Openly dumb? That’s dumb. But then it’s only a headline writer’s idea of pithy. The real stupidity here is the “argument” the San Antonio Express’ Editorial Board uses to condemn open carry – ahead of the Texas legislature’s determination to put a bill on Governor Abbott’s desk. “Say you’re at your local store or on a public street and a guy, obviously not a police officer, is walking toward you with a hoodie over on his head. Feel safe? We suspect not. Nor will the cop who encounters that guy in a traffic stop or tries to give him a ticket while he’s jaywalking.” I’m sorry. Did I say hoodie over his head? I mistyped. It’s “a gun on his hip.” But you see how that works. Here’s more . . .
At the moment, Texas allows open carry of most rifles, but not handguns. Permissive on guns generally, the state has long and wisely concluded that this really shouldn’t be the Wild Wild West when it comes to handguns.
mysa.com’s editorial board is seriously suggesting that the prohibition against open carry is all that stops Texas from slipping into some sort of retro-anarchy. Because it’s already happened in the 44 states that “allow” open carry. Said no fact checker ever.
The case for open carry is based on the premise that people have a right to defend themselves. To the extent folks are threatened by guns, it’s because there are already so many of them out there.
Handguns are for killing — people. Of the 8,896 firearm deaths nationally in 2012, 71.6 percent of them were by handguns. That equals 6,371 people, now dead. Handguns in particular have not made this state or this nation safer. Quite the opposite.
The only reason people need guns to defend themselves is because of other guns! Handguns that kill! Never mind the lives saved by handguns. Handguns kill I tell you KILL! So don’t let people open carry. Oooookay.
Bad enough that concealed weapons permits exist, but we have no confidence that the amount of training required for such permits makes holders able to use firearms in public with the kind of good judgment or accuracy necessary. This requires the kind of constant training given to sworn police officers. And if a bad guy intent on bad stuff sees this unconcealed weapon, maybe he starts shooting first.
Or maybe, just maybe, he doesn’t shoot at all! I don’t have any statistical evidence to back-up that position but it seems that facts have nothing to do with this “argument,” which concludes “these [open carry] laws make no sense on a more basic [i.e. non-factual] level. They may make us less safe. And this goes also for open carry’s first cousin: guns on college campuses.”
Is it me or are the anti-gunners just going through the motions these days? And that goes for anti-concealed carry in California, too.