Here's where the gun debate should go!

[bae]

I touched on that on page 20, Bae. Unless people are involved with security, special forces, personal protection and police work, allowing people to carry, is a law that will continue to come back and haunt the American people (over and over again). It portrays a lack of stability.

And yet, if you look at the time-series map of the laws in the USA, your prediction seems unfounded. We've had decades of data on this, in my state back for over 50 years. We have not had a rise in improper shootings accompany the spread of issuance of carry permits.

[bae]

Are there States, where people can carry (out in the open)? If so, that is what I am referring to.

Yes, there are such states. Do you know which ones? Do you know what percentage of the population carries openly in those states? Do you have any factual foundation for your "wannabee" fear? Do you have any evidence that even if there are such "wannabees" in any significant number, they cause any significant number of actual problems?

[Mrs-M]

Originally posted by Bae.
How you propose a law-abiding citizen respond to an attacker when they have reasonable belief that the attacker is going to kill them or grievously harm them?

Well... aside from the United States, I know of no other country that allows it's citizens to "take the law into their own hands". And never mind just taking the law into their own hands, taking a life.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Re: the map. I actually feel perfectly safe living in California, not a gun culture, and I don't mind in the slightest. It's not an issue where I take the slightest issue with the state government (the main problem with the state government is that the budget is a mess plus some corruption (but possibly less than many places) - that's really about it). There's still violence, I just don't worry about it. So this happened: taking a walk in my lunch hour, told to turn back as there is an insane person with a gun a few blocks down. Having no particular death wish that day I turn back unperturbed. The cops came (helicopters even) and took care of it, noone was hurt. Seemed at first to be a violent incident happening there nearly every month. But statistically is that going to kill me or is driving home, is cancer, is the big one (the big earthquake), what about the big one plus a nuclear power plant going off here? I mean ok I'm not that likely to die in the big one either, but the odds may be greater. I dont' even have an emotional (irrational) fear of violence: because stranger danger was never a danger growing up, however you learn to hide when people you know get angry, since even though none get killed, people could get hurt.

[Mrs-M]

To add, I know the next angle that will be introduced here... "look Mrs-M, here is a list of other countries that allow such". I don't want to hear it.

Fact of the matter is, that's what our police force is for, granted, someone wants to try and snatch one of our kids away from us while DH and I are at home (or out in public) best of luck to them! Anything goes in that case, and that's to be expected, but to allow someone the given-right to open fire on someone/anyone, aside from ones very own home, is asinine.

[bae]

Well... aside from the United States, I know of no other country that allows it's citizens to "take the law into their own hands". And never mind just taking the law into their own hands, taking a life.

You know of no other country in which you are allowed to use force, perhaps even lethal force, to defend yourself?

And yet I believe you live in one... You better start lobbying to get that fixed, or what will the world think of Canada?

Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if

(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...3.html#docCont

[Mrs-M]

Understood, Bae, but it sets an unhealthy precedence for younger generations to follow.

[Mrs-M]

Originally posted by Bae.
Most states do not allow you to walk around with loaded rifles or shotguns in public spaces

Really? How come? What is the difference between a US, citizen, carrying/packing a loaded handgun, versus a US, citizen, wandering around town/public places/spaces with a loaded rifle?

A gun is a gun is a gun, isn't it?

[Mrs-M]

To add, "sure kids, you are allowed to ride your bikes on the street, but you aren't allowed to ride bikes with training wheels on the street".

[bae]

Really? How come? What is the difference between a US, citizen, carrying/packing a loaded handgun, versus a US, citizen, wandering around town/public places/spaces with a loaded rifle?

It has to do with all those pesky sporting/hunting regulations you claim we don't have.

A gun is a gun is a gun, isn't it?

More-or-less. Handguns are simpler to carry, and harder for opponents to snatch away from you unawares, if carried concealed.
A rifle is much more of a pain to carry around on a daily basis while doing your normal activities, unless you have a particular requirement that makes it useful to do so.