IT IS Britain's most popular transatlantic holiday destination, attracting more than 1.5 million visitors a year with its sun-drenched beaches, theme parks and wildlife.

 

But 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.

 

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".

 

Critics call it the "shoot first" law and say it allows gun owners to shoot if they engage in a simple argument in public. Supporters call it the "stand your ground" law and say criminals will think twice before attacking someone.

 

Previously, gun owners could only use their weapons if they first attempted to withdraw and avoid a confrontation, and were permitted to shoot threatening individuals only inside their home or property.

 

Now they can use "deadly force" if they "reasonably believe" that firing their gun is necessary to prevent a crime or serious injury. The law also effectively prevents civil legal action by victims of such shootings.

 

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."

 

Tourism officials in Florida are furious at the move. Bud Nocera, the executive director of Visit Florida, said: "It is sad that such an organisation would hold the 900,000 men and women who work in the Florida tourism industry, and whose lives depend on it, hostage to their political agenda."

 

The Association of British Travel Agents yesterday said the posters were "a matter of concern", but said there was unlikely to be a drop in the number of visitors to Florida.

 

It said 1.4 million Britons made the journey last year, attracted by the weather and resorts such as Disneyworld and the Kennedy Space Centre.

 

A spokeswoman said: "We would offer the same advice about Florida as we would any other part of the United States. As far as we are concerned, nothing has changed."

 

More than 80 million tourists from around the world visited Florida last year, boosting an industry that accounts for one-fifth of the state economy.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2014492005

That's hilarious!

 

I love those Brits. They're probably right.

I don't know about anyone else, but I generally like to take my rifle down to South Beath to keep those British tourists from walking on our beaches in Speedo's.

Use special caution in arguing with motorists on Florida roads."

 

I think this was true before this law also.

 

Seems like this article is suggesting that shooting someone in a road rage incident would now be condoned...

 

*buys gun*

Stupid law. Stupid ads.

As a bouncer in a nightclub I threaten people nightly. This law sucks.

Colorado has a similar law, I don't see this against them. Florida had this law a long time ago, I didn't see it then.

 

A bunch of bulls*** as usual, and as a Native Floridian I approve and applaud this law. Sometimes, you gotta use a gun for self-defense.

Maybe i shouldnt argue with those braves fans today... :plain

Orlando is full of brits (especially wet n wild) but their nice.

What i find funny about these types of things is that just b/c a law is mor elenient does not mean theres going to be more shootings. In fact it would be curious to note if there has indeed been such a rise. Furthermore this law doesnt affect criminals who want to rob other people and the such.

 

The brady campaign also negates that when someone is shot it will usually go to a jury in a trial and the chances still exist that a person thats arguing the law can still lose both cirminally and civilly. This is a great law IMO. Gun control groups often fail to realize that the criminals and drug dealers and such will continue using guns, its the law abiding citizens who are trying to protect themselves from crime or from a strengthening government presence are the ones hurt by gun control laws.

Orlando is full of brits (especially wet n wild) but their nice.

 

verrry true

What i find funny about these types of things is that just b/c a law is mor elenient does not mean theres going to be more shootings. In fact it would be curious to note if there has indeed been such a rise. Furthermore this law doesnt affect criminals who want to rob other people and the such.

 

The brady campaign also negates that when someone is shot it will usually go to a jury in a trial and the chances still exist that a person thats arguing the law can still lose both cirminally and civilly. This is a great law IMO. Gun control groups often fail to realize that the criminals and drug dealers and such will continue using guns, its the law abiding citizens who are trying to protect themselves from crime or from a strengthening government presence are the ones hurt by gun control laws.

 

And what exactly will the substance of the proof be legacy? Testimony from the guy who shot or the guy who is dead? Why would you want your average Joe idiot to be the judge jury and executioner on crime commision? I imagine a lot of tourists like to come party for spring break in Florida. I imagine they get pretty drunk. Now if they get drunk and rowdy, start a fight or something, they can get shot and nobody is held responsible. If a person is in danger and they cant escape, or if someone broke into their home, they would have been fine under the old law. Now they get to be Joe vigilante.

 

The NRA's agenda is to create a massivley armed society. Just look at their next campaign in Florida. If a company wants to ban any of its employees to bring a gun onto the company parking lot, shouldnt they be able to? I would think most Republicans would say yes. But apparently the right to bear arms is of greater concern.(http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/12801357.htm) Just more proof that your average Republican/conservative has morphed beyond the Goldwater conservatives.

The decision made by the jury shall be based on the relevant facts. Meaning police reports and expert testimony not just the words of the accused. It does not create this type of society you are talking about b/c people still have other mental/moral restrictions against shooting people. Furthermore, in terms of civil action, the actions of the shooter will be judged by the reasonable man standard, meaning the jury wil try to indicate if the shooter shot the person b/c his perception of threat was one that a reasonable person would have felt. So it really isn't that bad at all. I'm glad this freedom has been extended to people who work late and the such. However, our legal system still provides relief to wrongful injuries to persuade people to still use due caution with firearms.

The decision made by the jury shall be based on the relevant facts. Meaning police reports and expert testimony not just the words of the accused. It does not create this type of society you are talking about b/c people still have other mental/moral restrictions against shooting people. Furthermore, in terms of civil action, the actions of the shooter will be judged by the reasonable man standard, meaning the jury wil try to indicate if the shooter shot the person b/c his perception of threat was one that a reasonable person would have felt. So it really isn't that bad at all. I'm glad this freedom has been extended to people who work late and the such. However, our legal system still provides relief to wrongful injuries to persuade people to still use due caution with firearms.

 

Police officers cant look into the past and see an event as it happens. Their report is based on what people tell them. And what exactly is an expert going to testify to? The fact that someone was shot? This isnt CSI.

 

But I baffled at how you can think a freedom has been extended when the freedom of business' to regulate their own premises has been enroached on. Unless there is a right to have a gun on private property that I was unaware of.

I remember hearing about this law recently, it's a really dumb idea. You're just going to have more people with guns around. People will have a drunken argument, one will pull a gun, and we'll have a corpse or two needing to be taken to the morgue.

 

Think about this for a second: Say a guy robs a 7/11 or something like that. If the guy at the counter just gives the man the money and lets him go without incident, it's unlikely anything will happen besides the theft. However, if the guy at the counter tries to have a shooting match with the robber, one of them will end up dead. Most likely the clerk. I don't see what that solves. Those robbers always get caught on security cameras, and then can be identified and arrested. Nobody gets hurt.

I really think that gun control in the country is a joke... I know we've all heard the stats time and time again but more people are killed on accident with guns than in self defense every year. If you look at it from an outside view, nothing good can come out of someone having a gun...

The decision made by the jury shall be based on the relevant facts. Meaning police reports and expert testimony not just the words of the accused. It does not create this type of society you are talking about b/c people still have other mental/moral restrictions against shooting people. Furthermore, in terms of civil action, the actions of the shooter will be judged by the reasonable man standard, meaning the jury wil try to indicate if the shooter shot the person b/c his perception of threat was one that a reasonable person would have felt. So it really isn't that bad at all. I'm glad this freedom has been extended to people who work late and the such. However, our legal system still provides relief to wrongful injuries to persuade people to still use due caution with firearms.

 

Police officers cant look into the past and see an event as it happens. Their report is based on what people tell them. And what exactly is an expert going to testify to? The fact that someone was shot? This isnt CSI.

 

But I baffled at how you can think a freedom has been extended when the freedom of business' to regulate their own premises has been enroached on. Unless there is a right to have a gun on private property that I was unaware of.

 

 

What provision of the law are you referring to in terms of the rights of business, I dont think ive seen that portion of the law. I'm referring to the portion of it having to do with reasonable suspicion of danger being the new standard of judgment to be used before shooting someone. The police have information from the coroners (sp) office as to the nature of a shooting as well in addition to circumstantial and real evidence as to the scene in question. If your in a dark parking lot at night and someone approaches you and appears to be drawing a weapon are you to verify that its a weapon in his hand before shooting? Thats unreasonable. Again i want to see in a few years if the number of shootings actually increases. The evidence used to prove fault with the new legislation is no different than that before the legislation. The old law was unfair bc it did not give the shooter a chance to prove that a threat could exist unless he proves the other person had a wepaon in hand and was about to use it. It was putting innocent people behind bars. Again we need to see the real life results of this law, will innocent people be killed left and right as you say, or willmore criminals be shot or detered. The law should exist unless negative results cna show otherwise and as of now have not

I remember hearing about this law recently, it's a really dumb idea. You're just going to have more people with guns around. People will have a drunken argument, one will pull a gun, and we'll have a corpse or two needing to be taken to the morgue.

 

Think about this for a second: Say a guy robs a 7/11 or something like that. If the guy at the counter just gives the man the money and lets him go without incident, it's unlikely anything will happen besides the theft. However, if the guy at the counter tries to have a shooting match with the robber, one of them will end up dead. Most likely the clerk. I don't see what that solves. Those robbers always get caught on security cameras, and then can be identified and arrested. Nobody gets hurt.

 

 

I'm still not 100% sure where I stand on the gun issue, I used to be all for gun control and getting rid of them, but I'm not so sure anymore. There's valid points in the fact that laws or no laws the criminals are going to have them. In Ohio, concealed weapons are legal. And, ya know, on some level, that means a criminal looking for a victim has to face the realization that the person he may attack/rob/etc may have a gun, even if they don't.

 

That's the main issue I have with gun control, it doesn't take the guns out of the hands of the people that really need to have them taken away, so what's the point? If someone is willing to commit the crime of shooting some one, they're sure as hell willing to commit the crime of having the gun illegaly. The only people you're taking guns away from are law-abiding citizens. Plus, there's really no evidence that gun control laws reduce crime.

 

And yet, I personally don't have a gun, never fired a gun, and don't want a gun, so it is what it is.