TN governor vetoes "guns-in-bars" bill again

  • Thread starter Thread starter GFlem
  • Start date Start date
what I don't understand is how I have been going to bars for nearly a decade and have never found an encounter where my life was threatened so much to pull a gun.

am I doing something wrong?
 
Are you trying to argue that a sober gun owner become less responsible within the confines of the 4 walls comprising a restaurant serving alcohol.
 
.
It comes down to cost/benefits (Although I'm not talking about insurance necessarily). If the costs of having a bunch of guys with guns in your bar outweighs the trouble down the road then they will not allow it. Profitability of your business comes first. Now, only a huge faggot would stop going to a bar they like because they can't bring a gun inside.
 
See, for me the issue of trust is so germane to this discussion that it typically receives only a cursory consideration. By trust, I mean not simply 'trusting' (or not) that a responsible gun owner will be responsible, but also trusting (or not) that someone can be somewhere without a gun and feel safe.

To me, this really illustrates the centrality of compromise to the entire discussion. Sure, compromise is nothing new, and god knows 'bi-partisanship' is trite these days, but think about it. Pro-concealers don't trust that they can be safe around others without the gun, and anti-concealers don't trust that they can be safe with other people carrying guns.

The issue of 'rights' doesn't really provide an answer, because both sides are concerned with their basic right to life. The 'right' to carry a weapon does not trump the right to feel safe, because it is the route to doing so for the pro crowd, and also the route through which the anti-crowd feels their safety is threatened. Typically, when issues involving a conflict of basic rights occur, it is the more fundamental right that wins. Is life more fundamental than the right to carry at all times?

The bottom line is that the issue involves basic rights on both sides, so the best solution is one that gives as many people what they want. That is a compromise, and I think it is not a horrible imposition on anyone to designate a bar as off limits for firearms.
 
have you SEEN the taxes they place on alcohol? shit, you need to be strapped in a bar, to protect yourself. from the government.
 
But there is no right to "feel" safe. There is no right to feel any particular way at all.

And the bottom line is that if you can trust me with a gun anywhere, then you must trust me with it everywhere. And, IMO, 2 million violent crimes per year are proof that there is a need for people to go armed. Since people who obey the law vastly outnumber those who do not, limiting (or eliminating) the right to carry a gun shifts power in favor of the criminals (who will continue to carry guns anyway). Relaxing gun laws allows more people to have them, which shifts power back in favor of the law abiding, where it belongs.
 
That's kinda what I was saying. Far more deaths are caused by people driving drunk than shooting drunk. Don't let patrons drive to/from the bar. Makes as much sense as not allowing patrons to possess firearms.
 
Then Adverse Selection would come in.

If you were only 2 of 30 bars that allowed guns, then everyone with guns would come to those 2 bars.

Good Luck with that, minus whale make it a Hells Angels Bar.
 
Hay guyz, if I'm a responsible driver, wai can't I carry open containers in mah car if I'm a responsible driver?
 
Also, I'll link the study later that shows gun owners, on average, are happier, higher paid and better educated.
 
But does everyone in a bar/restaurant with a gun drink and does everyone who drives to and from a bar/restaurant drink?
 
Maybe so. I try to de-escalate situations. If someone's acting belligerent, I try to walk away.
 
Back
Top