# House passes Gun Bill **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 7, 2017, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826 "2017-12-07T20:06:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/241 "2017-12-27T19:38:28Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > A couple of examples that have been mentioned before are [LEOSA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act) and [ACIRA](https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/armored-car-industry-reciprocity-act-and-local-law-enforcement) Are those situations where one state is required to accept the standards of another state, or are they situations where all states are required to accept the standards set by federal law? > [@DrDeth](#): > > Except that some states have impossible requirements for CCW, thus the bill is needed, unless the idea is gun owners cant cross state lines. Sure they can, they just can’t take their guns with them if they cannot meet the requirements. > [@](#): > > And no states have 0 requirements. They include being a citizen, age 21 and not having a criminal record. I have consistently talked about training requirements, and while I may have shortened a bit in a spot or two to “0 requirements”,rather than “0 training requirements”, I did not change my meaning. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/242 "2017-12-27T19:47:06Z")
> [@BlueMerle](#): > > I think you need better information. I live in TX, have a valid LTC and I can assure you there is a training requirement. > > [TX DPS FAQ](https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/faqs/index.htm) > > see training requirements. Possibly, I got that info off a pretty pro gun site, so I certainly wasn’t cherry picking. I just looked up a few states that had no listed training requirements for a CCW. Digging down into your link, actually at [http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411.172](http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411.172), I do find “Sec. 411.188. HANDGUN PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT.” which does outlay the training requirements for a CCW. ---
**Author:** ![BlueMerle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@BlueMerle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlueMerle)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/243 "2017-12-27T20:00:12Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Possibly, I got that info off a pretty pro gun site, so I certainly wasn’t cherry picking. I just looked up a few states that had no listed training requirements for a CCW. > > Digging down into your link, actually at [http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411.172](http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411.172), I do find “Sec. 411.188. HANDGUN PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT.” which does outlay the training requirements for a CCW. Fair enough. Would you mind sharing what website you used? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/244 "2017-12-27T20:23:59Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Are those situations where one state is required to accept the standards of another state, or are they situations where all states are required to accept the standards set by federal law? … The former. > [@](#): > > §5902. State reciprocity of weapons licenses issued to armored car company crew members > (a) In general > If an armored car crew member employed by an armored car company— > > (1) has in effect a license issued by the appropriate State agency (in the State in which such member is primarily employed by such company) to carry a weapon while acting in the services of such company in that State, and such State agency meets the minimum requirements under subsection (b); and > > (2) has met all other applicable requirements to act as an armored car crew member in the State in which such member is primarily employed by such company, > > then such crew member shall be entitled to lawfully carry any weapon to which such license relates and function as an armored car crew member in any State while such member is acting in the service of such company. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/245 "2017-12-27T20:37:21Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Yeah, that’s not how it played out at all. > > I pointed out that dismissing someone’s argument because they misuse a word or phrase is not a useful debate tactic. If you are trying to claim that people are deliberately missing terminology as a “tactic” then I don’t know that that’s really a thing, and it is certainly not something that has been used or defended in this thread. I did not know it was a tactic to be deplored. Can you give me an example of it in use, so I can see what it is you are talking about? Sure. Your side loves to refer to “military-style assault weapons” in an effort to conflate highly-regulated assault rifles with popular civilian arms. Other people like to use the term “gun grabber” in an effort to conflate those who support mandatory buybacks with those who are in favor of tighter regulation. Some people are for “states’ rights” when they mean “segregation.” Other people are “racist” when they are actually for states’ rights. And so on. “When gun advocates call anyone that is looking for a way to make our public spaces safer ‘gun grabbers’, then I can say that they have little interest in a productive conversation” dismisses an argument out of hand because you don’t like the terminology it employs, even though “dismissing someone’s argument because they misuse a word or phrase is not a useful debate tactic.” To be sure, “gun grabber” is provocative and misleading, but so too is conflating automatic and semiautomatic weaponry, and that you meet with a simple “that’s [terminology] really not something that you should be complaining about.” But I’m derailing your discussion and will bow out here, leaving you the last word, unless you object. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/246 "2017-12-27T21:09:38Z")
> [@BlueMerle](#): > > Fair enough. > > Would you mind sharing what website you used? [https://www.usacarry.com/texas\_concealed\_carry\_permit\_information.html](https://www.usacarry.com/texas_concealed_carry_permit_information.html) Though I did find the “6. is not a chemically dependent person;” to be amusing, as we are all dependant on chemicals. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The former. And in your quote there > [@](#): > > and such State agency meets the minimum requirements under subsection Is where the federal code outlays minimum requirements for the state reciprocity.If a state doesn’t meet those requirements (which I don’t think is a problem for any states, but I haven’t researched through all of them, so I’m not sure), then the state being visited does not need to honor the reciprocity. > [@g8rguy](#): > > Sure. Your side loves to refer to “military-style assault weapons” in an effort to conflate highly-regulated assault rifles with popular civilian arms. Other people like to use the term “gun grabber” in an effort to conflate those who support mandatory buybacks with those who are in favor of tighter regulation. Some people are for “states’ rights” when they mean “segregation.” Other people are “racist” when they are actually for states’ rights. And so on. > > “When gun advocates call anyone that is looking for a way to make our public spaces safer ‘gun grabbers’, then I can say that they have little interest in a productive conversation” dismisses an argument out of hand because you don’t like the terminology it employs, even though “dismissing someone’s argument because they misuse a word or phrase is not a useful debate tactic.” To be sure, “gun grabber” is provocative and misleading, but so too is conflating automatic and semiautomatic weaponry, and that you meet with a simple “that’s [terminology] really not something that you should be complaining about.” > > But I’m derailing your discussion and will bow out here, leaving you the last word, unless you object. See, I didn’t dismiss an argument out of hand there. The argument at the time was that the “gun grabbers” were using all those forms of terminology that is so objectionable, which is something that I had already responded to. I just point out that I find the term both insulting and inaccurate. As it was already declared that you may dismiss any argument made by someone who calls a weapon designed to fire a large caliber bullet at a high rate of fire over a long range with high accuracy an “assault weapon”, which I think is a perfectly accurate description, because obviously the person who would use that term is willfully ignorant, then yes, I do find those who use disparaging terms for the other side to be often times not the most reasonable of interlocutors. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/247 "2017-12-27T21:28:41Z")
> [@BlueMerle](#): > > You conveniently clipped the part about soccer moms being arrested for crossing an imaginary line on a map and me specifically asking you if you were ok with that and instead focused on my use of the word ‘force’ in order to stop this practice. > > wow… have a nice day. Yeah, I conveniently clipped the bullshit part of your post that had nothing to do with the questions _I_ had asked of _you_. Guns are about force. I find it amusing that you feel you need to resort to force to preserve your right to have force. If it’s so freaking compelling a thing, I would have thought it would be easier to _convince_ people. But that apparently isn’t working, so now you’ll try and get your way thru sheer force, so you can have that force at hand in case someone tries to force _you_ to do something. Yeah, I find that ironic and amusing and sad and pathetic and I made a point to indicate it. You have a nice day too. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/248 "2017-12-27T21:34:26Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … Is where the federal code outlays minimum requirements for the state reciprocity.If a state doesn’t meet those requirements (which I don’t think is a problem for any states, but I haven’t researched through all of them, so I’m not sure), then the state being visited does not need to honor the reciprocity. … Not sure what your point is. Are you concerned that the CCRA does not give a federal baseline while the ACIRA does? If so, you’d be wrong. There are federal laws that govern the legality of firearm possession too, and the CCRA applies to “[a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text)” (along with several other qualifying conditions). ---
**Author:** ![BlueMerle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@BlueMerle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlueMerle)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/249 "2017-12-27T21:37:57Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > [https://www.usacarry.com/texas\_concealed\_carry\_permit\_information.html](https://www.usacarry.com/texas_concealed_carry_permit_information.html) > > Though I did find the “6. is not a chemically dependent person;” to be amusing, as we are all dependant on chemicals. Thanks. I think I’ve heard of that site… maybe… but I don’t use it personally. If you’re interested I find [this website](http://www.handgunlaw.us/) to be helpful and current on most CC issues. My concern here was that you were using a website that seems pro-gun but is really a front for one of the Bloomberg orgs. I don’t believe that’s the case here. I think this website is just poorly maintained and out of date. Lots of bad, out of date info there including the name used for the permit. It hasn’t been a ‘Concealed Handgun License’ (CHL) for two years now. Instead it’s a ‘License to Carry’ (LTC). Minor perhaps, but still wrong. All that said, how did you come to the conclusion that TX didn’t have a training requirement based on that page? I can’t find anything that speaks to that. Perhaps I missed it. I’m honestly not aware of any state that issues a CC permit with no training requirement. Again I don’t count states with constitutional carry as the state doesn’t issue a permit in those cases. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2017, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/250 "2017-12-27T22:00:26Z")
> [@BlueMerle](#): > > Thanks. > > I think I’ve heard of that site… maybe… but I don’t use it personally. If you’re interested I find [this website](http://www.handgunlaw.us/) to be helpful and current on most CC issues. > > My concern here was that you were using a website that seems pro-gun but is really a front for one of the Bloomberg orgs. I don’t believe that’s the case here. I think this website is just poorly maintained and out of date. Lots of bad, out of date info there including the name used for the permit. It hasn’t been a ‘Concealed Handgun License’ (CHL) for two years now. Instead it’s a ‘License to Carry’ (LTC). Minor perhaps, but still wrong. > > All that said, how did you come to the conclusion that TX didn’t have a training requirement based on that page? I can’t find anything that speaks to that. Perhaps I missed it. > > I’m honestly not aware of any state that issues a CC permit with no training requirement. Again I don’t count states with constitutional carry as the state doesn’t issue a permit in those cases. I looked at the requirements for getting a CCW, and noted whether or not there were training requirements. Most states did say that there were requirements, for instance for Ohio, it said > [@](#): > > You must meet the minimum educational requirements set by Ohio concealed carry law. The law requires a total training time of 8 hours with a minimum of 2 hours of in-personal training that consists of range time and live-fire training. The training and written exam may be completed online but the 2 hours of in-personal training must still be met. [source] Make sure your instructor has a certificate of training from the state or any national gun advocacy organization. You should also receive a receipt of firearm’s training once completing the course. For texas, it had this list > [@](#): > > A person is eligible for a Texas Concealed Handgun Permit license if the person: > is a legal resident of this state for the six-month period preceding the date of application under this subchapter or is otherwise eligible for a license under Section 411.173(a); > is at least 21 years of age; or at least 18 if you are a member or veteran of the US Armed Forces, Reserves or National Guard or was discharged under honorable conditions. > has not been convicted of a felony; > is not charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense, or of an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or equivalent offense, or of a felony under an information or indictment; > is not a fugitive from justice for a felony or a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense; > is not a chemically dependent person; > is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun; > has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense or of an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or equivalent offense; > is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun; > has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making a child support payment administered or collected by the attorney general; > has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, the tax collector of a political subdivision of the state, or any agency or subdivision of the state; > is not currently restricted under a court protective order or subject to a restraining order affecting the spousal relationship, other than a restraining order solely affecting property interests; > has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony; and > has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174. Which did not say much on the training front. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/251 "2017-12-28T00:38:54Z")
Texas requires training for a CHL. Sec. 411.188. HANDGUN PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT. (a) The director by rule shall establish minimum standards for handgun proficiency and shall develop a course to teach handgun proficiency and examinations to measure handgun proficiency. The course to teach handgun proficiency is required for each person who seeks to obtain a license and must contain training sessions divided into two parts. One part of the course must be classroom instruction and the other part must be range instruction and an actual demonstration by the applicant of the applicant’s ability to safely and proficiently use a handgun. An applicant must be able to demonstrate, at a minimum, the degree of proficiency that is required to effectively operate a handgun. The department shall distribute the standards, course requirements, and examinations on request to any qualified handgun instructor or approved online course provider seeking to administer the course or a part of the course as described by Subsection (b). (b) Only qualified handgun instructors may administer the range instruction part of the handgun proficiency course. A qualified handgun instructor or approved online course provider may administer the classroom instruction part of the handgun proficiency course. The classroom instruction part of the course must include not less than four hours and not more than six hours of instruction on: (1) the laws that relate to weapons and to the use of deadly force; (2) handgun use and safety, including use of restraint holsters and methods to ensure the secure carrying of openly carried handguns; (3) nonviolent dispute resolution; and (4) proper storage practices for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that eliminate the possibility of accidental injury to a child. (c) An approved online course provider shall administer the classroom instruction part of the handgun proficiency course in an online format. A course administered online must include not less than four hours and not more than six hours of instruction. (d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), only a qualified handgun instructor may administer the proficiency examination to obtain a license. The proficiency examination must include: (1) a written section on the subjects listed in Subsection (b); and (2) a physical demonstration of proficiency in the use of one or more handguns and in handgun safety procedures. Here, in subchapter H: [http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm](http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/252 "2017-12-28T01:21:20Z")
> [@BlueMerle](#): > > Because states like NJ and others are arresting people and charging them with felony gun possession for no other reason than they’re in possession of a gun and not engaged in any criminal activity. The only crime they committed was crossing an imaginary line on a map. We’re talking about soccer moms, among others, here. > > Are you ok with that? I’m not. Yes. At least, the version under all that obvious hyperbole. Obviously someone who just happened to cross without meaning to should get off. I’m not for opportunistic arrests. But it’s not as if police sit there and search everyone who crosses the border. It is a good thing that different states can have different laws, so we can see which laws are actually better for our society. It is also good when we find what that is and make a federal law. What is never good is letting the lowest common denominator decide. The reason for this law is to try and undermine CCW restrictions. It’s just some states trying to control the others on an issue that the actual population is divided about. It’s an end run around democracy. If drivers’ license laws varied enough from state to state, I’d have a problem with them, too. Fortunately, they largely don’t. They all realize that cars are dangerous and have tests to make sure you know how to use them properly. This isn’t some law that cuts through some legal tape, like the licensing laws. It is an attempt to reduce the CCW requirements in other states. The red states care about states rights until it means they might be able to control the blue states. ---
**Author:** ![ChickenLegs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@ChickenLegs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ChickenLegs)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/253 "2017-12-28T02:33:19Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > The red states care about states rights until it means they might be able to control the blue states. What’s good for the goose… ---
**Author:** ![BlueMerle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@BlueMerle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlueMerle)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/254 "2017-12-28T12:01:56Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Yes. At least, the version under all that obvious hyperbole. Obviously someone who just happened to cross without meaning to should get off. I’m not for opportunistic arrests. But it’s not as if police sit there and search everyone who crosses the border. Generally speaking the police don’t sit there and search everyone that crosses the border. NJ comes as close to that as is possible. They’re on a crusade and they have ruined the lives of many people that committed no crime other than being in possession of a gun in NJ. > [@BigT](#): > > It is a good thing that different states can have different laws, so we can see which laws are actually better for our society. It is also good when we find what that is and make a federal law. What is never good is letting the lowest common denominator decide. I keep hearing that phrase, “lowest common denominator”, but no one uttering it has been able to explain exactly what that is in this case. As you can see from the discussion upstream no one has been able to show us a state that has 0 requirements to obtain a CC permit. So, specifically, what state is the lowest common denominator that you object to? > [@BigT](#): > > The reason for this law is to try and undermine CCW restrictions. It’s just some states trying to control the others on an issue that the actual population is divided about. It’s an end run around democracy. No, the reason for this law is to prevent instances of otherwise law abiding citizens being turned into criminals for no other reason than they crossed an imaginary line on a map. It has nothing what so ever to do with undermining CCW restrictions. We’ve already established that as fact. Nothing in this law forces any state to change anything they are currently doing with respect to CC in their state. > [@BigT](#): > > If drivers’ license laws varied enough from state to state, I’d have a problem with them, too. Fortunately, they largely don’t. They all realize that cars are dangerous and have tests to make sure you know how to use them properly. Again, show me a state that doesn’t have any requirements to obtain a CC permit. > [@BigT](#): > > This isn’t some law that cuts through some legal tape, like the licensing laws. It is an attempt to reduce the CCW requirements in other states. The red states care about states rights until it means they might be able to control the blue states. Once again, that’s not true. See above. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/255 "2017-12-28T15:22:29Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I think it is an unassailable fact that there are people on both sides of the gun control issue that are embarrassing; but I think it is extremely petty to say that idiots on one side of the debate are representative of the whole. There is false equivalence there. Its like the global warming debate. Fanatics on both sides, ignorance mostly on one side. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/256 "2017-12-28T15:24:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > k9b: > > Do you play blackjack, by chance? > > If not, a quick recap: you’re dealt two cards, and the casino dealer gives himself two, one face up. The object is to get as close to 21 as possible, without going over 21. Face cards count as 10, an ace can either be 1 or 11 at your choice, and you may call for additional cards (“take a hit,”) as often as you like until your total exceeds 21, an automatic loss, or until you wish to stop. The dealer then exposes his hidden card and exercises no initiative at all: if he has a total of 16 or under, he takes additional cards until he does not. If he exceeds 21 he loses (“busts”) and if reaches 17 to 21, he stops and you win if your total exceeds his. > > For a player, the weakest possible position is to have a sixteen, with the dealer’s exposed card worth ten. You mean dealer showing an Ace. > [@](#): > > The correct play here, in basic strategy, is to take a hit. You’re more likely to bust than in any other situation, true, but it’s the best choice available. > > I draw this analogy to carrying concealed. If you in fact have a gun pointed at you, having access to a concealed weapon of your own is not a magic shield. But it does allow you to make more choices, to pick the best of a set of poor options. You’re in a weak position already; having the weapon doesn’t make you weaker. > > (Amusingly some casinos offer a player the option to withdraw at the beginning of a play by surrendering half their bet: in that event, with a hard sixteen facing a dealer ten, surrender is the best option.) What casino allows that? And why? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/257 "2017-12-28T15:40:20Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > So, it’s just 100 kids per year. Not something that we should even think about. No reason to ask people to be responsible with their guns. No need for any safety or for them to properly lock them up. > > And that’s just the accidental ones. All told, it’s closer to [1300](https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/nearly-1-300-kids-killed-guns-each-year-study-finds-n774086). The vast majority of those are kids ages 13-17. Mostly gang related, frequently drug related. > [@](#): > > When gun advocates call anyone that is looking for a way to make our public spaces safer “gun grabbers”, then I can say that they have little interest in a productive conversation. When gun controllers stop proposing stupid ideas like banning guns with bayonet lugs, and start proposing ways to actually make public spaces safer rather than simply “gun free” then perhaps it wouldn’t feel like we’re having a conversation with a brick Seriously, come up with better ideas and abandon the stupid ones. Right now gun controllers just throw every fucking idea that infringes on gun rights against the wall to see what sticks. This really gives us the impression that they are not actually interested in reducing legal gun ownership as a means to an end but as the end itself. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/258 "2017-12-28T15:49:18Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > How will Ohio enforce the requirements that an Ohio resident must meet to gain that CCR when they encounter a person from another state with less stringent requirements? > > If they cannot enforce that requirement, then how can they make someone obey Ohio laws with respect to CCR? > Why shouldn’t Ohio be able to insist on it’s state standards for everyone in the state, regardless of residency? Two things. The gun controllers have had every opportunity to pass a national concealed carry permit but they didn’t want to give up the fight in the handful of states that were still limiting the right to concealed carry and they actually like the fact that the mish mosh of state laws is so fucking confusing and unworkable. The laws they can enforce are things like “don’t carry concealed while you are drinking” “don’t carry concealed while in near a school” “don’t carry concealed while in a bank” etc. not “don’t carry concealed period end of story or go directly to jail” ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/259 "2017-12-28T16:01:39Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Nice, it is almost as if being dismissing of someone because they called a weapon that can sustain a high rate of fire with good accuracy an “assault weapon” is the same as pointing out that using disparaging language towards your interlocutors is a poor form of debate. It seems like you are confusing assault weapons with semiautomatic weapons. > [@](#): > > We are not talking about gun control laws, we are talking about concealed carry laws, and the state’s ability to write and enforce them. If every state had a shall issue form of concealed carry, this would never have made it to the floor of congress. The problem is that several states have an effective ban on concealed carry. That is gun control. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that analogy holds, unless fetuses have the ability to injure or kill people outside of the woman that is carrying them. It depends on whether or not you feel like abortion is homicide. If so then legalized abortion is the most common form of homicide in this country by several orders of magnitude. Gun rights are specifically enumerated in the constitution, abortion is never even mentioned and yet has become a constitutional right. Hell, we needed a goddam constitutional amendment to end slavery but a woman’s right to choose was established out of whole cloth from the “penumbra” of rights in the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2017, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826/260 "2017-12-28T16:03:41Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Gun rights are specifically enumerated in the constitution Concealed carry is enumerated in the Constitution? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-passes-gun-bill/803826.md?page=14)