Am I the only one who finds this a little bit crazy.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57239610

The new measure would allow anyone aged 21 or older to carry a handgun unless they have past criminal convictions or legal restrictions on them.Texas has some of the loosest gun laws in the US and already allows rifles to be carried in public without a licence.

I like it. I mean the criminals don't have to have a license right?

NIKV69 wrote:

I like it. I mean the criminals don't have to have a license right?

If that's your best argument, you might as well make everything legal.

Drugs abuse? No problems, if criminals do it, so can you!
Theft? No problems, if criminals do it, so can you!
Murder? No problems, if criminals do it, so can you!

petertenthije wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

I like it. I mean the criminals don't have to have a license right?

If that's your best argument, you might as well make everything legal.

Drugs abuse? No problems, if criminals do it, so can you!
Theft? No problems, if criminals do it, so can you!
Murder? No problems, if criminals do it, so can you!

The criminals in government are allowed nuclear weapons, we the people should too!!!!!

Well, they've undergone a background check to buy the gun, so we know they are law abiding. Many states have "constitutional carry" and there hasn't been an upsurge in stupid gun handling or crimes committed by legal carriers, so it's really no big deal.

As a recently escaped Texan, I find it a bit crazy and over the top. While I'm all for responsible gun ownership, use, and even carry, letting anyone strap a handgun on and walk the streets is a bit much. The Texas concealed carry license requirements of classroom training and a shooting test, IMHO, should be required for all gun owners. A reminder of the responsibilities and legalities of gun use/carry/ownership and a basic shooting test at the range, if you can't pass that you shouldn't own a gun.

Yes, I know criminals won't take classes or get licenses, but I've seen how Texans behave. Easier access to firearms is probably not the solution to any of that state's problems.

I have my concealed carry here in TX and it's not an arduous process to get. It is also very useful.

I have no objection to open carry without a license, but I do also think there is some training that would be a good thing, just from a responsibility and capability standpoint. My wife wouldn't normally ever carry, but after doing the course together (and shooting more often) her comfort level has improved. THAT is a good thing and why I think the gun community should continue to support education and training efforts.

Virtually anywhere else in the world except Panama or the Philippines, the notion of just carrying whenever out and about for personal protection would be considered insane. Even the other western countries with lax gun laws don't permit wanton open carry.

I don't understand why when you own a gun you don't have to be trained to use it. But hey people are smart enough right?

TangoandCash wrote:

As a recently escaped Texan, I find it a bit crazy and over the top. While I'm all for responsible gun ownership, use, and even carry, letting anyone strap a handgun on and walk the streets is a bit much. The Texas concealed carry license requirements of classroom training and a shooting test, IMHO, should be required for all gun owners. A reminder of the responsibilities and legalities of gun use/carry/ownership and a basic shooting test at the range, if you can't pass that you shouldn't own a gun.

Yes, I know criminals won't take classes or get licenses, but I've seen how Texans behave. Easier access to firearms is probably not the solution to any of that state's problems.

I'm not sure if this current law that is going to be sign drops the requirement to take a course. I'm on the left and think guns are fine if people are trained to use it. It's like why take a drivers course, let me skip all of that and just let me drive.

petertenthije wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

I like it. I mean the criminals don't have to have a license right?

If that's your best argument, you might as well make everything legal.

Drugs abuse? No problems, if criminals do it, so can you!
Theft? No problems, if criminals do it, so can you!
Murder? No problems, if criminals do it, so can you!

Drugs and guns legal yes, theft and murder no.

For all that are aghast at this--the liberal bastion of Vermont has always allowed carry without a license. That must be why there are daily shootouts in downtown Rutland...

Not a fan of open carry, but it is better than no carry. As johns624 pointed out, its been allowed in Vermont, so unwind the knickers.

johns624 wrote:

For all that are aghast at this--the liberal bastion of Vermont has always allowed carry without a license. That must be why there are daily shootouts in downtown Rutland...

Vermont is one of the 13 states with the best access to mental health care. Texas is middle of the pack at 30th. Just puttin that out there.

https://www.mhanational.org/issues/ranking-states

Vermont is also ranked 43rd in prevalence of mental illness while Texas is 3rd.

extender wrote:

Not a fan of open carry, but it is better than no carry. As johns624 pointed out, its been allowed in Vermont, so unwind the knickers.

I'm not a fan of OC either, but this mainly concerns concealed carry. The one benefit of a law allowing OC, is that it takes away the the crime of "brandishing" if your gun is accidentally exposed, such as when reaching for something overhead or bending over to pick something up.

Aaron747 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

For all that are aghast at this--the liberal bastion of Vermont has always allowed carry without a license. That must be why there are daily shootouts in downtown Rutland...

Vermont is one of the 13 states with the best access to mental health care. Texas is middle of the pack at 30th. Just puttin that out there.

https://www.mhanational.org/issues/ranking-states

Vermont is also ranked 43rd in prevalence of mental illness while Texas is 3rd.

Mental health and shootings really only relate when it comes to mass shootings, which are actually a rarity. By "mass shootings", I mean incidents like Columbine, Aurora and Boulder, not the latest media ploy where if 2 or more are shot, it's included. The main reason for shootings are gang or criminal related. Vermont doesn't have much crime.

johns624 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

For all that are aghast at this--the liberal bastion of Vermont has always allowed carry without a license. That must be why there are daily shootouts in downtown Rutland...

Vermont is one of the 13 states with the best access to mental health care. Texas is middle of the pack at 30th. Just puttin that out there.

https://www.mhanational.org/issues/ranking-states

Vermont is also ranked 43rd in prevalence of mental illness while Texas is 3rd.

Mental health and shootings really only relate when it comes to mass shootings, which are actually a rarity. By "mass shootings", I mean incidents like Columbine, Aurora and Boulder, not the latest media ploy where if 2 or more are shot, it's included. The main reason for shootings are gang or criminal related. Vermont doesn't have much crime.

Yeah, I'm just saying people are more comfortable with the idea of everyone walking around unlicensed if there isn't a high prevalence of nutjobs. There are a lot of people out of their gourd in this country, so being the 3rd ranked state is nothing to laugh off.

johns624 wrote:

For all that are aghast at this--the liberal bastion of Vermont has always allowed carry without a license. That must be why there are daily shootouts in downtown Rutland...

Shhhh we can't have facts like that!

johns624 wrote:

For all that are aghast at this--the liberal bastion of Vermont has always allowed carry without a license. That must be why there are daily shootouts in downtown Rutland...

Is it practiced ?

Aesma wrote:

johns624 wrote:

For all that are aghast at this--the liberal bastion of Vermont has always allowed carry without a license. That must be why there are daily shootouts in downtown Rutland...

Is it practiced ?

Vermont is a weird place. Cross between a modern hippy paradise and rural America. Very much a live and let live state.

But one major difference is that it's one of the most highly educated states in the country, and also lacks the urban areas that other states have

johns624 wrote:

For all that are aghast at this--the liberal bastion of Vermont has always allowed carry without a license. That must be why there are daily shootouts in downtown Rutland...

Gun makers are "very liberal" in giving contributions to left,right and center, hence they get their way always. We won't find that level of bipartisanship anywhere else.

FGITD wrote:

Aesma wrote:

johns624 wrote:

For all that are aghast at this--the liberal bastion of Vermont has always allowed carry without a license. That must be why there are daily shootouts in downtown Rutland...

Is it practiced ?

Vermont is a weird place. Cross between a modern hippy paradise and rural America. Very much a live and let live state.

But one major difference is that it's one of the most highly educated states in the country, and also lacks the urban areas that other states have

So maybe we should be comparing apples to apples? What is another state with a large population, lower education, higher crime, lower health care standards? Florida? Idaho? Alaska? Montana?

seb146 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Is it practiced ?

Vermont is a weird place. Cross between a modern hippy paradise and rural America. Very much a live and let live state.

But one major difference is that it's one of the most highly educated states in the country, and also lacks the urban areas that other states have

So maybe we should be comparing apples to apples? What is another state with a large population, lower education, higher crime, lower health care standards? Florida? Idaho? Alaska? Montana?

So you're saying that only educated people should be able to own guns? Also, states are not homogenous. You have pockets of highly educated people in every state, along with pockets with poorly educated and rundown areas.

extender wrote:

Not a fan of open carry, but it is better than no carry. As johns624 pointed out, its been allowed in Vermont, so unwind the knickers.

I cannot get a carry permit in LA county California. Why? Luckily, the two times people tried to mug me I was with friends legally carrying.

I don't mind a reasonable course required. I once had a beginner put holes in my target and the individual asked why I was practicing. Then my friend arrived and we played battleship at 10 yards... There should be familiarity. But also follow the constitution.

I mean, the stuff I test for our government... Yet I cannot carry even though it is "shall not be infringed."

Lightsaber

More guns, more shootings


Pretty simple

NIKV69 wrote:

I like it. I mean the criminals don't have to have a license right?

Well then I guess you are okay with doing away with any sort of licensing for driving a car. How about doing away with the CDL ? After all, if you don't have to show basic competency for a gun, then why should you have to show one for a car or a big rig?

LMP737 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

I like it. I mean the criminals don't have to have a license right?

Well then I guess you are okay with doing away with any sort of licensing for driving a car. How about doing away with the CDL ? After all, if you don't have to show basic competency for a gun, then why should you have to show one for a car or a big rig?

That’s right - I’m gonna just borrow my friend’s Seneca when I feel like it from now on. Multiengine ratings are for sissies.

This is good for minorities and those with low income to be able to practice their constitutional right without the current financial and paperwork loopholes they often can't afford or complete.

Max Q wrote:

More guns, more shootings


Pretty simple

Wrong. Criminals (the people who do 99+% of the shootings) already carry guns.
They don't care about no stinking license.
PS--Why do so many people seem to think that owning a gun suddenly makes people irrational?

johns624 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

More guns, more shootings


Pretty simple

Wrong. Criminals (the people who do 99+% of the shootings) already carry guns.
They don't care about no stinking license.
PS--Why do so many people seem to think that owning a gun suddenly makes people irrational?

I for one never said that - just not convinced unlicensed open carry is the best idea in a state 3dd highest in loony tunes.

LabQuest wrote:

This is good for minorities and those with low income to be able to practice their constitutional right without the current financial and paperwork loopholes they often can't afford or complete.

Great point, wonder if many of the Conservatives backing the Bill had considered this?

I guess with no background checks or licensing requirements minority gang members and undocumented migrants will now find it easier to get access to weapons and carry them covertly.

Sometimes they must think it’ll only be their fellow conservatives who enjoy the benefits of loose gun laws.

johns624 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

More guns, more shootings


Pretty simple

Wrong. Criminals (the people who do 99+% of the shootings) already carry guns.
They don't care about no stinking license.
PS--Why do so many people seem to think that owning a gun suddenly makes people irrational?

Perhaps you could do reading a book on basic psychology: the more "power" you consider yourself to have, the more aggressive you become when confronted with adverse or unpleasant situations, or in general.

There is ample anecdotal evidence and even studies that show that drivers of SUVs are more aggressive, and the females that drive SUVs show more "male/teenage" style driving than women who do not.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 017-1219-6

Others reports are similar when it comes to diplomatic immunity, for example. In similar environments, people with diplomatic immunity are more likely to perform actions that are potentially crossing the line of legality, than people in similar situations that don't enjoy that status. Even in football (American), I recall one time something about how violent collisions INCREASED the more protective the equipment became (or was supposed to be), since the players obviously would assume stronger collisions would not be as dangerous as before.

It's basic human behavior, really. And beyond this rather strong proclivity, just having more lethal armament increases lethal incidents. Even the best of people will flip-out once in a lifetime. If they don't carry anything, they just kick the snot out of garbage cans, walls, desks, or tv sets to vent frustrations on those most terrible of bad days. Maybe they get fired for damaging office equipment, maybe they mess up their own house. But if they have a gun in their hands... Well, then, you have the modern America seen on the news virtually every day.

I will give you this, the genie is out of the bottle and you can never put it back in. The 2nd amendment. I do concede there is a point to be made that criminals will not adhere to any laws, and thus many feel "safer" with a weapon, or safer knowing they have such a means available if needed. But in our modern world, gun possession by ordinary citizens (specially in our crowded cities), is a terrible idea, and something the delegates back in 1789 could have never foreseen, of course. But I would really make a bet that if they were alive today and saw how modern society functions, and understood the might of modern weaponry, the wording of the 2nd Amendment would be radically different.

The US has much more suicides by gun than elsewhere too, something often overlooked. Pulling the trigger is much easier than other means of taking ones life.

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

FGITD wrote:

Vermont is a weird place. Cross between a modern hippy paradise and rural America. Very much a live and let live state.

But one major difference is that it's one of the most highly educated states in the country, and also lacks the urban areas that other states have

So maybe we should be comparing apples to apples? What is another state with a large population, lower education, higher crime, lower health care standards? Florida? Idaho? Alaska? Montana?

So you're saying that only educated people should be able to own guns? Also, states are not homogenous. You have pockets of highly educated people in every state, along with pockets with poorly educated and rundown areas.

And, yet, when we quote the first four words of the Second Amendment, we are told that is taken out of context and how dare we and we are not Americans and so many hateful things.

Highly educated people do not need to open carry, either. Highly educated people are not so insecure they do not need to scream about their guns all the time either.

CometII wrote:

Perhaps you could do reading a book on basic psychology: the more "power" you consider yourself to have, the more aggressive you become when confronted with adverse or unpleasant situations, or in general.

Nice post, but irrelevant. Law abiding citizens have been carrying guns, both concealed and openly, for many decades. Show me the stats on all the crimes and murders they've committed while carrying legally. According to you, there should be multitudes of them.

seb146 wrote:

Highly educated people do not need to open carry, either. Highly educated people are not so insecure they do not need to scream about their guns all the time either.

They also don't normally tend to live in rough neighborhoods.

johns624 wrote:

Nice post, but irrelevant. Law abiding citizens have been carrying guns, both concealed and openly, for many decades. Show me the stats on all the crimes and murders they've committed while carrying legally. According to you, there should be multitudes of them.

Someone who performed a crime or a murder, by definition, is no longer included in the law abiding cititzens statistics.
So, technically, you are right that 100% of law abiding citizens have not commited a crime or a murder.

The problem starts when someone legally acquires a gun, has the permit to carry one on the street (be it concealed or open)... and then goes cuckoo and kills someone with his legally acquired gun.

petertenthije wrote:

The problem starts when someone legally acquires a gun, has the permit to carry one on the street (be it concealed or open)... and then goes cuckoo and kills someone with his legally acquired gun.

Once again, where are the stats? If a CPL holder committed crimes with it, it would make the headlines and be on the evening news. Use links to support your position. If you don't have any, don't argue.
Here's the latest Michigan stats. There are approximately 500,000 CPL licencees in the state.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/ ... 1670_7.pdf There were 470+ murders in Michigan last year. Two were committed by CPL holders. One out of 20 Michiganians has a CPL. That means that a CPL holder is many times less likely to kill someone than the average citizen.
https://www.roadsnacks.net/these-are-th ... -michigan/

johns624 wrote:

petertenthije wrote:

The problem starts when someone legally acquires a gun, has the permit to carry one on the street (be it concealed or open)... and then goes cuckoo and kills someone with his legally acquired gun.

Once again, where are the stats? If a CPL holder committed crimes with it, it would make the headlines and be on the evening news. Use links to support your position. If you don't have any, don't argue.
Here's the latest Michigan stats. There are approximately 500,000 CPL licencees in the state.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/ ... 1670_7.pdf There were 470+ murders in Michigan last year. Two were committed by CPL holders. One out of 20 Michiganians has a CPL. That means that a CPL holder is many times less likely to kill someone than the average citizen.
https://www.roadsnacks.net/these-are-th ... -michigan/

Moreover, the left and anti-2A brigade neve acknowledges the number of crimes prevented by firearms owners. Guns PREVENT 2.5M crimes a year and an estimated 400k life threatening crimes.



https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-t ... 20firearms.

slider wrote:

Moreover, the left and anti-2A brigade neve acknowledges the number of crimes prevented by firearms owners. Guns PREVENT 2.5M crimes a year and an estimated 400k life threatening crimes.



https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-t ... 20firearms.

Here's what appears to be a potential mass shooting that was ended after only one person was killed. We'll never know how many might have been killed.
https://www.4029tv.com/article/fort-smi ... /36437231#

Good! God bless Texas!

johns624 wrote:

Use links to support your position. If you don't have any, don't argue.

First link i found when googling “mass shootings with cpl” already lists 36.

https://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass- ... y-killers/

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Highly educated people do not need to open carry, either. Highly educated people are not so insecure they do not need to scream about their guns all the time either.

They also don't normally tend to live in rough neighborhoods.

Gun crimes are not limited by income or address.

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Highly educated people do not need to open carry, either. Highly educated people are not so insecure they do not need to scream about their guns all the time either.

They also don't normally tend to live in rough neighborhoods.

Gun crimes are not limited by income or address.

Not true, 55% of all gun murders are perpetrated by 5% of the population. Murders are restricted to a very few zip codes. In the year of Floyd, there were 4,475 more murders, any guess on the perps? That’s greater than all the lynchings in US history.

Don't let anybody tell you what is right!

https://www.google.com/search?q=gun+rel ... s9rfjQk4YM

The funny thing is, the anti-gunners want to talk about "common sense" regulations to do something, every time there is a mass shooting. And their solution is always some sort of Assault Weapons ban. However, if they want to have a serious discussion about "common sense" regulations, the place to start is handguns. Something like 96% of firearm deaths are from handguns.

Permitless carry is hardly new in many states. The sky is falling types here don't get that, but then again, they probably think that the major cities are all that matters in this country.

johns624 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

More guns, more shootings


Pretty simple

Wrong. Criminals (the people who do 99+% of the shootings) already carry guns.
They don't care about no stinking license.
PS--Why do so many people seem to think that owning a gun suddenly makes people irrational?

Isn't that oxymoron. First of all most shooting (I think) is legal. Secondly, someone shooting illegally is a criminal.

About irrationality... Most people are good until they get seriously upset. At that point many ("black out") and take what they have without thinking of consequences. After a minute, when they realize of what they've done, regret. A person is killed and it can't be changed. Without guns knives etc. at that time it often ends in a fight with a black eye. Psychopaths are different. but if we are not psychopaths this can still happen to you and me. Never happened to me but it's possible. If that happens, I hope there is nothing that I can get to my hands.

EDIT: CometII wrote perfectly about the psychology aspect here. Everyone should read it carefully and learn.

johns624 wrote:

CometII wrote:

Perhaps you could do reading a book on basic psychology: the more "power" you consider yourself to have, the more aggressive you become when confronted with adverse or unpleasant situations, or in general.

Nice post, but irrelevant. Law abiding citizens have been carrying guns, both concealed and openly, for many decades. Show me the stats on all the crimes and murders they've committed while carrying legally. According to you, there should be multitudes of them.

Probably the most well known study case about what power means psychologically is Stanford prison experiment. CometII seems to know psychology well, you not so much. You forget a basic fundamental and that is that we won't want to go to prison etc. if we have a choice and can live a nice life outside a prison. We tend to follow law unless it doesn't mean a lot to us (ever got a speeding ticket?) or when we believe to get away of it (a tax fraud?). Also we have a moral (learnt and can be learnt out of it). If we don't have those restrains we would kill people unless it's better for us not to kill them. A terrible neighbor without a gun? It's like a hunter against a lion. With bare hands you are a sissy. With a rifle you're bold. Same when you have a gun walking on a street. You get more bold but don't do anything with your gun as you have those restraints. That's why people with guns on a street mostly don't use them. Other people are good for our survive and killing has bad consequences (if get caught). If you get into an argument and get really upset, all bets are off. You don't then think rationally.

So CometII post is most relevant here and it explains why people carrying guns mostly don't use them.

If we always stay calm no matter what happens then carrying guns is not a big deal. But my two last sentences tell the problem. If you get into an argument and get really upset, all bets are off. You don't then think rationally. Non of us are free of hate and it can overwhelm us anytime.

Some people say that good people with guns is good against bad people with guns. Shooting at a mall: how do you know who is a good guy and who is a bad guy? You don't when everyone is shooting each others. Also your basic instinct is to run away, no matter what you think before. Two pilots with guns in a locked cockpit? Only an idiot can't time is so that the other pilot even reacts before a bullet through brains. Drive-by shooting? The car is long gone before you react. So the good guy saves lives is a myth. Let the police handle it without interfering.

And yes, 1 % of us are psychopaths + their companions. Even if we all have guns they have upper hand as they have the suprise moment.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

They also don't normally tend to live in rough neighborhoods.

Gun crimes are not limited by income or address.

Not true, 55% of all gun murders are perpetrated by 5% of the population. Murders are restricted to a very few zip codes. In the year of Floyd, there were 4,475 more murders, any guess on the perps? That’s greater than all the lynchings in US history.

Eight murdered in San Jose, California this morning. His skin color isn't the one you think it is. And, according to his wife, he had mental health issues. And, yet, he was able to get guns. So, lets make it easier for people like this to get even more guns. What could possibly go wrong?

DiamondFlyer wrote:

The funny thing is, the anti-gunners want to talk about "common sense" regulations to do something, every time there is a mass shooting. And their solution is always some sort of Assault Weapons ban. However, if they want to have a serious discussion about "common sense" regulations, the place to start is handguns. Something like 96% of firearm deaths are from handguns.

Permitless carry is hardly new in many states. The sky is falling types here don't get that, but then again, they probably think that the major cities are all that matters in this country.

You mean common sense measures like closing the gun show loophole and making sure EVERY gun owner application is processed instead of sitting in a pile somewhere until it is rubber stamped? We can't talk about those because that limits 2A rights somehow. So, what are we supposed to do? Let the party of life tell us that mass shootings are rare and they don't matter in the long run because Second Amendment. That's the whole rationale behind Republican gun "control".