We just have to do something, does not matter if it makes no difference.

Mr. Cuomo calls for more gun control, but he doesn't articulate what laws he'd like passed, although I suspect it would be up to and including a total ban on firearms.

Along that line is the ultimate goal

...that is too extreme. But when one looks at the actions of those entities which seek "control," they consistently back what ever is on the table for restrictions. Anything and everything, mags, "assault" whatevers, bullet taxes, gun-owner insurance policies, special lawsuit categories for firearms, "may--issue" licensing, registration, taxes, caliber restriction, bullet construction, waiting limits, limits on purchases, publication of CCW permit holders, guns stored in inoperable condition... have I missed any? The ONLY explanation for this incoherent, splattering catch-all approach is not policy changes aimed at specific societal problems, it is Prohibitionism.

problem for the prohibitionist's is that the American people aren't on board with their utopian dream, last poll I saw was, I believe,
was 75% opposed to a ban on firearms.

Another indicator: The controller/prohibitionist has not changed his/her outlook or tactics in decades; they are locked in. They increasingly must scramble for print space in MSM to even stay credible.

I have noticed this phenomenon that suggests micro-management of the news. Some prohibitionist outfit like mediamatters floats an anti-gun local police blotter "newz" story, which is duped on another site like crooksandliars, then it gets posted her in GD in clear violation of TOS, the argument being it's a "Florida Man" har-har, and was collaborated by two or moren"reputable" sites. Policy matter? Nah, just a local newz story that is cantilevered to a National Event® so it can pass muster as a GD exception. In effect, a hastily-dug sluice allows the reservoir to be emptied and you get a "rolling exception" in GD. The hosts should lock these threads, but unless alerted on, they WILL stand. I sometimes wonder if in the rather small (but elite) world of gun prohibitionism, there is a belief that it is important to corrupt a site like DU, to achieve some kind of hegemony, making it worthwhile to hot-wire events to create a big Oz picture that really ain't there.

Guns are not banned. Gun ownership is pretty easy. Carrying them around, not so much. Seems to work well. I am living in an area with lots of gun owners, mostly shotguns and rifles and lots of wild boar. Not too many rapists and murderers and gangbangers to worry about. Wonder why that is.

For the most part, I'm not in favor of open carry unless it's while hunting, hiking in the back woods, etc.
It's not the lawfully carrying citizen that's the problem, it's the criminals for the most part, who wouldn't obey any firearm law passed.
I'm glad you live in a safe area, as do I, but millions of fellow citizens don't and they most certainly should have the option of being able to legally carry concealed.

But I think they have no business being carried in populated areas without a darn good reason. That's how it is here and I don't hear anyone complaining.
Obviously, some people are targets of criminals and predators, either because of their work, their life style, or they have been subjected to open threats or domestic abuse.

Otherwise, casual carry, which has been gaining popularity in the US, only leads to more guns in public. It is hard to see this as bettering society, regardless of so-called expressing one's freedom by exercising a "Constitutional right".
Also, as you say, if the law allows it, then they should have the option. We all have options, legal or otherwise. When it comes to carrying a gun, we should think very, very carefully beforehand.

I doubt anyone would object if they knew that all those carrying were responsible, well trained and certified. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be the case, including and especially LE professionals.

it's a well thought out, civil post.
For the most part, those with CHL's are responsible, well trained and certified, granted, there are some states that don't require a license, my state of AZ being one of them, but there doesn't seem to be a problem with lawful citizens concealed carrying.
Most concealed carriers will practice with their firearm, while most LE's, except for the specialized units, only qualify once or twice a year on their service weapon.
LEO's are some of the worse shooters around and I would trust my fellow citizens accuracy far more than an LEO.

Problem is sorting it all out. If you want an armed society, then those who want to carry should be responsible, and unfortunately that means some kind of standardised certification. I can't understand any reasonable person objecting to that.

it's really a common sense suggestion.

However, on the flip-side, I would only agree to it on the condition that (i) it wasn't so onerous and/or expensive as to be a stealth means of making firearm ownership too costly or expensive for most people, rather than actually for safety, (ii) it was part of an objective "shall issue" instead of "may issue" permitting and carrying process, and (iii) if certification was national, then any license was national and thus applicable to all states and localities (i.e., full concealed carry reciprocity).

In fact, I would support most laws that actually have the realistic potential to improve firearm "safety." Sadly, most "safety" proposals have little to do with actual safety, and everything to do with control and ever-increasing incremental restrictions in the vain hope of eliminating "gun culture," and turning the USA into something closer to Japan or Australia. If the intent is social engineering or policies that have already proven useless like "assault weapon" bans and magazine limits, I will strongly oppose them.

https://archive.org/stream/NijGunPolicyMemo/nij-gun-policy-memo_djvu.txt

You also earlier stated that firearms "have no business being carried in populated areas without a darn good reason," but then also state, "obviously, some people are targets of criminals and predators, either because of their work, their life style, or they have been subjected to open threats or domestic abuse."

First, as a matter of law, there's no geographic or urban exception to the Second Amendment or any other constitutional rights.

Further, as you appear to acknowledge and crime statistics unequivocally prove, both the absolute and per capita number of "criminals and predators" are highest in denser urban areas. Therefore, the need to potentially defend oneself is greatest in the areas where you appear to want the most severe restrictions. This is all the more puzzling since the rate of crime of those who lawfully own firearms is demonstrably lower than the general population.

Going by the data, you should focus not on laws to restrict firearm ownership, whether urban or rural, on a segment of the population that is statistically law-abiding and peaceful, but rather on policies to reduce the number of illegal guns on the street or deter and punish those who use weapon illegally. I would first suggest actually enforcing the already existing laws prohibiting straw purchases and increasing sentences for crimes committed with firearms.

Where I live, a person needs to attend a training class (8 hours, half of which is explaining the world of shit they will be in if they do ever draw their weapon), pass a test, and pass a background check in order to get a CCW permit. While I have not heard of a lot of problems with people carrying weapons in Vermont, Alaska, or Arizona, (no CCW permit required) I think the licensing process is the better way to allow people to publicly carry a firearm.

Having the license also allows you to conceal carry in other states that have a reciprocity agreement with AZ.

It replaces the telephone call.

16 hours of class + range time (which usually costs around $250,) a $150 (non-refundable) fee to the state to apply for the permit, and a $75 fee every 5 years for renewal (or to replace a lost card.)

After all of that, they still require the phone call and a waiting period.

Regarding Vermont, Alaska and Arizona; all sparsely populated states where gun carry is more about hunting and/or protection from bears, snakes and wild cats.
Here is an interesting link on Arizona, which is either 8th or 11th in gun deaths per capita
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2014/05/28/arizona-gallego-gun-violence/9679961/nationwide.

Phoenix's problem is spill over from Mexico's gang wars. The only people affected by laws are people who are not the problem. There are no old west duels, which only happened among overly romanticized criminal class if at all.
If people are deterred from carrying based on a law, then they are not going to commit crimes like robbery or murder. People who do murder and rob, are not going to obey a victim-less crime.

Firearms trainers opposed Arizona's change to permit-less carry because they feared a loss of business. Their business actually increased afterwards.

There is a lot of gun carry in metro Phoenix that has nothing to do with wild animals and is about protecting oneself from criminals.

The problem is not guns, it's the people who use them illegally.

here, the Mafia has no such control. Why is our murder problem concentrated in a few zip codes? Belize have stricter laws than Italy, and their national average murder rate is about like Detroit's.

Like his SAFE Act?