[Papa_lecki]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

True, except that now, in order to get a permit, you have to certify that you have read and understand the applicable laws. Whether or not you actually DID that might be another story entirely, but at least you're on record as having done so. There would be no such safeguard with constitutional carry.

That piece of paper isn’t going to mean squat if you’re involved in a shooting - justified or not.

You can’t carry (constitutional or not) if you’re a prohibited processor, you can’t buy a gun, you need to pass a background check to buy. It’s illegal to POSSESS.
If you lend your gun to a prohibited processor - you’re in deep doo doo as well - and if you don’t know if the person you are lending your gun to is a PP - don’t lend it - better yet, NEVER lend your gun.

No matter what - IT’S ILLEGAL TO KILL SOMEONE, no matter if there’s constitutional carry or not

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Papa_lecki

That piece of paper isn’t going to mean squat if you’re involved in a shooting - justified or not.

You can’t carry (constitutional or not) if you’re a prohibited processor, you can’t buy a gun, you need to pass a background check to buy. It’s illegal to POSSESS.
If you lend your gun to a prohibited processor - you’re in deep doo doo as well - and if you don’t know if the person you are lending your gun to is a PP - don’t lend it - better yet, NEVER lend your gun.

No matter what - IT’S ILLEGAL TO KILL SOMEONE, no matter if there’s constitutional carry or not

"There are two primary statutes in Florida outlining when the use of deadly force is justified so as to avoid criminal liability. Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. Under Section 782.02, Florida Statutes, the use of deadly force is further justified when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which the person is located.

If the defendant is in his or her home or vehicle, then, under Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, the law will presume that the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the alleged victim unlawfully entered or remained or attempted to remove another person against their will. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s home or vehicle is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence." (hussein and weber dot com, "self-defense under Florida law")

So despite the claim of the poster to the contrary, there ARE times when, under Florida law, it IS legal to kill another human being.

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I think that carrying a concealed firearm SHOULD require special licenses and training and methods to keep mental patients and recent felons from buying or carrying guns.
......I would be fine with non-concealed carry, BUT..........a big BUT.......if I were in charge of the US, I would require all guns sold to civilians to be SINGLE-SHOT (EVEN including pistols). That way there could be very few MASS MURDERS.
........Everyone knows that the US has the MOST Gun violence and the MOST guns. That is a DIRECT PROPORTION where more VIOLENCE happens because of MORE guns in society. The US bar chart of gun VIOLENCE compared to other countries is COMPLETELY "off the chart".
..........America has to wake up some time from this national NIGHTMARE caused by the ALL-POWERFUL greed and power promoted for the GUN manufacturers by the NRA.

Totally AGREE with your assessment

[bsloan1960]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

The Florida legislature is even now considering "constitutional carry" (House Bill 543, Companion Senate Bill 150) for the state of Florida. Briefly stated, constitutional carry would allow any Floridian of legal age and not otherwise forbidden to own a firearm, to carry one in public without having to obtain a permit to do so. The current permitting system would remain in effect however for those who wish to access it, most probably because of reciprocity agreements between Florida and other states.

What many people don't realize is how common constitutional carry is in America. Fully half the states already allow it. Besides Florida, the states of Nebraska, South Carolina, and New Mexico are also considering going that route as well.

I confess to being of two minds on the issue. After all, it is called "Constitutional carry" for a reason. But merely OWNING a gun does not guarantee that the owner will be able to USE it in a lawful and safe manner. The current system in Florida does provide a way to assure that a permit holder has demonstrated at least a minimum knowledge of the law as well as showing he/she has basic skills in how to use a firearm in a self-defense situation.

Is this something we want to see come to The Villages?

Catch phases don't very often stand up to logical scrutiny. However, this one does, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". The vast majority of mass shootings are stopped either by a Police Officer or civilian who is licensed to carry ending the madness by shooting the guy.

[Papa_lecki]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

"There are two primary statutes in Florida outlining when the use of deadly force is justified so as to avoid criminal liability. Under Section 776.012, Florida Statutes (Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law), a person is justified in using deadly force (and does not have a duty to retreat) if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another. Under Section 782.02, Florida Statutes, the use of deadly force is further justified when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which the person is located.

If the defendant is in his or her home or vehicle, then, under Section 776.013, Florida Statutes, the law will presume that the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent death or bodily harm if the alleged victim unlawfully entered or remained or attempted to remove another person against their will. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s home or vehicle is furthermore presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence." (hussein and weber dot com, "self-defense under Florida law")

So despite the claim of the poster to the contrary, there ARE times when, under Florida law, it IS legal to kill another human being.

Correct……. Should have said it’s illegal to unjustifiably kill someone…but you knew what I meant. i used the term “prohibited possessor”….

I meant someone that is going to carry out a mass killing, isn’t going to follow any law on how/what/where to carry - they will purchase the weapon illegally, won’t get a background check, they don’t care about a license to carry.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by bsloan1960

Catch phases don't very often stand up to logical scrutiny. However, this one does, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". The vast majority of mass shootings are stopped either by a Police Officer or civilian who is licensed to carry ending the madness by shooting the guy.

Sorry, but that is a little like the chicken and the egg controversy.......WHICH one came FIRST? MAYBE NOW, today people may feel a NEED to carry a gun, but it happened AFTER the NRA captured the US government to produce giant PROFITS for the Gun industry OWNERS. And the "LITTLE PEOPLE" suffered the consequences.
........If one remembers back to between WW2 and 1960 the NRA was a HUNTING organization not A HUNTING HUMANS and killing humans organization. AND my Grandfather and father had HUNTING animals-type guns NOT semi-auto 30-round magazine, human-killing $3,000 military-style weapons of WAR ! And you-all will remember that MURDERS were few and far between back then. And the demented MASS-murder scene of TODAY did NOT even exist.
.........Which came 1st the MAN killings or the MAN killing weapons? I KNOW that I know!

[ckcapaul]

///

[ckcapaul]

///

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Sorry, but that is a little like the chicken and the egg controversy.......WHICH one came FIRST? MAYBE NOW, today people may feel a NEED to carry a gun, but it happened AFTER the NRA captured the US government to produce giant PROFITS for the Gun industry OWNERS. And the "LITTLE PEOPLE" suffered the consequences.
........If one remembers back to between WW2 and 1960 the NRA was a HUNTING organization not A HUNTING HUMANS and killing humans organization. AND my Grandfather and father had HUNTING animals-type guns NOT semi-auto 30-round magazine, human-killing $3,000 military-style weapons of WAR ! And you-all will remember that MURDERS were few and far between back then. And the demented MASS-murder scene of TODAY did NOT even exist.
.........Which came 1st the MAN killings or the MAN killing weapons? I KNOW that I know!

I agree with your sentiments, but please don't capitalize everything. It comes across as shouting in internet lingo...thanks.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Well, I don't....... because there are a lot of "Hotheads", uptight seniors, inflexible seniors, and demented seniors locate here. Not to mention the excessive drinking that is prevalent here.

That's true and most of them have driver's licenses that allow them to operate 4,000 lb motor vehicles. No re-taking the driver's exam or demonstrate they can still drive safely.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by bsloan1960

Catch phases don't very often stand up to logical scrutiny. However, this one does, "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". The vast majority of mass shootings are stopped either by a Police Officer or civilian who is licensed to carry ending the madness by shooting the guy.

A google search will find hours of reading and watching videos of news reports where an armed citizen saved their life or another person's. Many times, just the brandishing of a weapon to a thug wanting to victimize a person has prevented the assault.
The NRA magazine every month lists 6 or so news reports of an armed good guy stopping a criminal act. The source for the article is also provided so it can be independently verified.

[Garywt]

I try not to think about it. I have never had a desire to get a gun and have never been in a situation that I wish I had one. If people carry them, then they do.

[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

The Florida legislature is even now considering "constitutional carry" (House Bill 543, Companion Senate Bill 150) for the state of Florida. Briefly stated, constitutional carry would allow any Floridian of legal age and not otherwise forbidden to own a firearm, to carry one in public without having to obtain a permit to do so. The current permitting system would remain in effect however for those who wish to access it, most probably because of reciprocity agreements between Florida and other states.

What many people don't realize is how common constitutional carry is in America. Fully half the states already allow it. Besides Florida, the states of Nebraska, South Carolina, and New Mexico are also considering going that route as well.

I confess to being of two minds on the issue. After all, it is called "Constitutional carry" for a reason. But merely OWNING a gun does not guarantee that the owner will be able to USE it in a lawful and safe manner. The current system in Florida does provide a way to assure that a permit holder has demonstrated at least a minimum knowledge of the law as well as showing he/she has basic skills in how to use a firearm in a self-defense situation.

Is this something we want to see come to The Villages?

If this becomes law, do believe that 99% of people who have guns will not carry them and will identify people who are scared of their own shadow.

[Number 10 GI]

What is someone going to do if the low life thug has a knife , not a firearm, and is intent on doing harm? If your body is as broken down as mine, you sure as Hades aren't going be able to fight him and take his knife. You aren't going to out run him either. Even a healthy 20 something stud is going to be in a hurt against a knife wielding thug. Do you really think a young 100 lb woman is going to fare any better? Sure, you could carry a knife yourself but just how effective are you going to be? I'll answer that, you are going to be on the losing end. There have been may incidents where multiple low life scum bags without a weapon have beaten a person to death with their fists and feet. The only thing a cop can do for you is call for an ambulance or the coroner and hopefully find a witness to the crime.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Well, I don't....... because there are a lot of "Hotheads", uptight seniors, inflexible seniors, and demented seniors locate here. Not to mention the excessive drinking that is prevalent here.

Must... Resist... Don't... Want... Another... "Vacation"...