Guns in bars and nightclubs

[Kulindahr]

I believe that's game, set, and match. The only thing I found supporting YOUR assertion, was some kind of unsupported and undocumented meme that because people with handguns are somehow more "trained" (also unsupported) than Cops that must mean they are better shots.

Is it true? NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS.

Which is totally pointless anyway because being able to target shoot does not provide the kind of training necessary to act decisively and positively in a live fire situation.

You're making stuff up again. This doesn't address anything I said.

 

[xbuzzerx]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

"The numbers" are that guns will be used for: suicide, accidental shooting, be stolen, and/or be used in a crime, before they will be used in self defense. And that the instances they will be used in self defense/to stop crimes are negligible.

The fact that you are using your own totally separate version of reality doesn't make all the rest of us liars, as you keep having to insist in post, after post, after post.

 

[Kulindahr]

They weren't in the base shooting last year. He shot several armed men on duty and took their weapons.

That base should have been 100% safe, isn't that what you're busily telling us?

You mean Chattanooga? That's the only base shooting I can find for last year, and only one person besides the barbarian was armed, with a Glock.

 

[Kulindahr]

That base should have been 100% safe, isn't that what you're busily telling us?

Nothing is 100% safe. That's the claim of the left, who for some reason think that being prepared to deal with the violence that happens every day is paranoia.

 

[TX-Beau]

You're making stuff up again. This doesn't address anything I said.

Shut me up, POST YOUR SOURCES!

 

[Kulindahr]

"The numbers" are that guns will be used for: suicide, accidental shooting, be stolen, and/or be used in a crime, before they will be used in self defense. And that the instances they will be used in self defense/to stop crimes are negligible.

The fact that you are using your own totally separate version of reality doesn't make all the rest of us liars, as you keep having to insist in post, after post, after post.

Off-topic again.

The numbers show that bars are not the wild west situation that people screaming how bad it would be to have guns in bars insist it would be. Most states have no laws against guns in bars, and the violence involving firearms in bars is negligible.

 

[TX-Beau]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

WHAT A FIB!!!

This:

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/mo...ty-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

is your "source" in the O.P (which by the way says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about bars.) WHERE ARE YOUR NUMBERS!

THIS:

Lott, a contributor to FoxNews.com, will testify before an October 29 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the controversial "Stand Your Ground" self-defense law while representing his new organization Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC). Lott has previously mischaracterized "Stand Your Ground" in order to defend the law that played an important role in the acquittal of George Zimmerman on charges that he unlawfully killed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin. CPRC's secretary is National Rifle Association board member Ted Nugent who caused controversy by calling Martin a "dope smoking, racist gangsta wannabe," and used the Martin case to make disparaging remarks about the African-American community and endorse racial profiling.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/gun-researcher-john-lott-offers-false-firearm-s/196621

emphasis mine

Is who they are!

Are you saying you don't know who your "sources" are?

 

[kallipolis]

The law is actually very clearly written. If somebody walks into a bar with a concealed handgun and there is a sign on the door saying weapons are not allowed, that person is in violation of the law and if they were arrested would face a number of charges. It really is non-issue here, guns still are not allowed in bars and nobody dares bring one into a bar because of the legal implications and it would cause a scene with the cops being called and people flipping out.

Should the intention of the concealed gun carrying customer be to kill all the customers and staff in the bar, I am rather certain that a well posted sign stating that guns are not permitted will not deter him from executing his plan.

 

[Kensei]

Should the intention of the concealed gun carrying customer be to kill all the customers and staff in the bar, I am rather certain that a well posted sign stating that guns are not permitted will not deter him from executing his plan.

I'm Canadian and I get this. I don't understand why so many Americans don't.

 

[kallipolis]

I'm Canadian and I get this. I don't understand why so many Americans don't.

I don't believe the matter is relevant to ones passport. One could speculate..I won't.

 

[Aron9000]

Should the intention of the concealed gun carrying customer be to kill all the customers and staff in the bar, I am rather certain that a well posted sign stating that guns are not permitted will not deter him from executing his plan.

If somebody is hell bent on shooting a place up, they will do it no matter how much you tighten security, pat people down, post armed guards, post plain clothes armed security, let other patrons carry guns in, arm the bartender, etc.

 

[kallipolis]

If somebody is hell bent on shooting a place up, they will do it no matter how much you tighten security, pat people down, post armed guards, post plain clothes armed security, let other patrons carry guns in, arm the bartender, etc.

This has already been suggested here by a couple of our more vocal, and pedantic members.

Most people are law abiding, and well aware that alcohol and guns are a dangerous cocktail.

Society's dilemma is how to identify the armed psychopath, and disarm him before he can execute his plan.

Clearly a well posted sign will not stop a maniac with a gun.

 

[thewiz]

I'm sorry, but this is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard suggested.

If more guns prevented violence, then the United States should be one of the safest countries in the world because we have more guns and gun ownership than any other civilized "first world" country on earth. Perhaps at birth, we should replace giving children one of those small stocking caps to instead tether on a .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol. As they age, we could replace it with a .357, perhaps a 9mm...hell let's add an assault rifle so they can have total safety on the playground.

What has not been discussed in the news (and the police chief touched on it when questioned), is whether any of those killed in Orlando died from "friendly fire." There were guns in that club -- off duty police officers provide security at most Florida bars and clubs. They are armed with the weapons they carry on duty. They are trained. And yet it did not stop this event. The same happened, by the way, in California when the 14 were killed. There were two people who were armed and had concealed weapons permits that hid and protected themselves until the killers fled.

When the shooter in Orlando ran to the bathroom, he ran along a cinder-block wall. If anyone has any brain at all about shooting in rooms with cement walls, they also know that bullets don't stop; they ricochet until their energy is expended or they find some other object that stops forward motion. So lets throw a bunch of guns in schools with the same types of construction and have a shootout. Yeah...that works.

The other problem is that responding police officers now have to identify shooter from victims. The Orlando shooter actually tried to hide among the victims until discovered. Imagine rolling up on a scene with 250 people fleeing doors and everyone having guns and shooting. Who's the bad guy? The assumption then has to be that EVERYONE is the bad guy and it only prolongs the time that help can actually intervene.

What angers me most about the current "lack of" debate is that everyone says legislative solutions would not eliminate every mass shooting. They are right. After 9-11, I have to take my shoes off, practically strip at the airport, have my lube confiscated (if over 3 ounces), and walk through various detectors. And yet we have still had bombings of planes and other incidents. Nothing we do has any guarantee (hence the many shootings in Chicago). But to throw up our hands and say "get everyone a gun" is absolutely mind-boggling and irrational.

 

[rareboy]

^ I do not understand why everyone in the US doesn't grasp the logic of your second paragraph.

I just don't.

But I do appreciate that the vast majority of Americans are calling for some way of better regulating firearms...and that they are literally being held hostage by a group of five million NRA members, the gun industry and the politicians that are owned by the NRA and gun industry.

It is a real head shaker.

 

[xbuzzerx]

If somebody is hell bent on shooting a place up, they will do it no matter how much you tighten security, pat people down, post armed guards, post plain clothes armed security, let other patrons carry guns in, arm the bartender, etc.

But they can't do it without a gun they likely wouldn't have had access to with even the most basic of screening.

 

[TX-Beau]

^ I do not understand why everyone in the US doesn't grasp the logic of your second paragraph.

I just don't.

But I do appreciate that the vast majority of Americans are calling for some way of better regulating firearms...and that they are literally being held hostage by a group of five million NRA members, the gun industry and the politicians that are owned by the NRA and gun industry.

It is a real head shaker.

Plenty of people in the U.S. grasp that logic. Which is why basic regulation polls so high. Kuli is actually in a small minority of American Citizens.

The PROBLEM is that whore LaPierre and the gun industry has been pouring cash into Republican pockets (and some Democrats) while hiring shifty people to invent history, and make up "traditional" arguments.

I hope that whore is haunted by the souls of every person killed by gun violence in the last few decades - and I don't even believe in souls.

 

[Kulindahr]

WHAT A FIB!!!

This:

http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/mo...ty-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

is your "source" in the O.P (which by the way says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about bars.) WHERE ARE YOUR NUMBERS!

THIS:



http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/gun-researcher-john-lott-offers-false-firearm-s/196621

emphasis mine

Is who they are!

Are you saying you don't know who your "sources" are?

You think that board members do research? and crunch numbers?

Board members are what La Pierre understands very well: they're symbols for raking in money.

The only names that matter on research are the researchers. Show me Nugent's name on any research, if you think he's my "source".

 

[Kulindahr]

Should the intention of the concealed gun carrying customer be to kill all the customers and staff in the bar, I am rather certain that a well posted sign stating that guns are not permitted will not deter him from executing his plan.

Exactly -- it's an invitation, because it says in essence, "None of us here can possibly do anything to stop you".

It's similar to a hunter preferring to go where there are old orchards and clover fields: a promise of easy targets.

 

[Kulindahr]

If somebody is hell bent on shooting a place up, they will do it no matter how much you tighten security, pat people down, post armed guards, post plain clothes armed security, let other patrons carry guns in, arm the bartender, etc.

Only if EVERY possible target is equally hardened. Otherwise they'll pick the easiest.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm sorry, but this is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard suggested.

If more guns prevented violence, then the United States should be one of the safest countries in the world because we have more guns and gun ownership than any other civilized "first world" country on earth. Perhaps at birth, we should replace giving children one of those small stocking caps to instead tether on a .25 caliber semi-automatic pistol. As they age, we could replace it with a .357, perhaps a 9mm...hell let's add an assault rifle so they can have total safety on the playground.

What has not been discussed in the news (and the police chief touched on it when questioned), is whether any of those killed in Orlando died from "friendly fire." There were guns in that club -- off duty police officers provide security at most Florida bars and clubs. They are armed with the weapons they carry on duty. They are trained. And yet it did not stop this event. The same happened, by the way, in California when the 14 were killed. There were two people who were armed and had concealed weapons permits that hid and protected themselves until the killers fled.

When the shooter in Orlando ran to the bathroom, he ran along a cinder-block wall. If anyone has any brain at all about shooting in rooms with cement walls, they also know that bullets don't stop; they ricochet until their energy is expended or they find some other object that stops forward motion. So lets throw a bunch of guns in schools with the same types of construction and have a shootout. Yeah...that works.

The other problem is that responding police officers now have to identify shooter from victims. The Orlando shooter actually tried to hide among the victims until discovered. Imagine rolling up on a scene with 250 people fleeing doors and everyone having guns and shooting. Who's the bad guy? The assumption then has to be that EVERYONE is the bad guy and it only prolongs the time that help can actually intervene.

What angers me most about the current "lack of" debate is that everyone says legislative solutions would not eliminate every mass shooting. They are right. After 9-11, I have to take my shoes off, practically strip at the airport, have my lube confiscated (if over 3 ounces), and walk through various detectors. And yet we have still had bombings of planes and other incidents. Nothing we do has any guarantee (hence the many shootings in Chicago). But to throw up our hands and say "get everyone a gun" is absolutely mind-boggling and irrational.

No one is saying that except those using it as a red herring.

Oh, in the long run it would probably work, if we were willing to sacrifice three to five percent of the population while things got sorted out; we'd end up in a society where people were very polite and knew that resorting to violence would get them dead. But can anyone think the transition phase would be worth it?