I think I have some grounds to speak on this topic since Ohio
just passed a concealed carry law. Despite what some may assume, I have no real personal [read: direct] investment in the passage of this law. I do not own a firearm and in all likelihood never will. However, I do feel it is certainly within a citizen’s rights to own and carry a firearm
if they so choose for personal protection. The “carry it in the open” argument is almost as absurd as giving someone the right to own a weapon while, in the same breath, depriving them the capacity to carry it on their person.
The notion that we often overlook is that the majority of gun laws only restrict the rights of law-abiding individuals. If someone intends to use a firearm to threaten/rob/murder while perfectly aware of the potential ramifications, chances are they won’t be too concerned about a “right to carry” ordinance or lack thereof.
Anticipates the potential argument: “But won’t this law make it more difficult to prevent crime, eliminating a line of defense that police had when they could nab everyone, criminal or not, for carrying a firearm?”
Again, it probably
would if the people using the weapon to commit crime actually adhered to laws and standards of conduct to begin with. Though my knowledge of this law is limited, I’m assuming some lengthy period of wait is needed (just as it is for buying a gun...). Not only that, I’m sure background checks and other such scrutiny are applied here in some fashion or another. I’d
like to believe they aren’t handing these permits out like dime bags of crack. If they are... well then I’m wrong and yes,
it is stupid.
Maybe Bobak has some general knowledge on the implementation of these laws that I don’t...
kaos said:
I'm always against these weapons shitty laws you got over there in the US
It just seems unbelievable to an average european
Yeah, just be thankful you don’t live in England where the crime/murder rate has skyrocketed after banning all firearms. But, then again, I’m sure those were all just...
stabbings...