Tennesee lawmaker propses legislation to allow guns in bars

[Gothgar]

the daily show and all spin offs = not funny

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ackmed
They need to allow it. The carrier cannot drink, so I dont see any problem with it. I live in TN, and have my carrying permit. I dont go to bars, nor do I drink, but lots of restaurants that I eat at, have bars. Chili's, Outback, Ruby Tuesday's, etc. About two months ago, someone at a Hooters 15 miles away, got mad because they got tossed out. He got mad, came back and shot the place up. Killing a tourist from Michigan, injuring others. Perhaps if someone had a legal firearm, that wouldnt have happened.

Or perhaps it would have happened, the only difference being that the tourist also got shot, as well as his victims. Perhaps if *nobody* had a weapon, *nobody* would have got hurt - incredible concept isn't it...

I don't see how this is possible. Law abiding citizens won't have guns because they are illegal. Criminals will still have guns because they don't care about the law. Now criminals will feel much safer committing a crime because they know nobody will have a gun to defend themselves.

Obviously there would have to be controls on weapon supplies to criminals. America could easily conrol domestic producers and suppliers with strong enforced regulations, and then police the borders properly to stop illegal imports - you might even solve your illegal immigration problem at the same time.

Besides, home owners and store owners could still have weapons for self defense. Thats very different from carrying on the street.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Atheus

You have to draw the line somewhere - why is it more realistic to draw it at handguns, rather than tazers?

For one thing, banning handguns won't stop people from carrying handguns. It'll just make it illegal. And since the goal is to shoot the place up, I doubt he cares about the legality. Drugs are also illegal but that doesn't stop people from getting them.

Originally posted by: Atheus

Can you imagine that? A guy strolling in with a box of matches and trying to set the place on fire while it's full of people? Who do you think it would be easier/safer to stop - that guy or the handgun guy?

Why would you assume that someone needs to walk into in order to set it on fire? And why would you assume that he's going to fiddle around with matches trying to get something to catch on fire? Are you just playing dumb since it shoots down your point? He'd douse the place with gasoline and set it on fire from the outside.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Atheus

And I am very glad I do not live in those places.

Why can't you taze the person or use some other non-lethal means? Why do you want to kill people?

Usually law abiding citizens don't go around killing people. If you're in a bad enough situation that it's worth shooting someone (defending your own life from a criminal), then it is worth killing them.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Leros

I don't see how this is possible. Law abiding citizens won't have guns because they are illegal. Criminals will still have guns because they don't care about the law. Now criminals will feel much safer committing a crime because they know nobody will have a gun to defend themselves.

Stop it! You're using common sense! That's no fair!

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ackmed
They need to allow it. The carrier cannot drink, so I dont see any problem with it. I live in TN, and have my carrying permit. I dont go to bars, nor do I drink, but lots of restaurants that I eat at, have bars. Chili's, Outback, Ruby Tuesday's, etc. About two months ago, someone at a Hooters 15 miles away, got mad because they got tossed out. He got mad, came back and shot the place up. Killing a tourist from Michigan, injuring others. Perhaps if someone had a legal firearm, that wouldnt have happened.

Or perhaps it would have happened, the only difference being that the tourist also got shot, as well as his victims. Perhaps if *nobody* had a weapon, *nobody* would have got hurt - incredible concept isn't it...

I don't see how this is possible. Law abiding citizens won't have guns because they are illegal. Criminals will still have guns because they don't care about the law. Now criminals will feel much safer committing a crime because they know nobody will have a gun to defend themselves.

Obviously there would have to be controls on weapon supplies to criminals. America could easily conrol domestic producers and suppliers with strong enforced regulations, and then police the borders properly to stop illegal imports - you might even solve your illegal immigration problem at the same time.

Besides, home owners and store owners could still have weapons for self defense. Thats very different from carrying on the street.

Thats worked well to keep drugs out of the country. 😕

If somebody wants a gun bad enough, they'll find a way to get a gun.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Obviously there would have to be controls on weapon supplies to criminals. America could easily control domestic producers and suppliers with strong enforced regulations, and then police the borders properly to stop illegal imports - you might even solve your illegal immigration problem at the same time.

Another pipe dream.

And what happens when a criminal breaks into a gunowner's house and simply steals the legally owned gun?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Atheus

You have to draw the line somewhere - why is it more realistic to draw it at handguns, rather than tazers?

For one thing, banning handguns won't stop people from carrying handguns. It'll just make it illegal. And since the goal is to shoot the place up, I doubt he cares about the legality. Drugs are also illegal but that doesn't stop people from getting them.

Does that mean we should just give up on law and justice then? Because making things illegal doesn't prevent them happening? Obviously laws have to be enforced...

Why would you assume that someone needs to walk into in order to set it on fire? And why would you assume that he's going to fiddle around with matches trying to get something to catch on fire? Are you just playing dumb since it shoots down your point? He'd douse the place with gasoline and set it on fire from the outside.

I seriously doubt that would be anywhere near as effective a shooting the place up, and I think you know that. Without a pretty serious incendiary bomb there's very little chance you could start a big enough fire before everone got over the 'what the fuck is that guy doing' stage and left through the fire exits.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Atheus

And I am very glad I do not live in those places.

Why can't you taze the person or use some other non-lethal means? Why do you want to kill people?

Usually law abiding citizens don't go around killing people. If you're in a bad enough situation that it's worth shooting someone (defending your own life from a criminal), then it is worth killing them.

Why kill them rather than just disable them if both are possible?

 

[91TTZ]

I've got news for you: people can't be stopped from making guns even when they're in a maximum security prison. There is no possible way that you'd be able to stop people from making guns in the rest of the country. Where there's a will, there's a way. The simple fact is that thugs want guns and drugs, and laws will do nothing to get in their way.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Ackmed
They need to allow it. The carrier cannot drink, so I dont see any problem with it. I live in TN, and have my carrying permit. I dont go to bars, nor do I drink, but lots of restaurants that I eat at, have bars. Chili's, Outback, Ruby Tuesday's, etc. About two months ago, someone at a Hooters 15 miles away, got mad because they got tossed out. He got mad, came back and shot the place up. Killing a tourist from Michigan, injuring others. Perhaps if someone had a legal firearm, that wouldnt have happened.

Or perhaps it would have happened, the only difference being that the tourist also got shot, as well as his victims. Perhaps if *nobody* had a weapon, *nobody* would have got hurt - incredible concept isn't it...

I don't see how this is possible. Law abiding citizens won't have guns because they are illegal. Criminals will still have guns because they don't care about the law. Now criminals will feel much safer committing a crime because they know nobody will have a gun to defend themselves.

Obviously there would have to be controls on weapon supplies to criminals. America could easily conrol domestic producers and suppliers with strong enforced regulations, and then police the borders properly to stop illegal imports - you might even solve your illegal immigration problem at the same time.

Besides, home owners and store owners could still have weapons for self defense. Thats very different from carrying on the street.

It doesn't work. It hasn't even worked in England, even though it's an island. And even though you shut down all of your domestic firearms production (yeah, that's not gonna come back and bite you in the ass...) Less than 30 minutes after arriving at Heathrow I had a Sig 228 pistol with a 13 round magazine loaded with some kind of jacketed hollowpoint ammunition, and a decent leather inside the waistband pistol. I carried it for my entire trip there, and while some people in the group I was with were mugged, I was not.

Laws won't prevent people from getting a gun if they want it. Fortunately I wanted mine for self defense, whereas your average street hood wants one (and will get it) for robbing YOU. But go on, continue to live in a dream world where no one breaks the laws.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Atheus

You have to draw the line somewhere - why is it more realistic to draw it at handguns, rather than tazers?

For one thing, banning handguns won't stop people from carrying handguns. It'll just make it illegal. And since the goal is to shoot the place up, I doubt he cares about the legality. Drugs are also illegal but that doesn't stop people from getting them.

Does that mean we should just give up on law and justice then? Because making things illegal doesn't prevent them happening? Obviously laws have to be enforced...

Why would you assume that someone needs to walk into in order to set it on fire? And why would you assume that he's going to fiddle around with matches trying to get something to catch on fire? Are you just playing dumb since it shoots down your point? He'd douse the place with gasoline and set it on fire from the outside.

I seriously doubt that would be anywhere near as effective a shooting the place up, and I think you know that. Without a pretty serious incendiary bomb there's very little chance you could start a big enough fire before everone got over the 'what the fuck is that guy doing' stage and left through the fire exits.

Gasoline is pretty damn flammable. It would be way more effective. You could easily kill more people that way than firing some random shots into the place.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Atheus

Obviously there would have to be controls on weapon supplies to criminals. America could easily control domestic producers and suppliers with strong enforced regulations, and then police the borders properly to stop illegal imports - you might even solve your illegal immigration problem at the same time.

Another pipe dream.

And what happens when a criminal breaks into a gunowner's house and simply steals the legally owned gun?

That would be much harder than simply buying one from a shop I think you'll agree. Especially if the gun owner kept the weapon close and was properly trained in its use. In fact - only a complete idiot would try that...

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Atheus

And I am very glad I do not live in those places.

Why can't you taze the person or use some other non-lethal means? Why do you want to kill people?

Usually law abiding citizens don't go around killing people. If you're in a bad enough situation that it's worth shooting someone (defending your own life from a criminal), then it is worth killing them.

Why kill them rather than just disable them if both are possible?

Attempting to disable leaves the possibility that you will not stop them before they kill you.

Howcome your gestapo didn't "disable" Jean Charles de Menezes?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Atheus

You have to draw the line somewhere - why is it more realistic to draw it at handguns, rather than tazers?

For one thing, banning handguns won't stop people from carrying handguns. It'll just make it illegal. And since the goal is to shoot the place up, I doubt he cares about the legality. Drugs are also illegal but that doesn't stop people from getting them.

Does that mean we should just give up on law and justice then? Because making things illegal doesn't prevent them happening? Obviously laws have to be enforced...

Why would you assume that someone needs to walk into in order to set it on fire? And why would you assume that he's going to fiddle around with matches trying to get something to catch on fire? Are you just playing dumb since it shoots down your point? He'd douse the place with gasoline and set it on fire from the outside.

I seriously doubt that would be anywhere near as effective a shooting the place up, and I think you know that. Without a pretty serious incendiary bomb there's very little chance you could start a big enough fire before everone got over the 'what the fuck is that guy doing' stage and left through the fire exits.

Gasoline is pretty damn flammable. It would be way more effective. You could easily kill more people that way than firing some random shots into the place.

I would have to call bullshit on that, but I don't see any way to prove the point save by conducting some pretty unsavoury research...

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Atheus

Obviously there would have to be controls on weapon supplies to criminals. America could easily control domestic producers and suppliers with strong enforced regulations, and then police the borders properly to stop illegal imports - you might even solve your illegal immigration problem at the same time.

Another pipe dream.

And what happens when a criminal breaks into a gunowner's house and simply steals the legally owned gun?

That would be much harder than simply buying one from a shop I think you'll agree. Especially if the gun owner kept the weapon close and was properly trained in its use. In fact - only a complete idiot would try that...

Shops run background checks. Most FFLs turn down dozens of people a day. I know I used to. Anything from a recent Class B+ misdemeanor or a restraining order will get you barred from purchasing a firearm until you've resolved those issues.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Atheus

And I am very glad I do not live in those places.

Why can't you taze the person or use some other non-lethal means? Why do you want to kill people?

Usually law abiding citizens don't go around killing people. If you're in a bad enough situation that it's worth shooting someone (defending your own life from a criminal), then it is worth killing them.

Why kill them rather than just disable them if both are possible?

Attempting to disable leaves the possibility that you will not stop them before they kill you.

Howcome your gestapo didn't "disable" Jean Charles de Menezes?

Firing a non-lethal round at the central mass is just as quick as firing a lethal one.

And if you think I am going to defend the shooting of that boy you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Atheus

And I am very glad I do not live in those places.

Why can't you taze the person or use some other non-lethal means? Why do you want to kill people?

Usually law abiding citizens don't go around killing people. If you're in a bad enough situation that it's worth shooting someone (defending your own life from a criminal), then it is worth killing them.

Why kill them rather than just disable them if both are possible?

Attempting to disable leaves the possibility that you will not stop them before they kill you.

Howcome your gestapo didn't "disable" Jean Charles de Menezes?

One of the things they teach you in gun training is that if you are going to shoot an attacker, you want to shoot to kill. If you only injure them, they will be really angry and their adrenaline will rise enough so that they can overcome their pain and still keep on attacking you.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Nebor
It doesn't work. It hasn't even worked in England, even though it's an island. And even though you shut down all of your domestic firearms production (yeah, that's not gonna come back and bite you in the ass...) Less than 30 minutes after arriving at Heathrow I had a Sig 228 pistol with a 13 round magazine loaded with some kind of jacketed hollowpoint ammunition, and a decent leather inside the waistband pistol. I carried it for my entire trip there, and while some people in the group I was with were mugged, I was not.

Laws won't prevent people from getting a gun if they want it. Fortunately I wanted mine for self defense, whereas your average street hood wants one (and will get it) for robbing YOU. But go on, continue to live in a dream world where no one breaks the laws.

You are missing the point entirely - you can't stop all violence but you have to *try* right!?

And I can't believe you just admitted to flouting our laws - you could be thrown in jail for that shit.

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Nebor
It doesn't work. It hasn't even worked in England, even though it's an island. And even though you shut down all of your domestic firearms production (yeah, that's not gonna come back and bite you in the ass...) Less than 30 minutes after arriving at Heathrow I had a Sig 228 pistol with a 13 round magazine loaded with some kind of jacketed hollowpoint ammunition, and a decent leather inside the waistband pistol. I carried it for my entire trip there, and while some people in the group I was with were mugged, I was not.

Laws won't prevent people from getting a gun if they want it. Fortunately I wanted mine for self defense, whereas your average street hood wants one (and will get it) for robbing YOU. But go on, continue to live in a dream world where no one breaks the laws.

You are missing the point entirely - you can't stop all violence but you have to *try* right!?

And I can't believe you just admitted to flouting our laws - you could be thrown in jail for that shit.

But in your attempt to try and stop violence, you also make the law-abiding citizens more defenseless. If I was a criminal, I think I would love having a gun ban, because I would feel much safer committing my crimes.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Atheus

Obviously there would have to be controls on weapon supplies to criminals. America could easily control domestic producers and suppliers with strong enforced regulations, and then police the borders properly to stop illegal imports - you might even solve your illegal immigration problem at the same time.

Another pipe dream.

And what happens when a criminal breaks into a gunowner's house and simply steals the legally owned gun?

That would be much harder than simply buying one from a shop I think you'll agree. Especially if the gun owner kept the weapon close and was properly trained in its use. In fact - only a complete idiot would try that...

Shops run background checks. Most FFLs turn down dozens of people a day. I know I used to. Anything from a recent Class B+ misdemeanor or a restraining order will get you barred from purchasing a firearm until you've resolved those issues.

They didn't turn down that kid from Virginia did they. Stronger regulation is needed.

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Atheus

Obviously there would have to be controls on weapon supplies to criminals. America could easily control domestic producers and suppliers with strong enforced regulations, and then police the borders properly to stop illegal imports - you might even solve your illegal immigration problem at the same time.

Another pipe dream.

And what happens when a criminal breaks into a gunowner's house and simply steals the legally owned gun?

That would be much harder than simply buying one from a shop I think you'll agree. Especially if the gun owner kept the weapon close and was properly trained in its use. In fact - only a complete idiot would try that...

Shops run background checks. Most FFLs turn down dozens of people a day. I know I used to. Anything from a recent Class B+ misdemeanor or a restraining order will get you barred from purchasing a firearm until you've resolved those issues.

They didn't turn down that kid from Virginia did they. Stronger regulation is needed.

You know what else would have stopped that kid in Virginia? A handful of people on campus with firearms. They kid ran around with a gun for a pretty decent amount of time. A few professors or students with guns would have easily been able to take him out before he did more damage.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Leros
One of the things they teach you in gun training is that if you are going to shoot an attacker, you want to shoot to kill. If you only injure them, they will be really angry and their adrenaline will rise enough so that they can overcome their pain and still keep on attacking you.

See above relating to non-lethal rounds.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Atheus

You are missing the point entirely - you can't stop all violence but you have to *try* right!?

You can try, but at what cost? Let's say that you banned guns outright and left all the legal guns owners angry, and it STILL didn't solve the problem? What then? Do you backpedal and admit that you were wrong, or do you cling onto that folly and try to defend it?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Leros
You know what else would have stopped that kid in Virginia? A handful of people on campus with firearms. They kid ran around with a gun for a pretty decent amount of time. A few professors or students with guns would have easily been able to take him out before he did more damage.

Correct, but:

Situation 1 - the boy kills one or two people before being killed himself.

Situation 2 - the boy was prevented from buying firearms in the first place.

You prefer situation 1?