fixed it for youIf anything, Texas was one of the first to start regulating it because of reconstruction era induced racism
fixed it for youIf anything, Texas was one of the first to start regulating it because of reconstruction era induced racism
Whistler I'm not big on regulation. I just don't think the gov is gonna go from the current system to no system or at least without a step in between.
fixed it for you
People are scared of CC, AR15s and AKs. Should those be illegal?
There really isn't much data to support that OC poses a greater risk either.
Again, with the number of states allowing it I have yet to see any data linking OC to a higher likelihood of danger.
I doubt it does and hope I didn't leave that impression.
In a life-threatening situation, I want every advantage in my court.
From my seat, OC reduces that advantage by eliminating the element of surprise and the bad guy planning his attack accordingly.
Unless, of course, the bad guy sees the gun and chooses not to engage. Then you've won.
The justification that the bad will move on to someone else isn't a valid one for a couple reason as I see it.
How can NOT being attacked data be validated? One can't know ... its just supposition.
And by shifting focus of an attack on someone really doesn't align with the securing an active shooter justification either.
Given either option, I would still chose to conceal carry in public.
If the weapon is concealed and I can neutralize because of a tactical advantage, We've all won.
I'm not sworn to serve and protect so I'm selfish in this. I'm not looking put myself at risk or to be judge and jury "neutralizing" bad guys. If a bad guy sees me as too much of a threat to handle and moves on it's a great day in my life.
Isn't one of the arguments used by pro-OC is that of deterrent and protection him, his and others?.