The NRA Literally Wrote Florida's New Bill to Legalize Warning Shots

[The Question]

And so the only people who would still have guns, are the bad guys.

Wow, that's an insultingly reductive statement that dangerously oversimplifies the nature of the criminal justice system, the causes of trends of criminal behavior, and human morality in general if I've ever heard one.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

The issue is that cracking the fingerprint tech can't be that hard after a while and eventually they'll just be like any other guns out there. Who's going to do a firmware update on their guns if they want to use them illegally? Just pay for someone to crack it then use as normal.

People crack online account passwords. But that system does provide us with security more often than not.

Nobody except for me, so far as I know, has ever logged onto my SHH account in the years I've been here. Though someone could conceivably do so if they really wanted.

 

[The Question]

Firearms are really the only area where people think that if security measures can never be 100% then there's no point in having them at all.

Personally, even if I buy into the notion that "if we restrict gun ownership, then only the bad guys will have guns," that still doesn't bother me at all. I think that we should focus on improving our safety by putting more trust and funding into organizations of trained professionals who can, at least in theory, be controlled by and held accountable to the will of the people through public democratic elections. Leaving public safety up to everyone just being armed feels a lot more reckless and dangerous and open to abuse to me.

Ultimately, the "then only the bad guys will have guns" argument doesn't hold water for me because it assumes a clear distinction between "good guy" and "bad guy" that clearly doesn't exist. The only thing that separates a law abiding and responsible gun owner from a violent criminal is one bad decision. The difference between a group of concerned citizens defending their property and a street gang is an extremely murky one.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

Personally, even if I buy into the notion that "if we restrict gun ownership, then only the bad guys will have guns," that still doesn't bother me at all. I think that we should focus on improving our safety by putting more trust and funding into organizations of trained professionals who can, at least in theory, be controlled by and held accountable to the will of the people through public democratic elections. Leaving public safety up to everyone just being armed feels a lot more reckless and dangerous and open to abuse to me.

It was called the wild west. It didn't work very well.

 

[The Question]

It was called the wild west. It didn't work very well.

It's funny to me how the most popular Western stories are about organized law enforcement coming into the frontier settlements and trying to put an end to that kind of free for all.

 

[Lantern Venom]

That is absolutely chilling.


If I were a citizen of Florida, I would arm myself and shoot anyone who even looked at me funny. After all, they're citizens, too, so one has to assume that everyone else is armed and ready to open fire. Shooting first is the only way to guarantee that you'll be safe in the Free-Fire State.

Yes, forget sound decision making, security systems, locks, vigilance, guard dogs, other weapons, and any type of hand-to-hand training. A person should always be ready to shoot first, shoot second, shoot again, and then maybe try to think when the smoke cleans.

 

[BestGirl]

I don't know why this thread contains so many Florida jokes. I'll bet this could happen in any state.

People should be required to undergo meticulous psychiatric evaluation before owning a firearm. And even then every gun needs equipped with thumb-print technology so that it can only be fired by its registered owner.

Agreed 100%.

 

[KevanG]

If that was the case then we'd only have decent people and criminals with guns instead of everyone, including bat**** crazy lunatics who want to kill everybody.

 

[The Question]

I'm okay with that.

 

[KevanG]

I didn't say I wasn't. There would likely be less shootings all around and that's not a bad thing.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

Why would they have weapons checks? People who have concealed carry permits have the right to bring guns with them. Unless the law exempts certain places like amusement parks, churches, schools, etc., the staff wouldn't have the legal right to deny armed patrons entrance.

umm no they dont, disney and all theme parks are considered private property so they decide who can do what and you are not allowed to carry a gun on your person at disney

hell i guy got arrested last year whent he silly basterd let to fan out of his pocket on a ride and left it there

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...1_disney-ride-animal-kingdom-disney-employees

and i'm for gun use, but this all in one rule is just a massacre waiting to happen

 

[warhorse78]

People should be required to undergo meticulous psychiatric evaluation before owning a firearm. And even then every gun needs equipped with thumb-print technology so that it can only be fired by its registered owner.

What about the antique guns? Collectors stuff and whatnot? Really, I think people should stop focusing on the guns and focus on the people who shoot others.

 

[Xeno]

What about the antique guns? Collectors stuff and whatnot? Really, I think people should stop focusing on the guns and focus on the people who shoot others.

That's why there need to be better background checks and mental health evaluations required for people applying for gun permits. Keeping guns and concealed carry permits out of the hands of fools and crazies who are likeliest to shoot others should be the goal.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

That's why there need to be better background checks and mental health evaluations required for people applying for gun permits. Keeping guns and concealed carry permits out of the hands of fools and crazies who are likeliest to shoot others should be the goal.

Like the guy in Florida that shot someone for texting in the movie theater. He was a former cop, I'm sure he would've passed any check you wanted, but one bad day and he kills someone over something ridiculous.

The thing I like about the good guys vs. bad guys argument is the good guys are usually out in the country where the bad guys aren't going to go. The bad guys are in the inner city, the people with the big stockpiles aren't getting attacked.

 

[charl_huntress]

Hmmm....I'm against warning shots. The gun is a weapon. A warning shot shouldn't be used as a warning. Once the gun is brandished that's warning enough.

 

[Xeno]

Hmmm....I'm against warning shots. The gun is a weapon. A warning shot shouldn't be used as a warning. Once the gun is brandished that's warning enough.

Anyone who goes around brandishing guns at people ought to be shot themselves. That's warning enough that there's a wannabe murderer on the loose.

 

[charl_huntress]

Anyone who goes around brandishing guns at people ought to be shot themselves. That's warning enough that there's a wannabe murderer on the loose.

Well...I don't know about all that, but people who go about brandishing guns willy-nilly usually do get shot. Either the police get them or someone else. My point is once the gun is brandished that's warning enough. There is no need to fire a warning a shot. The gun is the warning. Plus, warning shots can be dangerous because you're not aiming at anything and could inadvertently hit something...or someone.

 

[Tanin]

I'm just worried someone may accidentally get shot as many people don't understand bullet travel distance.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

I'm just worried someone may accidentally get shot as many people don't understand bullet travel distance.

You would think they'd have to take some kind of test, or be required to take some safety courses to get to have such a deadly weapon. But nope, the NRA says that's just crazy thinking, and everyone should just have a gun instead. Because, you know...that makes sense...