BS

If Trayvon Martin had a gun, he would have been able to shoot that guy stalking him in self-defense first and would be alive today.

What should be done is institute a program to get handguns in the hands of all black children and young adult so children and young adults “guilty” only of “walking while black” will be able to defend themselves.

What could possibly go wrong?

I am simply taking issue with how you characterize the motives of those who support a concealed carry law. I’m pretty sure there ARE those who support the legislation for the stated reasons you dismiss as nonsense, and that not every supporter is either a gun seller pushing sales or a gun owner infatuated with his/her toys.

Sure, there are profiteers and posers, but there are also the principled and the pragmatic. The electorate is multi-dimensional (well, maybe not in The Gopher State). : )

Overall, I think you made an eloquent and convincing argument against the “stand your ground” doctrine.

I just wish there were a clearer way of divining the dividing line, it seems to largely just be influenced by whatever society happens to be focused on at any given time.

I agree that seatbelt laws really came about because society decided the risk vs reward exchange was worth it, although I suspect it’s due primarily to media pressure, but at the same time, society is happy to let people endanger themselves and others by driving ridiculously overpowered or overweight vehicles.

The inconsistency drives me nuts.

I always felt that banning diners from smoking wasn’t specifically to protect the workers (not that that’s not a good reason), but that smoking pisses off every other diner about as much as someone playing the bagpipes in a confined space, even most smokers I know don’t like people smoking while they’re eating, so it’s really a case of codifying society’s attitudes as a whole.

Ordinances banning smoking in diners are still very much a regional thing, it strikes me that if it were a safety based issue then it would be national, ie. society as a whole enforces the idea.

So, back to the sensationalism….

A lot of gun laws are based around the sensational, like California banning 50 BMG rifles because “nobody needs one” or because “they can shoot down a plane”, despite the fact that these things are NEVER used in crimes because they’re too bloody expensive (seriously, we’re talking $8k minimum) and difficult to conceal (again, we’re talking rifles that are a good 5-6 feet long).

The only major crimes I’m aware of involving 50 BMG rifles were in Northern Ireland and Columbia; Both crimes were murders by terrorist organizations (the IRA & FARC respectively) and in both countries the rifles were already illegal anyway.

Seriously, what’s the point? These things are range queens, they’re toys for playing out in the desert with. If you’re going to want to commit a terrorist act with one of these things, local gun laws are not going to stop you.

California’s “assault weapons” laws are the same way, they’re designed around certain features that qualify a gun as an assault weapon but they were obviously drawn up by people who really didn’t know what they were doing, because all you need to do is take an AR-15, fit it with a funny looking stock and it’s just as dangerous as a regular AR-15, except that it’s legal and looks bloody stupid.

Seriously, whose writing these laws and have they ever held a gun?

I can see the point in making things as difficult as possible for kids to get hold of loaded firearms, but I’d rather just see gun owners use a single, expensive, sensible gun safe than two cheap ones.

I think the rational for storing ammo separately is to thwart the suicides a bit more effectively.

I’ve not made an argument against people carrying guns.

Indeed, but I’ll admit I’m very curious as to what you consider would be valid restrictions on doing so.

So, what restrictions would you place on concealed carry permits and defensive gun use?

Personally speaking, I would be happy with this;
1: Mandatory training for concealed carry (and it should be at least as involved as a driving test).
2: All states should therefore become shall-issue.
3: Abolition of “stand your ground” laws. CCW holders should have a duty to retreat unless doing so would result in the death or grievous injury to themselves or another innocent party.

That pretty much covers concealed carry insofar as I’m concerned, but for recreational gun use I would also add;

4: Any firearm not being used as a carry weapon should be stored unloaded (or with an important part) in an approved safe (though I don’t see the point of storing ammunition separately).
5: Mandatory registration of all new firearms in a central database. (because you will never manage to register the stuff in circulation).
6: All firearms purchases are subject to the FBI NICS system (which should also feed the aforementioned database).
7: Get rid of any purchasing/waiting period restrictions for any firearm other than the first, NICS is instant, there’s no reason for a delay (seriously, if I already own 4 guns, why is there a 10 day “cooling off” period on the 5th?).
8: No arbitrary (read: California style) restrictions on firearms (California bans the weirdest shit, I think mostly to just make it look like they’re doing something, seriously, California gun laws are like trying to stamp out speeding by banning rocket powered dragsters).
9: Standardize these practices across all States, what’s the point of California having these restrictions when Nevada & Arizona do not?