Arms are for hugging!* And for politeness!

According to the Brady Bunch, it’s now open season on tourists in Florida. Tourists are being warned that Floridians now have the dangerous right to self defense:

Florida’s ?30 billion tourism industry is under threat from a campaign launched by a gun-control group which warns visitors they could be killed.
A series of alarming adverts, to be placed in British newspapers, warns potential tourists about a new law allowing gun owners to shoot anyone they believe threatens their safety.
It means thousands of British families who travel to the Sunshine State are now caught up in the ongoing political row over gun control in the United States.

They are? Merely because the Brady people placed an asinine ad? If an anti gay marriage group placed an ad warning them that they would not be allowed to marry a partner of the same sex in Florida, would this mean they’d be “caught up” in the gay marriage dispute?

The Florida law, supported by the National Rifle Association, was approved by the state legislature in April.
The state’s governor, Jeb Bush – whose brother is the US president – described it as a “good, commonsense, anti-crime issue”.

So, not only are you unsafe in Florida and all “caught up” in an ongoing row, but when crazed Florida rednecks shoot you to death, it’ll all be the fault of the evil Bush Dynasty!

The Brady Campaign to Control Gun Violence, based in Washington DC, has pledged to “educate” tourists by placing adverts in US cities, and in key overseas markets such as Britain.
“Warning: Florida residents can use deadly force,” says one of the adverts. Another reads: “Thinking about a Florida vacation? Please ensure your family is safe. In Florida, avoid disputes. Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads.”
The Brady Campaign – named after Jim Brady, the spokesman for Ronald Reagan who was paralysed by a gunshot during the 1981 assassination attempt on the then-president – promises to also run adverts in French, German and Japanese newspapers. The campaign officers also plan to hand out leaflets on roads leading into the state.
Peter Hamm, the communications director of the Brady Campaign, said: “It’s a particular risk faced by travellers coming to Florida for a vacation because they have no idea it’s going to be the law of the land. If they get into a road rage argument, the other person may feel he has the right to use deadly force.”

Thanks to the Bush Dynasty and the NRA, armed Floridians might now have dangerous feelings? Is that the message? Apparently so. There’s also an erroneous assumption that armed citizens are rude. To the contrary; they’re much more likely to be polite.
But let’s assume that someone, somewhere in Florida, now has a “feeling” that there’s a “right” to use deadly force to settle a road rage argument. Legally, the notion is preposterous, as the Florida statute conveys no such right, nor does it provide justification for such feelings. It merely resuscitates the common-law “man’s home is his castle” doctrine which had (along with self defense generally) been under attack.
What the law actually says is explained in detail here. Basically, if attacked with deadly force you have no duty to retreat when you are in your home, or at your business. As to “road rage,” the following excerpt explains that the law does not allow someone in that situation to settle a dispute by shooting:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?
A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
* trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.
Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?
A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.
Q. Can’t I protect myself if someone starts hitting me?
A. Even if someone starts a fight with you, you must make every reasonable effort consistent with your own safety to avoid the use of deadly force, including retreating from someone attacking you. Running away from someone who has insulted or punched you may offend your instincts to uphold your honor. However, as the Second District Court of Appeal has said: “The use of deadly force against another human being (instead of running away) is not countenanced by law even if that force is in response to conduct of human beings who act like animals.”

I don’t think European tourists traveling to Disney World have much to worry about from Florida’s armed law abiding citizens. Why, unless they’re planning on invading homes and businesses, they’re free to act like total assholes and even start fights, and still, Floridians will not be allowed to shoot them.
But “feelings” may persist. The Brady Campaign would conveniently have us forget about the notorious tourist shootings which plagued Florida in the early 1990s. What fewer people recall is that they were preyed on because they stood out as tourists, and local criminals knew they were unlikely to be armed.

In 1993, as research by Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University has shown, Florida crime rates were actually plummeting, due to new laws which allowed far more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. As that beneficial change took place, the only motorists who criminals could be assured would be unarmed were newly-arrived tourists driving rental cars with big fluorescent rent-a-car stickers. Once the airport rental lots started removing those stickers, Florida’s “tourist murder crime wave” disappeared virtually overnight.

With history in mind, I think it’s reasonable for Florida to consider a sensitivity outreach program for European tourists who feel threatened. In conjunction with the NRA, they could offer fearful tourists welcome and safety kits consisting of NRA bumperstickers to place on their rental cars, and NRA hats to wear. That way, they could not only blend in with legally armed Floridians irrationally suspected of harboring “feelings” about shooting tourists, but the hats and stickers would tend to intimidate criminals who’d be inclined to prey on tourists — not because of mistaken feelings, but because of the logical assumption that tourists are unlikely to be armed.
An “arm the tourists” pilot program might not be a bad idea either. Tourists are already pre-screened when they enter the country, so the background checks wouldn’t be too much of a problem, and they could be issued temporary right-to-carry permits which would allow them to rent guns for the duration of their trips.
Tourists would be safer, Florida would be safer, and everybody would be more polite. And when they returned home to Europe, the tourists would have something to talk about with their friends that might be more interesting than Mickey Mouse.
MORE: Jeff Soyer cleverly spoofs the ridiculous Brady “warning” poster by offering one featuring Chicago, where self defense is disallowed — and where gun control has worked (to increase homicides, that is….)
UPDATE (10/01/05): I’m delighted to see that Michelle Malkin liked this post and gave me a link! Many thanks.
AND MORE: Why are there no tourist warnings about Switzerland — described as “awash in guns” and where even children have guns:

At all major shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter the competitors pay 12-year olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles along with men and women of all ages.

(HT Justin.)
Sounds at least as dangerous as Florida.
UPDATE: My thanks to Tammy Bruce for linking this post and for her kind words. I also enjoyed her comments on the irony of Floridians being targeted by a smear like this in England:

Ironically, England implemented its own gun control legislation in 1997 with disastrous repercussions. They now have a higher violent crime rate than not only New York, but every state of the union, including of course, Florida.
In fact, let’s use the example of Washington, DC. Guns are banned there and as a result it is the murder capitol of the country. Why? Because bad guys know that law abiding citizens of Washington, DC are sitting ducks. That’s why the crime rate in London has skyrockted, and why the English will be safer in Miami or any city in Florida than they will in any city in their own country–specifically because the law-abiding are prepared to defend themselves, keeping criminals and other scum at unbalanced and at bay.

* Why can’t I find any “I’M A GUN HUGGER!” bumperstickers? Discrimination, obviously.