As far as I know this goes beyond CCW. It's dropping all the requirements for a CCW while allowing anyone numbskull to Conceal Carry, with no training, or licensing. CCW afaik requires at least a background check at a min.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Unlicensed Handguns
- Thread starter The Hammer
- Start date
As far as I know this goes beyond CCW. It's dropping all the requirements for a CCW while allowing anyone numbskull to Conceal Carry, with no training, or licensing. CCW afaik requires at least a background check at a min.
I prefer licensing & training.
Studies tend not to get published for a variety of reasons, one of those reasons isn't "we didn't like the results". Not with any reputable researcher. (Unless methodology was flawed).
I'll look at the CDC paper and see how it draws it's conclusions. But the anecdotal stories in the article are of an LEO, and they get weapons handling and training for these types of encounters (even if they aren't always the best at it, they still actively have the training and hopefully muscle memory using the weapon.) That makes a huge difference in high stress situations like the one in which a gun would be pulled.
Gary Kleck's studies address the general
population, not just cops.
BTW, even reputable researchers cannot
stop agenda from creeping into research.
It might be, but the anecdotes do not fit the GP, as I said.
It's why you never use the data from only one particular study, to make policy decisions.
What's the "GP".
I did point out the conflicts.
General Public, the average citizen.
I haven't read the unpublished CDC study yet, and might not for a few days (bit busy), what I did read in the article you linked
( Unpublished CDC Study Confirms More than 2 Million Defensive Handgun Uses Annually )
were personal anecdotes from an LEO, McNeff.
"During each occasion McNeff was dressed in civilian clothing. The suspect in each case was not the intended target of the undercover assignment."
He is a trained officer, and a good one from the sounds of it. That makes a huge difference in threat response.
Yazata
Active Member
I believe that this change in Texas state law is about concealed weapons permits. It's about moving from "shall issue" status (concealed weapons permits must by law be granted unless certain disqualifying conditions exist) to "Constitutional carry" status (no concealed weapons permit required at all).
If that's correct, it would make Texas the 21st US state with Constitutional carry. The existing 20 (Alaska, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, north Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Vermont, new Hampshire and Maine) don't seem to have seen any huge increase of homicides. In fact I would guess that these states have lower homicide rates than the more restrictive states. (Probably because most of them are largely rural states while the restrictive states are more urban.) 21 other states (including Texas at the present time) have "shall issue" laws. The other nine states are "may issue" (it's up to the local authorities, typically the sheriff's office, so getting a concealed weapons permit may be easy in one county and impossible in another) or "restrictive may issue" ("may issue" wording in the law but in practice no-issue).
Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia
Last edited:
That was my mistake.
After reading more, my problem is different. Texans could carry handguns without a permit under bill headed to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk notes some provisions of the current law that I think are very important: fingerprinting, training and a proficiency test.
Under current state law, Texans must generally be licensed to carry handguns openly or concealed. Applicants must submit fingerprints, complete four to six hours of training, and pass a written exam and a shooting proficiency test. Texas does not require a license to openly carry a rifle in public.
Peter Griffin
Deist
I think everyone should be allowed to have a concealed weapons license after a mandatory 2-year service in the military. I believe every citizen should be required to serve, National service.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
No license is one thing, but no training is idiocy at its most dangerous.
That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses
So, I couldn't find the original CDC study (your article had a dead link). But I found this interpretation of both the CDC study and Glecks via Forbes.
I don't disagree with the assertions here that DGUs need to be accounted for properly and actually accounted for in research, and that probably isn't occuring right now.
My one issue on the CDC study is that the conclusions of "between 500k to 3 million Defensive Gun Uses" being accounted for is not very accurate ( 0.5-3.0) is a wide margin of error.
Edit: and therefore better/stricter study parameters need to be introduced.
When viewing Kleck's & such stats, even the lower (more
conservative) figures still make the case for the utility of guns,
& have more common ground with anti-gun types.
I wasn't disagreeing with Gleck or the CDC, just asserting that both studies point to the need for better and more accurate research on this topic, because we aren't doing a good job accounting for it, and these findings deserve at least that much.
Never thought they were useless for defensive purposes. Despite the link to the good guy "myth".
I just personally don't think enough people are trained how to react appropriately in the kind of stressful situations that may require gun usage. I've trained enough people in the military on the range to see it. People that are normally cool, level-headed and confident, turning to a shuddering puddle of nerves that can't aim the moment they pick up their weapon. So excuse my caution.
Training is key.
I too am a fan of caution....& training.
Kooky
Freedom from Sanity
In my view, a lot of gun ownership is essentially borne out of a machistic empowerment fantasy, the idea that guns convey the power to control a source of fear and powerlessness. In this usage, they are essentially talismans or fetishes of the modern age, invested with ideas of power, purchased to convey a sense of protection and control over one's fate.
My views on gun ownership are a lot less invested in such fantasies. I've known personal firearms in a military context, and received training both in terms of target practice and simulated combat situations, yet I still wouldn't trust myself to use a gun properly under duress, let alone a life threatening situation; I'd be probably just as likely to injure myself or an innocent bystander as I would to murder the threat.
My views on gun ownership are a lot less invested in such fantasies. I've known personal firearms in a military context, and received training both in terms of target practice and simulated combat situations, yet I still wouldn't trust myself to use a gun properly under duress, let alone a life threatening situation; I'd be probably just as likely to injure myself or an innocent bystander as I would to murder the threat.
It's good that you know your limitations.
There are many like you who shouldn't own a gun.
However, the belief that gun ownership is just a
macho fantasy appears to be just a personal projection
upon others.
One of several such stories I ran across just this morning....
esmith
Veteran Member
That is your personal assessment of your capabilities, it does not necessarily reflect the capabilities of everyone; therein lies the problem.
In the case of firearm policies many that think they are right and anyone who does not ascribe to those views are portrayed as you did in the above assessment.
Now I am not saying that everyone who wants a firearm should have one and again therein lies another problem. Assessment of determining what laws should govern firearms should not be based on the few but on the majority.
To your personal observation of your capabilites might surprise you in a actual situation. You say you have had simulated combat situations yet you think you could not react correctly in a real threating situation. You might be surprised what you are capable of. It is possible that your training, no matter how far in the past it was, could control your actions. Then on the other hand it might not, you never know what your capable of until you are placed in a situation. But of course constant training always improves ones skills, but once a skill is learned that skill is always embeded in your subconscious no matter how "rusty" it is. Then again the ability to use it may be overwritten by other mental "programs".
The chance of a priviate citizen being placed in a situation where the use of a fiream is called for is very very remote; however even though the chance of that occuing has a very low probibility of happening it is not impossible. I don't how I would react in a life or death situation now; however I would prefer to have the option of having the means to react. However, I would really prefer to never have to find out.
I agree that there are those that carry firearms, especially those that open carry in public, ascribe to your views as expressed above, however do not judge all of us in the same manner.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's quite simple. Don't buy a gun if you don't want one.