Sitting down for dinner at any Texan diner, in my experience, often involves guns. I can’t recall the exact number of times I have eaten a meal in the immediate company of a man, or men, with shooters on their hips in plain view.
Well that is a damn strange Rachel. I’ve eaten in many a Texas diner, from Houston to Amarillo, and I’ve never seen one man wearing a gun. Furthermore, Texas is not a traditional open carry state. They do not allow it. The law there says “it is unlawful to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carry on or about one’s person a handgun in a motor vehicle if the handgun is in plain view”
A Pro Gun website in the US has picked up on Rachel’s article and emailed the paper asking for an explanation. None of the author’s emails have been answered. Shame that. It would be good to know if Rachael was merely confused about Texas, or whether she’d just made it up. Not a very likely option that latter one. The integrity and honesty of every New Zealand journalist is completely beyond reproach. We all know that, don’t we readers?
The paper has published an editorial defending Rachel’s position. It says-
Her time in diners were spent in the company of people who had concealed their firearms, but not well enough to keep them from view all the time. There was no lie, no lack of integrity.
Funny. This doesn’t seem to mesh with the wording in the original article- “with shooters on their hips in plain view.” I repeat. I’ve spent a lot of time in Texas diners. I’ve never seen one gun displayed openly or otherwise.
In an email to a reader, the editor of the News says-
Ms Stewart spends quite a bit of time in the US, and frequently sees firearms in Texan diners. Some are worn by police, others are worn by members of the public who have attempted, without success to keep them hidden from view at all times.
Once again, with its mention of police, this just does not seem to fit. Sure Texas police wear firearms but so do police in all other states. In fact I see Police wearing firearms all over the world. Its not by any means exceptional. Why would this cause anyone to feel “spellbound and queasy”?
Gun Rights Examiner responds to paper’s weak editorial.