Here in Tennessee, we have a relatively new law that allows people with Handgun Carry Permits (HCP) to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol unless posted with a sign on the doors. The HCP holder is NOT allowed to drink while carrying or even if it's in their vehicle. If they carry and drink, they can be charged with a felony.
My son has to write a paper on why handguns should NOT be allowed in restaurants.
I thought I could get some varying opinions for him here on HubPages so what say you on the subject?
Should handgun carry permit holders be allowed to carry in restaurants?
Why do they need to carry guns in restaurants? (in case the food is bad?)
TN recently passed a law where HCP holders could carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol but are prohibited from drinking any alcohol while carrying.
A restaurant that doesn't want guns in their business can post a sign on the door stating no guns and HCP holders are required by law to adhere to that sign and not enter armed.
My son has to write a paper against this law and I thought I might get some feedback from my fellow hubbers as to their opinion of this law.
Now, to answer your question, I'll ask a question. If a person has an HCP and is legally armed, why should they have to take it off just to eat in a restaurant that just happens to also serve alcohol when they can not drink alcohol while armed?
Legally? Because the right to bear arms unfortunately exists. However, the right to eat anywhere you would like does not. There are other, less dangerous, places to eat if you want to wear your gun. The risk of violence is higher in establishments where alcohol is served.
Also, legally business owners can refuse service to anyone they like for almost any reason.
You're absolutely right, Melissa. A business owner can refuse to do business with anyone. However, in the state of TN, if they choose to do so they must post a sign on the door. This includes restaurants that serve alcohol.
Also, please note that an HCP holder is prohibited from drinking while carrying in TN.
Posting a sign is pretty much common sense. Just like posting no-smoking signs.
I get the gist of the law, and I support it. Drinking while in possession of a handgun is reckless. The law is a good thing. Just as you are not allowed to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, you should not be allowed to be in possession of a firearm while impaired.
I would like to see it go further by adding additional felony penalties for anyone under the influence of drugs while in possession of a firearm as well. I also assume there is a revocation of the concealed carry permit if charged with having a gun while under the influence. As felony charges generally mean no CCP.
I agree with ALL of these laws.
From a legal standpoint, the answer is pretty simple. They should be allowed to unless the restaurant prohibits it. It's up to the owner of any private property who and what they will allow on their property.
I've read a couple stories about ccw holders stopping baddies in restaurants.
That's exactly the way it's set up in TN. If a restaurant owner doesn't want guns in their establishment, all they have to do is post a sign on all the doors stating "No Guns".
The way it was set up before was if they served alcohol, guns were prohibited, period. The way it's set up now is guns are allowed unless the owner posts a sign, as it is with all businesses.
Of course, if they have a sign, I don't spend my money there. To me, the sign tells all the criminals, "Come on in and rob us! You'll be the only one armed! If you're to shy to come in, just wait for one of our customers as they walk to their cars after eating!"
"To me, the sign tells all the criminals, "Come on in and rob us! You'll be the only one armed! If you're to shy to come in, just wait for one of our customers as they walk to their cars after eating!""
To me it says, "The only gun allowed in here is the shotgun behind the bar."
Just curious: if someone carries a gun into a place with a "no-guns" sign, does that count as trespassing, or what?
In Tennessee, the penalty for drinking while carrying is a year in jail and a $2500 fine, plus loss of gun permit for three years.
The penalty for getting caught in a properly posted location is a $500 fine, assuming you are not drinking alcohol.
Only three years? I would assume it would be permanent. Pretty soft law.
Hm. I'd agree with Melissa: caught carrying under the influence and lose the license for good.
I'd also argue that they ought to lose the license for carrying in a posted location: clearly they don't respect other people's property rights, so ought not to be trusted with the responsibility.
I agree with you and Melissa both on that one. I was a little surprised by that myself.
We do go through a background check with the TBI and the FBI before being issued a permit in Tennessee. A check after three years could reveal no additional problems. However, I would feel better if that person didn't have the chance to recommit that crime or worse.
Whether guns are allowed should be up to the restaurant, bar, other establishment or site.
Good Law abiding citizens should be allowed to carry weapons where ever they legally go.
Laws against Guns only affect Law abiding citizens. Criminals do not care about nor follow the law. So Gun laws are useless in stopping criminals. Being able to protect oneself and loved ones when a criminal attacks is what the second amendment is all about. Legal Citizens right to carry, the right to be armed and able to defend would be the biggest deterent to criminals. Especially if the criminals knew the people that carried were all very good with the weapons they had.
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.
Here's your musket! The British are vaguely East, if you start marching now you can cut them off.
Nothing in the second amendment, or any other amendment, can limit another's rights. If the restaurant owners don't want them in their restaurants then that is their choice. Most malls, hospitals, and schools don't let them in either.
In addition, the 2nd amendment doesn't say you can get s***faced and walk around with a loaded firearm. If you are drunk and in possession of a firearm you are just as dangerous as being loaded behind the wheel of a car and should be charged with something akin to reckless endangerment.
The Second Amendment may not state anything about getting drunk and going armed but state law does. If you're caught drinking and in the possession of a firearm in the state of TN, you will be charged with reckless endangerment or worse.
Yes, I got that. I think it is a wonderful law and a step forward in making gun owners realize that "rights" come with responsibility. As far as state vs. constitution, states have a wide berth to make laws according to their interpretation of the constitution. If it is unconstitutional, the higher courts will rule as such.
Actually they do set limits, only anarchy sets no limits.
Agreed, but we are not talking about restaurant owners making the choice. We are talking about the anti-gun lobby making an absolute ruling for everyone else. That absolute ruling being the discarding of the second amendement.
True. Criminal acts while in possession of a lethal weapon should have greater consequences. (with greater power comes greater responsibility).
A drunk driver is a criminal and should be treated as such. Being a drunk sitting in a car isn't the same thing. Being drunk while being in possession of a lethal weapon is scary and not to be confused with the responsible law abiding person that carries in a legal and responsible manner. If a person that has a legal right to carry does something illegal they should be treated as the law allows. Penalizing everyone because someone else is a criminal is ridiculous. Should we castrate every man in existence because some men are rapists, and without the possession of a 'manhood' they couldn't ever be tempted to become a rapist??
I think you are reading something wrong...
The law doesn't require that restaurants not allow handguns, it just gives strict enforcement against entering a "no guns" posted establishment.
Secondly, law abiding citizens and responsible gun owners shouldn't be affected at all by the law. Just people who drink with a firearm... (which is inherently irresponsible) You should be cheering this law... as only those who give gun owners a bad name will be affected.
Does that mean those that entering a licenced premises with a handgun be refused alcohol service- I doubt it!
If I'm in a restaurant and see someone drinking alcohol and they're armed, I'm calling the police. The people who would do this paint me with the same brush by doing so and I want them stopped. That being said, I would wager that person drinking while armed is probably not an HCP holder but is rather a criminal who couldn't care less about any laws to begin with.
As for the refusal of alcohol, yes, they would be refused service if they're known to be armed, as well they should be.
Just curious, would you call the cops if you saw someone with a gun have a glass of wine?
Yes, it's alcohol and the law doesn't say alcohol except for wine. Why? Wouldn't you?
I drink. I don't carry but I might someday. I agree that carrying and drinking shouldn't go together.
No What your going to have for dessert? DEAD MEAT!
Guns have become the bane of American Society and the culture of owning and carrying a gun just like a cell phone imparts a very high price on American Society
Have you ever actually looked at what guns do to society? Generally speaking, when a state changes from not allowing carry to allowing carry, murder rates decrease.
Thank you for your opinion, Barry, but in areas where going armed is legal with an HCP, crime goes down.
Tell that to the citizens of Detroit where there have been more than 3300 murders in since 2003. There are more holes in gun control laws than swiss cheese.
http://www.freep.com/article/20111113/N … r-cry-help
The biggest hole is the belief that a new law will force a criminal to obey that new law.
Criminals don't follow laws, the break them.
Make a million laws the only people effected are honest Law Abiding Citizens.
Making Useless laws just wastes time and money. Criminals do not follow the laws.
By your logic, murder should not be against the law. Only murderers murder.
I do not follow your logic here at all.
"criminals don't follow laws"
Then why outlaw anything?
There is a difference between outlawing 'murder' and outlawing 'guns'. Even with guns outlawed, criminals will use guns to commit murder.
Nobody is saying we shouldn't outlaw 'murder' for the same reasons we shouldn't outlaw 'guns'.
Who's advocating "outlawing guns?" Most of the proposals I'm aware of would outlaw certain military-type weapons not useful for hunting, target shooting or self-protection and tighten up the mechanisms for keeping guns away form people with violent felony convictions and a history of mental illness; and tighten up the procedures for record keeping by gun dealers and gun show sellers. Virginia gun shows are a major source of illegal handguns in New York city.
Even though murdering is illegal, criminals do it.
I'm sorry you're not comprehending the absurdity of the NRA line "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". or the even more ridiculous, "guns don't kill people..."
Gun laws don't work?
You think Plaxico Burress will ever carry his Glock again?
Guns don't kill people. Guns don't get up and decide to shoot somebody. Trying to put the blame for a killing on an inanimate object is ridiculous. People kill people.
Gun laws don't work. When gun laws are loosened, murder rates drop. When guns are banned, murder rates go up. The criminals still get their hands on guns. Just look at D.C., in 1990 their murder rate was 80.6 per 100,000. The U.S. average was 9.8 at the time. Banning guns didn't decrease D.C.'s murder rate, it increased it tremendously.
Are there national laws restricting gun ownership?
Are states walled off from each other or do they border other states.
I'm really trying to help you think this through
I don't need your help thinking this through. When states allow citizens to carry guns, crime rates go down. When states or cities ban guns, crime rates go up. Criminals don't care about the law, so they are willing to carry guns illegally.
Criminals get the majority of their guns from illegal sources. I know you want to say that DC had bad crime because criminals got guns in Virginia, but if that's the case, why doesn't Virginia have high rates too?
Go look at every state after allowing citizens to carry. Rates go down.
To keep honest people honest. To establish a code for good law abiding citizens to relate to. People that want to live together in peace need rules they know everyone will abide by.
A small minority of people will be criminals, limiting the good citizens based on the behavior of criminals is beyond moronic.
Creating more and more laws does nothing to prevent crime. It merely creates a society where no one can follow the laws.
Crime prevention done well is the only thing that can prevent crime. Crime punishment may help to set an example but it won't stop crime, only preventing crime will stop crime.
Michigan's murder rate has dropped 15% since 2001 when it changed to shall-issue.
I have studied the topic extensively . I am a student in the school of Justice. If you Google Cost of Gun deaths in America you will come across a peer reviewed report by an Actuary from the University @ Wharton.
If you want to look at studies, we can do that all day long. But that would hijack this thread. Care to make one? For every study you give against guns, I can post one for guns. Then, I can show the correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates.
It's amazing how many 2nd amendment "experts" come out to parrot NRA talking points whenever gun issues are discussed. Even our ultra-rightwing SCOTUS has ruled that local communities can pass and enforce gun control laws.
Here's a good example of the morons who think guns and alcohol are a good mix:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 … oaded-gun/
Ahh, what a responsible gun owner and wonderful champion for his cause.
No responsible gun owner thinks that guns and alcohol mix. Also, nobody claims that having a gun makes someone perfect. Just as with any group, you have irresponsible people. On the whole, people who carry guns are very responsible with them.
Guns and alcohol should be considered the same as cars and alcohol. They don't mix at all.
Ron, if you or anyone else in this thread wishes to start calling names, simply put - GO ELSEWHERE!
I'm sorry if you misunderstood my post. Rest assured I did not mean you when I said experts.
Judging from your posts I've read here as well as all through HubPages, I'm confident you know exactly what it's like to not be an expert on much of anything.
I was referring to your comment, "Here's a good example of the morons who think guns and alcohol are a good mix . . .'
If you want to throw around insults and names, go somewhere else. You're not wanted here. If you want to comment with some modicum of intelligence, by all means stay.
So you are ready to present evidence that someone thinks guns and alcohol are a good mix who isn't a moron?
Goodbye, Ron. By all means, come back when you're ready to act like a grown up.
Charging someone after using a weapon is a bit like catching a horse that has bolted.
Obviously you've never stared down the barrel of a gun.
Most people who get their HCP do so for a very good reason. I would rather have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
would put down the horse based on the idea that it may bolt in the future though it has no history of doing doing so,.... however,.... beause the slim chance exists, becaue this horse has leggs and knows how to use them,... he might bolt... therefore,... lets kill him so he doesnt bolt,.... or at the very least, lets cut off his leggs so that he might not have the abilitity to bolt. then we'll hire security guards to protect the horse from predators he can no longer run away from.
i get it now.
Give us a break the United States Death Rate from Guns is 12 times that of similar European countries the maiming rate is much worse...need I go on
Why would you compare gun death rates in different countries? First, some countries have total bans on guns. Others prosecute you even if you use a gun to save your own life in your home. Of course gun death rates will be lower in other countries.
When you look at homicide rates, it's a different picture, and not nearly 12 times difference. Even then, comparing different countries is ridiculous. How many of those other countries have a 2000 mile border with a country that smuggles in 24 million pounds of drugs every year? The simple fact is, geographical location can have a huge impact on environment and homicide rates.
If you want to compare, compare states with loose gun laws to states with strict gun laws.
Are those crimes committed by criminals or law abiding responsible citizens who have a legal right to carry?
The fact that Law Enforcement is an abysmal failure against armed criminals does not in any way make the disarming of non criminals a good idea. It simply means only the criminals will be armed, and everyone else will be defenseless.
The problem is that the gun control laws are full of holes and not effectively enforced. People with histories of mental illness get guns; people with violent felony convictions get guns; gun shows are a huge supplier of illegal guns; people with no training get guns, etc.
Gun shows are not a huge supplier of illegal guns. That is complete misinformation. Less than 7/10ths of 1 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. The majority come from illegal sources or friends/family members.
I'm sure we agree that people with mental illness shouldn't be able to carry, but these kinds of issues aren't pro-gun vs. anti-gun issues. They are issues of making the process better.
my pocket knife that i've carried for years is just as dangerous if not more so than any gun most would pack on thier persons,... would you have me leave itin my car? if absentmenidedly forget to remove the screw driver from y back pocket and carry it into my village dinner,.... would i stab my table mate with it?
good heavens,.... most if not all food service establishments have stee silver ware on the table,.... i can hear the news now,...
"5 forked to death in Chicken Hut rampage,.... 7 others were injured,... couselors on the sceene say customers are very traumatized,... "he just started forking people,... he looked at me,... and then he,... he,... he just forked me!,... he kept forking and forking,... i didnt thnk he would stop"
another patron was heard to say,.... "i havent seen this much forking since the summer banquet of 69"
legislators are already discussing new laws to prevent this tradgedy from happening again,... tonight at eleven,... congress to ban forks and forking, fork-crimes,... and grapefruit spoons because theyre serated."
i know teribly insensitive of me,.... just dont care
What a ridiculous argument.
To test how silly it is, ask yourself... "Would I rather be attacked by someone holding a fork, or someone holding a gun?" Then ask yourself why you chose that way.
The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart.
I assume that the gunshot to the head/stabbing to the head rates are even more differentiated... as it is extremely hard to stab someone to death in the head.
admitedly i have a torqed sense of humor,... my fork tirade made me gigle if no one else,.... but to more clearly make the point,...
people do bad things,... its the bane of the human race.
and when the moment comes, they will use what ever tool at thier diposal to commit the bad act,.... wether that be a gun, or a dinner fork. or a truck to run someone over,.... or fertalizer and diesle fuel to shock a nation,.... or a ball bat to beat someone to death,.... need i go on?
our personal safety will never NEVER be secured in trying remove all tools from the reach of those who would do this,... the human mind is infinately inventive,... ask any corrections officer how creative the convict is in devising a shank.
our safety is better secured in knowing how to diffuse a threat, rather than trying to only prevent the possibility of threat,.... expending human energy and engenuity in trying to eliminate something that has always and always will exist,... is a collosal waste.
risk,.... the risk of accident, the risk of mistake, the risk of someone elses missdeed,..... life is risk.
america has become the land of extreems, with NOTHING being apreciated in moderation.
a reasonable amount of gun controll is a good thing,.... but dont try and tell the NRA that.
a reasonable amount of personal liberty and responsability is equaly a good thing,... but dont try to tell the anti-gun lobby that.
extreemism has permenantly marked our culture,.... we are branded for doom, because we no longer have the ability as a culture to "talk" with each other.
we scream, we litigate, we cry wolf and sing victim,... but we no longer talk.
except for here,.... for the most part, this has been a good spirited thread.
and for the record, TN's gun law refferenced in the opener, makes good logical sense. it protects the rights of citizens with CCP, and also protects the rights of buisness owners to discern wether or not fire arms make sense in the environment of thier establishments. and in addition, it gives patrons the choice of frequenting establishments that do or dont allow guns.
win,.. win,... win. even charlie sheen would call this winning.
and thats why the hard left and hard right will decry it,.... because thats what they do,..... always aim left or right,.... and wonder why they cant hit the bullseye.
Oh, I was laughing at your 'forkgate scandal'
thank god,.... i was afraid i had had one of those,... damnit, i'm the only person who got the joke moments again.
It should be left up to the owner of the restaurant.
If the restaurant owner is cool with his customers packing, then that's fine.
If the owner doesn't want his customers to carry guns in his place, he can hang a sign that says "No Guns."
Anyone who brings a gun in to a place that says "No Guns" is probably guilty of trespassing or something.
The studies(statistics) for and against gun ownership/possession...
Do they seperate the criminal and law abiding gun owners/possessers? or do they simply lump them into the same group?
Most studies against gun ownership simply report on killings with guns, without distinction. The Brady Campaign is horrible about this. They report CCW holders who kill armed criminals in self defense as 'CCW Killers' as if they are horrible people on a rampage.
Yeah, fine distinctions aren't really ideologues' strong suit.
The gun control crowd likes to point out that you're statistically more likely to shoot someone you know, and that's true, but the data don't generally show how the shooter knew the shoot-ee. Sure, accidents happen, and they're always tragic. But it's also true that a lot of the people who "knew each other" knew each other because they were members of rival gangs or some similarly unsavory relationship.
Not only that, but they don't account for the fact that only 8% of DGUs involve shooting someone, and something like 18% of those are fatal. So for every DGU justified homicide, there are between 50-100+ times a gun stops a crime.
They publish things like a woman shooting her abusive husband while he attacks her, shooting someone who breaks into your house, etc... The intellectual dishonesty is tremendous.
And don't get me started about their favorite GOD BLESS THE USA gun poster... they should be prosecuted for knowingly and admittingly using misinformation(they admit to it).
"On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen. She had left her gun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time, which forbade carrying a concealed weapon. When George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons, Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle. Her father, Al Gratia, tried to rush Hennard and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother, Ursula Gratia, was behind her. Hennard put a gun to her mother's head as she cradled her mortally wounded husband, and pulled the trigger, killing her as well."
George Hennard killed 23 people and wounded 20 more. The fact that the guns were being carried illegally did nothing to stop him. Had the law allowed for concealed carry, Dr. Hupp would have had an opportunity to stop him.
Unfortunately, the media doesn't cover prevented massacres like it covers massacres. But if you are willing to look, you will find countless stories of concealed carry holders saving innocent lives.
Here is a chart showing the murder rate per 100,000 people in Florida, before and after the shall-issue law of 1987, compared to the national average. The blue line on the left was before citizens could carry guns, the green line on the left after. The black line across the entire chart is the national average. Notice that withing a few years, the murder rate in Florida went from being 40% above the national average to right in line with the national average.
Richard Poplawski. Omar Thornton. Paul Michael Merhige. Jason Hamilton. Nidal Malik Hasan. George Sodini. Christopher Speight.
What do these men have in common?
# 1: They all committed mass murder (three or more innocents killed) with guns.
# 2: They were all concealed handgun permit holders.
And they're not alone. Since 2007, at least 19 mass shootings have been perpetrated by individuals who had obtained permits to carry concealed handguns in public.
Since 2007, at least 100,000 lives(extremely conservative estimate) have been saved by gun owners. Nobody claims that getting a CCW permit will prevent you from ever committing crimes. But you seem to try and say that CCW permits cause people to be criminals.
Richard Poplawski didn't need a CCW permit to go crazy with a gun in his own house. The permit had nothing to do with it.
Omar Thornton didn't need a CCW permit to take a rifle to work in a duffle bag with intent to kill people. He would have done it without a permit.
Do I need to go on? Just putting out irrelevant facts like that means nothing. Do you know what else they had in common? Disrespect for life and law. They were all humans(all humans are murderers!).
See how ridiculous that is?
How would you really know 100,000 have been saved. It seems like circular logic to me. If you dint have the guns firstly then there would be no issue. It is impossible also to compare state by state because all US States are covered by the 2nd amendment rights
First, "If you dint have the guns firstly then there would be no issue." is simply not true. If we banned guns, criminals would still get them. Criminals would still use them. And if they couldn't get them, they would use knives, knowing that they wouldn't end up facing a gun.
the 100,000 lives figure is an extremely conservative estimate based off of the research of Kleck and Gertz. 15% of Defensive Gun Uses were situations where a life was 'almost certainly saved. There are ~2.5 million DGUs each year. 15% of 2.5 million is 375,000 lives saved. My 'extremely conservative estimate' is arrived at by only counting 6% of those... 6% is VERY conservative.
It is not impossible to compare states. Yes, all states are covered by 2nd amendment rights, but that doesn't mean they didn't have laws to the contrary in the past. It is only recently that we started tackling the unconstitutional laws. Look at murder rates before a state changes to shall-issue and after. Murder rates go down. It's very simple.
Ive read the article by Kreck & Gertz when i was writing up the topic the assertioons are highly speculative i that there is no blind sample in which they can compare. In other words there are no States in the US which do not have a proliferation of guns. They estimates of gun threat prevention are purel speculative guesses..
"there are no States in the US which do not have a proliferation of guns."
Do you realize that line argues against your own point? Even states that had laws banning guns still had guns. We can't get rid of them even if we wanted to(which we don't). So, what would you propose we do? Make them illegal so only the criminals have them?
For the study by Kleck and Gertz, you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. Marvin Wolfgang wrote as a peer review of the study:
"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."
If you want to talk specifics, we can, but I've read just about every critique of their report, and the level of incompetency is astounding.
I think well have to agree to disagree. Meanwhile gun deaths will continue to place a heavy toll on American Society
So, let me guess, you think we should abolish the Second Amendment.
While no group is perfect, why do you lump all HCP holders into the same basket? It's my understanding your country was once an island prison, would it be fair to lump all Aussies into the same group as the original inhabitants of your country?
Here in Tennessee, we have over 280,000 permit holders and that number has grown in the last couple of years. I have yet to hear or read of any of these people that have committed mass murder.
The only people that benefit from a disarmed population are Tyrants whos ultimate goal is a powerless population unable to defend themselves.
I think it should be left to the property owner. I feel safer when I am with a responsible gun carrying friend.
"I would much rather have a gun in my hand then a cop on the phone."
"I would much rather have a gun in my hand then a cop on the phone."
Amen Brother. I am a highly trained former member of a swat team. I completely agree, Me with a gun in my hand is much better than me with a cell phone talking to a cop.
I'm asked all the time why I carry. My answer? Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Last I checked, the average police response time nationally is 11 minutes. A lot can happen in 11 minutes.
The police can NOT be everywhere all the time. To expect them to just show up as soon as you need them is unfair and unrealistic.
The Fort Hood shooter was stopped by a responsible human carrying a legal firearm. Yes they were Police Officers but simply holding the title of Officer makes no difference.
The shooter would have been stopped by any responsible, trained person with a firearm.
There are so many instances where better gun rights would have prevented unnecessary deaths. When good people aren't allowed to have guns they can't stop the bad guys.
It really is true, when every second counts, the police are just minutes away.
What about the cost of 25,000 to 250,000 lives that would be lost each year if we didn't have people using guns to stop murders?
Yes, unfortunately, we have a system where if someone breaks into a house, kills a person, and is wounded by the homeowner, then that person is taken to the hospital and treated. I would guess the majority of criminals don't have health insurace, so we end up paying for it.
It's a ridiculous mix of cause-effect, and completely ignores the value of lives.
No it doesn't if there were less proliferation of guns which seems to be culturally ingrained into the American Society that somehow Guns provide you with a false sense of security then you would be able to tackle an intruder with convention means such as brute force.
You would rush somebody who had a knife? With no weapon?
You completely ignore the fact that we have NO WAY to effectively ban guns. If we institute laws to do so, the criminals will still have them. After all, we get 24,000,000 pounds of illegal drugs every year in the US. We can't keep illegal things out.
You also ignore the fact that murder rates drop when more citizens carry guns.
You can go ahead and try to tackle someone who has a knife. I'll just use a gun.
A person with a knife, standing 21 feet away, can close that gap within 4 seconds.
First, if someone is threatening me with a knife, they've made a VERY bad mistake - they brought a knife to what I'm going to change into a gun fight immediately. If they come at me or my family, I will shoot them and not think twice about it. Then I'll call the police.
If that person chooses to run once I've drawn my gun, I'll let them go and, in fact, am required to do so as they are no longer a threat. I'll then call the police and give them a description of the person who threatened me and acknowledge I did draw my gun to run them off.
Brute force against someone with a knife? Okaaay. I think I like my way better, Barry.
as you rightly say guns Esculate the danger in a conflict situation...
Yes, they most certainly do, Barry, for the person who's chosen to threaten me. Those are odds I'll take any day of the week.
They don't escalate danger. More often than not they diffuse the situation. Only 8% of people who claim to have used a gun in self defense actually shot the criminal. The majority of the time a gun, used responsibly, will make a bad situation go away.
If a criminal with a knife decides to rush somebody with a gun, that's their fault.
look up the statistics on how many guns are used in the event of a home invasion prevention
Tell you what, I'll look at that if you will look at my charts showing murder rates in states when they change their gun laws. Deal?
Great. Now, there are a lot of statistics out there... are you pointing toward Kellerman or the Brady campaign?
Ok, they are small, still don't know how to fix that. Blue is the murder rate per 100,000 people before shall-issue status. Green is the murder rate after shall-issue status.
The murder rate is only a small part of the story. There are accidents, suicides, armed robberies which must be considered when assessing the effect of weapons.
My understanding is that reasonable state and city gun control laws are permitted under the latest interpretation of the Second Amendment. There is plenty of room for the adoption and enforcement of additional regulations wrt who can get a permit and who can't get a permit, tighter requirements for checking before selling by gun dealers and gun show sales, better record keeping by dealers, not to mention additional restrictions on the types of weapons that may be manufactured, sold and owned legally. The NRA has opposed just about all commonsense restrictions on guns.
Yep, and a couple years ago when I researched it thoroughly - more folks accidentally drowned in swimming pools than died due to accidents involving hand guns.
So what? Are we going to ban swimming pools?
I don't see where 30,000 American's a year die as a result of Swimming Pool Accidents also no mention of permanent maimings
It's actually around 4,000 for drownings.
Are you opposed to commonsense ways of preventing the 4,000 drownings? If not why are you opposed to commonsense gun control regulations?
Are you opposed to banning any weapons?
To use your swimming pool analogy, how do you feel about requiring fences around pools to prevent children from falling in and drowning? How about life guards at public beaches? In my opinion, there's an urgent need for a number of analogous commonsense rules for guns and other weapons. An obvious one is prohibiting 30-round magazines on handguns like the one used to kill 5? people and nearly kill Gabrielle Gifford last year in Tucson. How do you feel about hand grenades and machine guns?
According to the CDC, "In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day."
Non-fatal swimming pool-related injuries include traumatic brain injury and partial to total paralysis. So yes, a person can be permanently maimed in a swimming pool.
But it's also really hard to rob a store with a loaded swimming pool that someone left lying around.
So, comparing swimming-pool-related deaths to gun-related deaths isn't exactly an apples-to-apples kind of thing, really.
Suicides aren't affected by the availability of guns. When guns are taken away people just kill themselves in other ways. The number of accidents from new shall-issue guns is very, very small when compared to other factors. Armed robberies are stopped with guns as well. Making guns shall-issue doesn't really affect availability of guns to criminals, only a small percentage get their guns legallly.
Certainly some restrictions are good, but others are silly, in my opinion. A 50% drop in murder rate in Florida equates to 900 less murders in Florida per year. That is a tremendous difference.
Suicides most definitely are affected by the ready availability of guns. People who try to commit suicide by pill and other means sometimes change their mind or are found by relatives and are saved. Not so with people who shoot themselves in the head.
You have to realize that there are two kinds of suicides. Suicides, and cries for help. Many people who attempt suicide only do so weakly(it's still hard to take some pills or cut yourself). People who are intent on ending it will end it. The majority of cases are this way.
More guns doesn't actually increase the suicide rate, it just changes the method.
http://bases.bireme.br/cgi-bin/wxislind … xSearch=ID
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qs … 5000258711
Actually is a known that Guns make suicide easier and as such make the likelyhood of success at least final. You can see this by the suicide rates by the use of a handgun in the US
Barry, why don't you provide the links to studies you are talking about. I still haven't found anything like what you were saying.
And did you look at the charts?
The only thing that article says about suicide is a reference to a study that says gun ownership increases suicide by firearm.
Of course, when guns are available, suicide by firearm will be more frequent. What I'm saying is that the presence or lack of guns doesn't affect the overall suicide rate.
I would also be wary of reports that cite studies ranging from 1986 to 2009. There are more recent reports than many the article uses that show better information.
Except this is along term comprehensive study completed by a Research Academic interested in the cost of gun deaths rather than taking a political position...
Restricting the legal carry of firearms kills more people than anything else.
Time, after time, after time, after time.
the one that shows that less than 1% of guns are used to prevent intruders entering homes...
I'll have to look through to see which one you are talking about. Are you talking about less than 1% of all guns, or less than 1% of all intruders or stopped with guns?
Here's the closest I've found so far to what you seem to be citing. The Department of Justice's report "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" found that slightly more than 1% of Americans experienced a DGU in one year(1.6%). This equates to 1.5-4.7 million DGUs per year.
About 1/3 of the DGUs take place in the home, that results in 500,000-1,500,000 DGUs in the home each year.
Like I said this to help my son with a paper.
Your profile states you're "very left." Do you dislike guns in general? Please elaborate.
If I had a chnce to vote on it, which I won't, yes I would vote to change the constitution, but that is not going to happen. I think it is outdated. I also know I'm in the minority.
By the way, I am fully informed on both sides of the issue. I think if the whole world was disarmed it would be better place, but that won't happen either.
The question isn't should people be allowed to drink and carry a gun, it is should they be allowed to carry a gun into a restaurant if the restaurant allows it?
I don't drink. At all. Should I not be allowed to carry into a restaurant because there is alcohol there?
You should not be allowed to carry into a restaurant if the owner says you can't. Or, y'know, if you don't have a CCW permit in the first place.
If the owner doesn't have a problem with your gun, I don't know why anyone else gets a vote (other than the "with-your-feet" variety, that is).
No. Not in my state, at least. Heck; you can't smoke a cigarette in restaurant or bar. Second hand smoke isn't nearly as dangerous as a bullet.
The restaurants retain the rights to who and how they serve the patrons.
i think its up to the private property owner.. public domain is another issue. As soon as you enter a private establishment it's up to their posted listing or unposted listing.
Should handgun permit holders be allowed to carry in restaurants?
Sure...Why Not? Might even come in handy with those restaurants with really poor service...
Make My Soup!
Bullets Strike the White House
Here's a guy who shouldn't have any gun let alone a semi-automatic rifle.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/us/bu … f=politics
thank you,... thank you very much,.... i do two shows a night, three on saturday.
by Longhunter6 years ago
Here in Tennessee, crime on and around college campuses has been in news lately. One school, MTSU, had a student murdered by her own roommate. Another student was shot in the hand by a former student during an...
by egiv7 years ago
There are too many guns in the United States. How many more shootings need to happen for people to realize that the second amendment is outdated. I'm not trying to say that nobody should be allowed to have one, I have...
by Stacie L6 years ago
WASHINGTON -- As Wisconsin's concealed carry law goes into effect, the state's Catholic bishops are urging parishioners to keep their weapons out of church."The Catholic Church has a long tradition of sanctuary,...
by Susie Lehto15 months ago
The majority of American people believe the right to own a firearm for self-defense is their choice to make, not the governments. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … _own_a_gunThe U.S. Supreme Court said...
by Mike Russo20 months ago
Let's face facts people. The 2nd amendment was written for another time and another place. It has no place in today's world. It is causing mentally ill people to commit mass killings. The gun...
by HuntersWhitt4 years ago
With all of the uproar over gun laws lately, I'm curious to see what HubPages thinks. So here's the question:A) What guns, if any, should be allowed?B) Do "gun laws" actually accomplish anything?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.