Quote from IShopAtPublix:
She can have mace, a baton, and other non lethal ways, OR martial arts training OR she can walk with someone. For people concerned about mythical home invasions there are dogs, home security companies, baseball bats, etc.
Who in the right mind is going to construct a system with far reaching consequences based on the ALLEGED needs of 110lbs women walking alone?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but mace, pepper spray, knives over 4" and batons (especially retractable ones) are illegal in many cities. As well as stun guns.
Last week, a 40 something woman was beaten and robbed in Central Park while out walking her dog. People tend to train their dogs to be social otherwise they become a liability.
When was the last time you heard of someone (woman) who learned martial arts at one of those store front posh studios ever actually using it to defend themselves? Truth is, you knee a man in the balls, you'll stun him yes, but unless you can incapacitate him, you'll likely as has happened piss him off further which leads to a worse situation.
There were a rash of home invasions last year on Long Island. A few killings resulted in them also. In one case, the invasion was thwarted by an armed home owner who was able to acquire his firearm quickly. In another case, a man was not able to get to his gun which was in a locked box. He was shot and killed.
Now I'm not saying this to advocate waton gun ownership. I'm just pointing out that you really can't protect yourself all that well in liberal dominated regions, since liberal lawmakers tend to strip away all lines of reasonable defense. Some of their arguments against have merit, yes.
Most do not.
And what's more, they seem more please with making laws than enforcing, or more importantly, reinforcing the one's on the books. Also, it would pay if they would educate themselves about guns. Though many times, their ignorance is actually a boon to those who want to own certain types of guns.
C. McCarthy (D), who lost her husband on the LIRR when he was shot by C. Ferguson is understandably anti-gun. However, if only she understood the facts of the case that Ferguson's background would have prevented him from ever legally owning a gun. His background check failed to reveal pertinent info about his past mental health.
Making laws that encumber or restrict law abiding citizen's right to reasonably defend themselves is counter productive since the grand majority of gun violence is committed by persons with criminal pasts. Sure, every now and again we get a law abiding citizen that goes rogue and commits and act of gun violence. Or we get cases where irresponsible parents allow access to firearms to emotionally disturb children. But there are ways to induce parents to be more responsible. Nothing can be done about the rogue.
Lastly, did you know that in the UK where it is very difficult to acquire firearms that they have been having a rash of knife violence?