A Well-Written Letter to The Scene Continuing the Guns-In-Restaurants Debate

[gunrat]

Reprinted from yesterday's Nashville Scene. I find it interesting that the editors ran this letter first!

Published on December 16, 2009 at 3:20pm

The case for guns

I've got some serious questions for you to consider regarding your recent article in the Nashville Scene ("Shot With Their Own Gun," Nov. 25).

If a gunman decided to start firing at will in the Wildhorse Saloon or any other bar or restaurant in downtown Nashville, how many people do you think would be killed before he a) turned the gun on himself, or was taken down by the cops? How many dead? Thirteen (as with Ft. Hood and Columbine)? Or how about 32 in the case of the Virginia Tech massacre? All three incidents, which occurred in your preferred "gun-free" zones, happened because the gunmen were given the green light. They knew they wouldn't be stopped by any law-abiding civilians who had been prohibited by unconstitutional laws to defend themselves.

Let's say you happened to be enjoying a few drinks with your wife in that bar being shot up by a crazed Nidal Hasan or Dylan Klebold. Do you think there's a chance that one of your so-called "gun nuts" or "gun freaks" could save your life, or your wife's life?

What anti-gun folks like you don't seem to understand is that no matter what the venue is, the only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.

What you are essentially saying is that you'd rather take your chances with the criminals of society—those who are in and out of jail, who don't obey what the law says anyway—than with ordinary people who've taken tests, paid fees, and learned how to safely use a gun in order to defend themselves and their fellow citizens. Explain to me how this makes any sense, Mr. Woods. You can't, because it doesn't. (And don't tell me you're worried about the .0016% of permit holders who committed crimes recently.)

Before you go on labeling people who could save your life someday "gun nuts and freaks," you might think twice about the reality of how many lives are saved every year because of handgun carry permit holders like myself. I guess you didn't think that bit of info was important enough to look up for your biased, one-sided article.

I'm not a nut or freak, Mr. Woods. I'm a college-educated communications professional with a family and a mortgage. I love life and refuse to roll the dice with the real freaks of this world who don't care any more for your life than they do for mine—and wouldn't think twice about gunning us down in the name of drugs, money, addictions, a twisted political ideology, etc.

I sincerely hope you will overcome your fear of guns and accept the reality that evil can strike anywhere, anytime. There is good and there is evil, and the more you appease evil by restricting good, law-abiding citizens, the more Ft. Hoods and Virginia Techs we're going to have. Is that what you prefer to roll the dice with, Mr. Woods?

Matt Bonner

American Revolution Two

Nashville

[Guest Jcochran88]

That was very well written.

[Volzfan]

Yes Very well written but sadly, still probably ignored.

[gunrat]

In the guns-in-bars ruling, a tricky maneuver uses handgun-permit holders’ provision against them

By Jeff Woods

Published on November 25, 2009 at 9:43am

In their lawsuit against the state's guns-in-bars law, restaurant owners tossed a clusterfluff of weird arguments at Davidson County Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman. Among them: Restaurants will violate OSHA regulations because flying bullets will constitute one helluva of an unsafe workplace.

"We threw all the arrows in our quiver," attorney David Randolph Smith admitted early in the case.

But there was one argument that Bonnyman liked, and it was deliciously devious. The plaintiffs pretended to care whether the state's 250,000 handgun-carry permit holders are subjected to unfair prosecutions. The law allows loaded weapons only in establishments whose principal business is the sale of food. Gun proponents love this provision, saying it means the law doesn't actually allow guns in bars but only in restaurants that happen to serve alcohol. It helps them seem more reasonable. But they make that claim with a wink and a nod because everyone knows that, as a practical matter, it's impossible to tell the difference.

The law's opponents cleverly turned the provision against the gun nuts. If no one can tell which is which, then how will all our law-abiding citizen gunmen know when they're breaking the law by waltzing into a bar with a loaded weapon? That makes the law unconstitutionally vague, the plaintiffs contended. They even corralled four handgun-carry permit holders to join the lawsuit.

Bonnyman ruled Friday the law is "fraught with ambiguity" and struck it down. The state can appeal that decision, but that could take up to a year. Before that happens, the legislature's many Second Amendment champions already are boasting that they'll fix things quickly next session by passing a new law that's clearer.

If this year's session is any indication, they shouldn't have much trouble. New laws to let handgun-carry permit holders go just about anywhere they please in Tennessee were the signature achievements of the new GOP majority this year, and Republicans had plenty of help from gun-loving Democrats. It was the year of the gun.

One new law allows guns in city parks unless local governing bodies forbid it. Another lets permit holders ride around in their pickups with loaded rifles and shotguns. Yet another, titled the "Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act," purports to eliminate federal regulation of guns made in Tennessee. It won't really do that, of course—not on the federal government's watch—but it sure did make legislators feel good when they passed it.

Even as the legislature moved quickly and with astonishingly little debate to let licensed gunmen carry their weapons into saloons, playgrounds and other new places, permit holders were accused of four murders in this state. Two were road-rage shootings, which arguably might not have happened if the handgun hadn't been so handy. In one, the permit holder shot and killed the other motorist after an accident, then pointed his .40 caliber pistol at a witness trying to dial 911, according to police. Another permit holder killed somebody in an argument over a parking space, police say.

Then there's the handgun permit holder who shot and wounded his wife while cleaning his loaded Glock while watching Cher on TV. And the one who pleaded guilty to assault after threatening his wife with his weapon.

Incredibly enough, there was absolutely no mention of any of these crimes at the legislative sessions the Scene heard. Zip. The only way we learned these guys were licensed to carry handguns was by checking the Tennessee handgun-carry permit database. That's the list that gun advocates tried to close to the public so people couldn't find out what licensed gunmen are doing. Even when that bill was debated—and it was finally defeated—no one brought up any of these crimes.

"Bring to me evidence that this [has] caused harm to the public in the states that have had this law for many years, I'll pull this bill myself," said Doug Jackson, chief Senate sponsor of the guns-in-bars law.That was a month after the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group, issued a report showing concealed-handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 shootings in this country in only the past two years.

Plus the center said it was under-reporting the number of murders because it was forced to rely on news reports to compile the data.

Our legislators didn't want to know about these inconvenient crime reports. But since the session ended, new stats have been compiled that should interest them more. First, 70 cities and counties opted out of the guns-in-parks law, deciding they didn't really want gunmen parading about on their playgrounds and softball fields. And then a new poll by MTSU showed a whopping 80 percent of Tennesseans think guns in bars are stupid. Whoops! Looks like Tennessee's firearms freaks have overplayed their hand—and Bonnyman's ruling might stand longer than anyone thinks.

[Garufa]

Extremely well-written letter and I'm surprised an alternative like the Scene would print.

Nashville News - Love-Hate Mail - page 1

[Guest HexHead]

Yes Very well written but sadly, still probably ignored.

More than likely mocked in the comments section in that rag.

[Guest Plainsman]

Are there really still folks on the fence on this issue, after all this time? Will either of these articles be pursuading anyone who contributes an active voice to their community and leaders to change their mind?

[ttocswob]

the only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.

Money quote, IMO.

Too bad there's nothing to stop newspaper "nuts" and first amendment "freaks" like Mr. Woods.

[Guest TurboniumOxide]

The only thing that will stop a bad newspaper writer is a good newspaper writer? Seems like the sword IS mightier than the pen.

[eapking]

A very well written letter. Really gets to the point. Too bad anti's are emotional, illogical types who would rather believe that utopia is right around the corner, and that guns will just become irrelevant. Their heads are in the sand.

[mcurrier]

A very well written letter. Really gets to the point. Too bad anti's are emotional, illogical types who would rather believe that utopia is right around the corner, and that guns will just become irrelevant. Their heads are in the sand.

[lock n' load]

Maybe Jeff Woods needs to go join that ignorant, anti-gun ABC news staff. It's that same old "only bad people carry guns" mentality that makes me sick just like that episode on 20/20 "If I only had a gun". Apparently, this guy imagines he lives in a happy little world where the clouds are all puffy and everyone sings "Kumbaya". He must have watched too many episodes of "Barney and Friends" growing up. I wonder if he would feel the same way if his life were ever saved by a law-abiding HCP holder?