis, it is the uneducated fearful good citizen.

Then there is the gun with no safety lock that gets found in grandma’s nightstand when the grandkids visit…

[MrFlorida]

Hopefully this law will make criminals think twice before commiting a crime .

[ElDiabloJoe]

Very scary new law. Gun permits are no longer required in Florida. There is still a waiting period to purchase a handgun if you don't have a CCW. Got to be a nightmare for Law Enforcement. Every person they stop is a potential shooter.

Not scary at all, it is a guaranteed Constitutional Amendment. In fact, such an important one they made it the 2nd one. Do you think we should have permits applied for, judged, then issued for you to say what you want or go to the church you wish? Then why should you do so for having the ability to protect yourself from harm?

[airstreamingypsy]

A young mother and her son approach a neighbor to apologize for her kids encroaching on the neighbors property and she is shot dead. Shot fired thru a closed door……..defense stand your ground. Yep a criminal in danger………….
I have zero sympathy for the old lady with a gun!

Actually, the nasty old white lady had just thrown something, and it hit, the black kid, and that's why the mother was at the door with her child. Crazy white woman shot and killed the mother, through the locked door. When police talked to her she immediately claimed she was standing her ground. People in Florida seem to think it's safe to murder others and claim stand your ground. I suspect that started when Zimmerman got away with murdering Trayvon Martin.

I too have zero sympathy for the old woman, I hope she gets a life sentence.

[Susan1717]

Lol that is funny!!! Yes Least safe feeling in chicago or NY!! I will not walk one single block now when I visit back up north.

[Haggar]

Not scary at all, it is a guaranteed Constitutional Amendment. In fact, such an important one they made it the 2nd one. Do you think we should have permits applied for, judged, then issued for you to say what you want or go to the church you wish? Then why should you do so for having the ability to protect yourself from harm?

I'm missing something. The 2nd amendment has been quoted as allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon. Did the requirement to get a permit prohibit anyone to carry a weapon? The new law eliminates the paperwork. In what cases were permits denied?
Mentally impaired? People with prior violent criminal records? Wasn't that a good thing? Is the gun you are allowed to carry now one you own or can you legally carry a friend's/relative's weapon? I would think that permitting was a reasonable way to prohibit non criminals who were dangerous to either themselves or others to not be allowed to carry a weapon. Where is my logic wrong?

[retiredguy123]

I'm missing something. The 2nd amendment has been quoted as allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon. Did the requirement to get a permit prohibit anyone to carry a weapon? The new law eliminates the paperwork. In what cases were permits denied?
Mentally impaired? People with prior violent criminal records? Wasn't that a good thing? Is the gun you are allowed to carry now one you own or can you legally carry a friend's/relative's weapon? I would think that permitting was a reasonable way to prohibit non criminals who were dangerous to either themselves or others to not be allowed to carry a weapon. Where is my logic wrong?
To clarify, the concealed carry permit is issued to a person and it allows that person to carry a concealed firearm. It has nothing to do with a specific weapon. Neither Florida nor the Federal Government maintain a register of firearm ownership.

[scooterstang]

The only Scary part is for the ******* that he or she is going to steal from me or harm my family!! By the way I have carried the last 10 years.

[Sandy and Ed]

Well, it was inevitable that The-Sky-Is-Falling folks were going to be weighing in today. It is, after all, the first day of Armageddon. Bodies in the streets. The Childerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrn in even more mortal danger than they were on June 30. October 26, 1881 Tombstone, AZ will be remembered as an idyllic oasis compared to what Florida in general, and The Villages in particular, will become.

Except that we've heard it all before.

What will happen?

Nothing.
Guess there will be a lot of folks from those 2d amendment hating northern states that will be moving back home??? (Wishful thinking?)

[Boomer]

:1rotfl: Oh, but, I beg to differ — from experience — once having had to disarm a couple of friends who had too much to drink at a party at our house……..

They were off-duty cops. Most certainly law-abiding, and they were not mad at anybody — yet. Mr. Boomer did the disarming — in a charming, disarming way…..

No problem getting their guns — although they were a bit miffed when they sobered up, said they would never have used them — probably right, but not worth taking the chance.

Next morning, we gave them breakfast (no-hair-of-the dog though) — and gave them back their guns and their car keys. (Mr. Boomer had taken those, too.)

It was one helluva party. (a very long time ago) But, at least, we were responsible hosts, even in our much younger days, sort of.

Boomer



Oh So Wrong.................If in Florida, and in most other states........it is against the law to be carrying and under the influence. They were not and are not law-abiding.

Florida law 790.151 prohibits carrying a firearm while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.

Just read, it's a Federal Law that officers can not drink and carry their gun.
Have not found the HR reference, but it sounds like they are criminal dirt-bags, not law-abiding.

:oops:



Geez. What have we here, this morning?

All I did was tell a little story from the 1970s. And now those cops (who are still carrying, and living in a retirement community in the South) are being called dirt-bags. Even had chapter and verse Fed law looked up to quote at me….wow

It was the 1970s. It was a little story. But, hey, it looks like it even turned out to have a point……

Ya know — like now — in this weird world of 2023 — hosting a big party could mean assuming that anybody and everybody could be armed…..

But, we all know that nobody ever drinks too much.

And nobody ever over-reacts on the subject of guns.

I don’t care if responsible people carry……

What I do care about is the potential for angry guys to take something totally out of context and react in a hair-trigger way.

I was not going to engage in this one. But I just had to defend my little story. (sigh) This is a microcosm of what is happening to us……The art of conversation can no longer be taken for granted. We now often have to approach even in-person discussions like walking on eggs — or like a minefield. Too many people are too easy to set off.

Boomer

I really need to stop looking at these threads.

[maistocars]

Yikes! What channel are you seeing this scary stuff? Maybe you meant constitutional carry with no permit versus the first step, which is a gun permit that has all the requirements one would ever need to give you that warm and cozy?

[Heytubes]

As a former LEO, whenever I approached a vehicle for even a minor infraction, I always had my hand on my gun. At night, I had it un-hosted and low on my side so the citizen couldn’t see it. Lost several friends who were murdered or wounded by lack of caution. I’m 100% in favor of gun control by using both hands in a stressful encounter.

[Indydealmaker]

This, combined with Florida's stand your ground law make Florida a dangerous place.

Apparently, you did not read the entire thread before you posted.

[bimmertl]

Florida is a really scary place when you add in to the equation, the termite infestation plague, lightning strikes burning down houses, golf cart wrecks, and food poisoning at Culvers .


YIKES!

[Bogie Shooter]

Looking forward to the open carry law passage discussion.

[rjm1cc]

The basic question is how should law abiding people be able to protect themselves in their home , going to work, shopping, etc. My assumption is that some of us do not follow the rules and the law abiding citizen is at an increase risk do to that.

[dewilson58]

Florida is a really scary place when you add in to the equation, the termite infestation plague, lightning strikes burning down houses, golf cart wrecks, and food poisoning at Culvers .

YIKES!

Forgot dog poop.

[ThirdOfFive]

Amen to that.

One can abide by the 2nd amendment but still should have to take a course, and hopefully have no criminal or mental health issues. We are supposed to have a license to drive a car but don’t need one for a gun? Does a license stop all bad drivers? Of course not. But it has to help.

Additionally, look at all the anger, fear & hate in society now. People being shot because they turn in a driveway or came to a door. It isn’t the bad guy I will encounter on a daily basis, it is the uneducated fearful good citizen.

Then there is the gun with no safety lock that gets found in grandma’s nightstand when the grandkids visit…
Apples and oranges. Driving a car is a privilege.

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally-guaranteed right.

[sloanst]

Very scary new law. Gun permits are no longer required in Florida. There is still a waiting period to purchase a handgun if you don't have a CCW. Got to be a nightmare for Law Enforcement. Every person they stop is a potential shooter.

When in comes to possession and carrying a gun, the criminals never cared about the law. Laws restrict the law-abiding only. Criminals don't have a waiting period because they either steal a weapon or buy one on the black market. I have never understood that some people think that more freedom for law-abiding citizens results in more danger for the public. Actually, it results in more safety for law-abiding people because the criminals are much more afraid of confronting an armed person. That's a good thing.

[Battlebasset]

These are the 20 states with the highest firearm homicide rates in the country along with their gun-friendliness scores:

Louisiana: 11.0 (3)
Mississippi: 10.2 (5)
Alabama: 9.5 (4)
Missouri: 8.5 (5)
Maryland: 7.4 (1)
South Carolina: 7.4 (3)
Tennessee: 6.7 (4)
Illinois: 6.5 (2)
Arkansas: 6.2 (3)
Georgia: 6.2 (4)
Alaska: 6.0 (5)
New Mexico: 5.7 (4)
Oklahoma: 5.7 (4)
Indiana: 5.3 (4)
Delaware: 5.1 (2)
North Carolina: 5.0 (4)
Nevada: 4.8 (3)
Ohio: 4.8 (4)
Kentucky: 4.7 (4)
Florida: 4.6 (4)

We don't live in "Florida". We live in a place called "The Villages, Florida".

It is a lazy analysis to take a large diverse piece of land with invented borders and try to prove such a point as this. The Villages is quite safe. Jacksonville? Miami Gardens? Not so much. Peoria, IL? Lots of gun violence. Naperville, IL? Not so much.

Gun violence has much more to do with the people in the community and their respect for the law and law enforcement than anything else.

[AJ32162]

Amen to that.

One can abide by the 2nd amendment but still should have to take a course, and hopefully have no criminal or mental health issues. We are supposed to have a license to drive a car but don’t need one for a gun? Does a license stop all bad drivers? Of course not. But it has to help.

Additionally, look at all the anger, fear & hate in society now. People being shot because they turn in a driveway or came to a door. It isn’t the bad guy I will encounter on a daily basis, it is the uneducated fearful good citizen.

Then there is the gun with no safety lock that gets found in grandma’s nightstand when the grandkids visit…

You are much more likely to be killed or injured by a licensed inattentive or drunk driver than you are an unlicensed law abiding citizen legally carrying a concealed weapon. Maybe that's what you should be worried about?

[juddfl]

The new law allows anyone who can legally own a gun in Florida to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. If you pass the requirements to own, it just allows you to be able to take your legal firearm outside your home. You've already been approved to own the gun.

[Number 10 GI]

I'm not worried about the Bad Guy who ignored the law anyway. The people I'm worried about are the ones who own guns but were denied carry permits, the ones who own guns but didn't apply for the permit because they believed they would be denied, and the ones who didn't own guns but will now because the new law paired with old rhetoric makes it fashionable to carry. Some number of those people may be carrying now.

The Bad Guy with the gun has been there all my life. The Good Guy who is now carrying but doesn't have a clue how to react in a bad situation is what will worry me going forward.

If a person was denied a carry permit, they cannot legally own or possess a firearm. A person has to meet the same criteria for the permit that is required to purchase or own a gun. If they were denied a permit and possess a gun they are committing a felony. Just because a permit is not needed now, that doesn't mean a prohibited person can legally carry without a permit. What is so hard to understand about that?

If a person believes they will be denied a permit and possess a gun they also might be committing a felony. Should a person who thinks they might be denied a carry permit and is investigated by law enforcement and it is proven they cannot own a firearm, they will be prosecuted.

[BobnBev]

To clarify, the concealed carry permit is issued to a person and it allows that person to carry a concealed firearm. It has nothing to do with a specific weapon. Neither Florida nor the Federal Government maintain a register of firearm ownership.

That you know of.

[Bill14564]

If a person was denied a carry permit, they cannot legally own or possess a firearm. A person has to meet the same criteria for the permit that is required to purchase or own a gun. If they were denied a permit and possess a gun they are committing a felony. Just because a permit is not needed now, that doesn't mean a prohibited person can legally carry without a permit. What is so hard to understand about that?

If a person believes they will be denied a permit and possess a gun they also might be committing a felony. Should a person who thinks they might be denied a carry permit and is investigated by law enforcement and it is proven they cannot own a firearm, they will be prosecuted.

If that was the case then there would have been little to no need for the permit application. The process could have been to acquire the weapon and then rubber stamp the permit. But that wasn’t the process.

The requirements for each were slightly different according to what can be found online. Perhaps in practice they were the same but online they have slight differences.

A prohibited person cannot legally purchase a weapon. A person who legally possessed was not automatically granted a carry permit two days ago, all that changed yesterday. Not sure why you cannot understand that.

Another way to look at it… If there was nothing additional required to qualify for a permit then why not issue the permit with the weapon today? Reciprocity with other states requires a permit. Not requiring a permit in FL puts citizens at risk of forgetting when they travel out of state. Why do that? Why not just issue the permit automatically? If there is a reason to NOT do that then there is some significant difference, at least to the state of FL.

[cjrjck]

As a retired LEO, I can tell you that an officer approaches every situation assuming the person they are confronting is armed. The new law doesn't change anything. Those that want to do harm are no less or more likely to do so now. A permit meant nothing to them.

[dewilson58]

As a retire LEO, I can tell you that an officer approaches every situation assuming the person they are confronting is armed. The new law doesn't change anything. Those that want to do harm are no less or more likely to do so now. A permit meant nothing to them.

Thank you for your service.

[dewilson58]

As a former LEO, whenever I approached a vehicle for even a minor infraction, I always had my hand on my gun. At night, I had it un-hosted and low on my side so the citizen couldn’t see it. Lost several friends who were murdered or wounded by lack of caution. I’m 100% in favor of gun control by using both hands in a stressful encounter.

Thank you for your service.

[Papa_lecki]

How’s that gun control working out in Maryland???

during a block party in Baltimore last night (7/1) someone opened fire killing 2 and injuring 28 including children. The shooting happened in the Brooklyn homes neighborhood.

Just 2 months ago Maryland passed some of the strictest gun laws in the nation into law. Under the new laws it makes it almost impossible to legally carry a concealed handgun anywhere in the state.

Apparently, people who are willing to shoot 30 people, don’t care about the new law.

[Number 10 GI]

If that was the case then there would have been little to no need for the permit application. The process could have been to acquire the weapon and then rubber stamp the permit. But that wasn’t the process.

The requirements for each were slightly different according to what can be found online. Perhaps in practice they were the same but online they have slight differences.

A prohibited person cannot legally purchase a weapon. A person who legally possessed was not automatically granted a carry permit two days ago, all that changed yesterday. Not sure why you cannot understand that.

Another way to look at it… If there was nothing additional required to qualify for a permit then why not issue the permit with the weapon today? Reciprocity with other states requires a permit. Not requiring a permit in FL puts citizens at risk of forgetting when they travel out of state. Why do that? Why not just issue the permit automatically? If there is a reason to NOT do that then there is some significant difference, at least to the state of FL.

Years back a person didn't need a permit to carry a weapon. Anti-gun elements, they've been around a long time, over time got the politicians to pass laws banning concealed or open carry. Eventually people got tired of the government ignoring the Constitution and they pushed the politicians to enact laws that allowed for concealed carry with a permit. This was the first step. It has taken some time but finally we are getting the government back to obeying the Constitutional rights for the individual to keep and bear arms without needing an unconstitutional permit to do so. That is why there were carry permits.
Remember the 2nd Amendment is a right just like free speech, and the other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. You are right, if a person can legally purchase, own and possess a firearm they should be able to keep and bear that gun without a permit.

[Paper1]

I agree with you. In Florida now if you are able to maintain a body temperature of around 98 degrees you can carry a concealed weapon. The thinking that anybody who is not a convicted felon is a good guy with a gun. Most felons haven't been convicted yet, if you understand my meaning. They are now good guys with a legally carried firearm. The Sheriffs association gave this law their full throated endorsement.

[Fltpkr]

Criminals with guns don’t have permits. Who are you more worried about?

Here in The Villages? Who am I most worried about?? Probably an intoxicated, angry and frustrated Villager who is on an emotional edge.

[xcaligirl]

Very scary new law. Gun permits are no longer required in Florida. There is still a waiting period to purchase a handgun if you don't have a CCW. Got to be a nightmare for Law Enforcement. Every person they stop is a potential shooter.
A background check is still required to purchase a firearm. However, if you're a criminal, they just steal guns!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

How’s that gun control working out in Maryland???

during a block party in Baltimore last night (7/1) someone opened fire killing 2 and injuring 28 including children. The shooting happened in the Brooklyn homes neighborhood.

Just 2 months ago Maryland passed some of the strictest gun laws in the nation into law. Under the new laws it makes it almost impossible to legally carry a concealed handgun anywhere in the state.

Apparently, people who are willing to shoot 30 people, don’t care about the new law.

But they will see much more severe consequences for breaking it now. They're more likely to spend more time in jail, because now more charges can be laid against them.

[billethkid]

Another view is the "new" law documents what people have been doing all along!!!


_________________________________________________

:censored:

[retiredguy123]

If that was the case then there would have been little to no need for the permit application. The process could have been to acquire the weapon and then rubber stamp the permit. But that wasn’t the process.

The requirements for each were slightly different according to what can be found online. Perhaps in practice they were the same but online they have slight differences.

A prohibited person cannot legally purchase a weapon. A person who legally possessed was not automatically granted a carry permit two days ago, all that changed yesterday. Not sure why you cannot understand that.

Another way to look at it… If there was nothing additional required to qualify for a permit then why not issue the permit with the weapon today? Reciprocity with other states requires a permit. Not requiring a permit in FL puts citizens at risk of forgetting when they travel out of state. Why do that? Why not just issue the permit automatically? If there is a reason to NOT do that then there is some significant difference, at least to the state of FL.
If Florida had no requirements to get a concealed carry permit, it would make sense for other states to revoke their reciprocity arrangement with Florida. Personally, I don't think Florida should be issuing permits if you are not required to have one in Florida, especially if there were no screening of applicants.

[Hardlyworking]

Here in The Villages? Who am I most worried about?? Probably an intoxicated, angry and frustrated Villager who is on an emotional edge.

Better hide in your walk-in closet.

[Cybersprings]

Geez. What have we here, this morning?

All I did was tell a little story from the 1970s. And now those cops (who are still carrying, and living in a retirement community in the South) are being called dirt-bags. Even had chapter and verse Fed law looked up to quote at me….wow

It was the 1970s. It was a little story. But, hey, it looks like it even turned out to have a point……

Ya know — like now — in this weird world of 2023 — hosting a big party could mean assuming that anybody and everybody could be armed…..

But, we all know that nobody ever drinks too much.

And nobody ever over-reacts on the subject of guns.

I don’t care if responsible people carry……

What I do care about is the potential for angry guys to take something totally out of context and react in a hair-trigger way.

I was not going to engage in this one. But I just had to defend my little story. (sigh) This is a microcosm of what is happening to us……The art of conversation can no longer be taken for granted. We now often have to approach even in-person discussions like walking on eggs — or like a minefield. Too many people are too easy to set off.

Boomer

I really need to stop looking at these threads.

Pointing out the innaccuracies in someone's post (and using chapter and verse to do so) does not equate to "set off" or overreacting. I agree with your comment that "The art of conversation can no longer be taken for granted. " If someone is shown the error in their point, they often act like a victim of a violent crime.

[Two Bills]

Citizens with guns is the reason for the 4 th of July

The 4th. July is also the reason Americans drive on the wrong side of the road, and can't navigate roundabouts!:duck::throwtomatoes:

[OETTING]

The point was, highly restrictive gun control does not reduce crime.........what's your point?? No one says gun-friendly reduces crime. :popcorn::popcorn:
I didn’t mention crimes, other than homicide. The states with the highest death rates from guns are those states with the worst controls.

[OETTING]

We don't live in "Florida". We live in a place called "The Villages, Florida".

It is a lazy analysis to take a large diverse piece of land with invented borders and try to prove such a point as this. The Villages is quite safe. Jacksonville? Miami Gardens? Not so much. Peoria, IL? Lots of gun violence. Naperville, IL? Not so much.

Gun violence has much more to do with the people in the community and their respect for the law and law enforcement than anything else.
Nice deflection, but we do live in Florida. If you think TV is bulletproof, better not go out of the bubble!

[ThirdOfFive]

The 4th. July is also the reason Americans drive on the wrong side of the road, and can't navigate roundabouts!:duck::throwtomatoes:
Well, yeah...but at least we can spell words without all those extra "u"s.:D

[Pballer]

For those of you that have a problem with the 2nd amendment, maybe you should move to Japan, Australia, England or Western Europe where guns are restricted and gun violence is rare. Otherwise deal with it. When everyone has unrestricted access to guns, everyone is safer. We need good guys with guns to protect us from the bad guys with guns.

[Cybersprings]

The 4th. July is also the reason Americans drive on the wrong side of the road, and can't navigate roundabouts!:duck::throwtomatoes:

And FINALLY I understand the reasoning behind your posts. Not sure what took me so long.

[Two Bills]

Well, yeah...but at least we can spell words without all those extra "u"s.:D

Withot a dobt!:p

[ThirdOfFive]

Withot a dobt!:p
Lol!!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

For those of you that have a problem with the 2nd amendment, maybe you should move to Japan, Australia, England or Western Europe where guns are restricted and gun violence is rare. Otherwise deal with it. When everyone has unrestricted access to guns, everyone is safer. We need good guys with guns to protect us from the bad guys with guns.

You mean like the sheriff's deputy at Parkland, that good guy with the gun, who protected the kids from the bad guy with the gun?

Or any of the people who have guns who were good people at the mass shooting in Baltimore recently? Those 30 people who were shot, might have a thought about the good guy with the gun protecting them from the bad guy with a gun.

That is SUCH a tired cliche, it isn't true, it makes no sense, and it's dangerous thinking. Good guys with guns can be ineffective. They can be there - and not use their guns. They can be there and wait until they've already failed to protect some people, and then use their guns. They can use their guns and miss. They can THINK they're shooting a bad guy with a gun, but actually they're shooting someone who didn't have any gun at all.

Good guys are not infallible. And in some cases - they can cause more harm than they can prevent.

When the problem is "people with guns," then giving more guns to more people is not the answer.

[Gpsma]

Been away since july 1st. Just wonder how much carnge and slaughter is going on in TV?

[margaretmattson]

One could move to Chicago or New York City or Detroit if highly restrictive gun control laws make you feel safer.
That pretty much says it all. If people want to get guns they will find them. If they want to kill someone they will. It's been going on in these cities for decades.

[mickey100]

For those of you that have a problem with the 2nd amendment, maybe you should move to Japan, Australia, England or Western Europe where guns are restricted and gun violence is rare. Otherwise deal with it. When everyone has unrestricted access to guns, everyone is safer. We need good guys with guns to protect us from the bad guys with guns.

And how is that working for us? Duh.

[Papa_lecki]

Or any of the people who have guns who were good people at the mass shooting in Baltimore recently? Those 30 people who were shot, might have a thought about the good guy with the gun protecting them from the bad guy with a gun.

It’s almost impossible to get a license to carry a gun in Maryland. The district in Baltimore, had 7 officers on duty, it should have had 20

Philadelphia (and Pittsburgh) are a special class of city in the commonwealth, regarding a license to carry. In the PAST TWO HOURS IN PHILLY

08:30pm - 8 people shot, 4 killed in active shooter incident

09:56pm- 3 people shot, 1 critical

10:06pm- 1 person shot

[shaw8700@outlook.com]

A few years ago, I had a nail technician tell me an interesting story. He was from Vietnam and he was telling me about some police officers harassing somebody. I asked why did the local village people allow that to happen? He replied “ there was nothing they could do. The police took all their guns years before.”

I think about that whenever someone tries to take guns away. Thankfully our forefathers were smart enough to put them in the Constitution.

[Byte1]

You mean like the sheriff's deputy at Parkland, that good guy with the gun, who protected the kids from the bad guy with the gun?

Or any of the people who have guns who were good people at the mass shooting in Baltimore recently? Those 30 people who were shot, might have a thought about the good guy with the gun protecting them from the bad guy with a gun.

That is SUCH a tired cliche, it isn't true, it makes no sense, and it's dangerous thinking. Good guys with guns can be ineffective. They can be there - and not use their guns. They can be there and wait until they've already failed to protect some people, and then use their guns. They can use their guns and miss. They can THINK they're shooting a bad guy with a gun, but actually they're shooting someone who didn't have any gun at all.

Good guys are not infallible. And in some cases - they can cause more harm than they can prevent.

When the problem is "people with guns," then giving more guns to more people is not the answer.

You might want to do a bit of research before making such definite statements.
From Heritage.org:
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets. "

[ThirdOfFive]

A few years ago, I had a nail technician tell me an interesting story. He was from Vietnam and he was telling me about some police officers harassing somebody. I asked why did the local village people allow that to happen? He replied “ there was nothing they could do. The police took all their guns years before.”

I think about that whenever someone tries to take guns away. Thankfully our forefathers were smart enough to put them in the Constitution.
PRECISELY the point.

Every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the citizens from the government. It is ridiculous to believe that only one, the 2nd, is not there for the exact same reason.

[Bill14564]

A few years ago, I had a nail technician tell me an interesting story. He was from Vietnam and he was telling me about some police officers harassing somebody. I asked why did the local village people allow that to happen? He replied “ there was nothing they could do. The police took all their guns years before.”

I think about that whenever someone tries to take guns away. Thankfully our forefathers were smart enough to put them in the Constitution.

PRECISELY the point.

Every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights is there to protect the citizens from the government. It is ridiculous to believe that only one, the 2nd, is not there for the exact same reason.

Do you honestly picture yourself pulling a gun on a police officer and having it work out well for you?

[Papa_lecki]

Do you honestly picture yourself pulling a gun on a police officer and having it work out well for you?

Probably not,
but 247 years ago, a number of people chose to pull a gun on the most powerful military the world had seen to that point, and overall, it worked out well.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

You might want to do a bit of research before making such definite statements.
From Heritage.org:
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, almost every major study on defensive gun use has found that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year. There’s good reason to believe that most defensive gun uses are never reported to law enforcement, much less picked up by local or national media outlets. "

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - from the actual CDC website, not a third-party interpretation of an internet news-site's interpretation: Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html)

What is defensive gun use? How often does it occur?
Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend oneself, family, other people, and/or property against crime or victimization.

Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to study design. Given the wide variability in estimates, additional research is necessary to understand defensive gun use prevalence, frequency, circumstances, and outcomes.

Also, I checked the source of your quote, and it had its own source for where it got its data. That source was NOT the CDC. It was an online TV station, and the link only brought me to the main webpage. I did do a search for CNCNews, and almost all of the results pulled up the notion that this is a hard-right (not extremist) conservative site dedicated to creating holes in less conservative media, in particular CNN (though not exclusively). Turns out the organization of which they are a member, are the ones who gave the award to Sean Hannity. So yeah - not reliable, or believable, and your "article" from Heritage.org is not only factually incorrect, it bases its opinion on sources that don't exist.

Thing is, even the "claimed" data (which I can't find on the actual CDC website) doesn't indicate how many of those defensive uses of guns resulted in a positive outcome, OR whether they were justified. Some kid pranking a neighbor by ringing the doorbell - well the owner might've just recently had a burglary and felt they were being threatened. That's defensive use - but not justified because the kid was just ringing the doorbell, nothing more or less. A defensive use that ends up missing. Defensive use that results in the defensive shooter shooting himself by mistake. Defensive use resulting in shooting a bystander, etc. etc. "Defensive shooting" means NOTHING when you don't include data about the outcome, the context of the claim "defensive," or anything else.

It also doesn't include data on everyone who had immediate access to a firearm to defend themselves, could have prevented crime, and chose not to use their firearm defensively.

Being armed doesn't automatically make you a defensive shooter. It just makes you another person with a gun.

[Trayderjoe]

You mean like the sheriff's deputy at Parkland, that good guy with the gun, who protected the kids from the bad guy with the gun?

Actually the fact that a trained professional did not enter the building to protect the kids (I am by no means saying he was right or wrong as I did not listen to the testimony and there is another thread discussing that issue) is PROOF that the ONLY person you can count on to protect you and your family is YOURSELF. Add in the average response time for a police officer to arrive in response to an emergency call, and a lot of harm can happen in that time frame if unchecked.

Or any of the people who have guns who were good people at the mass shooting in Baltimore recently? Those 30 people who were shot, might have a thought about the good guy with the gun protecting them from the bad guy with a gun. That is SUCH a tired cliche, it isn't true, it makes no sense, and it's dangerous thinking.

Here are just three examples that proves the statement above false:

Las Vegas Turnberry Towers Shooting (https://www.ktnv.com/news/it-was-heroic-turnberry-towers-security-guard-shot-man-who-fired-ar-15-rifle) (June 2023) Who here has honestly heard about this shooting prior to this post?

Indiana Mall Shooting (https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/19/us/eli-dicken-indiana-mall-shooting-bystander/index.html) July 2022

West Virginia Graduation Party Shooting (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/28/armed-woman-kills-man-firing-rifle-party/9975381002/') May 2022

I won't bother to list the many more examples of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun.

Good guys with guns can be ineffective. They can be there - and not use their guns. They can be there and wait until they've already failed to protect some people, and then use their guns. They can use their guns and miss. They can THINK they're shooting a bad guy with a gun, but actually they're shooting someone who didn't have any gun at all.

Good guys are not infallible. And in some cases - they can cause more harm than they can prevent.

True for a change. NO ONE knows how they will react in a shooting situation until it happens to them. You also don't know the circumstances until you are there. Do you use your gun to protect someone else if your family would be in danger? What if the shooter is holding a child and you did not fire because you were concerned that you would hit the child? Even trained patrol officers who practice regularly might not take that shot.

When the problem is "people with guns," then giving more guns to more people is not the answer.

How about enforcing laws and keeping the bad guys off the streets? How about doing something to help the people with mental illness and not let them roam the streets without help they need?

Owning and carrying a gun is a huge responsibility, and yes, there can be "bad" gun owners who don't take a training class or practice at the range, but then they take a chance that they don't end up in jail. Given that trained professionals don't always (for whatever reason) immediately intercede in a shooting situation, or they are willing to intercede but arrive on scene AFTER a shooting has already occurred it still falls on someone doing what they need to do to protect themselves and their families.

[Trayderjoe]

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention - from the actual CDC website, not a third-party interpretation of an internet news-site's interpretation: Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html)


Also, I checked the source of your quote, and it had its own source for where it got its data. That source was NOT the CDC. It was an online TV station, and the link only brought me to the main webpage. I did do a search for CNCNews, and almost all of the results pulled up the notion that this is a hard-right (not extremist) conservative site dedicated to creating holes in less conservative media, in particular CNN (though not exclusively). Turns out the organization of which they are a member, are the ones who gave the award to Sean Hannity. So yeah - not reliable, or believable, and your "article" from Heritage.org is not only factually incorrect, it bases its opinion on sources that don't exist.

Thing is, even the "claimed" data (which I can't find on the actual CDC website) doesn't indicate how many of those defensive uses of guns resulted in a positive outcome, OR whether they were justified. Some kid pranking a neighbor by ringing the doorbell - well the owner might've just recently had a burglary and felt they were being threatened. That's defensive use - but not justified because the kid was just ringing the doorbell, nothing more or less. A defensive use that ends up missing. Defensive use that results in the defensive shooter shooting himself by mistake. Defensive use resulting in shooting a bystander, etc. etc. "Defensive shooting" means NOTHING when you don't include data about the outcome, the context of the claim "defensive," or anything else.

It also doesn't include data on everyone who had immediate access to a firearm to defend themselves, could have prevented crime, and chose not to use their firearm defensively.

Being armed doesn't automatically make you a defensive shooter. It just makes you another person with a gun.

Actually, the CDC used to report the defensive gun incidents as previously cited. Since they moved away from that due to pressure from anti-gun lobbyists, their website has been "cleansed". Forbes, which is not a conservative site, published an article in April 2018 entitled "That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Guns Uses (https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=418c2cac299a)". The article makes references to earlier surveys conducted by the CDC about defensive gun use.

It is difficult to prove that the CDC reported data they scrubbed from their website, but it is not unreasonable to believe that they did report such data given the references in such earlier publications.

[Number 10 GI]

I spent a couple of hours one night on the internet watching local television station's broadcasts on shootings in their cities where a legally armed citizen saved themselves or another because they were carrying. I stopped after two hours because it got late. With the anti-gun bias in our major media outlets, do you think really think they want to give this national attention?

As far as the sheriff's deputy in Parkland, my understanding is that the sheriff's department's policy was to wait for backup. If it was me, I would like to think I would have disregarded policy and acted. Some organizations are so rigid in their policies that not toeing the line can have serious consequences. No one is able to get into his mind to see what he was thinking. I believe the policy has been changed from waiting for backup to one of immediate response by whatever LEO is at the scene. Picking out one example like this proves nothing.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Actually, the CDC used to report the defensive gun incidents as previously cited. Since they moved away from that due to pressure from anti-gun lobbyists, their website has been "cleansed". Forbes, which is not a conservative site, published an article in April 2018 entitled "That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Guns Uses (https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=418c2cac299a)". The article makes references to earlier surveys conducted by the CDC about defensive gun use.

It is difficult to prove that the CDC reported data they scrubbed from their website, but it is not unreasonable to believe that they did report such data given the references in such earlier publications.

Aha. So now we know where the data came from. It came from a study conducted in 2013. That's a decade ago. The data no longer applies, it has no relevance to the world we live in today.

[Trayderjoe]

Aha. So now we know where the data came from. It came from a study conducted in 2013. That's a decade ago. The data no longer applies, it has no relevance to the world we live in today.

The POINT of that part of my post was to show that, using a non conservative website, the CDC did in fact post data on defensive gun incidents. My post was not suggesting that the data shown in the article was the most current. The absence of the more current data does not prove that the data as quoted by the poster was not accurate. While it doesn't fit the narrative, there are multiple websites that make the same data references. One would think that the CDC would have challenged the reporting of the data as inaccurate at the time of those reports. Where can we find those documented reported challenges?

Should your position be that you can't find the cited data on the CDC website so it should be dismissed, then PROVE that the cited data was never on the CDC website.

[MrFlorida]

A "good guy with a gun" is not a police officer. And is not sworn to protect the public. A smart : good guy with a gun" will look for an escape route before confronting an armed individual...just because he or she carries a gun, doesn't mean they have to use it.

[Trayderjoe]

A "good guy with a gun" is not a police officer. And is not sworn to protect the public. A smart : good guy with a gun" will look for an escape route before confronting an armed individual...just because he or she carries a gun, doesn't mean they have to use it.

Spot on!

[Byte1]

"The NCVS identifies far fewer instances of defensive gun use. According to the most recent firearms violence report, published in April, 2 percent of victims of nonfatal violent crime — that includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault — and 1 percent of property crime victims use guns in self-defense. According to the survey, firearms were used defensively in 166,900 nonfatal violent crimes between 2014 and 2018, which works out to an average of 33,380 per year. Over the same period, defensive gun use was reported in 183,300 property crimes, or an average of 36,660 per year.

Taken together, that’s 70,040 instances of defensive gun use per year.The NCVS identifies far fewer instances of defensive gun use. According to the most recent firearms violence report, published in April, 2 percent of victims of nonfatal violent crime — that includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault — and 1 percent of property crime victims use guns in self-defense. According to the survey, firearms were used defensively in 166,900 nonfatal violent crimes between 2014 and 2018, which works out to an average of 33,380 per year. Over the same period, defensive gun use was reported in 183,300 property crimes, or an average of 36,660 per year.

Taken together, that’s 70,040 instances of defensive gun use per year."

I can gather references for defensive use of firearms all over the Internet. Those that are so anti-gun will never find any of them to be valid in their OPINION, so it's useless to argue with them. The fact IS that firearms are used for defense more than once per year, and if one life is saved then that person owning a gun was a good thing. You don't have to own a firearm. No one is forcing you to own one. If you don't like guns, that's your problem. I just hope that you won't hold it against someone that happens to be carrying and decided to act defensively FOR you and saves your life when the time comes that you need saving. I was once told by a police officer that on average EVERYONE is involved in a violent crime at least twice in a lifetime. I am sure that there is "one" person on here that will attempt to prove that statement to be erroneous. Some of us take life seriously and do not condone criminal behavior. The reason crimes are reported and murders occur is because the second that someone needs a COP, he/she is only minutes away. But, he/she will be there to take witness statements after the fact. I hope that if my unarmed family members are victims, that there is someone there carrying a firearm and has the guts to render assistance.
Whether there are a thousand or more instances of defensive use of a firearm in America per year, more or less the good guy with a gun is better than only bad guys having guns, in my opinion. This has nothing to do with the person's experience and proficiency with the firearm. Most folks that own guns will learn how they operate.
Argue all you wish, but guns, like knives, bats, hammers, axes, sticks, etc. can be used offensively to harm folks. So, you might as well make it easier for a good guy to own and carry than a bad guy.

[Cybersprings]

But they will see much more severe consequences for breaking it now. They're more likely to spend more time in jail, because now more charges can be laid against them.

Really??? The penalty for the crime of multiple murders wouldn't put them away for long enough, but the penalty for illegal possession of a firearm is what will put them away for a long time?? Am I the only one to whom that this sounds completely ridiculous???

[Cybersprings]

You mean like the sheriff's deputy at Parkland, that good guy with the gun, who protected the kids from the bad guy with the gun?

Or any of the people who have guns who were good people at the mass shooting in Baltimore recently? Those 30 people who were shot, might have a thought about the good guy with the gun protecting them from the bad guy with a gun.

That is SUCH a tired cliche, it isn't true, it makes no sense, and it's dangerous thinking. Good guys with guns can be ineffective. They can be there - and not use their guns. They can be there and wait until they've already failed to protect some people, and then use their guns. They can use their guns and miss. They can THINK they're shooting a bad guy with a gun, but actually they're shooting someone who didn't have any gun at all.

Good guys are not infallible. And in some cases - they can cause more harm than they can prevent.

When the problem is "people with guns," then giving more guns to more people is not the answer.

Ok. I'll bite. According to your post, it is not the police or good guys with a gun that stop bad guys with a gun (cliche and all). So, what is it that you think stops bad guys with a gun? the threat of timeout? offering them a safe space? Unarmed people being sweet to them. I really am curious what stops them in your mind.

[Gpsma]

Ok. I'll bite. According to your post, it is not the police or good guys with a gun that stop bad guys with a gun (cliche and all). So, what is it that you think stops bad guys with a gun? the threat of timeout? offering them a safe space? Unarmed people being sweet to them. I really am curious what stops them in your mind.

You have to call the local social worker who will talk to them.

[TCRSO]

My wife and I are NRA Training Counselors (A TC trains and certifies NRA Instructors), Chief Range Safety Officers (train and certifies NRA Range Safety Officers) and NRA Instructors. We have taught thousands of people in Concealed Carry classes. The reality is very few people will attend any training class unless required to to get a concealed carry permit. We support the idea that there should be no limitation on the right of a citizen to carry a firearm. However, please know when you can legally use a firearm in self defense. In teaching CCH classes, we would give students a factual scenario (based on cases in which the shooter was charged with murder) and then asked (by show of hands) those who that the shooting legally justified and those who thought it was not. Even after a three hour presentation on the law of self defense, most continued to misunderstand when they could use deadly force. Everyone please teach yourself or take a course in the use of deadly force. You don't want to get it wrong and end up in prison.

[ThirdOfFive]

My wife and I are NRA Training Counselors (A TC trains and certifies NRA Instructors), Chief Range Safety Officers (train and certifies NRA Range Safety Officers) and NRA Instructors. We have taught thousands of people in Concealed Carry classes. The reality is very few people will attend any training class unless required to to get a concealed carry permit. We support the idea that there should be no limitation on the right of a citizen to carry a firearm. However, please know when you can legally use a firearm in self defense. In teaching CCH classes, we would give students a factual scenario (based on cases in which the shooter was charged with murder) and then asked (by show of hands) those who that the shooting legally justified and those who thought it was not. Even after a three hour presentation on the law of self defense, most continued to misunderstand when they could use deadly force. Everyone please teach yourself or take a course in the use of deadly force. You don't want to get it wrong and end up in prison.
Excellent post, and I certainly applaud and support the positive things that the NRA is doing, and has done, to make gun owners more cognizant of the risks of ownership as well as how to handle firearms in a safe, responsible manner. One effort worthy of mention is the NRA "Eddie Eagle" program; the only ongoing program that I know of that teaches young children what to do if they find a gun. As I understand it the training materials for this program are available online and are also available to any school that wants to teach it.

I take some exception to the supposition "The reality is very few people will attend any training class unless required to to get a concealed carry permit." There are undoubtedy such folks out there. However gun safety training is something that very many learn in an ongoing manner. From my own experience, I and my siblings grew up with guns. Dad was a collector as well as an amateur gunsmith. He knew guns and how they worked better than just about anyone, and my siblings and I learned early on not just to shoot, but how to handle guns (all types) in a safe, responsible manner. I rarely recall dad getting angry at any of us for any reason, but one incident that stands out vividly in my mind was the time deer hunting as a 17-year-old I neglected to clear the chamber of my rifle before climbing over a fence. I knew better, and deserved the lecture I got. Additionally many if not most of the schools back then (60s and 70s) offered gun safety training as an elective for any student who cared to access it, and just about all of us did, plus hunting and target shooting was something that was routinely engaged in, now as well as then. Of course, the point about many not knowing the law when it comes to self-defense is valid, but when I took my first permit-to-carry class (Minnesota, about 20 years ago) much if not most of what was taught I already knew. As did many if not most of my contempories. And to be honest, a short class can teach only so much.

I would also add that a constitutionally guaranteed right should not require any training in order to exercise it. "Right" is only one side of the coin. The other side reads "responsibility". No right exists apart from the duty to exercise it responsibly. Freedom of speech, (to use a well-worn example) does not allow any of us to yell "Fire!!) in a crowded theater, or to verbally threaten anyone. "But it was my RIGHT" would not impress many judges in such cases.

Responsible Americans take the exercise of ALL rights seriously. Yes, mistakes will be made. But the possibility of making a mistake as a reason for witholding a right flies directly against the spirit of the Constitution. I don't know who said it first, but (in paraphrase) "those who sacrifice a little freedom for a little security shall in the end have neither freedom nor security" says it best.

[JRcorvette]

My wife and I are NRA Training Counselors (A TC trains and certifies NRA Instructors), Chief Range Safety Officers (train and certifies NRA Range Safety Officers) and NRA Instructors. We have taught thousands of people in Concealed Carry classes. The reality is very few people will attend any training class unless required to to get a concealed carry permit. We support the idea that there should be no limitation on the right of a citizen to carry a firearm. However, please know when you can legally use a firearm in self defense. In teaching CCH classes, we would give students a factual scenario (based on cases in which the shooter was charged with murder) and then asked (by show of hands) those who that the shooting legally justified and those who thought it was not. Even after a three hour presentation on the law of self defense, most continued to misunderstand when they could use deadly force. Everyone please teach yourself or take a course in the use of deadly force. You don't want to get it wrong and end up in prison.

I believe that to carry a firearm you should have to take and pass an in-depth course on safety and legal responsibility as well as be able to properly handle Your firearm. Unfortunately that is not the case here in Florida even when you apply for a concealed weapon permit! Florida is a joke but better than nothing. I moved for TN where they take the CWP course very seriously.

I am glad that Florida passed the law!

[Trayderjoe]

Excellent post, and I certainly applaud and support the positive things that the NRA is doing, and has done, to make gun owners more cognizant of the risks of ownership as well as how to handle firearms in a safe, responsible manner. One effort worthy of mention is the NRA "Eddie Eagle" program; the only ongoing program that I know of that teaches young children what to do if they find a gun. As I understand it the training materials for this program are available online and are also available to any school that wants to teach it.

I would also add that a constitutionally guaranteed right should not require any training in order to exercise it. "Right" is only one side of the coin. The other side reads "responsibility". No right exists apart from the duty to exercise it responsibly. Freedom of speech, (to use a well-worn example) does not allow any of us to yell "Fire!!) in a crowded theater, or to verbally threaten anyone. "But it was my RIGHT" would not impress many judges in such cases.

Responsible Americans take the exercise of ALL rights seriously. Yes, mistakes will be made. But the possibility of making a mistake as a reason for witholding a right flies directly against the spirit of the Constitution. I don't know who said it first, but (in paraphrase) "those who sacrifice a little freedom for a little security shall in the end have neither freedom nor security" says it best.

I agree with the majority of the post, however the highlighted section about the first amendment not allowing one to yell fire in a crowded theater is actually a myth. It originated from a different case all together and that case was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court. There is certainly a responsibility to exercising any right as indicated, and there may be downstream legal consequences (foreseen or not) for someone who is irresponsible in exercising their rights.

Here is one link (https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/) of many that talk about the myth. Note that I used a link to a law office which posted a video on this very topic.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Ok. I'll bite. According to your post, it is not the police or good guys with a gun that stop bad guys with a gun (cliche and all). So, what is it that you think stops bad guys with a gun? the threat of timeout? offering them a safe space? Unarmed people being sweet to them. I really am curious what stops them in your mind.

According to your post, you misinterpreted my post. Perhaps on purpose.

I don't care what stops bad guys with guns. I care what keeps bad guys from getting guns in the first place. We don't need to stop a bad guy with a gun, if we don't have bad guys with guns.

Humans will never EVER allow that to happen. Ever. We value our weapons too much. Good guys and bad guys both. We are a violent species, we kill our own, sometimes for fun, sometimes for profit, sometimes out of anger, rage, grief - and only very rarely for self-defense.

But if we can make it HARDER for bad guys to have guns, and give bad guys more consequences when they're caught with guns, then just maybe it might convince ONE bad guy to - not use their gun. It'd be a step in the right direction.

[Byte1]

According to your post, you misinterpreted my post. Perhaps on purpose.

I don't care what stops bad guys with guns. I care what keeps bad guys from getting guns in the first place. We don't need to stop a bad guy with a gun, if we don't have bad guys with guns.

Humans will never EVER allow that to happen. Ever. We value our weapons too much. Good guys and bad guys both. We are a violent species, we kill our own, sometimes for fun, sometimes for profit, sometimes out of anger, rage, grief - and only very rarely for self-defense.

But if we can make it HARDER for bad guys to have guns, and give bad guys more consequences when they're caught with guns, then just maybe it might convince ONE bad guy to - not use their gun. It'd be a step in the right direction.

How do you suppose that we keep bad guys from getting guns? Make it against the law for a bad guy to own a gun? Hmmm, seems like that has already been tried and failed. Seems like the "consequences" that you are seeking might result from a "good carrying a gun." Obviously, bad guys do not care about laws or they would not be bad guys. And as long as we have those "little old ladies" that care for the poor unfortunate bad guys that come from broken or poor families, no amount of slaps on the wrists are going to work either.
I keep hearing folks saying "but gun accidents are bad." Yep, they sure are but how many folks get cut by knife accidents, car accidents, over doses of medications, falling down steps, falling on ice, etc?
Perhaps if more "bad guys" were put down by the courts, police and good guys carrying guns, society would be a safer place?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

How do you suppose that we keep bad guys from getting guns? Make it against the law for a bad guy to own a gun? Hmmm, seems like that has already been tried and failed. Seems like the "consequences" that you are seeking might result from a "good carrying a gun." Obviously, bad guys do not care about laws or they would not be bad guys. And as long as we have those "little old ladies" that care for the poor unfortunate bad guys that come from broken or poor families, no amount of slaps on the wrists are going to work either.
I keep hearing folks saying "but gun accidents are bad." Yep, they sure are but how many folks get cut by knife accidents, car accidents, over doses of medications, falling down steps, falling on ice, etc?
Perhaps if more "bad guys" were put down by the courts, police and good guys carrying guns, society would be a safer place?

I've already offered my opinion in multiple threads, that you even responded to, about what I thought might be some actual solutions. Feel free to check on those.

[TrapX]

Perhaps increasing the consequences of using a deadly weapon to intentionally commit a crime. The death penalty comes to mind as a mandatory minimum. Allow citizens and the police to use deadly force in more scenarios, especially when there is clear and obvious circumstances, and the criminal identity is unquestioned. Like a car driver fleeing and leading to a chase. Any criminal with a gun used in a crime. Finding a felon with a gun. Theft of a gun. Also applies to all deadly weapons like bombs, arson, cars, etc. Eliminate all innocent by insanity; it becomes guilty by insanity. Lower the age for being considered an adult. Ask the liberals at what age a child can decide what s3x they want to pick, and that is the age they are charged as an adult. (think 2nd grade, 8 years old)
Adjust trials for cases where evidence is unquestionable. Such as someone shooting at police, and criminal gets shot. Directly taken into custody. Go straight to trial, not the hospital, and sentenced to death. Carry out that punishment immediately.
Notice the theme here is to go after criminals, not law abiding citizens, or the police who protect us.

[ThirdOfFive]

Perhaps increasing the consequences of using a deadly weapon to intentionally commit a crime. The death penalty comes to mind as a mandatory minimum. Allow citizens and the police to use deadly force in more scenarios, especially when there is clear and obvious circumstances, and the criminal identity is unquestioned. Like a car driver fleeing and leading to a chase. Any criminal with a gun used in a crime. Finding a felon with a gun. Theft of a gun. Also applies to all deadly weapons like bombs, arson, cars, etc. Eliminate all innocent by insanity; it becomes guilty by insanity. Lower the age for being considered an adult. Ask the liberals at what age a child can decide what s3x they want to pick, and that is the age they are charged as an adult. (think 2nd grade, 8 years old)
Adjust trials for cases where evidence is unquestionable. Such as someone shooting at police, and criminal gets shot. Directly taken into custody. Go straight to trial, not the hospital, and sentenced to death. Carry out that punishment immediately.
Notice the theme here is to go after criminals, not law abiding citizens, or the police who protect us.
I certainly agree with the spirit of the post being answered here, if not all of the points.

In essence, yes. We do need to consequate ALL crimes more strictly than we do now. Courts have turned into revolving doors where violent repeat felons are all too often the recipients of plea bargains to the point that the price they pay is minor compared to the penalties that their original charge would have earned them. A particular sore point with me, at least back in Minnesota, is that in cases where a felon uses a gun in a crime, usually the first charge dropped in any plea bargain seemed all to often to be illegal possession of a firearm. Maybe it is that way in Florida too; I don't know.

But it has been my opinion for some time that being charged with the illegal possession of a firearm should by law NEVER be plea-bargained away, and if found guilty on that particular charge than the convicted felon receives a mandatory sentence of ten years incarceration ON TOP of any other penalty the judge sees fit to impose for any of the other crimes the criminal has been convicted of in this particular instance, and that those additional ten years must be served consecutively after all other penalties have been paid, NOT concurrently. No exceptions.

Another point (and this one will be about as welcome as an attack of flatulence in church, at least for some folks) is that in cases where the good guy uses his/her gun to stop a crime in progress and the bad guy or guys are wounded or killed in the process, the good guy should never be held liable for any damages inflicted on the bad guy in any civil suit brought by family or friends of the bad guy as a consequence. This was another thing that we saw all too often in Minnesota: hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of dollars being awarded to family members where habitual criminals were put to rest by a good guy with a gun, often for "causes" for bringing the suit that were beyond ludicrous. It was a gravy train, not justice.

We've been coddling criminals long enough at the expense of the good folks long enough. Time to stop.

[Byte1]

I've already offered my opinion in multiple threads, that you even responded to, about what I thought might be some actual solutions. Feel free to check on those.

When I asked how ......it was a rhetorical question, not really expecting a realistic answer. I've read your (expert) opinions and found them lacking in realism....in my opinion. Apparently, realistic solutions are disqualified immediately by those that are anti-gun. The point that has been made over and over again is that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun on a killing rampage is a good guy with a gun. Another person commented (tongue in cheek) that someone call a social worker to talk to the bad guy. Of course, that solution was suggested seriously by some idiotic leaders in our country.
By the way, just because a CCW is no longer required for a gun owner to carry does not mean that they are not familiar with firearms or that they do not understand the defensive use laws. Precluding the requirement of gun safety classes before carrying a firearms does not mean that a gun owner is stupid, ignorant of laws or careless. I would guesstimate that most gun owners are or have been hunters or former military, with experience in handling firearms. Personally, I received gun safety instruction/class in junior high/middle school and have owned firearms since I was in my early teens.
By the way, the reason you cannot prevent a bad guy from possessing a firearm is because you cannot deem a person a bad guy UNTIL he/she/it commits a bad (unlawful) action. Unless you incarcerate bad guys, you will never be able to prevent them from obtaining a firearm if they wish to possess one. Mutual assured destruction, in the case of the threat of anyone possibly carrying a concealed weapon may have the effect of lowering violent threats. It may not, but it is a more reasonable idea for a solution than attempting to rid firearms in the hands of the "bad guy."

[Number 10 GI]

For those not inclined to educate themselves on gun laws, here is a listing of federally mandated punishment for using a firearm in a crime.

Federal Penalties for Using a Firearm in a Violent Crime | Law Offices Of Robert David Malove (https://www.robertmalovelaw.com/blog/federal-penalties-for-using-a-firearm-in-a-violent-crime.cfm)

There are state laws that mirror the federal laws concerning the use of a gun in a crime. There are all kinds of consequences for using a gun during a crime. It is a federal crime for a convicted felon to possess, own or use a firearm. Problem is that prosecutors will often accept a plea deal dropping these charges in order to get a quick conviction to clear the court docket. A law not enforced is less useful than no law.
Many guns are obtained by prohibited individuals through a "straw purchaser". Too often prosecutors do not prosecute these people. There are all kinds of laws that were passed in the belief that it would deter criminals from possessing guns. Laws don't prevent crime, they just provide the means to prosecute a violator.
What it all boils down to is criminals don't obey laws, only honest people obey laws, and laws not enforced are no deterrent.

[Trayderjoe]

I certainly agree with the spirit of the post being answered here, if not all of the points.

But it has been my opinion for some time that being charged with the illegal possession of a firearm should by law NEVER be plea-bargained away and if found guilty on that particular charge than the convicted felon receives a mandatory sentence of ten years incarceration ON TOP of any other penalty the judge sees fit to impose for any of the other crimes the criminal has been convicted of in this particular instance, and that those additional ten years must be served consecutively after all other penalties have been paid, NOT concurrently. No exceptions.

I hadn’t heard this suggestion before, but it has merit in my opinion. The length of the sentence and whether it should be concurrent or consecutive can be debated, as well as if any such sentence would be eligible for parole, but at a minimum jail time is imposed.

Another point……is that in cases where the good guy uses his/her gun to stop a crime in progress and the bad guy or guys are wounded or killed in the process, the good guy should never be held liable for any damages inflicted on the bad guy in any civil suit brought by family or friends of the bad guy as a consequence. This was another thing that we saw all too often in Minnesota……..

Florida law does provide shielding from civil liability by a perpetrator or their family in the event of a lawful self defense. I am not suggesting that a lawsuit would never be brought, for example, if an innocent bystander is hurt, you could potentially be held liable for those injuries.

Given the predilection for lawsuits, and the potential for prosecution even in what should be a legal self defense, it helps if you can show that you have had firearms training. If you have a weapon, especially if you conceal carry, or even if you only keep it in the home, you very much SHOULD have some sort of firearms insurance. Keep in mind that such insurance will only protect you if you have a legal self defense. There are various companies out there that offer different levels of coverage, but consider the legal expenses you might have even if the self defense is ultimately deemed legally justified.

[Trayderjoe]

For those not inclined to educate themselves on gun laws, here is a listing of federally mandated punishment for using a firearm in a crime.

Federal Penalties for Using a Firearm in a Violent Crime | Law Offices Of Robert David Malove (https://www.robertmalovelaw.com/blog/federal-penalties-for-using-a-firearm-in-a-violent-crime.cfm)

There are state laws that mirror the federal laws concerning the use of a gun in a crime. There are all kinds of consequences for using a gun during a crime. It is a federal crime for a convicted felon to possess, own or use a firearm. Problem is that prosecutors will often accept a plea deal dropping these charges in order to get a quick conviction to clear the court docket. A law not enforced is less useful than no law.
Many guns are obtained by prohibited individuals through a "straw purchaser". Too often prosecutors do not prosecute these people. There are all kinds of laws that were passed in the belief that it would deter criminals from possessing guns. Laws don't prevent crime, they just provide the means to prosecute a violator.
What it all boils down to is criminals don't obey laws, only honest people obey laws, and laws not enforced are no deterrent.

100%. There needs to be “broken windows” enforcement of the law. When people begin to see that they WILL be arrested and go to jail on a consistent basis, behaviors will start to change. It won’t happen overnight, but it may deter the “entry level” criminals initially.

We also need to address mental health issues in a real way. There are people who do need to be institutionalized and we need to recognize and accept that has to happen. The social experiment of letting people with legitimate mental health issues decide for themselves whether to be on the streets or hospitalized has proven it does not work.

[RMHisle]

Here's my .02 cents:

As citizens, we have a civic duty to try to stop carnage and mayhem when we encounter it, if we can do so safely. I want the best tools available to stop a bad guy. The police choose firearms and pepper spray and tasers. That's good enough for me.

The right of self defense is God-given and the Constitution makes it illegal for the government to infringe that right (but they do it anyway).

To those saying a class should be mandatory before someone can carry a firearm, I agree. It should be taught in high schools and required for graduation. Also, a passing grade in civics should be a requirement to vote.

[Byte1]

I've already offered my opinion in multiple threads, that you even responded to, about what I thought might be some actual solutions. Feel free to check on those.

I believe I also responded with the idea of "realistic solutions."

[Get real]

Oh So Wrong.................If in Florida, and in most other states........it is against the law to be carrying and under the influence. They were not and are not law-abiding.

Florida law 790.151 prohibits carrying a firearm while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.

I think it means in your hand, not just carrying.

[dewilson58]

I think it means in your hand, not just carrying.



Florida statute 790.151

Leg.state.fl.us
Welcome
:

Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us) › Statutes › 0790.151.html
(1) As used in ss. 790.151-790.157, to “use a firearm” means to discharge a firearm or to have a firearm readily accessible for immediate discharge.


U try it and let me kno. :1rotfl::1rotfl:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

My wife and I are NRA Training Counselors (A TC trains and certifies NRA Instructors), Chief Range Safety Officers (train and certifies NRA Range Safety Officers) and NRA Instructors. We have taught thousands of people in Concealed Carry classes. The reality is very few people will attend any training class unless required to to get a concealed carry permit. We support the idea that there should be no limitation on the right of a citizen to carry a firearm. However, please know when you can legally use a firearm in self defense. In teaching CCH classes, we would give students a factual scenario (based on cases in which the shooter was charged with murder) and then asked (by show of hands) those who that the shooting legally justified and those who thought it was not. Even after a three hour presentation on the law of self defense, most continued to misunderstand when they could use deadly force. Everyone please teach yourself or take a course in the use of deadly force. You don't want to get it wrong and end up in prison.

So that's the benchmark there? Don't use deadly force when it's not necessary, because you could go to jail? I dunno - I'd rather have an NRA instructor who told me don't use deadly force when it's not necessary, because you could end up killing someone who shouldn't be dead.

[Hardlyworking]

So that's the benchmark there? Don't use deadly force when it's not necessary, because you could go to jail? I dunno - I'd rather have an NRA instructor who told me don't use deadly force when it's not necessary, because you could end up killing someone who shouldn't be dead.

I hope you are never in a scenario where your life is in imminent danger. I’ve been there. Twice. Once a gun in my face and another time, I was stabbed in the back with a knife. After that I told myself I would never again allow myself to be a victim of a violent crime.

[jaj523]

Many other states have the same law. (You can Google for the list.) And there hasn't been an increase in gun crimes in any of them.

[Get real]

Florida statute 790.151

Leg.state.fl.us
Welcome
:

Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us) › Statutes › 0790.151.html
(1) As used in ss. 790.151-790.157, to “use a firearm” means to discharge a firearm or to have a firearm readily accessible for immediate discharge.


U try it and let me kno. :1rotfl::1rotfl:

Perhaps you should read the definition of "readily accessible". You must have missed it. It helps to read the entire section.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “readily accessible for immediate discharge” means loaded and in a person’s hand.

[dewilson58]

Perhaps you should read the definition of "readily accessible".

Law #6 Bars and Restaurants
This is another place where the law is tricky to understand. Florida gun law states that you can carry with a permit in a restaurant, but not if it serves alcohol.
Since many restaurants have their liquor licenses, Floridians have tweaked this requirement.
If the main purpose of the establishment is to serve food, but you can buy alcohol with your meal: feel free to carry. If an establishment has a dedicated bar section, your gun is not welcome there.
If it’s a fully licensed bar with no other purpose, like nightclubs, carrying is illegal.


One of many links:
https://miamicriminaldefense.com/7-things-you-need-to-know-about-florida-gun-law-and-weapons-charges/

[kingofbeer]

I hope you are never in a scenario where your life is in imminent danger. I’ve been there. Twice. Once a gun in my face and another time, I was stabbed in the back with a knife. After that I told myself I would never again allow myself to be a victim of a violent crime.

1. You where stabbed in the back with a knife --- Your gun would not have helped you in that case.
2. Gun in your face --- Your gun would not have helped you in that case.

I was mugged once.

[Cybersprings]

Pennsylvania woman opens fire after returning home to find FOUR burglars inside her apartment * American Wire News (https://americanwirenews.com/pennsylvania-woman-opens-fire-after-returning-home-to-find-four-burglars-inside-her-apartment/?utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Salesforce&utm_term=EMAIL&utm_content=Newsletter&utm_campaign=AW)

[AJ32162]

1. You where stabbed in the back with a knife --- Your gun would not have helped you in that case.
2. Gun in your face --- Your gun would not have helped you in that case.

I was mugged once.

How could you possibly know that a gun would not have helped in those cases? Were you there? You do not know all of the facts surrounding the incidents. Maybe, just maybe, being able to defend himself with a firearm the Op my have prevented the escalation of the criminal acts that resulted in his assault and stabbing.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

How could you possibly know that a gun would not have helped in those cases? Were you there? You do not know all of the facts surrounding the incidents. Maybe, just maybe, being able to defend himself with a firearm the Op my have prevented the escalation of the criminal acts that resulted in his assault and stabbing.

Common sense isn't very common these days. Nor is situational awareness. Here's how you can possibly know a gun won't help you:

If someone is behind you - you can't see him. You can't know he has a knife, and you won't know that he's going to stab you until you have already been stabbed. At that point - you're already stabbed, and gun won't unstab you.

If someone has a gun to your face, then - if you move, he'll shoot you. His gun is already out, loaded, cocked, and aimed at your face. Yours is holstered. You reach for it - you're dead. A gun won't help you become un-shot in the face.

Now, you see someone coming TOWARD you with a knife, and it looks like he's aiming to stab you then sure. A gun will probably save you from that.

If you see someone coming toward you with a hand on his holster, but the gun isn't out yet, and isn't aimed at your face yet, then yup - you have a chance at saving yourself, assuming you're faster than he is.

Common sense, situational awareness. It's all part of "paying attention." If you're not good at that, you absolutely should not ever carry a firearm.

[Byte1]

Common sense isn't very common these days. Nor is situational awareness. Here's how you can possibly know a gun won't help you:

If someone is behind you - you can't see him. You can't know he has a knife, and you won't know that he's going to stab you until you have already been stabbed. At that point - you're already stabbed, and gun won't unstab you.

If someone has a gun to your face, then - if you move, he'll shoot you. His gun is already out, loaded, cocked, and aimed at your face. Yours is holstered. You reach for it - you're dead. A gun won't help you become un-shot in the face.

Now, you see someone coming TOWARD you with a knife, and it looks like he's aiming to stab you then sure. A gun will probably save you from that.

If you see someone coming toward you with a hand on his holster, but the gun isn't out yet, and isn't aimed at your face yet, then yup - you have a chance at saving yourself, assuming you're faster than he is.

Common sense, situational awareness. It's all part of "paying attention." If you're not good at that, you absolutely should not ever carry a firearm.

AND then again, perhaps after being stabbed in the back, he was able to draw and put the bad guy down, saving others from having to go through the same pain or worse. If he had a gun put in his face, how do you know if he was able to get to his own(if he had one) and put the bad guy down, thus saving someone else from the same situation? Situation awareness sounds real good and really is good in most situations. It doesn't work in all situations, just like guns don't work in all situations. Guns do not always prevent assaults, but stats prove that thousands of people are saved by good guys with guns every year.
The point is, that if you don't want or are a afraid of guns, then you are FREE not to own one. If you are afraid of guns, doesn't give you (whomever) the right to insist that others do not own them. I would rather go down knowing that I had done everything I could to survive than to wonder on my way out if I might have been able to do more to survive the situation.
This has been beaten to death. We will never convince those that are afraid of guns to change their minds about gun ownership. They will always come up with a "what if" to argue against our "what if." Gun ownership is a right, period. No one has to own a gun, just like no one has to voice their opinion just because we have a right to Free Speech. No one is forcing either practice.

[Cybersprings]

Common sense isn't very common these days. Nor is situational awareness. Here's how you can possibly know a gun won't help you:

If someone is behind you - you can't see him. You can't know he has a knife, and you won't know that he's going to stab you until you have already been stabbed. At that point - you're already stabbed, and gun won't unstab you.

If someone has a gun to your face, then - if you move, he'll shoot you. His gun is already out, loaded, cocked, and aimed at your face. Yours is holstered. You reach for it - you're dead. A gun won't help you become un-shot in the face.

Now, you see someone coming TOWARD you with a knife, and it looks like he's aiming to stab you then sure. A gun will probably save you from that.

If you see someone coming toward you with a hand on his holster, but the gun isn't out yet, and isn't aimed at your face yet, then yup - you have a chance at saving yourself, assuming you're faster than he is.

Common sense, situational awareness. It's all part of "paying attention." If you're not good at that, you absolutely should not ever carry a firearm.

You are correct. Common sense is not common. If you were stabbed in the back, did the person magically appear behind you instantaneously, or was there some development of a situation where a gun may or may not have been able to help.

If a person in front of you has a gun, and you have no gun, it can develop from a nothing situation to a gun in your face situation and you have no control. If you have a gun, and you see someone with a weapon before it is in your face, different actions can be taken and your gun could prevent his gun in your face.

I think the arrogance of a person being 100% sure about a situation that they were not at, and then saying anyone else who doesn't see this situation their way has no common sense, is exactly why certain people shouldn't be weighing in on other people's right to protect themselves.

[Hardlyworking]

Common sense isn't very common these days. Nor is situational awareness. Here's how you can possibly know a gun won't help you:

If someone is behind you - you can't see him. You can't know he has a knife, and you won't know that he's going to stab you until you have already been stabbed. At that point - you're already stabbed, and gun won't unstab you.

If someone has a gun to your face, then - if you move, he'll shoot you. His gun is already out, loaded, cocked, and aimed at your face. Yours is holstered. You reach for it - you're dead. A gun won't help you become un-shot in the face.

I’ve forgotten more about situational awareness than you’ll ever know.

Now, you see someone coming TOWARD you with a knife, and it looks like he's aiming to stab you then sure. A gun will probably save you from that.

If you see someone coming toward you with a hand on his holster, but the gun isn't out yet, and isn't aimed at your face yet, then yup - you have a chance at saving yourself, assuming you're faster than he is.

Common sense, situational awareness. It's all part of "paying attention." If you're not good at that, you absolutely should not ever carry a firearm.

He was not behind me. He was in front of me. I was climbing out of a pool and he stabbed me while I was starting to get up. I had no idea he even had a knife and obviously did not feel threatened or I would have stayed in the pool.

The gun incident. I was talking to my neighbor across the street and one of his friends when we were approached by two thugs with the intent to rob us. We were told to get our money out. I said I don’t have anything on me. That’s when he came over to me and stuck the gun in my face and said…”we’ll get to you soon enough white boy”…he then went back to robbing the other 2. At that point if I had a gun, I could and would have used it.

I hope those comments about common sense and situational awareness weren’t directed at me. I’ve read just about everything you’ve ever written on this forum until I couldn’t stand to read anymore of your BS and blocked you for about a year. I guess I need to do that again.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

He was not behind me. He was in front of me. I was climbing out of a pool and he stabbed me while I was starting to get up. I had no idea he even had a knife and obviously did not feel threatened or I would have stayed in the pool.

The gun incident. I was talking to my neighbor across the street and one of his friends when we were approached by two thugs with the intent to rob us. We were told to get our money out. I said I don’t have anything on me. That’s when he came over to me and stuck the gun in my face and said…”we’ll get to you soon enough white boy”…he then went back to robbing the other 2. At that point if I had a gun, I could and would have used it.

I hope those comments about common sense and situational awareness weren’t directed at me. I’ve read just about everything you’ve ever written on this forum until I couldn’t stand to read anymore of your BS and blocked you for about a year. I guess I need to do that again.

Why in the world do you think I was directing the comment at you? I quoted the person I was responding to. It wasn't you. Interesting that you blocked me for a year, you've only been a member for a year. Go back to blocking me I guess. Whatever floats your boat.