Texas Makes a Reasonable Choice

Statistically, some of the safest towns in America are in Texas. In terms of violent crime, Texas is a far, far safer place than say Detroit. So while the words trigger-happy Texans are appearing in articles around the world, it’s good to keep that basic fact in mind as Texas enters its Open Carry era for handguns.

The so-called no-stop provision which would have meant police would not have been able to request a license from a resident openly carrying their handgun was removed from the legislation. But as Austin police training commander Andy Michael stated, the police will assume you are a license holder if they see you with a gun.

In other words, unless you give them a clear reason for suspecting that you may be involved in a criminal act, you will be presumed innocent by the police.

Will this be a boon for criminals?

As well, will Texans who happen to be black suffer unreasonable searches for exercising their constitutional rights to bear arms?

It might be helpful to look at dozens of other states that already have open carry laws on the books. Might it be that not that much changes in Texas?

You can be sure that news agencies - especially ones like BBC World and CNN - will be there, hoping desperately for a violent shooting between two law-abiding citizens who drew their guns and fired because they could. Or any shooting that might be related in some tangential way to Open Carry.

But the real question is what exactly does the 2nd amendment allow? If a well-regulated militia was one made up of the people - armed citizens - and was seen as a check on the standing army, then any infringement on law-abiding citizens right to bear arms is an assault on the people.

That is an uncomfortable chain of logic for many of us in today's post-industrial world, but it was a key right necessary to win support for ratification. And commentary from that time points out how the kingdoms of Europe had disarmed their people to ensure their continuing control. It is no coincidence that the French - inspired by America - re-armed themselves and revolted against their monarchy less than 13 months after ratification.

What could an armed militia mean in today's America? It is a dangerous question, and one that is best diffused by seeing the issue on an individual level - a single citizen's right to bear arms - rather than imagining armed bands of citizens defying State and Federal police and military forces. And it is one of the two logical ways forward:

Allow law abiding individual citizens to bear arms.

Or disarm the citizenry and have police and military forces exercise exclusive control of all weapons. Not withstanding the criminal class.

Texas has made a very reasonable choice.

Posted by Keeley at January 4, 2016 7:07 PM
Comments
Comment #401737
Statistically, some of the safest towns in America are in Texas. In terms of violent crime, Texas is a far, far safer place than say Detroit.

Also, some of the most dangerous cities in America in Texas. When Politifact examined the crime rate in the 10 most populous cities in the US, Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio snatched the bottom 10 spots. But those are outdated stats from 2011. I wonder how things look today? Texas cities in 2014 are still doing far worse than cities in California (LA, SJ & SD) and elsewhere (Chicago, Boston & New York).

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 5, 2016 9:16 PM
Comment #401739

Your links are worthless. Your statements contradicts the information/opinion/projection in the links.

I think Texas did a logical thing when they passed this law. The argument was the exception of handguns. The old open carry law allowed only long guns to be carried in the open. This law simply included handguns.

I exposed how the media ignores the many lives saved by legally owned weapons. I hosted a discussion on how the media is bias against the “gun”. Texas will suffer the same bias in it’s near future. Prepare yourselves for a barrage of horrific gun related death stories taking place in Texas.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 5, 2016 10:48 PM
Comment #401740


What’s the point in having a second amendment if you can’t carry a weapon.

Isn’t the ability to own and carry the same as the right to keep and bear?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 5, 2016 10:51 PM
Comment #401741

I think the government left should consider the “shall not be infringed” part. That’s the part they’re ignoring.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 5, 2016 10:53 PM
Comment #401742
Your statements contradicts the information/opinion/projection in the links.

The links contain information, not opinion or projection. I realize I my words might have been misinterpreted. Politifact ranked the ten most populous cities in the US and found that those 3 Texas cities had the highest crime rates.

The Brennan Link has Dallas with the lowest crime rate in TX with a hair more than 4,000 crimes per 100,000 people. Between California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts, the city with the highest rate is Chicago with 3,500 crimes per 100,000 people. And it is not just Texas, Phoenix, Oklahoma City, Memphis and Charlotte all have at least 4,000 crimes per 100,000 people.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 5, 2016 11:10 PM
Comment #401743

If I see a person carrying a weapon in a public setting who is not involved in law enforcement, then I am being menaced, and that is a crime, whether the weapon potentially threatening my life is a gun, samurai sword, flamethrower, or something else which exists for the sole purpose of taking a human life. If that happens I will leave the premises and call 911, and let the person carrying the weapon and the police sort it out.

Anyone carrying a weapon in a public setting is either a criminal or mentally not right. I cannot imagine what is going through the mind of a person who walks around in public with a gun, but of this I am sure; it is very, very ugly, it endangers me and my family, and I will never, ever condone it.

Posted by: phx8 at January 6, 2016 12:50 AM
Comment #401745

You are insulting the many people who live their lives with a weapon. You are discounting all the benefits and fixating on the minority.

phx8, tell Hillbilly they need to get rid of their secret service detail’s guns first.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2016 5:05 AM
Comment #401746

phx8, why do you have such a low opinion of every police officer in this country?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2016 5:09 AM
Comment #401747

Tell law enforcement to give up their guns first, phx8.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2016 5:11 AM
Comment #401751

Yes, respecting individual rights was the correct choice for Texas to make. There will be no ‘boon for criminals’ and innocent blacks won’t ‘suffer unreasonable searches.’
Neither open carry in Texas or the Presidents attacks on the 2nd Amendment, will have any effect on the liberals gun violence problems, or their irrational fear of individual rights.

The problem with gun violence is in the liberal controlled urban areas, but yet liberals target and attack those not responsible for that violence. People are tired of being blamed for the failure of liberal policy and that is why the voters and states are trying to protect our individual rights.

At some point you guys have got to understand that for every person who fearfully p1sses their pants at the mere sight of person carrying a gun and dials 911, there is a normal person who will go up and shake that persons hand and ask them how their day is going.

Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2016 10:27 AM
Comment #401754
The problem with gun violence is in the liberal controlled urban areas

Huh? I thought I just demonstrated that the crime rate is higher in Houston/Dallas/San Antonio than it is in Boston/New York/Los Angeles.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2016 10:57 AM
Comment #401755

I have never ever understood the whole fascination with gun ownership that some people have. As a former gun owner but not a gun fetishist, I can say honestly that I have known gun fetishists for years and didn’t understand the fascination then and don’t now. I have no fear of guns but also don’t think of them as anything more than technology that has developed way past it’s usefulness and is now just being used by the industry that manufactures them to appeal to the base instincts of some humans. I expect in the next 50 to 100 years technology will evolve that will cause people to look back on this period with some dismay and a lot of incredulity. I will not be able to witness this but have no doubt that it will take place. To those who support gun ownership, I say good for you, but keep it to yourself and don’t make a spectacle of yourself. Try to teach others the value you perceive from gun ownership. I would discourage anyone from displaying a gun and would certainly make every effort to avoid them. I have known responsible gun owners in the past, and know some now, but they do not seem to have the same affliction that the gun fetishists that I have come in contact with have. An inordinate want to use gun ownership as some type of proof of their individual prowess or knowledge. The responsible gun owners I have known and know now simply understand that they have at their disposal a very powerful and dangerous weapon that needs to be used with a degree of intelligence that gun fetishists simply do not possess. These people seemed to be thrilled with the thought of owning a gun but lack the responsibility to display that with any confidence in their approach to others about said ownership.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 6, 2016 11:03 AM
Comment #401760

Warren

How does one urban area ran by liberal policy having a higher crime rate than another urban area ran by liberal policy, refute what I said?

The fact is that the gun violence problem is in large urban areas, not in the areas where there are more guns per person.

Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2016 11:40 AM
Comment #401761

Houston and Dallas aren’t subject to Texas’ liberal gun laws?

It is true that crime increases with population density, but this is true regardless of the party in charge. Witness the high crime rates in Indianapolis and Jacksonville, which have been under Republican control for years.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2016 11:48 AM
Comment #401764

Speaks, today’s overt support for the 2nd Amendment is nothing but a response to the relentless attacks upon our 2nd Amendment rights, and the hateful personal attacks on those who respect and support the 2nd Amendment.

When the left labels people “gun fetishists” simply for doing what they have safely done their entire lives, they shutdown any hope of cooperation.

Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2016 12:01 PM
Comment #401766

Not shutting anything down at all. Any one who takes offense to being labeled a gun fetishist should probably reflect for a moment on what would provoke them to think they were. I did not call you a gun fetishist, do you consider yourself one? Don’t really care about the 2nd amendment support, overt or otherwise. I think it is a lame excuse used by some people to further a cause that is destined to disappear in the future when more reasonable people are able to bring about the change necessary for that to occur. I support responsible gun ownership as I stated in my earlier comment. Sorry if I did not make that clear.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 6, 2016 12:12 PM
Comment #401767

Warren, I said they are controlled by liberal ‘policy,’ which has been the policy used to run our large urban areas for many decades now. Policy that promotes dependency and a false sense of entitlement. Policy that has not changed simply because a mayor, governor or even President is a democrat or Republican.

Large urban areas have one way of life, and those who choose not to live in those areas have another way of life. Forcing the large urban area way of life onto everybody else will be met with resistance.

Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2016 12:19 PM
Comment #401769
I said they are controlled by liberal ‘policy,’ which has been the policy used to run our large urban areas for many decades now. Policy that promotes dependency and a false sense of entitlement.

Welfare programs are not administered any differently in urban areas than they are in rural ones. Or is your complaint about something else? Of course, city living requires a greater level of sharing of public goods as space is so scarce, but this is something that will be true regardless of politics or policy.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2016 12:41 PM
Comment #401770

Speaks, if a person takes offense to being labeled a ‘gun fetishist’ for doing what they have safely done their entire life, then they already have taken the time to reflect.
It doesn’t matter if you care about the 2nd Amendment or not, the fact of the matter is that tens of millions of Americans do care about their individual rights and calling them names obviously is not working.

If ending gun violence is the goal, why wait for the hope of addressing it sometime in the future?

Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2016 12:42 PM
Comment #401772

OK, I will try this one more time. Did I call you anyone specifically a gun fetishist? If you think you are a gun fetishist you should stop and ask yourself why you have a fetish for guns not stop and defend your fetish by spouting 2nd amendment nonsense. Ten of millions of Americans can and will do what they wish, I do not stop them from doing so. I merely state my opinion. I support responsible gun ownership but hold the opinion that gun ownership will be a concept in 100 years or so that will longer be necessary. You can disagree but try to understand my objective is not to offend you but to voice my opinion. If you feel offended look to yourself for the reason why.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 6, 2016 12:54 PM
Comment #401774

Guns are a way of life for many people. I doubt that will change over the next 100 years.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2016 1:34 PM
Comment #401775

And that would be your opinion, thank you. That is why I come to this site, to seek other peoples opinions. You did this without denigrating my opinion, thank you again. I am responding without denigrating your opinion also.

I will make the observation that there were probably a lot of people around 100 years ago that scoffed at the thought that the “horseless carriage” would become the normal mode of transportation for people. Not everyone thought this way, some innovators looked to the future and found the automobile.

I expect there will be individuals that look to the future and see a society that does not need to have such vehemently opposed views of gun ownership for whatever reason they may have. I cannot say what that might be as that would be a prediction and not an opinion.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 6, 2016 2:13 PM
Comment #401776

Warren
“Welfare programs are not administered any differently in urban areas than they are in rural ones.”

And in both areas, the locations where those programs are most prevalent are also the locations with higher crime. But why then is the crime in our areas not as frequent and violent as it is in the urban areas? Because we don’t stack more liberal policy on top of liberal policy, over and over and over again.
We don’t stack our government housing 30 stories high. We don’t excuse and invite panhandling bums. We don’t handcuff our police. We don’t promote dependency on government programs, we discourage it.
When a guy murders someone with a gun, we hold HIM responsible, we don’t take away the guns of everybody else, or make it harder for them to exercise their rights.

You are a very intelligent man, Warren, so why are you pretending to be so obtuse to the differences between large urban government and lifestyle, and the government and lifestyle of us who chose not to live in large urban areas?

And Speaks, I also tried. You have a good day now.

Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2016 2:16 PM
Comment #401777

Something to ponder upon:

Postcards from the future

I especially like the one that opines “Knowledge will be instilled into students through wires attached to their heads.” Seems a might close to the internet, doesn’t it?

Posted by: Speak4all at January 6, 2016 2:19 PM
Comment #401778

The open carry law was signed into law by the same crew that told us Obama was gonna take those gyns and declare martial law in Texas this past summer, Jade Helm exercises and all.

To say these guys used reasonable judgement is a stretch. Open carry laws as a response to the increasing number of gun deaths in this country isn’t reasonable.

According to the statistics violent crimes are down considerably from a couple of decades ago, to pass an open carry law with this knowledge isn’t reasonable.

To pass an open carry law that requires no advanced training or safer weapons isn’t reasonable.

The Texas open carry law was passed for political reasons during an election year it seems to me. It isn’t a reasonable law it is a political ploy. It is an unreasonable law and as such fails to be unreasonable enough to do any good.

I’m sure you guys are aware of my opinion on gun control it is unreasonable as I believe open carry laws should be mandatory carry laws to be effective. I mean a bunch of untrained law abiding until they commit a crime yahoos walking the streets with semi automatic weapons, what could go wrong. Well those that don’t carry will soon find out, just ask the DD who dies new years in Texas. Oh yeah and the former law abiding Marine accused of shooting her.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/college-student-shot-killed-serving-designated-driver-years/story?id=36056447

Posted by: j2t2 at January 6, 2016 2:28 PM
Comment #401779

S4A,
Autos replaced horses, but both serve the same purpose. If guns are to go the way of the horse, they need to be replaced by something that can do the same job as a gun, but better.

kctim,

so why are you pretending to be so obtuse to the differences between large urban government and lifestyle, and the government and lifestyle of us who chose not to live in large urban areas?

I already know what I think, what I want to know is how you think.

Because we don’t stack more liberal policy on top of liberal policy, over and over and over again. We don’t stack our government housing 30 stories high. We don’t excuse and invite panhandling bums. We don’t handcuff our police. We don’t promote dependency on government programs, we discourage it. When a guy murders someone with a gun, we hold HIM responsible, we don’t take away the guns of everybody else, or make it harder for them to exercise their rights.
If crime is the result of these leftist policies, then why do the biggest bastions of leftism (NYC, Boston, LA) have lower crime rates than other big cities? Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2016 2:32 PM
Comment #401780

WP, my correlation from horse to horseless carriage was not meant as the template for less contention on gun ownership but merely pointing out that to some degree people will always be skeptical of something new.

Advances in technology will take care of the replacement of guns. Thumb/fingerprint technology is already being used. I expect more evolution in the field of biometrics and how that relates to operating many, many machines and devices will overtake the need to replace a gun. But there could be more than that made available. Again this would border on prediction rather than opinion, so I am hesitant to expound.

I bought a new car last year and only need to have the key in my pocket to unlock or start the vehicle, in fact there is no place to insert a key in the vehicle. This would not have been commonly available a few decades ago, if at all. I expect that “keys” of all sort will no longer be necessary in the future along with contentious debates on gun ownership.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 6, 2016 3:07 PM
Comment #401782

To those who support gay pride marches, I say good for you, but keep it to yourself and don’t make a spectacle of yourself.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 6, 2016 3:53 PM
Comment #401783

I contend that an armed population is safer from others who would do them harm, and from government tyranny, than an unarmed population.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 6, 2016 4:09 PM
Comment #401785

MMW concealed weapon detection technology is about to change all of the rules on concealed carry over the next few years anyway. Once it becomes affordable (that doesn’t take to long in technology land) you will see all sorts of passive scanners like this one

http://www.janes.com/article/51064/mirtle-targets-concealed-threat-detection-at-standoff-ranges

The big issue in the U.S. will be what to do with all of the felons caught with guns. In Charlotte on Christmas Eve we had a shooting at a local mall. The person who pulled a gun was a convicted felon,was out on bail for two more offenses, and had a previous conviction for felon in possession. In fact his rap video on Youtube is called “Convicted Felon with a Weapon” and in the video he is seen with several different guns. I guess he learned from his own experience that the justice system is not concerned with the current gun laws because he certainly didn’t hide the fact that he was carrying.

Estimates are 70% of violent gun crime is committed by a person who has had a previous felony conviction in the last five years. The guy here last week had 11. It’s illegal for these people to have guns now yet our courts just put them back on the street. So open carry, conceal carry, or any kind of carry is not going to matter until we stop locking up the pot heads and start getting serious about removing these types from our streets.

We will soon have the technology to detect these people passively and at safe range. The next step will be to lock them up.

Posted by: George in SC at January 6, 2016 4:37 PM
Comment #401786

“If crime is the result of these leftist policies, then why do the biggest bastions of leftism (NYC, Boston, LA) have lower crime rates than other big cities?”

If they all suffer from the same thing, does it really matter who is suffering a little less?

Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2016 4:48 PM
Comment #401788

Happy 71st wedding anniversary to George and Barbara Bush.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 6, 2016 5:05 PM
Comment #401789

“I mean a bunch of untrained law abiding until they commit a crime yahoos walking the streets with semi automatic weapons, what could go wrong. Well those that don’t carry will soon find out”

Well J2, as somebody who lives in an Open Carry state and doesn’t carry himself, I can tell you that not much really goes wrong.

!!!WARNING!!!
The following may scare some. Please read no further if you are easily frightened.
.
.
.
.
.
I saw a lady with a .380 strapped to her side just this very morning. Didn’t pee my pants. Didn’t get shot. Whew!

Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2016 5:17 PM
Comment #401790

Please stop with the references of people being afraid of guns. No one here has expressed any fear other than those afraid that someone is coming for their guns. Have you ever had a gun pulled on you? Have you ever had to pull a gun on someone?

Posted by: Speak4all at January 6, 2016 5:35 PM
Comment #401792

OK, I will try this one more time. I merely stated my opinion. Did I say you specifically were afraid of guns? If you think you are a afraid of guns, you should stop and ask yourself why. You can disagree but try to understand my objective is not to offend you but to voice my opinion. If you feel offended look to yourself for the reason why.

Yes, I have had the wrong end of a gun pointed at me.
Yes, I have had to aim a gun, and even fire it, at another human being.

Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2016 6:03 PM
Comment #401807

Imitation used as flattery is sometimes viewed as a compliment but in this case it would seem that the intent is to some how show scorn. I could be wrong but your comments in the past have more often than not taken on the immature nature of ridicule, without much success.

I support responsible gun ownership and also support your contentions regarding the 2nd amendment, although I do not hold the same views that you do regarding any perceived threat to the 2nd amendment I would never presume that you should not be able to advance those contentions. That is your right.

Given your immature and flippant attitude regarding any disagreement about gun violence concerns, with derisive comments such as “The following may scare some. Please read no further if you are easily frightened.”, I am unable to accept that you share the same concerns that I do regarding the use of guns in a confrontational situation. Again that is your right but I cannot share the flippant dismissal that you use to attempt to assert your opinion with others.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 7, 2016 10:15 AM
Comment #401814
Well J2, as somebody who lives in an Open Carry state and doesn’t carry himself, I can tell you that not much really goes wrong.

Well kctim, it isn’t me you need to convince. Convince those that have dies in 2016 of gun violence instead-
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/number-of-gun-deaths

Here is a map of states and gun violence for the past decade or so, kctim, do you notice the states with lax gun laws seem to have more gun related deaths.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-rates-of-gun-deaths/

Posted by: j2t2 at January 7, 2016 12:56 PM
Comment #401815

Speaks, it’s not a ‘flippant dismissal’ of the concerns of others, but a different priority that myself, and those I was trying to get you to understand earlier, hold.

I know gun violence is a very real concern that must be addressed, but it has to be addressed properly and the only way to do that is with respecting the 2nd Amendment the first and most important priority.
Because of this, we see more restrictions on our right as further infringement on our right.

The gun control side of the issue does not see it that way. They claim the first priority is safety and they treat the 2nd Amendment as a privilege that can be fearfully altered at will, instead of as an individual right.
Because of this, they blame and target the wrong people and use childish name-calling and hyperbole to dismiss the concerns of the other side of the issue.

And come on speaks, even you would have to admit that further up the thread, I wasn’t trying to ‘assert my opinion’ on you, I was actually trying to get you to understand the other side.

“I am unable to accept that you share the same concerns that I do regarding the use of guns in a confrontational situation.”

That doesn’t frighten me at all, Speaks. I know and understand that different people have different concerns. My goal isn’t to invalidate your opinions and concerns, my goal is to have you respect mine.

Posted by: kctim at January 7, 2016 1:09 PM
Comment #401816

Many years ago I was alone working late at night at a Finance Company and had forgot to lock the back door. I heard a noise, turned around, and saw two cops with guns drawn and aimed at me. I nearly shit my pants and my hands went up automatically.

I take guns very seriously and am always glad to see them in friendly competent hands.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 7, 2016 1:33 PM
Comment #401818

kct, and I would hope that you understand that respect is something that is earned, not given. I realize in the heat of the moment our comments can be interpreted as offensive. When brought to our attention, this should be something each of us should strive to eliminate, if for no other reason than a reasonable discussion.

RF, I was going to make a point earlier and didn’t but now that you have shared your experience I can say that I too have been on both sides of a loaded gun. I can honestly say that sitting here I have no fear of guns but in each instance that I have experienced either a gun drawn on me or having to hold a gun on someone else, a sense of fear and dread was overwhelming. Thanks for sharing.

George’s reference to MiRTL technology is the kind of change that I see will make discussions like this less contentious.

Posted by: Speak4all at January 7, 2016 2:21 PM
Comment #401819

J2

So we have gone from discussing people who don’t carry finding out what goes wrong when people walk the streets with semi automatic weapons, to discussing gun violence in general that has nothing to do with Open Carry?

You want me to convince people that have died in 2016 of gun violence that Open Carry had nothing to do with their death? That they shouldn’t commit suicide? That guns are dangerous and sometimes bad people with use them for bad things? That they have a better chance of being killed in a random drive-by in the city, than they do of being killed surrounded by people with tons of guns in a suburban or rural area?

“do you notice the states with lax gun laws seem to have more gun related deaths.”

Actually, I noticed that the graphic in your link was incomplete so I found another, more user fiendly map with greater detail. Hope that is ok.

http://projects.oregonlive.com/ucc-shooting/gun-deaths

Just scroll down to Gun Homicides per 100k people
You can zoom in/out, and it give details when you hover over an area, like a city or county.

The death rate thing is misleading so you can use this map to help with actual numbers.

http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/gun-deaths

Now, with a more complete and fair overview, I notice that the majority of gun violence problems in states with lax gun laws are pretty much concentrated in large urban areas. And, oddly enough, it seems those large urban areas are pretty much in line with similar large urban areas in states with more strict gun control laws. Like KC and Chicago.

Posted by: kctim at January 7, 2016 2:26 PM
Comment #401822
it seems those large urban areas are pretty much in line with similar large urban areas in states with more strict gun laws

Thank you for the link from the Oregonian. It appears, the evidence contradicts your claim. Cook County, Illinois has a Gun Death rate of 9.31 per 100k. This is a tad higher than other big cities with strict gun control (Boston, New York, San Francisco Bay, LA). This is much lower than nearly the entire rural Southern and Western US, where rates of over 11 dead per 100k are not uncommon.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 7, 2016 3:00 PM
Comment #401825

Warren,
Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. It has a 6.5 murder rate per 100k.
San Fran and LA, which you say are strict gun control cities, have a 5.7 murder rate. NYC averages a murder rate of around 4.

They all have two things in common:
1. Stricter gun control laws than those around them.
2. In almost any direction you go, the further you get away from them, the safer you are. Until you hit the next large urban area.

The Huffpo map tracks the actual deaths. The large urban areas with stricter gun control laws have huge numbers, the surrounding areas without, pop up in the low to very low single digits.

Yes, some large urban areas will have higher rates than others, but that does not change the fact that they are more much more dangerous than their suburban and rural neighbors.


Posted by: kctim at January 7, 2016 5:06 PM
Comment #401830

Only a handful of counties in the Deep South have as low a gun death rate as Chicago.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 7, 2016 5:23 PM
Comment #401832

Yep, I’ve even driven through many of them on my way to Gulfport. Beautiful, peaceful country. Didn’t feel scared or threatened one time.

Think my trip past Cabrini Green was the same?

Posted by: kctim at January 7, 2016 6:02 PM
Comment #401834

Harrison County, MS has a gun death rate of 15.57 per 100k and Cook County, IL has a gun death rate of just 9.31 and you are trying to tell me that Harrison County is safer?

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 7, 2016 6:16 PM
Comment #401840

Harrison County, MS has a murder rate of 5.3 per 100k and Cook County, IL has a murder rate of 6.5 per 100k.

In 2013, the number of people murdered by guns in IL was 576. Cook County accounted for 415. For the entire state of MS, it was 215.

There is no doubt where one is safer.

Posted by: kctim at January 8, 2016 10:18 AM
Comment #401841

I have another post hung up for moderation, but…

Warren, what do you think are the three main reasons for the higher death rate?

Posted by: George in SC at January 8, 2016 10:24 AM
Comment #401842
In 2013, the number of people murdered by guns in IL was 576. Cook County accounted for 415. For the entire state of MS, it was 215.

Another Source:
Firearm death rate in Illinois is 8.6 per 100k. In Mississippi, it’s 17.8 per 100k. Again, one of these states is much safer than the other.

Keep in mind that we need to include all gun deaths, not just murders. Accidental shootings are just as important when gauging safety.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 8, 2016 11:43 AM
Comment #401843

George in SC,

To get around the moderator filter, remove the word $*x and limits yourself to two links. I sometimes break up a larger comment into to two or more smaller ones in order to reduce the links in a comment.

As for your question, I believe the higher rate of gun ownership leads to a higher gun mortality rate. Namely, abundant firearms can lead to many more accidental shootings, homicidal shootings and suicides.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 8, 2016 11:51 AM
Comment #401844

No, we do not need to include accidents and suicides when we are talking about threats of violence, or ‘the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.’

I understand that the gun control side needs them included, but it is dishonest. They are three separate animals.

Posted by: kctim at January 8, 2016 12:17 PM
Comment #401846
when we are talking about threats of violence, or ‘the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.’

Is that we are talking about? No, we are talking about gun mortality. This includes homicides, suicides and accidents. Guns are the common vector in all three.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 8, 2016 12:22 PM
Comment #401847

George in SC , thanks for the update on gun technology. It’s good to see those that advocate for open carry and more guns on the street to have ideas on how to stop the illegal use of guns. I am so tired of the “s**t happens” arguments from gun advocates. Seems Obama brought up the technological advances in his recent CNN town hall meeting on the issue of gun control as well.


So we have gone from discussing people who don’t carry finding out what goes wrong when people walk the streets with semi automatic weapons, to discussing gun violence in general that has nothing to do with Open Carry?

We have as they are related IMHO kctim. Open carry doesn’t solve the problem and will only serve to create more problems. The problem is how do you tell the “law abiding” gun owner from the “law abiding until they commit a murder” gun owner.

Hell cops gun down black guys carry toy guns in Walmarts as it is. How many innocents need to get caught in the cross fire when the open carry guy needs to defend himself from the cop who thinks the open carry guy is a terrorist? Afterall when you are a hammer all problems are a nail, if your a cop all the people are criminals. Of course I could go on with “whatif’s” so lets hear a few of your whatif’s that make open carry a reasonable and sane thing to do.

Americans are to dumbed down, to narcissistic as a group to have such a huge responsibility hell we should be discussing disarming the police as they have shown they cannot control their own when it comes to the power a gun in ones possession has over the person.

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=cop+shhoting+guy+climbing+out+of+vehicle&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

Another issue,kctim, that is relevant to open carry is the risks posed by the far right extremist who think it necessary to protest with their open carry firearms against Muslims and other minorities. The fascist/extremist conservatives demanding the federal government give them land.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 8, 2016 12:36 PM
Comment #401849

One doesn’t have anything to do with the other, Warren.
A gun is a tool and there will always be accidents when tools are involved. People will always use tools to off themselves.
That’s life.

You don’t prevent the actual murders of thousands of innocent people by addressing the slight possibility of some guy some where killing himself with a gun.

Posted by: kctim at January 8, 2016 1:46 PM
Comment #401850
In 2013, the number of people murdered by guns in IL was 576. Cook County accounted for 415. For the entire state of MS, it was 215.

Even if we take these numbers to be true, MS still as more gun murders per capita .

If Mississippi were as safe as Illinois, it would have only 134 gun homicides

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 8, 2016 2:00 PM
Comment #401854

J2

Sorry, but they are not related. Open Carry was legal in 44 states before TX allowed it, and the ‘whatif’ propaganda did not pan out.

All of our rights come with huge responsibility.

Second Amendment supporters have not posed any kind of threat to muslims or minorities.

Americans trespassing to protest what they feel is an injustice, is nothing new.
As of now, there has been no destruction of private or private property. There has been no harassment, threats or attacks on innocent people. There has been no racial hate crimes.
“Whatif” they do something stupid? Then they will pay the price.

Unlike with OWS, BLM, Ferguson, Baltimore etc…, only a small minority would try to justify or excuse any violent result.

“The fascist/extremist conservatives demanding the federal government give them land.”

They are protesting authoritarian government by disobeying its authority. They are protesting for MORE personal freedom, NOT for things that come at the expense of personal freedom.

Be careful when repeating talking points to somebody who knows what words actually mean, J2.

Posted by: kctim at January 8, 2016 2:56 PM
Comment #401855

Population of IL - 12.88 million
Population of Chicago - 2.72 million

10.16 million people accounted for 161 murders.
2.72 million people accounted for 415 murders.

The large urban area with fewer guns accounted for more than twice the number of murders than the suburban and rural areas with more guns per household.

Population of MS - 2.94 million
Population of Chicago - 2.72 million

2.94 million people accounted for 215 murders.
2.72 million people accounted for 415 murders.

The large urban area with fewer guns accounted for almost twice the number of murders than an entire state where at least 70% of the households have guns.

While the state of IL may be a little safer than the state of MS, you avoid the large urban areas in either state, and you will fine.

Posted by: kctim at January 8, 2016 3:56 PM
Comment #401856

kctim, if you want to evaluate the effect of firearm ownership on gun mortality, you need to isolate effect from confounding factors. Comparing Chicago with Mississippi, you don’t know whether other things are playing a bigger role (population density, poverty, etc). We need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

If you want to examine the mortality rate in a city like Chicago, you need to compare it to another big city (such as Houston or Dallas). If you want to compare the rate of a rural county in Mississippi, you need to compare it to a rural county in New England or downstate Illinois with similar demographics.

No matter how you slice it, Mississippi and other regions of the Deep South with the highest rate of gun ownership have much higher rates of gun mortality than places where fewer people own guns (such as New England).

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 8, 2016 4:35 PM
Comment #401857

Being armed to protect my own life, and possibly the life of my loved ones and others from crazies and criminals, has become more necessary with the added threat of Islamic terrorists. When they fire upon armed police, I know for certain that they will fire upon anyone without warning.

In most cases, police can not protect citizens from those who wish to harm or kill us.

“PHILADELPHIA, Jan 8 (Reuters) - A gunman claiming to have pledged allegiance to Islamic State militants shot and seriously wounded a Philadelphia police officer in an ambush on his patrol car, the city’s police commissioner said on Friday.”

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/08/philadelphia-police-officer-wounded-in-attack/21294183/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl5|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-679881320

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 8, 2016 5:03 PM
Comment #401858

Warren, I want to address the problem of actual gun violence. Accidents, suicides and the occasional multiple murder in a low population area does nothing to do that.

The gun control side of the issue loves to use the hundreds of yearly murders in their cities to justify their desire to restrict or ban guns. Those of us who do not live in those cities do not have those problems with murder, but we are the ones who are targeted.

Do you really believe we should agree with you simply because a hunter shot himself in his foot, some guy offed himself or some rare nut killed multiple people?
Not going to happen my friend.

Posted by: kctim at January 8, 2016 6:00 PM
Comment #401859
The gun control side of the issue loves to use the hundreds of yearly murders in their cities to justify their desire to restrict or ban guns. Those of us who do not live in those cities do not have those problems with murder, but we are the ones who are targeted.

Do you really believe we should agree with you simply because a hunter shot himself in his foot, some guy offed himself or some rare nut killed multiple people?
Not going to happen my friend.

I have happily lived my entire life in counties marked in blue on the Oregonian’s map. It seems, gun violence is not much of a problem in these communities. I think it is because of the way we treat guns here.

Conversely, much of the rural South is coated in deep red on the map. Nearly every county has a gun mortality rate two or three times what I deal with. We can either respond to this by shutting our eyes and yelling lalalala. Or we can have a serious discussion about the role the gun culture plays.

It’s the “More guns, less crime” BS that is the real barrier to any meaningful discussion. If gun rights activists at least recognized that a preponderance of guns increases gun fatalities, then at least we’d be getting somewhere. I could easily see people making the argument: “While I understand that more guns will lead to more deaths, that is a sacrifice I’m willing to make in order to protect this cherished Constitutional Right.”

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 8, 2016 7:23 PM
Comment #401860

I could easily see people making the argument: “While I understand that more guns will lead to more deaths, that is a sacrifice I’m willing to make in order to protect this cherished Constitutional Right.”
Posted by: Warren Porter at January 8, 2016 7:23 PM

Then what?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 8, 2016 7:37 PM
Comment #401861

Then we can actually make a decision based upon facts rather than feelings. The founders established the right for militiamen to bear arms and they did so for a reason.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 8, 2016 8:03 PM
Comment #401863

Warren, what facts, what feelings, what decision?

Right to bear arms: fact

Want to bear arms: feelings

Want to continue both: decision

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 9, 2016 1:45 PM
Comment #401871

Fact: the founders wished to protect the right of militia members to keep and bear arms.

Feeling: An armed populace is a useful to fight crime.

Decision: Maintain the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. Continue the existing system of background checks, perhaps close loopholes that enable criminals to skirt the system. Legislate laws to discourage would be straw buyers from purchasing weapons.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 9, 2016 8:19 PM
Comment #401880

Agree Warren, thanks.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 10, 2016 3:10 PM
Comment #401883

Warren

I have safely and happily lived my life surrounded by people who own guns. Gun violence has never been a problem in these areas and that is all because of the way we treat guns AND each other.
We have more guns and less crime than our urban neighbors and actual gun violence is rarely a problem we face.

“If gun rights activists at least recognized that a preponderance of guns increases gun fatalities, then at least we’d be getting somewhere.”

As I’ve tried to get through to you, this tactic isn’t working, Warren.
The anti 2nd Amendment side needs high numbers to instill max fear, so it pads their numbers with accidents, suicides and the rare multiple shooting in a low population area.
The pro 2nd Amendment side understands that accidents happen, that people kill themselves, and that sometimes a nut will go nuts. We accepted LONG ago that keeping the individual right is worth the rare misuse.

We have more guns and less actual gun violence, Warren. Clouding the issue with unrelated stats will not change that.

“Maintain the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. Continue the existing system of background checks, perhaps close loopholes that enable criminals to skirt the system. Legislate laws to discourage would be straw buyers from purchasing weapons.”

Like Royal, I agree with you here.

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2016 10:26 AM
Comment #401893

So imagine….

A cable tv van fitted with stand-off MMw detector rides down the street completely unnoticed. There it identifies 2 individuals sitting on the street corner with concealed weapons.

They come back by again with a concealed camera and take pictures of their faces. They then use facial recognition technology to determine that both are convicted felons and in illegal possession of the firearms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/us/facial-recognition-software-moves-from-overseas-wars-to-local-police.html?_r=0

Now they Skype a judge, who after seeing the concealed weapon imaging and the facial identification, issues a warrant for their arrest.


Pipe dream?

Posted by: George in SC at January 11, 2016 2:22 PM
Comment #401895
I have safely and happily lived my life surrounded by people who own guns. Gun violence has never been a problem in these areas and that is all because of the way we treat guns AND each other. We have more guns and less crime than our urban neighbors and actual gun violence is rarely a problem we face.

Spin as much as you want, suicide and accidental shootings are violent ways to die. We’ve looked at the statistics and regions with higher gun ownership invariably have higher rates of gun mortality. The difference is slightly less stark when non-murders are excluded, but it is still there. The community you live in has many more fatalities than it would if people owned fewer guns. This is a fact.

understands that accidents happen
This exactly the wrong way to be thinking. Accidents can be prevented. A sober discussion needs to be done to balance individual rights with the common misuse thereof.
“Maintain the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. Continue the existing system of background checks, perhaps close loopholes that enable criminals to skirt the system. Legislate laws to discourage would be straw buyers from purchasing weapons.”
This is nothing more than an echo of what President Obama has suggested. Conversely, the Right opposes universal background checks and has done everything it can to prevent law enforcement from stopping straw purchases. Posted by: Warren Porter at January 11, 2016 4:58 PM
Comment #401905

Warren,

The U.S. suicide rate isn’t out of line with other countries that ban private gun ownership. I’m sure a gun is the more preferred method here but I don’t think you can correlate more guns equals more suicide.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/suicide/by-country/

As to universal NICS checks I’m not opposed to them but that’s not going to make any sort of impact on the problem as a stand alone. And it is a clear pathway to gun registration (which is why the NRA opposes them). The last gun that I sold to someone I paid an extra $25 to run it through an FFL. Cheap insurance against someone dragging me into a mess later down the road.


Posted by: George in SC at January 12, 2016 9:37 AM
Comment #401914

Warren writes; “Spin as much as you want, suicide and accidental shootings are violent ways to die.”

I suspect the same is true for partial birth abortion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 12, 2016 2:20 PM
Post a comment