Changing Texas Gun Control Laws: A Closer Look

Print More

Photo by Concealed Carry Holster via Flickr

Gun violence in Texas is on the rise. Some suggest that the state's Bill 901 which allows citizens to carry loaded guns in public is a key reason.
Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.

2 thoughts on “Changing Texas Gun Control Laws: A Closer Look

  1. The author seems to be interchanging definitions here.
    One of the subheadings is “Do Firearms Make us Safer?” Safer implies in the general sense of the word, i.e. less likely to be harmed. But in showing this, the author only points to gun violence. Now, perhaps the author gets a certain level of satisfaction from being in the critical care wing with a gun shot wound to the lung rather than a knife puncture, but most Americans don’t. They want to avoid the ER all the together. Wouldn’t it make sense to find the correlation or causation between gun control laws and violent crime? If gun control helps to decrease gun violence, but this is off-set by an increased in other weapons or forms of violence, of what value is gun control? Which is why stating this is so odd, because nothing cited shows this in the least:

    It would appear, at least from these statistics, that the first argument in favor of Bill 910 doesn’t hold up. Specifically, more people carrying more guns does not lead to a reduction in overall violence and crime.

    At best, the author is saying that there is some correlation between gun control and a specific kind of violence, but nothing about overall violence.

    “That still leaves the other argument: that armed citizens will put a stop to mass shootings. A quick look at incidents of recent mass shootings in Texas can at least partially dispel this idea.”

    One would want to know where these shootings took place? Not every public area allows carry, and not every private establishment allows carry. If the mass shootings took place in a Starbucks with a sign on the door that says, “No guns allowed,” so nobody brought in guns, that really isn’t an argument that guns don’t stop mass shootings.
    There is some merit to the idea that open carry isn’t going to stop a mass shooting anymore than concealed carry will, after all a gun is a gun. But there is also some intellectual merit to the idea that open carry will perhaps serve as a great deterrence to a mass shooting, or any crime for that matter, compared to concealed. If you wanted to carry out a mass shooting, and you had three rooms to choose. Room 1 you know for a fact that everybody in the room has a gun because you can see it strapped to their hip, Room 2 you think people might be armed because it allows concealed carry, and Room 3 you know nobody is armed because it doesn’t allow carry at all, how would you rank the rooms in order of likelihood that you will shoot up? Any logical person, and criminals are logical within their criminal arena, would rank the rooms: 1. Room 3 with no weapons, 2. Room 2 with concealed carry, and 3. Room 1 with open carry.

  2. Unfortunately, the author didn’t take the time to look at the definition of “gun violence” in his referenced studies. “Gun violence” as defined by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence includes suicides. In fact more than 2/3s of the incidents of “gun violence” cited by the LCPGV are suicides.

    It’s a common trick among the anti-gun folks to pander to people’s fear of crime by lumping suicides into the numbers. You can imagine the outrage if bridge suicides were included in statistics on roadway deaths – or intentional overdoses were included in statistics on pharmaceutical fatalities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *