Guns in bars and nightclubs

[Kulindahr]

^ 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.

The "logic of [the] second paragraph" has been addressed by experts. The problem is that so long as off-duty officers are in uniform, they're the first targets. Any deterrent that can be easily identified is no deterrent.

Armed deterrence best works either when it's so overwhelming there's no point in trying (e.g. M. A. D.) or when there is no way of knowing who is armed or how many are armed. If, as an attorney acquaintance said about an attorney's convention he attended in Oregon, ten percent of those present are armed but there's no way to know who, then there'[s an effective deterrence, either because an attacker will be averse to even trying, or because the attacker will get taken out by someone he didn't suspect would be armed.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

Thus use Art. I Sec. 8 etc. to require everyone with weapons above a certain line to join a recognized militia, where they can be screened.


I wonder if failure to so join could be construed as being in a state of insurrection.....?

 

[luckynumbah7]

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?

Guns don't make people polite out of respect. They do it out of fear. It isn't the same thing and should not be fought for. You have a very mistaken idea of how guns work psychologically.

And when someone knows, as everyone will, that the general public is polite out of fear, parts of it will snap. The people who enjoy living on the fear will decide someone wasn't giving them enough 'respect', and the people living in constant stress will snap, sooner or later, on themselves or others.

 

[luckynumbah7]

-And it'll be much higher than your 5%. "To YourTopia and Beyond!", I suppose, but for the rest of us your society is a nightmare, what with the liquour and racism and sexism and fundamentalists and....well, I'll skip the several paragraphs of groups that're shit on here in good 'ole America without giving everybody guns to shoot their uppity asses with in a moment of pique.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Here's what I mean. I've seen multiple posts over the years from yourself that a 'few good guys with a guns' are a protection from a 'bad guy with a gun'.

What about all those mediocre people, the regular Joes who do stupid fucking shit for a whole host of reasons? Because they're also the 'good guys with guns', they're not a separate group of people. I can think of a lot of wrong done by everybody in moments of stupidity and anger and irrational hatred; spite, nuisance, convenience, ignorance. Having a gun doesn't negate the emotions or behavior that leads to fighting. But is certainly makes it more permanent.

http://csgv.org/blog/2015/psychology-gun-ownership/

I also believe your 'good vs bad guys w/guns' is a grotesque evasion of what actually occurs. But if it helps, it's not all your fault, you are, after all, living in a specific cultural inundation. I will blame you for clinging to it, though. Not that you'd care either way, but I can't really let that 'good vs bad' shit slide.

 

[Kabluey]

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?

How different really is arguing anyone should get a gun, rather than everyone?

 

[Rolyo85]

I am sorry, at this point I am all manner of over this kind of flaccid sophistry. People living isolated lives in small hick towns in flyover states have NO CONCEPT of what life in real America is like and what most of us face in the urban centers. They are spouting their dumb gun slogans about "rights" and "amendments" while we are being mowed down.

When you care more about your own paranoia than actual human life, you are beyond wretched.

 

[Kabluey]

I am sorry, at this point I am all manner of over this kind of flaccid sophistry. People living isolated lives in small hick towns in flyover states have NO CONCEPT of what life in real America is like and what most of us face in the urban centers. They are spouting their dumb gun slogans about "rights" and "amendments" while we are being mowed down.

When you care more about your own paranoia than actual human life, you are beyond wretched.

The wretched are easily mobilised voters.

 

[cocksucker4use]

One of the loud cries lately has been that it would be dangerous to allow guns in bars, because they would all turn into wild-west shootout locations. Then on another site, I learned that not only are there are states where guns are allowed in bars, and that the number is actually growing. In fact, according to the NY Times, only eight states had such a prohibition in 2010.

And the remarkable thing is that, just like with the fearful cries every time a state expands the exercise of concealed carry by law-abiding citizens, none of the horrible claims has come true.

(Given that, the only reason to think that patrons with guns would have been a bad idea at Pulse in Orlando would be that gays are somehow less responsible than the regular run of citizens who already carry guns in bars and night clubs.)

Only about 1% of mass shootings in this country since WW II have taken place in locations where citizens are allowed to defend themselves (here). That tells us that these shooters, while animals, are canny: they know that a gun-free zone means an abundance of victims. Logically, the thing to do is to reduce the number of places where citizens aren't allowed to defend themselves -- as states such as Tennessee, Georgia, and Virginia have recently done.

Allowing guns in bars sounds crazy -- but the evidence says it isn't. Since the evidence also shows that mass shooters prefer gun-free zones, it's time to start reducing the number of those. Florida should follow the example of the states named above.

Guns in bars and nightclubs. As an admitted gross generalization, citizens who frequent bars and nightclubs tend to drink alcohol and/or use other substances that may reduce inhibitions and even impair judgement. For the sake of argument, let's just assume that is possible. Now give them all firearms so they can defend themselves from one another in loud, dark spaces late into the night. The concept is operationally self limiting.

That said, we in America are fucked on this. Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right -- keep and bear arms (if not conceal them). It is a cultural tradition and societal norm that is entwined with concepts of manhood and masculinity....the hunter; the defender.
Agrarian isolation requires self reliance and urban crime requires self defense. The political conservatives and a strong gun lobby from enthusiasts, patriots and those who manufacture and market fire arms have lobbyists and huge budgets and make campaign contributions and turn out votes. Now that we are here, what to do? It's like nuclear weapons. How to disarm the US, Russia and China when there is a North Korea. If the bad guys have guns, then I need one to defend myself. It is suggested in this thread that universal armament of the citizenry will reduce violence by engendering respect and make bad guys think twice before fucking with us. That could happen. Equally, every abuser, drunk, jilted/jealous/angry lover when having a really bad moment can test their marksmanship. If my father had owned a gun, I probably wouldn't be here. Some of the misguided passions, bad relationships and perceived affronts of my youth make me glad I didn't have a firearm.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The authors were compensating for the lack of professional armed forces. The Second Amendment never envisioned crazy people stocking up on AK-47's at Walmart, street gangs and drug wars or crazy people slaughtering school children or Jihad playing out in Florida. Nor the leveraging of this right for purely political and financial interests, so far removed from the reasoning behind granting us this right. The Founding Fathers had no way of foreseeing that by institutionalizing the right to keep and bear arms, they would be creating the mess we are in now.

 

[Kabluey]

[Quoted Post: Removed]

Again, you're mistaking criticism of your personal views and values as criticism of America.
Your views represent one extreme of society.

 

[Kulindahr]

I am sorry, at this point I am all manner of over this kind of flaccid sophistry. People living isolated lives in small hick towns in flyover states have NO CONCEPT of what life in real America is like and what most of us face in the urban centers. They are spouting their dumb gun slogans about "rights" and "amendments" while we are being mowed down.

When you care more about your own paranoia than actual human life, you are beyond wretched.

Wretched?

The wretched fact is that 31 people died in a bathroom because the rules left them with nothing to do but hide. Had they not been disarmed by people who didn't care about their lives, they could have at least fought back.

They were condemned to death by those who invented "gun free" zones, which are only as gun free as criminals are willing to keep them.

You can only be mowed down if you choose to be unable to fight back. That's fine as a personal choice, but to force it on others is vile.

 

[Kulindahr]

Guns in bars and nightclubs. As an admitted gross generalization, citizens who frequent bars and nightclubs tend to drink alcohol and/or use other substances that may reduce inhibitions and even impair judgement. For the sake of argument, let's just assume that is possible. Now give them all firearms so they can defend themselves from one another in loud, dark spaces late into the night. The concept is operationally self limiting.

That said, we in America are fucked on this. Gun ownership is a Constitutional Right -- keep and bear arms (if not conceal them). It is a cultural tradition and societal norm that is entwined with concepts of manhood and masculinity....the hunter; the defender.
Agrarian isolation requires self reliance and urban crime requires self defense. The political conservatives and a strong gun lobby from enthusiasts, patriots and those who manufacture and market fire arms have lobbyists and huge budgets and make campaign contributions and turn out votes. Now that we are here, what to do? It's like nuclear weapons. How to disarm the US, Russia and China when there is a North Korea. If the bad guys have guns, then I need one to defend myself. It is suggested in this thread that universal armament of the citizenry will reduce violence by engendering respect and make bad guys think twice before fucking with us. That could happen. Equally, every abuser, drunk, jilted/jealous/angry lover when having a really bad moment can test their marksmanship. If my father had owned a gun, I probably wouldn't be here. Some of the misguided passions, bad relationships and perceived affronts of my youth make me glad I didn't have a firearm.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The authors were compensating for the lack of professional armed forces. The Second Amendment never envisioned crazy people stocking up on AK-47's at Walmart, street gangs and drug wars or crazy people slaughtering school children or Jihad playing out in Florida. Nor the leveraging of this right for purely political and financial interests, so far removed from the reasoning behind granting us this right. The Founding Fathers had no way of foreseeing that by institutionalizing the right to keep and bear arms, they would be creating the mess we are in now.

But they didn't create the mess -- Congress did, by neglecting its authority to discipline the militia.

A disciplined militia wouldn't leave guns lying about for others to use, or tolerate zoning laws that leave gun stores as targets for criminals to "supply" themselves, or put up for a minute with police forces that lose guns and let their members leave their firearms unsecured in their vehicles. For that matter, a disciplined militia wouldn't be likely to let conditions in cities descend to parts of those becoming free-fire zones between competing bands of barbarians.

But Congress by neglect has encouraged us to all be quite undisciplined, so it's easier to call on others to take care of us, and thus let the crazies be the visible face of the intended well-armed populace.


Apparently, though, people who go to bars in states where guns allowed in such locations are better-disciplined than the rest of us, because there is no spike in shootings in bars compared to other locations (shootings at/in convenience stores are more frequent).

 

[Kabluey]

But Congress by neglect has encouraged us to all be quite undisciplined, so it's easier to call on others to take care of us, and thus let the crazies be the visible face of the intended well-armed populace.

Peaceful enjoyment of life doesn't mean being on constant guard for fear of life.
That's one thing that I've never felt the need for in other developed countries. In the USA, local people remind you that some places really are risky.

 

[Rolyo85]

Wretched?

The wretched fact is that 31 people died in a bathroom because the rules left them with nothing to do but hide. Had they not been disarmed by people who didn't care about their lives, they could have at least fought back.

They were condemned to death by those who invented "gun free" zones, which are only as gun free as criminals are willing to keep them.

You can only be mowed down if you choose to be unable to fight back. That's fine as a personal choice, but to force it on others is vile.

No, you can only be mowed down if your assailant has a firearm. NOBODY wants to carry weapons in bars. Nobody SHOULD want to carry weapons in bars. All the drama of inebriation already causes thousands of gun deaths annually in people's homes. Maybe let's not cause tens of thousands more out of militarization.

You sound like someone who has not attended a bar in the last several decades.

 

[rareboy]

No, you can only be mowed down if your assailant has a firearm. NOBODY wants to carry weapons in bars. Nobody SHOULD want to carry weapons in bars. All the drama of inebriation already causes thousands of gun deaths annually in people's homes. Maybe let's not cause tens of thousands more out of militarization.

You sound like someone who has not attended a bar in the last several decades.

Quoted for truth.

And except for people with issues...no one really wants to have to be carrying 24/7.

That is nothing more than slavish servitude to paranoia.

 

[Rolyo85]

Quoted for truth.

And except for people with issues...no one really wants to have to be carrying 24/7.

That is nothing more than slavish servitude to paranoia.

Well you and I both know he lives in a paranoid alternate reality where his gun is the only thing standing between him and total Orwellean Dystopia.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Quoted for truth.

And except for people with issues...no one really wants to have to be carrying 24/7.

That is nothing more than slavish servitude to paranoia.

Kulindahr in his fervor for "defend your freedom to be free from slaughter by carrying guns" seems happy to completely and utterly ignore that most of us would rather be free from the everpresent threat of mass shootings and gun-armed crime to begin with. And would like the freedom to be able to go about without having to carry firearms 24/7.

 

[Rolyo85]

Kulindahr in his fervor for "defend your freedom to be free from slaughter by carrying guns" seems happy to completely and utterly ignore that most of us would rather be free from the everpresent threat of mass shootings and gun-armed crime to begin with. And would like the freedom to be able to go about without having to carry firearms 24/7.

Well in his world its unfathomable that anyone would want to not have a gun on their person.

 

[Kabluey]

Kulindahr in his fervor for "defend your freedom to be free from slaughter by carrying guns" seems happy to completely and utterly ignore that most of us would rather be free from the everpresent threat of mass shootings and gun-armed crime to begin with. And would like the freedom to be able to go about without having to carry firearms 24/7.

He prefers to be free to shoot the rest of us, unfortunately.