B
Burmonster
Guest
Does state already fund signs in places, lets say the mall, that wish to restrict carry on their premises?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Burmonster
Guest
Just like 100% of the bars in GA and FL opted out right?
O
Ozmar
Guest
Like the one you just posted?
S
Surefire
Guest
The right to feel safe is what people on both sides of the issue are arguing though. Of course there is no right to feel safe, but really your right to carry should not trump another person's right life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
This is especially true when you consider the issue of violent crime. A rather large and undeniable aspect of crime prevention is that allowing crime to take place not only has 'tangible' repercussions (loss of life, money, property, etc.), but also less tangible repercussions that lead right back to property, money, life, etc. Think about it. Nobody wants to go looking for a farmers market in the ghettos of Detroit (well, in Detroit itself ) because of the fear of crime.
We all know that standard economics and crime don't mix well because of this. I don't think it's a huge stretch to state that violence is probably the biggest aspect of crime that people are afraid of. Sure, they don't want to loose money or property but come on, if it's my wallet or my car or my life...the wallet and the car are going first.
If it's violence that people fear, well, guns are violent. Violence is their entire purpose. You can argue that their violence (guns) is somehow different or better or more desirable depending on where it comes from (a criminal with a gun or a CCW permit holder trying to defend himself or others), but the bottom line is that most people would rather avoid violence all-togehter. Having more guns around, from this perspective, scares those who don't or won't carry.
This means that increasing the number of people who can potentially commit violence, even in defense, worries the average person. This creates exactly the same type of negative, less-tangible repercussions that crime does, and leads right back to the primary issues of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that frankly I cannot see as less fundamental than the right to carry a gun anywhere.
Dunno, Joe. It seems to me that any way you approach this, there are equally valid points for and against. Again, the best approach in such a context is a compromise, not an absolute 'win' either way.
This is especially true when you consider the issue of violent crime. A rather large and undeniable aspect of crime prevention is that allowing crime to take place not only has 'tangible' repercussions (loss of life, money, property, etc.), but also less tangible repercussions that lead right back to property, money, life, etc. Think about it. Nobody wants to go looking for a farmers market in the ghettos of Detroit (well, in Detroit itself ) because of the fear of crime.
We all know that standard economics and crime don't mix well because of this. I don't think it's a huge stretch to state that violence is probably the biggest aspect of crime that people are afraid of. Sure, they don't want to loose money or property but come on, if it's my wallet or my car or my life...the wallet and the car are going first.
If it's violence that people fear, well, guns are violent. Violence is their entire purpose. You can argue that their violence (guns) is somehow different or better or more desirable depending on where it comes from (a criminal with a gun or a CCW permit holder trying to defend himself or others), but the bottom line is that most people would rather avoid violence all-togehter. Having more guns around, from this perspective, scares those who don't or won't carry.
This means that increasing the number of people who can potentially commit violence, even in defense, worries the average person. This creates exactly the same type of negative, less-tangible repercussions that crime does, and leads right back to the primary issues of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that frankly I cannot see as less fundamental than the right to carry a gun anywhere.
Dunno, Joe. It seems to me that any way you approach this, there are equally valid points for and against. Again, the best approach in such a context is a compromise, not an absolute 'win' either way.
M
mikdavi84
Guest
bar fights are just good clean fun. no need to bring a lethal weapon into the mix.
O
Ozmar
Guest
Likewise.
O
Ozmar
Guest
Heck, if it's alright to carry guns into bars and restaurants (assuming all adults will be responsible, reasonable people), why not allow people with explosives strapped to their bodies?
O
Ozmar
Guest
?
M
mikdavi84
Guest
"hai guyz, I know i'm not allowed to drink since i'm carrying a gun so I'm the designated driver. I think we should go to this gun friendly bar filled with fat, chinbearded, sober, stodgy republican types, because my second amendment rights are important enough for me to impose my values on the group while we're celebrating Ron's bachelor party"
"fuck off, we'll take a cab"
"fuck off, we'll take a cab"
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
Does it hurt being so stupid?
A Hell's Angels bar is dangerous because of the violent gang that hangs out there, not because of guns.
A Hell's Angels bar is dangerous because of the violent gang that hangs out there, not because of guns.
M
mikdavi84
Guest
probably more because they can afford to spend money on things like weapons. I haven't seen a gun store offer free massages, a raise, and a degree with the purchase of a new glock.
O
Ozmar
Guest
That's not an answer to my question. That's another question. Answer my question, then I'll answer yours.
O
Ozmar
Guest
It could also be argued the other way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
In Australia after the massacre, the government went to great lengths to disarm the population, so that a crazed gunman wouldn't have the means to acquire a gun to begin with.
In Australia after the massacre, the government went to great lengths to disarm the population, so that a crazed gunman wouldn't have the means to acquire a gun to begin with.
B
Burmonster
Guest
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120856454897828049.html
What I am saying its that weather it is correlative or causative, gun owners are happier and less likely "to be that mean asshole starting fights" in a bar.
What I am saying its that weather it is correlative or causative, gun owners are happier and less likely "to be that mean asshole starting fights" in a bar.
S
Surefire
Guest
hurpa durpa, I drive with mah whiskey bottle open and near, just for tha smell, why cant i does that
L
l4zy
Guest
I've been driving a car for a decade and I've never been in a car accident, I don't need to wear a seat belt!
S
Surefire
Guest
No, like the possibility of me writing a paragraph or more. It's there, and clearly demonstrable. We have enough 'witty' one-line posters.
This is what you have yet to achieve, and why you come off as a troll.
This is what you have yet to achieve, and why you come off as a troll.
B
Burmonster
Guest
Hay guyz, when could a open can of beer save your life?
O
Ozmar
Guest
I'm just going to ignore you from here on out. Instead of a coherent argument, you continuously try to bait me with baseless accusations.
S
Surefire
Guest
Your choice, however it wouldn't be fair of me not to point out that, in your short time posting here, I've 'baited', joked, and 'agreed' with you.
It's your ball though!
It's your ball though!