Did she have a license to carry a firearm? I am not aware of that. In any case, she was killed in a private residence so no license would have been required.All speculation. You can say this, I can say that, but in the ultimate end what is true is that a trained Marine who had license to carry firearms was killed. Now you can spin it any which way you like.
Because there are bad people out there who do bad things. And even though you like to blame the guns for this, the guns have nothing to do with it. Bad people have always and will always exist.Because you are creating a situation where you are distrustful of everyone and anyone. You are scared of "what might happen" and advocate possessing guns to curtail that. Again I repeat, no other country has this issue, what is so bad about Americans that we need to carry weapons in our own Homeland??
Self defense is an inalienable right of all human beings, even though many governments infringe upon this right. Here in America, our government was designed to protect our rights, self defense included. One of the means by which this right is protected is the Second Amendment.
Freedom is a dangerous thing. Many of the "safer" countries are "safer" because their government imposed far more restrictions on their freedoms. I'm sure that without the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, the US would be "safer." But you will not find many Americans who will trade liberty for safety in that manner.
Unfortunately it is becoming more and more prevalent, esp. in these 'post 9/11'/Patriot Act days.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
– James Madison
There are plenty of sheeple that are all for it. I am not one.
you'll have to throw me out forcibly
This space for rent
Come visit my log http://anabolicminds.com/forum/suppl...-up-level.html
Unless Ron Paul is on the ballot I will just show up and fart on the voting machine.
I don't see how the Gun Control Law advocates can continue their path or logic after the post further above by Xodus. There are so many cases of lives being saved and criminals being thwarted by law abiding citizens carrying firearms that I can't even begin to see the other side of the argument.
For example, and I'll summarize since I don't have the articles on hand.
FL - Two men walked into a Subway, and one pulled out a gun demanding all the money behind the counter. They also herded all the customers into a corner and demanded all their money and jewelry. One man, age 68, remained seated at his table eating his sub and refused to give them him money. He was forcibly dragged from his table and a gun was placed to his head. The criminals once again demanded his money, and he once again refused. The first criminal then proceeded to scream at him and drag him towards the bathroom in the back, while telling the 68 year old man the details of how he was going to be killed. Once the criminal got him to the hallway in the back and shoved him ahead to the bathroom, the 68 year old man (a former marine), pulled his concealed handgun and placed one shot into the criminal's forehead, killing him instantly. He then marched back into the main area of the store and rattled off three more rounds at the second criminal as the criminal attempted to make a getaway. Two of those three rounds struck home and the responding police were able to track the criminal by his blood trail.
Without that concealed firearm, that man's life would have ended because of some punk who decided to rob a subway. Instead he stopped a crime in process, and successfully defended his own life. Who are we to take that inalienable right away from another person? The basic, simplistic right to defend one's life is not ours to take away. If you choose not to carry or own a firearm, so be it, no one is forcing you to have one. But what gives you the authority to remove that right from other people?
With gun control laws, I would not be legally allowed to obtain a firearm for protection. Some advocates claim that I could defend my life and property with a knife or a baseball bat instead. Well look how well that worked for Redskin's safety Shaun Taylor. He had a machete, and was gunned down by some punk kid in his bedroom, in front of his wife and newborn child (kid was less than 2 years old). Now we should accept that as a fact of life? That criminals have the ability to gun us down in our homes, but we as a people cannot defend ourselves with those same tools? Thank you, but no, I'll retain my right to defend myself and my family from those that break the law.
What the fck was the old man doing with a gun in a subway anyway? Its gotten to the point in the USA where you need to take a gun to your local takeaway store? your country has serious issues.
As for Australia banning guns, do any of you actually no why the guns were banned in the first place. IT certainly has nothing to do with trying to reduce gun crime.
If we didn't have the guns (anyone) there still would be crime and violence... it just would suck if only criminals could have guns...
-Saving random peoples' nuts, one pair at at time... PCT info:
-Are you really ready for a cycle? Read this link and be honest:
*I am not a medical expert, my opinions are not professional, and I strongly suggest doing research of your own.*
Yes. It was knee-jerk panicked reactions to a couple of homicidal shooting sprees.As for Australia banning guns, do any of you actually no why the guns were banned in the first place. IT certainly has nothing to do with trying to reduce gun crime.
Incidentally, guns are NOT banned in Australia; they are very heavily regulated.
Fortunately I live in a country where constitutional protections at both the state and federal level prevent the government from infringing upon my rights due to a public outcry.
The old man did a dumb thing trying to be a hero. When you have a gun at your head and someone asks for your wallet you give it to him. He's a stupid but very lucky guy.
If guns were made readily available in Australia tomorrow knowone would buy one except maybe a few farmers.
I suppose I should point out that Norway, Finland, and Switzerland have large amounts of weapons in civilian hands and yet nowhere near the problems that we have in the USA... so perhaps the guns aren't the problem.
Did you see the link i put on the first page? Switzerland was 2nd behind USA in gun crime. Yeah no similarities.
He made a choice, not to let someone else take his life. That's not stupid. He didn't try to be a hero either, he just refused to bow to their demands. It wasn't until they threatened his life that he used deadly force. How is that stupid? He chose to protect his life, nothing stupid about it.
I've lived in Australia hoss. Crimes still happen. Criminals still have guns. The Port Aurther Massacre was one of the reasons for the knee jerk gun control if I remember correctly.
In response to him having a gun in a subway. Some states allow law-abiding citizens to apply for and receive permits to carry concealed firearms. He was legally able to carry protection with him, although it has to be concealed at all times. Some states in the US do not allow concealed carry permits. It's a matter of state regulation and the permits are heavily regulated.