Texas set to allow unlicensed handgun carry despite outcry

[Dill]

(05-31-2021, 01:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is that about all you can do?  Allow me to clarify, I'm not going to debate a topic about the terrorists with someone who supports the terrorists.  But at least you're now acknowledging your support for known terrorist organizations.

?? I just referred you to my post about public safety, good-guys-with-guns and Texas' new open carry law. 

It takes a deal of "word twisting and prevarication" to get from there to my "acknowledging . . . support for known terrorist organizations." 

And the very moment I included links to good-guys-with-guns shot by cops.  

Looks like you are not going to debate whether open carry might create a greater risk for the Texas public when a shooter appears in a crowded public venue--because "terrorism." 

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

I thought everyone agree the unlicensed handgun stuff was a little too much? Or are we discussing licensed open carry?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2021, 11:55 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? I just referred you to my post about public safety, good-guys-with-guns and Texas' new open carry law. 

It takes a deal of "word twisting and prevarication" to get from there to my "acknowledging . . . support for known terrorist organizations." 

And the very moment I included links to good-guys-with-guns shot by cops.  

Looks like you are not going to debate whether open carry might create a greater risk for the Texas public when a shooter appears in a crowded public venue--because "terrorism." 

I've addressed your "worst case scenarios".  If you have nothing more to offer then we are, indeed, done.  

[Dill]

(05-31-2021, 03:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You said that undocumented immigrants aren't more violent than anyone else, but, as statistics show, the most illegal drugs from Mexico come through Texas, so you're saying that illegal immigrants entering through Texas and bringing drugs aren't more violent than anyone else.

I didn't ignore your point about Texas gun laws.  Ok, they have loose laws, so what's wrong with loosening them even more so that citizens can protect themselves?

Er, BFritz, I don't see where Bels said "illegal immigrants . . . bringing drugs aren't more violent than anyone else." Or that anyone bringing drugs isn't "more violent."

If I've read him correctly, he's saying the mass of immigrants AREN'T bringing drugs and aren't armed, and so aren't dangerous.

Is it possible that you've projected the drug running of a few onto ALL the immigrants who hit the Texas border? As if if thousands of immigrant families carrying drugs and guns are swarming the border? 

If so then it might be you've exaggerated the threat.  

Loosening laws which may protect the public from elevated gun violence to "protect themselves" against an exaggerated or non-existent threat might result in less protection, mightn't it? 

[Dill]

(06-01-2021, 12:05 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've addressed your "worst case scenarios".  If you have nothing more to offer then we are, indeed, done.  

Actually, post #28 had plenty "more to offer" which you did not address, or at least not effectively. 

In the post previous to it, you mis-constructed my "worst case scenarios"--e.g., reducing multiple shooters to two. I corrected that.

And you presented an ideal "counter-scenario" in which police could be counted on to quickly sort out cooperative good-guy shooters.

But I provided two links to cases in which good-guys-with-guns were shot on the spot by police who couldn't sort it out

--and those were in much simpler, less populated sites, not packed sports or music venues with multiple good guys shooting.

If we are, indeed, done, that just means you aren't going to address my worst case scenarios as worst case scenarios.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-01-2021, 12:38 AM)Dill Wrote: Actually, post #28 had plenty "more to offer" which you did not address, or at least not effectively.

According to you, which we have determined to be not an effective standard. 

Quote:In the post previous to it, you mis-constructed my "worst case scenarios"--e.g., reducing multiple shooters to two. I corrected that.

No, I absolutely did not.

Quote:And you presented an ideal "counter-scenario" in which police could be counted on to quickly sort out cooperative good-guy shooters.

Why not? You presented a "worst case scenario", why begrudge me a "best case scenario" response?

Quote:But I provided two links to cases in which good-guys-with-guns were shot on the spot by police who couldn't sort it out

Indeed.  Are you asserting that these are the only two such scenarios that have ever occurred?  

Quote:--and those were in much simpler, less populated sites, not packed sports or music venues with multiple good guys shooting.

Were they?  That seems rather subjective on your part.  What exact criteria did you use to determine this?

Quote:If we are, indeed, done, that just means you aren't going to address my worst case scenarios as worst case scenarios.

You're not defending Hamas and Hezbollah in this thread, unlike others, so we can continue. 

[Mickeypoo]

(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.


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?


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. 

What happened to Fred?  And I have not seen GM either.  Where did they go?

[BmorePat87]

don't mess with Texas has a whole new meaning. Let them cowboys be cowboys, just keep it in Texas.

[Dill]

(06-01-2021, 01:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: According to you, which we have determined to be not an effective standard. 

LOL when did "we" do that? Not on this thread, for sure.

(06-01-2021, 01:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:In the post previous to it, you mis-constructed my "worst case scenarios"--e.g., reducing multiple shooters to two. I corrected that.

No, I absolutely did not.

?? From your post #26

(05-29-2021, 02:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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? 

There it is in bolded: Multiple good guys reduced to one "exchanging gunfire" with a bad guy. Also, I didn't posit police "light[ing] absolutely everyone up." So yes, mis-construction.

And you still haven't explained why your segregation analogy invalidates my analogy to laws against open carry on the frontier.

(06-01-2021, 01:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why not? You presented a "worst case scenario", why begrudge me a "best case scenario" response?

Jeezus, thought we were assessing policy and law.  

Imagine police trained only for the "best case scenario." Or lawmakers who ignore the worst case. 

(06-01-2021, 01:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Indeed.  Are you asserting that these are the only two such scenarios that have ever occurred?  

Were they?  That seems rather subjective on your part.  What exact criteria did you use to determine this?

That two such "scenarios" occurred at all with single good-guy shootersl makes my point about the difficulty police might have in sorting multiple good-guy shooters from bad.

Why on earth would I assert "that these are the only two such" when my point is there is great risk that more could occur? 

The guy who wants me to "begrudge" him his fuzzy best case scenario now wants "exact criteria."  

My "exact criteria" of multiple good-guy shooters at a "tightly packed sports or music venue" were stated in post #20; and based on the information provided by the articles, I could tell that the outside of a mall and inside of a bar were not tightly packed sports or music venues.  And using a process of mathematical deduction, I determined that one good-guy shooter was not multiple good-guy shooters.  

Hence the two scenarios were judged "simpler" and "less populated." But whether they are or not helps you not at all. 

(06-01-2021, 01:26 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're not defending Hamas and Hezbollah in this thread, unlike others, so we can continue. 

Then why bring up my "acknowledged support for terrorism" at all?

[Dill]

(06-01-2021, 09:37 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: What happened to Fred?  And I have not seen GM either.  Where did they go?

Not sure what happened to Fred. He said he was out of P & R but didn't respond to my PM when I asked why.  Might not be his choice. 

Dino checked out on the "Lawsuit: Virginia police officers threatened man during stop" thread, post #5.

I sent him an email, but haven't seen or heard from him since. 

[Mickeypoo]

(06-01-2021, 04:46 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure what happened to Fred. He said he was out of P & R but didn't respond to my PM when I asked why.  Might not be his choice. 

Dino checked out on the "Lawsuit: Virginia police officers threatened man during stop" thread, post #5.

I sent him an email, but haven't seen or heard from him since. 

I see.  Thanks.

[BigPapaKain]

So I thought this might belong here.

Now I've been saying for awhile give everyone a gun and let the problem sort itself out (and prepare the ground for a lot of digging - I'm realistic). This woman is the reason we'll need a lot of holes dug up.

[Dill]

(06-03-2021, 07:43 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: So I thought this might belong here.

Now I've been saying for awhile give everyone a gun and let the problem sort itself out (and prepare the ground for a lot of digging - I'm realistic). This woman is the reason we'll need a lot of holes dug up.

LOL wait, you are still for open carry and using guns to "sort out" problems? 

So the cons are that we'll need to dig a lot of holes. Maybe even for our own children.

But what are the pros again? 

[BigPapaKain]

(06-03-2021, 09:11 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL wait, you are still for open carry and using guns to "sort out" problems? 

So the cons are that we'll need to dig a lot of holes. Maybe even for our own children.

But what are the pros again? 

I'm not for using guns to sort out problems, quite the contrary. Guns should be a last measure.

However, the issue with guns is that idiots and people who shouldn't have guns can still get them.

I feel like if you arm everyone, than people are less likely to pull their guns. The ones that are dumb enough to pull iron are going to get planted pretty damn quickly.

Sure, kids may end up dying. But they're dying anyways of all kinds of things (negligent discharges already being the prelevant method of children dying to guns). It's a cold calculation, admittedly, but it would change the stigma around guns and push more people into learning how to safely handle and discharge their guns.

As opposed to what we have now where idiots get guns, fire guns into the street at puppies, and end up maiming their own children.

[Dill]

(06-03-2021, 09:36 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I'm not for using guns to sort out problems, quite the contrary. Guns should be a last measure.

However, the issue with guns is that idiots and people who shouldn't have guns can still get them.

I feel like if you arm everyone, than people are less likely to pull their guns. The ones that are dumb enough to pull iron are going to get planted pretty damn quickly.

Sure, kids may end up dying. But they're dying anyways of all kinds of things (negligent discharges already being the prelevant method of children dying to guns). It's a cold calculation, admittedly, but it would change the stigma around guns and push more people into learning how to safely handle and discharge their guns.

As opposed to what we have now where idiots get guns, fire guns into the street at puppies, and end up maiming their own children.

Well, I think the bolded may indicate a flaw in your theory. 

I fear it may be the puppies and children that get planted, not crazy, rarin'-to-shoot mom. 

[BigPapaKain]

(06-03-2021, 10:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Well, I think the bolded may indicate a flaw in your theory. 

I fear it may be the puppies and children that get planted, not crazy, rarin'-to-shoot mom. 

I never said it was a good plan. But it beats the bullshit that clearly doesn't work that Congress is always pushing.


Edit: I should also point out that had crazy lady shot the dog over her kid, I'd be more upset about her negligence than I am now. If this is the kind of person she is, she shouldn't have been allowed to have children in the first place. But that's going down a rabbit hole in my brain that is going to upset a lot of people.

[Dill]

(06-03-2021, 01:05 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: I never said it was a good plan. But it beats the bullshit that clearly doesn't work that Congress is always pushing.

Edit: I should also point out that had crazy lady shot the dog over her kid, I'd be more upset about her negligence than I am now. If this is the kind of person she is, she shouldn't have been allowed to have children in the first place. But that's going down a rabbit hole in my brain that is going to upset a lot of people.

LOL you are probably saying out loud what most people are thinking. 

But a gun, sure. Strap one on for her daily bike ride. 

[BigPapaKain]

(06-03-2021, 02:28 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL you are probably saying out loud what most people are thinking. 

But a gun, sure. Strap one on for her daily bike ride. 

In her defense, you never know when you're gonna come across a puppy or child that needs maimed.

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2021, 02:59 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: In her defense, you never know when you're gonna come across a puppy or child that needs maimed.

If that was the excuse for carrying, the ATF would be in favor of a free-for-all.

[BigPapaKain]

(06-03-2021, 03:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If that was the excuse for carrying, the ATF would be in favor of a free-for-all.

Especially now.