Florida lawmakers pass "take your guns to work" law

[Jackal1]

Why is it starting to smell like yet another resurection of beetle? Getting real rank now.

The smell of BS travels a long ways.

[lazs2]

napolean.. for assault.. the rates for england US and australia etc are all about the same... guns or no.  I don't care about japan.. do you want to live like them?

For burglaries... england and oz are 2 and three times higher respectively.. that make you feel safe hiding in the closet with your cricket paddle?

For rape.. twice as likely in oz as the US..  even tho a small percent of our racial base commits almost all the rapes.

for manslaughter...  well..  the US doesn't even come up.. it is not in the top 25   I have heard this before that their are a whole lot of "accidental" deaths in other countries.. either you guys are really really clumsy or backward or.. you rate murders differently..either way.. I don't want to live in a country with so many "accidents".

We have more gun crime but I can live with that so long as I can shoot back.  We kill a lot more bad guys than anyone else too. 

lazs

[Jackal1]

The thing about it is..and I guess you could call it selfish if you wish, is that I am not concerned about other countries laws concerning personal gun ownership. That is a problem that they could  either solve or let slide.
I am concerned with the laws of this country. The U.S. , where I call home.
If other countries citizens wish to be totally at the mercy of others, with no chance of self defense.then so be it.
I believe we are on the right track with recent changes made to the laws in states such as Florida, Texas and others. We should have never let it get to that point in the beginning. A lot of other states will follow I believe.
You just simply can`t fight a problem ........or an enemy without the tools to do so.

[john9001]

The thing about it is..and I guess you could call it selfish if you wish, is that I am not concerned about other countries laws concerning personal gun ownership. That is a problem that they could  either solve or let slide.
I am concerned with the laws of this country. The U.S. , where I call home.
If other countries citizens wish to be totally at the mercy of others, with no chance of self defense.then so be it.
I believe we are on the right track with recent changes made to the laws in states such as Florida, Texas and others. We should have never let it get to that point in the beginning. A lot of other states will follow I believe.
You just simply can`t fight a problem ........or an enemy without the tools to do so.

 

[Roundeye]

I don't see how it can be made any clearer than this:

Other countries may have lower violent crime rates and they may or may not allow citizens to own guns.  Fine.  That's great for them.  If the violent crime rate was extremely low in this country, then the citizens would not have a NEED to defend themselves.

The harsh reality is that there are alot of criminals in this country and alot of ILLEGAL firearms as well.  Nobody (unless suicidal) is going to commit a crime with a self-registered gun.  It's always some thug with a stolen or altered firearm.

This is exactly the reason citizens NEED to protect themselves with a firearm (unless you want to fend off a pistol-carrying thug with a stick ).  A sad reality is that the police cannot be everywhere all the time.....it's up to YOU to defend yourself.

Any laws made to restrict/limit gun ownership only applies to citizens who are attempting to defend themselves.  This at the same time benefits the criminals as they do not play by the rules. 

Guns are not the problem.  Its the people.  This country is not tough enough on criminals.  Even if guns magically vanished, there would be more people stabbed, strangled, sliced with swords, blown up with bombs, burned to death, run over with cars, etc.   

These are the facts and they are undisputed

[Coshy]

Bottom line:  No person/business/property owner has the right to strip you of your constitutional rights.

Think just because you own a business you can strip a citizen of a basic constitutional right?  Break amendment 13 and see just how tough you are.  See you on CNN.

Someone doesnt know what the Constitution protects us against. The Bill of Rights doesnt provide protection from business owners, it provides protection from the government.

Back to the OP.

A business owner most certainly has the right to tell his employees "Do not bring guns, alcohol or drugs onto company property". Its their property they can do with it what they want. Same as Wal-Mart can put up a sign saying "NO Firearms allowed". Its their property, they can do with it what they want.

Or are there people here saying the property owner doesnt have the right to limit who and/or what comes on his property?

What is more worrysome than Wal-Mart telling its employees they cant have guns on the property is the government telling us we cant carry in court houses, schools, DMVs, Welfare Offices, Federal Buildings, Libraries, etc.


"... shall not be infringed ..." my ass.

[Roundeye]

Someone doesnt know what the Constitution protects us against. The Bill of Rights doesnt provide protection from business owners, it provides protection from the government.

Please do not read INTO a post for your own enjoyment.  Read what it says.

No person can strip your constitutional rights.   Such as gun ownership: As a US citizen, you have the right to bear arms.  A person (property owner) can ask you not to have them on his/her property.  Thats all they can do is ask.  You still have a right to bear arms.

The fact that your constitutional right cannot be stripped by a private individual is supported by the Fla lawmakers.  Click the link in the first post of this thread and read it.  It's what started this whole thread.

My position is: Unless they are providing armed and competent security, then I'm packing.  What they don't know won't hurt them, but it could very well protect me from a violent offender.

[SteveBailey]

I don't see how it can be made any clearer than this:

Other countries may have lower violent crime rates

What country of similar make  up has  a significantly lower crime rate?

[Vulcan]

for manslaughter...  well..  the US doesn't even come up.. it is not in the top 25   I have heard this before that their are a whole lot of "accidental" deaths in other countries.. either you guys are really really clumsy or backward or.. you rate murders differently..either way.. I don't want to live in a country with so many "accidents".

lazs, manslaughter is unintentional death. Recent examples here are: a guy punched his uncle at a party, the uncle fell, hit his head and died instantly ; two owners of a helicopter repair business were charged with manslaughter for negligence in checks on servicing a chopper that later crashed. The charge more reflects that the people did not intend to kill someone but a death occured as a result of their actions.

And the homicide stats I've seen put the USA 4x ahead of Oz and UK, about 8x ahead than NZ.

Burglary rates are a difficult stat, as in many countries high crime rates see lower rated crimes not reported (eg muggings, burglaries).

[Elfie]

Recent examples here are: a guy punched his uncle at a party, the uncle fell, hit his head and died instantly

I think in many cases here in the USA that would be called murder. Prosecutors here in the USA have a tendency (imo) to go with the worse case scenario concerning charges, then plea bargain them down a bit.

[lazs2]

vulcan.. I understand that.. we have accidents here too.. some even involve guns but...  we have a much lower manslaughter rate than any of you... now.. I don't know about you but.. dead is dead.. if you think a country is dangerous.. then maybe you shouldn't care how someone dies so much as how many?

It is also difficult to seperate out law abiding citizens and illegals and minorities from our stats but.. who cares?  we have plenty of both.. far more than any other country on the list.   you people don't even know the meaning of "cultural/racial diversity" in any real way.   

I am not asking you to clean up your act tho.. I am saying too bad about all the violent crime in your countries but.. you can ignore it if you like and you can feel safe unarmed if you like..  I say "you".. I don't mean you particularly since NZ isn't quite as bad as other british dependents..  And "you" in particular seem to have a pretty fair minded idea of freedom so far as firearms are concerned.

I am just saying.. firearms or no.. the world is full of bad people who will harm you if they think they are in a position of strength... they become reasonable and polite only after a gun is pulled on em.. often.. only after they are shot a few times.

To ignore this fact while thinking you are being a safe person by wearing seatbelts seems pretty dumb to me so far as effort expended and logical thinking applied.

lazs

[Napoleon II]

If you go to nationmasters... http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita

You will see that for all types of violent crime except homicide.. of which about 20% of our population (by race) commits about 60%....that the english speaking countries including england and America have about the same number.

That being said.. I think I would just as soon have a gun to defend myself in any of those countries.  It is foolish to think that you are safe from violent crime in any country.  You are fooling yourself.  thumb up your butt and big stupid grin on your face.

If you look at the robberies per person you will see less in the US..  "manslaughters"  the US is not even listed it is so low..  it is not safer to live in other countries.. even rapes is about the same even tho... again.. most rapes are commited by one small percent of the US population.. by race.

Burgalaries..  3 times more likely in oz and twice as likely in england.. 

How safe do you guys feel now?

lazs

Hi Lazs.

You’re drawing a lot of conclusions from one single list of figures. It really isn’t that simple. You are right in saying that the number of assaults per 1000 population are approximately the same in the US, Australia and the UK. But did you study the stats further than that? I did, and found that the US is rape capital of the world. On a per capita basis, the US is still way up there, with (according to your nationmaster.com sources) twice as many rapes as any other European country in that list. Interestingly, Australia is higher still! How can this be? I think it has something to do with this:

Different countries measure crime in different ways. A rape is clearly an assault of sorts – in many cases but perhaps not all. So when does that assault become a rape? The answer varies according to the jurisdiction in which it happened. In some countries, the mere fact of someone having relations with a person who has not reached the age of consent constitutes rape. The age of consent varies from country to country and even in the same country. In the US it’s 18 in many western states, 17 in others eg Texas, and 16 in some eastern states. In the UK it’s 16 and in Australia it’s 16 except South Australia and Tasmania where it’s 17. Clearly the scope for morality laws being broken increases with the age of consent because people are capable of getting up to mischief long before reaching the age of consent, especially when it’s as high as 18.

But why is Australia’s total so high? One possible reason is that like Mexico, Australia practises universal jurisdiction (also known as extraterrirorial jurisdiction) with regard to some offences, including offences of this nature. What this means is that an Australian citizen who has relations with a minor is deemed to have committed an offence against Australian law, even though the act itself occurred outside of Australia! It could have happened in London, or Dublin – or downtown San Francisco. Also it is not clear if these lists refer to criminal convictions, or merely reported crime. A great deal of crime of this nature goes unreported.

Without answers to these questions, it is not possible to judge one society being safer than another purely on one list of stats. But hey – don’t take my word for it. Your own nationmaster.com source contains a link to a criminology web page which cautions against drawing conclusions in the way that you have. Go to the nationmaster.com home page. Half way down on the left hand side is a link to “Crime Statistics”, which takes you to a collection of crime publications. The final paragraph states this:

 

Counting rules in categorizing a reported offense usually vary from one jurisdiction to another. A few standards do exist, and are being observed by many law enforcement jurisdictions worldwide. However, even these may vary from one country to another, and thus comparing crime statistics of one country from another often leads to inaccurate conclusions.

[Napoleon II]

No person can strip your constitutional rights.   Such as gun ownership: As a US citizen, you have the right to bear arms.  A person (property owner) can ask you not to have them on his/her property.  Thats all they can do is ask.  You still have a right to bear arms.

The fact that your constitutional right cannot be stripped by a private individual is supported by the Fla lawmakers.  Click the link in the first post of this thread and read it.  It's what started this whole thread.

My position is: Unless they are providing armed and competent security, then I'm packing.  What they don't know won't hurt them, but it could very well protect me from a violent offender.

Well, this is clearly an issue close to your heart. I still maintain that you may not get away with packing, if you intend to break your company's rules and leave a gun locked in your vehicle on the company premises. The only packing you're likely to be doing is packing your personal belongings and clearing your desk - if they find out. And given how vociferous you have been in this thread, it's likely that your defiant stance will not go unnoticed by your co-workers, and it only takes one of them to rat on you...

Sure, the company may not be entitled to search your car, but how are gun free zones policed, eg at shopping malls? In the most extreme case, your employer could terminate your employment. Then you'd no longer be entitled to park there at all.

Someone said earlier that the building code means that buildings can't be erected without designated parking areas, and therefore employees are entitled to parking facilities. But that pre-supposes that an entire building will be occupied by one organization only. In practice, a large office building will have a dozen or two companies within it, each of which may or may not lease parking space from the building management. When I worked in NYC (midtown Manhattan at E.55th & Madison Ave), my company had suites on two out of the 40 floors and did not lease parking - certainly not for all employees.

[lazs2]

well "napolean"..   I would say that you are probly right and that it is difficult to compare countries.. that has never stopped you your-0-peeeans from touting the superiority of your homicide rates tho has it?

My point it that it is a dangerous world out there no matter what country you are in..  being attacked or burglarized is the same no matter where you live tho.

I am just glad that I live in a country that allows me to take responsibility for my own safety in a meaningful way and allows me to defend my home and myself with a firearm.

I am pointing out that your country is not a safe place to live.    It seems that every murder you have gets classified as a manslaughter charge.. the US doesn't even make the list on  manslaughter cause we go for homicide charges

The violent crime rates are pretty much the same in all these countries.. to pretend that a gun would not be a good thing to have is much worse than to think that a seatbelt is not needed.

It would seem that anyone who thinks he doesn't need a gun but needs a seatbelt is not thinking clearly.

lazs