Places that serve alcohol are the only places I think law abiding citizens should not be able to carry their legally licensed weapons. Everywhere else? Absolutely.

If they’re law abiding citizens, why do you need to worry about them having their firearms in places that serve alcohol?

We’re fighting this battle in Virginia right now. There are some 33 states that allow concealed carry in places that serve alcohol. In which of those has it ever been a problem?

Either gun owners are trustworthy or we are not. The presence of alcohol does not instantly make one irresponsible. CONSUMING alcohol can cause a person to act in an irresponsible manner, but consuming alcohol while armed requires one to be irresponsible from the get-go. I would submit that lawful concealed firearms carriers have historically demonstrated that they, as a class, most definitely are NOT irresponsible and are, therefore, worthy of this trust.

Besides, I haven’t had a drink in years. Explain to me why I should be precluded from enjoying a steak at Appleby’s or some seafood at Red Lobster while providing for the safety of myself and my family.

Left by Sailorcurt on February 15th, 2008 at 6:22 am

I see your point Curt. It’s been my own personal rule to never carry when I go out drinking. Even though I can’t remember a single time I thought, “if only I had my gun” while I was a bit liquored up…

I’ll have to research how I ever came to this “rule of thumb” about liquor establishments — maybe it’s time to rethink it.

Left by Robbie Cooper on February 15th, 2008 at 9:25 am

I agree with the original post. Here’s my thinking.

The following are basic truths:

1) No-carry/gun-free law penalties are always less than the penalties for robbery, murder, etc. Thus, anyone who believes they can escape punishment for those crimes, would not be deterred by the no-gun law.

2) Someone who loses control/fails to exercise judgment for whatever reason (alcohol, anger, combination of both), can cause more damage with a weapon than without, all else being equal.

3) Areas where there are no-gun laws (whether it’s a campus, city, state, or country) will be more attractive to criminals than those that are not, all else being equal.

If we can all agree on these basic ideas, the basic game is balancing #2 and #3. Try it out.

Criminals - We’ve decided we don’t want criminals to have guns because they’ve demonstrated that they are less likely to be deterred (#1) and because they are also more likely to behave inappropriately (#2).

Schools - We can agree that children (<18) are more susceptible under #2, but why would an adult in a school fall into this category? In fact, #3 seems more relevant here too.

Church - Same as schools, but here you’ve got the additional risk of hate-crimes against certain faiths.

Bars/Alcohol - Here #2 is immediately relevant.

Banks - #3 is immediately relevant; I fail to see how #2 becomes a greater risk though.

The point is, it’s always a balance of risk versus reward. The risks of accident/lapse in judgment in a bar are substantially higher than the risks in a church. On the other hand, in a place like a bank, the presence of armed customers is a substantial deterrent. Same thing with a college campus.

Left by Cael on February 15th, 2008 at 10:58 am

2) Someone who loses control/fails to exercise judgment for whatever reason (alcohol, anger, combination of both), can cause more damage with a weapon than without, all else being equal.

You assumption relies upon “all else being equal” when all else is, in fact, not equal at all.

Your assumption places responsible, law abiding armed people in exactly the same category as irresponsible, non-law abiding armed people. What your assumption fails to consider is that those who are prone to losses of control/failure to exercise judgment are the very people who will ignore the prohibition against guns. The only people who are disarmed by such rules are the former: the responsible, law abiding gun owners who have DEMONSTRABLY been proven not be be prone to such losses of control/lapses in judgment.

Responsible gun owners who follow the laws are NOT the people that you need to worry about here; and an armed responsible gun owner can minimize the damage done if an irresponsible person loses control/fails to exercise judgment.

ANY law prohibiting the lawful carrying of weapons, regardless of venue or locale, disproportionately affects those whom you have no need to fear…and, therefore, have no need to restrict.

The “risk” that you assume to be present in #2 is an emotional assumption that is not supported by facts or data and is, therefore, irrelevant.

Left by Sailorcurt on February 15th, 2008 at 12:05 pm

We need to allow for concealed carry on college campuses. This is getting ridiculous.

Left by MJSamuelson on February 15th, 2008 at 2:41 pm

We need to allow for concealed carry on college campuses. This is getting ridiculous.

You are freakin’ ridiculous

Left by Jacques on February 15th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

You are freakin’ ridiculous

Wow. What a convincing argument.

Or, perhaps, what you mean is that you DON’T find the slaughter of defenseless college students to be ridiculous?

Left by Sailorcurt on February 19th, 2008 at 7:20 am