Texas Leads The Way

[Big Guy]

Texas is so gun-friendly that it is easier to get into the Capitol in Austin with a firearm than without one — licensed, gun-carrying lawmakers and members of the public have their own no-wait security lane, and the unarmed masses have to stand in line and slog through the metal detectors.

And now, starting in the new year, Texans will be able to wear their handguns in holsters on their hips — or in shoulder holsters, Dirty Harry-style — openly displaying the fact that they are armed as they work, shop, dine and go about their day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/01/us/-2016-01-01-texas-open-carry-gun-law.html?_r=0

It will be interesting to know how many 13 year old girls found a pink handled .45 under the tree from Santa. Those "show and tell" post Christmas classes should be really entertaining this year.

I wonder how many of these cowboys will end up being killed by their own guns?

Go ahead, Make my day!!!

Edited January 1, 2016 by Big Guy

[eyeball]

I saw a story on the news about various stores displaying no guns allowed.

[bush_cheney2004]

Many states have laws permitting guns to be "banned on the premises" of private property, schools, etc. The signs in Texas may be outdated for lawful concealed and open carry for public places and government property. Gun owners cannot be deprived of their rights by fraudulent signage.

Canadian snowbirds will still flock to Texas...guns or no guns.

[Big Guy]

I can see the picture now: In a bank in Texas, there are long lineups at the 4 tellers cages with impatient customers waiting with their guns on their hips and in their shoulder holsters. A mischievous teenager, opens the door, throws in some lit firecrackers and disappears. The next thing that happens is .....

It would be times like that which create You-Tube videos which go viral!

[Shady]

Texas is so gun-friendly that it is easier to get into the Capitol in Austin with a firearm than without one — licensed, gun-carrying lawmakers and members of the public have their own no-wait security lane, and the unarmed masses have to stand in line and slog through the metal detectors.

And now, starting in the new year, Texans will be able to wear their handguns in holsters on their hips — or in shoulder holsters, Dirty Harry-style — openly displaying the fact that they are armed as they work, shop, dine and go about their day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/01/us/-2016-01-01-texas-open-carry-gun-law.html?_r=0

It will be interesting to know how many 13 year old girls found a pink handled .45 under the tree from Santa. Those "show and tell" post Christmas classes should be really entertaining this year.

I wonder how many of these cowboys will end up being killed by their own guns?

Go ahead, Make my day!!!

Maybe you didn't have time to read the whole story, but 13 year olds don't qualify for open gun permits.

[TimG]

I wonder how many of these cowboys will end up being killed by their own guns?

I wonder how many motorcycle drivers are killed by their ride? I wonder how many skiers die because they were allowed to slide down a mountain? Freedom means the freedom to do things that come with risks because you want to. Different cultures will draw the line at certain activities but no amount of lecturing and figure pointing is going to convince Americans, as a whole, that the risks that come with gun ownership are bad enough to justify restricting them.

Your reaction is not unlike a Chinese person pointing at the drivel that is published under the banner of free speech and trying to lecture Canadians about how much social harm is caused by allowing people to speak freely.

[Big Guy]

...

Your reaction is not unlike a Chinese person pointing at the drivel that is published under the banner of free speech and trying to lecture Canadians about how much social harm is caused by allowing people to speak freely.

You misread my reaction. I have spent some time in Texas. I have no doubt that the average Texan wants this law and they deserve it. I think it is an example of one of the dumbest and regressive legislation in developed countries. But that is why I am here and they are there. Thank goodness it would never be considered seriously in Canada.

It is their State, their rights and they will suffer their own consequences. I guarantee that we will soon hear about needless deaths due to this legislation and in their minds public safety is to be superseded by their perception of personal rights.

Good for them!

God Bless America and the Lone Star State!!

Makes me proud to be Canadian.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Big Guy

[TimG]

I think it is an example of one of the dumbest and regressive legislation in developed countries.

I am sure some Chinese government officials feel the same about our free speech laws. Laws which increase personal freedoms are never 'regressive'. They may have negative consequences but that does not make them wrong or dumb. The only thing this law does is offend you personally since you do not share a belief that the freedom to carry a gun is a freedom worth having and can't understand why someone would choose to live with the consequences. Edited January 2, 2016 by TimG

[Derek 2.0]

Texas is so gun-friendly that it is easier to get into the Capitol in Austin with a firearm than without one — licensed, gun-carrying lawmakers and members of the public have their own no-wait security lane, and the unarmed masses have to stand in line and slog through the metal detectors.

Why wouldn't they? CHL permit holders in Texas are far less likely to be convicted, of any crime, than the "general public".

I wonder how many of these cowboys will end up being killed by their own guns?

Why do you expect gun deaths rates to be altered by handgun open carry? Before the legal change, Texas was one of the few States/Districts that banned open carry of handguns (California, New York, DC and Illinois are only remaining IIRC ones).

And of course, the only reason Texas ever had such a law, post Reconstruction, was to curtail the ownership of firearms (and large knives) by minorities. (see former slaves and Mexicans).

Texas States laws are now aligned with those of Washington State, Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine and Oregon etc....

[Derek 2.0]

It is their State, their rights and they will suffer their own consequences. I guarantee that we will soon hear about needless deaths due to this legislation and in their minds public safety is to be superseded by their perception of personal rights.

Do you have any data to support that opinion? ~44 of 50 States already have open carry of handguns, I stand to be corrected, but I highly doubt rates of gun violence in Texas will be altered one iota by open carry of handguns.

[Derek 2.0]

Many states have laws permitting guns to be "banned on the premises" of private property, schools, etc.

Sure, and since its private property, its no different then a person uncomfortable with firearms "banning" guns in his or hers home.......ain't personal Freedom grande?

Edited January 2, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[Smoke]

Sounds like a bunch of Americanophobia to me.

[Big Guy]

Sure, and since its private property, its no different then a person uncomfortable with firearms "banning" guns in his or hers home.......ain't personal Freedom grande?

Do you then recommend that Canada also adopt such a law and "freedom"?

I agree with Johnny Cash:

"Don't take your guns to town son

Leave your guns at home Bill

Don't take your guns to town"

Boom, badda boom, badda boom, badda boom ...

[Derek 2.0]

Do you then recommend that Canada also adopt such a law and "freedom"?

Canada already has the legal framework per the Canadian Firearms Act.....the stark contrast is the rate of issuance of course.

[Argus]

Do you have any data to support that opinion? ~44 of 50 States already have open carry of handguns, I stand to be corrected, but I highly doubt rates of gun violence in Texas will be altered one iota by open carry of handguns.

How many Americans save themselves from violence or death each year with a gun as opposed to those who accidentally shoot themselves or someone else?

[Derek 2.0]

How many Americans save themselves from violence or death each year with a gun as opposed to those who accidentally shoot themselves or someone else?

Per this source, that provides the sources for their data:

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

Furthermore:

Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

And one more point worth noting, based on the recent conversations here over police shootings:

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high.

Take that as you will, but if somebody skeptical even cut the suggested data by 2/3rds, that would still land in the favor of legal protection with a firearm versus criminal firearm violence in the United States.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sounds like a bunch of Americanophobia to me.

Yes...we get these kind of American Wild West gun topics every year. For some reason, certain folks who don't even live in Texas or the USA worry a lot about American constitutional gun rights. The Canadian Snowbird Association has not changed its recommendations for Texas.

[Big Guy]

Personally, I understand that everyone has the right to their opinion. I also have no intention of trying to convince gun advocates of anything as long as they follow our laws. I just wish that those who break those laws and end up hurting others would be punished to a far greater degree - but that is just my views.

I somewhat understand gun lovers. As a child I enjoyed playing cowboys and Indians ( and the odd General Patton) but then I grew up. I no longer played with toys and guns to me were toys. I still believe that they are toys for those adults who miss their childhood and want to recapture that feeling of strength, power and the ability to destroy at will. I have no problem with them taking each other out either by accident or on purpose - but it bothers me that they also take out those who have no use for these toys.

But we live in a free society where we have enough to satisfy all of our needs and still plenty left over to satisfy our wants. If it is a lethal pop gun that is your want, then go for it. Just do not point it in my direction.

[bush_cheney2004]

Personally, I understand that everyone has the right to their opinion. I also have no intention of trying to convince gun advocates of anything as long as they follow our laws.

Sorry, but "our laws" do not apply in the United States...it is a foreign country (in many ways). Texas does not force any Canadians to travel there, but thousands do each year....all on there own. Funny that....

[Derek 2.0]

Personally, I understand that everyone has the right to their opinion. I also have no intention of trying to convince gun advocates of anything as long as they follow our laws. I just wish that those who break those laws and end up hurting others would be punished to a far greater degree - but that is just my views.

It's a good thing than that Texan CHL holders are less likely to be convicted of a crime when contrasted with the general public writ large.

But I agree, those guilty of gun violence should have the book thrown at them. One interesting point, within the current US legal framework, is the FBI's NICS program. What would be interesting, and perhaps an angle that should further be enforced, is those that apply for a background check and are rejected due to a felony record. If near ~60% of those near 1 million people rejected are due to a criminal record and conditions placed upon them on their release, and they (should) know this, how many instances does the FBI or law enforcement follow up with these people and lay charges?

Edited January 2, 2016 by Derek 2.0

[jacee]

Take that as you will, but if somebody skeptical even cut the suggested data by 2/3rds, that would still land in the favor of legal protection with a firearm versus criminal firearm violence in the United States.

Saves money on courts and jails, I guess. It's a tacit acceptance of a death penalty for minor crimes:

Somebody's going to steal your wallet with $50 in it? Shoot him. No questions asked. :/

A big black kid with a toy gun?

Shoot him.

Ya ... due process is too expensive.

Just shoot them!

.

[Wilber]

Some nut case or terrorist is bent on killing a bunch of people and within that group he sees one person carrying a gun, who's he going to shoot first? He has the element of surprise, a plan and a gun. All the other guy has is a gun and likely a smaller gun. The cops arrive and they see two people with guns, who are they going to shoot? Seems to me that if people are worried about terrorists and mass murderers, wearing a visible firearm just makes them a primary target.

[Derek 2.0]

Some nut case or terrorist is bent on killing a bunch of people and within that group he sees one person carrying a gun, who's he going to shoot first? He has the element of surprise, a plan and a gun.

By that logic, all police should wear plain clothes and carry concealed..........what, after all, is the benefit of them not?

All the other guy has is a gun and likely a smaller gun.

Huh?

The cops arrive and they see two people with guns, who are they going to shoot?

Strike the idea of plain clothes officers, it would never work.

Seems to me that if people are worried about terrorists and mass murderers, wearing a visible firearm just makes them a primary target.

Maybe, but again, by that logic, all police should wear plain clothes/open carry well on duty to prevent them from becoming a primary target?

Really simple question......if you were fixing to rob a corner store somewhere in Wichita Falls (The Surrey of Dallas), would you target the store where you know the clerk is armed, made evident by the Big Iron on his hip, or the store where you think the clerk in unarmed (Still playing roulette in a State that embraces concealed carry)?

[Guest]

Saves money on courts and jails, I guess. It's a tacit acceptance of a death penalty for minor crimes:

Somebody's going to steal your wallet with $50 in it? Shoot him. No questions asked. :/

A big black kid with a toy gun?

Shoot him.

Ya ... due process is too expensive.

Just shoot them!

.

If somebody gets shot stealing someone else's wallet it's their fault. 100% Don't steal it, don't get shot.

[Argus]

Per this source, that provides the sources for their data:

Those numbers are nonsensical. Surely you can fairly easily recognize that.