NRA Disagrees With Donald Trump with his suggestion that the Orlando Clubgoers shoud have been armed - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;50551884]The obvious answer is that people wouldn't bring their gun if they intended to drink, the same way they don't bring their car if they intend to drink.[/QUOTE] And how would legal authorities enforce this exactly? It all seems rather convoluted. In fact it seems rather bizarre as if you didn't intend on drinking at a bar then this would only affect a very small slice of people since people typically go to bars to drink alcohol.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50551896]And how would legal authorities enforce this exactly? It all seems rather convoluted. In fact it seems rather bizarre as if you didn't intend on drinking at a bar then this would only affect a very small slice of people since people typically go to bars to drink alcohol.[/QUOTE] What's the alternative? People pretty much always conceal their guns. So you aren't going to know whether they have it unless they bring it out anyway. In the end, you have to treat it just like you treat drinking and driving. Stop it when you see it, but generally use education to teach people how to prevent it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50551974]What's the alternative? People pretty much always conceal their guns. So you aren't going to know whether they have it unless they bring it out anyway.[/QUOTE] Well there is always banning people carrying guns from inside establishments where alcohol is sold. This sort of law in America has been typically common in the past and the precedent for them already exists.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50552003]Well there is always banning people carrying guns from inside establishments where alcohol is sold. This sort of law in America has been typically common in the past and the precedent for them already exists.[/QUOTE] That law already exists in most places where carrying is legal. The argument being made is that the law outright bans firearms in places that serve alcohol, but if I am a DD or someone not consuming alcohol, what difference does it make if I carry?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50551896]And how would legal authorities enforce this exactly? It all seems rather convoluted. In fact it seems rather bizarre as if you didn't intend on drinking at a bar then this would only affect a very small slice of people since people typically go to bars to drink alcohol.[/QUOTE] How is it enforced now? The entire point of concealed carry is that nobody else knows. Being able to carry into a bar is just like being able to carry onto school campuses. It does not inconvenience law abiding citizens, and does not punish them unduly for being absentminded. Unless you want everyone strip searched before going into a bar, I don't see how you can reasonably enforce any law about carrying into locations. Once someone goes in illegally, the potential damage is already too late to stop.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50552003]Well there is always banning people carrying guns from inside establishments where alcohol is sold. This sort of law in America has been typically common in the past and the precedent for them already exists.[/QUOTE] In effect, that's the same thing as making it illegal to drink while in possession of a gun. The authorities will only know if the gun comes out in either case (unless you want mental detectors at every bar entrance). I doubt a person who's willing to break the law about drinking while in possession of a gun would be willing to follow the law that says to not bring a gun into a bar.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50552036]That law already exists in most places where carrying is legal. The argument being made is that the law outright bans firearms in places that serve alcohol, but if I am a DD or someone not consuming alcohol, what difference does it make if I carry?[/QUOTE] It makes a considerable difference since differing between people in those establishments carrying guns or not would put strain on the ability to the legal authorities to enforce such a law and would waste their time and resources. They would eventually give up and simply only act on it after a shooting had happened. The cost-benefit is such that it makes much more sense to simply enforce a law which prevents people from taking guns inside of such places rather than to allow them to carry it in. In turn this sets a bad precedent.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50552061]It makes a considerable difference since differing between people in those establishments carrying guns or not would put strain on the ability to the legal authorities to enforce such a law and would waste their time and resources. They would eventually give up and simply only act on it after a shooting had happened. The cost-benefit is such that it makes much more sense to simply enforce a law which prevents people from taking guns inside of such places rather than to allow them to carry it in. In turn this sets a bad precedent.[/QUOTE] You seem to be working under the assumption that people will follow the law about not bringing guns into bars, but that they will not follow the law about not drinking while carrying a gun. What is that assumption based on?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50552061]It makes a considerable difference since differing between people in those establishments carrying guns or not would put strain on the ability to the legal authorities to enforce such a law and would waste their time and resources. They would eventually give up and simply only act on it after a shooting had happened. The cost-benefit is such that it makes much more sense to simply enforce a law which prevents people from taking guns inside of such places rather than to allow them to carry it in. In turn this sets a bad precedent.[/QUOTE] I don't understand how law enforcement is actively involved in this law? This isn't something where the police are going to have an officer in every establishment searching patrons for concealed weaponry. It's going to be something where if you get caught, this violation will be added on and you will likely lose your right to carry in the future.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50552064]You seem to be working under the assumption that people will follow the law about not bringing guns into bars, but that they will not follow the law about not drinking while carrying a gun. What is that assumption based on?[/QUOTE] That people grossly underestimate alcohol and the effect it has on their bodies and minds.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50552074]That people grossly underestimate alcohol and the effect it has on their bodies and minds.[/QUOTE] How is that relevant to not being allowed to drink at all?

[QUOTE=sgman91;50552100]How is that relevant to not being allowed to drink at all?[/QUOTE] Mainly in that people in a pub very often have a drink under the assumption that nothing bad results from it. If you have even one drink then you shouldn't be handling guns at all. Such a law itself seems really bizarre too if it allows gun owners to go into bars. This means it affects a tiny number of people, in a small number of places, in a limited number of places. May I ask the purpose of such a law and what actual benefit it will bring about?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50552128]Mainly in that people in a pub very often have a drink under the assumption that nothing bad results from it.[/QUOTE] The exact same statement could be made from the other side: Mainly in that people in a pub very often bring their gun under the assumption that nothing bad results from it. Remember that we're talking about the extremely small portion of people with a concealed carry licence who are drinking in bars or pubs.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50552175]The exact same statement could be made from the other side: Mainly in that people in a pub very often bring their gun under the assumption that nothing bad results from it. Remember that we're talking about the extremely small portion of people with a concealed carry licence who are drinking in bars or pubs.[/QUOTE] I don't see how this justifies bringing a gun into a bar. If you're likely to be drinking then you shouldn't be handling a gun. There's not really any problems caused by not bringing a gun in.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50552194]I don't see how this justifies bringing a gun into a bar. If you're likely to be drinking then you shouldn't be handling a gun. There's not really any problems caused by not bringing a gun in.[/QUOTE] Again with equating drinking and going to a bar... Let's go through the different scenarios. We have: 1) People who will follow both laws. In this case, I would argue that it's better to let people bring their gun. They are able to use it in self-defense in the same way that they would use it outside of a bar. 2) People who will break both laws. In this case, it doesn't matter. The result is the same for both. No one can stop them until they bring the gun out. 3) People who will follow one law, but not the other. Unless you have good reason (aka. more than a personal hunch) to believe that people who are likely to follow the law about not bringing a gun into a bar are not just as likely to follow the law about not drinking, then we are at an impasse. As a final note: I'm always for the law that increases freedom if there isn't clear evidence that taking away that freedom is very much justified. For example, taking away the freedom to drink and drive has very good justification.

Unsurprising, NRA isn't too keen on mixing firearms and alcohol, for good reason.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50552208]Again with equating drinking and going to a bar... Let's go through the different scenarios. We have: 1) People who will follow both laws. In this case, I would argue that it's better to let people bring their gun. They are able to use it in self-defense in the same way that they would use it outside of a bar. 2) People who will break both laws. In this case, it doesn't matter. The result is the same for both. No one can stop them until they bring the gun out. 3) People who will follow one law, but not the other. Unless you have good reason (aka. more than a personal hunch) to believe that people who are likely to follow the law about not bringing a gun into a bar are not just as likely to follow the law about not drinking, then we are at an impasse. As a final note: I'm always for the law that increases freedom if there isn't clear evidence that taking away that freedom is very much justified. For example, taking away the freedom to drink and drive has very good justification.[/QUOTE] The sole purpose a bar exists is that it sells alcohol to patrons. I don't know how difficult this is to understand because it seems like a tiny loss of a minor freedom. All that's changed is that you can't take guns into places that sell alcohol.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50552240]The sole purpose a bar exists is that it sells alcohol to patrons. I don't know how difficult this is to understand because it seems like a tiny loss of a minor freedom. All that's changed is that you can't take guns into places that sell alcohol.[/QUOTE] Is the idea of a designated driver foreign to you? At least where I live, it's a pretty common thing. Even the tiniest taking of freedom should have to be justified. In my opinion, the burden of proof is always on the person trying to argue for less freedom.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50552243]Is the idea of a designated driver foreign to you? At least where I live, it's a pretty common thing. Even the tiniest taking of freedom should have to be justified. In my opinion, the burden of proof is always on the person trying to argue for less freedom.[/QUOTE] It's justified by the fact that as a place where alcohol is served, there are likely to people drinking alcohol and by extension having their cognitive functions impaired. This means that the benefit of the freedom of having a gun there is offset by the potential damage caused by the presence of a gun.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50552273]It's justified by the fact that as a place where alcohol is served, there are likely to people drinking alcohol and by extension having their cognitive functions impaired. This means that the benefit of the freedom of having a gun there is offset by the potential damage caused by the presence of a gun.[/QUOTE] Again, you're equating drinking with being at a bar. Whether there are people who are likely to drink doesn't mean that people with a concealed carry license are also likely to drink. Unless you have evidence for that claim, then it's really not useful to the discussion because it doesn't seem like an obvious fact to me.

I go to bars all the time and don't drink, I really don't see why the existing "if you're intoxicated with a gun it's a crime" law needs an additional padding that prevents me, the sober guy, from being armed at all. Alcohol doesn't even enter the equation with me, I'm simply not drinking when I'm in bars.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50552273]It's justified by the fact that as a place where alcohol is served, there are likely to people drinking alcohol and by extension having their cognitive functions impaired. This means that the benefit of the freedom of having a gun there is offset by the potential damage caused by the presence of a gun.[/QUOTE] So we should also ban cars for people going to the bar as well, especially since significantly more people die each year from drunk drivers than gun fights in bars. Everyone going to the bar has to take a cab or get dropped off, and pass through a metal detector to make sure they don't have their keys on them.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50552240]The sole purpose a bar exists is that it sells alcohol to patrons. I don't know how difficult this is to understand because it seems like a tiny loss of a minor freedom. All that's changed is that you can't take guns into places that sell alcohol.[/QUOTE] I go to a local bar once in a while because they have amazing food at good prices. I never drink there because their booze is overpriced, and their bartenders cut everything. This is far from uncommon behavior. You really are just grasping at straws here.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50553392]I go to a local bar once in a while because they have amazing food at good prices. I never drink there because their booze is overpriced, and their bartenders cut everything. This is far from uncommon behavior. You really are just grasping at straws here.[/QUOTE] Some bars and pubs in England don't serve food at all. My buddy was surprised to learn this when he went there, because every bar serves food as well here. To assume that bars are only for drinking as an Englishman is reasonable, but people from North America know that bars sometimes have some good eats too, because here they have to serve food as well.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;50555063]Some bars and pubs in England don't serve food at all. My buddy was surprised to learn this when he went there, because every bar serves food as well here. To assume that bars are only for drinking as an Englishman is reasonable, but people from North America know that bars sometimes have some good eats too, because here they have to serve food as well.[/QUOTE] It's almost like people not living here have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at hand because their world experience is different and therefore not applicable. *gasp* I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

I'm going to quote GTAV's radio on this: "It's a proven fact. Where there are more guns there are less shootings."

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;50555099]It's almost like people not living here have a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at hand because their world experience is different and therefore not applicable. *gasp* I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.[/QUOTE] not totally unrelated: sometimes you can get pretty good input from an outside perspective especially on very culturally loaded questions.

[QUOTE=ThePanther;50555132]I'm going to quote GTAV's radio on this: "It's a proven fact. Where there are more guns there are less shootings."[/QUOTE] That game has some of the best satire around

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50555481]That game has some of the best satire around[/QUOTE] Except that I am 99% that is actually a true statement.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;50555845]Except that I am 99% that is actually a true statement.[/QUOTE] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgDD0hzqugM[/media]