You can never be too careful! Open drinks carry in TX is a real threat Fortunately I'm allowed to flaunt a gun to keep safe.
My problem with this issue in a nutshell: 1) There is a federal ban on researching gun related harm incidents, thus preventing analysis of the numbers 2) Without the numbers, there is nothing to prove anything regarding the presence or absence of guns 3) Without proof, the pro-gun group will automatically win arguments by citing freedom 4) Numbers could mean increased or decreased deaths. If it increases, then deaths have been caused pretty much by this decision. If it decreases, then people are safer and a good thing has happened. Personally, it seems counter-intuitive that increasing guns will decrease gun-related harm but no-one can prove one way or the other. Catch-22 that is favoring gun-freedom in my opinion. Edit: The un-biased move here would be to lift the ban and actually research the issue. At least some useful information can come out of it, even if it doesn't lay the issue to rest.
Which do people fear more concealed carry or open carry personally I think concealed carry is scarier because I won't sense any danger but if I see a sketchy guy carrying a gun I would just avoid him on the street
Technically I'm wrong that the ban still exists, but realistically, the ban still exists: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/ [rquoter]The CDC had not touched firearm research since 1996 — when the NRA accused the agency of promoting gun control and Congress threatened to strip the agency’s funding. The CDC’s self-imposed ban dried up a powerful funding source and had a chilling effect felt far beyond the agency: Almost no one wanted to pay for gun violence studies, researchers say. Young academics were warned that joining the field was a good way to kill their careers. And the odd gun study that got published went through linguistic gymnastics to hide any connection to firearms.[/rquoter] ... [rquoter]The roots of the research ban go back to 1996, when the NRA accused the public health agency of lobbying for gun control. That year, a Republican congressman stripped $2.6 million from the CDC budget, the exact amount spent on gun research the previous year. Soon the funding was restored, but designated elsewhere, and wording was inserted into the CDC’s appropriations bill that, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” The CDC interpreted this to mean it should avoid studying guns in any fashion. “It basically was a shot across the bow by Congress on the part of the NRA,” said Mark Rosenberg, who was director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention when the ban went into effect. “All federally funded research was shut down.” CDC funding for firearm injury prevention fell 96 percent, down to $100,000, from 1996 to 2013, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the advocacy group founded by Michael Bloomberg.[/rquoter]
I totally agree. Now I don't have to talk to people to figure out that they are paranoid or have a small penis.
What does small penis have to do with open carry? One would open carry to compensate for one's small penis? I don't know how a typical person can be more scared of concealed when they can't know about it since it's concealed. But I would agree and imagine criminals would prefer all concealed carry to change to open carry. That way, they can either target the open carrier first or avoid them all together.
That's the way carrying a gun makes/would make you act? Yikes. For me, and everyone I know who carries, it actually has the opposite effect. Letting stuff slide like what you describe above, and taking extreme measures to avoid conflict where I otherwise definitely would not. I'm not even a fan of this law myself, but man how some of the most vocal opponents of it here post, all the super emotional stuff, I'm kind of glad you guys aren't into guns.
I fee bad for law enforcement. If I'm a cop and I'm looking for a criminal with a gun, then pretty much anyone you saw with a gun, was likely to be that criminal before this law as passed. Their job just got a lot harder. Also if I'm somewhere where there is a shooting and the cops are looking for criminals with guns, the last thing I want to do is to be running around with a gun. Best of luck to my friends in law enforcement in Texas.
By now half the state is already murdered and the other half is firing their guns in the air yelling "yeehaw" now that Texas is the 45th state with open carry.
I don't really care for guns and think the paranoia is unhealthy in this country, however, if the other 40 plus states haven't had any issues with open carry, then what's the big deal? Serious question.
This is part of the problem when people talk about we should enforce the laws on the books is that Congress has hampered the ability to enforce the laws on the books.
This is a good point. I'm not very troubled by an open carry law, I'm much more troubled about that people with mental illnesses and a history of violence can still legally get hold of firearms. With a situations like the Tamir Rice shooting and the shooting of a man in Walmart carrying a pellet gun now actually having people actually openly carrying real firearms will make it more difficult for LE to determine actual threats.
I'd like to see statistics on how gun violence has changed in those previous 45 states after they legalized open carry.
I really didn't want to get drawn into this discussion, but I felt the need to respond to this. When I took my CHL class, the instructor(former police chief) made it a point to state the responsibility in carrying a deadly weapon is now higher, and told us to avoid situations that could escalate...road rage, a slight, a brush, an inconvenience...he further went on to explain that shootings will be investigated, will be very expensive, and even if cleared, the shooter is still liable to be taken to civil court. He emphasized that that carrying a weapon does not empower, but burdens the chl holder with additional responsibilities that non chl holders will not have to worry about. I, personally, took that to heart. although I can't speak for other chl holders. I have avoided many confrontations because I was carrying.
