Texas set to allow unlicensed handgun carry despite outcry

[*michaelsean*]

(05-28-2021, 04:36 PM)Dill Wrote: I hear you, Mike. It can be a big turn off.
 

Some people carry it off better than others.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-28-2021, 04:52 PM)Dill Wrote: This reminds of Fred's hypothetical example on the "Teen girl killed in Columbus by police" thread: how would law officers sort out who's legal and who's not if they stop four guys open carrying--especially, in this case, if no "government permission slip" or background check has secured a paper trail.

If open carry is legal and you have no probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by anyone there is no cause to determine if anyone in this scenario is "legal". 

Quote:Second comment, if I remember correctly, many Western frontier towns forbid open carry. Somehow, they got the impression that even if it allowed gun toters to better defend themselves in public, that did not make the public safer. Can this be about more than safety, especially public safety? 

Many, if not all, Western frontier towns were also racially segregated by force.  Is that an endorsement of segregation and bigotry?

Quote:Finally, I'm wondering how the new law might affect future mass shootings. I can envision a worst-case scenario in which a mass shooter with a death wish walks into a tightly packed music or sports venue and opens fire. Then good-men-with-guns fire back. Can everyone tell who the original shooter was, e.g., those guys who just ran out of the restroom guns drawn AFTER hearing the initial shots? Is it certain that our pistol packers would not fire into bystanders, adding to the shooter's desired death toll? Then the cops arrive on scene too, ready to use deadly force cuz its their job to protect, and perhaps they have been taught not to take chances with their own safety.

Yes, that is indeed a "worse case scenario".  Could it not happen already, with Texas issuing CCW's in large numbers?  You think maybe when law enforcement shows up the "good-men-with-guns" (btw, it is horribly sexist of you to assume that no females in the crowd would be carrying and want to help stop the bad-guy-with-gun) will obey law enforcement commands and surrender?  Once everyone is in custody, sorting out who the actual mass shooter is would not be very difficult.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-28-2021, 04:36 PM)Dill Wrote: I hear you, Mike. It can be a big turn off.
 

If anyone cares, do not ever wear your concealed firearm like this, i.e. appendix carry.  In the case of a negligent discharge (yes, very, very unlikely if you are practice proper safety) you will likely hit your femoral artery and bleed out before help can arrive.

[Belsnickel]

(05-29-2021, 12:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If anyone cares, do not ever wear your concealed firearm like this, i.e. appendix carry.  In the case of a negligent discharge (yes, very, very unlikely if you are practice proper safety) you will likely hit your femoral artery and bleed out before help can arrive.

Yeah I definitely never do appendix carry. I like dominant side or, occasionally, small of back. None of this is because I'm too fat to comfortable appendix carry.

[Dill]

(05-29-2021, 12:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If open carry is legal and you have no probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by anyone there is no cause to determine if anyone in this scenario is "legal". 

I suppose in Fred's hypothetical case, he was referring to situations in which police would have a motive to "determine."  
Too bad he is no longer with us; his contributions to the thread would have enriched our discussion.

(05-29-2021, 12:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Many, if not all, Western frontier towns were also racially segregated by force.  Is that an endorsement of segregation and bigotry?

Well sure, frontier towns' racial segregation would have been an endorsement of bigotry. But while I get Mickeypoo's reference to inflated mask warnings in Texas, your allusion to segregation escapes me. 

My point wasn't that whatever frontier towns did was cool (which appears to be the point you refuted, slam dunk), but rather that their gun laws might have followed from extra gun play which went with open carry.  Ergo perhaps Texas is about to relearn that lesson, if there was such. We can't sort that out from Old West segregation issues?

(05-29-2021, 12:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, that is indeed a "worse case scenario".  Could it not happen already, with Texas issuing CCW's in large numbers?  You think maybe when law enforcement shows up the "good-men-with-guns" (btw, it is horribly sexist of you to assume that no females in the crowd would be carrying and want to help stop the bad-guy-with-gun) will obey law enforcement commands and surrender?  Once everyone is in custody, sorting out who the actual mass shooter is would not be very difficult.

LOL I'm not the guy who invented the "Good-man-with-a-gun" trope. I'm just the guy who referenced it. In any case, I posted a picture of a female carrying, so I know they do it. Just the wrong way, as you pointed out.

I'm wondering--if law enforcement shows up to see people shooting at each other in a crowd, will they really issue commands to surrender, or will some at least shoot to protect? We've all seen some videos in which time-to-comply is pretty short even when no one is shooting at anyone. And what will happen to the guy who doesn't hear or is desperately defending himself? 

E.G., suppose the original shooter keeps shooting at the good-men-with-guns--can they be counted on to lower their weapons on police command? You envision a much more orderly mass shooting than I do. Mine is less regulable by command. 

In any case, my example wasn't just about what happens when the police get there, but also about all the good guys who may be shooting before that. 

That "it could happen already" seems not a good defense of the new law--or maybe you agree people should not be encouraged to carry weapons while going about daily tasks that don't involve hunting or the shooting range. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-29-2021, 08:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah I definitely never do appendix carry. I like dominant side or, occasionally, small of back. None of this is because I'm too fat to comfortable appendix carry.

Haha, whatever the reason it's good that you don't.  I got heavy to the point that one day my belt buckle dug uncomfortably my gut.  That was a wake up day.

(05-29-2021, 08:46 AM)Dill Wrote: I suppose in Fred's hypothetical case, he was referring to situations in which police would have a motive to "determine."  
Too bad he is no longer with us; his contributions to the thread would have enriched our discussion.

Oh, Fred left?  Who will fill the daily quota of word twisting and prevaricating?  But seriously folks, if you have PC to investigate someone then their open carrying or not is irrelevant.  Unless the open carry is the reason for the PC, which it couldn't be if open carry is legal.

Quote:Well sure, frontier towns' racial segregation would have been an endorsement of bigotry. But while I get Mickeypoo's reference to inflated mask warnings in Texas, your allusion to segregation escapes me. 

I have a hard time believing that.  You used frontier towns as an example of gun control as a positive, I simply pointed out the flaws in your analogy.

Quote:My point wasn't that whatever frontier towns did was cool (which appears to be the point you refuted, slam dunk), but rather that their gun laws might have followed from extra gun play which went with open carry.  Ergo perhaps Texas is about to relearn that lesson, if there was such. We can't sort that out from Old West segregation issues?

Or, it might have been due to the general lawlessness of the frontier.  After all, how many train robberies a year do we get now versus then?  I'm willing to go out on a limb and say fewer.

Quote:LOL I'm not the guy who invented the "Good-man-with-a-gun" trope. I'm just the guy who referenced it. In any case, I posted a picture of a female carrying, so I know they do it. Just the wrong way, as you pointed out.

Who said you were?  I was pointing out that your example is indeed a "worst case scenario" and even so, how it could, and likely would, be resolved without the confusion you apparently feel is inevitable in such a scenario.

Quote:I'm wondering--if law enforcement shows up to see people shooting at each other in a crowd, will they really issue commands to surrender, or will some at least shoot to protect? We've all seen some videos in which time-to-comply is pretty short even when no one is shooting at anyone. And what will happen to the guy who doesn't hear or is desperately defending himself? 

So, you think that law enforcement will respond to an active shooter event, witness two parties exchanging gunfire and then just light absolutely everyone up without issuing any commends to cease, i.e. law down your weapons and get on the ground?

Quote:E.G., suppose the original shooter keeps shooting at the good-men-with-guns--can they be counted on to lower their weapons on police command? You envision a much more orderly mass shooting than I do. Mine is less regulable by command. 

Indeed, you imagine, as you said, a "worst case scenario".  Seeing as how open carry and shall issue concealed carry has existed for some time in many states maybe you can provide us with just one real life example that fits your doomsday scenario?

Quote:In any case, my example wasn't just about what happens when the police get there, but also about all the good guys who may be shooting before that. 

It happens more often than you probably realize.  An armed citizen stopping a criminal during the course of their crime is not exactly an unheard of event.

Quote:That "it could happen already" seems not a good defense of the new law--or maybe you agree people should not be encouraged to carry weapons while going about daily tasks that don't involve hunting or the shooting range. 

I've made my view on this eminently clear throughout the years.  

[Belsnickel]

(05-29-2021, 02:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Haha, whatever the reason it's good that you don't.  I got heavy to the point that one day my belt buckle dug uncomfortably my gut.  That was a wake up day.

Pfft, that's been my life since I was a teenager.

[Dill]

(05-29-2021, 02:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, Fred left?  Who will fill the daily quota of word twisting and prevaricating?  But seriously folks, if you have PC to investigate someone then their open carrying or not is irrelevant.  Unless the open carry is the reason for the PC, which it couldn't be if open carry is legal.

I predict that even with Fred gone, accusations of 'word twisting and prevarication' will continue at their former level.

In Fred's hypothetical case, the question was whether documentation and paper trails assisted law enforcement in determining whom weapons belonged to and whether they were lawfully owned. If one requires no documentation for open carry, then that is less documentation--in this case in a state with no gun registry.  Is it possible that law enforcement could stop a group of armed men for a reason not pertaining to OC, but then ask them about their weapons?

(05-29-2021, 02:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have a hard time believing that.  You used frontier towns as an example of gun control as a positive, I simply pointed out the flaws in your analogy.
Or, it might have been due to the general lawlessness of the frontier.  After all, how many train robberies a year do we get now versus then?  I'm willing to go out on a limb and say fewer.

I see how laws against OC might reduce gunfights in towns, but I don't see how they would reduce "lawlessness" outside towns, like train robberies (which we might see less of today because people don't ship payrolls on trains).  Just as I don't see a connection between segregation and laws forbidding open carry, other than that they might have occurred in the same towns.  

So if Frontier towns forbade open carry because they believed (based on their experience) that it increased danger to the public, and we might consider whether the same problem arises today if we pass open carry laws, you still maintain that analogy of past to present is flawed if some towns were segregated too? But you just say this is so without explaining.  Is there an implicit civil rights comparison here or something? Can anyone else explain if SSF cannot? 

Seems quite possible our ancestors could have been right about the danger to the public and wrong about segregation, given that the basis of law controlling each is very different. If you are right, then what laws deemed sensible today would not be "flawed" if they co-existed with segregation?

(05-29-2021, 02:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who said you were?  I was pointing out that your example is indeed a "worst case scenario" and even so, how it could, and likely would, be resolved without the confusion you apparently feel is inevitable in such a scenario.
So, you think that law enforcement will respond to an active shooter event, witness two parties exchanging gunfire and then just light absolutely everyone up without issuing any commends to cease, i.e. law down your weapons and get on the ground?

I don't know if they would light up "everyone." That wasn't my premise.  Nor was it that there would only be "two parties exchanging gunfire." To tell the truth, its not easy to predict what law enforcement will do these days. Was this "good guy" told to lay down his weapon before being shot dead?  https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/black-man-killed-alabama-mall-shooting.html

(05-29-2021, 02:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed, you imagine, as you said, a "worst case scenario".  Seeing as how open carry and shall issue concealed carry has existed for some time in many states maybe you can provide us with just one real life example that fits your doomsday scenario?

If I had "one real life example" that fit my "doomsday scenario" I'd probably have referenced that. The goal here is to prevent such.
Will massively increasing the number of people open carrying do that?

(05-29-2021, 02:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It happens more often than you probably realize.  An armed citizen stopping a criminal during the course of their crime is not exactly an unheard of event.

Oh I know. This Good-guy-with-a-gun very likely saved lives before the police arrived and shot him dead on the spot. 

‘Good guy with a gun’ comes to rescue; police kill him'
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/12/good-guy-with-a-gun-comes-to-rescue-police-kill-him/

The incident began with a confrontation involving several men, and a man left to retrieve a gun. He returned to the bar and opened fire, striking several people, the Chicago Tribune reported, citing remarks from Robbins Police Chief Roy Wells.

Roberson returned fire and apprehended one suspect... as officers from suburban police departments responded.

It is unclear how the killing unfolded from there — how and whether officers identified themselves, whether Roberson was holding a gun, or how much time passed before the officer fired at Roberson, who was pronounced dead at a hospital.

[Wes Mantooth]

(05-29-2021, 05:45 PM)Dill Wrote: I predict that even with Fred gone, accusations of 'word twisting and prevarication' will continue at their former level.

I don't think he's gone unless they somehow banned him from just this forum.  I saw him post yesterday in Jungle Noise.

[Dill]

(05-29-2021, 05:51 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I don't think he's gone unless they somehow banned him from just this forum.  I saw him post yesterday in Jungle Noise.

Gone from P & R, not Jungle Noise.

[Wes Mantooth]

(05-29-2021, 05:55 PM)Dill Wrote: Gone from P & R

[Dill]

(05-29-2021, 06:14 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote:

Agreed. Dino's gone too. And I haven't seem Hollo for almost two weeks. Hopefully he is just on his annual month-long vacation.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(05-29-2021, 06:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Agreed. Dino's gone too. And I haven't seem Hollo for almost two weeks. Hopefully he is just on his annual month-long vacation.

Now we just need to get rid of Dill and that Baltimore guy.

[Belsnickel]

(05-29-2021, 06:48 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Now we just need to get rid of Dill and that Baltimore guy.

So, you just want to turn it into an echo chamber for your point of view? Any time there is a circle-jerk like that is bad. A diversity of opinions is always necessary.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(05-29-2021, 06:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, you just want to turn it into an echo chamber for your point of view? Any time there is a circle-jerk like that is bad. A diversity of opinions is always necessary.

There’s like 4 people in here. 1 banned, I rarely post, another is way too far right and embarrasses himself often, and the other is a Steeler fan

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-29-2021, 06:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, you just want to turn it into an echo chamber for your point of view? Any time there is a circle-jerk like that is bad. A diversity of opinions is always necessary.

I certainly don't want that, but let's not pretend that wasn't what it was before GM and Fred took their ball and went home.  I'm huge on hearing divergent opinions grounded in fact and common sense.  We got neither from Fred or GM.  Now Bmore, he's completely different.  I always like hearing his take, even when it completely differs from mine.  

[TheUberHuber]

(05-30-2021, 01:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I certainly don't want that, but let's not pretend that wasn't what it was before GM and Fred took their ball and went home.  I'm huge on hearing divergent opinions grounded in fact and common sense.  We got neither from Fred or GM.  Now Bmore, he's completely different.  I always like hearing his take, even when it completely differs from mine.  

 I find it rich that you are perfectly fine being an ass to people so they leave and then talk a bunch of shit afterwards. Pretty sleazy tbh. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-30-2021, 10:10 AM)TheUberHuber Wrote:  I find it rich that you are perfectly fine being an ass to people so they leave and then talk a bunch of shit afterwards. Pretty sleazy tbh. 

You have zero clue of what actually happened or the history there.  So you'll kindly forgive me if I give your opinion the zero consideration it deserves.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(05-30-2021, 12:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You have zero clue of what actually happened or the history there.  So you'll kindly forgive me if I give your opinion the zero consideration it deserves.

At least there’s not 50 new threads everyday shitting on anything and everything I believe in. I’m surprised I didn’t notice anything.

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2021, 01:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I certainly don't want that, but let's not pretend that wasn't what it was before GM and Fred took their ball and went home.  I'm huge on hearing divergent opinions grounded in fact and common sense.  We got neither from Fred or GM.  Now Bmore, he's completely different.  I always like hearing his take, even when it completely differs from mine.  

I just wish we could get some more active posters, in here. It gets a bit boring when the majority of what we have been seeing was stuff from them or the idiocy of someone else. When we try to get a thread going about something more grounded it just doesn't get the attention.