As it turns out, the top states in terms of firearm deaths include all of these no-permit-needed CC states. Big surprise!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state
Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming have had CC
Alaska -57.8% gun ownership 2.7 gun murders per 100k residents. Tied with New York state one of the most restrictive Gun law states. Middle of the road
Arizona -31.1% gun ownership 3.6 gun murders per 100k residents Just brakes the top ten in a bad way.
Vermont -42.0% gun ownership 0.3 gun murders per 100k residents The lowest in the country
Wyoming -59.7% gun ownership 0/9 gun murders per 100k residents 9th lowest in the country

Notable that DC is it more or less illegal for a civilian to have a gun. It has by far the highest gun murders per capita.

If Alaska has some of the most restrictive gun laws, why is gun ownership so high there? Or maybe not why, but how?

Any particular reason you are using a completely different metric without stating that fact?

oh, it was the easy one to find on wikipedia...

Republican lawmakers are giving out CCW privileges like candy, meanwhile I have to get the homeowner of a house me and my friends want to rent to submit a written application to the city board of zoning appeals, whom only meet once a month, to allow more than three unrelated people to legally reside there.

America!

Just gay marry one of them. Problem solved.

Can't, no gay marriage in Ohio yet.

Anyway to claim one of the tenants is your cousin twice removed?

The way it works is that everyone has to be related. Can't have two people count as one if they're brothers or something.

So something like Full House would have been in violation of the ordinance, even though it was two families and the creepy ventriloquist who lived in the basement. Not everyone was related.

It may be in a different region, but there are some places where the workaround is to hire the additional residents as live-in domestic servants.

Gotta love how so many people fight for their right to carry guns and quote the 2nd amendment to do so... but completely ignore the 'well regulated' part. *facepalm*

I'm pro gun and I may be hurting my "cause" but the second amendment reads to me that anyone should be allowed to make an army. And I think they really expected it to mean each state would field it's own army. And at the time the army was lots of civilians put together for each war. A lot of times, if they lived, they wouldn't get the promised pay. So civilians owning guns meant that those states could put an army together. Now we have standing armys and professional officers and soldiers. The 2nd amendment is about civilians owning guns. It is about the state being able to field an army. The original intent is no longer relevant.

I'm not particularly strongly for or against guns, I just think better regulation and a little less ability to get concealable ones without said regulation would be a good thing. But as long as the NRA is acting as both propoganda machine and lobbyists for the gun manufacturering industry, people are going to keep clinging onto that archaic amendment.

My grandfather had a lifetime membership to the NRA because he learned to shoot in WWII, then used that skill to help put food on the table when he got home. Sometimes directly, in the form of deer. Sometimes indirectly, since he taught target shooting and gun safety classes to law enforcement. But halfway through the 80s he turned in his membership card and wrote a strongly worded letter to them telling them that he no longer wanted to be a part of what they stood for at the time. And they've only gotten worse since then, IMO.

If the original intent is no longer relevant, why do we need the 2nd amendment at all?

I should have been more clear. the wording in no longer relivent. Every opressive government have taken the right to have guns of most of it citizens. If a non government group now has even a small "army" of a couple dozen people it is considered a threat and totally squashed. when an indavidual stands up for his legal rights at the moment he is torn down as a trouble maker at best and a torrist or torrist want to be at worst. We have no privacy online or through any communication and the government has secret courts to "protect us" from the boogieman. I think the spirit of the law is important.

Oooh... Hi-Point has a new lightweight model?

It comes in two colors, brick red and tactical black.

"Concealed carry requires classroom and practical training to be effective, I.E. When deadly force is an appropriate response, laws regarding self-defense, zero-sum, ect..."

I'm kind of for that for gun ownership in general, really. It's kind of odd that I have to take tests to show I'm not going to cause mayhem behind the wheel of a car, yet a device designed to put holes in things at range requires no demonstration that I can even use my thumbs without being a danger to myself and others.

I Don't really know about other states but in California you must pass a 25 question multiple choice test for both pistols and long guns. The questions seemed ridiculous common sense to me but then I've been around families of gun culture (not my own parents though) most of my life.

You don't have a "right" to drive a car. I'm officially a "gun nut" but I would retool the 2nd in a heartbeat if given the chance.

First and foremost I would remove any ambiguity. I would also create some level of parity in what civilians can own vs. police/military. The 2nd is about the option of revolution, not hunting. Something else that is not a right and requires a license.

Second I would incorporate a tiering system. If you don't take training, you are limited to firearms that require you to work the action with each shot - bolt action, lever action, pump, revolver. For semi or full auto I would require formal training. Anyone who served in the military or as a police officer would be exempt due to the nature of the job and training involved.

Similarly, the 14th Amendment doesn't actually guarantee everyone the right to vote, but we take it as such.

Yet that "right" can be restricted. If I commit a felony, I lose the right to vote. I can't go buy an illegal vote from a shady vote dealer. It's very difficult to vote illegally, even though that really isn't a problem, even statistically, in our electoral system. Even so, there are a great many politicians who seem to think someone exercise the right to vote is an activity that needs a lot of regulation, scrutiny, and (in many cases) disenfranchisement.

If I commit a felony and my right to own a gun is restricted... so what? There are loads of ways to get one that few seemed concerned about. The NRA and its allies make sure tracking weapons uses an archaic system of pen and paper, they maintain loopholes where they can, and they ensure that guns are plentiful. Yet the idea of someone voting illegally to swing an election, which is politically about as likely as winning the lottery, is of paramount concern.

It's funny how none of that is applied to gun ownership. I applaud your proposals, but I think we both know they'd never get anywhere, because some "rights" are more equal than others.

Oh, and look for more crap like this from Brownback so he can keep the support of his base. Kansas has basically done just about every Koch-headed economic thing any right wingnut would want short of eliminating government altogether, and surprise!, Kansas' economy keeps getting worse and worse.

Of course, KS voters won't vote anything but Republican, no matter how bad it gets, so Brownback has to keep his cred going by doing all he can on non-economic issues. At this rate he'll be signing laws requiring marriage licenses to include tests from a doctor and a priest affirming that the bride is a virgin...

This is a great way to drum up their prison revenue.

Why?

I for one am happy to see the return of the wild west.

Except the "wild west" actually had gun control laws. Very strict ones. Many frontier towns required you to surrender your guns to the sheriff when entering the city limits. That's the altercation that sparked the fabled shootout at the OK corral, some twats didn't want to give up their guns.

I'm your Huckleberry.

In my state, a CCW license requires a hunters safety course and $50 bucks. I assume no felony convictions too.

Gun makers are, of course, seeing expanded ccw as a marketing opportunity for new models.