NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
So with everything that's been going on lately in our country I stopped to ponder the implications of this new law. Not too long ago I would have unequivocally been in the "YES!" camp but recent events have caused me to pause and think about why this was not my reaction this time.
I know the arguments for the gun control side - they don't want it easier for mentally unstable/enraged individuals to get their hands on a firearm and use it to cause carnage. My thoughts have often been, that we have current laws that allow people who try to purchase a weapon through legal channels but are denied because they are in a prohibited category to be prosecuted however the data shows they seldom are. I personally think most people if they're smart (just cause they're felons doesn't mean they aren't necessarily smart, maybe just "unlucky") don't go the legal route and acquire their weapons on the streets/black market. But those are known criminals and many of the mass shooting have been by individuals who are not in the system therefore they are not prohibited. I don't know how to correct for something like that although I know that the Parkland shooting could have been prevented had someone been willing to do what was necessary about Nikolas and not been so squeamish about the fact that he was young (a minor when he began causing serious problems for himself and others).
So when you can't solve all of THOSE problems all at once I then ask what new problems does this new law introduce by allowing people to carry a weapon without a license. From my research, the current states that allow license-less carry haven't seen any negative repercussions due to it. The next thing is, does it matter to you if a person is carrying a weapon lawfully or unlawfully if they are using it on you or someone else to commit a crime? Because that takes us back to how do you prevent someone from getting their hands on a weapon who is not a prohibited person but intent on mayhem? To me, we're back where we started and nothing has changed on that front, but now with additional people who have no criminal intent and just maybe perhaps couldn't afford the training or licensing fees or for whatever reason just don't want to be in the system, can still defend themselves.
So I'm interested in hearing something I may have overlooked in this whole scenario.
I know the arguments for the gun control side - they don't want it easier for mentally unstable/enraged individuals to get their hands on a firearm and use it to cause carnage. My thoughts have often been, that we have current laws that allow people who try to purchase a weapon through legal channels but are denied because they are in a prohibited category to be prosecuted however the data shows they seldom are. I personally think most people if they're smart (just cause they're felons doesn't mean they aren't necessarily smart, maybe just "unlucky") don't go the legal route and acquire their weapons on the streets/black market. But those are known criminals and many of the mass shooting have been by individuals who are not in the system therefore they are not prohibited. I don't know how to correct for something like that although I know that the Parkland shooting could have been prevented had someone been willing to do what was necessary about Nikolas and not been so squeamish about the fact that he was young (a minor when he began causing serious problems for himself and others).
So when you can't solve all of THOSE problems all at once I then ask what new problems does this new law introduce by allowing people to carry a weapon without a license. From my research, the current states that allow license-less carry haven't seen any negative repercussions due to it. The next thing is, does it matter to you if a person is carrying a weapon lawfully or unlawfully if they are using it on you or someone else to commit a crime? Because that takes us back to how do you prevent someone from getting their hands on a weapon who is not a prohibited person but intent on mayhem? To me, we're back where we started and nothing has changed on that front, but now with additional people who have no criminal intent and just maybe perhaps couldn't afford the training or licensing fees or for whatever reason just don't want to be in the system, can still defend themselves.
So I'm interested in hearing something I may have overlooked in this whole scenario.
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law Friday a law that loosens regulations on gun ownership by eliminating the need for a permit to buy or carry handguns in the state.
The new law takes effect July 1, with many calling it a "constitutional carry" bill.
"Today I signed legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of Iowa’s law-abiding citizens while still preventing the sale of firearms to criminals and other dangerous individuals," Reynolds said in a statement Friday afternoon.