kapikui

Sometimes it's about what's right for the individual. Remember the Ammonites. The first generation had taken an oath never again to shed blood, even if it meant their lives. Taking that oath was right for them, they were blessed for doing so, and blessed for upholding that oath. About a generation Later when it became apparent that others were dying to protect them they were rather forcefully encouraged not to break the oath lest they lose their souls. Just taking that story at face value, we may think that we should all take such an oath, but that is not the case. They felt they needed to because of their past history, and weaknesses. Instead of breaking that oath, their sons stepped up, and joined the Nephite army to contribute to the defense of the lands. The sons hadn't taken that oath, and had not had the same past of being addicted to the violence, so they were able to take up swords in defense of their liberties without the danger of backsliding into barbarism. Indeed they were also blessed, and managed on several occasions to utterly destroy much larger Lamanite armies, without suffering any deaths themselves. Both choices are opposites, yet both were right and righteous choices, as they depend on the needs of the individuals, and I believe each to be the most righteous choice available under the circumstances. Avoidance of things like alcohol could be much the same. Coffee is addictive, but doesn't have nearly the negative consequences of addiction as does alcohol. While some individuals may need to stay away from such things, others may have no issues at all. Of course, it is human nature to believe "I am the most righteous person. What I do is ok, and is justified. If someone does something different, they're wrong." We all do this from time to time, it is unfortunate, but true.

Short term, it will almost certainly be a boon. Longer term is more sticky. The thing is that the money has to come from somewhere. The current attitude is to have the rich pay "their fair share". The problem is that words like fair aren't really all that well defined, so different people will have vastly different attitudes about what is "fair". If you invent a product and sell it for $10,000,000 is it fair for the government to take as much as 70% of that so you can pay your "fair" share? According to the Carter administration, I'm told it was. Of course this doesn't touch the practical matters. People with money don't want it taken. They'll do what they can to hang on to it. Whether you like it or not, they'll simply start opting out of things that cost. Instead of investing in a new business and creating more jobs, they'll lay people off in order to stay in business, and pay the new tax they have to with the new law. Of course this means more people without the ability to purchase health insurance, and more of this "tax". The other issue is that because there are price controls, there will almost certainly be shortages. It's happened pretty much every time in history there has been a price control. In countries where similar laws have gone into effect, there are waiting lists for a lot of medical procedures. I worked with a woman who had come to the U.S. from england. She had constant pain due to a gall bladder issue. Since it wasn't life threatening, there was a 2 year waiting list. When she came to the U.S. It was fixed within a few days of seeing the doctor. Another more public example happened a couple of years ago. Tony Blair had a slipped or bulged disk in his back. He had it treated within days. There was a huge controversy over this and favoritism, as for the general public there was a 9 month waiting list for the necessary treatment. So yes in the short term, it will be a great boon for her. It would be a boon for me now, but only in the short term. In the long term, from the conservative point of view, it is likely to completely stifle medical innovation, as no one can make money on it anymore, and most likely will do significant damage to the economy. This means that it will not ultimately be a boon to anyone but those who are perpetually on welfare.

The truth is, this is how the vast majority of defensive uses of firearms go. In fact there are far more such uses that the intended victim never needs to even draw the weapon, only demonstrate its presence. As far as what you should do to pick a gun. The best thing is to go to a gun shop and range that lets you rent guns to try. Take someone you trust who knows weapons. Be aware that women have traditionally not gone to ranges all that often, so there is often some boorish and condescending behavior on the part of some of the men there. The good news is that more women are starting to carry concealed, so this is starting to change. Once you're at the range, try out a lot of pistols. Think about what you want in the pistol, and how you want to carry it. Find out what fits your hand. Some well meaning people suggest a revolver for women because it's "simpler". There are fewer moving parts, and it's easier to learn. For some women who don't really want to learn about guns, and prefer a "point and click" interface, perhaps someone who grew up thinking guns are for men, but have conceded that protection is a good thing, that may be true. It sounds like you are not one of those people. Any advice you get about a particular pistol may or may not apply to you. For example. A lot of people like the way a Glock fits their hand. For me it points way too high. I prefer a 1911 with a flat mainspring housing. It points better for me. There are a lot of guns available out there. I personally used to carry a 1911 in .45 acp, but it's big and hard to conceal. I'm kind of wide so I get it caught on a lot of things. I almost always carry a kel-tec p3at, that fits in a pants pocket, and I can completely cover with one hand. It hurts a bit to shoot, but I'm told that people with smaller hands don't have that problem. It would fit in your purse nicely, it's .380 auto, and weighs 10 ounces fully loaded. It might be an option, but unless you want to start collecting guns, I would suggest you try it before you actually purchase it. because as I said, it's a very small, very light gun, and there's not a lot of mass to soak up the recoil for you. As for the idea of purse carry, a lot of women do like that and it is a decent option, but do be aware that it is slower and less secure than carrying on your person. It takes a lot longer to dig into your purse to pull it out than it does to grab it off of your hip, or something, and if a purse snatcher comes along, you've just armed him, and lost whatever financial investment you've put into the gun. It's also easy to forget something placed into a bag or purse. More than one person has been arrested at an airport for forgetting that a gun was in a bag. Now for your original question, are there any LDS gun websites? Not that I know of. I hang out at www.theguncounter.com. It's a fairly hardcore gun site, but newcommers are welcome, and politeness is required. There are a few LDS people there, and while the topic of religion, isn't really forbidden, any type of denigration of the religion of someone who is a regular there is generally dealt with by banning.