TexasCHLforum.com

Right now I feel like I did the year the Saints won the Superbowl.

Very optimistic that it will happen, impatient after years of waiting but trying to taking things one step at a time.

Won't believe it till it happens. Wouldn't be surprised if at the 11th hour it doesn't pass.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:

mojo84 wrote: I like OC for the occasional time that I need or want to remove my cover garment or not have to worry about tucking my shirt over my gun. In other words, convenience and comfort, is why I like it.

Same here. I'm not an OC fanatic, but I do want the freedom to OC when I need or want to. As the guy said back during the early hearings, "sometimes I want to tuck in my shirt, or give my jacket to my wife because it's cold." Maybe I'm working on our place out here, driving the tractor or whatever, in the regulation jeans and t-shirt, and I want to take a break and run to the cafe for lunch, without having to go inside and put on a tropical shirt to cover up my firearm, or run down to the HEB to pick up something. Lots of reasons. I just don't want to have to constantly think about it.

These are excellent examples how open-carry can be convenient in limited circumstances. This approach along with pointing out that there's no reason to prohibit open-carry are how to pass this type of legislation. You will note that neither the NRA nor TSRA have made false claims of reducing crime, greater personal safety, etc. and that is why both organizations have credibility with Senators and Representatives.

Chas.

The reason no one can say for sure that OC reduces crime, etc. etc. because a non-event doesn't get reported the way that a criminal event gets reported. If a criminal is deterred because of OC and goes on to the next victim, who's to know except the criminal.

Conversely, the incidents of an OC getting attacked or their gun grabbed or becoming a target of because of OC, gets reported as a crime.

So you have the positive incidents (which I am sure they happen and outweigh the negative) which can not be confirmed contrasting with the negative incidents (I am sure they happen, while I can't recite stats, but I would imagine them to be statistically insignificant) which can be confirmed.

0 stats for positive OC deterent vs X stats for negative OC Incident. Very skewed faulty argument IMHO.

Eerily similar to the Anti 2A gun control crowd who cite stats on guns used in crime vs while pro 2A argues that guns in general used to stop crime/self defense/reduce crime etc etc. but the stats available to support this are from estimates based on surveys not actual stats. Deterance cant be substantiated.

The anti 2A argument is skewed and faulty once you analyze the stats and the pro 2A arguments cant be substantiated specifically by each incident. The only thing you can look at is overall crime stats and draw your own conclusion.

Guns reduce crime and gun free zones promote crime. But you can only point to anecdotal evidence by correlating the crime rate vs gun laws in an area. Not specific stats on deterance case by case incident. They don't exist.

In any case, we need to continue to fight for the removal of all infringements.

http://www.journals.senate.state.tx.us/ ... DF#page=25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If I am reading this correctly, a lot of baloney amendments to get to OC. Not just a simple if you have CHL = You can OC Kinda takes all the fun out of it. Do you have to display license? I can scribble on my CHL badge with sharpie and make it an OC badge.