5 ms·

I thought this was a terrible idea until I realized that other states are already doing it without any problems.

by mehphp 5y ago

herodotus 5y ago
No problems? Look at the science. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14906 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14906 "In a hypothetical situation in which there are 39,000 firearms deaths nationally under the permissive combination of these three laws, we expect 4,475 (80% CI, 1,761 to 6,949) more deaths nationally than under the restrictive combination of these laws."
- Grakel 5y ago
  As usual the "science" on this issue is garbage politics. Gun violence by legal gun owners is statistically near zero despite owning hundreds of millions of guns in the US.
  - igetspam 5y ago
    But our state government is bought and paid for by church and guns. The governor shamed us for buying fewer guns than California: https://www.statesman.com/news/20171106/in-15-greg-abbott-embarrassed-texans-bought-fewer-guns-than-others https://www.statesman.com/news/20171106/in-15-greg-abbott-em... We're trying to get more guns in more hands and we've lowered the bar. This isn't about rights. Abbot seems to generally want to kill us, by any means necessary.
- chmod600 5y ago
  This is an interesting chance to support or refute the theory you cite. Watch the homicide rate in TX over the next five years and see if it goes up 11% (maybe after adjusting for national/regional chnages) or not.
- chmod600 5y ago
  For a study like this, I would expect some connection between the mechanisms and the results. For instance, if carrying laws are changed, is there an associated change in the types of deaths that could plausibly be attributed to that (i.e. lawful carriers shooting people)?
frereubu 5y ago
Genuine question: can you elaborate on "without any problems"? As a European I find the level of gun violence in the US to be shocking, so I don't understand why lax gun laws like these are not a problem. The Bill Hicks quote "There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone, and if you make one you're a fool and a communist" is perhaps overly simplistic but it does feel like it gets at a truth that when you have lots of people walking around with guns, lots of people are going to get shot. I recognise that how the US gets to low gun ownership from where it is now, and whether the US even wants that, are tricky questions, but I really have trouble wrapping my head around the view on gun ownership in the US in general, let alone particular aspects of it like private ownership of assault weapons.
- post_break 5y ago
  States that have passed these laws saw no dramatic increase in shootings, and optional permits actually went up in these states. Everything related to buying, owning, shooting a gun is exactly the same, the only difference is you no longer need to pay $50-400 to carry it on your person, which criminals do for free.
  - frereubu 5y ago
    Ah, OK, so "no problem" in the sense that it hasn't made things any worse. Fair enough.
    - post_break 5y ago
      If anything it has made it better, which I'm sure a lot of people will roll their eyes at, but people are much less likely to start anything if they know most people are carrying. I know the media skews your views on america, but it's not like the movies, we're not over here root'n toot'n with our guns out like it's the wild west. I have lived in Texas for 10 years and have seen 1 or 2 guns in holsters. Every other one is concealed. I have never heard a gun shot other than a gun range, and have never witnessed anyone pull a gun or shoot one at someone. The only guns I've seen pulled are those of the police, pistols and rifles.

I thought this was a terrible idea until I realized that other states are already doing it without any problems.

by mehphp 5y ago

I thought this was a terrible idea until I realized that other states are already doing it without any problems.

No problems? Look at the science. https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14906 https://www.pnas.org/content/117/26/14906 "In a hypothetical situation in which there are 39,000 firearms deaths nationally under the permissive combination of these three laws, we expect 4,475 (80% CI, 1,761 to 6,949) more deaths nationally than under the restrictive combination of these laws."

Grakel 5y ago
As usual the "science" on this issue is garbage politics. Gun violence by legal gun owners is statistically near zero despite owning hundreds of millions of guns in the US.
- igetspam 5y ago
  But our state government is bought and paid for by church and guns. The governor shamed us for buying fewer guns than California: https://www.statesman.com/news/20171106/in-15-greg-abbott-embarrassed-texans-bought-fewer-guns-than-others https://www.statesman.com/news/20171106/in-15-greg-abbott-em... We're trying to get more guns in more hands and we've lowered the bar. This isn't about rights. Abbot seems to generally want to kill us, by any means necessary.
chmod600 5y ago
This is an interesting chance to support or refute the theory you cite. Watch the homicide rate in TX over the next five years and see if it goes up 11% (maybe after adjusting for national/regional chnages) or not.
chmod600 5y ago
For a study like this, I would expect some connection between the mechanisms and the results. For instance, if carrying laws are changed, is there an associated change in the types of deaths that could plausibly be attributed to that (i.e. lawful carriers shooting people)?

frereubu 5y ago

Genuine question: can you elaborate on "without any problems"? As a European I find the level of gun violence in the US to be shocking, so I don't understand why lax gun laws like these are not a problem. The Bill Hicks quote "There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone, and if you make one you're a fool and a communist" is perhaps overly simplistic but it does feel like it gets at a truth that when you have lots of people walking around with guns, lots of people are going to get shot. I recognise that how the US gets to low gun ownership from where it is now, and whether the US even wants that, are tricky questions, but I really have trouble wrapping my head around the view on gun ownership in the US in general, let alone particular aspects of it like private ownership of assault weapons.

post_break 5y ago
States that have passed these laws saw no dramatic increase in shootings, and optional permits actually went up in these states. Everything related to buying, owning, shooting a gun is exactly the same, the only difference is you no longer need to pay $50-400 to carry it on your person, which criminals do for free.
- frereubu 5y ago
  Ah, OK, so "no problem" in the sense that it hasn't made things any worse. Fair enough.
  - post_break 5y ago
    If anything it has made it better, which I'm sure a lot of people will roll their eyes at, but people are much less likely to start anything if they know most people are carrying. I know the media skews your views on america, but it's not like the movies, we're not over here root'n toot'n with our guns out like it's the wild west. I have lived in Texas for 10 years and have seen 1 or 2 guns in holsters. Every other one is concealed. I have never heard a gun shot other than a gun range, and have never witnessed anyone pull a gun or shoot one at someone. The only guns I've seen pulled are those of the police, pistols and rifles.