Required? I'm not sure what that means. I bet this Australian woman wished she'd had a gun. Instead, she was raped, murdered, and left in a shallow hole.
And this does not happen with women who have access to guns in America? See we don’t rely on emotional responses
We weren’t looking to reduce overall crime We are not stupid We were looking to reduce the number of mass shootings
Sure. Women who have guns can be killed. All an "intimate partner" has to do is wait for you to go to sleep. You know, like all the "intimate partner" homicide in Australia. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05...rs-assessed-in-new-report/9821408?pfmredir=sm Unlike Australia, when we go backpacking, if a murderer kills me and tries to get at her, she can defend herself. Unlike Australia: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...raped-european-backpacker-jailed-for-18-years A South Australian man who kidnapped and raped a European backpacker in a pig shed on his regional property has been jailed for 18 years. Gene Charles Bristow held the 24-year-old woman for two days after he answered a Gumtree advertisement she posted in search of farm work in 2017. or this: https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-south-australia-jailed-for-at-least-17-years The 61-year-old met the Salt Creek victims through the Gumtree website, where the Brazilian and German women had sought a ride to Melbourne. He drove them to the isolated dunes and after setting up camp he first attacked the Brazilian woman, tying her up with rope before cutting her bikini off with a knife. Kelly said Heinze then punched her in the head and spat on her in a bid to subdue and control the already terrified young woman. She said the sexual assault was “solely in pursuit of the gratification of your own perverted sexual fantasies and desires”. With the German woman alerted by her travelling companion’s screams, Heinze then set upon her, hitting her repeatedly in the head with a hammer and ramming her with his 4WD in a separate attack which left her covered in blood.
And increased the overall assaults and rapes in the process. Considering what the victims of those violent assaults where put through, that's a very stupid reply. Would you like to be raped or criminally assaulted? It's seems you care nothing about such victims, but that is common for GCA's
And if we had armed those women would they have avoided their fate? Single incidents designed to stir emotions are not as powerful as statistical analysis of the FACTS and the facts are that women are safer without guns being available
No one relies on backpacking in any country unless they want to take a risk But even then the murder rate for short term visitors here is 0.9%. Far less than the number of Aussies alone murdered in the USA each year https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi316 And far far fewer than the number of tourists who cannot swim but go dive into raging surf! https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...725cfa2cb?sv=da108a1ac86026de3bf23768aad42c34
I see your concept. You are banning guns. What you are proposing is a partial ban on different types of firearms (presumably what you would define as an “assault weapon” as a starting point). All you are really doing is placing (in your mind) a tag of “reasonableness” on your gun ban by telling us you would allow us to have some other type of firearm. To me this clarifies nothing, however, until you explain the scope of your ban. So since you brought it up, let me ask this: Assuming you had the power to make that decision for me, just what kinds of guns would you allow me to have in your quest to “create a safer environment”?
Thats an irrelevent question. What your massacerer brings isn't up to me any more than whether I prefer ppl to smoke weed or crack. I prefer he brings a cuddly teddy bear as a weapon. He won't. Why don't you ask which weapon I'd rather have to defend myself from the massacrer? Thats something I can actually choose.
This is not just Australia this statistic applies nearly everywhere Any academic will tell you most rapes are done by someone known to the victim
Even the NRA admits “they” are not coming for your guns https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/nra-mother-jones-gun-myths-videos/
And yet neither seem to work for handguns, responsible for the deadliest mass shooting in US history as well as ¾ of all gun homicides. Except in Australia for some reason, where people magically choose not to go on mass shootings with them.
Twenty nine dead individuals in a single mass stabbing incident in the nation of China serves to demonstrate that knives are not the "least deadly" of the two categories of weapons available. Only one who has no actual understanding of matters relating to lethalty would believe such a flawed misconception.
Because you expect firearm-related restrictions to actually work. That is expecting government to protect you.
