Come to Florida — and get your head blown off!

Guest Post by Morbo

I kind of like the gang at the Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence. These days they are employing some guerrilla tactics I find highly entertaining.

Case in point: Every year, 1.5 million folks from Great Britain visit Florida, most of them hitting the beaches or Disneyland. The Brady Campaign has been running ads in British newspapers, warning would-be visitors about the Sunshine State’s new law that allows gun owners to use deadly force on the streets if they feel threatened.

As the British newspaper the Birmingham Post put it: “A series of adverts will appear in British newspapers…highlighting new laws which enable gun owners to shoot anyone they feel threatens their safety.” These “adverts” read:

“Thinking about a Florida vacation? Please ensure your family is safe. A new law in the Sunshine State authorizes nervous of frightened residents to use deadly force. In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads.”

Activists with the Brady Campaign have also been working airports at Miami and Orlando, handing similarly worded flyers to foreign tourists. The flyers advise in part, “Do not argue unnecessarily with local people. If someone appears to be angry with you, maintain to the best of your ability a positive attitude, and do not shout or make threatening gestures.”

Sarah Brady, the wife of former press secretary for President Ronald W. Reagan James Brady, told British reporters, “We think people visiting Florida should be aware of this law and act accordingly.”

I’m sure everyone recalls that James Brady was shot in the head by John Hinckley, who tried to assassinate Reagan in 1981. Brady survived, but is wheel-chair bound. He and his wife have dedicated their lives to challenging the National Rifle Association. The Bradys don’t have anywhere near the money the NRA does, but their gutsy campaign has inspired many to keep fighting the gun lobby and its wholly owned subsidiary, the U.S. Congress.

This new effort is great for several reasons: Number one, it has infuriated Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and the gun nuts in the stated legislature. (But they can’t do a damn thing about it. Ha, ha!) Two, it has the NRA equally angry. Three, it might actually work and hit the state where it hurts most: the pocketbook. (Britain averages about 30 handgun murders per year. Potential visitors from the U.K. have every reason to be concerned about the level of gun violence here.) Four, it’s a relatively cheap way to get some free media.

To Sarah and James I say, “Good show!”

He and his wife have dedicated their lives to challenging the National Rifle Association.

Well, to be more accurate, he and his wife have dedicated their lives to attempting to ban private gun ownership through legislation, something which I’m fairly certain actually rises to the level of Constitutional amendment, which they know they could never achieve.

What’s especially funny is that the UK gives pretty much the same advice to their citizens in dealing with criminals. Does anyone have any info on how many British tourists have been killed in violent incidents of any kind — not just guns, since guns are not uniquely capable of being used as instruments of violence — in, say, the last 10-15 years?

NB: I am not a gun owner.

  • Someone needs to make a T-shirt for sale in Florida gift shops:

    “I went to Florida and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”

    (Front side of T-shirt has a bullet hole with bloodstains around it. Back side has large bloody mess with a two-word legend below it: “exit wound”.)

    Best-selling item, don’t you think?

  • Sorry, but Phil is wrong. The Bradys don’t want guns banned anymore than Mothers Against Drunk Driving wants drinking banned. They only want guns properly regulated. Phil also misses the point of the second amendment, which concerns well-regulated militias. We already have those, in the various state National Guard units.

  • Well, I’m pretty liberal.

    However, I think that the second amendment is a pretty good thing. And I own guns. And I’m considering concealed carry.

    Now, when open carry was passed in Arizona, did murders go up? No. Crime as a whole went down, as I suspect you’ll find in mest every state that has passed any type of carry law.

    When handguns were extremely strictly regulated in Australia, the crime rate went up.

    I’m ok with mandating trigger lock sales. Some types of quality standards (materials standards, not what Massachusetts has done) are ok. But anything beyond that, such as waiting periods (which do nothing) is just stupid.

    I’m all in favor of nearly everything that the Dems advocate, and the newfound fiscal discipline is bloody wonderful.

    But Dems are picking and choosing the liberties they guarantee. Us Dems want freedom from the onerousness of the Patriot Act, freedom from arbitrary meddling in the bedroom and the altar, freedom from religion in government, just to scratch the surface.

    I also want freedom to have and defend yourself with a gun. I’m not saying shootings shouldn’t be investigated. But the legality of means to defend one’s self should be a basic human right.

  • Phil also misses the point of the second amendment, which concerns well-regulated militias. We already have those, in the various state National Guard units. Comment by kishin

    To all the 2nd-Amendment-means-millitias liberals, FYI: the founding fathers were armed. All of ‘em. The 2nd Amendment was to protect militias from the federal and state governments as a basic right, not to allow citizens to be stripped of weapons unless they were a militia. The idea that guns would be outlawed would not have crossed their minds as such: they were necessary tools.

    Chris has a great point on its merits alone, and he also shows how far-off most liberal Dems against guns are from any politically-winnable middle ground. Being anti-gun to reduce crime strikes most responsible gun-owners the way banning life-jackets to reduce boat crashes would strike captains: ignorant.

    I was raised an anti-gun liberal (not even toy guns in our home), and it took some time for me to recognize this as a head-in-the-sand approach to policy. If you are anti-gun, and you don’t like Bush’s ostrich of governance, I think you should question where and why you developed anti-gun ideas. If I were one of the millions of responsible, well prepared, lawful gun owners potential heroes out there, I would be very frightened of the liberal movement to demonize guns.

    The fact is, guns are a great way to defend yourself. Take a 90-lb grandma in a nightgown facing two thugs who are going to rob and rape her, and give her a gun and she has a chance. Extreme? It happens all the time. In fact, try tying your state into href=http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx>this NRA Armed Citizen publication and see what’s going on in your neck of the woods. Saying we should ban guns (which is what the anti-NRA liberals sound like they’re saying) is simply insane. Victims of violence are never glad they didn’t have guns. Police simply can’t protect you all the time, nor should they have to if we expect to live in a democracy rather than a police state. It happened around Tulane University while I was there in 2003, where a serial anal-rapist broke into coeds apartments for over a year. How many of those girls do you think suddenly wished they had guns, when faced with a 200 lb. sadist with a knife?

    Louisiana had a car-jacking epidemic in the 90’s. What stopped it? Not police, but passing a law making your vehicle part of your home for the “castle doctrine.” This meant that if your life was threatened in your car, you could defend with deadly force. Guess what? No more car-jacking epidemic. It was that simple.

    I lived in New Orleans, the murder capital, and those murders were committed with guns. But how many of those guns were stolen? Illegally possessed? At one point you had only a 20% of being convicted for murder in New Orleans (thanks to incompetent police and DA’s). I trained to defend myself, but what do I say to my girlfriend as she’s being raped in a home invasion, “sorry, guns are bad?”

    People answer these types of stories with, “yeah, but the odds of that happening to you are low!” I have two responses to that:

    1. One in four women will be sexually assaulted in their life. Do you know four women? One of them will be raped. Will you be able to help her if you have the chance? How? Have you even thought about how?

    2. Even if the odds are low, so what? Do we pooh-pooh smoke detectors just because your house isn’t likely to burn down? Do hikers leave the emergency cell-phone because, well, what are the odds they’ll be the ones with an emergency? Preparedness is both a common-sense idea, and a social responsibility, that transcends mere probability.

    3. Do you think criminals obey gun laws?

    I carry a spare tire and a jack in my car (or did when I had one), because it is my social responsibility to be prepared. If I am going to buy a house and fill it with nice things, and have a desirable wife and defenseless children, I am asking too much of this country to defend my home. It is as simple as breaking a window! Walking in at 2 PM when the alarm is off and I’m at work. How can the liberal mentality support reduced police rights AND reduced self-protection? I think it’s a reaction against “fear” politics, and that makes sense to a point. But ignoring a fear that has some reality to it is ludicrous.

    If I chose to have nice things, to move freely about in the world, and to feel safe, it is my responsibility to be sure I am. In a perfect world, everybody would be nice, but we are not there. For every victim of a crime who bought into the “it won’t happen to me” and “guns are bad” mentality, you have just been tricked into helping to feed the money machine that is violent crime. By being armed and prepared, we all make crime less attractive to would-be criminals.

    I will never blame a victim for violence perpetrated against them, but I will demand preparedness of myself to protect that which I want to call my own. For all those men and women whose preparedness in keeping and training with firearms has saved others from rape, murder, or mutilation, god bless every one of you. Keep up the good work.

  • I’ve been puzzled about this justification law in Florida since I first heard about it. Undercover police officers would be the most at risk of being killed by someone who felt threatened. While there aren’t that many non uniformed security personell there certainly are some. They too would be likely to behave in ways that would be interpreted as threatening. I worked as a non uniformed officer for a number of years and I am very uncomfortable with this law.

  • Rose,

    Yeah, I can say that I’m deeply in favor of the “Conflict Avoidance/Defusing” doctrine; it’s taught here in Texas.

    I sort of was addressing the base issue, (possession/carry) and not the presented issue.

    As a responsible gun owner (part of the overwhelming majority of gun owners), I do not like HCI’s flat “No Handguns” policy. But I can see why they think that the “Stand your ground” laws are a special abomination.

    I do not think, though, that the Stand Your Ground (SYG) law will lead to an increase in general handgun assaults. Quite the opposite. Howevr, if handgun assaults do increase, or lead to increased police assaults, I will be the first to work with HCI to repeal SYG, but I won’t work to repeal concealed carry.

    I think that when a person uses a handgun to defend themselves, it should be investigated rather harshly, just like any other potentially criminal incident. It will provide the incentive for handgun licensees to do their damnedest to avoid potential incidents.

  • I personally think it is hysterical. The NRA has been using fear of crime to justify it’s mission I don’t see this tactic as any different.

    Hoisted by their own petard!

  • “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    ~ Thomas Jefferson

  • Ironically, in England, you can actually go do jail for shooting an intruder. The burdon of proof is on YOU to show that your life was in danger… what are you going to do? …wait till knife is already sticking in your side?

    Therefore, maybe these britians will like the change.

    Personally, the best way to defend your home is to load up your shotgun with some shotgun shells be scare them off with the sound of cocking that baby.

  • Multiple-choice question. You are female, liberal and anti-gun. Your boyfriend, a gun-nut are sharing a Friday evening playing a board game and watching some decorrating show on HGTV. Then comes the sound of broken glass from the back side of your rented house. Before you can react a man walks in. Yes young lady, you did implement that restraining order 2 months ago against your old boyfriend now standing in front of you. Of course he said that he would kill you. To protect yourself the restraining order made it all legal which for sure would keep him away.
    In front of you are two items. Your cell phone and your boyfriends 357mag. Do you pick up the phone and call 911? Or do you pick up the 357mag? The correct answer is your cell phone. Why? You are female, liberal and anti-gun. You have no clue how to point the gun, let alone what a trigger is. Thank God you picked the cell phone and called 911. Now the police will be-able to find your new dead boyfriend and your raped dead body.
    YOU CHOSE WISELY LIBERAL ANTI-GUN PERSON

    R I P

  • Stuck on stupid sure as gained momentum. Just saw one today. If you are still voting democrap then you are stuck in stupid. The problem with this is it was a bumper sticker. This I found offensive. It seems democrap was missspelled. Looked it up in Webster’s. Should be democrat, an adovcate for liberalism. New them conserveativies cant not spell. They is also stupido. Heard they voted fer Preperatiion H in sand fancisco ca. Not sure what that means. Think it has something to do with hemeroids and guns.

    Right me so me know. “O” Who is buried in Grants Tomb?

    sr

  • Comments are closed.