Eleven States With New Gun Law

If one feels threatened at all, they are allowed to pull out their gun, shoot, and kill. The other party being armed is of no matter. All that does matter is that one feels threatened. This law was first passed in Florida last year. Since then, it's been passed in the following states: Oklahoma, Mississippi, Kentucky, South Dakota, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, and Arizona.

As I've stated before, I'm in the middle area when it comes to the issue of guns. I have not and will not own a gun in my lifetime, but I do respect the 2nd amendment and the right to own a gun.

However, as I was not comfortable before with the idea that people are allowed to carry concealed weapons with them, I'm not too comfortable with this idea either. In the end, who does it help and hinder more? The victims or the criminals? If a criminal pulls a gun on somebody, shoots, and kills them, will this give them a new excuse, that they felt threatened and were acting in self-defense?

Can a pitcher throw at a hitter's head at any point in the game now, by saying afterwards, "I just felt threatened. He had this look in his eyes like he was about to come after me, so I felt I had to protect myself and the only way I could do that was to throw at his head."

Isn't that President Bush's logic many times? "They may have been a threat to us someday, so I felt it was best to bomb them on their soil before they had the opportunity to attack us on ours." That's illegal and immoral. Unless someone throws a punch at me, how can I say that I was acting in self-defense by punching him? Unless the batter comes after me with his bat, how can I claim that it was self-defense by me throwing at his head? Considering Iraq had not attacked us, how can we state that our bombings over there were merely an act of self-defense?

In the film "Minority Report," people are arrested for crimes they didn't, but could've committed. How can one be punished for an act they didn't commit? Same here. How can one make the claim that they acted in self-defense, when what they were defending against didn't truly initiate anything to get defensive about in the first place? Where do we set the boundaries? When can we say that a threat is legitimate and when can we say that it's not? Where do we draw that line? If I'm lost in a city I've never traveled in before and I walk up to a person late at night and they pull a gun, shoot, and kill me, because they felt threatened, how in the world could that be seen as just, legal, and moral? Just as I feel that some people have gotten to be a bit trigger happy, figuratively speaking, with lawsuits, I feel that some may get to be a bit trigger happy, literally, when it comes to firearms.