People have been talking about relaxing gun laws in Australia since the recent Sydney Siege.
What do you think? Is easing the right to have guns for the public good for the society or not?
In favour for having guns, people are saying that perhaps people could have defended themselves against the gunman.
Against the idea is the realisation that the USA have lesser gun controls, and massacres in schools happen once in a while. People accidentally shooting each other, or killing another and then regretting it.
I remember Australia taking a tough stand against carrying knives, when policemen were stabbed many years ago. The law changed such that one may carry a knife as part of one's work, but not for self-defense or for willfully wanting to hurt anyone. And the knife should not be concealed if it is larger than a certain size.
If this logic prevails about knives, how much more would it apply to guns?
What do you think? How should people defend themselves if they were to be denied weapons? How can we prevent people from using weapons in harmful or threatening ways if they were allowed these?
The gunman of the Sydney siege was not licensed to have a gun, but yet, he had one. How can we prevent people even from breaking the law in this regard?
When the poo hits the fan, God gets a hashtag: Reflections on the Lindt cafe saga
ReplyDeleteJesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
ReplyDeleteBut I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
ReplyDelete