I would think this has something to do with it. I would think that concealing a firearm while trying to be comfortable in the Texas heat to be nearly impossible.
This is one of those “true but misleading” statistics: approximately the northern half of Saskatchewan is uninhabited boreal forest and in the case of Manitoba, it’s more like 90%. Saskatchewan has two urban centers 2 to 3 times as populous as Wyoming’s most populous, and Manitoba has Winnipeg, a metro of over 700 thousand people, larger than Wyoming’s entire population on its own. Manitoba is basically Nevada in terms of its population spread - One city that takes up the vast majority of people, a couple of smaller cities, and then an enormous empty quarter. It’s just as bad, if not worse, than the Wyoming/California comparison you’re complaining about.
Yes, we prefer the “jes needed killin’” defense here. It saves a ton of paperwork.
Open carry is no different in concealed carry as far as qualifications. All instruction, testing etc. is done before the CHL is issued. If you have a CHL you can now (well, on Jan 1) open carry. There is no level of proficiency required, it is just pass or fail.
There is one new aspect to this, however. Now that open carry exists, if a police officer sees someone with a weapon, the police officer can, for no other reason, ask the person to produce their handgun license, thereby detaining them long enough for the officer to ascertain if they are licensed to carry at all.
So the guy openly carries a gun decides to ignore the cops and continue to walk on may find himself being “detained” longer than he might expect.
I am sure this will not sit well with those who like to “in-your-face” it with the cops.
I haven’t really reviewed the law, but I’m curious about this claim.
A person needs a license to drive a car, but this does not entitle the police to stop a car to verify that the driver has a driving license. Is it that the handgun law in Texas includes a provision that permits officers to detain and verify?
According to Devon Anderson, Harris County District Attorney, officers can do so. I do not know if it is written in the law or if it is just a position the DA’s office is taking until challenged.
Again - that’s the point. Jackpot, baby.
You can no more make crime rate comparisons between Wyoming and Canadian provinces, based solely on guns laws, than you can between the United States and hand-picked countries of your choice.
One thing you can say about Wyoming: It is demonstrably possible to have very lax gun laws and a low crime rate.
To be clear, the murder rate in Wyoming is low when compared to other states. Compared to most other developed countries, it’s about two or three times higher.
We ought to define our terms for statements like this.
There you go again. “Developed countries”. Of 218 total countries in the world, Wyoming has a lower or equal homicide rate than 147 of them. I’m pretty sure Wyoming has looser gun control than all of them.
You miss the point entirely. I’ll say it one more time:
-
If you are free to selectively choose what locales and factors you include in your comparisons, you can arrive at any conclusion you like. Population density, race factors, religious make up, cultural history, etc. all play a role. Saying that the United States has a higher homicide rate than your hand-picked countries, so we need gun control, makes about as much sense as saying because US blacks have a a homicide rate nine times that of the population at large, we should expel blacks.
-
At the largest level possible, with nothing factored out, the United States has a lower homicide rate than half countries in the world.
-
At the medium level, there is no correlation within the Unites States between the amount of gun control and homicide rate by state.
-
At the small level, the homicide rate in my town is zero. We pretty much all have guns. (My personal homicide/suicide/accident rate is also zero.)
The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to “Developed” Countries:
Well, I guess we’re better than Guatemala but not as good as Belgium, then. You’re very convincing when you cite the crypto-racist Von Mises Institute!
Racism. I see. You have me now.
I waste my time.
After a while, you can feel all 48 ounces weighing you down on one side, you feel you’re going to develop scoliosis, and wonder why the heck didn’t you just leave it at home.
Yes - you just need to have virtually no urban population of any significance. I wonder if that’s applicable across a nation of 350 million people.
Are you and Ravenman the same person? You both seem to have the great difficulty understanding my most basic point, no matter how many different ways I make it.
I understand it just fine, I just don’t find it that pertinent, since it’s basically agnostic on learning from any situation.
I don’t really follow his point. He’s saying that we can’t compare places because there are so many differences between any of them; and then goes on to say how much better crime is in Wyoming all because of it’s gun laws.
:smack: Not that argument again.
I’ve seen no data that there is an epidemic of OCers being targeted.
If anything I believe the opposite to be true. I open carry when I walk my dogs and things like that. My belief is if someone is looking to commit a robbery they’re going to see I’m ready to rock & roll and decide to rob someone else. While I’ve heard of open carriers getting robbed for their gun, it doesn’t actually happen very often at all. If good people being armed is a deterrent to crime, wouldn’t open carry be even more so?
After all, uniformed policemen open carry all day. When was the last time one of us were held up?
Have we had any instances of wild west style gunfights breaking out when there is open carry? I have not heard of such.
[Emphasis mine]
That’s the key part you are misunderstanding!
He is not saying that the crime rate is better because of it’s gun laws.
[Emphasis mine]
This is all he is saying:
He is saying that the crime rate is better and it has very lax gun laws. He just said its possible to have very lax gun laws and a low crime rate. He didn’t say that the crime rate was an effect of the lax gun laws. He didn’t say that it was impossible to have lax gun laws and high crime, or strict gun laws and low crime. He’s just pointing out that lax gun laws and low crime rates are not mutually exclusive things.
The idea that gun laws alone are the biggest cause or deterrent to crime is simply asinine. The truth is, that gun laws are probably way down at the bottom of the list of things that actually have an effect on an area’s crime rate. Neither Chicago nor Detroit have horrible crime rates because of their strict gun laws. However, those cities are excellent examples of how tightening gun laws does not lead to lower crime rates. There is no cause/effect. There is no because. A region’s gun laws have little affect on crime rates compared to other variables such as its demographics, history, culture, socio-economics, etc.