Legal or not, that’s what *would *happen, and somebody *would *end up dead. “Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6”, the store owner might think, and quite reasonably too.
Well, the text of the Florida stand your ground law reads, "he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another.”
So, ostensibly, if the store owner believed that they were there to do harm, he’s justified to pull a gun and start shooting. That’s the biggest problem with these laws, when push comes to shove, it’s all what the person believes.
Really, I would bet more that all 40 people injured/killed in that McDonald’s wish there had been 3 FEWER guns in that restarant far more than 21 MORE guns.
What is your sense as to why this is true?
Of course it is. What, did you think it was about defending our freedoms against tyranny? 
Nice question-ducking.
And nice invective hurling. But we’ve already established that the above is all you have to offer.
Now be quiet, please, the adults are talking.
I don’t understand the mindset. I (and millions of my fellow American citizens) have managed to live 40+ years without EVER feeling the need to carry a weapon of any kind when I go out of my house. Or while sleeping IN my house, for that matter. I just can’t understand why anyone would be so frightened of anything that they want to be able to kill another human being dead as quickly as possible. I mean, I could understand if they’d gotten death threats or something…that would be a legitimate carry/bodyguard situation. But how often does that actually happen?
I notice one word in the first paragraph that you omit from the second: reasonably. Can you explain why you quote the law with that word, but then omit it when explaining the “ostensible” meaning?
If you were taking about survivors of the Luby’s Cafeteria shooting instead of the McDonald’s one, I would take that bet.
Do you make room for the possibility that not everyone shares your mindset on many different things?
No. The move cannot merely be “threatening.” The store owner must reasonably believe that he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
The store owner’s belief must be actual – he cannot say, “Well, I could have believed it.” His belief must be that he was in immediate, serious threat of death of serious bodily injury. And that belief must be must be objectively reasonable: that is, he not only has to actually believe it, but his belief must be reasonable to a outside, neutral observer.
And for what its worth, a police officer in the store has precisely the same strictures guiding him: for him to use deadly force, he must reasonably believe that he was in immediate, serious threat of death of serious bodily injury.
Can you give me an example of “threatening” moves, as you used the term above?
Suppose the clerk spies the armed man in the parking lot and nervously grabs his own gun under the counter. Then, while this armed individual is walking into the store, he starts to point it (inadvertently, perhaps) at the clerk. The clerk believes this man is about to shoot him, so the clerk shoots first. Is this legal?
Are you asking why the Army wants to control it’s people? It’s kind of what they do.
You are ridiculous. But that has been pointed out before. You still confused about what you are talking about.
That’s evasive. I am asking you why they would restrict firearms.
Not sure if anyone posted this yet, but there was another incident of an accidental shooting at a Walmart.
This guy wounded a woman pushing a newborn by dropping a handgun out of his pants. He apparently faces no consequences.
Walking into my place of business with a firearm in your hands.
I’m really hoping no-one gets killed when the inevitable happens and a store-owner lights up one of these idiots.
We had these same sort of morons parading around our neighborhood with slung rifles, dressed in cammo like the douchebags they are. They’ve done this in many towns in Oregon and always video the resulting conversations they have with the cops who respond to the panicky phone calls they get. Every time a cop has to respond to some asshole trying to prove a point, it takes him away from doing his job. Quite often, schools and daycare centers have to go into lockdown and notify parents when this happens, resulting in panic for the parents, teachers and others because a couple of jackasses want to prove their manhood. Want to feel like a tough guy? Join the goddamn military and leave the rest of us alone.
This is clearly carrying it a bit far, but as a patron or owner of such an establishment it seems that the likelihood that an open carrying patron will come in and prevent a robbery or mass shooting, is less than the likelihood of a open carrying person coming in a causing a robbery or mass shooting, or even come in with just the intention of buying a burger, but flying into a rage and shooting someone because he has to wait 10 minutes for his fries. As an open carrier you might* know what my intentions are, but an restaurant manager doesn’t know. Banning guns from his store increases his safety more than you carrying guns into it increases yours.
- Of course every gun owner “knows” that they are safe responsible and even tempered, but headlines show they can’t all be right.
It’s not evasive. It’s very specific but brief.
I know you are looking for the gotcha answer of they don’t trust their people with weapons and it’s for safety. Yes it is. But I don’t think you want to hold the Army up as an example on that front. We are talking about an organization that requires lengthy safety briefings everytime you let the soldiers go home for the weekend. An organization that has weekly pre-weekend pre-holiday vehicle inspections. An organization that recalls an entire unit from their time off when one guy has a DUI. An organization where one guy in Fort Bragg can do something publicly wrong and the rest of the Army immediately knows an 8 hour PowerPoint presentation is coming their way. It’s a zero defect environment where the actions of your subordinates can ruin your career. They would wrap everyone in bubble wrap if they could just to make Major. It is not a good example.
Btw soldiers are allowed to own weapons. It’s not like privately owned weapons don’t exist. They just can’t carry on post.
Oh Jesus this. Every. Single. Time. BTW you also forgot to add that they need high vis safety belts to go to the bathroom. :smack:
I’m not taking sides between you and Mr. Barbarian, I don’t know ya’lls history. But that power point thing is as dead on as it is possible to get. You pick up the newspaper, read something some numbnut did somewhere in the military and just drop your head in resignation.
The three worst words to hear in the military are: “Safety Stand Down”.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Not sure how that is a gotcha answer. It simply demonstrates that the military estimates the risk/benefit ratio such that it is better to restrict firearms access.