• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Not Enough People Carrying Guns in El Paso, Sheriff Says

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.gazette.com/opinion...ml/view_wednesday.html

:( This is a terribly dissappointing problem. Hopefully the issue is resolved quickly.

Personally I think a big part of the problem is how classist the Texas CHL system is. It is the most expensive license in the country, at $140 initial cost. Add in a typical $100 class, and the cost of a handgun and (hopefully) a holster, and you've made the right to protect oneself only available to the rich.
If you cannot come up with $140 plus a basic piece and holster, chances are you're poor so nobody is likely to rob you anyway and therefore you have no reason to proect yourself or your property. Another way of looking at it is: if you cannot afford $140 plus a basic piece and holster, do you really deserve to be protected anyway? Society has enough poor people as it is. Let them fight amongst themselves like savages!
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.gazette.com/opinion...ml/view_wednesday.html

:( This is a terribly dissappointing problem. Hopefully the issue is resolved quickly.

Personally I think a big part of the problem is how classist the Texas CHL system is. It is the most expensive license in the country, at $140 initial cost. Add in a typical $100 class, and the cost of a handgun and (hopefully) a holster, and you've made the right to protect oneself only available to the rich.
If you cannot come up with $140 plus a basic piece and holster, chances are you're poor so nobody is likely to rob you anyway and therefore you have no reason to proect yourself or your property. Another way of looking at it is: if you cannot afford $140 plus a basic piece and holster, do you really deserve to be protected anyway? Society has enough poor people as it is. Let them fight amongst themselves like savages!
Poor people are far, far more likely to be a victim of violent crime, yet in Texas, like most states, the areas with the highest concentration of CHL holders is the wealthy areas. I'm not going to pretend like I don't live in one of the ritziest cities in Texas, but our system is classist. I remember discussing it with my dad, and his response was, "It keeps the riff raff from carrying guns." Sure dad. Just like "no guns allowed" signs keep campus shooters at bay. And laws against carrying guns keep gangsters in Chicago from carrying handguns. The truth is that a lot of people both on the gun and anti-gun side of the fence see guns as a rich man's game, and that's not how the founding fathers intended it.

No one should be denied their right to defend themselves.
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,271
0
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.gazette.com/opinion...ml/view_wednesday.html

:( This is a terribly dissappointing problem. Hopefully the issue is resolved quickly.

Personally I think a big part of the problem is how classist the Texas CHL system is. It is the most expensive license in the country, at $140 initial cost. Add in a typical $100 class, and the cost of a handgun and (hopefully) a holster, and you've made the right to protect oneself only available to the rich.
If you cannot come up with $140 plus a basic piece and holster, chances are you're poor so nobody is likely to rob you anyway and therefore you have no reason to proect yourself or your property. Another way of looking at it is: if you cannot afford $140 plus a basic piece and holster, do you really deserve to be protected anyway? Society has enough poor people as it is. Let them fight amongst themselves like savages!
Poor people are far, far more likely to be a victim of violent crime, yet in Texas, like most states, the areas with the highest concentration of CHL holders is the wealthy areas. I'm not going to pretend like I don't live in one of the ritziest cities in Texas, but our system is classist. I remember discussing it with my dad, and his response was, "It keeps the riff raff from carrying guns." Sure dad. Just like "no guns allowed" signs keep campus shooters at bay. And laws against carrying guns keep gangsters in Chicago from carrying handguns. The truth is that a lot of people both on the gun and anti-gun side of the fence see guns as a rich man's game, and that's not how the founding fathers intended it.

No one should be denied their right to defend themselves.
right to carry a gun != right to defend themselves

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.gazette.com/opinion...ml/view_wednesday.html

:( This is a terribly dissappointing problem. Hopefully the issue is resolved quickly.

Personally I think a big part of the problem is how classist the Texas CHL system is. It is the most expensive license in the country, at $140 initial cost. Add in a typical $100 class, and the cost of a handgun and (hopefully) a holster, and you've made the right to protect oneself only available to the rich.
If you cannot come up with $140 plus a basic piece and holster, chances are you're poor so nobody is likely to rob you anyway and therefore you have no reason to proect yourself or your property. Another way of looking at it is: if you cannot afford $140 plus a basic piece and holster, do you really deserve to be protected anyway? Society has enough poor people as it is. Let them fight amongst themselves like savages!
Poor people are far, far more likely to be a victim of violent crime, yet in Texas, like most states, the areas with the highest concentration of CHL holders is the wealthy areas. I'm not going to pretend like I don't live in one of the ritziest cities in Texas, but our system is classist. I remember discussing it with my dad, and his response was, "It keeps the riff raff from carrying guns." Sure dad. Just like "no guns allowed" signs keep campus shooters at bay. And laws against carrying guns keep gangsters in Chicago from carrying handguns. The truth is that a lot of people both on the gun and anti-gun side of the fence see guns as a rich man's game, and that's not how the founding fathers intended it.

No one should be denied their right to defend themselves.
Text

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Taejin
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.gazette.com/opinion...ml/view_wednesday.html

:( This is a terribly dissappointing problem. Hopefully the issue is resolved quickly.

Personally I think a big part of the problem is how classist the Texas CHL system is. It is the most expensive license in the country, at $140 initial cost. Add in a typical $100 class, and the cost of a handgun and (hopefully) a holster, and you've made the right to protect oneself only available to the rich.
If you cannot come up with $140 plus a basic piece and holster, chances are you're poor so nobody is likely to rob you anyway and therefore you have no reason to proect yourself or your property. Another way of looking at it is: if you cannot afford $140 plus a basic piece and holster, do you really deserve to be protected anyway? Society has enough poor people as it is. Let them fight amongst themselves like savages!
Poor people are far, far more likely to be a victim of violent crime, yet in Texas, like most states, the areas with the highest concentration of CHL holders is the wealthy areas. I'm not going to pretend like I don't live in one of the ritziest cities in Texas, but our system is classist. I remember discussing it with my dad, and his response was, "It keeps the riff raff from carrying guns." Sure dad. Just like "no guns allowed" signs keep campus shooters at bay. And laws against carrying guns keep gangsters in Chicago from carrying handguns. The truth is that a lot of people both on the gun and anti-gun side of the fence see guns as a rich man's game, and that's not how the founding fathers intended it.

No one should be denied their right to defend themselves.
right to carry a gun != right to defend themselves
You've been watching too much TV again, haven't you. We're not all just as capable of disarming an armed attacker with our bare hands as a Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee.

The regulations on firearms is what makes obtaining these permits necessary in the first place. They need to be affordable, $10 to $20 should cover it.

 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Maybe you need Gunfare! ;):D
Most states have this. Subsidized background checks and fingerprinting, and used police handguns sold to the public at deep discounts.
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
684
0
0
Just like to take this opportunity to let everyone know that I just bought a new gun yesterday. One less victim!
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Just like to take this opportunity to let everyone know that I just bought a new gun yesterday. One less victim!
:thumbsup: What state are you in?
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Nebor did type:

Can you explain why that hasn't happened in places where people carry guns? Let's look at Israel, where it's fair to assume that virtually everyone is carrying a gun. Their domestic crime rates are crazy low. You're operating on conjecture when there's real world examples to look at.
Sandorski did clip
============

I'm not going to deny that my statements are not universal. Switzerland is also another exception, although I don't know if they carry much. The US is a whole other ball of wax though. Both in Israel and Switzerland Guns have a very specific purpose, that is to engage Foreign threats. The US's primary focus is on your own neighbour, your fellow Citizen. A sad fact that plays out tragically everyday.
Ok, just stick with the US then. Why, with 1-4% of the population carrying concealed for up to the last 40 years, have private citizens not gone all insane Rambo like you're suggesting must happen? Especially when, statistically speaking, concealed permit holders are about 5 times less likely to commit a crime than a non-permit holder (as per numerous state and independent studies). Why has crime gone down, in fact, over the last four decades while rates of carry, total number of permits, and participating states have increased DRAMATICALLY?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,532
3,634
126
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: sandorski
Nebor did type:

Can you explain why that hasn't happened in places where people carry guns? Let's look at Israel, where it's fair to assume that virtually everyone is carrying a gun. Their domestic crime rates are crazy low. You're operating on conjecture when there's real world examples to look at.
Sandorski did clip
============

I'm not going to deny that my statements are not universal. Switzerland is also another exception, although I don't know if they carry much. The US is a whole other ball of wax though. Both in Israel and Switzerland Guns have a very specific purpose, that is to engage Foreign threats. The US's primary focus is on your own neighbour, your fellow Citizen. A sad fact that plays out tragically everyday.
Ok, just stick with the US then. Why, with 1-4% of the population carrying concealed for up to the last 40 years, have private citizens not gone all insane Rambo like you're suggesting must happen? Especially when, statistically speaking, concealed permit holders are about 5 times less likely to commit a crime than a non-permit holder (as per numerous state and independent studies). Why has crime gone down, in fact, over the last four decades while rates of carry, total number of permits, and participating states have increased DRAMATICALLY?
Crime has gone down everywhere in the West. It is a Demographic phenomena, nothing else. The Baby Boomers are getting too old.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Taejin
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.gazette.com/opinion...ml/view_wednesday.html

:( This is a terribly dissappointing problem. Hopefully the issue is resolved quickly.

Personally I think a big part of the problem is how classist the Texas CHL system is. It is the most expensive license in the country, at $140 initial cost. Add in a typical $100 class, and the cost of a handgun and (hopefully) a holster, and you've made the right to protect oneself only available to the rich.
If you cannot come up with $140 plus a basic piece and holster, chances are you're poor so nobody is likely to rob you anyway and therefore you have no reason to proect yourself or your property. Another way of looking at it is: if you cannot afford $140 plus a basic piece and holster, do you really deserve to be protected anyway? Society has enough poor people as it is. Let them fight amongst themselves like savages!
Poor people are far, far more likely to be a victim of violent crime, yet in Texas, like most states, the areas with the highest concentration of CHL holders is the wealthy areas. I'm not going to pretend like I don't live in one of the ritziest cities in Texas, but our system is classist. I remember discussing it with my dad, and his response was, "It keeps the riff raff from carrying guns." Sure dad. Just like "no guns allowed" signs keep campus shooters at bay. And laws against carrying guns keep gangsters in Chicago from carrying handguns. The truth is that a lot of people both on the gun and anti-gun side of the fence see guns as a rich man's game, and that's not how the founding fathers intended it.

No one should be denied their right to defend themselves.
right to carry a gun != right to defend themselves
You've been watching too much TV again, haven't you. We're not all just as capable of disarming an armed attacker with our bare hands as a Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee.

The regulations on firearms is what makes obtaining these permits necessary in the first place. They need to be affordable, $10 to $20 should cover it.
I think you missed Taejin's point....it's not about ability, it's about RIGHTS. Having the right to own or carry a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot someone dead with it. Despite how often gun ownership and self defense rights are mentioned together, they actually aren't the same thing at all. In some places where you can legally own or carry a gun, you can still get in trouble if you shoot someone with it...even if you think it qualifies as self defense. And these problems exist whether or not you have a gun, in many places you can't Bruce Lee someone, even in self defense, without facing prosecution for doing so.

That's part of the problem with the gun lobby, actually. They focus so much time and energy on gun ownership that the right to actually USE the gun (or anything else) to defend yourself is left up to a much weaker and much less organized lobby. Personally I think the latter problem is a more critical one, as it doesn't really matter whether you can carry 14 bullets or 10 bullets in a magazine if you can't use any of them on someone attacking you. Of course the issue is that the gun lobby is equal parts folks interested in self defense and folks who view guns as a recreational activity, so the debate tends to get side tracked by issues like barrel length and what defines an assault rifle vs things that actually matter to self defense.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Administrator
Mar 5, 2001
49,606
162
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.gazette.com/opinion...ml/view_wednesday.html

:( This is a terribly dissappointing problem. Hopefully the issue is resolved quickly.

Personally I think a big part of the problem is how classist the Texas CHL system is. It is the most expensive license in the country, at $140 initial cost. Add in a typical $100 class, and the cost of a handgun and (hopefully) a holster, and you've made the right to protect oneself only available to the rich.
It is NOT the most expensive license in the country. There are counties in NY where it costs hundreds of dollars just to submit the application. The rest of this, I'm assuming, is simply trolling.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,834
1
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Taejin
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Nebor
http://www.gazette.com/opinion...ml/view_wednesday.html

:( This is a terribly dissappointing problem. Hopefully the issue is resolved quickly.

Personally I think a big part of the problem is how classist the Texas CHL system is. It is the most expensive license in the country, at $140 initial cost. Add in a typical $100 class, and the cost of a handgun and (hopefully) a holster, and you've made the right to protect oneself only available to the rich.
If you cannot come up with $140 plus a basic piece and holster, chances are you're poor so nobody is likely to rob you anyway and therefore you have no reason to proect yourself or your property. Another way of looking at it is: if you cannot afford $140 plus a basic piece and holster, do you really deserve to be protected anyway? Society has enough poor people as it is. Let them fight amongst themselves like savages!
Poor people are far, far more likely to be a victim of violent crime, yet in Texas, like most states, the areas with the highest concentration of CHL holders is the wealthy areas. I'm not going to pretend like I don't live in one of the ritziest cities in Texas, but our system is classist. I remember discussing it with my dad, and his response was, "It keeps the riff raff from carrying guns." Sure dad. Just like "no guns allowed" signs keep campus shooters at bay. And laws against carrying guns keep gangsters in Chicago from carrying handguns. The truth is that a lot of people both on the gun and anti-gun side of the fence see guns as a rich man's game, and that's not how the founding fathers intended it.

No one should be denied their right to defend themselves.
right to carry a gun != right to defend themselves
You've been watching too much TV again, haven't you. We're not all just as capable of disarming an armed attacker with our bare hands as a Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee.

The regulations on firearms is what makes obtaining these permits necessary in the first place. They need to be affordable, $10 to $20 should cover it.
I think you missed Taejin's point....it's not about ability, it's about RIGHTS. Having the right to own or carry a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot someone dead with it. Despite how often gun ownership and self defense rights are mentioned together, they actually aren't the same thing at all. In some places where you can legally own or carry a gun, you can still get in trouble if you shoot someone with it...even if you think it qualifies as self defense. And these problems exist whether or not you have a gun, in many places you can't Bruce Lee someone, even in self defense, without facing prosecution for doing so.

That's part of the problem with the gun lobby, actually. They focus so much time and energy on gun ownership that the right to actually USE the gun (or anything else) to defend yourself is left up to a much weaker and much less organized lobby. Personally I think the latter problem is a more critical one, as it doesn't really matter whether you can carry 14 bullets or 10 bullets in a magazine if you can't use any of them on someone attacking you. Of course the issue is that the gun lobby is equal parts folks interested in self defense and folks who view guns as a recreational activity, so the debate tends to get side tracked by issues like barrel length and what defines an assault rifle vs things that actually matter to self defense.
I think your reading to much into it. Some little old lady who living off SS on the poor side of town shouldn't be denied a permit to have a handgun just because she can't afford it. In such a case denying her the right to carry a gun could very well equal denying her the right to defend herself.

I also disagree slightly with your take on how NRA members are divided. I think there is probably a segment that is more concerned with self defense then recreational use, but I think a very large majority of those interested in recreational use are also concerned about self protection.

If I felt all I needed to protect myself was a shotgun then I wouldn't be too concerned about handguns. I own several handguns and have yet to use one for hunting. I did do a fair amount of handgun silhouette shooting for fun, but also to increase my profanely with the use of that particular weapon.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Rainsford
...

I think you missed Taejin's point....it's not about ability, it's about RIGHTS. Having the right to own or carry a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot someone dead with it. Despite how often gun ownership and self defense rights are mentioned together, they actually aren't the same thing at all. In some places where you can legally own or carry a gun, you can still get in trouble if you shoot someone with it...even if you think it qualifies as self defense. And these problems exist whether or not you have a gun, in many places you can't Bruce Lee someone, even in self defense, without facing prosecution for doing so.

That's part of the problem with the gun lobby, actually. They focus so much time and energy on gun ownership that the right to actually USE the gun (or anything else) to defend yourself is left up to a much weaker and much less organized lobby. Personally I think the latter problem is a more critical one, as it doesn't really matter whether you can carry 14 bullets or 10 bullets in a magazine if you can't use any of them on someone attacking you. Of course the issue is that the gun lobby is equal parts folks interested in self defense and folks who view guns as a recreational activity, so the debate tends to get side tracked by issues like barrel length and what defines an assault rifle vs things that actually matter to self defense.
I think your reading to much into it. Some little old lady who living off SS on the poor side of town shouldn't be denied a permit to have a handgun just because she can't afford it. In such a case denying her the right to carry a gun could very well equal denying her the right to defend herself.

I also disagree slightly with your take on how NRA members are divided. I think there is probably a segment that is more concerned with self defense then recreational use, but I think a very large majority of those interested in recreational use are also concerned about self protection.

If I felt all I needed to protect myself was a shotgun then I wouldn't be too concerned about handguns. I own several handguns and have yet to use one for hunting. I did do a fair amount of handgun silhouette shooting for fun, but also to increase my profanely with the use of that particular weapon.
No, I agree that denying someone the ability to get a permit because they don't have enough money could also be denying them the ability to defend themselves. I'm just saying that making guns and permits easily available isn't the only thing that needs to be done. Even if everyone had the ability to defend themselves, the law still needs to be set up such that you CAN defend yourself without ending up in jail.

As for the makeup of the NRA, you may be right...I'm just going off of the action I see from the NRA, which seems to lean more towards arguing against specific weapons restrictions and less towards being able to use what we CAN buy to defend ourselves. There is also NRA directed opposition to laws like waiting periods that would seem to have no relation at all to self defense.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Rainsford
...

I think you missed Taejin's point....it's not about ability, it's about RIGHTS. Having the right to own or carry a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot someone dead with it. Despite how often gun ownership and self defense rights are mentioned together, they actually aren't the same thing at all. In some places where you can legally own or carry a gun, you can still get in trouble if you shoot someone with it...even if you think it qualifies as self defense. And these problems exist whether or not you have a gun, in many places you can't Bruce Lee someone, even in self defense, without facing prosecution for doing so.

That's part of the problem with the gun lobby, actually. They focus so much time and energy on gun ownership that the right to actually USE the gun (or anything else) to defend yourself is left up to a much weaker and much less organized lobby. Personally I think the latter problem is a more critical one, as it doesn't really matter whether you can carry 14 bullets or 10 bullets in a magazine if you can't use any of them on someone attacking you. Of course the issue is that the gun lobby is equal parts folks interested in self defense and folks who view guns as a recreational activity, so the debate tends to get side tracked by issues like barrel length and what defines an assault rifle vs things that actually matter to self defense.
I think your reading to much into it. Some little old lady who living off SS on the poor side of town shouldn't be denied a permit to have a handgun just because she can't afford it. In such a case denying her the right to carry a gun could very well equal denying her the right to defend herself.

I also disagree slightly with your take on how NRA members are divided. I think there is probably a segment that is more concerned with self defense then recreational use, but I think a very large majority of those interested in recreational use are also concerned about self protection.

If I felt all I needed to protect myself was a shotgun then I wouldn't be too concerned about handguns. I own several handguns and have yet to use one for hunting. I did do a fair amount of handgun silhouette shooting for fun, but also to increase my profanely with the use of that particular weapon.
No, I agree that denying someone the ability to get a permit because they don't have enough money could also be denying them the ability to defend themselves. I'm just saying that making guns and permits easily available isn't the only thing that needs to be done. Even if everyone had the ability to defend themselves, the law still needs to be set up such that you CAN defend yourself without ending up in jail.

As for the makeup of the NRA, you may be right...I'm just going off of the action I see from the NRA, which seems to lean more towards arguing against specific weapons restrictions and less towards being able to use what we CAN buy to defend ourselves. There is also NRA directed opposition to laws like waiting periods that would seem to have no relation at all to self defense.
The NRA has been instrumental in getting Castle Doctrine passed into law around the country. I would say they focus MORE on self defense issues than gun ownership issues (they throw machine gun owners and advocates to the wolves.)

Waiting periods often hurt people who need protection immediately. A woman with a stalker, etc. There are several stories where women died while their handguns sat in lockup for a "waiting period."
 

Danman

Lifer
Nov 9, 1999
13,134
0
0
Here in Florida, it's 117 dollars for the application fee plus whatever your certification class costs (which is usually around $50). It's not cheap, but I guess it's average cost.

By the way, I'm an avid gun supporter and have several guns myself, just haven't got around to getting my CCW. I need to do it though, but I'm not sure if I would carry on my person. Maybe in my car, but that's it. Although, I have two guns good to go in my house. :D
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
I've made my view known many times on here about guns and I'll do it again. I've been a victim of a violent crime.

When I was 5 my mom was murdered, with a gun, by someone who was never caught. My mom did not own a gun and had no way of protecting herself, she was shot twice for no apparent reason. Best the detectives could ever figure is it was a gang related shooting, either for initiation or she was mistaken for someone else.

Point being, after that happened most people would think that my family would have been crazy anti-gun nuts afterwards. Quite the opposite. Every uncle, and even my grandmother got training, their CCL and a handgun. The day I turn 21 I will be starting the process for my CCL as well.

I will not be put in a place where I have no choice but to be a victim. Yes, the chances of cooperating and coming out alive may be pretty good... but apparently they weren't good enough for my mom.

Banning guns would have just taken the gun out of my mom's hand, who was a law abiding citizen and wouldn't have broken the law. The murderer would have still had his gun... because well, he has no care what the law is.
I find it interesting that all the anti-gunners have yet to take on my stance. Tables turn whenever a victim is a gun advocate, huh?

You won't hurt my feelings.

edit: my first post was made when the argument moved a little off topic.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
If ownership of a Gun is a Right then it should cost less than a drivers license. My question is what are they teaching or offering at this class? Is this like a kind of a class a Police officer would take or private detective or what? If it is a film that lasts 20 minutes, then it is not worth even bothering. I got a fishing license or hunting license a while back and they made us watch a 20 minute film on hunting safety. If it is something like that, then it is not worth it.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
28,265
5,313
126
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Wow. $500 for protecting your life is not "available only to the rich". Jeez.

Anyways, if you take a look at ALL THE OTHER FREAKING COUNTRIES THAT HAVE OUTLAWED GUNS YOU'LL SEE THEY'RE MUCH WORSE OFF NOW THAN BEFORE.

It's not hard. People that situationally would not be robbers are now situationally robbers because now that guns are outlawed, nobody except the bad guys has a gun.

Liberals. Gotta love em. So disconnected from reality.
But better off than you

 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: piasabird
If ownership of a Gun is a Right then it should cost less than a drivers license. My question is what are they teaching or offering at this class? Is this like a kind of a class a Police officer would take or private detective or what? If it is a film that lasts 20 minutes, then it is not worth even bothering. I got a fishing license or hunting license a while back and they made us watch a 20 minute film on hunting safety. If it is something like that, then it is not worth it.
Own a gun = free, no license.

Permit to carry said gun in a concealed fashion is what costs money. Concealed carry itself may not actually be a "right", just "keeping and bearing").

People who carry concealed, one would expect, do so with some expectation of using the gun in self defense. Not hunting, not target shooting etc.

So, for your own and the public's safety, we had to demonstrate that we could actually hit a target and knew safety rules (how to handle the dang thing so you didn't accidentially discharge and injure/kill someone etc).

We also had to learn the rules of our state regarding use of a CCP. I'e, can't be drinking alchohol and do so (for obvious reasons), can't start the fight then pull your gun, can't shoot someone unless you're in imminent danger, can't retreat etc. You really need to know the laws about when you can, and when you can't pull and/or shoot.

So, IMO good stuff.

Fern
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,379
25,149
136
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

I find it interesting that all the anti-gunners have yet to take on my stance. Tables turn whenever a victim is a gun advocate, huh?

You won't hurt my feelings.

edit: my first post was made when the argument moved a little off topic.
It's probably because your post is simply an anecdote. There's really no arguing with someone's personal story because 1.) None of us are in your situation and 2.) anecdotes are near useless as evidence to support or deny a public policy position.
 
Aug 23, 2000
15,511
1
81
The article is full of shit. El Paso county in no where near the top in population, and their is no way for the reporter to have access to info on how many CHL's there are. CHL #s are not accessible to the public. Plus according to the 06 census, El Paso Count had around 725K people. Dallas County has close to 2.5 million.

Though I agree that we need more people with CHL's.

 
Feb 24, 2001
14,550
4
81
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
The article is full of shit. El Paso county in no where near the top in population, and their is no way for the reporter to have access to info on how many CHL's there are. CHL #s are not accessible to the public. Plus according to the 06 census, El Paso Count had around 725K people. Dallas County has close to 2.5 million.

Though I agree that we need more people with CHL's.
bzzzzt wrong

Texas DPS link with Statistical and Geographic information
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ

I find it interesting that all the anti-gunners have yet to take on my stance. Tables turn whenever a victim is a gun advocate, huh?

You won't hurt my feelings.

edit: my first post was made when the argument moved a little off topic.
It's probably because your post is simply an anecdote. There's really no arguing with someone's personal story because 1.) None of us are in your situation and 2.) anecdotes are near useless as evidence to support or deny a public policy position.
So my opinion is not arguable because I've had a personal experience with it... but if I was speaking in terms of generalities it's capable of being argued?

I put in there arguable point and no one took me on it.

1) Banning guns would have just taken the gun out of my mom's hand ... he murderer would have still had his gun

I think it's that it's much harder to argue a point when it is invalidated by someones personal experience.

We're arguing in terms of generalities about peoples personal experiences here, I don't see why my take on this personal experience can't be debated.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY