Big A. D., To answer your question, there are two parts... 1. I would not go into any of those areas unless absolutely necessary. The best defence is to not knowingly put yourself in harms way. Situational awareness and discretion can prevent a lot of problems. 2. If I did have to spend time in any of those areas, I would consider myself as operating in a non-permissive environment and plan accordingly. And from experience, that plan would include being heavily armed. You know assessing risks and planning accordingly is 95% of a good defence strategy. In all but the most non-permissive environments, if you are reaching for your sidearm or brandishing your weapons, you in serious trouble past the point of return most likely from prior bad decisions or planning. So a direct answer to your question, if it was legal in Australia, I would be carrying a firearm on my person at all times. I carried a firearm on my person for most of my life until coming to Australia. And I continue to carry a firearm on my person whenever I am not in Australia and it is legal to do so. As for the study and the data, I am not going to continue this debate as both of us can bend the statistics to support our stance. So to anyone reading this discussion I recommend that you take the time needed to read and understand the study and then make your own judgement. I will say this... I am basing my choice to carry a firearm in those non-permissive areas because I believe from experience that I would will be a victim of a violent regardless of my carry or non-carry choice. The choice to carry a firearm while increasing my risk of a fatal gunshot wound greatly increases my probability of surviving that violent assault based on my experience. To be fair it has been over 10 years since I stepped foot in Philadelphia so the city may actually now be the 'City of Brotherly Love'. I presume that your experience, training, beliefs would probably result in a different of choice of action for yourself. Thanks,
There is your problem, as soon as you give an age for example 18 you are then imposing your will and ideals upon a 17 year old and are telling them they can not defend themselves. A lot of 17 year olds are more responsible than 18 year olds. Are you telling 17 year olds you know better than them? You are telling they have to count on the state to protect them? Are you a stateist? You do not believe in individual freedumb for all? You don't believe in Liberty? Can't 17 year olds have freedumb like you? A 17 year old can join the Army for example so why can't they carry a gun when they go out? Obviously if people can carry guns for self defence you have to support people's right to carry knives? What percentage of the public would support the right of people to carry knives in public? I would say it would be well under 5%. The medical profession who deal with stabbings would be so against it, the police would be against it. You are a minority, a very, very small minority trying to impose your ideas on others which is exactly what you are always complain about when other minorities try and do the same thing to you. Even if for example the laws did change, whta happens as soon as you have a mass shooting for example? A couple of kids get a hold of guns and shoot themselves? You would have a massive uproar from the public, and what would they do? They would force Govt to tighten gun laws and eliminate the right to self defence with weapons. Jim Jeffries made one good point, the only valid reason for gun ownership "I want one" a pretty shittybreason but it is all you have.
Let them carry a knife as soon as they can pick it up and wave it around, the reason for no age limit is knives are not dangerous, according to some on here
I'm saying if there's a 50-50 chance of your killer being the person you share a bed with, having a gun in the house adds a whole new dimension to domestic violence.
The data doesn't say anything about Shitsville vs. Lovelytown. We can speculate that if you go for a walk in Shitsville, you'll be in more danger than if you were in a nicer neighborhood. That additional danger is exactly why people want to carry a gun: so they can go places and do things they wouldn't do if they were unarmed. The sense of being more secure is a false one. You're still going for a walk in Shitsville and anyone who might want to do you harm is going to attack you with greater force and ferocity if you're more likely to be carrying. If you're only hanging out in Lovelytown, there's no reason to have a gun in the first place.
You really seem to believe everyone is out to get you and steal everything you own, do you actually live in Australia? Did you grow up in Palastine or somewhere like that?
I asked you about 4 times before ref age restrictions and you would not answer the question, the reason you did not answer the question is because as soon as you give an age and set a "law" you become a "stateist" and you impose your beliefs on others, there has to be a cut off point and laws which cover society wide issues. Everyone's actions and decisions impact on other members of society. People do not live in bubbles which you seem to believe.
What's the difference if you're going to be killed with a knife, poison or a gun? Your point remains moot. Case participants v control participants. Because you want one is a valid reason.
Not everyone shares your enthusiasm for the research you cite Big A.D.: https://gunowners.org/op09282009gk.htm Gary Kleck College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1127 (850) 894-1628
i) ...as soon as you give an age for example 18 you are then imposing your will and ideals upon a 17 year old and are telling them they can not defend themselves... - Imposing age limits is not a foreign concept. E.g. Younger L drivers need to log 120hrs, while older L drivers don't. ii) Obviously if people can carry guns for self defence you have to support people's right to carry knives? - Yep, I support any reasonable measure which would allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves; because crooks don't obey the law - and law abiding citizens aren't a significant risk to other law abiding citizens. iii) The medical profession who deal with stabbings would be so against it, the police would be against it. - I don't believe that law-abiding citizens would go around stabbing people. Criminals are already carrying and using knives and other prohibited weapons. iv) You are a minority, a very, very small minority trying to impose your ideas on others which is exactly what you are always complain about when other minorities try and do the same thing to you. - How do we impose our ideas on others? We aren't forcing anyone to get firearms/knives/tasers/etc. Unlike you, we don't force law-abiding people to do anything they don't want to (that's the idea of freedom and personal responsibility). v) Jim Jeffries made one good point, the only valid reason for gun ownership "I want one" a pretty shittybreason but it is all you have. - Still quoting an erroneous comedian? That's funny. You totally ignore that successful defensive gun uses occur each year.
:lol: You clearly haven't paid attention to what I've said before on topics that are related to this (or what Yennus said when he succinctly answered your question earlier). Societies having laws or social norms doesn't make you statist. Being born doesn't give you the same legal consequences and rights as an adult. In the case of children the best judge of whether a given child has matured enough to understand and respect the rights of others and to safely handle property until the child deems themselves suitable is their guardians.
Well given that around 5% of people want gun laws relaxed it looks like you are p#ssing in the wind It's not going to change no matter how much you want it to.......
There you go - quoting your unsubstantiated polls again (as reliable as Hillary winning the presidency). Suppose the question was asked as "Should people have the right to defend themselves?", I'm sure the results would be very different.
