English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

15 answers

Yes

It would be less likely that an unreasonable person (a criminal element) would attack knowing that the person they are considering attacking may be armed too.

2006-11-28 15:03:52 · answer #1 · answered by LadySable 6 · 2 0

If you think about it, if all reasonable people are allowed to carry concealed weapons, every single time two reasonable people get into a stupid argument....Each reasonable one will worry about the other one concealing a weapon and using it. Neither one would ever want to shoot anybody. Yet panic would set in as argument heats up. Each would think 'oh boy, I better pull my gun before he does'The next thing you know shooting stats will be up 100%.

2006-11-28 18:47:18 · answer #2 · answered by mary57whalen 5 · 0 0

I got one better, in some states you can carry a weapon as long as its not concealed. I think concealment is a bit much, think of all the criminals out there concealing. I am for wearing them out in the open just like the wild wild west.

2006-11-28 15:13:38 · answer #3 · answered by Rick D 3 · 0 0

i will have self belief that a uk copper ought to assert a martial arts weapon isn't an offencive weapon.you ought to not have an offencive weapon in a public position.An offensive weapon is something made or meant to reason damage.subsequently those are made to reason damage.Lawful possession is constrained to particular people ie.police,miltary and so on. If for some reason the police got here upon you with them than you ought to nicely be in difficulty also if someone on your training became injured you ought to nicely be in difficulty even although that it's not a public position there have been judgements contained in the courts that say that's low-cost to assume that you went with the help of a public position to get to scene of incident.

2016-11-27 20:18:02 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

reasonable person is somewhat vague, but I would say law abiding citizen would be a better term for those allowed to carry weapons. Sure it's fine if they have real training to get the permit. according to our history and the founding fathers, citizens who have access to firearms are in a position to protect themselves as well as others in society. I don't want a half nuts meth addict with a gun permit, but it would make me feel safer if my fellow citizens could easily produce a weapon.

2006-11-28 15:08:29 · answer #5 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 1 0

What exactly is a reasonable person? Who gets to decide the parameters of reasonable?
I'm all for people being able to carry but what I consider reasonable you may not.

2006-11-28 15:03:49 · answer #6 · answered by Loli M 5 · 0 0

it should be lawful for people to carry side arms concealed or not concealed, the 2nd amendment has ben trashed! When everyone had guns crime rates were much lower

2006-11-28 22:56:59 · answer #7 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 0 0

Because as a sovereign nation of free individuals, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We also have the right to protect ourselves from individuals or agencies that would aim to deny us of such rights.
The right of the individual citizen to bare arms is an integral part of the individual freedoms our forefathers had the foresight to protect in the bill of rights of the constitution. An armed populace is a strong deterrent to tyranny.
If you have read any of my other answers or questions my stance on this issue might come as a surprise unless you understand that there is little conflict in being a Liberal, and being for the bill of rights.
The right wingers always cry foul when government tries to police big business, while they themselves are constantly pushing to infringe on the individuals rights(i.e. a woman's right to choose, prohibition of recreational drugs, a persons right to a legally recognized commitment to the one they love with out regard to sexual preference, and the right a citizen has to express themselves, and their anger at the presant people in government in any way that does not infringe on the rights of their fellow citizens i.e. flag burning) God bless America! Let freedom ring! I know not what coures you athers may take but as for me give me liberty or give me death!

2006-11-28 15:20:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

i do i carry a Colt 45 1911 legally as for the why i say why not you never know when you might need it i have worked in bad neighborhood delivering pizza and people try to rob you how do i know they wont kill me you don't at least i have something to defend myself with and i have been in situation when there were some "thugs"i could tell thought about robbing but when i got a loaded Colt 45 in my hand in my hot bag and we stare each other down I'm sure they new that's no pizza in his hand they thought otherwise

2006-11-28 16:41:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

How would you be able to define a reasonable person. No way should regular people be able to walk around with concealed weapons. Most of them are very unreasonable.

2006-11-28 15:03:41 · answer #10 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 1 2

Yes I do. It's one of my rights as a US citizen. Why should crack heads be the only ones. As my old friend Nancy Regan said " Just say no" and a S&W 38 gives me the ability to just say no to car jackers, robbers, crack heads and muggers. The constitution said all men are created equal, Sam Colt made all men equal.

2006-11-28 16:56:28 · answer #11 · answered by Wildturkey87 1 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers