Thus in California you might have a sitution like they won't issue a permit for you in San Francisco while they may allow you a permit in Orange County. Sounds a bit draconian but then again I would have no problem with this. Perhaps I would see less of a one size fits all solution because one region might be a lil squeamish about what another region might do. Especially when it comes to guns.
Then there's North Carolina. I can't argue with this idea of the criteria for the issuance of a concealed-carry permit. This will include being aged 21, a background check, attending a safety class, a range/check certification, and a fee. After all that you get a permit in a shall-issue state.
The main idea of this article is basically that there is evidence that says that if people own a gun there isn't a rise in crime. Also it is showing how out of touch the Sheriff in Orange County, CA was in talking about restricting concealed carry and forcing those with permits to justify keeping their permits. In making this declaration of policy she was shocked to see that the response was largely against her.
Here's something worth noting...
Is it unfair to hold a California sheriff up to national scrutiny? While Orange County’s crackdown on justifying carry permits isn’t out of line with that of other restrictive California sheriffs, it does go against the grain of a steady national push towards more liberal concealed carry laws across the United States that began in Florida in 1987. To date, 37 states are now regarded as “shall issue” states, while nine are “may issue” and just two — Wisconsin and Illinois — are states with no provision for concealed carry at all. Two other states, Alaska and Vermont, have no restrictions on concealed carry and a permit is not required.Generally you should know my position on this issue. I certainly err on letting "responsible" individuals own a gun. I put responsible in quotes because that's a very subjective term. How do we define responsbile? Is going the route NC is going a way to define respobsible?
All the same I don't think anything can justify removing a person's right to own a gun. Especially if a gun is used for an individual's own protection. At the same time there are those who might be more concerned about accidental deaths due to perhaps negligence or indeed some people might be concerned that having a gun causes a person to turn from Mr. Nice Guy to Bank Robber.
Well I might have changed the point of this post. I suppose all the arguments involved are emotional. We don't want to either be seen as either criminals or even bad people who might accidentally harm someone they care about. At the same time people do believe they have the right to protect themselves from a criminal or someone who wants to do them harm.
All I can say is that we should consider the source before we make up our minds on a given issue. What might be in your best interest when it comes to a gun? Do you think you should own one for you protection? Might you be concerned that a gun is too dangerous to have in your possession?
While I can err on the side of no gun control, I can certainly understand that there are those who probably shouldn't own a gun. Still I'd trust an individual whether or not there is a provision of concealed-carry, to make the right decision with regards to a gun.