TexasCHLforum.com

74novaman wrote:

terryg wrote:
All of our wonderful statistics showing how 'clean' Texas CHL holders are compared to the general population would not exist if we had permitless carry. That is one of many power arguments in our favor that exist solely because we can be counted as a group and because those who chose to commit crimes, by and large, do not bother with the process and are therefore not in our group.

The nice thing is we can point to the overall crime rate in those states that already have permitless carry. Florida led the way for the CHL laws passed across the nation starting in the 80s.

Now we have examples of states that are, yet again, NOT awash in wild west, blood in the streets that the antis predict EVERY time ANY new pro gun law passes.

Those who look at actual facts can be convinced by other states examples.

Those who look at lies like the brady campaigns stats aren't reachable anyway, and seem to be a rather rabid and tiny minority.

Just to offer a counterpoint.

I think that is a worthhy counterpoint. I think overall crime will consistently fall in most (if not all areas) where more and more people are carrying. But, statisticians thus far have only been able to agree that crime rates are not going up as folks start carrying. So people will still hear both sides for a while.

Vetting this a little further, I think my main concern is the huge emotional value that is attached to these very public shootings. They emotional value of a single incident, even though rare, is 100 times higher than talk about the everyday incidents of crime that are much more common. The sheeple want to assign blame and the media and congresscritters are quick to try to steer those emotions into action.

In states without a CHL requirement, it will be MUCH harder for us to deflect that blame.

jimlongley wrote:So the states that currently have permitless carry are currently being cited by the brady bunch and the anti-rights media as examples of the bad things about permitless carry?

No ... not like that. Most anti's don't want the public carrying with or without a permit ... so there will not be a lot of emphasis the permitless aspect. But, the anti's are certinly counting these incidents against us:



Those six are counted as part of this total:



But if this had occurred in Texas, they would not be able to put him on that list.

Now you and I both know that these are bogus numbers and include some self defense and other likely to be no-billed shootings. But the public does not get this.

Again, keep in mind I am not saying the CHL requirement/process has any effect on crime ... only that doing away with it will likely have an effect on our continued ability to show that those who chose to legally carry guns in public are not a threat. Public shooting incidents that occur in states with permitless carry provide little or no PR separation between the criminal gunman and everyday gun owners.

All of our wonderful statistics showing how 'clean' Texas CHL holders are compared to the general population would not exist if we had permitless carry. That is one of many power arguments in our favor that exist solely because we can be counted as a group and because those who chose to commit crimes, by and large, do not bother with the process and are therefore not in our group.

Heartland Patriot wrote:Small sidetrack: I use "assault rifle" as a real term to be applied to an actual class of select-fire weapons such as the M-16/M-4 and AK families of rifles. The word assault in that context is to "storm an enemy position". The term the Brady's and others use is "assault weapon" which is silly on the face of it because they mean assault as a legal term of the crime of attacking a person...not only is it wrong in that regard because ANY weapon can be used to assault someone, but is also wrong because almost none of the rifles they apply the term to have select fire, which is the defining characteristic of an assault rifle. Sorry, but a pet peeve of mine.

Agreed! But that is exactly the point. Because they got away with defining the term, they won the semantics and therefore won the initial battle.

My thoughts on this will probably not be well received, but here they are anyway. (The last point is the most important one.)

First, let me state that from a crime/criminal perspective I think that going permitless will have zero effect on crime. I did ponder for a while (long ago in another thread) the thought that there was some benefit to LE because they could tell who was legally carrying and who was not. TAM and others helped point me out of that box of logical fallacy. (Thank you!) So let me be clear that I do agree that CHL laws do not prevent criminals from doing bad things anymore than "constitutional carry" would.

I do, however, think that the CHL process forces a bit of intentionality that I personally like. Jim Bob can't (legally) just decide to try carrying today because he heard about it from a friend and decide to just stuff a 1911 in the back of his pants. By making it process, most people get introduced into safe methods of carry and the legal nuisances. I think this probably reduces ND's and borderline SD situations by some amount. I don't know that the net effect is enough to warrant the limitation of a right. But I do think it has an effect that is worth considering.

BUT:
The biggest reason I think that widespread permitless carry will end up being a mistake for all of us is because of numbers and is entirely pragmatic. Anytime there is a BG shooting incident in a permitless state, it will be a larger black mark against us. I know the anti's will use ANY and EVERY reason to implement stricter gun laws. But we have a much easier time countering it when we can show, in numbers, how well behaved the CHL community is.

Like it or not, the war will never end. We will never completely win and, hopefully, neither will they. When Jared Loughner walked into the crowd, he was completely legal up until the moment he pulled out his gun and started firing. Now you and I know that even if Arizona still had a CHL requirement, it would have had zero impact on the outcome of that shooting. But if CHL was still in place in AZ (or if the shooting would have occurred in Texas), it would be much easier to make the argument that he was NOT a law abiding gun-owner like the rest of us.

I know it's semantics, but when it comes to convicing John Q. Public, semantics count! In fact, semantics often win the game! Just think of how successful the "assault rifle" moniker has been for the other side.

So in the end, while the expansion of "constitutional carry" seems attractive and while we celebrate the victories, I really fear that it may cause a backlash that will hurt our efforts in the long haul.