[Ghostavo]

The argument that the US has been traditionally been a "gun-toting" country doesn't really seem to work, since Australia seemed to have the exact same profile (including the annual mass shootings) until their modern gun legislation.

[MP-Ryan]

Canada also has a significant gun culture and history intricately tied to firearms; our rates of gun ownership are among the highest in the developed world.  We also managed to enact sensible controls on firearms so that incidents like this one are virtually non-existent.  I can count on one hand the number of mass shootings this country has seen in the last 20 years.

The point is this:  lax firearms controls meant a presumably-otherwise-law-abiding-fellow was able to carry a lethal weapon designed solely for use on human beings into one of the most benign locations possible, and murder a young father and husband in a moment of exceedingly poor judgement.  Take the gun out of the equation and no one is dead.  Clearly this man was NOT fit to be carrying a gun, especially into that location, so why was he able to?  Right - lax restrictions on firearms ownership, carrying, and use.

I probably have more time spent with guns and rounds fired than a good 99% of HLP's membership.  I'm not anti-gun.  What I am firmly opposed to is irresponsible ownership/carrying/use, and if you can sum up the American system regarding guns, those four words are perfect.  The United States has a national problem with irresponsible ownership/carrying/use of firearms.

[neo_hermes]

Fully Automatic firearms aren't accessible unless you find one that isn't outrageously priced in the tens of thousands which would require a background check, legal in your state, and a $200 tax stamp for that particular firearm.

 or your handed one to use by a company that is legally allowed to construct them under the FFL- Type 7, 9, or 10 at a gun range.

you don't need a license for muzzle loaders.

[Hellzed]

ridiculous firearms controls

The murderer was a retired cop.  Are you in favor of restricting cops from carrying firearms?

Actually, that's something cultural. Most European countries restrict cops from carrying guns :
- local police forces in Germany and France usually do not carry guns
- national or federal police forces carry guns, but they can only use it a last resort, in cases of self defence, and if a non lethal solution has already failed
- military patrols during anti-terrorist alerts have empty magazines

Every police officer I know keeps his/her gun at home in a locked box.

I guess it is all about threat reduction, avoiding an escalation between police forces and criminals. And of course, at some point, sometimes the police will get shot at, but it's still better than gunfights on a daily basis, or having the risk of being shot dead during an ID control or a road control gone wrong.

Too bad it only works in countries with an already low gun violence rate.

Now see, as an American, this seems utterly insane to me.  I understand that gun crime in most of Europe is comparatively much lower than in the United States, but there's always going to be a chance that you come across a criminal wielding a firearm, and if all your officers have to combat them are a bunch of billy clubs and tasers...well, you're just asking for a higher bodycount.  Seconds matter when there's a shooter present, and not having your local officers harmed seems like a massive liability.  Hell, I remember back in college right after the mass shooting at Virginia Tech, many students were upset when it was learned that our campus police officers kept their firearms locked in their cruiser trunks; we wanted them able to respond to a threat at a moment's notice without wasting any time.

Men and women in the police forces know about it, and have to live with the fear that such a situation may happen. But since local police forces only deal with violations, and "small crimes" caught in the act in city centres, some of them may never see a gun in their carrier. They do not investigate, which keeps them away from the organised crime. National/federal police forces do carry guns (and are much more present on the territory than the US federal forces : in many cities, they have many police stations, sometimes right next to the local police stations). They deal with serious crimes, and do investigations.
This kind of task separation is a key to understanding how police works in the Europe : unarmed police forces and armed police forces are almost two different lines of work.

We are not discussing if this is better to have an unarmed police against armed criminals.
What we are doing is an ugly calculus : do the advantages of an unarmed police in normal situations outweigh the drawbacks in emergency situations ? Clearly, in the EU member states, they do, but the whole police administration have to be organised in a specific way.

Again, it's hard to compare a country which has 10 to 15 times the gun homicide rate, and 4 to 5 times the global homicide rate, of any EU state.

[karajorma]

Suicide prevention is a much more complex issue and removing the means doesn't ultimately solve it.

I suggest you read up on the conversion from town gas to natural gas in the UK or the effect of putting up fences on bridges. You'll be surprised.

[Grizzly]

Suicide prevention is a much more complex issue and
It's true, though, that removing guns would reduce the number of suicides and gun accidents. However, the former is again, a symptom of a much bigger problem. I believe that in every case, the root cause should be worked on, not the symptoms. Suicide prevention is a much more complex issue and removing the means doesn't ultimately solve it.

It does, however, help a great deal. Suicide is not something you are dead-set to do. It's not an eleborate plan, not something you prep for weeks on end. Instead, you are internarelly conflicted. All humans have an inherent will to live - it takes a lot of desperation  to overpower that. When one becomes this desperate, it's usually a ... flood of emotion triggered by a recent event or line of thought. There's something that triggers the rage, the helplessness. It often feels like you have been possessed by the devil.
However, remember the sense of self-preservation. If there is anything out there that will make that person believe that there is another way out of his or her situation, he or she will grasp it. Signs with the number for suicide hotlines next to railway crossings and such are confirmed to have worked. However, most often, the rage and desperation simply peter out before the person has had the chance to do anything. The less ways one has to commit suicide, the higher the chance that the rage or desperation will have petered out before that.

The problem with the root cause is that finding people with suicidial depressions is hard (as people with suicidial depressions tend to not tell anyone). Getting rid of suicidial depressions is also very very hard (simply because... suicidial depressions). It's also a process that takes several years. The root cause is also not the thing that causes the death of these people - simply being suicidially depressed does not kill you.

So, basically, symptom supression is a very very very very good thing.

The argument that the US has been traditionally been a "gun-toting" country doesn't really seem to work, since Australia seemed to have the exact same profile (including the annual mass shootings) until their modern gun legislation.

So has, for that matter, New York. Which is now reasonably gun-free.

[MP-Ryan]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/stand-your-ground-defence-mulled-in-us-movie-theatre-shooting/article16341238/

Soon after authorities say a retired Tampa police captain shot a fellow moviegoer Monday over a cellphone dispute, a question now common in Florida arose:

Could he be defended under “stand your ground”?

Under state law, if a person fears death or great bodily harm, he can use deadly force, even if retreat is possible. Since it was passed in 2005, the defence has been used in more than 200 cases. In many, the defendant has gone free.

Aahahahahaha.  That's tragic frustrated laughter, incidentally.

Florida really needs to repeal that ****ing idiotic law.  The Common law provisions for self-defense (codified in every state in addition to stand your ground) are far more appropriate.

[karajorma]

If the guy gets off on a "Stand your ground" defence then I don't understand how people in Florida think the law is meant to work. The mere act of drawing the pistol should have been enough to prevent any further attacks. The "I shot him because I thought he might come at me, even though he was several feet away and being held back by his wife" defence is just plain silly.

If you're armed with a soda and the other guy has a gun, you're probably not going to attack. He'd already used his popcorn attack evidently.

[StarSlayer]

[666maslo666]

Whats exactly is wrong with Floridas stand your ground law? I dont think there should be any duty to retreat and as far as I know some variation of SYG law is common all over the world.

That said, throwing a popcorn bag shouldnt be enough to justify deadly force, SYG or not, so I really doubt he will get off because of that.

[The E]

Whats exactly is wrong with Floridas stand your ground law? I dont think there should be any duty to retreat and as far as I know some variation of SYG law is common all over the world.

Oh, where to start...

First off, no, SYG is not common at all. Self-defence laws recognize the right of the defender to utilize deadly force when fending off an attacker, which has been a legal custom for a long time that I don't think anyone sees as problematic.

However.

In order for the self-defence defense to apply, certain legal standards usually have to be met. Like, for example, there not being any other option to safeguard your own life. Stand Your Ground removes that, by stating that lethal force in self defence is justified even if the defender could have run away.

What SYG does, effectively, is lowering the bar for when a killing in self-defence is acceptable. It makes it easier for the defendant to argue that his actions were justified. This, in my opinion, is a bad thing, as it opens the door for rather unjustified and excessive uses of force to be retroactively legitimized to a much greater extent.

EDIT:

I should add that, here in Germany, our self-defense legislation includes very strong "Stand Your Ground"-type language, which goes even further than what SYG does in the US. Around here, defenders only have to use "the weakest possible method" of defense, and there is absolutely no duty whatsoever to retreat.
But, and this is the big difference, we also have very strong gun legislation, which makes pretty sure that the only people carrying guns will be either police or criminals (and criminals packing heat will have a very bad time when caught); this ensures that the strongest methods of defense are usually limited to hitting people with blunt objects, something much less likely to end in a fatality.

The combination of a very liberal interpretation of "self defense" and the widespread ownership and acceptance of guns in daily life in the US is very, very dangerous, I believe, and this case demonstrates that danger.

[666maslo666]

[

Oh, where to start...

First off, no, SYG is not common at all. Self-defence laws recognize the right of the defender to utilize deadly force when fending off an attacker, which has been a legal custom for a long time that I don't think anyone sees as problematic.

However.

In order for the self-defence defense to apply, certain legal standards usually have to be met. Like, for example, there not being any other option to safeguard your own life. Stand Your Ground removes that, by stating that lethal force in self defence is justified even if the defender could have run away.

What SYG does, effectively, is lowering the bar for when a killing in self-defence is acceptable. It makes it easier for the defendant to argue that his actions were justified. This, in my opinion, is a bad thing, as it opens the door for rather unjustified and excessive uses of force to be retroactively legitimized to a much greater extent.

SYG laws are common all over the world, it is in fact duty to retreat that is in the minority:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/07/is_stand_your_ground_unique_to_the_united_states.html

I dont think duty to retreat is a good idea, it shifts the blame from the attacker to the innocent victim. For example, many people could freeze or otherwise fail to retreat when faced with a threatening situation. It seems like something that very well could land an innocent person in prison. And I cannot accept that, Id rather accept a lower bar for killing in self defense and some murderers getting off.

[The E]

Requoting because you may have missed the edit:

I should add that, here in Germany, our self-defense legislation includes very strong "Stand Your Ground"-type language, which goes even further than what SYG does in the US. Around here, defenders only have to use "the weakest possible method" of defense, and there is absolutely no duty whatsoever to retreat.
But, and this is the big difference, we also have very strong gun legislation, which makes pretty sure that the only people carrying guns will be either police or criminals (and criminals packing heat will have a very bad time when caught); this ensures that the strongest methods of defense are usually limited to hitting people with blunt objects, something much less likely to end in a fatality.

The combination of a very liberal interpretation of "self defense" and the widespread ownership and acceptance of guns in daily life in the US is very, very dangerous, I believe, and this case demonstrates that danger.

[Hellzed]

[

Oh, where to start...

First off, no, SYG is not common at all. Self-defence laws recognize the right of the defender to utilize deadly force when fending off an attacker, which has been a legal custom for a long time that I don't think anyone sees as problematic.

However.

In order for the self-defence defense to apply, certain legal standards usually have to be met. Like, for example, there not being any other option to safeguard your own life. Stand Your Ground removes that, by stating that lethal force in self defence is justified even if the defender could have run away.

What SYG does, effectively, is lowering the bar for when a killing in self-defence is acceptable. It makes it easier for the defendant to argue that his actions were justified. This, in my opinion, is a bad thing, as it opens the door for rather unjustified and excessive uses of force to be retroactively legitimized to a much greater extent.

SYG laws are common all over the world, it is in fact duty to retreat that is in the minority:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/07/is_stand_your_ground_unique_to_the_united_states.html

I dont think duty to retreat is a good idea, it shifts the blame from the attacker to the innocent victim. For example, many people could freeze or otherwise fail to retreat when faced with a threatening situation. It seems like something that very well could land an innocent person in prison. And I cannot accept that, Id rather accept a lower bar for killing in self defense and some murderers getting off.

This is not about about "morality" (or what you call "shifting the blame"), this is about saving lives, even lives of criminals when possible, to achieve a global lower level of violence.
It is something many people don't understand, especially people originating from a country that legally murders 40 to 50 of its citizens each year.
That's the principle of *liberal* democracy : when it comes to protecting people, their integrity, their fundamental rights (including the right to life), whoever these people are, this is not a place for any kind of democratic decision. This is where we shall apply the great principles of our states Constitutions and Treaties safeguarding human rights.

[zookeeper]

Duty to retreat doesn't mean you have a duty to run away from every potentially dangerous situation/person. It just means that you're not allowed to use potentially lethal force if you can back off or run away instead. If you freeze and the other guy starts slicing you up, then obviously you can't run away anymore and you're not forbidden from using potentially lethal force to save yourself.

How those kind of cases usually get solved is another matter, but in principle it's a whole lot more sane approach than one where you have no obligation to opt for more peaceful means before using potentially lethal force against what you think threatens you.

[666maslo666]

The combination of a very liberal interpretation of "self defense" and the widespread ownership and acceptance of guns in daily life in the US is very, very dangerous, I believe, and this case demonstrates that danger.

Lets wait for the verdict before judging Floridas self defense law based on this case. I really dont think this case is going to depend on SYG law in any way.

I agree that in the US where guns are common, duty to retreat may act as a deterrent and help prevent some shootings and save some lives, both innocent and lives of criminals. But as I said, it can also lead to some innocent people who really only defended themselves end up in prison, so it is not a very just law and there is a reason no duty to retreat is more widespread.
Taken together, it is a tradeoff I am not comfortable to make.

[Grizzly]

I dont think duty to retreat is a good idea, it shifts the blame from the attacker to the innocent victim. For example, many people could freeze or otherwise fail to retreat when faced with a threatening situation. It seems like something that very well could land an innocent person in prison. And I cannot accept that, Id rather accept a lower bar for killing in self defense and some murderers getting off.

Duty to retreat is not about physical retreat in the army sense, but rather about demonstrating a non-hostile stance. Freezing in a threatening situation counts, as well as calmly approaching the violent person and trying to calm him down.

[Hellzed]

The combination of a very liberal interpretation of "self defense" and the widespread ownership and acceptance of guns in daily life in the US is very, very dangerous, I believe, and this case demonstrates that danger.

Lets wait for the verdict before judging Floridas self defense law based on this case. I really dont think this case is going to depend on SYG law in any way.

I agree that in the US where guns are common, duty to retreat may act as a deterrent and help prevent some shootings and save some lives, both innocent and lives of criminals. But as I said, it can also lead to some innocent people who really only defended themselves end up in prison, so it is not a very just law and there is a reason no duty to retreat is more widespread.
Taken together, it is a tradeoff I am not comfortable to make.

Under continental European law, defending oneself by any means that wouldn't be considered "proportional" is not being innocent anymore. Courts have to evaluate that part.
Also, keeping a loaded gun, ready to fire, at home, is not a good idea if you want to plead self defence, as it can be seen as "advanced preparation" to shoot someone.
This is the current state of the law in France (chances that German, Belgian and Spanish laws say exactly the same thing, i don't know about others): http://www.connexionfrance.com/french-law-on-self-defence-10494-news-article.html

[Lorric]

I dont think duty to retreat is a good idea, it shifts the blame from the attacker to the innocent victim. For example, many people could freeze or otherwise fail to retreat when faced with a threatening situation. It seems like something that very well could land an innocent person in prison. And I cannot accept that, Id rather accept a lower bar for killing in self defense and some murderers getting off.

Duty to retreat is not about physical retreat in the army sense, but rather about demonstrating a non-hostile stance. Freezing in a threatening situation counts, as well as calmly approaching the violent person and trying to calm him down.

That's the first time I've heard this. I've always hated self defence restrictions. What kind of fool turns his back to an enemy? What kind of fool takes away his advantages by meeting someone on even ground with "necessarry force" rather than overwhelming force? I want to be free to hit an aggressor with everything I've got.

[MP-Ryan]

So much confusion about 'duty to retreat.'    Joshua is incorrect, as are a couple others.  Somewhat disappointed in the writers of the Slate article too.

Here's the precise text of Florida's self-defense statute.  Subsection (3) is the Stand Your Ground component:  http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

Here's the deal:  in American States without SYG, Canada, Britain, and IIRC Australia, (Common Law) the way self-defense works is thus:  if confronted with force you reasonably believe will cause you death or grievous bodily harm, you may use force to prevent injury to yourself which is reasonable in the circumstances to prevent it so long as you use no more force than is necessary.  That may include force you intend to cause death or grievous bodily harm to your assailant if it becomes necessary.  Thus, the Common Law requirements for self defense do not actually include a duty to retreat physically, they require you to do everything other than kill the person unless it is absolutely necessary.  That is what duty to retreat means - proportionality.  If one can get away, then killing your assailant is unreasonable and not self-defense.  If one can stop the assailant without killing them, then killing them in said circumstances is not self-defense.  It means that use of deadly force is an absolute last resort.

Other European countries require proportionality - if someone tries to kill you, you can kill them back so long as the options you use are proportional to what was used against you.

In all of those situations, it effectively means that if you are confronted by someone who you believe intends to kill you, your legal obligation is to only kill them if you have no other option.

In Florida, the SYG law means that if someone confronts you in a manner which you believe is intended to kill you, you are allowed to kill them instead even if you had other options.  It's a fundamentally flawed law; the point of 'duty to retreat'/proportionality is that 'intent to case death or grievous bodily harm' is a subjective notion - it's entirely premised on what the defender believes.  Duty to retreat and/or proportionality are factored in because some people have unreasonable ideas of what constitutes a threat of death or grievous bodily harm.  Removing that aspect of the Common Law principles of self-defense removes one of the protections that limits the use of self-defense to situations broader society is comfortable with.

The Florida law actually goes so far as to remove proportionality:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.[/u]

The emphasized portion means that if you are in public, you aren't doing anything illegal, and someone commits or is about to commit a forcible felony that you observe, you can kill them if you believe it to be necessary to prevent that offence.

Check out what forcible felonies are in Florida:

Forcible felony.—"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

How's that for scary?  How many members of the gun-toting public do you think can tell the difference between aggravated assault and common assault?  Common battery and aggravated battery? Robbery versus break and enter?

There are a lot of reasons Florida is OK with people killing other people for.