Open Handgun Carry in Texas? If not, WHY not?

[TheDan]

If anything, Texas was one of the first to start regulating it because of reconstruction era induced racism

fixed it for you

 

[Whistler]

Whistler I'm not big on regulation. I just don't think the gov is gonna go from the current system to no system or at least without a step in between.

I begrudgingly agree change is hard and incremental-ism works, it got us here.

I support the notion of a class that comprehensively communicates the laws related to carry and the four rules as a prudent investment even possibly as a public service. Not sure I support the legal mandate considering it can be changed to possibly become a barrier as in some states. It's not burdensome but it's established and it could be, minor nit-pick to be sure.

 

[Mreed911]

fixed it for you

What's the history to support that assertion? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying tell me more about your POV.

 

[TheDan]

matefrio touched on it earlier... Pretty much all weapon prohibitions have their root in racism or some other cultural bigotry. Another example of that is federal switchblade laws. We can't let those dirty WOPs keep carrying their stilettos.

 

[Tony2]

Never heard the racism reasoning. There was a lot more going on at the end of the civil war like soldiers returning home without work destroyed homes and families.

 

[matefrio]

"The Racist Roots of Gun Control" by Clayton E. Cramer is a good start.

 

[Tony2]

I will check it out.

 

[HtownMiner]

The reason why is because it scares people.

 

[Younggun]

People are scared of CC, AR15s and AKs. Should those be illegal?

 

[franzas]

People are scared of CC, AR15s and AKs. Should those be illegal?

get rid of those scary black Glocks too

 

[mitchntx]

I fully understand the reasoning behind eliminating the laws prohibiting OC of firearms.
What I fail to understand is the burning desire to do so.

If I am walking to my car in a parking lot, I think I have lost much of my tactical advantage if the bad guy sees I'm wearing a side arm.
The advantage goes to the bad guy, he can alter HIS tactics of attack. Complete control of my weapon is MY responsibility.
If my weapon is concealed, I now have the upper hand, in complete control and have the element of surprise.

The justification that the bad will move on to someone else isn't a valid one for a couple reason as I see it.
How can NOT being attacked data be validated? One can't know ... its just supposition.

And by shifting focus of an attack on someone really doesn't align with the securing an active shooter justification either.

Given either option, I would still chose to conceal carry in public.

 

[Younggun]

There really isn't much data to support that OC poses a greater risk either.

Again, with the number of states allowing it I have yet to see any data linking OC to a higher likelihood of danger.


To each his own, there are times OC would be much more convenient and I see the increased risk as negligible, if any exists. No more than choosing a smaller gun based on convenience or the risk of snagging clothing while trying to draw from concealment.

 

[mitchntx]

There really isn't much data to support that OC poses a greater risk either.

Again, with the number of states allowing it I have yet to see any data linking OC to a higher likelihood of danger.

I doubt it does and hope I didn't leave that impression.

In a life-threatening situation, I want every advantage in my court.
From my seat, OC reduces that advantage by eliminating the element of surprise and the bad guy planning his attack accordingly.

 

[Younggun]

10/4

I agree that CC has certain advantages, I also see ways that OC could be advantageous. The whole idea of carrying a handgun involves sacrificing in certain areas to reach an individual comfort level.

I don't the everyone should OC, but I don't thing they shouldn't either.

 

[mitchntx]

Yup

 

[Mreed911]

I doubt it does and hope I didn't leave that impression.

In a life-threatening situation, I want every advantage in my court.
From my seat, OC reduces that advantage by eliminating the element of surprise and the bad guy planning his attack accordingly.

Unless, of course, the bad guy sees the gun and chooses not to engage. Then you've won.

 

[mitchntx]

Unless, of course, the bad guy sees the gun and chooses not to engage. Then you've won.

At what expense?

The justification that the bad will move on to someone else isn't a valid one for a couple reason as I see it.
How can NOT being attacked data be validated? One can't know ... its just supposition.

And by shifting focus of an attack on someone really doesn't align with the securing an active shooter justification either.

Given either option, I would still chose to conceal carry in public.

A bad guy is out to do bad things.
If OC makes him move to someone else, that's not really solving anything, just making some one else's day a bad one.

If the weapon is concealed and I can neutralize because of a tactical advantage, We've all won.

 

[matefrio]

If the weapon is concealed and I can neutralize because of a tactical advantage, We've all won.

I'm not sworn to serve and protect so I'm selfish in this. I'm not looking put myself at risk or to be judge and jury "neutralizing" bad guys. If a bad guy sees me as too much of a threat to handle and moves on it's a great day in my life.

 

[mitchntx]

I'm not sworn to serve and protect so I'm selfish in this. I'm not looking put myself at risk or to be judge and jury "neutralizing" bad guys. If a bad guy sees me as too much of a threat to handle and moves on it's a great day in my life.

Good point, although I don't think LEOs are sworn to serve and protect rather administer and uphold.

Isn't one of the arguments used by pro-OC is that of deterrent and protection him, his and others?

I appreciate the open dialogue about a very emotional and sensitive subject.

 

[matefrio]

Isn't one of the arguments used by pro-OC is that of deterrent and protection him, his and others?.

It's not the best argument. I'd say it ranks up there with it's more comfortable to carry OC for some people than CC.

The root of the argument should be made on the rights that need to be regained and protected by practice of those rights.

All other benefits of OC are derived from the right to carry as we choose.