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.

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Florida statute 790.151

Leg.state.fl.us
Welcome
:

Online Sunshine › 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:

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.

Many other states have the same law.
 

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.

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.

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-t...apons-charges/

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.

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.

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.

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.