Opposition to it makes no sense, since it assumes that currently criminals are deterred by it's being illegal for them to carry a gun. When the reality is that, under Constitutional Carry, criminals are still prohibited, but will carry exactly as often as they did before Constitutional Carry. They aren't deterred by activities being illegal. That's what makes them criminals.
Their other argument is that common disagreements between otherwise non-criminal people will, by virtue of one party (or both) being armed, will escalate into deadly force encounters. Well, that has not been found to be the result of Constitutional Carry in other states, so why would it be in Texas? In fact, when otherwise non-criminals are packing heat, what they are more likely to do during a confrontation is deescalate it or leave, being concerned that an escalation might result in the need to use their weapon, and then their being forced into defending their actions to the police and/or the criminal justice system, which regular folks would like to avoid if at all possible.
