I wonder if anyone will try to answer the question either for or against.

To answer your question meaningfully it would be necessary to split victim into sections. An armed victim with criminal intent is merely the slower criminal.

Single woman with an ex boyfriend who has a violent criminal history. He has already violated a restraining order and assaulted her once. She is informed Despite his history and her claim that he said he would kill her, he is going to be released on bail pending his trial.

According to the law she has no "genuine reason" to get a firearm license.

I snuck out of state and no trace. After 5 years she was kicked off the force and I snuck back in. I still stay out of that county.

doesn't apply nationwide. Are there local jurisdictions that have a requirement for a license to own a firearm, automatic weapons or licenses to operate a business excluded?

It is troubling that so many people think that getting a firearm is a solution. It is a societal problem that we as a population cannot understand that we are better off leaving weapons in the hands of trained professionals. Even they are capable of making common mistakes like not securing or mishandling. The risks become greater from there, selling it to a lifelong friend who later makes a mistake. Whether it is called a certificate or a license shouldn't be the issue. A neighbor of those in the given scenario have every reason to be fearful of either party being armed. It will take a long time to change the public desire to be armed, affecting a sizable section of the economy. Sadly there is no way to show the girlfriend as a trained and responsible owner without a certificate or license.

The statistics are there; it works. Look at the UK and Australia, the two countries most like us.

I think that OP is going for the line that, "If it is not 100% effective, then it is not worth trying." It is akin to arguing that we don't need brakes on cars because sometimes they fail.

Of my question. I am not debating whether or not such a policy would be effective. It is about priorities.
"Genuine reason"
Hunting- yes
Competition- yes
Self defense- no

Why isn't protecting a life a valid reason to use lethal force?

The only valid question is do the more restrictive gun laws in the UK and Australia save lives or not? A simple question requiring a simple answer. I will give you a hint before you answer:

Last year in Australia gun deaths were .88 per 100,000 people.

Last year, in the US the number were 14.6 per 100,000 people.

were outlawed, it would be easier to get armed criminals off the street, assuming politicians and gun-lovers have the guts to do something.

See if you start a thread with a Straw Man somebody's gonna' set fire to it . . .

It has gone exactly as I expected

I am looking for opinions not an echo chamber.

I appreciate the taxi was willing to jump in with an answer instead of a dodge

Also I like to try to make people think.All I can do is lead to the proverbial water.

if the non criminal lives or dies. In fact, it is to their advantage for more victims to die. They know it does less than nothing, and when, unsurprisingly, it fails to yield the stated result, well, we got to do something, else.


Everyone blathers on about how great it is in other enlightened countries, but I am just not impressed......

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives


It’s also illegal to:

carry most knives or any weapons in public without a ‘good reason’
sell most knives or any weapons to anyone under the age of 18

The exception to these 2 rules are folding pocketknives that:

have a cutting edge no longer than 3 inches
are not lock knives (they do not have a button, spring or catch that you have to use to fold the knife)



Good reasons for carrying a knife or weapon in public

If the knife or weapon is not banned, some examples of ‘good reasons’ include using it:

for your work
for religious reasons, such as the kirpan some Sikhs carry
as part of any national costume

A court will decide if you’ve got a good reason to carry a knife or a weapon if you’re charged with carrying it illegally.


Doesn't quite sound like the utopia we've been promised.

But I’m going to point out one of the drawbacks with this.

I live in a small rural county. Just imagine me having to go to a Trump loving sheriff office to get a permit. If I’m not in the good ole boys club. Checks my social media and sees DU on it.



Think I’m gonna to get a permit?

and have a felony on your record. What good does that do you.

I live in a red state that passed laws that set the standard. And a law that prohibits other counties, cities from passing tougher gun regulations

While my example was about a Trump sheriff. The only one’s around here who have wanted to pass additional gun restrictions have been democrats in cities.

My Texas permit is good in a LOT of states.

Seems to not be much of a problem in Chicago. IL requires a FOID card for mere possession of arms and ammo. Lots of shootings in Chicago. Few of them are solved, and I'd bet a lotta cash that many of those shooters don't have a FOID card. However, jail time is relatively low, if any, for mere possession. Have the laws, but don't enforce, so why pass them? To harass those you WANT to harass, is my guess.

a genuine reason for firearms ownership doesn't suggest that criminal lethal force is...

It's fair to argue that self defense--especially where a demonstrable specific threat exists--should be a genuine reason, but the rule you posted doesn't in any way suggest that lethal force is acceptable for criminals but not victims.