The Brady Campaign, a prominent gun control advocacy group that has long been rightfully reviled by supporters of gun-rights is now engaging in a campaign to attempt to educate foreign tourists and others about a new Florida law that gives citizens greater latitude in defending themselves. The new law, which can be reviewed here, does away with the “duty to retreat” that previously required an individual to retreat from, rather than shoot, an attacker if feasible.
The Brady folks, being hysterically anti-gun rights, are understandably upset by the passage of this law, and are predicting doom and gloom for Florida. They have since begun a major campaign to inform foreign tourists and others about this law. As reported in The Scotsman here, the Brady campaign has issued a statement saying,
-
Warning: Florida residents can use deadly force,” says one of the adverts. Another reads: “Thinking about a Florida vacation? Please ensure your family is safe. In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads…”
Peter Hamm, the communications director of the Brady Campaign, said: “It’s a particular risk faced by travellers coming to Florida for a vacation because they have no idea it’s going to be the law of the land. If they get into a road rage argument, the other person may feel he has the right to use deadly force.”
Imagine that, someone standing their ground with an attacker, rather than running away! What is this, America?
It seems then that this ad campaign effectively does what lawmakers/lobbyists were arguably trying to do with this law: let potential attackers know that there is now the possibility of a reckoning at the hands of everyday folks. Could this gun control campaign then actually help to reduce the incidence of attacks?
{ 5 comments }
The only thing that disturbs me about this is that the duty of withdrawl was an important part of the common law, and being more of a pluralist than a rationalist, I tend to prefer letting the common law stand. Of course, this particular facet of the common law was first repealed statutorily by Texas in 1856, and then by an Indiana jury in 1876 (holding that repeating rifles made the duty to withdrawl moot) so I guess the tradition of this law is of little consequence by this point.
‘Libertarians’ often forget an important utilitarian question when confronted with the gun control argument: at what point does the right of an individual to own a gun impinge on the right of another to safety from that gun?
Uhh, when they harm another with the gun?
Apparently libertarians have forgotten about the hoplophobes in the world..
‘Statists’ often forget an important utilitarian question when confronted with the hand control argument: at what point does the right of an individual to own a hand impinge on the right of another to safety from that hand?
Absurd? Yes. Relevant? Yes.
Simply having hands, feet, guns, or any other viable weaponry causes no harm to other people. It is only the use of force (by any means) against another person that can cause harm to other people.
We have the rule of law to protect one person from the use of force by another.
Ones focus might be better placed upon those who would take weaponry from the people. What reason could there be to prevent people from having weaponry? The primary historical reason has been to subjugate a people.
Rather than spend money taken from the people by force on disarming them, perhaps such money would be better used on proper enforcement of law upon those who cause harm to others…
i am for citizens owning guns, what i’m against are green card, student visa, or any visa holder who can
show a drivers lic.and a gas or eltrc. bill to show his
residence, with these three items, they can purchase
in caliornia, a hand gun every 30 days. in speaking to
a.t.f. in calif. riverside, i was told that in most states
they can spend $1000.00 dollars an buy as many as
that will pay for. these are guests in my country,and
in most cases they can not buy hand guns in there
own countrys. Mr chuo, s.p. who shot up west virginia
tec. was a green card holder from Korea. Why can
he buy a gun here!!! While the supreme court looks
at gun laws, they should change (people )in the 2nd.
amenment, to read (citizens.)this would, leave all these
noncitizens to depend on our good police in the u.s.
PLEASE LOOK IN TO THIS,IT MAY SOLVE PROBLEMS. THANKS, HENRY JOHNSON
Comments on this entry are closed.