John Lott On Texas Open Carry
Herschel Smith comments:
Lott’s assertion that open carry is done in order to make a political statement is both insulting and ignorant. When I open carry, I don’t do it to make any kind of statement.
But beyond being insulting and ignorant, Lott’s procedure is the same as he has used before, and it is as objectionable as it has always been. . .
If you need to, read his commentary above again, very carefully. He doesn’t come right out and say he is opposed to the legalization of open carry, but he spends his entire time trying to prove that it is inferior to concealed carry, and ends with the question, is it “really a top priority?” . . .
Ironically, while various anti-gun groups such as the VPC attempt to use arguments like this to prohibit the practice of God-given rights by a subterfuge of worthless “statistics” they don’t really understand, John Lott attempts to do the very same thing under the guise of being safe and ensuring the best response to potential attackers. He is more like the anti-gun crowd than he would be willing to admit. It isn’t enough that we must do battle with the collectivists to ensure the free exercise of our rights. We must also do battle with self-proclaimed gun rights advocates like John Lott. Working to legalize open carry in Texas doesn’t change cultural norms, but it’s a starting point. Those of us who favor such legalization will have to step over the “gun rights” activists to make this happen.
8 comments:
Lott's opinion isn't surprising. His support of carry is based on statistical results, not principle.
Texas is likely to pass 'permitted' open carry. I don't plan on flaunting my side arm. I will likely wear it in the traditional position but under an un-tucked shirt or unzipped jacket. I just don't want to get arrested and charged if the wind blows my jacket open and my sidearm is momentarily exposed. This would be a psychotic thing to do to somebody. A law abiding life ruined by a gust of wind.
how a statistician suddenly decides to judge the law based on his sensibilities after doing so much scientifically sound work is beyond my comprehension.
I read Lott's full piece as well as Herschel's response. Here's what I posted at Herschel's place:
"while various anti-gun groups such as the VPC attempt to use arguments like this to prohibit the practice of God-given rights ... John Lott attempts to do the very same thing under the guise of being safe and ensuring the best response to potential attackers."
100% agree, Herschel. I took away the message of "We HAVE concealed carry (even though the fee is the highest of any state) so we do not NEED open carry. Besides, concealed carry is superior anyhow." Anybody who argues from "need" is already off in the weeds. It's not about "needs" but CREATOR ENDOWED RIGHTS.
I am a big guy (6'4") and carry a full-size Glock in a Remora IWB holster comfortably. Plus, so far as I can tell, imprinting is not an issue in Texas. That said, a nice double or triple retention holster on my belt would be vastly more comfortable - not to mention convenient.
Unfortunately, I seriously doubt we have much of a chance to get open cary in Texas any time soon. I read a piece not long ago (wish I had bookmarked it) where a senior legislator (House Speaker?) said something to the effect that he perceived no great motivation to pass an open carry bill this legislative session so none of the bills is even likely to make it to the floor for a vote. That attitude gets my dander up. Wouldn't the democratic process demand that, since multiple bills have been submitted, at least ONE of them (if not all) should get to the floor for an honest, up-or-down vote? My suspicion is that the RINOs in the Texas legislature don't WANT the bills to get to the floor so they do not have to show their true colors regarding 2nd Amendment rights. Both the representative and state senator from the district in which I reside are Democrats so we already KNOW how they'd vote.
"legalization of open carry"
Wow, they're still talking about that? I thought it was legalized 225 years ago.
I guess the word "legalize" must mean something else.
The Lone Star State used to be full of people who carried their firearms openly and concealed for a long time.
It is only during this current era of "let us not offend anyone" that this subject is even news.
The old time cow hands who made Texas great must be rolling in their graves at the thought of these sissified whiners, "scared" by open carry daring to call themselves Texans.
Open carry is the best way to acclimate people to seeing a sidearm on someone's hip, without anything untoward happening. As it becomes commonplace, even the timid will become used to it.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Read it again, slowly. It does not state "... shall not be infringed, except for the manner of carrying" or "but a license may be required by the state after a certain number of hours of training" or any other nonsense.
Just because you don't have a cross burning on your lawn doesn't mean that your civil rights have not been violated.
From a PERSEC point-of-view I believe open carry in an environment where one could encounter a potentially dangerous situation, is not the smartest thing to do. Do I think it's a bad thing ? No. I just believe it's not for me.
What I do believe is if you care to open carry, have it. It is about choice.
Open carry. Concealed carry. Just carry.
Post a Comment