Get a gun, start a fight, shoot and kill, no problem!

Guns in 21st Century America

"Florida’s gun shootings and killings are becoming epidemic. This should have been expected given the recent changes, lack of proper regulations/laws and encouragement by politicians, gun rights groups and the NRA.
In the last few years we have witnessed many innocent people shot and killed in Florida."

OK, Here we go again. Another male black teenager is shot dead by a white adult male. Does this sound familiar? It should, a year ago it was Trayvon Martin walking back from a community store with a bag of skiddles.

This time four young black boys sitting in a car playing loud music. The shooter pulls his car along side. The loud music bothers him and he gets out of his car, confronts those playing the loud music, heated words are exchanged. The shooter goes back to his car, finds, loads his gun, and goes back to the loud music vehical with three teenage black males. More heated words and the shooter opens fire. Nine bullets into the vehical, some while the vehical was fleeing, one of which killed the black teen almost instantaneously.

Open and shut case, right? No, not at all!

Because of the insane self defense and stand you ground laws, partially written by the NRA, introduced and passed by the Florida legislators and signed and approved by Florida's governors, the jury could not find this shooter guilty of murder.

Dispite the opinions of Florida's judges, state prosecutors, defense lawyers and jurists who worked on these cases, Florida's state ledgislators and governor recently approved these laws AGAIN.

Both of these shooters felt justified and empowered to carry and use these killing machines because of Florida's gun regulations, 'self defense' and 'stand your ground' laws. These laws clearly give a free pass to anyone with a gun to use it on other human beings.
Note: Both of these shooters are victims too, thier lives and families are changed negatively for the rest of thier lives.

The only solution the good residents of Florida have is to vote out the state legislators who voted to pass these laws andthe governor too.
bossman1

  • Print

Comments » 58

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

There are some pertinent pieces of information being omitted by the blog author that should be mentioned in the interest of fairness and full disclosure.

First, Michael Dunn (the shooter in the so-called "loud music" incident) was convicted on four of the five charges against him, including three counts of attempted second-degree murder, and faces sentencing of up to 90 years in prison for his actions. Mr. Dunn is not simply going to walk away a free man.

Next, the reason that the jury did not convict Mr. Dunn of first-degree murder for the shooting death of Jordan Davis was because they not could reach a unanimous verdict on that count (as required by Florida Law), forcing the judge to declare a mistrial on that count.

However, state prosecutors are considering re-filing first-degree murder charges against Mr. Dunn so, again, he is not simply going to walk away a free man.

Finally, Mr. Dunn's received no special consideration under Florida Law for his claims of self-defense or "stand your ground". Both defense claims were obviously rejected by the jury given the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the shooting incident.

This case is a prime example of how the author's sweeping claim that "[Florida] laws clearly give a free pass to anyone with a gun to use it on other human beings" is simply not true.

Mr. Dunn has been tried and convicted under Florida Law of three serious crimes, is potentially facing a re-trial on an even more serious charge, and is very likely going to be spending a very long time in prison.

There is obviously a need to address the issues of gun violence and gun control, I don't disagree with that at all.

But, any discussions on those topics need to be open and honest in order to ultimately achieve any meaningful results, and by necessity must include all available information, not just that which is most convenient to the arguments being made by one side or the other.

bossman1 writes:

Thank you for the comment. Most of what you wrote is common knowledge and this blog author can not include everything on one blog entry.
Feel free to add more correct info, maybe some about Mr. Dunn and his attitude and dislike of black people?.
The fact remains though, it is the self defense and stand you ground laws in Florida that enabled mr. Dunn and handcuffed the jury and judge at trial.
If there ever was a case for first degree murder and a hate crime this was it. Justice wasn't done for Jordon Davis or Trayvon Martin either.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

The blog author can include whatever they want to include, that's kind of the whole point of a blog. You chose to leave all that pertinent information out and for your opinions on the narrower part that you don't like.

Since only Mr. Dunn can state with any certainty what his attitude towards other people is, and since only Mr. Dunn can state with any certainty what emboldened him to do what he did, anything offered by anyone else is nothing more than opinion and speculation.

Justice was done for both Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis. The shooters in both instances were arrested and charged with crimes, and received due process under our legal system just as they should have.

In the case of the former, the shooter was acquitted. In the case of the latter, the shooter was convicted and is facing the potential of 90 years in prison.

In this case, the shooter was charged with first-degree murder, and the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on that count. Prosecutors have the option of re-trying the shooter on that charge. If the prosecution thought they could have added hate crime charges, I'm certain they probably would have. They didn't, and they had a reason for doing so.

The thing about trial verdicts is that only half of the people invested in the case ever agree with the verdict. And, the fact that you don't agree with the verdicts that were rendered by the juries and deemed acceptable by the judges doesn't mean that the wrong verdicts were rendered. It just means that you disagree with them.

Our legal system performed as designed in both instances.

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

The blog author can include whatever they want to include, that's kind of the whole point of a blog. You chose to leave all that pertinent information out and for your opinions on the narrower part that you don't like.

Since only Mr. Dunn can state with any certainty what his attitude towards other people is, and since only Mr. Dunn can state with any certainty what emboldened him to do what he did, anything offered by anyone else is nothing more than opinion and speculation.

Justice was done for both Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis. The shooters in both instances were arrested and charged with crimes, and received due process under our legal system just as they should have.

In the case of the former, the shooter was acquitted. In the case of the latter, the shooter was convicted and is facing the potential of 90 years in prison.

In this case, the shooter was charged with first-degree murder, and the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict on that count. Prosecutors have the option of re-trying the shooter on that charge. If the prosecution thought they could have added hate crime charges, I'm certain they probably would have. They didn't, and they had a reason for doing so.

The thing about trial verdicts is that only half of the people invested in the case ever agree with the verdict. And, the fact that you don't agree with the verdicts that were rendered by the juries and deemed acceptable by the judges doesn't mean that the wrong verdicts were rendered. It just means that you disagree with them.

Our legal system performed as designed in both instances.

This author can not include all the information pertaining to this case and it wasn't my intention either. You can add any info you deem pertinent yourself, just keep it truthful and factual.

Of course some of this entry is my opinion, that's what blogs are mostly about.
I did offer you and others to write a blog entry and I would publish it, the offer still stands.
.
I dis-agree with you that only Mr. Dunn can state with certainty what his attiude is toward other people. He may be the last person who could/would state this with any certainty at all.
Just like LTE writers, bloggers, and those that write many comments on these blogs, they can not be objective about themselves.
With all due respect I can muster, you are the prime example of what I say is true. People get properly judged mostly by their actions or non-actions, not what they say about themselves.
.
While I appreciate your comments it is not necessary to repeat common knowledge.
.
Finally, I believe the juries, judges and prosecutors probably did the best job they could given the evidence that was allowed and Florida's current gun related laws.

MasonDixon writes:

The headline doesn't match the stories presented.
No problem indeed, I guess.

Cassandra writes:

Background checks cannot predict the behavior of those who pass them. Thus Mr. Dunn, presumably free of criminal history and mental issues nevertheless went through the deliberate process of returning to his vehicle, taking a gun out of the glove compartment, loading it, getting out of his car, walking over to the victim's vehicle and shooting him dead, all because he didn't like loud music.

There is far too much of this OK Corral mentality in this country.

bossman1 writes:

That's true, and the current Florida laws and gun regulations help people like Dunn and Zimmerman kill people and get away with it.

bossman1 writes:

in response to bossman1:

Thank you for the comment. Most of what you wrote is common knowledge and this blog author can not include everything on one blog entry.
Feel free to add more correct info, maybe some about Mr. Dunn and his attitude and dislike of black people?.
The fact remains though, it is the self defense and stand you ground laws in Florida that enabled mr. Dunn and handcuffed the jury and judge at trial.
If there ever was a case for first degree murder and a hate crime this was it. Justice wasn't done for Jordon Davis or Trayvon Martin either.

Something I didn't include bin any of my comments:
In 2005 Florida's 'stand your ground' law was written by NRA lawyers, passed by Republican state legislators and signed into law by the Republican Governor. Until then someone who thought they were in danger had the obligation to back off, get away from the danger if they could.
Many lives would have been saved if this provision was still in effect, including Trayvon, the popcorn thrower and Mr. Dunn's victim.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

That's true, and the current Florida laws and gun regulations help people like Dunn and Zimmerman kill people and get away with it.

Please tell us how, specifically, Florida laws and gun regulations allegedly "help people...kill people and get away with it." Please cite the specific Florida laws and gun regulations in your response.

Mr. Zimmerman was given due process in court under Florida law and was acquitted on the charges brought against him by a jury of his peers based upon a preponderance of the evidence.

Please tell us how, specifically, the law assisted or allowed Mr. Zimmerman to "get away" with anything.

Mr. Dunn was convicted of three counts of attempted second-degree murder, is facing the possibility of being re-tried on the first-degree murder charge, and is facing the possibility of spending up to 90 years in prison.

Please tell us how, specifically, Mr. Dunn is allegedly "getting away" with anything.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to Cassandra:

Background checks cannot predict the behavior of those who pass them. Thus Mr. Dunn, presumably free of criminal history and mental issues nevertheless went through the deliberate process of returning to his vehicle, taking a gun out of the glove compartment, loading it, getting out of his car, walking over to the victim's vehicle and shooting him dead, all because he didn't like loud music.

There is far too much of this OK Corral mentality in this country.

Good post, well said.

Unfortunately, there is no amount of gun control legislation or regulation that can affect unpredictable behavior.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

Something I didn't include bin any of my comments:
In 2005 Florida's 'stand your ground' law was written by NRA lawyers, passed by Republican state legislators and signed into law by the Republican Governor. Until then someone who thought they were in danger had the obligation to back off, get away from the danger if they could.
Many lives would have been saved if this provision was still in effect, including Trayvon, the popcorn thrower and Mr. Dunn's victim.

I question whether Florida law specifically said that individuals MUST back away and remove themselves from danger if they felt threatened prior to the enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Can you provide the specific citation from Florida law to support your claim?

There is no guarantee whatsoever that any of the shooting victims you referenced would still be alive today even if Florida law did mandate that people remove themselves from a threatening situation. Your statement is one of opinion and speculation, not one of fact.

Cassandra writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

I question whether Florida law specifically said that individuals MUST back away and remove themselves from danger if they felt threatened prior to the enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Can you provide the specific citation from Florida law to support your claim?

There is no guarantee whatsoever that any of the shooting victims you referenced would still be alive today even if Florida law did mandate that people remove themselves from a threatening situation. Your statement is one of opinion and speculation, not one of fact.

Well and good but there is also a law of probability.

Cassandra writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

I question whether Florida law specifically said that individuals MUST back away and remove themselves from danger if they felt threatened prior to the enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Can you provide the specific citation from Florida law to support your claim?

There is no guarantee whatsoever that any of the shooting victims you referenced would still be alive today even if Florida law did mandate that people remove themselves from a threatening situation. Your statement is one of opinion and speculation, not one of fact.

"Florida Law Prior to the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law

Prior to Stand Your Ground, a person could use only non-deadly force to defend against the imminent use of unlawful non-deadly force. Deadly force was authorized only to defend against imminent deadly force or great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony.

Unless the person was in his home or workplace, he had a "duty to retreat" prior to using deadly force. In one's home, the "Castle Doctrine" provided that the person had no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force against an intruder. However, he still needed the reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony."

From the website of Blake and Dorsten, PA
Trial Attorneys

I'd imagine this answers your question, destroys the argument of speculation and establishes the fact.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to Cassandra:

"Florida Law Prior to the Enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" Law

Prior to Stand Your Ground, a person could use only non-deadly force to defend against the imminent use of unlawful non-deadly force. Deadly force was authorized only to defend against imminent deadly force or great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony.

Unless the person was in his home or workplace, he had a "duty to retreat" prior to using deadly force. In one's home, the "Castle Doctrine" provided that the person had no duty to retreat prior to using deadly force against an intruder. However, he still needed the reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony."

From the website of Blake and Dorsten, PA
Trial Attorneys

I'd imagine this answers your question, destroys the argument of speculation and establishes the fact.

I will agree that your post answers the question about "duty to retreat".

However, I disagree that your post "destroys the argument of speculation" regarding whether or not a "duty to retreat" would have prevented any of the shootings that 'bossman1' referenced in his statement.

Given the circumstances surrounding all three of them, it can be legitimately argued that all three incidents still could have occurred even under a "duty to retreat" law. The only difference would be what the shooters in each case would be charged with.

Cassandra writes:

None of the three cases fell under the "stand your ground" law. There were no witnesses in the first case and the other two involved "defense by popcorn" and murder.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to Cassandra:

None of the three cases fell under the "stand your ground" law. There were no witnesses in the first case and the other two involved "defense by popcorn" and murder.

I agree, none of the cases fell under the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Which is why I disagree with the argument put forth by 'bossman1' that the "Stand Your Ground" law somehow enabled the shooters in these incidents, and why I disagree with the argument put forth by 'bossman1' that not having the "Stand Your Ground" law enacted would have somehow prevented any of these shooting incidents.

Cassandra writes:

Perhaps but since the SYG law was enacted the number of such incidents has tripled. Any reasonable person should have expected this.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to Cassandra:

Perhaps but since the SYG law was enacted the number of such incidents has tripled. Any reasonable person should have expected this.

And, that was one of the arguments being against the law when it was being proposed. I understand that, and it has some validity.

But, here's something else to consider: Has the number of such incidents actually increased as dramatically as it appears to have, or are people just paying closer attention to such incidents now that they have a different filter to look through?

Cassandra writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

And, that was one of the arguments being against the law when it was being proposed. I understand that, and it has some validity.

But, here's something else to consider: Has the number of such incidents actually increased as dramatically as it appears to have, or are people just paying closer attention to such incidents now that they have a different filter to look through?

Your second paragraph makes no sense. The number of incidents does not "appear" to have increased, it has as is recorded in police reports, etc. Whether or not people pay "closer attention" is irrelevant.

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

I question whether Florida law specifically said that individuals MUST back away and remove themselves from danger if they felt threatened prior to the enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Can you provide the specific citation from Florida law to support your claim?

There is no guarantee whatsoever that any of the shooting victims you referenced would still be alive today even if Florida law did mandate that people remove themselves from a threatening situation. Your statement is one of opinion and speculation, not one of fact.

There you go again, 'specific', 'guarantee'?
Yes I can provide the castle law that was in effect before the 'stand you ground law', you also can provide it from your source which is always better than mine.
And, Why the need to use or shout 'must' and reframe what I said?

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

I agree, none of the cases fell under the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Which is why I disagree with the argument put forth by 'bossman1' that the "Stand Your Ground" law somehow enabled the shooters in these incidents, and why I disagree with the argument put forth by 'bossman1' that not having the "Stand Your Ground" law enacted would have somehow prevented any of these shooting incidents.

In none of the three cases did the defense use the 'stand your ground law' specifically and ask for a separate hearing. But in each case the shooter and the defense lawyers are using the wording.
The judges are also using the wording in thier instructions to the juries.
Basicly saying the shooter wasn't obligated to backoff, retreat, walk away, seek safety if he felt threatened. This was just the oposite that judges instructed juries before the stand your ground law was enacted. All judges, lawyers, and juries say Florida's stand your ground and self defense laws are confusing at best and should be changed or abandoned.
Common sense tells us that since this law was enacted it changes the mind set, attitude of people like those three shooters. If fact Mr. Dunn has said he was the victim, and was raped by the verdict.
"Nobody is going to talk to me that way" Dunn said as he went back to get his concealed gun.
How many more people like Zimmerman, the ex-cop who carried a loaded gun in is pants pocket to go watch a movie, or Mr. Dunn who has hatred for Blacks are out there?
How many people 'now' feel it's safe for them to confront others with a gun knowing in Florida all they need to is say 'I was threatened or felt endangered'?

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

I question whether Florida law specifically said that individuals MUST back away and remove themselves from danger if they felt threatened prior to the enactment of the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Can you provide the specific citation from Florida law to support your claim?

There is no guarantee whatsoever that any of the shooting victims you referenced would still be alive today even if Florida law did mandate that people remove themselves from a threatening situation. Your statement is one of opinion and speculation, not one of fact.

R16, You 'question' everything I write, surely there must be something I'm correct about, even by accident. Maybe you should spend more of your work time doing your job instead of trolling around looking for ways to trash me?
Or if you do have the time, bringing forth facts that dispute what I say, not insult and attack me personally.
Hopefully Cassy or I answered your question, and I would appreciate you saying so.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

R16, You 'question' everything I write, surely there must be something I'm correct about, even by accident. Maybe you should spend more of your work time doing your job instead of trolling around looking for ways to trash me?
Or if you do have the time, bringing forth facts that dispute what I say, not insult and attack me personally.
Hopefully Cassy or I answered your question, and I would appreciate you saying so.

Yes, I do question most of what you write. And, as long as you continue to try and pass your opinions and your less-than-accurate statements off as "facts", I will continue to do so.

'Cassandra' did answer my question and I did say so. Perhaps if you were paying attention to what I was saying instead of looking for ways to play the victim and accuse me of attacking and insulting you, you would have seen that.

There is nothing in anything that I have posted thus far in this thread that can be considered an insult or a personal attack against you by any reasonable standard. Quit being so oversensitive.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

In none of the three cases did the defense use the 'stand your ground law' specifically and ask for a separate hearing. But in each case the shooter and the defense lawyers are using the wording.
The judges are also using the wording in thier instructions to the juries.
Basicly saying the shooter wasn't obligated to backoff, retreat, walk away, seek safety if he felt threatened. This was just the oposite that judges instructed juries before the stand your ground law was enacted. All judges, lawyers, and juries say Florida's stand your ground and self defense laws are confusing at best and should be changed or abandoned.
Common sense tells us that since this law was enacted it changes the mind set, attitude of people like those three shooters. If fact Mr. Dunn has said he was the victim, and was raped by the verdict.
"Nobody is going to talk to me that way" Dunn said as he went back to get his concealed gun.
How many more people like Zimmerman, the ex-cop who carried a loaded gun in is pants pocket to go watch a movie, or Mr. Dunn who has hatred for Blacks are out there?
How many people 'now' feel it's safe for them to confront others with a gun knowing in Florida all they need to is say 'I was threatened or felt endangered'?

Using the wording "stand your ground" in a statement to the court or the jury is entirely different than claiming protection under the "Stand Your Ground" law as an affirmative defense.

Yes, judges are giving juries different instructions now because the law is different now. That's just the way that it is, whether you like it or not.

I don't disagree that the law needs to be clarified, and I don't disagree with how the law has been haphazardly applied since it was enacted. However, your claim that ALL judges, lawyers, and juries in Florida want the law abandoned or changed is not a fact. It's merely your opinion and it's unsupported.

There is no way to accurately answer either of the questions that you pose, they are strictly rhetorical.

But, the kind of gun control legislation that people like you are proposing won't necessarily change the answer to either question, because the one thing that all three shooters share - unpredictable individual behavior - simply can't be legislated against.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

Oops...that should have read "I don't disagree that the law needs to be clarified, and I disagree with how the law has been haphazardly applied since it was enacted."

Mea culpa.

bossman1 writes:

Not sure why you have the need to repeat what I say as it comes directly from you or that "you don't disagee", just say I agree and move on.
You are correct, I shouldn't use 'all' when I mean 'most'.
My questions were meant to be rhetorical and I didn't ask for an answer, why do you bring it up?
'Necessarily' change?
Your are wrong, there are a few things that all of these shooters shared, the main thing was they all had a gun.
Ok, 'unpredictable behavior' may not be legislated against. But, allowing people like these shooters to carry guns and use them when they 'think' they are threatened in someway without trying to reteat 'can be'. And it was Before the 'stand your ground' law.

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

Oops...that should have read "I don't disagree that the law needs to be clarified, and I disagree with how the law has been haphazardly applied since it was enacted."

Mea culpa.

Just can't say 'I agree' can you.

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

Yes, I do question most of what you write. And, as long as you continue to try and pass your opinions and your less-than-accurate statements off as "facts", I will continue to do so.

'Cassandra' did answer my question and I did say so. Perhaps if you were paying attention to what I was saying instead of looking for ways to play the victim and accuse me of attacking and insulting you, you would have seen that.

There is nothing in anything that I have posted thus far in this thread that can be considered an insult or a personal attack against you by any reasonable standard. Quit being so oversensitive.

Are you saying I should clarify my comments as just opinions on these opinion forums and not actually factual?
Is that what you do because I haven't noticed.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

Just can't say 'I agree' can you.

I made a mistake in what I posted and was correcting it. I wasn't trying to agree with my own post.

"Mea culpa" is Latin and loosely translates as "My fault".

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

Are you saying I should clarify my comments as just opinions on these opinion forums and not actually factual?
Is that what you do because I haven't noticed.

If someone is stating an opinion, they should say so. If someone is stating a fact, they should provide a reference or a source for it.

Everyone who participates in this forum could do a better job at both of those things, myself included.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

Not sure why you have the need to repeat what I say as it comes directly from you or that "you don't disagee", just say I agree and move on.
You are correct, I shouldn't use 'all' when I mean 'most'.
My questions were meant to be rhetorical and I didn't ask for an answer, why do you bring it up?
'Necessarily' change?
Your are wrong, there are a few things that all of these shooters shared, the main thing was they all had a gun.
Ok, 'unpredictable behavior' may not be legislated against. But, allowing people like these shooters to carry guns and use them when they 'think' they are threatened in someway without trying to reteat 'can be'. And it was Before the 'stand your ground' law.

What legislation could have been enacted that would have prevented any of these three shooters from possessing or carrying a gun?

None of them had a criminal history, so expanded background checks wouldn't have had any effect.

None of them obtained their guns illegally, so gun ban legislation wouldn't have had any effect.

None of them fired more shots than their firearms were designed to hold or fired enough shots that they needed to reload, so ammunition capacity legislation wouldn't have had any effect.

At least two of them had valid concealed carry permits (I don't know for sure about Dunn).

And, without serious changes to HIPAA legislation, there is no chance that any gun control legislation will ever be enacted tying mental health history (or any other personal medical history) to gun ownership.

That's why the last two major pieces of gun control legislation were defeated in Congress (by bipartisan votes, not just by Republican votes).

Even if the "Stand Your Ground" law wasn't in place and Florida law still had "duty to retreat" mandate, there is no guarantee that any of these shooting incidents still wouldn't have happened. Based upon the known circumstances surrounding all of them, the likelihood is that they still would have. The only difference would have been what the shooters were ultimately charged with.

The vast majority of shooting incidents come down to unpredictable individual behavior, which is not something that it is possible to legislate.

Cassandra writes:

Translation plus editing for brevity:

"When in doubt do nothing".

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to Cassandra:

Translation plus editing for brevity:

"When in doubt do nothing".

I'm very surprised that's the argument that you're choosing to make.

It's certainly not the one that I'm choosing to make.

You're free to do what you want.

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

What legislation could have been enacted that would have prevented any of these three shooters from possessing or carrying a gun?

None of them had a criminal history, so expanded background checks wouldn't have had any effect.

None of them obtained their guns illegally, so gun ban legislation wouldn't have had any effect.

None of them fired more shots than their firearms were designed to hold or fired enough shots that they needed to reload, so ammunition capacity legislation wouldn't have had any effect.

At least two of them had valid concealed carry permits (I don't know for sure about Dunn).

And, without serious changes to HIPAA legislation, there is no chance that any gun control legislation will ever be enacted tying mental health history (or any other personal medical history) to gun ownership.

That's why the last two major pieces of gun control legislation were defeated in Congress (by bipartisan votes, not just by Republican votes).

Even if the "Stand Your Ground" law wasn't in place and Florida law still had "duty to retreat" mandate, there is no guarantee that any of these shooting incidents still wouldn't have happened. Based upon the known circumstances surrounding all of them, the likelihood is that they still would have. The only difference would have been what the shooters were ultimately charged with.

The vast majority of shooting incidents come down to unpredictable individual behavior, which is not something that it is possible to legislate.

Is any of this rhetorical statements and question opinion or is it all fact. If it's opinion say so, if it's fact show your specific vertifiable proof with citations. OK?

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

What legislation could have been enacted that would have prevented any of these three shooters from possessing or carrying a gun?

None of them had a criminal history, so expanded background checks wouldn't have had any effect.

None of them obtained their guns illegally, so gun ban legislation wouldn't have had any effect.

None of them fired more shots than their firearms were designed to hold or fired enough shots that they needed to reload, so ammunition capacity legislation wouldn't have had any effect.

At least two of them had valid concealed carry permits (I don't know for sure about Dunn).

And, without serious changes to HIPAA legislation, there is no chance that any gun control legislation will ever be enacted tying mental health history (or any other personal medical history) to gun ownership.

That's why the last two major pieces of gun control legislation were defeated in Congress (by bipartisan votes, not just by Republican votes).

Even if the "Stand Your Ground" law wasn't in place and Florida law still had "duty to retreat" mandate, there is no guarantee that any of these shooting incidents still wouldn't have happened. Based upon the known circumstances surrounding all of them, the likelihood is that they still would have. The only difference would have been what the shooters were ultimately charged with.

The vast majority of shooting incidents come down to unpredictable individual behavior, which is not something that it is possible to legislate.

When you say 'could have been enacted', what specifically do you mean? Many others states have enacted laws that would have prevented these murders.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

When you say 'could have been enacted', what specifically do you mean? Many others states have enacted laws that would have prevented these murders.

Such as?

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

Such as?

One example is in New Jersey. We have a 'may carry permit' that is extremely hard to obtain. Even if you do get it there are restrictions to where you can carry your gun.

bossman1 writes:

in response to Cassandra:

None of the three cases fell under the "stand your ground" law. There were no witnesses in the first case and the other two involved "defense by popcorn" and murder.

You may be correct that none of these cases fell under the 'stand your ground law', be we don't really know that for sure. None of the defense teams asked for a stand your ground law hearing, with good reason. Still the stand your ground law wordage was used in the trials including the jury instructions.

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

What legislation could have been enacted that would have prevented any of these three shooters from possessing or carrying a gun?

None of them had a criminal history, so expanded background checks wouldn't have had any effect.

None of them obtained their guns illegally, so gun ban legislation wouldn't have had any effect.

None of them fired more shots than their firearms were designed to hold or fired enough shots that they needed to reload, so ammunition capacity legislation wouldn't have had any effect.

At least two of them had valid concealed carry permits (I don't know for sure about Dunn).

And, without serious changes to HIPAA legislation, there is no chance that any gun control legislation will ever be enacted tying mental health history (or any other personal medical history) to gun ownership.

That's why the last two major pieces of gun control legislation were defeated in Congress (by bipartisan votes, not just by Republican votes).

Even if the "Stand Your Ground" law wasn't in place and Florida law still had "duty to retreat" mandate, there is no guarantee that any of these shooting incidents still wouldn't have happened. Based upon the known circumstances surrounding all of them, the likelihood is that they still would have. The only difference would have been what the shooters were ultimately charged with.

The vast majority of shooting incidents come down to unpredictable individual behavior, which is not something that it is possible to legislate.

"None of them had a criminal history". Is that a fact or your opinion?
The fact is Zimmerman for 'one', did have a criminal history. Pushing a cop, interfering with an investigation which resulted in a felony charge. Because he pleaded down to a misdemeanor, went to anger managament and later wasn't allowed at his trial didn't mean he wasn't criminal. This man shouldn't have been issued a carry permit and in most-many-some-a few states wouldn't have. Certainly not in New Jersey.
Now is there anything else I can prove you wrong about today?

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

One example is in New Jersey. We have a 'may carry permit' that is extremely hard to obtain. Even if you do get it there are restrictions to where you can carry your gun.

Setting restrictions on where people with concealed carry permits may carry their firearms makes sense.

That said, that likely may have only affected one of three shooting incidents (the one in the movie theater), in my opinion. The other two may still have happened.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

"None of them had a criminal history". Is that a fact or your opinion?
The fact is Zimmerman for 'one', did have a criminal history. Pushing a cop, interfering with an investigation which resulted in a felony charge. Because he pleaded down to a misdemeanor, went to anger managament and later wasn't allowed at his trial didn't mean he wasn't criminal. This man shouldn't have been issued a carry permit and in most-many-some-a few states wouldn't have. Certainly not in New Jersey.
Now is there anything else I can prove you wrong about today?

I stand corrected.

I will amend my statement to say that none of three shooters had a criminal history that prevented them from legally obtaining a concealed carry permit in Florida.

In your opinion, Zimmerman shouldn't have been able to obtain a concealed carry permit. Unfortunately for you, the laws of the State of Florida say differently. Also unfortunately for you, Zimmerman doesn't live in New Jersey, so how hard it may be to obtain a concealed carry permit there by comparison is irrelevant.

In many states, misdemeanor convictions are frequently expunged after successful completion of whatever requirements are placed upon the person by the courts (i.e. probation, anger management classes, substance abuse counseling, etc.) As a result, many states don't hold misdemeanor convictions against people applying for firearm permits (to purchase or to carry). And, in my opinion, that's a sound policy.

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

Setting restrictions on where people with concealed carry permits may carry their firearms makes sense.

That said, that likely may have only affected one of three shooting incidents (the one in the movie theater), in my opinion. The other two may still have happened.

Ok then, one down two to go.
The other two 'may' still have happened?

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

I stand corrected.

I will amend my statement to say that none of three shooters had a criminal history that prevented them from legally obtaining a concealed carry permit in Florida.

In your opinion, Zimmerman shouldn't have been able to obtain a concealed carry permit. Unfortunately for you, the laws of the State of Florida say differently. Also unfortunately for you, Zimmerman doesn't live in New Jersey, so how hard it may be to obtain a concealed carry permit there by comparison is irrelevant.

In many states, misdemeanor convictions are frequently expunged after successful completion of whatever requirements are placed upon the person by the courts (i.e. probation, anger management classes, substance abuse counseling, etc.) As a result, many states don't hold misdemeanor convictions against people applying for firearm permits (to purchase or to carry). And, in my opinion, that's a sound policy.

Yes, maybe not in Florida, that is my point. Bad gun regulations and self defense/stand your ground laws in 'Florida'.
Irrelevant? Didn't you ask, such as?
As I said, Zimmerman had a 'felony' charge pleaded down to a 'misdemeaner'.
Didn't know it was expunged, are you saying it was? Florida doesn't have a very good background check and I'm not sure what could get by or not.
I believe if even have a misdemeaner on the books in Florida you could still get a C.C permit.
I don't know what Mr. Dunn's criminal record would show, if anything. After seeing what he did, knowing what he is said then and now, I would be surprized he wasn't involved in other incidents or criminal behavior.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

Ok then, one down two to go.
The other two 'may' still have happened?

In my opinion, yes. They both happened outdoors and both shooters were legally carrying their firearms in their vehicles. They still would have had access to their firearms and still could have committed the shootings.

I can fully understand legislation restricting carrying of firearms in a movie theater with a concealed carry permit, but it would difficult to pass legislation restrict carrying of firearms in a vehicle with a concealed carry permit.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

Yes, maybe not in Florida, that is my point. Bad gun regulations and self defense/stand your ground laws in 'Florida'.
Irrelevant? Didn't you ask, such as?
As I said, Zimmerman had a 'felony' charge pleaded down to a 'misdemeaner'.
Didn't know it was expunged, are you saying it was? Florida doesn't have a very good background check and I'm not sure what could get by or not.
I believe if even have a misdemeaner on the books in Florida you could still get a C.C permit.
I don't know what Mr. Dunn's criminal record would show, if anything. After seeing what he did, knowing what he is said then and now, I would be surprized he wasn't involved in other incidents or criminal behavior.

I didn't say that Zimmerman's misdemeanor record had been expunged. The fact that you were able to find a record of it proves that. If it had been expunged, it wouldn't have been accessible to a public records search. I said that, in many states, misdemeanor records are expunged upon successful completion of court-ordered requirements. I don't know if Florida does that or not. Based upon what you were able to find about Zimmerman, my guess would be "not".

I would agree that Florida law allows someone with a misdemeanor conviction to get a concealed carry permit, because Zimmerman got one with a misdemeanor conviction on his record.

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

I didn't say that Zimmerman's misdemeanor record had been expunged. The fact that you were able to find a record of it proves that. If it had been expunged, it wouldn't have been accessible to a public records search. I said that, in many states, misdemeanor records are expunged upon successful completion of court-ordered requirements. I don't know if Florida does that or not. Based upon what you were able to find about Zimmerman, my guess would be "not".

I would agree that Florida law allows someone with a misdemeanor conviction to get a concealed carry permit, because Zimmerman got one with a misdemeanor conviction on his record.

I didn't check Zimmermans offical criminal record, nor did I say I did. Don't assume so much. There are plenty of other sources to someones record, including the daily newspapers.
Misdemeanor records in Florida can be exspunged, usally a lawyer, money and a friendly judge are involved.
In my opinion it's a very bad idea to do this, especially in a state that does good background checks before you can buy a gun or a c.c permit. You do know that many misdemeaners can be very violent don't you?

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

In my opinion, yes. They both happened outdoors and both shooters were legally carrying their firearms in their vehicles. They still would have had access to their firearms and still could have committed the shootings.

I can fully understand legislation restricting carrying of firearms in a movie theater with a concealed carry permit, but it would difficult to pass legislation restrict carrying of firearms in a vehicle with a concealed carry permit.

Legally? Maybe in Florida, that is and has been my point.

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

I didn't check Zimmermans offical criminal record, nor did I say I did. Don't assume so much. There are plenty of other sources to someones record, including the daily newspapers.
Misdemeanor records in Florida can be exspunged, usally a lawyer, money and a friendly judge are involved.
In my opinion it's a very bad idea to do this, especially in a state that does good background checks before you can buy a gun or a c.c permit. You do know that many misdemeaners can be very violent don't you?

If you didn't do a search of Zimmerman's criminal history, where did you get the information that you posted about it? You obviously did a search of some kind, unless you're just making things up again.

I understand that misdemeanor criminal records can be expunged in Florida by hiring an attorney and going to court. But, some states expunge misdemeanors automatically once a person has successfully completed whatever court-ordered requirements have been imposed.

I disagree that it's a bad idea, especially in states that do thorough background checks for people applying to purchase a handgun or to obtain a concealed carry permit. You do know that the vast majority of misdemeanor convictions are for non-violent offenses, don't you?

AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016 writes:

in response to bossman1:

Legally? Maybe in Florida, that is and has been my point.

I understand that has been your point.

But, that doesn't change the inescapable fact that until or unless the Florida laws are changed, it is what is it.

If you don't like it, try to get the laws changed. Your misguided angst would be much better spent working actively in that regard rather than simply venting your spleen ad nauseam in a blog in the Opinion Section of a small town newspaper.

bossman1 writes:

in response to AmericasTrueRecoveryBeginsIn2016:

I understand that has been your point.

But, that doesn't change the inescapable fact that until or unless the Florida laws are changed, it is what is it.

If you don't like it, try to get the laws changed. Your misguided angst would be much better spent working actively in that regard rather than simply venting your spleen ad nauseam in a blog in the Opinion Section of a small town newspaper.

R16 'venting my spleen ad nauseam' in a blog? That certainly isn't the way I would discribe it.
.
Well it's my blog and I admit it's fun to do.
If I can educate or make someone aware of how bad our Florida's gun regulations and SYG/SD laws are and who is at fault we have these laws, Iv'e done my part.
BTW, I believe I've made some progress with you.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features