Big difference. What other countries have in their Constitution, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms? Only one that I am aware of. Guatemala. That is a big difference in why gun confiscation or outlawing them will not work here. Sure it can be amended. But that is not a easy process at all. And very slim chance of ever happening in our life times.
Which I am all in favor of cracking down on.
Most people do not carry a firearm concealed, let alone open carry. Just because they may have a gun, It could mean it is back home. Most states have some pretty strict rules on carrying concealed or open carry. Out of the possible 5 - 6 million Ohioans who could carry a firearm with a permit, less than 300,000 have been issued ones. This figure is even much more less in states such as California and New York I would assume. A figure of less than 10% of the population over all could be defined as a Large Majority.
https://patch.com/ohio/kent/how-many...-carry-license
Technically no, effectively yes, It's legal with a permit ("authorization to carry"), though they're extremely rare (There exist about 8000 nationwide, about 6000 of which are armoured car guards).
And enforcement would be reasonably easy for that even. It's either on your body or locked up. Simple.
- - - Updated - - -
Yet given crime rates, it is evidently a risk many criminals do in fact ignore.
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
They're going to break the rules and steal the gun that I don't own?
So you're saying criminals even break the laws of causality? The fiends!
- - - Updated - - -
You're quite correct, the Second Amendment is the thing stopping you from instituting proper gun control like everywhere else. At least it is after the 2010 SCOTUS decision.
I agree. If the gun was gone for a matter of weeks and then it was used by someone and was not reported stolen I could see punishing the owner then. But as it stands, unless he was really negligent in it's storage that invited the theft, then the criminal who stole the gun should be held liable. Not the Gun Owner.
The issue is with liberal policies. It says the suspect was "well known to police" he had multiple prior charges that included theft. If he had been beaten and crippled or executed after his first crimes, as he should have been, he wouldn't have been able to steal the gun and shoot someone with it.
Well, quite clearly letting him out of jail after MULTIPLE prior incidents didn't work out to well, did it? If it had you he had hurt I'm sure you would be seeing it in a new light. We should dispose of criminals early on, there is no end to examples where people with prior records finally commit the crime that makes headlines.
I am not aware of any state in the US which that would be a crime. Correct me if that is true.
- - - Updated - - -
Yet, the odds are still in favor for the criminal he will not confront a victim who is armed. Esp. out in the public. 66% in favor for him if he invades a home and close to 90% chance in favor of him if he attacks someone out in the public. But even the 1 in 3 households which have at least one firearm, does not mean all of those households have them prepared to be used against a home invader or the wiliness to use one.