If people were able to protect themselves with guns, we may have a few less victims and a few more dead terrorists...
Guns may be a little bit overkill. They do bring benefits, and I do think the debate that we should have about it in this country is being drowned out by the hoplophobes. But there are many complications with how to properly implement personal weapons laws so that the community is safe, and I think a bit more research needs to be done to ascertain whether guns are the best option.
I think a better short-term move would be to legalise non-lethal forms of protection like pepper spray. That should at least give you time to subdue an attacker and take any of his weapons from him.
Also there is a difference between hate speech (or drawings in this case) and freedom of expression. An act which sets out to purposely degrade a specific community by portrayig extremely highly regarded figures (like the Prophet Muhummad) in an absolute deplorable way, knowing that it could cause unnecessary turmoil in the community and cause harm, is hate.
Well assuming the portrayal is indeed deplorable, all it is is shock-value humour. Some people enjoy it, some people don't. If you don't like it, it's not too hard to ignore it. Whether somebody is highly respected by a group of people or not is irrelevant, and that shouldn't be an aggravating factor.
Charlie Hebdo is a satirical newspaper, and their content should be taken with a grain of salt. Some may find it offensive, but it is not hate. Now if a legitimate newspaper wrote articles about how Western Governments should unite to nuke Mecca or something, THAT would be hate.
Imagine if a cartoonist drew obscene drawings of your mother, who died (lets say of cancer). Your mother holds a special place in your heart, and you would do anything for her honour. You tell the cartoonist to stop drawing these drawings, as its unnecessary and that your mother is the most precious 'thing' to you. The cartoonist basically tells you to fuck off and says he can continue, under the pretext of 'freedom of speech'. You raise the point, that this not freedom of speech rather hate speech, but he dismisses you and continues drawing.... How would you feel?
I wouldn't care. I don't need somebody else to dictate my own opinions about my mother. If a cartoonist drew unflattering cartoons of her out of spite or hate (assuming he has an opinion of her in the first place), I wouldn't inflame the matter; he's entitled to his own opinions however wrong they may be.
