I don't see the point in concealed carrying besides policemen off duty and undercover cops and such.
Otherwise. If it were up to me, it'd be wild west style here in Texas again. I think guns really were the great equalizer for a while--it didn't matter how strong, fast, cool you were, one bullet could change everything. War is forever changed due to them.
I think a lot of people that call for not having guns have every right to feel they're not necessary... but, coincidentally, those are usually the same people that want me to be very supportive and respectful of other peoples' lifestyle choices. And most of those people never HAD to rely on a gun to use to keep themselves safe before.. so they have no idea how naked you can end up feeling without one. It's funny how I have to always adjust my mode of thinking to accommodate others, but when they have their minds set on something it ain't movin' for no one.
Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.
Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
prplchknz: i don't like it
Okay so now this is closer to the real issue. A difference in idealogy rather than a difference in law.
Lethal force is okay to protect property vs destroying a knee cap with a bullet would do the trick. Is lethal force necessary to stop a rapist or would some lead in his testicles be sufficient? And this is why the gun debate rages on, the emotional response triggered by a threatening situation.
In my country (not saying its superior btw) if you were to permanently disable someone for trying to steal your property you would be on the wrong end of the law. Because it allows for the use of force necessary to render an attacker harmless or incapable of causing further harm. While dead certainly falls into that category, a court would be looking at the least level of force necessary to accomplish that goal.
The problem is, is someone in fight or flight mode in a capacity to clearly make that distinction and decision? I guess our laws say no, so they remove our ability to cause harm out of proportion to the threat. They've taken the stance that a few innocents sacrificed in the name of de-escalation is a better outcome to many non-innocents grievously harmed out of all proportion to the threat that they posed, and subsequently a lot of innocents ending up in jail as a result. Now the question really is.....
Is it better to sacrifice a few innocents or a lot of bad guys, knowing that sacrificing the bad guys will result in the criminalisation of the innocents who will likely have an over-reaction and do something they later regret? Interesting....So it's not so much about moral stances, its more about removing an object that becomes problematic when in the hands of a person in a highly emotional state. Although I highly doubt that much thought was ever given to the matter....in all honesty.
These lawmakers who've determined that someone should aim for the knee caps have probably never even fired a gun, much less shot at a moving target. Throw into the mix adrenaline, fear for my safety and outrage at the situation...I'm aiming for the broad side of their body. Two to the chest and one in the head.
... from a crime-infested shithole by the sound of it, yeah.
Nope, peaceful University town. Statistically low crime rate. Lower than the National average. Couldn't believe it happened. Both in housing close to campus. My parents, and virtually everyone I know have NEVER had their homes even remotely broken into. Myself included.
I've had this ice cream bar, since I was a child!
Each thought's completely warped
I'm like a walkin', talkin', ouija board.
Mass killings are so fun to watch... but in all seriousness the Australian ban law is valid and should be taken seriously, but there is also the point that people have been creative in the ways they murdered others since the beginning the only up it will bring is that people would no longer die by something that looks like a dick, murdering someone with a bullet is subconsciously penetrating someone to the point that die from hard thrust/s and loss of blood. It's as if they are PMSing from their armpits, its the highest level of rape and rape isn't cool unless its Porky Pig raping Yosemite Sam.
But there is the fact that others that have guns illegally and will do anything to watch the world burn without an ideal cause outside of anarchy itself and perhaps out of self-defense it will be best for civilians to have them for self-protection. (I'm not talking about the pigs)
For anyone that lives in a country that has banned guns how are people not getting a hold on guns?
I usually stay away from topics like these because I never want to touch a gun ever and I haven't really decided my stance on guns, but here's my $0.02.
I dunno. It's hard to say for me. Having a gun in my own house to keep myself and my family protected does sound nice, but at the same time if everyone had a gun in their home the perpetrators would just be that much more prepared for whatever they were planning on doing.
Also, this would mean that ANYONE would be able to access a gun. I'm already pretty paranoid myself, and the rate of mass shootings in America has been increasing iirc, so I'm not sure how comfortable I'd feel if I knew every citizen I pass by owns a gun. I'm already pretty suspicious of people around me for no reason (damn 6 wing) so giving all of these people a gun just puts me off. Not that the whole country has to cater to my feelings or whatever. But I mean if the Newtown shooter took guns from his mom then I dunno...it could create a lot of chaos. It's easy to conceal a shotgun in, say, a car. It just seems like enabling a bunch of other people to cause damage. And if these are exclusive to homes then there's no hope for people that didn't bring concealed handguns with them. But concealed handguns seems even worse, enabling more rapists, robbers, etc.