A Milton man who shot and killed his son in August will not face charges after a review by the State Attorney's office determined his actions were justified under Florida's "stand your ground" law. Bruce Pernicka shot his 32-year-old son, Jeffery, multiple times during a physical altercation Aug. 25 at the father's home on Sweet Memory Lane in Milton, according to a report the State Attorney's office released Monday. https://www.pnj.com/story/news/2018...ur-ground-shooting-son-state-says/2194416002/ The report said the son, who had a documented history of narcotics abuse and erratic behavior, was beating against the wall of his father's home with a two-by-four wooden board. Not any more, recidivism rate on this one is a guaranteed zero.
A violent felon caught in the act by an armed citizen would have the same choices as in the rare event when they are caught in the act by a LEO. 1. Stop and surrender. 2. Get shot. That might not result in their death, though that might be the best and certainly the most cost effective result for the community as a whole.
And in the end a dead criminal has a recidivism rate of zero, which is a problem solved forever, and that is a very good reason for law abiding citizens to be armed and ready to act as needed. Of course the other side will claim that's not a solution, ignoring the reality that after such a shooting there is one less violent felon to go out and prey on others. The truth is it is one of many solutions that actually work, versus paper solutions, which are nothing but feel goods and a backdoor to firearm registration.
There are no other industrialized countries with the same type of gun culture that we have to do an apples to apples comparison. But again, I’m all ears for those gun laws that will stop criminals from killing.
Look at canada, the EU, Australia, Japan. Look at their gun death rates. If you want to find laws that work.the llook at theirs
Thanks for proving my point there is no apples to apples comparison of any other country to the US regarding gun culture.
I didn't mean to indicate we should use the "Minority Report" as a means of locking people up. I would agree there will always be dangerous people. We need to start locking people up once they have been identified as "crazy". People like Cruz, the Douglas HS shooter or Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter. Very true but some gun control may stop some dangerous people some of the time. Just Sayin'
Well, because you wrote "No, the best solution is for violent felons to be shot down in the act by armed citizens. Are you free to do that? Not in most circumstances." If we break your statement down it shows that you are in favor of armed citizens shooting violent felons, correct? But you also say that in most circumstances we aren't free to do that, correct? So it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to assume you'd like have laws changed to allow armed citizens to be able to shoot down violent felons, since you stated you think that is the best solution.
In fact, the law already permits citizens to shoot down violent felons. It happens with some frequency. Surely you know that.
So then would you like laws changed so you can have a chance to shoot down a felon in those circumstances where it's not legal right now?
