this probably won't end well, and i think i'm gonna avoid bars for a while

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**greenskin lynn**

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Tennessee-s-Law-Allowing-G-by-Grant-Lawrence-090702-512.html

By Grant Lawrence

"Any
time you introduce guns into a situation where there's alcohol, where
they can be fights, it's dangerous We've all been to bars. They get
crowded and there's pushing and shoving sometimes. A situation that is
ugly can become deadly."
Spokesman Chad Ramsey of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun control advocacy group.

An
owner of 3 top rated restaurants in Nashville, Randy Rayburn, has filed
a lawsuit challenging Tennessee's law allowing gun owners to bring
their guns into a bar or a restaurant serving alcohol.
"If it's
called a 'nuisance bar,' with shootings, it normally gets shut down.
But in Tennessee, we apparently are going to have 225,000 vigilantes
shooting in bars," said Rayburn's attorney.

Mr. Rayburn and his attorney shouldn't get that upset. Sure, his Establishment may be faced with a liability lawsuit or possible closing for a shooting at his restaurant, but the real question here is Americans' right to kill others in a setting of their choice.

Tennessee
must know that a lot of shootings occur at home and maybe this is also
the government's way of trying to slow the rate of domestic shootings
and violence. If you can get people shooting each other
more in bars and restaurants, then they will be less likely to kill each
other at home.

But, there is also a constitutional issue. Tennessee should go further in their new law.

They
should pass a law granting citizens the right to bear their guns at airports, on air
planes, around highly explosive material, and at political inaugurations. Danger is not the issue here.

It is a matter of American's constitutional right to be stupid.

Congratulations
to the State of Tennessee for allowing the people of their state the
right to be an idiot with a gun in restaurants and in bars that serve
alcohol. I just don't think the law has gone far enough. Tennessee
should make a statement for freedom by allowing anyone with a gun to
be an idiot anywhere and at anytime.

Safety is not the issue but
the freedom to be able to shoot others anywhere and at anytime is the
issue. Gun violence shouldn't be limited to our homes or our neighborhoods but should be expanded into every aspect of American life.

Wait, I think gun violence has already expanded into every aspect of American life.

But
still, we must need more of it or why else would the good people of
Tennessee allow for a law that promotes more gun violence. I am sure
their politicians wouldn't lead them astray.

There are larger issues here. Americans have the right to bear arms and they shouldn't be limited on where they want to bear them.

**Typeline**

Yeah, I myself never liked the amount of guns in this country.

But a huge group of people will bitch and moan if you take their guns away. So it'll never happen.

Also, Jesus, Republicans, Gun Enthusiasts, Armed Criminals, Constitution.

**VictorVonTzeentch**

Wait are the people that wrote this even reporters? It sounds like a bunch of overly biased crap. More so than most...

**greenskin lynn**

i'm more worried about the fact that its harder to think of people i know that don't own a few guns then it is people that do........

**VictorVonTzeentch**

Typeline wrote:

Also, Jesus, Republicans, Gun Enthusiasts, Armed Criminals, Constitution.

Republicans and gun enthusiasts aren't the only people that like guns, plus religion has nothing to do with it.

Criminals do tend to get their guns illegally and the Constitution does allow law abiding citizens to own them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

greenskin lynn wrote:i'm more worried about the fact that its harder to think of people i know that don't own a few guns then it is people that do........

If they know how to use and maintain them properly there isn't much to worry about as they will probably be locked away unless they are at a range or hunting. Or if they have the concealed carry permit in which case the gun wouldn't be out of its holster unless it needs to be.

**Typeline**

BrotherStynier wrote:
Typeline wrote:

Also, Jesus, Republicans, Gun Enthusiasts, Armed Criminals, Constitution.

Republicans and gun enthusiasts aren't the only people that like guns, plus religion has nothing to do with it.

Criminals do tend to get their guns illegally and the Constitution does allow law abiding citizens to own them.

Sure it doesn't...

Edit: wait wait.. I meant to say

I don't care.

**VictorVonTzeentch**

Well for me religion has nothing to do with it.

Guns =/= Religion

Religion is a nuisance

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then why bother speaking if you dont care?

**garret**

well its part of the original bill of rights. So they will never go bye bye.
beside guns make me fell safe. who wouldnt fell safe with an ak-47 under there bed.

**Typeline**

BrotherStynier wrote:Well for me religion has nothing to do with it.

Guns =/= Religion

Religion is a nuisance

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then why bother speaking if you dont care?

I was saying I don't care about any of the arguments for the prevalence of gun ownership in America.

I don't care if only criminals have guns. I don't care what the constitution says (don't cry over any of this fellas, no one cares what the constitution says, not even politicians). Over 5,000 people die every year to gun violence in this nation, compare those numbers to under a couple hundred in England. This is insanity.

garret wrote:well its part of the original bill of rights. So they will never go bye bye.
beside guns make me fell safe. who wouldnt fell safe with an ak-47 under there bed.

Sorry if this seems like a personal attack.

I really would not feel safe if you had an AK-47 under your bed.
And so you know what I'm talking about.

garret wrote:Well, it's part of the original bill of rights. So they will never go bye bye.
Besides guns make me feel safe. Who wouldn't feel safe with an AK-47 under their bed?

fix'd

**VictorVonTzeentch**

NO THIS IS AMERICA! Sorry I had to...

You know most of the 5,000 people that die are killed by illegal firearms.

That 5,000 people is 5,000 less people to waste federal money on. Less people to pollute the atmosphere, destroy the environment and kill kittens. You know all those things the left want to protect.

And that's 5,000 more people the Right can use to scare people into buying guns with.

**Typeline**

BrotherStynier wrote:NO THIS IS AMERICA! Sorry I had to...

You know most of the 5,000 people that die are killed by illegal firearms.

That 5,000 people is 5,000 less people to waste federal money on. Less people to pollute the atmosphere, destroy the environment and kill kittens. You know all those things the left want to protect.

And that's 5,000 more people the Right can use to scare people into buying guns with.

Do not pull this bs out of your ass and fling it everywhere.
No one is right, no one is left.
Politicians and companies got you to internalize their personal beliefs. So just drop it.

I'm sure everyone who is killed by an illegal firearm is some form of criminal or receiving federal aid somehow. But that is beside the point. I'd rather not have those people die, that is simply it.

**VictorVonTzeentch**

I wasn't trying to take either side. If you get to pull BS why can't I?

Nor did I say they were all receiving financial aid and I don't recall saying they are all criminals, I said polluting the environment.

Lets drop the moral posturing though, shall we?

People die, its a fact get over it. With or with out guns it will happen.

**Orkeosaurus**

Oh Jesus, is this a follow up to Timecube?

EARTH HAS 4 CORNER
SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY
GUN CONTROL
IN ONLY 24 HOUR CONTROL.
4 Control of GUN, CONTROLS DEATH.
******************
SECOND AMENDMENT in AMERICA is
"BULL gak",
EVIL CONSERVATIVES
block and suppress
www.timegun.com.
You are educated evil,
and I possess the proof.

Seriously, what the feth is this guy on? His "satire" is just so god awful, I have a hard time believing this is real.

**djphranq**

Oh man I'd hate to start a rules argument at a GW in your neck of the woods, Lynn.

**Orkestra**

I've read better written political articles on these boards. And they weren't even in a quote box.

Though I must say that I like drunk people with guns less than sober people with guns.

**Orkeosaurus**

But I'd rather have a gun if dealing with drunk people, so it's tricky.

You can't drive a motor vehicle while drunk though, perhaps those with firearms should come under some sort of restrictions regarding their intoxication. (I don't know of any states that do this off hand, but I'm not that well versed in state gun laws.)

**VictorVonTzeentch**

I would think it depends on the State like you said Orkeosaurus. In Washington they don't have a "Don't Drink while in the possession of a Firearm" law, while it does make sense to make that a law I always thought that was common sense.

**Relapse**

I'm more worried about the drunk in a car coming at me than a drunk with a gun.
Everybody bitches and wails yearly about Columbine and the killings there, yet I haven't heard or read word one on the anniversary of the drunk in a pickup taking out a school bus load of kids back east.
Everybody says sue the gun manufacturers because of the death and injury caused by guns. By the same logic, how about sueing the brewers and distillers because of all the drunk drivers out there on the roads killing and maiming people?

**Kilkrazy**

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (http://www.cdc.gov) there are about 2.5 million deaths per year in the USA.

About 30,000 are caused by firearms of which about half are suicides.

About 2% of firearm deaths are lawful killings (e.g. by a police officer in the course of their duty.)

About 3% are accidents and the rest are murders. Note that murders aren't all done by criminals holding illegal firearms but the CDC doesn't track the detail.

To put it in perspective, poisoning and car accidents both cause more deaths than firearms.

**VictorVonTzeentch**

Relapse wrote:I'm more worried about the drunk in a car coming at me than a drunk with a gun.
Everybody bitches and wails yearly about Columbine and the killings there, yet I haven't heard or read word one on the anniversary of the drunk in a pickup taking out a school bus load of kids back east.
Everybody says sue the gun manufacturers because of the death and injury caused by guns. By the same logic, how about sueing the brewers and distillers because of all the drunk drivers out there on the roads killing and maiming people?

That Sir, is a very very good point, and one I have neither a serious nor witty response to.

**sebster**

Kilkrazy wrote:According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (http://www.cdc.gov) there are about 2.5 million deaths per year in the USA.

About 30,000 are caused by firearms of which about half are suicides.

About 2% of firearm deaths are lawful killings (e.g. by a police officer in the course of their duty.)

About 3% are accidents and the rest are murders. Note that murders aren't all done by criminals holding illegal firearms but the CDC doesn't track the detail.

To put it in perspective, poisoning and car accidents both cause more deaths than firearms.

Except the fact that some other thing kills more people is irrelevant. What matters is the good compared to the harm. When 30,000 people are killed as a result of guns, you don't compare that to other causes of death, you compare it to the benefits of the current legislation towards guns. Now, there's a lot of facts about of gun deaths and the benefits of guns, it's a complicated subject with no simple answer. There's also the fact that much legislation can hassle gunowners while providing no increase in safety, while other legislation can improve safety without really impacting on gun owners. So it isn't a case of saying 'yay guns' or 'boo gun control', but finding what legislation is best.

But that debate can't start until people stop with the non-arguments like comparing gun deaths to cars or poisoning.

**Relapse**

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:But that debate can't start until people stop with the non-arguments like comparing gun deaths to cars or poisoning.

I've had friends killed in accidents with drunk drivers, but no one I know has been killed by a gun. It's not a non-argument to me.

**sebster**

Relapse wrote:I've had friends killed in accidents with drunk drivers, but no one I know has been killed by a gun. It's not a non-argument to me.

Sorry to hear about your loss but it is a non-argument because the two things are entirely unrelated. The costs and benefits of motor vehicles and poisonous substances are entirely different to the costs and benefits of guns. And you have to realise I'm not arguing this from an anti-gun POV, I'm arguing this as someone who is sick to death of bad anti-gun and bad pro-gun arguments. There are sensible options that can achieve much of what both sides want, but they won't be found as long as people keep throwing out nonsense arguments.

**Orkeosaurus**

Well, knowing how many deaths caused by guns are in relation to deaths caused by other sources can help to better quantify the extent of the problem.

Whether it's 3,000, 30,000, or 300,000 can all seem irrelevant without having other numbers to compare it to in context.

**sebster**

Orkeosaurus wrote:Well, knowing how many deaths caused by guns are in relation to deaths caused by other sources can help to better quantify the extent of the problem.

Whether it's 3,000, 30,000, or 300,000 can all seem irrelevant without having other numbers to compare it to in context.

What context is provided? If the ratio was 10 car related deaths for every gun related death, what would that mean? If it was 10 to 1, does that mean guns aren't all that harmful and you can happily march on losing just 30,000 people a year? And where are the calls for context when there are deaths from terrorism? Nah, it's a non-argument.

The actual, real substance of the debate can be found in talking about what good guns provide, and how much harm they cause, and what kind of laws and processes can be put in place to minimise the harm while keeping the good.

**Orkeosaurus**

Well, comparing them to a single other cause of death isn't very useful.

Comparing them to total deaths, however, gives a better idea of how many deaths they cause. 30,000 out of 100,000 is a huge number, and would require a lot more resources to be put into law enforcement if nothing else. 30,000 out of 100,000,000 is a pretty insignificant problem, and probably doesn't warrant inconveniencing a lot of people in an attempt to solve it.

(Granted, part of this is the fact that a higher number of annual deaths would imply a higher overall population.)

Simply looking at the numbers without context can be of little use to people without experience with looking at numbers in terms of annual deaths caused.

**Kilkrazy**

My own views on firearms are pretty well known.

I dug up the CDC figures partly to offset the pretty random statement someone made about 5,000 illegal gun deaths per year and partly to show how easy it is to pull up useful statistics on causes of death.

Sebster's point that the deaths and injuries resulting from the presence of something in society should be measured against the benefits is very good.

For example, American road deaths run at about three times the rate per head of population as road deaths in the UK. However, The USA is much more dependant on the car for transportation. This obviously leads to a higher rate of deaths. Also, the disadvantage of the road deaths must be weighed against the disadvantage of developing a better public transport system.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't see why people in a bar shouldn't need to defend themselves against violent criminals or a tyrannical government, so logically they should be allowed to carry weapons. If they misuse the weapons while drunk, they should be charged with a crime.

**Relapse**

sebster wrote:
Relapse wrote:I've had friends killed in accidents with drunk drivers, but no one I know has been killed by a gun. It's not a non-argument to me.

Sorry to hear about your loss but it is a non-argument because the two things are entirely unrelated. The costs and benefits of motor vehicles and poisonous substances are entirely different to the costs and benefits of guns. And you have to realise I'm not arguing this from an anti-gun POV, I'm arguing this as someone who is sick to death of bad anti-gun and bad pro-gun arguments. There are sensible options that can achieve much of what both sides want, but they won't be found as long as people keep throwing out nonsense arguments.

I agree about sensible options being provided. It's interesting to note that in Switzerland, if I'm not mistaken, people by law have assault weapons in their homes to be part of the militia. I don't hear a lot about gun deaths in Switzerland, though.
It would be interesting to look into this more to see what the full story is.

**VermGho5t**

sebster wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (http://www.cdc.gov) there are about 2.5 million deaths per year in the USA.

About 30,000 are caused by firearms of which about half are suicides.

About 2% of firearm deaths are lawful killings (e.g. by a police officer in the course of their duty.)

About 3% are accidents and the rest are murders. Note that murders aren't all done by criminals holding illegal firearms but the CDC doesn't track the detail.

To put it in perspective, poisoning and car accidents both cause more deaths than firearms.

What matters is the good compared to the harm.

Can you elaborate on this more please?

**Mad Rabbit**

VermGho5t wrote:
sebster wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (http://www.cdc.gov) there are about 2.5 million deaths per year in the USA.

About 30,000 are caused by firearms of which about half are suicides.

About 2% of firearm deaths are lawful killings (e.g. by a police officer in the course of their duty.)

About 3% are accidents and the rest are murders. Note that murders aren't all done by criminals holding illegal firearms but the CDC doesn't track the detail.

To put it in perspective, poisoning and car accidents both cause more deaths than firearms.

What matters is the good compared to the harm.

Can you elaborate on this more please?

I believe his point is "Ok, so this many people die because people have guns. Now what do we gain from having guns?"

I was actually just reading about this issue. In most cases, there is a spike of gun crimes following a ban, but then the gun crimes tend to fall off after that. According to wikipedia, there were 50 fatal shootings in England and Wales in 2005. This is due to the fact that their culture doesn't see themselves as some kind of "pioneers" who "need" their guns and thus their ownership rates were low before the laws became more strict. But the numbers went down following the stricter laws. Think what you will of this.