Great Article... Charles Cotton, Open Carry

[getsome]

I have seen a few discussions about open carry in Texas, with plenty of banter on both sides. Not sure when this particular article was written, but I am glad to see some communication on the subject. It's not about having to do one or the other that I appreciate... It's the choice, depending on my comfort level, in different situations that I value.

Good stuff Charles. Thank you.

https://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/ ... open-carry

[jimlongley]

Clearly stated, thank you sir.

[rbwhatever1]

Good article!

[mamabearCali]

good article...well balanced.

[locke_n_load]

Old article though.
2 Problems I have:
1. Licensed OC - I just wonder if you wouldn't have LEO asking for your license every time you are out.
2. Lavender lost in the Republican primaries. Is anyone else going to put forward a bill?

[SkipB]

That was a very good read and I think you for posting it.

[Superman]

I'm not trying to diss the article at all because I think it was good overall, but I laughed when I read this line:

The number of people falling into this first group is unknown, but it is relatively small in comparison to the total Texas population.

If you don't know the number of people, then how can you determine its relative size to anything? Ha!

Again, good article though.

[jmra]

I'm not trying to diss the article at all because I think it was good overall, but I laughed when I read this line:

The number of people falling into this first group is unknown, but it is relatively small in comparison to the total Texas population.

If you don't know the number of people, then how can you determine its relative size to anything? Ha!

Again, good article though.

This is an example of what happens when someone takes a sentence out of context. Read the whole paragraph and the sentence makes perfect sense.

[Superman]

If you don't know the number of people, then how can you determine its relative size to anything? Ha!

This is an example of what happens when someone takes a sentence out of context. Read the whole paragraph and the sentence makes perfect sense.

I did read the whole paragraph (and article) and no, it doesn't matter what it's talking about...it still doesn't make sense. But here is the whole paragraph like you wanted:

Generally speaking, people who support, oppose, or fall somewhere in the middle, in terms of open-carry in Texas, fall into three groups. Some strongly support open-carry and these people tend to prefer unlicensed open-carry but will reluctantly acquiesce to requiring a Texas Concealed Handgun License in order to legally open-carry. The number of people falling into this first group is unknown, but it is relatively small in comparison to the total Texas population.

So now with the whole context, how does it change the fact that since we don't know the number of people in the group that strongly supports open-carry, prefers unlicensed open-carry, but would reluctantly accept a license to legally open-carry...we can't make any relative population claims to anything? It doesn't matter the context...if you say something is relative to something else, you have to know the population sizes (or at least be able to estimate it via a sampling).

Granted it feels like the statement is correct (I would tend to agree with it), but I just found it funny that it basically says "we don't know how many people think this way, but trust us it's a small group." It's just funny to hear "we don't know something" followed by an assertion on that something...in the same sentence. Just sharing what I found amusing.

ETA: And I probably wouldn't have laughed if it simply said "The number of people falling into this first group is unknown, but we suspect/assume it is relatively small in comparison to the total Texas population."

[jmra]

It's actually very simple, if I know that the vast majority fall into a particular group, I don't need to know the number of people that fall outside that group to know that they make up a small portion of the population. Makes perfect sense.

[Keith B]

If you don't know the number of people, then how can you determine its relative size to anything? Ha!

This is an example of what happens when someone takes a sentence out of context. Read the whole paragraph and the sentence makes perfect sense.

I did read the whole paragraph (and article) and no, it doesn't matter what it's talking about...it still doesn't make sense. But here is the whole paragraph like you wanted:

Generally speaking, people who support, oppose, or fall somewhere in the middle, in terms of open-carry in Texas, fall into three groups. Some strongly support open-carry and these people tend to prefer unlicensed open-carry but will reluctantly acquiesce to requiring a Texas Concealed Handgun License in order to legally open-carry. The number of people falling into this first group is unknown, but it is relatively small in comparison to the total Texas population.

So now with the whole context, how does it change the fact that since we don't know the number of people in the group that strongly supports open-carry, prefers unlicensed open-carry, but would reluctantly accept a license to legally open-carry...we can't make any relative population claims to anything? It doesn't matter the context...if you say something is relative to something else, you have to know the population sizes (or at least be able to estimate it via a sampling).

Granted it feels like the statement is correct (I would tend to agree with it), but I just found it funny that it basically says "we don't know how many people think this way, but trust us it's a small group." It's just funny to hear "we don't know something" followed by an assertion on that something...in the same sentence. Just sharing what I found amusing.

ETA: And I probably wouldn't have laughed if it simply said "The number of people falling into this first group is unknown, but we suspect/assume it is relatively small in comparison to the total Texas population."

I will tell you exactly how you can tell. CHL holders make up approximately 2% of the total population of Texas. This forum is and even smaller subset of CHL holders in Texas (including a few from other states.) Take into consideration just the members here that either do not support open carry or only support licensed open carry, and then those that do support open carry, but not strongly and you will be well into the sub-1% of the population of Texas. I don't believe there is a large group of unlicensed people across Texas who are strongly pro-open carry, which is what the first group referred to is.

[Cjwglock19]

Cotton 2016???

Great article!

[Superman]

It's actually very simple, if I know that the vast majority fall into a particular group, I don't need to know the number of people that fall outside that group to know that they make up a small portion of the population. Makes perfect sense.

That assumes you only have two groups and you can easily make that associative comparison. 5 + X = 7...that's easy. 5 + X + Y + Z + A = 37...that a little harder to deduce.

I will tell you exactly how you can tell. CHL holders make up approximately 2% of the total population of Texas. This forum is and even smaller subset of CHL holders in Texas (including a few from other states.) Take into consideration just the members here that either do not support open carry or only support licensed open carry, and then those that do support open carry, but not strongly and you will be well into the sub-1% of the population of Texas. I don't believe there is a large group of unlicensed people across Texas who are strongly pro-open carry, which is what the first group referred to is.

Ya, I didn't even talk about how silly it was to "relatively" compare to the population of all of Texas. The same statement could be used for CHLer's in general, let alone a supposed subset of CHLer's...CHL is "relatively small in comparison to the total Texas population." You even said it yourself when you started your last sentence with "I don't believe...". That's my point, there is no empirical evidence provided to come to any kind of conclusion. I believe your opinion/assumption is correct, but again, I just thought it was funny.

I guess let's just chalk it up to me having a weird sense of humor or maybe some OCD flaring up and move on

[SkipB]

I thought the article was very well put. I never expect the % of anything to be exact. I for a long time was not for open carry but along the way I have changed my mind, in part due to articles like this one.

[Keith B]

Ya, I didn't even talk about how silly it was to "relatively" compare to the population of all of Texas. The same statement could be used for CHLer's in general, let alone a supposed subset of CHLer's...CHL is "relatively small in comparison to the total Texas population." You even said it yourself when you started your last sentence with "I don't believe...". That's my point, there is no empirical evidence provided to come to any kind of conclusion. I believe your opinion/assumption is correct, but again, I just thought it was funny.

I guess let's just chalk it up to me having a weird sense of humor or maybe some OCD flaring up and move on

It's not silly at all. It took 16 years of hard work by Charles and others before the Texas legislature passed a CHL law. And while it was controversial at the time, it was, IMO, not nearly as opposed by legislators, law enforcement and anti-gunners as open carry is. While it is not impossible to get passed, there are going to have to be way more folks jump on the band wagon to get the support needed to pass it into law. And when that wagon passes by the viewing stand for the judges to see it better be a pretty shiny wagon with gold wheels that woos the public and law makers and not the stinky manure wagon some of the radical OC supporters are already bringing to the parade.