I just read that Florida is about to pass 'Kill Bill' law that when you are threatened, you don't have to try to evade the danger first but you can start shooting. What do you think about that?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 82,00.html

Dear Brain:

In the Hapkido arts there are two different approaches melded into the same material. One approach is an "aiki" approach in which the person takes whatever is offered to them and responds to that. The otherside is to act in a "Ki Ai" fashion and be pro-active, acting pre-emptively, if you will. From the standpoint of the warrior neither approach is "good" or "bad". The Ethic comes from making an appropriate determination as to which approach to use to bring things to a good end and restore the Hwa. Hope this helps.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Master Gihm: I'm in favor of such policies as the "Kill Bill" law you mentioned. I see the potential of less violence being directed at common individuals. Though I don't have any numbers in front of me, statistics show that acts of violence are most prevalent in scenarios/environments where the common man's ability to defend himself is greatly restricted through policy. Laws and other regulations intended to prevent violence are obeyed only by law abiding citizens, not the criminal element. Florida is one of the states allowing it's citizens to carry a firearm in conjunction with a permit. Floridians also enjoy a relatively lower incidence of violent crime. The same correlation is seen in the other US states allowing its people to carry a firearm. Show me a town where a good portion of the people are "strappin'" and I'll show you a town with a lot of polite and mild mannered people. Studies have also been conducted revealing that the US's liberal media is biased against the idea of citizens being empowered with the ability of defending themselves, especially with a firearm. In situations where an individual successfully defended theirself or someone else with a firearm, rarely will the media state that a firearm was used at all. That said, don't rely on the lack of "reports" as an indicator of a strategy's success or failure. So, empower the people with the rights and means to defend themselves. I believe that doing so will result in fewer acts of violence overall. By the way, for those of you who think that it's the responsibility of your local law enforcement agency to protect you, think again. By and large, they get involved after the fact. Besides, there simply aren't enough police officers to defend citizens.

Anthony: What can we do about my run on paragraphs?

Washington, DC, has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, and one of the highest incidences of gun violence. I agree with you, that making guns illegal only makes life 'safer' for criminals.

I recall a few years ago, there was a case in Washington, DC, of a young woman who lived in a housing project, who was attacked in her home. She called 911, and the dispatchers decided that her call did not rate an immediate response. Police arrived 9 hours after the call, and the woman had been brutallized, repeatedy, the entire time. She sued the city, and the courts decided that she could not win, because she did not have a 'right' to police protection (it was a service, not a right). So, in Washington, DC, you don't have a right to be protected by police, and you don't have a right to carry a gun to defend yourself, either.

I am not sure about the Kill Bill law. How can you prove that you were threatened? I have a vague memory about 10 years ago that a man saw someone breaking into his car and shot him to death. I remember (take that with a grain of salt!) that the judge said upon his conviction essentially that the penalty for car theft is not death. But surely the defence tried the "I thought he was going to attack me, so I had to shoot him". There have certainly been cases where someone breaks into a car to lie-in-wait, its not that far of a stretch. I just hope that Florida does not codify the law such that all one needs to say is "I felt endangered" and they have instant immunity... I also worry that this type of legislation, if not done very carefully, can lead to posse's who "feel endangered" by one element or another and decide to rid themselves of it. Actually, I can think of a lot of scenarios where this can be abused. If anyone has a link to the final text of the law, I am interested in reading it.

In general, though, I would agree that empowering people to be slightly more proactive (I'm avoiding the urge to say pre-emptive) in their self-defence is a good thing.

[quote=Casey Rogers]
Floridians also enjoy a relatively lower incidence of violent crime. The same correlation is seen in the other US states allowing its people to carry a firearm.[/quote]

This is simply false. Per 100,000 people, in 2002, Florida ranked number 3 in the entire nation for wost violent crime rates. That IS relative data. If you have a list of states allowing citizens to carry a firearm, let's look them all up and see. In TX, we are allowed to not only have licenced, concealed handguns, but we are also allowed to mount shotguns on our vehicles without a permit. TX enjoys a violent crime rate far higher than the national average (much like Florida). In fact, in 2002, we were number 12.

This is my data's source:

http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi ... e+Offenses

[quote=Casey Rogers]Studies have also been conducted revealing that the US's liberal media...[/quote]

If there is a credible survey relating to this thread, site it, please. And if you have a particular media outlet that you have a problem with, say it. Vague statements with devisive tags do nothing to help the credibility of anyone's posts. I don't mean to be as harsh as it reads in print, but I can't take quote like the above seriously...

Ann is correct according to the link above, the district of columbia had the highest violent crimes per 100,000 that year.

About violent crime and Florida: the data may be skewed here, and Casey is probably right for most of the state. I'll look for some more stats.

South Florida has a very high incidence of gun crime, but it is amost all tied to the drug 'industry'. If you live in elsewhere in Florida and stay away from drugs, you can live a long, healthy, happy life.

Casey: I believe the cure for lengthy paragraphs is to write a 5000 word essay while in sodo-sae with an angry cat on your head. I don't know if it works because I clearly haven't taken it.


Now, it would seem that this thread is about to become a discussion about the use of force [including gun control etc.] This can be a pretty hot issue and because of that text can be a really tough medium to communicate one's position without offending someone. I encourage people to have this debate, but I ask that you take extra care when writing your posts. Be very sensitive to how someone who doesn't know you might read what you have written, do your best to keep it from becoming personal, and perhaps most importantly: be open-minded. Debate, like chocolate, reruns of Magnum, and friendship, is good for the soul.

I didn't know I had a closed mind on the issue of gun control until I stopped having a closed mind.

I will be splitting this thread.

Dangit. (I'm still young, gimme' a break here.)

Charles, thank you very much for providing such a perfect example of the type of post I would like everyone to avoid.

From this perspective then, District of Columbia should be thrown out since it has no rural or peaceful areas to average out its urban areas.

Wow...that's a lot of posting. When I read the news, I was remembering about the left cheek right cheek discussion. It evolved little bit, I guess.

I live in a place (Canada) where gun is strictly controlled and gun incidents are much less common as stabbing incidents.

What I think is:

Wouldn't it be already too late to look for a gun if you are in danger unless you already had one in your pocket? I don't think most common people carry guns in their jacket. Then, who is the 'Kill Bill' for?

Aaron: I didn't offer any quotes. In fact, I stated that I did not have any numbers in front of me. As to my sources, I spend a lot of time driving and I usually listen to talk radio. The information I alluded to above was drawn from what I'd heard on the radio programs I listen to. Not only did I make note of what the hosts said, but also their various guests speaking on both sides of the issue. It's their guests who have conducted the research, written the books, lobbied for regulations, etc. And the particular media outlet I was referring to was newspapers. I apologize for not being able to regurgitate the specific examples you'd like.

Frankly, I don't have the time to research the written facts and sources you've requested. Nor do I think I have to just to participate in the thread. I'm simply sharing my viewpoint regardless of who agrees or disagrees and I don't claim to be "right" or an authority. Besides, I suspect that you may be in the anti gun ownership fan club. To each their own. However, if that's the case (and I sincerely apologize if I've made an incorrect assumption), then it really doesn't matter what my sources are or their credibility because you're likely to maintain your position regardless. That's not an attack on you. I've simply noticed that this is one of those topics that splits groups cleanly with each group committed to their position. In turn, each group will give more credence to the research and statistics which supports their position and find fault with that which does not. I do it too. And speaking of research, I'm sure you know that statistics can be manipulated and massaged to suit the needs of the mission.

If you are opposed to gun ownership and giving additional rights of self protection to the common people in the context that we are speaking of in this thread, then let's just agree to disagree in our positions.

Casey,

In fact, I am very far from anti-gun. I believe it is our constitutional right to bear arms, and I will not support any politician who wants to get rid of that right. I think it is our right to defend ourselves, and if that involves guns, so be it.

What IS important to me is that laws be codified to prevent vigilanties and criminals from taking advantage of these laws to go around killing people.

Also, I am not sure how Florida law differs from TX law on this. I worked a sting with some law enforcement officers when I was 18. I asked about what I needed to do if I was attacked during it to stay within the law. They told me that if someone is physically larger than I am and is trying to intimidate me physically, I would already be protected by self-defense laws. That being said, if Florida was already like that, I have no idea how much more power it is giving people to dole out justice as they see appropriate, and I think it ought to be monitored very carefully.

As to radio shows...they are for entertainment only. They are notorious for spreading false information intentionally... Understand that news through media like radio and TV are implicitly under severe conflicts of interest in numerous ways: they are almost all owned by the same, few, companies, which gives them a political lean (and it is not the one you mentioned), and at the same time, they compete with one another, so ratings are placed above honesty and balance. It is quite hard to find decent media, particularly in the US. If you want a good conservative paper, I read the Economist, which I think is pretty good. You can read it free online, too.

On the original topic, you said "Show me a town where a good portion of the people are "strappin'" and I'll show you a town with a lot of polite and mild mannered people.". I would simply like to point out that if this were true, gang and organized crime deaths would be the smallest in society, because you can pretty much assume they are all "strappin". But that fact actually compounds the issue further, it does not alleviate it.

Lastly, after reading three paragraphs accusing me of something I never said, let me point out that it is just as close minded to be so pro-gun that you support any legislation that mentions the word gun without so much of a thought as to social consequences, followed by attacking anyone who isn't turning cartwheels over it as being anti-gun.

Actually, Aaron, (yes, I know I am talking to myself), the Kill Bill law is probably SPECIFICALLY talking about self-defense with guns, not self defense in the greater context, which should resolve your confusion as to why such legislation is deemed as necessary by their politicians. The likelihood of the matter is Floridians complained that they have guns now, but feel too restricted to use them in self-defense. Or as Homer Simpson put it "But I'm mad now!".