Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should Texas Pass an Open Carry Law for Firearms?
Yes 62 63.92%
No 35 36.08%
Voters: 97. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-03-2010, 08:44 PM
 
Location: New Braunfels, TX
7,105 posts, read 11,742,759 times
Reputation: 7988

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by orbius View Post
No and they should put in place stringent psychological and practical tests for people who want a concealed carry license. Instead of giving any bubba with a pulse and a few hundreds bucks a license to carry military weaponry and threaten my freedom to life. Stop whining about your freedoms its time you considered other peoples freedom.
Really? Then you wouldn't mind if we initiated IQ tests for folks prior to them exercising their right to free speech, would you? You forgot that the 2nd Amendment specifically gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. There was a reason for that - and IMO, it's time that we recall that lesson. Each of us is responsible for our own safety and well-being. As the Supreme Court has ruled, police officers have no specific responsibility for our individual safety - it's up to us to provide that for ourselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-03-2010, 11:45 PM
 
4,803 posts, read 10,132,477 times
Reputation: 2785
Quote:
Originally Posted by orbius View Post
No and they should put in place stringent psychological and practical tests for people who want a concealed carry license. Instead of giving any bubba with a pulse and a few hundreds bucks a license to carry military weaponry and threaten my freedom to life. Stop whining about your freedoms its time you considered other peoples freedom.

oh my goodness. I agree 10000000000 percent!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2010, 01:11 AM
 
Location: Metromess
11,798 posts, read 25,081,924 times
Reputation: 5219
I might trust the state gov't more if it trusted me more, as in enough to allow me to carry a gun openly as well as concealed. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2010, 12:00 PM
 
8,652 posts, read 17,182,476 times
Reputation: 4622
Quote:
Originally Posted by orbius View Post
No and they should put in place stringent psychological and practical tests for people who want a concealed carry license. Instead of giving any bubba with a pulse and a few hundreds bucks a license to carry military weaponry and threaten my freedom to life. Stop whining about your freedoms its time you considered other peoples freedom.
I don't need a license to carry military weaponry in the State of Texas.... Only for a concealed hand gun....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2010, 12:38 PM
 
224 posts, read 686,384 times
Reputation: 185
wouldn't that mean easier access to such firearms, meaning people will be more inclined to use them or threaten to use them...

most rules are made because there is always the one eejit who will break the rule...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2010, 06:42 PM
 
Location: Van Zandt Cnty, TX
2 posts, read 4,159 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
wouldn't that mean easier access to such firearms, meaning people will be more inclined to use them or threaten to use them...
If you mean that allowing open carry of handguns might make it easier to purchase one; no, it wouldn't.

Allowing open carry of handguns would only change how one could carry a handgun. It wouldn't change the laws reqarding the possesion and/or sale of firearms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2010, 06:50 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,509,977 times
Reputation: 5942
Quote:
Originally Posted by suemandy23 View Post
wouldn't that mean easier access to such firearms, meaning people will be more inclined to use them or threaten to use them...

most rules are made because there is always the one eejit who will break the rule...
True. And the ones who break the rules are invariably the criminals who don't obey rules concerning where guns can be carried or how they are used. I never once heard tell of a person who intends to rob a place being deterred by a "No Gun Allowed" sign on the door.

Oh my gosh...ain't THAT a deterrent!

Luby's Cafeteria. Killeen, Texas. What year was it? No guns allowed. Hell, at that time, concealed carry was illegal in Texas.

Somehow some psychopath figured the law against carrying a handgun did not apply to him, so he goes in and kills at least a dozen innocent people who, perhaps, had decided the state law against carrying DID apply to them. Thus, they were defenseless. Sitting ducks, literally. Or maybe hiding behind whatever cover they could find. Maybe they prayed...or in few heroic cases, charged the guy who had decided not to obey gun control laws and was having a good time killing people...and got shot down because they had obeyed gun control laws. Too bad the bad guy didn't play by those same rules.

Alternative Universe Scenario: Concealed/Open Carry is permitted for law abiding Texas citizens.

Nut comes into Luby's intent on killing people. Said screwball surveys room and sees dozens of people openly carrying. Decides, oh man, this ain't the place for me.

Or, pulls out gun and begins firing and gets his a$$ blown off before he gets off the third round.

Just saying....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2010, 07:09 PM
 
122 posts, read 309,057 times
Reputation: 81
Let's just all go back to the old west and have everyone carry a gun in a holster. This is sarcasm.
Just another way to have people talk about something that should never have been part of the constitution in the first place. Guns because they are part of the constitution are a right, and important, but not health care. Sigh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2010, 07:25 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
8,399 posts, read 22,884,541 times
Reputation: 4435
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleytexas View Post
Let's just all go back to the old west and have everyone carry a gun in a holster. This is sarcasm.
Just another way to have people talk about something that should never have been part of the constitution in the first place. Guns because they are part of the constitution are a right, and important, but not health care. Sigh.
Well, most responsible people have health care. They work and pay for it. It's those who spend their money on other things (and I'm not talking food, clothing or shelter; but more like fancy rims for their cars, tattoos and piercings; or even worse, having children they can't afford) rather than "waste" it on health insurance. Of course, when they do get sick or injured, they want the rest of us to pay for it!

And I am glad you think our forefathers were clueless as to what was important when writing the Bill of Rights. I guess you are lacking in your understanding of history, otherwise you would know the reasons why the Second Amendment was included. It followed only the freedom of speech in importance to them, and was a means to protect that right and every other the fledgling national believed so deeply in.

As for "going back to the old West, where everyone carried a gun in a holster," honestly I don't have a problem with that. As many have pointed out before, an armed society is a polite society; and one of the greatest benefits firearms have provided in our culture is that they have become an "equalizer" in terms of coercion. To explain, there are two ways to convince a person to do something they don't want to, physical threat or coercion. A 20-something criminal has a physical advantage over a 70-something-year-old person; but if that 70-something-year-old person is armed, the advantage is gone at which point the only compelling way to "force" someone to do something is through rhetoric.

And I would like to know why it is OK for people to carry weapons concealed but not openly? They are still armed, they still have guns at their disposal; the only difference is you don't know it. Does the scenario change that much if you were aware that they are armed? Unless they are threatening you, you shouldn't be influenced by it one iota; and if they are then they are committing a criminal act, and by that very definition it doesn't matter what the "law" is, this person has chosen to ignore it. Do you really think that criminals will obey some laws while breaking others?

The bottom line is that a law allowing open carry would only allow those who are law-abiding more options in which to carry their firearms. Criminals will continue to carry concealed, openly or however they want in violation of the law anyway. And some basic research would reveal that states that do allow open carry have not had any increase in the use of firearms because of that. This same hyperbole was used to install fear when Texas was considering allowing concealed carry, and the claims of an increase in violence never materialized. I challenge anyone to prove that allowing open carry would have a detrimental effect at all. The truth of the matter is, it won't...

Cheers! M2

Last edited by majormadmax; 12-05-2010 at 07:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2010, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Texas
1,374 posts, read 1,763,221 times
Reputation: 1987
And I would like to know why it is OK for people to carry weapons concealed but not openly? They are still armed, they still have guns at their disposal; the only difference is you don't know it. Does the scenario change that much if you were aware that they are armed? Unless they are threatening you, you shouldn't be influenced by it one iota; and if they are then they are committing a criminal act, and by that very definition it doesn't matter what the "law" is, this person has chosen to ignore it. Do you really think that criminals will obey some laws while breaking others?

The bottom line is that a law allowing open carry would only allow those who are law-abiding more options in which to carry their firearms. Criminals will continue to carry concealed, openly or however they want in violation of the law anyway. And some basic research would reveal that states that do allow open carry have not had any increase in the use of firearms because of that. This same hyperbole was used to install fear when Texas was considering allowing concealed carry, and the claims of an increase in violence never materialized. I challenge anyone to prove that allowing open carry would have a detrimental effect at all. The truth of the matter is, it won't...

Cheers! M2

Could not rep you 2ND time, spot on!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top