New Line of Thought

[wjh2657]

Hey I'm a guy who listens to both sides of any issue. This whole "Guns and Bars" thing has gotten me thinking in a very responsible citizen sort of way.

The main argument of the Bar owners (they choose to call their establishments bars instead of restaurants) is that if I have a gun on my person, I'm probably going to get loaded and shoot somebody.

Let's say, just for the sake of the argument, that I accept this as a plausible argument.

If this is the case then we have left a huge public safety loophole in this whole thing.

More people are killed by drunk drivers than drunk shooters! We need a law that prohibits the carrying of car keys into a bar/restaurant. Using the same argument that a person can't control themselves and is going to imbibe, then they shouldn't be allowed in a bar if they are carrying car keys. If they have keys, they can operate their car, a proven weapon of public murder!

Bars won't do this however, because they make their money stoking up potential drunk drivers every night! And there are a whole lot more drunk drivers, by 11:30 p.m., out there than there are gun carriers. This is their mainstream customer, and remember, by definition, a potential drunk driver is anybody having more than one drink in an hour.

Bar owners lose the moral argument.

[eapking]

That is the irony of this whole thing. Alcohol and cars don't mix! They've got a lot of nerve up on their moral high-horse.

Start shaking those stats at them, and there is plenty to be had.

[Guest HexHead]

What we need is a) a shark for a lawyer and for several of us to go to posted bars, unarmed, and get drunk.

Then sue the bars for reckless endangerment.

[Mike.357]

the thing I see now from these people is that they are not worried about the gun carrier doing something but rather the other guy who would make a grab for our guns.

yep good train of thought there. They come out and say a drunk person grabbing at the gun, but it is illegal to serve a person to the point of being drunk.

[BrandonTN]

My whole line of thought is that a drunk can barely see straight. How is he going to determine who has a concealed weapon and successfully take it from the owner???

[DavidD]

All very good points, and I really like wjh's reasoning here.

[Guest 3pugguy]

Hey I'm a guy who listens to both sides of any issue. This whole "Guns and Bars" thing has gotten me thinking in a very responsible citizen sort of way.

The main argument of the Bar owners (they choose to call their establishments bars instead of restaurants) is that if I have a gun on my person, I'm probably going to get loaded and shoot somebody.

Let's say, just for the sake of the argument, that I accept this as a plausible argument.

If this is the case then we have left a huge public safety loophole in this whole thing.

More people are killed by drunk drivers than drunk shooters! We need a law that prohibits the carrying of car keys into a bar/restaurant. Using the same argument that a person can't control themselves and is going to imbibe, then they shouldn't be allowed in a bar if they are carrying car keys. If they have keys, they can operate their car, a proven weapon of public murder!

Bars won't do this however, because they make their money stoking up potential drunk drivers every night! And there are a whole lot more drunk drivers, by 11:30 p.m., out there than there are gun carriers. This is their mainstream customer, and remember, by definition, a potential drunk driver is anybody having more than one drink in an hour.

Bar owners lose the moral argument.

My wife's sister was killed by a drunk driver (before I knew her). You can imagine her view on drunk drivers.

Your point is valid, but won't stir up the loons. This whole hysteria is not unlike those who travel to "Earth Day" in a friggin' huge SUV, drinkingtheir water from non-degradeable plastic bottles, etc but cannot see their own foolishness. But, if you point that out, you are just being hateful...don't you love the earth?

Oh, the sheeple of the earth...

[K191145]

[Oh Shoot]

My whole line of thought is that a drunk can barely see straight. How is he going to determine who has a concealed weapon and successfully take it from the owner???

Many pro drunks can actually function a lot better than a drunken you.

- OS

[Guest m&pc9]

What we need is a) a shark for a lawyer and for several of us to go to posted bars, unarmed, and get drunk.

Then sue the bars for reckless endangerment.

Im in for this. You name the bar.

[Guest HexHead]

Im in for this. You name the bar.

We need the shark lawyer first. Maybe those TGO vendors?

[Guest HexHead]

Maybe the pro-gun groups need to team up with MADD on this?

[K191145]

Maybe the pro-gun groups need to team up with MADD on this?

I had the same thought before. Maybe it's time to get just as dirty with them as they are to us. Expose their hypocricy. They sell a product far more potentially dangerous than guns in the hands of law abiding citizens. I just wonder how many loaded drunks they sold alcohol to, allowed to leave and get into their vehicles and injure of kill some innocent person on the highway. Maybe legislation should be proposed to restrict their alcohol sales, require them to purchase breathalizers, have a designated person to sign in as the driver of the party and ban them from consuming acohol. Wonder how bar owners would react to that?

[Guest TurboniumOxide]

I made this very point here several days ago. I have been thinking about it ever since. A car is a great deal more deadly than a gun, statistically.

[Guest HexHead]

Maybe legislation should be proposed to restrict their alcohol sales, require them to purchase breathalizers, have a designated person to sign in as the driver of the party and ban them from consuming acohol. Wonder how bar owners would react to that?

The legislature could realistically impose a two drink maximum on establishments that serve liquor by the drink and ban the sales of bottles of wine in restaurants if the potential of people getting drunk is problematic.

I could support that law. What's that the Messiah alway says... "It's a common sense restriction"?

Edited July 5, 2009 by HexHead

[LagerHead]

I have a problem with this whole line of thinking. While I clearly see the point, the problem is imposing restrictions to protest the imposing of restrictions. I think the best approach we can take is speak with our wallets. It's true what they say: "Money talks." When enough anti-gun businesses see that they are losing customers because of their anti-gun stance, they will change it or be replaced by someone else, who will either change it or be replaced by someone else who will...well you get the point.

There are approximately 250,000 HCP holders in TN. We do have a voice. And it's large enough to be heard very clearly if we stick to our guns, if you'll pardon the pun.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Mr. Dread and his associates are not using logic, they don't have to. They don't even have to use facts. All they have to do is drum up hysteria and uncertainty and cause people to have "a reasonable doubt" about the thing. That is what lawyers do. Once there is enough confusion and doubt for a regular person to make a logical decision, then they win because people will default to what the lawyers tell them is good for them. They can't win a reasonable, logical, fact based argument and they know it.

[Guest HexHead]

I have a problem with this whole line of thinking. While I clearly see the point, the problem is imposing restrictions to protest the imposing of restrictions. I think the best approach we can take is speak with our wallets. It's true what they say: "Money talks." When enough anti-gun businesses see that they are losing customers because of their anti-gun stance, they will change it or be replaced by someone else, who will either change it or be replaced by someone else who will...well you get the point.

There are approximately 250,000 HCP holders in TN. We do have a voice. And it's large enough to be heard very clearly if we stick to our guns, if you'll pardon the pun.

You'll NEVER get 250k people to tow the line when we can't get a half dozen people here to agree on anything.

If we could get the legislature to pass a two drink maximum, we'd also make a huge dent in drunk driving. That we would also punish the bastards financially that are trying to screw with us is just icing on the cake.