Aah, well then, +1 for that amendment, (though it could do with some more narrowing- what do they mean by 'regulating the spending of money'? That's broader than 'regulating the total amount spent', I could see issues with, say, limiting radio-time to hurt a party's ability to garner poorer voters, that kinda thing).
No, I don't think she would, but at that point it just reverts to the same situation as the axe- killer has an unfair advantage. Difference being, he'd
have to secure that gun, or else she'd be able to defend herself on equal terms.
Premeditated, first-degree murder? Not so easy to stop.
2nd/third degree so-called 'crimes of passion'? Stopped.
Can't seem to find a good source, but internet scuttlebut says murders are split ~50/50.
It's illegal here and last time I checked I've not been assaulted by an axe wielding significant other.
Do not want;
to bring someone up on charges of murder for defending themselves in situations where they cannot flee
should itself be criminal.
Yes, and your lack of being a victim of attempted homicide is evidence of what, that 'never in recorded history has one spouse attempted to murder the other'?
We have tazers for dealing with those situations.
And yeah, the mere presence of guns causes an increased amounts of deaths. (Israel, for example, halved suicide rates amongst conscripts by preventing conscripts from taking their guns home). They tend to escalate any crime they're part of.
True, some people do. But if I were trapped & under life threat I'd sure as shit prefer a 45 over a dinky 1-shot taser.
Let's see them stats.
Mind you guys, legally-justified self-defence is when you have no other recourse- if one can run, one
must run. If they are no longer threatening your life, you don't shoot them in the back or 'finish the job'.