Open Carry In Texas - For or Against?

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I was responding in detail to your note when my system crashed and I lost the response. So I'll simply ask you one question at this time regarding your statement:

Nigerians in Nigeria have the same level of violence as Americans of Nigerian ancestry.

Please supply us with the source of the facts of the statement, which to me, again, is totally racist. I'd be willing to bet that all Nigerians who emigrated here in order to find a better life for themselves and their families would take great exception to that statement.

It's not racist to point to data and facts. The data is what it is. Personally I don't believe that the causes of higher violence among certain ethnic groups is because of their race per se. Personally I believe it's because those groups have traditions of poverty in their counties of origin, and when they come to the US they belong to disadvantaged groups here which go on for generations. I've stated that poverty is rampant in America, and that's where I think the problem lies. Personally I believe that most gun violence committed by whites is committed by poor whites. My beliefs are my interpretation of the data. But the data on ethnicity and gun violence is what it is. And the facts are that some ethnic groups in America have lower crime than others and some have higher crime, and those facts comport with their national origins and the rates of crime in those original societies.



American homicide rates since 1885
www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/foghorn/guns-violence-united-states-numbers/

Gun Deaths Shaped by Race in America
www.thewashingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-shaped-by-race-in-america/

Gun violence in America (in six uncomfortable charts)
www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-19/gun-violence-america-6-uncomfortable-charts

[Randall Creed]

Originally Posted by GneissGuy

I'm not sure I really care that much.

Most states already allow open carry by anyone without a permit. It doesn't seem like the states that ban it are particularly safe.

BTW, some states allow cities to ban open carry, so don't go around doing open carry if you don't know the local laws.

It seems a little strange that Texas is one of the few that don't allow open carry, even by those licensed to carry concealed.

Funny how the states with the most widely known gang and thug populations are the no Open Carry states. Can you imagine how the Bronx, Compton, south side of Chicago would look if there was open carry? At least the incumbent thugs have to HIDE their guns on them. With guns out in the open, those places would look like a war zone or military check point.

With open carry, people would carry just because other people are carrying. I mean, who would want to be that only joker WITHOUT a gun?

The problem with open carry is that it takes away time and the thought process of good judgment. Cutting someone off in traffic could mean death...more of these types of death rather than the 1 or 2 we hear about every year. You'd get 100's of them, or maybe 1000's, every year. Or, if you get a character 'looking suspicious', hands on guns. Somebody flinches wrong and blam. Bullets flying.

What would it come to just to walk around and enjoy life, walking around in body armor? Then again, if you did that, people might think you're up to something.

Open carry just wouldn't work at large. Some places get away with it, but not all places would.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by pussycat

It's not racist to point to data and facts. The data is what it is. Personally I don't believe that the causes of higher violence among certain ethnic groups is because of their race per se. Personally I believe it's because those groups have traditions of poverty in their counties of origin, and when they come to the US they belong to disadvantaged groups here which go on for generations. I've stated that poverty is rampant in America, and that's where I think the problem lies. Personally I believe that most gun violence committed by whites is committed by poor whites. My beliefs are my interpretation of the data. But the data on ethnicity and gun violence is what it is. And the facts are that some ethnic groups in America have lower crime than others and some have higher crime, and those facts comport with their national origins and the rates of crime in those original societies.



American homicide rates since 1885
www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/foghorn/guns-violence-united-states-numbers/

Gun Deaths Shaped by Race in America
www.thewashingtonpost.com/sf/feature/wp/2013/03/22/gun-deaths-shaped-by-race-in-america/

Gun violence in America (in six uncomfortable charts)
www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-19/gun-violence-america-6-uncomfortable-charts

I fully agree with you that there is a very high correlation between crime and poverty levels. If you stopped there we would be in full agreement.

However, none of the links supplied by you supports your statement that people who
emigrate here from Nigeria commit crimes at the same level as the overall population in Nigeria. See YOUR statement below in red. Simply NOTHING to support that statement.

I then expanded on that by pointing out that ethnic groups in America from those countries with low violence have the same level of violence in America. Germans in Germany have the same level of violence as German Americans. Koreans in Korea have the same level of violence as Korean Americans. French in France have the same level of violence as Americans of French ancestry. Nigerians in Nigeria have the same level of violence as Americans of Nigerian ancestry.

And here is another quote from you:

In addition as I've mentioned America has huge populations of African Americans and Hispanics which have violence engrained into their cultures, and even when they attain wealth these tendencies for violence remain with them.

When is the last time you've heard of a white country singer or white heavy metal band member stabbing his manager? Never.

To me, very racist. As David D. correctly pointed out, there have been several whites who fit the same category. Maybe we
have different definitions of "huge populations". There are close to 38 million people in the U.S. who are considered to be
"black". The overwhelming majority are not criminals.

[pussycat]

Go to the FBI numbers for gun shootings and you'll see that hispanics and African Americans account for most of that kind of violence. It's my opinion that this kind of violence is "engrained in the culture" because of poverty and political corruption and lack of law enforcement, etc. My point is that even when someone from these groups breaks out of poverty and attains wealth so many times their attitudes about violence don't change much. That's not because of their race per se. It's just that cultural factors take many generations to remedy.

Look at a map of the world and you'll see that in Africa and Latin America that the murder rates and other forms of violence are very high opposed to most places which there is less poverty. There is a correlation between ethnicity and violence, but in my opinion this is based on culture and not race.

I think like a lot of people today you jump to a "racist" conclusion when statements are made making generalizations about ethnicity and culture. Even the negative way you used the term "stereotype" reflects this. "Stereotype" is a valid term of cultural anthropology and doesn't mean an inaccurate or biased characterization. Leftists in the 1960s used the term "sterotype" in a negative way to criticize non-anthropologists who painted derisive pictures of other races. But the term "stereotype" is not a negative term.

[Randall Creed]

Lol.

Go to every gang riddled city in America and offer $1M each to gang members to 'retire' from the life. 24 hours later, America would have the cleanest, crime free streets on the planet.

While this would NEVER happen, even if someone wanted it to, the point is, poverty and environment are the leading causes of any 'engrained culture'. Poor people, with little or no education, dealing with people of similar circumstance, will always have that attitude. But if they woke up one day in a world FREE OF CRIME, HUNGER, and worthlessness, in a neighborhood with streets made of gold, they'd stop cold turkey.

I don't care what your numbers say, they're misleading. There just aren't enough non-white people to make these numbers believable. They would have to mean that literally....LITERALLY every black and hispanic commit MULTIPLE CRIMES daily to make these numbers possible. There's just no way.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by pussycat

Go to the FBI numbers for gun shootings and you'll see that hispanics and African Americans account for most of that kind of violence. It's my opinion that this kind of violence is "engrained in the culture" because of poverty and political corruption and lack of law enforcement, etc. My point is that even when someone from these groups breaks out of poverty and attains wealth so many times their attitudes about violence don't change much. That's not because of their race per se. It's just that cultural factors take many generations to remedy.

Look at a map of the world and you'll see that in Africa and Latin America that the murder rates and other forms of violence are very high opposed to most places which there is less poverty. There is a correlation between ethnicity and violence, but in my opinion this is based on culture and not race.

I think like a lot of people today you jump to a "racist" conclusion when statements are made making generalizations about ethnicity and culture. Even the negative way you used the term "stereotype" reflects this. "Stereotype" is a valid term of cultural anthropology and doesn't mean an inaccurate or biased characterization. Leftists in the 1960s used the term "sterotype" in a negative way to criticize non-anthropologists who painted derisive pictures of other races. But the term "stereotype" is not a negative term.

I'll repeat myself for the 3rd or 4th time. You made statements that you simply can't prove to be true. Many areas of Africa and Latin America have higher crime rates than the U.S. To assume that people emigrating to the U.S. from those countries are likely to commit crimes at the same level of the average of those in those countries is WRONG!! There is no way to prove it. And I doubt it is close to being true.

And your statement that people who break out of poverty and assume wealth do not change their attitudes about violence is incorrect in my opinion because the majority of the people who break out never had violent pasts, which is why they broke out. I see your problem as looking at a handful of people who fought their way out of poverty to become wealthy and commit crimes as the norm rather than the exception.

[The Allnighter]

"We don’t need no gun control. You know what we need?

We need some bullet control -- man, we need to control the bullets.

I think all bullets should cost $5000. $5000 for a bullet!

You know why? ‘Cause if a bullet cost $5000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders who get shot!

Every time someone got shot, people will be like, “Damn, that guy must have did something wrong. Dude put $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass!”

Homies would be like, “I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it. I’m gonna get me another job, I’m gonna start saving some money, and then you’re dead man! You better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway!

And even if you did get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you've got my property.”

Chris Rock, 1999

That there's funny...until you think about it, and then you go, "Hmmm..."

[Claire She Blows]

Originally Posted by The Allnighter

"We don’t need no gun control. You know what we need?

We need some bullet control -- man, we need to control the bullets.

I think all bullets should cost $5000. $5000 for a bullet!

You know why? ‘Cause if a bullet cost $5000, there’d be no more innocent bystanders who get shot!

Every time someone got shot, people will be like, “Damn, that guy must have did something wrong. Dude put $50,000 worth of bullets in his ass!”

Homies would be like, “I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it. I’m gonna get me another job, I’m gonna start saving some money, and then you’re dead man! You better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway!

And even if you did get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you've got my property.”

Chris Rock, 1999

That there's funny...until you think about it, and then you go, "Hmmm..."

I read this, got to the bottom and saw Chris Rock, then went back and totally re-read it in his voice (in my head, of course). Too damn funny.

[knotty man]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw
her ya go, claire

[tron]

Man arrested in Fayetteville, North Carolina, mall with rifle, ammunition -
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/03/us/nor...est/index.html

So, if you are at a mall and a guy shows up with an AR-15 and a bunch of loaded magazines, is your response:

a) Cool! Great that people can exercise their rights
b) WTF? he's going to start shooting. Where's the exit?
c) Good thing I am packing too
d) I hope the Police get here soon or someone else is packing and friendly and a good shot
e) I wonder if there are going to be MULTIPLE shooters - like in Kenya

I support CCW permits, but not open carry due to people doing crazy stuff like this.

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I'll repeat myself for the 3rd or 4th time. You made statements that you simply can't prove to be true. Many areas of Africa and Latin America have higher crime rates than the U.S. To assume that people emigrating to the U.S. from those countries are likely to commit crimes at the same level of the average of those in those countries is WRONG!! There is no way to prove it. And I doubt it is close to being true.

And your statement that people who break out of poverty and assume wealth do not change their attitudes about violence is incorrect in my opinion because the majority of the people who break out never had violent pasts, which is why they broke out. I see your problem as looking at a handful of people who fought their way out of poverty to become wealthy and commit crimes as the norm rather than the exception.

Everything I said is not only true but is the consensus of cultural anthropologists.

It's well known that Americans of German decent have the same low level of crime as Germans living in Germany, which is the lowest level in the world.

It's well known that Americans of Italian decent have similar levels of crime and violence as Italians living in Italy, which is higher than Germany.

It's understood that Americans of English decent have the same level of crime as English living in England, which is high by European standards.

The highest levels of violent crime in western Europe are in Belgium, which led the pundit Ann Coulter to say that "if you eliminate the black and hispanic components the level of gun violence in America is no different than that in Belgium." This is largely true and is because gun violence in Belgium for some reason is high.

Americans of Russian decent have about the same level of criminal activity as Russians living in Russia.

And on and on. I won't go into underpriviledged groups and their countries of national origin because I don't want to be falsely accused of being "racist."

But these are reflections of "national character" as it used to be called.

Modern anthropologists often refer to this as part of "cultural determinism," which is a doctrine which I think is borne out by the evidence.

Yes I believe that poverty is the major component, and political corruption and lack of civil society and so forth which pervade in these cultures. But there are examples of poor societies such as in south Asian and muslim countries with low crime rates.

There's much poverty in muslim societies but because of their civil society and religious institutions there is very little crime, except for massive political corruption at the top.

If you don't like these simple observations because they challenge your fond beliefs that all people are the same then you should open a book on cultural anthropology or history and learn the truth that as Noam Chomsky says,

"People can be anything."

People are not all the same, despite the fact that I believe that government should treat them the same. They do deserve equal treatment, but they are not all the same.

[pussycat]

Now Speedracer let's talk about your own ethnocentrism, or your belief that American culture and society is better than others.

You said that people from Nigeria sometimes come to America "to find a better life."

"A better life?"

What's up with that?

Why would life necessarily be better in America for a Nigerian than in Nigeria?

What's wrong with Nigeria?

By American standards Nigeria is not much of a place. But if you were a Nigerian and grew up in their culture with their languages and values and customs and history then who are you to say that live is better in America than in Nigeria?

Like all lefties you have the view that only industrial countries like America or Europe with their industrial/consumerist societies based on science and so forth are fit to live in, and all other places like Nigeria are backwards hell holes where people aren't as rational or free from religion or whatever your own ethnocentristic bias happens to be.

You and all you people in America and Europe who want everyone to come here have the assumption that just because Nigeria is a bad place for you to be that it must therefore be bad for everyone who grew up there.

I happen to disagree.

[pussycat]

Now Speedracer let's turn to the underpinnings or origns of your misconception that all people are the same regardless of their culture or history.

How did this state of affairs come to be? Why do lefties, progressives and reformers believe this although there is no evidence for it?

The history of this matter is simple.

In the past law proscribed that people deserved to be treated differently according to their status. The idea of "equal treatment under the law" is a new and novel concept. In the past individuals were treated differently by the law according to the status that they held in society. Some individuals were treated with more rights because they were thought to be entitled to such because they were thought to be inherently of higher quality. Others who had lesser rights were treated that way because they were believed to be of lesser quality, morally and intellectually, and therefore had to be controlled by others.

Under this system reformers who sought to change law so it would provide equal treatment had to do so by convincing the public that there were no inherent moral or intellectual differences between people according to their status, class, gender, race, ethnicity, national origin, etc.

Reformers had to change social beliefs that all people are entitled to equal treatment because all people are of similar quality.

This however was untrue.

People are not of the same moral or intellectual qualities or characteristics. There are vast differences in beliefs, values, customs, temperaments, etc., according to culture and so forth.

But it was necessary to argue and convince otherwise to achieve the goal at the time of guaranteeing equal treatment under law.

Personally I believe that equal treatment under law is vital and essential, but not because all people are of the same quality. I believe that equal treatment is important for other reasons. I believe that government must treat everyone equally because to do otherwise limits advancement of individuals. Defining whole classes the former way failed to account for individual differences, and I don't think courts or judges have the intelligence to make such distinctions. Government isn't competent to make such distinctions.

I believe in progress, but based on individual betterment and refinement, not on fanciful blanket doctrines that "all people are the same."

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by pussycat

Now Speedracer let's talk about your own ethnocentrism, or your belief that American culture and society is better than others.

You said that people from Nigeria sometimes come to America "to find a better life."

"A better life?"

What's up with that?

Why would life necessarily be better in America for a Nigerian than in Nigeria?

What's wrong with Nigeria?

By American standards Nigeria is not much of a place. But if you were a Nigerian and grew up in their culture with their languages and values and customs and history then who are you to say that live is better in America than in Nigeria?

Like all lefties you have the view that only industrial countries like America or Europe with their industrial/consumerist societies based on science and so forth are fit to live in, and all other places like Nigeria are backwards hell holes where people aren't as rational or free from religion or whatever your own ethnocentristic bias happens to be.

You and all you people in America and Europe who want everyone to come here have the assumption that just because Nigeria is a bad place for you to be that it must therefore be bad for everyone who grew up there.

I happen to disagree.

This statement in red that you attribute to me was never said nor hinted at. I have never said life in the U.S. is superior to any other country.

Now Speedracer let's talk about your own ethnocentrism, or your belief that American culture and society is better than others.

My grandfather came from Russia. My grandmother from Germany. Almost all the people in the U.S. originally came from other countries. They came here for a reason. And what do you think that reason probably was? My opinion -- to find a "better life" for themselves and their families. My grandfather left Russia to escape the pogroms going on there.

YOU are the one who started talking about people emigrating to the U.S. from Nigeria. NOT ME!!! All my comments were about those Nigerians who decided to leave Nigeria for the U.S. So, since YOU are the one who initiated the discussion on Nigerians emigrating to the U.S. back in post #134 with the statement:

"Nigerians in Nigeria have the same level of violence as Americans of Nigerian ancestry."

Why don't you enlighten as to the reason people from Nigeria have come to live in the U.S. I gave you my opinion. Let's hear some more ridiculous statements from you. They just keep coming.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by pussycat

Everything I said is not only true but is the consensus of cultural anthropologists.

It's well known that Americans of German decent have the same low level of crime as Germans living in Germany, which is the lowest level in the world.

It's well known that Americans of Italian decent have similar levels of crime and violence as Italians living in Italy, which is higher than Germany.

It's understood that Americans of English decent have the same level of crime as English living in England, which is high by European standards.

The highest levels of violent crime in western Europe are in Belgium, which led the pundit Ann Coulter to say that "if you eliminate the black and hispanic components the level of gun violence in America is no different than that in Belgium." This is largely true and is because gun violence in Belgium for some reason is high.

Americans of Russian decent have about the same level of criminal activity as Russians living in Russia.

And on and on. I won't go into underpriviledged groups and their countries of national origin because I don't want to be falsely accused of being "racist."

But these are reflections of "national character" as it used to be called.

Modern anthropologists often refer to this as part of "cultural determinism," which is a doctrine which I think is borne out by the evidence.

Yes I believe that poverty is the major component, and political corruption and lack of civil society and so forth which pervade in these cultures. But there are examples of poor societies such as in south Asian and muslim countries with low crime rates.

There's much poverty in muslim societies but because of their civil society and religious institutions there is very little crime, except for massive political corruption at the top.

If you don't like these simple observations because they challenge your fond beliefs that all people are the same then you should open a book on cultural anthropology or history and learn the truth that as Noam Chomsky says,

"People can be anything."

People are not all the same, despite the fact that I believe that government should treat them the same. They do deserve equal treatment, but they are not all the same.

Please provide one single bit of factual evidence to back up your statement

"Nigerians in Nigeria have the same level of violence as Americans of Nigerian ancestry."

Not your opinion. Not YOUR statement that someone said it. I just want to see something written down by a knowledgeable person in a legitimate published article that supports what you are stating as fact. I don't care about Germany, Italy, or England, which are countries with very low crime rates. I want to see a source that backs up your statement on Nigeria. Which, of the countries you mentioned, is the only one that is predominantly black and has a higher crime rate than the others mentioned..

Simple enough??? Until then, I consider your statement on Nigeria 100% incorrect.