Floyd: Sensible dialogue about 'open carry' proposal? Fat chance

Suppose we decided to have a sensible conversation about guns?

Maybe the time has come for us to have a reasoned, dispassionate discussion about how to balance deeply held convictions about personal rights with legitimate concerns over public safety. Wouldn’t that be an important step toward creating smarter policies?

Aw, I’m just messin’ with y’all!

I know as well as you do that we’re no more likely to have a “reasoned discussion” about guns than we are to flap our arms and fly to the moon. Just jokin’, har har!

Here’s what we’re really supposed to do: If anybody so much as mentions the word “gun” in any kind of a political context, clap your hands over your ears and bellow LALALALA or HOODYHOODYHOO at the top of your lungs.

Pretend you didn’t hear. Pretend you are as stone-deaf as a fireplug and maintain this pretense for as long as it takes for the dangerous word to disperse and drift harmlessly into the troposphere. In Texas, having guns (or not) is just fine — but talking about them is lethal.

That’s why the best response to one lawmaker’s call for statewide “open carry” legislation is probably dignified indifference. No good can come of jumping into the fight. Just avoid eye contact and walk quickly away.

Because you cannot talk sense with people who believe that a) firearms are instruments of pure evil, and anybody who owns one is a paranoid bigot or b) the gubbermint wants to kick your door down and turn you into a groveling slave by robbing you of the heaven-bestowed right to own and enjoy a personal arsenal.

State Rep. George Lavender, R-Texarkana, is apparently appealing to the latter camp with his effort to make it legal for licensed gun owners to proudly wear their weapons strapped to their thighs or tucked in their belts or possibly as hat ornaments.

He says that when the Legislature reconvenes in January, he’ll push for open-carry legislation because “this is Texas, and Texas should be the leader” in permissive gun laws.

Apparently it’s a source of civic chagrin that there might be some other place on the planet with fewer restrictions on the ownership and display of weaponry than Texas.

It strikes me as a fairly thin rationale for public policy, but I doubt there’s a lot of harm in it. Unlike those who predicted the advent of Armageddon when Texas’ concealed-carry law was passed in 1995, I don’t think we’re going to have running gunbattles in pizza parlors and barbershops if this comes to pass.

If I had to guess, I suppose there would be a big wave of excitement and gee-whiz media attention over a handful of people walking around with their guns hanging out before the novelty wears off and people get tired of strapping on the rig to go get a loaf of bread.

My real objection to all this is that gun policy — not just in Texas (“the leader”), but in much of the nation — isn’t grounded in anything that even resembles fact, statistics, probability or the realities of human physiology.

Sure, guns are dangerous, but so are cars and hatchets and table saws. Their safety and effectiveness are maximized when they’re in reliable hands.

But we don’t think of cars or table saws as magical talismans that will automatically make us impervious to danger.

The dopey argument that more guns in more hands will somehow “prevent crime” is specious nonsense because bad guys always have the advantage of being prepared for their own badness.

The best-trained cops and soldiers understand that being ready to deal with bad guys has more to do with your brain than your weapon. They know combat readiness is an acute mental state that no human being can maintain indefinitely.

What’s stupid and potentially dangerous is this blanket refusal to talk sensibly about guns and to view them purely in political-verging-on-hysterical terms. They have become as symbolic as bumper stickers and lapel pins, but they pose a lot more practical problems.

But, hey, what am I thinking? Forget I said anything. By and large, experience shows that responsible, law-abiding adults can be trusted to make serious decisions about gun ownership, but that there are too many guns in the wrong hands.

That may be evident. But it’s just not something we can talk about.

Top Picks