Jeb Bush - gun possession in Florida

<p>My family and i were talking the other day, and issue of Bush's new law came up - that makes it legal for people to legally fire at someone if they feel "threatened".</p>

<p>Personally, me living in Florida, I believe that this is the stupidest thing. We already have people needlessly dying from illegal gun fire, but now its leagl. This isn't nineteenth century backcountry - we shouldn't need weapons to protect ourselves. What we really need is for the gun control laws to be enforced, instead of giving people the okay to carry and use these weapons.</p>

<p>I don't feeel safer. In fact, I feel unsettled knowing that if i look at a person in a way they don't like, they may interpret that look as being "threatning" - which could mean anything could happen.</p>

<p>Anyway, please give your input on this issue :)</p>

<p>Well, there's only one way to work this situation out (assuming DieBold isn't involved...) - and that's vote straight-ticket Dem</p>

<p>;)</p>

<p>I feel that a law that makes it legal to not only carry a weapon and to fire at someone who may be threatening you (ie. perhaps trying to rob you) is an excellent idea. Imagine a 20 something girl walking home at night, a carrying is gun is illegal. Anyone who wants to rob her know that she isn't armed, making her an easy target. But, if it's legal to have a gun, the robber would think twice: is she armed? Will she try to shoot at me? So I think its a great idea.</p>

<p>^agreed</p>

<p>"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation will have full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future."</p>

<p>Adolf Hitler- 1935</p>

<p>Has the law defined what "threatening" would mean? While I can see some reasons for this law (such as the example alukaszewicz wrote), I can also see this law being abused. One person's idea of "threatened" may be different than another person.</p>

<p>I personally think that gun control should be tougher, not allowing more people access to and use of firearms.</p>

<p>Yeah, I definetely agree that the term "threatening" would need to be specifically defined. But I'm sure it is in reality; "threatening" is just what the original poster said.</p>