Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1 • Hacker News Board

Re: Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1

#81

Post by chmod600 » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 5:24 PM UTC

oliwarner wrote: post #79

chmod600 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr... California and Texas have similar homicide rates: 4.3 vs 4.9. Both numbers are low in the sense that homicide isn't something you should be afraid of in either state, unless you are in a specifically risky place or situation. And regarding your anecdotes, it's doubtful to me that a law would prevent many of those people from carrying a gun. Maybe some, b…

That's where the similarities end though. CA has a much poorer population at the bottom end, the price of living is 70% higher, multiple-point higher unemployment, less space, lower education outcomes, etc, etc, etc. CA's problems are not TX's problems.

The facts you posted are interesting; thank you.

But I don't follow your point. Why would the parent "Get the F Out" of Texas if the murder rate is both low and comparable to the most obvious alternative?

Re: Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1

#82

Post by oliwarner » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

chmod600 wrote: post #81

oliwarner wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where the similarities end though. CA has a much poorer population at the bottom end, the price of living is 70% higher, multiple-point higher unemployment, less space, lower education outcomes, etc, etc, etc. CA's problems are not TX's problems.

The facts you posted are interesting; thank you. But I don't follow your point. Why would the parent "Get the F Out" of Texas if the murder rate is both low and comparable to the most obvious alternative?

Okay, maybe I didn't get your point. You introduced CA into this, but igetspam didn't say GTFOTX-and-go-to-CA. I see that you're using it because lots of people do look at the two states as two options for setting up shop.

I guess I was really pointing out that parts of CA has much bigger problems that make it ill-advised to compare state-for-state. Maybe that's unfair but they're both pretty colossal states.

And there are other options. Portland, Seattle, etc.

Re: Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1

#83

Post by chmod600 » Wed, Jul 21, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

oliwarner wrote: post #82

chmod600 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The facts you posted are interesting; thank you. But I don't follow your point. Why would the parent "Get the F Out" of Texas if the murder rate is both low and comparable to the most obvious alternative?

Okay, maybe I didn't get your point. You introduced CA into this, but igetspam didn't say GTFOTX-and-go-to-CA. I see that you're using it because lots of people do look at the two states as two options for setting up shop. I guess I was really pointing out that parts of CA has much bigger problems that make it ill-advised to compare state-for-state. Maybe that's unfair but they're both pretty colossal states. And the…

I should have put it as "Texas is in the middle of the pack in the US". But there are at least a couple ways that could be challenged as well: (a) middle of a list of states is not the same as having equal populations above and below; (b) it raises the question of whether the U.S. murder rate is a reasonable benchmark.

On HN, really anything is subject to some kind of challenge.

I like comparing the two states because they are both big (and therefore not as subject to cherry-picking) and have fairly different governing philosophies.

At the end of the day, you don't choose a state based on minimizing your chances of lightning strikes. You stop climbing trees in the middle of a thunderstorm and you forget about it.

Maybe you'd choose specific cities or areas, but state is kind of ridiculous.

Re: Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1

#84

Post by torstenvl » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 1:49 AM UTC

oliwarner wrote: post #80

Grakel wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The supreme court has decided that the police have no obligation to interrupt a crime or protect you from violence, only to investigate afterwards. Even if they decide to, they're minutes or sometimes hours away.

> The supreme court has decided We shouldn't give up on progress because of how five judges read a bit of old parchment. I'm talking about societal aims , and of course, they're just my opinion. We should want to decrease crime, not just shoot at it. That's not just education, drug rehab, it's a solid police presence and community engagement. A world where the top earning 10% still interact with the bottom earning 10…

Castle Rock was 7-2 and indeed was unanimous on the question at issue as a federal matter.

From Justice Stevens' dissent: "It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection."

The basis for the dissent was that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg believed, out of deference to federalism, that the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the issue of whether state law provided for such a right, but instead should have deferred to the federal district court or certified the question to the state Supreme Court.

Moreover, the Constitution is emphatically not "a bit of old parchment." For shame.

Re: Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1

#85

Post by oliwarner » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 11:20 AM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #84

oliwarner wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The supreme court has decided We shouldn't give up on progress because of how five judges read a bit of old parchment. I'm talking about societal aims , and of course, they're just my opinion. We should want to decrease crime, not just shoot at it. That's not just education, drug rehab, it's a solid police presence and community engagement. A world where the top earning 10% still interact with the bottom earning 10…

Castle Rock was 7-2 and indeed was unanimous on the question at issue as a federal matter. From Justice Stevens' dissent: "It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection." The basis for the dissent was that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg believed, out of deference to federa…

You ignored what I said.

Tomorrow's progress isn't dependent the Constitution. What we want for our future does not rely on the permissions of what came before it.

Re: Texans can carry handguns without a license or training starting Sept. 1

#86

Post by torstenvl » Thu, Jul 22, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

oliwarner wrote: post #85

torstenvl wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Castle Rock was 7-2 and indeed was unanimous on the question at issue as a federal matter. From Justice Stevens' dissent: "It is perfectly clear, on the one hand, that neither the Federal Constitution itself, nor any federal statute, granted respondent or her children any individual entitlement to police protection." The basis for the dissent was that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg believed, out of deference to federa…

You ignored what I said. Tomorrow's progress isn't dependent the Constitution. What we want for our future does not rely on the permissions of what came before it.

What you said was "We shouldn't give up on progress because of how five judges read a bit of old parchment"

It isn't five judges. It isn't a bit of old parchment. Your dishonesty is unbecoming.