Capitol Ideas

By destiny

March 3, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

It will make it harder for law enforcement. Road rages will probably increase.

By Mad As Zell

March 3, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

I think that it’s a helluva good idea and that it’s about time that the state supported law-abiding citizens who help rid the streets of low-life criminal scum. Of course, I never needed a state law to tell me it’s okay to defend myself and protect my life anyway. It’s pretty much a given that any low-life scum that threatens me the WRONG way is going to most likely get to taste and feel at least a couple of .50-caliber slugs and get either: A.)an all-expenses-not-paid vacation to the local hospital of their choice or B.)an all-expenses-paid funeral because I’ll always choose to be judged by 12 than carried by six.

Maybe these lowlifes will think twice about bothering innocent people if they know that their is a high-probability of several hot slugs being express-mailed directly back their way and I’m not talking UPS or FEDEX, no-sir-ree-bob, I’m talking sending this kind of mail by way of Smith & Wesson, Glock or Winchester.

By ltc

March 3, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

To Destiny: Yes now people with road rage will WANT to go over to my car and render violent remarks or action toward me since now I have the legal authority to protect myself….your thinking really bothers me…no wonder the President wants to outsource jobs.

By Gun Toter

March 3, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

I really think that it is a good idea. I am a licensed carrier of a firearm and I think this law will allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves,thier family, and friends. I would like to see it taken a little further and make it a requirment that in order to get a carry permit, you have to attend a certified gun safety course and a cousrse to make sure you can handle the gun on a range. I heard a statistic a while back from a local Talk s Show h Host that there has never been a case in Geogia where a licensed gun carrying person used his gun to commit crimes.

By RWH

March 3, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

The rights of citizens protecting themselves does not create a right for deadly force. Deadly force creates murder in all of its forms. Ill words, calling of names, speaking, etc. The rights would also lead to owning a weapon to sustain others from using deadly force against you because you will be alerted to use it against them as well. This bill cannot be a bill that create further rightousness for citizen, it will, however, create a Western-shootout and bodies will be everywhere! Deadly force cannot be a law used by Citizens of these United States of America.

By destiny

March 3, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Forgive me, I forget who I’m dealing with. To clarify, the nice people in road rage incidents will think they are justified defending themselves and this law will make it hard for the cop who just had ten weeks training to decide how and what to charge. You people are really scary.

By Mad As Zell

March 3, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

Gun Toter: Of course people with gun licenses don’t use their guns to commit crimes. Anyone who is responsible enough to take the time and get a gun license isn’t going to be irresponsible enough to go around knocking over liquor stores and banks and doing stick-ups. It’s usually the irresponsible types who use “unlicensed guns” to do violent crime because if your stupid enough to go around and shoot people why would you care about a gun charge?

I can just hear the conversation between some violent gun-toting criminals: Thug #1:”If they move, shoot em’ so that they can’t talk to the police”…Thug #2: “But what are going to hurt these people with? Because this gun is unlicensed and unregistered”…Thug #1: “Well I guess that we’ll just have to do this deadly armed robbery and hurt these innocent people with these plastic butter knives because even though we’re contemplating murder, I just can’t risk being caught with an unlicensed gun”.

The anti-gun pacifists would have us all believe that violent criminals who are antisocial enough to kill someone are going to be scared off by the prospect of facing gun charges even though they’re planning on murdering people. IF VIOLENT CRIMINALS AREN’T SCARED BY CAPITAL-MURDER CHARGES THEN WHAT MAKES THEM THINK THAT KILLERS ARE GOING TO BE SCARED OF GUN CHARGES? Is murder supposed to be any better of a crime if killers use knives instead? Get real! Murder is still just as horrible whether it’s done with or without the use of guns.

By Mad As Zell

March 3, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

Destiny:

You can take all of the guns you want away from law-abiding citizens like they do in states like Illinois, California and the District of Columbia, just to name a few, but the crooks are still going to have their guns because they are CRIMINALS, who by definition, just don’t seem to care too much about abiding by laws. IL, CA and DC have some of the strictest gun laws in the world, barring anyone but law-enforcement officers from carrying in public, but as you can see just from the location alone, those laws haven’t deterred crooks from still using guns to commit violent crime. As a matter of fact, those restrictive laws have only made easier for criminals to prey on law-abiding citizens because they know that in those places there is virtually a more than 99% chance that the people they target won’t be armed and able to defend themselves against a violent attack because the laws of those states don’t allow it, especially in urban areas where illegal gun crime is the absolute highest (D.C.- murder capital, L.A.-bank robbery capital of the world).

And what do you think they rob those banks with, spoons?

Wise up Destiny!

By KC

March 3, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

I think the problem I see with those who support this legislation is that they view it as authority to fight back against obvious acts of violent criminal behavior such as assault or robbery. Unfortunately that’s not how this law is written. It allows the use of deadly force whenever you feel endangered. Who is set to define this? If someone scowls at you in a parking lot you can just pull your rod and unload a few slugs into his skull? Seriously? You think this is a GOOD thing? I don’t think any sane person would object to anyone defending their life or the life of their loved ones, or even the life of a perfect stranger you witness being obviously threatened. But if you write a law that goes beyond that situational limit to allow for a generalistic approach to using deadly force against any perceived threat then you’ve taken a step beyond common sense self defense. If someone pulls a gun or knife on you then kill them. I don’t care. But if someone says you’re an S.O.B from the next car over and you shoot them then you are a murderer. Period. There was a day long ago when the law would have come to the same conclusion. Those days, thanks to the NRA, seem to be fading into antiquity.

By Walter

March 3, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Criminals are in the business they are in because it is easier than working like everyone else. They are not looking for a hard time in obtaining what they want. They are most likely to commit their crimes by identifying the best victim they can find. If there is a bigger chance of armed defense from a licensed gun owner, they will move on to the next person, who will not give them any trouble. If everyone is trained and licensed to carry a weapon, there are fewer targets for criminals.

By destiny

March 3, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

If it’s ever been suggested that you ought to go to anger management…………then you might be a redneck. Have a few numbers for you if you need them………..

By Mad As Zell

March 3, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

I must be making a good point because a certain someone has gotten mad and started hitting below the belt and calling names. Is little Destiny mad because because Mad As Zell, Itc, Gun Toter and the “Stand Your Ground” people made had a better point to make than Destiny and the anti-gun, scaredy-cat pacifists?

By destiny

March 3, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Heavens to mergatroid, no. I just think you have a few “issues” anger wise. Has your gun gotten you in to trouble before, I would bet it has.

By destiny

March 3, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

One more thing Wyatt Earp - do you like picking on women cause the men scare you?

By Mad As Zell

March 3, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Destiny: Don’t keep pouting that way or your face might stay stuck like that.

By Mad As Zell

March 3, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Destiny: Your the one that started it when you called me a “redneck” who needs anger management. What, you can dish it, but you can’t take it? Besides, you never know…it might be a redneck like me one day who has to shoot a violent thug or predator to save someone like you. Even though you take your “below the belt” shots at me, I still wouldn’t hesitate to do what I had to do spare you from a lot of harm.

By ed

March 3, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Whether the law is good or ill-conceived, maybe it will do two things. For those who live by preying on innocent victims, maybe it will make one or two of them hesitate to carry out a crime if they know that there is a chance that their intended victim may fight back. For those who may be targets, I would hope that they are prepared for the consequences…not just legal, but also mental. It’s easy to say today what we’d do ahead of time, but until the second when we are actually faced with making a life or death decision no one really knows.

By bigdawg

March 3, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

What about having a tractor trailer truck on your bumper? You could easily justify being threatened by the truckers actions and start shooting through the windshield. They are after all using their vehicle as a weapon.

By Mad As Zell

March 3, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

ed: I hate to say it, but that’s why when you’re in a split-second, life or death situation you have to sometimes shoot first and ask questions later, because you’ll definitely know when your life is in jeopardy.

By destiny

March 3, 2006 01:45 PM | Link to this

Okay Lenny and Squiggy I am tired of playing. I believe one of you jumped on me first because you didn’t like my thinking. Dude, I don’t care what you say. Say all you like because nobody is listening. Now you two have a nice day and don’t cross the street with your guns without help.

By Mad As Zell

March 3, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Poor little Destiny, she can dish it out all day long, but the moment it gets thrown back in her face she wants to run home. See ya, because we don’t want to play with sore losers and bad sports anyway!

By dee

March 3, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

You didn’t run me anywhere. Cause I just figured out your M.O. You don’t like women at all!! So I am staying just to get under your skin. I just want to tell you how sorry I am that your life has been so crappy you have to take it out on everyone else. Wife leave you, or better yet, you don’t have one?

By bronson

March 3, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

SO if someone is driving erraticly and crosses the center line while attempting to change their radio,pick up their french fry, answer the phone, change the DVD for the kids, or apply their makeup thus seemingly endangering my life as well as my children. I now will have the right to shoot and ask questions later. I can’t wait to see the number of bulletholes in my wife’s car. Do the sell Kevlar vests at Target?

By mia

March 3, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

Maybe he had the family jewels removed

By Mad As Zell

March 3, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

I don’t like women? How did you get all of that out my gun-supporting rant? If anything it should be more than clear that I don’t like gun-toting (or non-gun-toting) scum who prey on innocent people. I’m just speaking my mind about what I think of criminal slime. How does that offend you? It seems that someone like you that hates guns would like it that there are people out there like me who aren’t afraid to let our firearms talk to help those who don’t have their own firearms to speak for them.

By alfiem10

March 3, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

When your life is endangered any force should be justifiable under law But that endangered may be misinterpreted really shouldn’t be of such grave concern for I’m sure the law will definitely define endangered.Were one to find that one is involved where such deadly force was required as long as one’s definition of “deadly”force coincides with it’s definition within the law then there shouldn’t be a problem.Problems will occur when we would stray from the law’s definition and attempt make up our ownwell then we’d definitely have a serious problem. Were I to be in a public place and forced to use deadly force to defend my life I’d be relieved to say the least to have the law there to protect me

By Mad As Zell

March 3, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Dee: Looks like I’m the one getting under your skin because you’ve gone way off the subject of guns and deadly force and into the realm of failed marriages and relationships. How in the hell did you jump from talking about deadly force and gun laws into marriages and family jewels being removed.

Mia: Do you speak from personal experience? You sound as if you might have been spayed or neutered?

By destiny

March 3, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

Never said I hate guns. Dude, I’m working in law enforcement. Just know people like you

By B

March 3, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

This is a common sense bill, and I’m glad it passed the Senate. I’m also glad bright conservatives in GA and in our legislature outweigh the intelligently-challenged liberals. Just read the articles on this bill and you’ll see how unintelligent the liberal democrats really are. Below are some examples…

“This is a recipe for murder,” state Sen. Regina Thomas (D-Savannah) said.

State Sen. Steen Miles (D-Decatur) said that ordinary citizens may not be well-equipped to make quick life and death decisions when facing a threatening situations.

First of all, this is a recipe to THWART murder. Second, like every other liberal democrat out there, they believe that the PEOPLE are incapable of everything and that the government is the answer to everyone’s problems and safety. The liberal democrats have forgotton that the PEOPLE hold the power in this country and NOT the government…at least that’s what our founding fathers believed and it’s the principle they founded our country on.

So, I extend a sincere THANK YOU to our GA Senate, and I hope the House passes the bill too. Also, please continue to write your representatives and ask them to support HB998!

By destiny

March 3, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Me thinks thou dost protest too much

By nunya

March 3, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

Bronson:

You must be a liberal because you make no sense whatsoever. It’s people of your similar thinking who I hope do not vote on election day.

By Sig Sauer

March 3, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

([http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/0303legguns.html])

“This is a recipe for murder,” state Sen. Regina Thomas (D-Savannah) said. She also expressed concern that the measure could increase the number of hate crimes in Georgia.

Would someone try to explain what this person is talking about?

Sig

By destiny

March 3, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

B: Now that you explained it in that light, I agree. I am not a fan of the government being in control of everything and dictating every aspect of your life.

By Mad As Zell

March 3, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

Destiny: Well, why didn’t you say that you were working in law enforcement earlier instead of trying to turn this into the “Wise Diva” not-so-hot-relationship blog? Obviously since you’re in law enforcement your probably looking at this from a different perspective….and no you won’t be seeing ME soon because unlike the people you see, I know good and well when to discharge my big gun. Besides if I was the irresponsible, violent type, do you really think that I would be here talking about my LICENSED, legally obtained guns on a computer? If I was that irresponsible, I’d probably be out planning my next violent crime somewhere, you know better!

By Jim

March 3, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

You bet it’s a good law and it’s about time we have a law for the hard working law abiding people. This law will not have us going back to the wild west days of gun-slingers, you people need to get a clue. This law affords me the right to protect myself or my loved ones when someone decides they want my car or my life and they’re willing to shoot me in the head to get it. Sure, your criminals will be against this law, they don’t want a level playing field. Of course they want to have the upper hand in this situation, they want to be the only one with power. Watch the news people, if you think the streets of Atlanta are safe you live in a vacuum, the first 15 minutes of 11Alive news each morning covers the murders that happened the night before. My gun, an I ahve one and I carry one, just very well may keep me from being headlines news as a victim. And you bet your bottom dollar I won’t hesitate to defend myself.

By B

March 3, 2006 02:46 PM | Link to this

Sig:

I have no idea. You’ll have to ask a liberal. They’re the only ones who understand each other.

By TJ 2000

March 3, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

Ladies and gentlemen, This complaining is doing none of you any good. I lawfully carry concealed when I am not at work. I have taken several force on force classes, and beleive me when I say that the bad guy or person could care less what the law states. It has been proven time and again by law enforcement groups that personal crime drops when there are right to carry laws. The BG does not want to get shot doing his or her job; that is to deny you of your personal property, virginity, and or life. What is being overlooked is the law does not say when you are threatened but states if you percieve you are in danger of bodily harm or death. Basicaly you fear for your life. Remember Quigly says”God made man, Sam Colt made them equal.

By destiny

March 3, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

Why didn’t you just put a sign up no women welcome

By Bobinator

March 3, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

This bill does not create a wild-west mentality, or promote road-rage shootings. Let’s face reality. If you are attacked by a wannabe murderer, you have to beat him three times under current law: Once on the street, once in criminal court where a politician can make a name for him/herself by maliciously filing charges against you, and finally, by the perp’s family trying to make a buck off someone they were probably relieved to be rid of. If you just go out and shoot somebody, you WILL be prosecuted. If you are justified in using deadly force to protect yourself, why should you be hounded in the courts for years? This is a good bill.

By Mad As Zell

March 3, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

Sig Sauer: I think that the hate crimes that Sen. Thomas are talking about are the ones that are going to take place on Election Day when people go the voting booth vote ignorant liberal pacifists even further out of power or the other hate, the one where liberals hate that not everybody wants to be and think and be brainwashed like them on the extreme nanny-government left.

By Jim

March 3, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

Watch the news in Atlanta Destiny. Look at how many innocnet people are killed in this city because some thug wants my money and he is willing to kill me to get it. Well, he better think twice now…old Sig Sauer, old Mr. Glock, Mr. Baretta and Mr. Colt..well we got a surprise for you bad guy. It’s called One Shot…and trust me, I seldom miss my mark.

By Red

March 3, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Sig—-

Comeon—You know full well what she meant—-she thinks that white people are going to start shooting black people.

Red

By Bob

March 3, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Personally I am glad it’s leagal now, but even before the law, I would have not hesitated one second to use my gun, no matter where I was, to defend my life and the life of my loved ones and then took my chance in front of a jury. I would have never let some criminal thug decide my fate, hell no.

By dee

March 3, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Mr. REd that is an interesting and typical comment. But you know what, I’m white. You all must be clairvoyant because you speak for people before they even speak. Like I said before, ignorant, redneck, trailer trash.

By Bob

March 3, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this

Two years ago my neighbors came home after dinner out, he was 71 she was 68. They got out of their car to go inside the house when some guy came out of nowhere and grabbed her with a knife to her throat and told him he’d cut the f* b** head off if he didn’t give him their keys and money. The woman told the guy..” Give it to him, its in my purse..” Well my neighbor pulled his pistol out and shot the 19 year old career criminal dead, one shot in the head. That poor elderly couple was sued by the guys crackhead mother and had to use their savings to hire a lawyer as he faced potential prosecution. People are tired of criminals, we are tired of being victims. The best way to stop a carrer criminal who’ll kill you for his/her drug money…is to kill them if you have to.

By Bob

March 3, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Dee…in the words of Dan Ackroyd…you ignorant slut.

By Red

March 3, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Dee—-why should I care what race you are? Actually I think you are fibbing.

The illustrious Sen. Thomas is the one who interjected race into the issue with the use of racial code words.

Since I am clairvoyant—-I predict this blog will turn into a discussion of race—and I will go first. White people want to legally own a gun to shoot black people who are trying to mug them—-and black people don’t want white people to carry guns so it will safer to jack ‘em.

Red

By Jim

March 3, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

This is not a race issue, not at all… even if most opposing it are black Democrats. Which ironcially, if they were really concerned about crime, they have world of it in their community to get rid of.

By destiny

March 3, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Bob: Why don’t you take your gun, and go play in traffic.

By Bob

March 3, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this

Destiny is just mad beacuse this law may take away one of her baby daddies…hell, Dee he never paid child support from the county jail anyhow, why keep him?

By Jim

March 3, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Click on the email address for Destiny..it’s imcrazy999…I rest my case.

By dee

March 3, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Sir, in the South there are just a few things you don’t mess with: My children My husband My car My dog

Consider yourself warned

By Jmarsh

March 3, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

An armed society is a polite society.

Take a look at England, where the populace is prevented from using any effective force against criminals that endanger them. Home invasions where the occupants are home, while exceedingly rare, are the norm in England. We have hot coffee lawsuits, while homeowners are sued for having broken glass at the tops of their walls, or from beating someone in their home with a shovel.

I’m sorry all you libs are afraid of guns.

If any of you would like to go to a range, or just see and feel a few arms, I’d be more than happy to pay for range fees, ammo, and teach you how to safely handle firearms. I’ll even provide eye protection and earplugs. Wear a Che t-shirt if you like, I’ll still show you the ropes. Just send me an email.

By Jim

March 3, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

For heavens sake opposers, READ the law. You can’t shoot someone and get by with it for road rage, cussing, shooting someone a bird….get real. You must be in a situation where you life is in grave danger. And KC what the NRA does and they do a very good job of it, is making sure I keep the right to bare arms the founding fathers of this nation intended for me to have and not have them taken away from my from the likes of people such as yourself.

By Red

March 3, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

Dee—

After reading a few more of your comments, I was wrong—you are lily white. My guess is you have lots of redneck ignorant trailer trash in your family and you are deeply ashamed of them. Probably married to a Yankee lawyer. Listen to Streisand, Kids go to Paidea, you drive a Volvo, and wear birkenstocks. Live in Morningside and only eat organic. Maybe even a vegan—-naw—vegetarian maybe.

Red

By Robert

March 3, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Savannah is a very dangerous place at night, with the chance of being victim to a violent crime very likely. The word of this law will pass on the streets like a grass fire. Just maybe it will keep some tourists or family safe by the thugs knowing they could possibly be jacking someone that will jack back.

By Red

March 3, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Dee/Destiny—-Which do you prefer?

By Bronson

March 3, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

This is all pandering by legislators. By voting for/creating this amendment they look as if they are protecting their constituents. Georgians have always had the right to protect themselves, family, others and their property. It’s idiots that make this out like it will be the Wild West in Georgia. Again this is just useless legislation that makes it look as if someone is doing the public justice by clarifying some jargan. Ask a judge he or she will tell you we can protect with deadly force anywhere if our lives and other lives are physically threatened. It has and will always be there not matter what the legislature does on the matter.

By Ralph

March 3, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

As a former police officer with 14 years on the streets, I must say that this bill is the worst. The Republicans are so out of touch. This bill will simply give the gun nuts and the NRA lovers (This is one cop who will never support the NRA) the idea to shoot it out. Then they will get a high priced lawyer to get them off. As a cop, I saw my share of gun violence, and there needs to be stricter gun control.

I support the right for law abiding citizens to defend themselves and bear arms. But the GOP and NRA have got the wrong ideas. They let the Brady bill expire, support the civilians who patrol the borders with guns. It is time for common sense to return to govt. All the conservatives want to blame liberals and democrats for the problems. I am proud to have been a cop , who served for 14 good years. I am also darn proud to be a Democrat

By B

March 3, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

Ralph: You didn’t have to tell us you were a Democrat. We already knew. You say there needs to be stricter gun control which does nothing but empower criminals by taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals won’t give up their guns if the law tells them they have to. You’re the typical liberal who believes only law enforcement has the right to protect American citizens. You won’t be happy until the only people with guns are government personnel. Well that’s not going to happen because this is America, not China. It is you, my friend, and other liberals like yourself who are out of touch with reality and the facts.

By Sig Sauer

March 3, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

I support the right for law abiding citizens to defend themselves and bear arms

Ralph—how does your statement differ from the law that was passed?

Sig

By B

March 6, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Go to www.wsbtv.com this morning and you’ll notice two home invasion stories that happened over the weekend…one in Stone Mountain and the other in Marietta. Those stories pop up often in Atlanta and around the entire state, and they are the reason this bill is so significant.

By Anthony

March 6, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

Women have been savagely raped and killed, old men robbed, shot, and beaten to death, children abducted and sexually assaulted. These heinous crimes, the perpetrators of which still lurk in the shadows, we read about in the daily news. They affect every social class and give rise to insecurity. We don’t know what to expect when we drive down the road or sleep in our homes. We deserve the right to employ deadly force as a means of protecting our families as well as ourselves.

By Anthony

March 6, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

Women have been savagely raped and killed, old men robbed, shot, and beaten to death, children abducted and sexually assaulted. These heinous crimes, the perpetrators of which still lurk in the shadows, we read about in the daily news. They affect every social class and give rise to insecurity. We don’t know what to expect when we drive down the road or sleep in our homes. We deserve the right to employ deadly force as a means of protecting our families as well as ourselves.

By pollly

March 6, 2006 01:54 PM | Link to this

It is one thing to protect yourselves. It is a different matter to take the law into your own hands. I hope you all understand the difference.

By WAR EAGLE!

March 8, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

MAd as Zell,

Right on! If I see a fanatical Muslim,or some scum about to accost me, I wouldn’t think twice about being politically uncorrect and sending them to their maker. I am from the old school-shoot first and make sure there’s only one side of the story-your own. Yes, Officer, that is exactly what happened. If you don’t believe me-ask the dead guy. Graduate of COLT University.

By J Michels

March 9, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Hey all you hot heads.

If you actually read this bill, it has only one impact. What it does is make it harder to prosecute people who defend themselves from criminal aggression with deadly force. Nothing more. There will not be bodies lining the streets because of this. Not one person is likely to get shot because of this. It will have an impact on criminal prosecution that is all. GA law still is very clear about when it is lawful to use deadly force and when it is not lawful to use deadly force.

I carry a gun when I am in the US. My biggest fear is that I will rightfully defend myself or my family and then spend years in prison because I got unlucky with a zealous prosecutor and a gun hating judge. This bill addresses this.

Currently I live in Paris France and had to leave my guns behind in GA. I can’t even defend myself with a big stick here. There is nothing like losing your rights to remind us how important they are. Go Georgia!!!

By DB

March 10, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

The green light to shoot has been made much easier. It is scary to a certain extent. I don’t own a gun. I would think, logically, that someone could only shoot if someone else showed deadly intent with a weapon of some sort, a gun, a knife, etc. I would also assume the new law puts that into writing. I seriously have a problem with someone shooting another for endangering them when there’s no weapon. I also get leary when a bunch of people are walking around with guns. If you think you have to have a gun at all times, you’re quite insecure and paranoid(and somewhat antisocial) if you ask me. I think all people who plan to carry a gun, should be required to do it in the open. That would deter criminal behavior even more, which is the supposed point of all this. I can see many common arguments being solved by people pulling their guns, and that’s scary. I can imagine being stranded because my car broke down and then going to knock on someone’s door to ask to use a phone and getting shot simply because I walked on someone’s land. That happened in Cumming last year when a guy was shot in the back walking away from the porch. This law will also encourage criminals to shoot even faster because they know someone else may be more likely to shoot first. Another possibility would be to have only rubber bullets available to the general public.

I think the real problem in the first place is an overall lack of enforcement of the laws we already have in place. And the true problem is too many people having kids when they shouldn’t(don’t discipline them and dad is gone in many homes) and therefore raising a bunch of antisocial criminals. And I’m not talking about just Blacks here, so don’t start that rant. Guns won’t solve anything.

Anyway, crime around here is rampant. The problems are much deeper than allowing gun-toters to act out on their wishes. Carrying a gun should not be outlawed, but it should carry with it real accountability.

Oh, and carrying a gun does not give people much more power over criminals. They just shoot faster as soon as they see it(if they were going to shoot anyway), and in many cases, it will probably create a shootout when it wouldn’t have happened in the first place.

By DB

March 10, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

J Michels: Just curious. Does it seem safer in Paris than Georgia? Do you see murders everyday on the news like you do here?

By DB

March 10, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Michels: It doesn’t really matter what the bill says. What matters is what the press says, and according to the press, many people now think they can defend themselves with less fear of prosecution. I’m all for guns in the home(if you want), but I just don’t think people should be carrying them around everywhere they go.

By DB

March 10, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

Also, I would bet that anyone who has a gun with them isn’t worrying about prosecution in the heat of the moment when they’re truly being endangered(or someone else is). But the few “trigger happy” gun toters will be more likely to shoot now. Yes, most legal gun owners are of no threat, but there are a few unstable ones who expect the world to think like they do(and they have the gun).