Brady Bunch Scare Tactics

Found this on Alphecca. Article from the Miami Herald. No it's not an editorial.

Enter Florida at your own risk. That's the message supporters of gun control are sending in an ad campaign designed to warn visitors about Florida's new law allowing victims to shoot first in self-defense without fear of prosecution.

The law, passed by the Florida Legislature in the spring and signed by Gov. Jeb Bush, takes effect Oct. 1. That's the day the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence will start its newspaper ad campaign in London, Chicago, Boston and Detroit and hand out fliers to arriving passengers at Miami International Airport.

The new law ''may lead to the reckless use of guns on the streets of Florida cities,'' the one-page flier reads. The ads will warn that after Oct. 1, visitors ''face a greater risk of bodily harm in Florida,'' said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Washington-based advocacy group.

The fliers urge tourists to take precautions, such as: ''Do not argue unnecessarily with local people,'' and ''keep your hands in plain sight'' if you are involved in a traffic accident or a near-miss.

And seeing how reasonable the Brandy Bunch is:

''We are not trying to scare people, the Florida Legislature scared people,'' Hamm said.

The Brady Coalition is urging the Legislature to repeal the law, but short of that, ''we think people need to be aware of this new law,'' Hamm said. "They need to act accordingly and they need to make their decision to come to Florida accordingly.''

What?!

I went to the Brady Bunch web-site (ugh) but they didn't appear to have anything on topic. I did find their protest over the NRA list of groups and individuals with anti-gun policies. I'm still trying to figure out their outrage over this. I just don't buy their claim of intimidation. Most of the people listed are extremely wealthy and the organizations chose their standing. Why is it intimidation to point out what an organization stands for?

I would conjecture that the list has more people on it that can afford private security, and likely use that security, than the vast majority of NRA members. But, hey, why should people be able to protect themselves? Especially when they have the need.