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.

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?

I live in Radcliff and used to attend First Assembly and know many of the families involved in the Carrollinton collision. Larry Mahoney was not only drunk and driving down the wrong side of the highway in the wrong direction but had been convicted of drunk driving in the past and allowed to keep his driving license.

Almost everyone that drinks in a bar goes out and gets behind the wheel, very few get a gun. Those that get a gun and use it when drunk never get the chance again. I wish we could say the same about drunk drivers.

Orkeosaurus wrote: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.

Yeah, that's the mentality I have a problem with. Just looking at 30,000 deaths and declaring it 'not that big a problem'. It is 30,000 people, and everyone of them is an individual just like you or me, except they got shot and now they're dead. 30,000 deaths is always significant. So I'm happy to concede that a comparison to total deaths is useful to give the problem scale, but there's no way it can ever be used to say 'not a problem'.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

VermGho5t wrote:Can you elaborate on this more please?

Sure. Motor vehicles kill a lot more people every year than guns, but that doesn't really say anything about guns or about motor vehicles. Because cars are used constantly by almost all of the population to move around. Without cars we wouldn't have modern economies or lifestyles. So despite the fact that a lot of people die due to cars, we don't ban cars. Instead we try and minimise the harm while keeping all the benefits, we control access to cars through licences, we control speed limits, we don't allow people to drink and drive.

Guns are much the same. On the one hand there are the deaths caused by guns every year, but on the other hand there are successful home defences, and there is all the hunting and recreational shooting people enjoy. So you look at ways to reduce the deaths by guns, while keeping the benefits.

The issue was raised by the OP that a bar wants to ban people carrying weapons into the bar. I personally liked the suggestion that you can conceal carry where you want, but you can't drink while you're carrying. Seemed to keep the best of both worlds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote: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.

There's a very different culture. In Switzerland you're required to own the gun as part of your duty to the citizen militia. The weapon isn't for personal defence and I believe outside of the range it is to be disassembled at all times.

sebster wrote:Yeah, that's the mentality I have a problem with. Just looking at 30,000 deaths and declaring it 'not that big a problem'. It is 30,000 people, and everyone of them is an individual just like you or me, except they got shot and now they're dead. 30,000 deaths is always significant. So I'm happy to concede that a comparison to total deaths is useful to give the problem scale, but there's no way it can ever be used to say 'not a problem'.

30,000 deaths a year isn't an insignificant amount to the United States, but to a planet where fifty billion people a year died it would be. Neither the government nor it's citizens can protect people from everything. If there is little to no cost in doing so than sure, you may as well take steps to prevent it, but the cost for enacting and enforcing a law is nearly always scaled up with the population.

The issue was raised by the OP that a bar wants to ban people carrying weapons into the bar. I personally liked the suggestion that you can conceal carry where you want, but you can't drink while you're carrying. Seemed to keep the best of both worlds.

Do you mean a complete ban on drinking while carrying a firearm, or just on drinking past a certain point?

Orkeosaurus wrote:30,000 deaths a year isn't an insignificant amount to the United States, but to a planet where fifty billion people a year died it would be. Neither the government nor it's citizens can protect people from everything. If there is little to no cost in doing so than sure, you may as well take steps to prevent it, but the cost for enacting and enforcing a law is nearly always scaled up with the population.

True, the govt can't stop everything and there will always be deaths. But when there is, it makes perfect sense to say 'would it be very hard to stop those deaths?' Now, you're saying on a national level 30,000 deaths is a lot, but let's look at an example where, say, 5 people a year are dying because they're heading into bear country and getting eaten. It's hardly a significant amount by national standards. But if all it took to stop five people dying every year was a sign saying 'don't go down that path, there are bears and they'll eat you' then it should be done.

And that's what I'm saying. What matters is what can be done to stop those deaths by firearm, and what that will cost. But all too often you see an argument along the lines of 'nah, 30,000 isn't big, deaths by cancer - now that's big! So let's just move on and do nothing.'

Do you mean a complete ban on drinking while carrying a firearm, or just on drinking past a certain point?

Thinking about it, I'm not really committed to either. You can legally drink one beer and then drive, so someone carrying could be given the same leeway. On the other hand, it'd be a lot harder to id someone carrying, so maybe a harder limit is needed to simplify the process. Either way I can't see it causing a major inconvenience... do people really want to go out on the town carrying a gun and then getting drunk?

sebster wrote:True, the govt can't stop everything and there will always be deaths. But when there is, it makes perfect sense to say 'would it be very hard to stop those deaths?' Now, you're saying on a national level 30,000 deaths is a lot, but let's look at an example where, say, 5 people a year are dying because they're heading into bear country and getting eaten. It's hardly a significant amount by national standards. But if all it took to stop five people dying every year was a sign saying 'don't go down that path, there are bears and they'll eat you' then it should be done.

And that's what I'm saying. What matters is what can be done to stop those deaths by firearm, and what that will cost. But all too often you see an argument along the lines of 'nah, 30,000 isn't big, deaths by cancer - now that's big! So let's just move on and do nothing.'

I see what you're saying.

What I'm trying to say isn't so much that being part of a larger population reduces the damage so much as being part of a larger population often makes it more costly to try and prevent that damage. Thus, the costs are more likely to outweigh the benefits.

To use the bear example, if schools took a day off each year to have someone come around and teach them about bear safety, regardless of where they live, that would be a waste. 5 deaths a year caused by bears is too small of an amount of damage to justify doing something like that nation-wide. Now, on the other hand, if a small town had 5 people dying of bear attacks each year, they would be far more justified in making sure people knew bear safety.

In a sense, your own example reduced the population effected as well; this sign wouldn't be put up across the nation (Warning: in Connecticut there is a path somewhere that has bears on it! Thank you for visiting Arizona!), only people near the bear path would read it. Thus, the effective population is shrunk to one that would benefit from the sign.

Thinking about it, I'm not really committed to either. You can legally drink one beer and then drive, so someone carrying could be given the same leeway. On the other hand, it'd be a lot harder to id someone carrying, so maybe a harder limit is needed to simplify the process. Either way I can't see it causing a major inconvenience... do people really want to go out on the town carrying a gun and then getting drunk?

Well, a lot of people have a beer or two while just hanging around, and if people are going hunting or skeet shooting or something there's a very good chance of them bringing some beer along.

Or are we just talking about in bars?

I'm pretty sure a bazillion people aren't going to start concealed carrying in bars because of this. The people who really wanted to, already were, and there might be a few licensed carriers who start now, and they are, in general, not the people you ever need to worry about (unless you're trying to hold the place up).

Orkeosaurus wrote:I see what you're saying.

What I'm trying to say isn't so much that being part of a larger population reduces the damage so much as being part of a larger population often makes it more costly to try and prevent that damage. Thus, the costs are more likely to outweigh the benefits.

To use the bear example, if schools took a day off each year to have someone come around and teach them about bear safety, regardless of where they live, that would be a waste. 5 deaths a year caused by bears is too small of an amount of damage to justify doing something like that nation-wide. Now, on the other hand, if a small town had 5 people dying of bear attacks each year, they would be far more justified in making sure people knew bear safety.

In a sense, your own example reduced the population effected as well; this sign wouldn't be put up across the nation (Warning: in Connecticut there is a path somewhere that has bears on it! Thank you for visiting Arizona!), only people near the bear path would read it. Thus, the effective population is shrunk to one that would benefit from the sign.

Yes, but just using total population size as a guide for how hard it is to enfore laws is very vague, even for the purposes of an internet discussion. That next part of the conversation, where the actual benefits and costs of possible solutions are measured, that's the bit that matters.

Well, a lot of people have a beer or two while just hanging around, and if people are going hunting or skeet shooting or something there's a very good chance of them bringing some beer along.

Or are we just talking about in bars?

I thought we were just talking about bars and public venues. What are the current laws on drinking while hunting? I'd assume they'd vary by state, but is it common for states to flat out ban drinking while hunting? And if there are rules in place, are they policed strongly?

sebster wrote:

Well, a lot of people have a beer or two while just hanging around, and if people are going hunting or skeet shooting or something there's a very good chance of them bringing some beer along.

Or are we just talking about in bars?

I thought we were just talking about bars and public venues. What are the current laws on drinking while hunting? I'd assume they'd vary by state, but is it common for states to flat out ban drinking while hunting? And if there are rules in place, are they policed strongly?

In the state of Tennessee it is illegal to possess alcoholic beverages within a wildlife management area. If you're hunting on private land then there is no law that I know of that prevents you from having alchoholic beverages or, for that matter, consuming them while you're hunting, though it certainly isnt a good idea. Of course, regardless of laws specifically controling alcohol consumption while hunting or shooting, I would imagine that the law would consider certain behaviors as "reckless" and the authorities would act accordingly. For instance, if I were to get drunk, go outside on my own property, and start randomly popping off rounds with my .357, then I imagine I could get arrested, even if there aren't laws where I live specifically addressing the discharge of firearms. That behaviour would be considered by any reasonable person to be reckless and showing wanton disregard for the safety of others.

Vis a vis the original topic, I have mixed feelings. First off, as a resident of the state in question, I don't feel suddenly more fearful of going in esablishments where alcohol is served. For that matter, the law needed to be changed so that permit holders could carry where alcohol was SOLD ( i.e. convenience stores, as opposed to SERVED, like bars), and for that matter, I don't think people are going to start carrying firearms all of a sudden when they didn't before. In other words, I would like to see evidence that the actual average number of guns showing up in bars is going to change at all.

My problem with the law, and I'm saying this as an NRA member and a gun enthusiast, is that I've always been taught, from the very beginning, that when alcohol comes out, the guns need to go up. This is a rule I have always adhered to, and I know for a fact that I would be very uncomfortable around someone who has impaired judgement and has a weapon. I understand that not everyone in an establishment serving alcohol is drunk, or even drinking, but the law needs to take that in to account. If you're going to be permissive about carrying with alcohol around, then you need to establish rules forbiding posession or use of a firearm while intoxicated, and acutally ENFORCE it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Typeline wrote: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.

What kind of tripe is this? Who are you to judge what my opinions are on everything you mentioned just because I have an opinion about firearms?

Note the phrase: restaurant serving alcohol. Many, if not most nonfast food restaurants serve alcohol. The point is to permit CHLrs to carry into those establishments.

I am not going to address the nonsenmse of people comparing 5s etc.

1. Its in the US constitution (those not liking the constituional Bill of Rights can suck it).
2. Accidents from cars and drunk drivers are multiples higher.

But I agree, you should stay out of bars.

Frazzled wrote:Note the phrase: restaurant serving alcohol. Many, if not most nonfast food restaurants serve alcohol. The point is to permit CHLrs to carry into those establishments.

I am not going to address the nonsenmse of people comparing 5s etc.

1. Its in the US constitution (those not liking the constituional Bill of Rights can suck it).
2. Accidents from cars and drunk drivers are multiples higher.

But I agree, you should stay out of bars.

I'm still not sure about this Fraz. Anyone who reads my posts knows I am usually pro-2nd, but I sort of lean towards permission to carry where alcohol is sold in closed containers, not served. The fact that accidents from cars and drunk drivers are multiples higher doesn't say anything about carrying a firearm in a bar.

The bill of rights guarantees your right to bear arms, and it has been upheld by the supreme court of the United States as an individual, not collective, right. However, the state can make laws that limit that right in certain situations, for instance, where there is alcohol. I guess it is analagous to having freedom of speech, but with limitations on that right when it infringes on the rights of others ( i.e. creating a dangerous situation by yelling fire in a crowded theater).

I guess I'm trained a certain way apropos the consumption of alcohol and firearms. It would be different if we could be certain that patrons of these estblishments who were carrying weren't intoxicated, but that would be hard to do. My suggestion is that if you need to carry in your favorite watering hole, perhaps you should find a better place to hang out.

Every time there is a new pro-gun law in the works the antis start yelling about the blood running in the streets.

The fact is firearm ownership doesn't effect violent crime rates in a noticible way.

The only thing tight gun laws achieve is the disarmement of law-abiding citizens.

Economic inequality, demographics, gangs and Fethed up drug laws account for the majority of violence.

And before someone rolls in with the gun murders vs murders canard, ALL death/murder/violence is bad, the tool is of little consequence.

Edit: Look at VT, no license to carry concealed. No registration, you can buy a gun, stick it in your waist band (not adviseable) and be perfectly legal.....OH NO CIVVYS WITH GUNS?!?! VT is one of the safer states in the nation.

The point is there are places with high crime, and lots of guns, and places with low crime, and lots of guns.

A gun is an inanimate object. If every human being on this planet suddenly disappeared how many shootings of any kind would take place?

SsevenN wrote:Every time there is a new pro-gun law in the works the antis start yelling about the blood running in the streets.

The fact is firearm ownership doesn't effect violent crime rates in a noticible way.

The only thing tight gun laws achieve is the disarmement of law-abiding citizens.

Economic inequality, demographics, gangs and Fethed up drug laws account for the majority of violence.

And before someone rolls in with the gun murders vs murders canard, ALL death/murder/violence is bad, the tool is of little consequence.

This isn't about owning firearms or even carrying. In fact, you could look at this as having nothing to do with firearms at all, but rather with alcohol laws. I would just like to see laws concerning intoxication and firearms if we're going to have people allowed to carry in establishments serving alcohol. I'm not seeing that with this law, though if someone knows better about it, tell me.

There are plenty of states that allowed concealed carry at bars, and there is no problem with it.

Look at New Hampshire, consistantly rated as one of the safest states (and *gasp* a licensed holder can carry and drink). To get a Carry license in NH you:

Go to the PD and pick up a form (includes a comprehensive background check), fill it out and list three refrences. Pay them 20 Bucks, and wait a month. Then get your license.

The fact is, these laws aren't about allowing anyone with a gun into a bar, it's about allowing a licensed holder to carry, statistically speaking CC holders are about the least likely type of person to commit a crime.

If someone with bad intentions wants to carry in a bar, they will, law or no law. That's what this is all about, evening the playing field between the criminal element and the civillians.

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Note the phrase: restaurant serving alcohol. Many, if not most nonfast food restaurants serve alcohol. The point is to permit CHLrs to carry into those establishments.

I am not going to address the nonsenmse of people comparing 5s etc.

1. Its in the US constitution (those not liking the constituional Bill of Rights can suck it).
2. Accidents from cars and drunk drivers are multiples higher.

But I agree, you should stay out of bars.

I'm still not sure about this Fraz. Anyone who reads my posts knows I am usually pro-2nd, but I sort of lean towards permission to carry where alcohol is sold in closed containers, not served. The fact that accidents from cars and drunk drivers are multiples higher doesn't say anything about carrying a firearm in a bar.

The bill of rights guarantees your right to bear arms, and it has been upheld by the supreme court of the United States as an individual, not collective, right. However, the state can make laws that limit that right in certain situations, for instance, where there is alcohol. I guess it is analagous to having freedom of speech, but with limitations on that right when it infringes on the rights of others ( i.e. creating a dangerous situation by yelling fire in a crowded theater).

I guess I'm trained a certain way apropos the consumption of alcohol and firearms. It would be different if we could be certain that patrons of these estblishments who were carrying weren't intoxicated, but that would be hard to do. My suggestion is that if you need to carry in your favorite watering hole, perhaps you should find a better place to hang out.

I think you have to separate bars vs. establishments that serve drinks with dinner. I agree on the bars side of the equation, much to the consternation of my brethren on other sites, where I'm considered just this side of a commie pinko gun grabber

But restaurants that serve alcohol? Meh, thats most restaurants. Generally states that permit this for carry still make it highly illegal to carry and drink. Those resaurants still have the absolute right to prohibit firearms on premises. I just realized I pretty much just recited current Texas statutes. No Bars, but restaurants ok if the carrier doesn't imbibe and if the restaurant doesn't prohibit. One of the few times the law is not an ass.

SsevenN wrote:There are plenty of states that allowed concealed carry at bars, and there is no problem with it.

Look at New Hampshire, consistantly rated as one of the safest states (and *gasp* a licensed holder can carry and drink). To get a Carry license in NH you:

Go to the PD and pick up a form, fill it out and list three refrences. Pay them 20 Bucks, and wait a month. Then get your license.

The fact is, these laws aren't about allowing anyone with a gun into a bar, it's about allowing a licensed holder to carry, statistically speaking CC holders are about the least likely type of person to commit a crime.

If someone with bad intentions wants to carry in a bar, they will, law or no law. That's what this is all about, evening the playing field between the criminal element and the civillians.

I agree that the people who are going to carry a gun in are going to do it permit or not. I just am not sure yet if it is a good idea to legitimize being armed while drinking. Sure, you might not chose to drink, but there is nothing in the law, at least as far as I know, preventing you from doing so. Otherwise law abiding people will not behave the same when they've had a few drinks under their belt.

Also, I imagine a property owner can still forbid weapons on the premises, unless that has changed. While I often disagree with property owners who forbid trained civilians with permits from carrying ( like the mall), it is their property and I support their right to enforce that.

Frazzled wrote:No Bars, but restaurants ok if the carrier doesn't imbibe and if the restaurant doesn't prohibit. One of the few times the law is not an ass.

Wouldn't all restaurants just prohibit then? I think insurance companies would pretty much make it impossible not to, like they do most other places. That would make the whole thing kind of pointless.

@ Gingnard. Me too, your property, your call.

If you don't want a person carrying on your property, even though they are legally able to do so, you ask them to leave. If they don't you can call the cops under the pretense of tresspassing.

I'm not thrilled about drunks with guns, but I believe that once somebody has jumped through the hoops to be legally able to carry they should be able to do so.

P.S. MANY states actually have a limit on your B.A. content while carrying, obviously it's hard to enforce. BUT someone who is carrying properly would essentially go undetected. (unless of course, the permit holder does what all the antis expect; Get totally smashed, start a fight, and then finish it with their 'metal penis'. But a simple review of statistics and facts shows that this almost NEVER happens.)

Hordini wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No Bars, but restaurants ok if the carrier doesn't imbibe and if the restaurant doesn't prohibit. One of the few times the law is not an ass.

Wouldn't all restaurants just prohibit then? I think insurance companies would pretty much make it impossible not to, like they do most other places. That would make the whole thing kind of pointless.

This could apply to any other business. In actual practice, some do prohibit people with a CCW from carrying, others actively support it. It depends on the individual business owner I suppose.

This is not as cut and dry as it seems. Malls for instance, are considered by many to be de facto public gathering spaces, and therefore they feel the property rights of the mall owners don't trump thier individual rights. This has mostly been brought up by left leaning people vis a vis freedom of speech issues, and I doubt they'd agree if I pointed out the analogy with my second ammendment rights, but I think someone could make a case for it.

Hordini wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No Bars, but restaurants ok if the carrier doesn't imbibe and if the restaurant doesn't prohibit. One of the few times the law is not an ass.

Wouldn't all restaurants just prohibit then? I think insurance companies would pretty much make it impossible not to, like they do most other places. That would make the whole thing kind of pointless.

It depends on state. Some states require a set patterns for posting restrictions.

Remember insurance is also on a state basis IIRC, and those are regulated by that state, which would look harshly upon such insurance companies as well.

I'm going to randomly interject and say that I like Minnesota's solution. The state essentially leaves it to whatever establishment is in question to regulate the carry of firearms. So bar X posts a sign outside the door stating that it bans firearms, and that declaration is treated as contingency of entrance. So anyone carrying a gun in the bar is trespassing.

That way a bar that wants to permit carry can, but those that don't (which ends up being most bars, thank god) can restrict it.

Thats pretty standard and the time honored tradition Dogma, for right to carry states or CC states (if permitted).

Cool. I live in the Union so right to carry tends to be nonexistent. Even Mn tends towards a practical public ban, in the cities anyway.

dogma wrote:Cool. I live in the Union so right to carry tends to be nonexistent. Even Mn tends towards a practical public ban, in the cities anyway.

Vermont has open carry ( no permit ). It isn't just the provenance of southern states.

I know a number of bouncers around here (comes of being involved in physically-violent hobbies), and they freaking HATE this. It's an escalation of their danger, for no good purpose.

Its a simple solution. The bar can post prohibiting weapons there.

Typeline wrote:I don't care what the constitution says.

i hear russia has a bunch of open land

or you could move to cuba, they have the "BEST" health care in the world

Lots of gun control too. Don't worry about that unnecessary plebescite or need for speech thing.

I'm fairly liberal on social issues but am also a strong advocate of gun ownership. For me it really isn't an issue of responsibility as most people I've met with guns practice safe and sensible measures.

However, mixing alcohol and guns is not a great idea. I remember working at the factory 12 years ago when hunting season opened. I overheard a group next to me talk about how they spent opening weekend hunting and drinking (a case of beer between 3 people). One admitted he shot his own dog. Another admitted to doing the same a previous year.

Alcohol lowers inhibitions and increases poor judgement. While I'm confident most responsible people would not carry firearms into a bar, I've seen people carry their firearms in their vehicles. Getting into an argument at a bar and then going for the gun isn't an unknown occurrence.

I'd prefer to have the establishment owner determine the policy of firearms. Of course, using a firearm outside the range or in the country is usually a criminal offense, but by the time it is used it is too late. If alcohol didn't impair judgment I wouldn't have an issue with firearms in bars, but the two should not mix. Allowing a law to make it easier for alcohol and guns to mix is IMO, very stupid.

Edit: preposition

The one issue though is that so many non-bar locations serve alcohol-even some movie theaters (let me prehrase the BEST movie theaters baby).

Texas has a good view here. If revenues are under 51% related to alchohol then CCL ok (if the place itself permits). That excludes true bars and clubs, but not restaurants etc. But even if both ok no booze, if have any (and its defacto any booze) you get to go to jail.

Typeline wrote:[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.

Statements like that are disingenuous. Yes firearm related crimes are lower, it damned near takes an act of Parliment to own a gun over there. When I moved to Harrogate England (a really nice area of the country) I was surprised with the numbers for other violent crime, granted alot of that was spill over from nearby Leeds and Bradford. Stabbings and beatings were more common there than anywhere I lived in the States, my current home of Houston included.

The point is; Take away guns and people will just find other ways to hurt or kill each other. After seeing how violent crime just migrated to other forms in nations that banned firearms I've come to see all the comparison arguments between the US and those nations, in regard to firearms, as really lacking in the full light of the truth.

Edit: And to be somewhat fair if comparing the numbers for the US, you'd have to include all of Europe, given the disparity in the numbers population wise.