Are There Too Many Guns in Florida?

michael mirra January 1, 2013 at 01:44 am

We can debate Obama, Reagan, Carter, Bush, etc. That is getting off the topic. The topic here is wheather American need to continue to live in fear of their gun toting neighbors & what should be done to remove that danger from our Country.

Dan Pressler January 1, 2013 at 01:56 am

michael mirra - we need to figure out what to do about those who would strip from LAW-ABIDING citizens the rights granted in our constitution. If you remove one, where do you stop - free speech, freedom of religion - inconvenient of get rid of those rights too? there are many other countries with tougher gun laws - England, Australia, China, Cuba, North Korea. the first two have freedom of religion & speech - if you do not like those rights, you can try the last three countries or several like them (most of the muslim middle east for example)

michael mirra January 1, 2013 at 02:14 am

You all talk about rights. Freedom of speech doesn't kill by crazys opening their mouth. Religion doesn't kill unless they are fanatical, like during the inquasition. If a crazy religion went around killing 20-30 innocent people every couple of months, that religion would be outlawed by popular demand. I don't care about these OTHER countries. I live in America. What part of we aren't for outlawing guns, but for outlawing weapons of mass killing that have been proven to be uncontrollablly available to too many crazys, for too long, & resulted in numberous mass murders, don't you people comprehend? You people all think that there is a boogyman everywhere, or that you someday will get to shoot your weapons at the tank that kills you with napalm. Maybe you will be real lucky & get to shoot at the Tomahawk missle 2 seconds before it hits your house.

Dan Pressler January 1, 2013 at 04:00 am

so you do not care about our rights & want to take them away from law abiding citizens, Look at the gun ownership rates vs murder rates of Chicago & New York with some of the tightest gun laws as compared to Kennesaw, GA w/ Manatory ownership (felony, financial, religous/moral exceptions). the Cliche "if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" is a cliche because it is true.

Dan Pressler January 1, 2013 at 04:02 am

if you do not want a gun DO NOT OWN ONE. your desire to prevent me from owning a gun because you thing they are dangerous is roughly comparable to preventing people from owning cars because reckless/drunken drivers kill people > because criminals kill people no one should own them

Leroy A Haggard January 1, 2013 at 01:06 pm

This is an apple to orange comparison. Cars are not purchased to carry around concealed. Cars are not purchased as a means of destruction. Fatty fods can kill, the air we breath can kill, Standing under a tree in a storm can kill. But a gun is designed only for one thing

Leroy A Haggard January 1, 2013 at 01:10 pm

What about the rights of 30,000 people killed by guns each year. I guess they do not count.

Dan Pressler January 1, 2013 at 01:17 pm

they can also be used to keep yourself from being killed. if you are unarmed & waiting for the police to get there & stop someone with a gun who wants to kill you YOU WILL BE DEAD. It is possible to shoot someone without killing them - granted it is a slightly trickier to shoot them without killing them. but would you rather be carried by six or judged by twelve. Just as you appear willing to die because of your beliefs, I am willing to live because of mine.

Carla Gibson January 1, 2013 at 01:45 pm

Please help me understand . . are MOST gun owners in the country IN FAVOR of keeping the "military type" weapons legal (the type that were used to murder the elementary school children)? Or do gun owners also think something should be done to limit such easy access to these type of guns?
My guess is there are many responsible gun owners that would like to see an end to easy access of "assault type" weapons. I'm asking because I'm not a gun owner and yet I see nothing wrong with having a simple handgun for protection or having a hunting rifle if one likes to kill animals ... but I don't think there should be a place in our society for "assault type" weapons to be in the hands of just "anyone" out there over the age of 18 .. just because the law says they can.

Dad of Three January 1, 2013 at 05:26 pm

I don't see very many people, in fact hardly anyone here, saying that Americans should not be allowed to own a gun; the question, after the Newtown CT mass murders, is the TYPE of gun.
So, when Mr Pressler writes "they can also be used to keep yourself from being killed." he is stating a fact, in isolation, but his comment is not at all appropriate for the concerns expressed by the vast number of Americans, gun-owners included, who want to insure that NEVER AGAIN should a deranged person be able to get their hands on assault weapons (or, guns with rapid rate of fire combined with large magazines of ammunition) so that they can kill twenty little children in a brief period of time. So, Mr Pressler, I agree that you should be able to own a hunting rifle, or a shotgun, or a personal protection pistol; but no American, not you, not me, not anyone except except for police officers and soldiers, should be able to possess assault weapons (or, guns with rapid rate of fire combined with large magazines of ammunition).

michael mirra January 1, 2013 at 06:17 pm

Dad of three is right on. What the right doesn't want to give up is that they want to arm themselves in case THEY DECIDE that the Government has turned rouge & they like to fantasize that they are willing, ready & able to abolish the Government & institute new Government.
That's the RIGHTS they are talking about. Like they can take on the firepower of the United States Armed forces? When Obama was first elected, my then live in Girlfriend, a Tea Party Fanatic, used to trade emails with these wackos that were preparing to rise up if Obama wanted to disarm them. That's what the nra is about. Remember Charlton Heston, as their spoksman, holding up a rifle & declairing that the only way it can be taken away is from his "cold, dead hands". These people want to take on the government if they are unhappy with it. Like their assault weapons that kill innocent children, can stand up to armored tanks, artillary, & smart rockets. They like to play fantasy revolution & crazys use the easy access to get tools for their insanity.

Mark January 1, 2013 at 07:11 pm

Dad of Three...your comment seems to suggest to me that you know very little about guns or your Constitutional rights you seem so eager to waive - that our grandfathers fought and died for so that we would have them. You need to better educate yourself on both subjects before you put the future of our nation at risk by allowing us to be subjugated by the Left wing extremists' Socialist agendas. "Guns with rapid rate of fire"...what do you mean? Surely you must know that fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated and not easily accessible. They require a class 3 firearms licence, which unless you are a big-time gun dealer or super rich person, you will never have. "Large magazines of ammunition"...by what standard is "large" defined? 6 rounds, 10 rounds, 15 rounds, 30 rounds? The key to minimizing tragedies like the one in CT is education, coupled with finding better ways to address mental health issues before they may become serious enough to allow the sufferer to go over the edge. In nearly every case like this, people close to the shooter knew something was amiss with them but were unable to do anything about it or get help because of the way our system is set up. Fix the mental health system and you will have fixed the overwhelming majority of would-be future issues.

michael mirra January 1, 2013 at 07:47 pm

MARK writes >Surely you must know that fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated and not easily accessible. They require a class 3 firearms licence, which unless you are a big-time gun dealer or super rich person, you will never have.
I respond > I see how effective these controls are. Only big time gun dealers & super rich can get them? WOW. That crazy in Arora was a big time gun dealer, or super rich? I guess the crazy kid in ct's mother was a big time gun dealer too, or super rich? Maybe the kid himself was a big time gun dealer? My point is the regulations are WORTHLESS. The only way to make sure they are gone is to outlaw them, confiscate them, & imprison anyone cought with of one. There is no need for anyone to have one. The rules don't work. People are being killed because we don't eliminate them. People should be able to own a safe gun, but killing machines should be outlawed & everyone know there will be a time when they will be outlawed. If recent events haven't pushed it over the edge yet, the next one, or two will. We all know there will be other killings using assault weapons on innocents. One of those times will be the last straw. You can hoard your weapons, but will face jail time & or heavy fines for breaking the law. That will be law. The Supream Court will decide. Not YOU.

Leroy A Haggard January 1, 2013 at 10:09 pm

If a person wants to possess a shotgun, or hunting rifle, or a handgun, fine. No one is opposing that, but, every automatic, assult weapon banned and anyone in possession bew found breaking the law. WQneh anyone says the only way a weapon can be taken will from his own cold dead hands is a bit sick nad should not even be allowed a cap gun

Mark January 2, 2013 at 01:17 am

Hey Michael - wake up! The Left is trying to hijack the government right under your nose right now by trying to make fundamental changes such as the abolition of our second amendment rights. That is one of the first steps in a government gone rogue - taking the people's weapons. It's been done repeatedly throughout history and is the very reason our founders found it so important as to make it the very next thing they guaranteed after freedom of speech.

michael mirra January 2, 2013 at 04:01 am

Your right Mark. Arm with eveything you can. See if you can get some TNT, we'll hit the Pentagon at midnight. We might be able to wipe out the whole White House staff if we can bring enough clips of Ammo. After we do a Bill Ayers on the Pentagon we can hit the White House. Get as many malitia friends as possible. If you have any bayonetts get then too. Granades are als good.Forget the semi-auto crap. We need isreali machine guns. We'll take as many down as we can. We'll make Sandy Hook look like a child's party. LOL. We'll show those rouge socialists that they can't take the guns out of OUR hands till we are cold & dead. That will make sure America stays free.

Mark January 2, 2013 at 01:35 pm

You're a fool Michael. This is my last comment to you. I will not waste any more of my time.

Michael D. January 2, 2013 at 02:19 pm

So Dan, you are using the agrument that a town of less than 30,000 is a good example of the must have gun to stop crime. The population is less than 1/3 of the population of the 285 most populated city in the United States. Because crime and gun ownership as we know are mutually exclusive and no other factors might cause crime. Where Kennesaw has one of the high average education level in the state of Georgia. They also have a average household income that is $20,000 more than the average household income in the Tampa Bay Area ($10,000 more than the national average). If I have money to purchase things I doubt I'm going to robb to get them. Their are several other factors that just going over the government and census documentation for Kennesaw which would show that crime who naturally decrease gunlaws or not. Also other research has shown no link in Kennesaw to support David Koppel (Gun Activist) claim that it was due to the gun laws.

michael mirra January 2, 2013 at 02:22 pm

People are wasting the time of common sense posters. They keep giving us the same old lines about the second amendment & why the founding fathers gave us that right. They turn a deaf ear to any common sense that when the founding fathers wrote that into our nations guidlines, several things apply. First, there weren't constant & repeat incidents of crazys going into school houses & killing all the kids & teachers. There weren't crazys going into public gatherings & mowing down as many as they could. If that was happening, they would have thought that permitting the unrestrained use of guns was a good idea, but not realistically feasible. Second, the founding fathers were men, not spokesman of God. They weren't infallable. They had no crystal balls to tell them that weapons would evolve to the piont of putting a Gattling Gun in the hands of anyone who could manuver the system to get one. Third, they couldn't envision technology bombarding youth with games that glorify killing mass numbers that impressionable kids play hour after hour, day after day. Fourth Just because Hitler disarmed his people for his reasons, doesn't mean America's reaction to a problem that has reached a head is for any reason but to try to stop sensless killing. Fifth, in Hitler's time, people being armed could have stopped Hitler. In today's America, people being armed can kill innocent civilians, but are like pea shooters vs. what Govenments have today should they want to stomp down on the people.

Michael D. January 2, 2013 at 02:23 pm

Dan,
This is another bad agrument. The agrument is should their be a bann on certain types of guns. Using the car agrument, is invalid, because their is a bann on the public owning certain types of cars. I don't see many people trying Formula 1 cars down the streets, because they are banned from public consumtion.

michael mirra January 2, 2013 at 02:32 pm

These people always think the left is trying to hijack the government. Maybe the left has a different value structure than the right? The right is America's past not wanting to change & the left is aware of these changes & implimenting what is needed in a changed society. The right refuses to recognize these changes & the left has adapted to current life in America. The scientific discription of intellegence is a life forms ability to adapt to change. That may be why Conservatives are viewed as not being the sharpest pencils in the box. It isn't 1950s anymore. Ike isn't Pres. & Ozzie & Harriet isn't a representation of America.

michael mirra January 2, 2013 at 02:41 pm

Mark wrote to me>
Mark 8:35 am on Wednesday, January 2, 2013 You're a fool Michael. This is my last comment to you. I will not waste any more of my time HEY MARK, WHATEVER? THAT'S NO SKIN OFF MY BUTT.

Leroy A Haggard January 2, 2013 at 04:45 pm

A million guns in Florida, or close to that number, times that 52 states and then the cry is for more arms. How many more killings will take place before a meaningfiul dialog take place on both sides on the sides of the fence. Dialog ...yes....rhetoric no

Dan Pressler January 2, 2013 at 05:03 pm

I have no problem banning fully automatic weapons - that is currently the law anyway. There is no standard definition of "assault weapon" accepted by both liberals and conservatives. Current law says two military characteristics make it an unlawful weapon. proposed law will make a single military characteristic sufficient to make it an unlawful weapon. Most modern pistols (as opposed to revolvers) have a magazine of 12-16 rounds - this is due in large part because the grip needs to be a certain size for the pistol to be held securely - most of them would be outlawed under proposed legislation. any weapon used offensively (to attack as opposed to defend) can arguably be called an "assault weapon" so the term is useless as it is based upon the use not the design. the relevant terms are automatic (already illegal) & semi-automatic.

Michael D. January 2, 2013 at 05:11 pm

For those questioning the Definition of Assualt Rifle: (noun)
ASSAULT RIFLE : any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

Richard January 11, 2013 at 01:20 pm

Someone please tell me the stats on how often or how many citizens who are legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon has committed a mass shooting. I have a CCW in Florida and I carry absolutely everywhere I can legally. I have 11 years experience in the military both as a Military Police and a nuclear weapons security guard. I deserve the right to defend myself from the crazies who are committing these awful acts like in Newtown or Colorado. A lot of people can die in the 5 to 10 minutes it takes for law enforcement to respond to a situation. Fact....in shootings where there is no one with a concealed weapon an average of 10-12 people lose their lives. In shootings where there was someone on sight with a legally carried weapon an average of 2-3 people lose their lives. A lot of damage can be done in the time it takes law enforcement to get on the scene. It is my right and responsibility to protect myself and my family. Please someone sight a case in these mass shootings where the shooter wasn't mentally ill. The problem is not guns, it is our mental health system. A sane person does not become a mass shooter just because he has a gun. But, an insane person who doesn't have a gun WILL find one if he/she wants to bad enough. By the way, I think we should ban or have background checks for those purchasing hammers. More people are murdered each year by hammers than by assault weapons. Gun laws only affect those who are law-abiding citizens.

Leroy A Haggard January 11, 2013 at 07:18 pm

Florida soon may become populas than New York with 40% moving to Florida from other states 60% from othe countries With Florida nearing a gun popluation of one million, new guns to Florida should go through the roof. Florida will need to re-enforce highways and bridges to offset the additional metal people wear adding to the weight limits.

Carla Gibson January 13, 2013 at 02:13 am

A friend came up with this idea . .
Don't ban "military type" assault weapons but have a HIGH registration fee on EACH gun upon purchase and then a HIGH registration renewal fee per gun EVERY year after that. .. just like a car registration has to be renewed every year with a fee. He said if there was an initial $700 registration fee & the same amount charged for a yearly registration renewal -- per gun -- it might make people think twice about buying them. On the other hand, maybe not.

Leroy A Haggard January 13, 2013 at 05:04 pm

What you say makes sense, but, no matter what the cost is, my feeling is if given a choice of food or guns, but cannot afford both, it will be guns as first choice. But guns should go thru regristration every year like a car. Not or ever being a gun owner, I would think regristration would be required every year, including mental health or other. They can suspend a drivers license or revoke a license, why not then guns if found to be unfit. I do not have a gun, nor do I drive due to age. And no,
the license was not taken away or revoked, I just said I am too old to drive Why not thren with guns if one can no longer be responsible for having one rather than waiting for an accident to happen

George Straight May 17, 2013 at 11:15 pm

Absolutely Not. It's sad to see what this Country and Gun issue has turned into. We're losing all our rights and letting our government control everything we do. Wake up people...