Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Guns in Bars and Nightclubs Options · View
SIL50
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:17:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/3/2009
Posts: 62
Location: Alabama
Saw a reference to this on a news showgoogled it and this was one of the shorter articles
Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.

With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?

The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence.

The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish.

There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired.


That being said I would like to point out that most of us that own firearms do take every opportunity to practice as often as we can. However ther is no way to simulate facing an active shooter and the many physicological changes that automatically occur in your body. First you get a massive dump of adrealine, breathing annd heart rate increses. Now you have a rush of nervous energy causing your range steady grip to become shakey, your vision goes tunnel and don't forget now people are running everywhere but you still have to make that center mass shot. Hell forget the double tap, it ain't happening. Oh and don't forget most modern handguns will over penertrate without speciality ammo(and wait till that shows up in court). Oh did I forget to mention to avoid massive casualities you have .05sec to react.

Still carrying to protect yourself is fine don't get me wrong, but you norI wouold have been effective against a person like the Safeway shooter
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:29:45 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:

I find the real issue to be not about whether the 15 year old was supervising, but why anyone would put an Uzi into the hands of a child? If you do not see the idiocy of this concept, then I am concerned for you. And according to the article, it's quite legal to allow children to fire an Uzi at a gun show in most states.

I know this is a side-topic from the original guns in nightclubs argument, but you continue making the point that you, as a gun carrier, are a responsible person. I might not be afraid of you (in particular) carrying a gun into a bar (although that point is rather debatable in my own mind), but that doesn't mean that every gun-toting human being is like you. You would think at a gun show, there would be hundreds of gun owners around that are supposedly concerned with safety... and yet nobody stopped a teenager from handing over a machine gun to an 8 year old? Obviously people are flawed in their logic. Because of that, a kid is dead. Someone in a nightclub with similar logic makes an error, and other innocent people pay the consequences. What banning guns from bars seeks to do is LIMIT those consequences.

What I still don't understand is... why do you feel the need to carry a gun into a bar, if you, yourself openly claim that you never frequent "violent venues" anyway?


And that was my point as well. The 15-year-old was clearly not mature enough to realize what he/she was doing was a mistake. And since I really doubt that the 15-year-old was in charge of the entire exhibit, then whatever adult WAS in charge should have been held liable. To be honest, I also hold blame with the child's parents. They should have been aware of the dangers and should have taken steps to keep their child safe instead of wailing and moaning after the fact. I've taught my daughter how to shoot, but before I ever allowed her to hold so much as a pellet gun I made her memorize the safety rules, and she only shoots under MY direct supervision. I'm not going to pass her off to some stranger and trust that they know right from wrong.

Now... I've never said that I "never frequent 'violent venues' " as you claim. What I said was completely different, and I'd appreciate you not misquoting me. That's a DamonX tactic, and it's despicable.

As to why I feel "the need" to carry a gun into a bar, I don't. I never have carried a gun into a bar, because it's against the law here. What I object to is the government making that decision for me, and for the bar owner. I believe the bar owner should be the final arbiter of what goes on in his bar, (among consenting adults, anyway) and if he chooses to allow legally-carried firearms, it should end right there.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:33:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
sprite wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
That's just wrong. Whoever it was that assigned the 15-year-old to supervise the live machine gun shoot should have been found guilty of criminal negligence at the very least. Of course, I wasn't there, And I don't know all the facts. And that's why we have courts -- to decide hotly contested issues such as this. I guarantee you that they won't be able to find another insurance carrier to cover them for this kind of thing in the future.


yeah, and that's going to bring that kid back to life, right? oh, wait, he'll still be dead. nevermind.


Are you blaming me for this tragic accident? Are you going to penalize every other gun owner because a couple adults collectively lost their good sense? How about this, love? How about the next time some drunk driver kills someone, we line every driver up and take all their licenses away? Would that bring the drunk driver's victim back to life?

It was a tragic accident, caused by people that should have known better failing in their duty to keep that child safe. Not the gun's fault, and not my fault either, much as you feel like you want someone to blame.

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:34:45 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,234
Location: West Coast
SIL50 wrote:
Saw a reference to this on a news showgoogled it and this was one of the shorter articles
Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets

by Chuck Baldwin

The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.


And... here are some stats to refute your stats. As such, stats like these are rather poor points of evidence. Especially when we're talking about a suburb in Georgia with a small population.

Stats wrote:


Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig explain, "The case of Kennesaw, Georgia, which adopted an ordinance in 1982 requiring every household to keep a gun, has been prominent. There have been several published analyses of the burglary trends in Kennesaw around the time of the ordinance, with contradictory results. In any event, this is not a good test of the deterrence hypothesis, since the ordinance was purely symbolic. Most homes in Kennesaw already had a gun before the ordinance, and it seems unlikely the ordinance had any effect on prevalence since there was no penalty specified in the law for refusal to comply." ("Guns and Burglary", Evaluating Gun Policy, pages 81-82)

The gun ownership rate of Kennesaw could have actually decreased because there has been a big increase in the population of Kennesaw since 1982, and it's not certain how many of the new residents abide by the ordinance. Nationwide the gun ownership rate has decreased according to the General Social Survey. So if Kennesaw has followed nationwide trends the gun ownership rate in Kennesaw would have also declined.



Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:44:09 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,234
Location: West Coast
MrNudiePants wrote:

And that was my point as well. The 15-year-old was clearly not mature enough to realize what he/she was doing was a mistake. And since I really doubt that the 15-year-old was in charge of the entire exhibit, then whatever adult WAS in charge should have been held liable. To be honest, I also hold blame with the child's parents. They should have been aware of the dangers and should have taken steps to keep their child safe instead of wailing and moaning after the fact. I've taught my daughter how to shoot, but before I ever allowed her to hold so much as a pellet gun I made her memorize the safety rules, and she only shoots under MY direct supervision. I'm not going to pass her off to some stranger and trust that they know right from wrong.


Again... my question remains... why do you (on behalf of gun owners everywhere) feel the need to teach a small child how to shoot a machine gun (or any gun), regardless of who is 'supervising' them?

We are talking about an 8 year old here.

Please provide the intellectual rationale for this.


Magical_felix
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:46:28 PM

Rank: Wild at Heart

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,870
Location: California
MrNudiePants wrote:
Magical_felix wrote:
Saying a cop isn't too familiar with his gun is like saying a carpenter barely knows how to use a hammer...

Where's a cop when you need one? Any cops out there that can shed some light on this? Any cops out there feel that five rednecks could take out five cops in a firefight. Well just pretend that firing your gun straight at a paper target is all you need to be able to effectively control a situation. We'll forget about tactics and physical fitness for now... Those probably aren't as important. I'm sure those five disorganized but very accurate rednecks will totally come out on top. I mean have you seen how fast some of those rednecks can draw a gun? Just like the man with no name... And we all know how untouchable he was.


If you knew a carpenter that only gets his hammer out once a year, and then to hammer only a few dozen nails, how effective do you think he would be compared to the carpenter that uses his hammer every week? Or every month?

As for your "five rednecks" argument... that's just plain racist and asinine.


How is that racist? You're the one assuming all rednecks are of the same race. I guess the hammer comparison was kind of stupid... But your thinking that groups of people into the same thing are all of the same race is racist and far more stupid. Lots of people are proud to be rednecks too by the way.

And cops may go years without shooting their guns in the line of duty but they do pull them out often. Weird they can't shoot them as well as the average redneck gun nut. Strange phenomenon. How many times do gun nuts point their guns at people? Maybe there's more to protecting others with a gun than thinking you're a cowboy.



DamonX
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:47:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795


Wow, this is becoming exhausting. Once again Mr Nudie pantaloons is painting himself into a corner.


Quote:
Well, if he was carrying his axe concealed, as I carry my firearm, then I wouldn't say anything because I'd never know it was there, would I? Regrettably, this topic isn't about axes in nightclubs, so what you hope to gain by introducing this bit if nonsensical bullshit is anybody's guess.


Because no sane person would ever allow someone to walk into a nightclub with an axe. And since guns can kill more people much easier than axes, it would seem odd that aynone would approve of of guns being carried into clubs. Whether or not, it was concealed. And newsflash...nightclubs check people before they go in. Perhaps you should tone down the cruising for teenagers on the internet and actually get out in the real world so you can see where the rest of us are coming from?

Quote:
If you make the deliberate choice to go to a venue where violence is likely, don't blame me if there's violence in your life. I can go to such a venue and remain peaceful. If you can't, you may need counseling.


This comment is sooo far off the point, I can't even begin to understand your reasoning. Again you fail to see things from a statistical or un-individualistic point of view. You state things in terms of "me and you". Violence is always likely in clubs. But it is usually limited to punches or shoves. If bottles are available, then they will use bottles. If knives are available, they may use knives. If guns are present, then the prospect of more serious injury is increased. The goal is to minimize the ammount of damage. I'd rather get punched than get shot in the head. I'm guessing you would feel the same.


Quote:
Show me how all those concealed weapon carriers are suddenly transformed into murdering, robbing hooligans.


Ugh.... Nobody is saying that. Again (and I know that you are incapable of understanding) but you are seeing things from an individualist point of view.

Here we have an environment in which testosterone driven males are prone to get into physical confrontations. Let's introduce firearms and see how that works out!

And try (I know It's hard) but try to think of things from a practical point of view.

So the bouncer finds a gun on one of the patrons, he's letting into the club.

"oh don't worry!" the guy says. "I'm not going to shoot anyone."

"Do you promise?"

"Yes,"

"Okay then. Go on in."

Failsafe! dontknow

Or maybe they should give different colored wrist bands to the people that are packing, just to keep tabs on them. Or wrist bands that denote a person as "law abiding citizen?"

So put your dick back in your pants, put a shirt on and actually go to a night club and then tell me that you think its a good idea to indroduce guns into that particular equation.

I don't like like you, and that is no secret...but your persistence in this matter is becoming downright embarrassing. I suggest you get a second opinion before posting again. You are becoming the Sarah Palin of Lush.





sprite
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:51:46 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,415
Location: My Tower, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
sprite wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
That's just wrong. Whoever it was that assigned the 15-year-old to supervise the live machine gun shoot should have been found guilty of criminal negligence at the very least. Of course, I wasn't there, And I don't know all the facts. And that's why we have courts -- to decide hotly contested issues such as this. I guarantee you that they won't be able to find another insurance carrier to cover them for this kind of thing in the future.


yeah, and that's going to bring that kid back to life, right? oh, wait, he'll still be dead. nevermind.


Are you blaming me for this tragic accident? Are you going to penalize every other gun owner because a couple adults collectively lost their good sense? How about this, love? How about the next time some drunk driver kills someone, we line every driver up and take all their licenses away? Would that bring the drunk driver's victim back to life?

It was a tragic accident, caused by people that should have known better failing in their duty to keep that child safe. Not the gun's fault, and not my fault either, much as you feel like you want someone to blame.


wow, talk about mis-quoting - i'm not blaming you for anything, i'm just pointing out that the important thing here is someone is dead because someone wasn't responsible AND because our gun laws are ridiculous. WHY anyone needs to own an Uzi, is beyond me - for hunting deer? for self defense? seriously, explain to me why anyone besides a member of the armed services needs an automatic or semi automatic gun? i'm curious to hear the rational. really, would we let a child drive a car on the freeway? nope. not even with supervision, but somehow it's ok for him to be shooting an Uzi?

and tell you what, how about the next time a drunk driver kills someone we put him in jail and never let him drive again. you're just being reactively silly again. btw, if it was up to me, we'd have breathalyzers installled in cars so you can't start them without testing legally sober, something that has been experiemented with - that said, that's another topic :)

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:51:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:

And that was my point as well. The 15-year-old was clearly not mature enough to realize what he/she was doing was a mistake. And since I really doubt that the 15-year-old was in charge of the entire exhibit, then whatever adult WAS in charge should have been held liable. To be honest, I also hold blame with the child's parents. They should have been aware of the dangers and should have taken steps to keep their child safe instead of wailing and moaning after the fact. I've taught my daughter how to shoot, but before I ever allowed her to hold so much as a pellet gun I made her memorize the safety rules, and she only shoots under MY direct supervision. I'm not going to pass her off to some stranger and trust that they know right from wrong.


Again... my question remains... why do you (on behalf of gun owners everywhere) feel the need to teach a small child how to shoot a machine gun (or any gun), regardless of who is 'supervising' them?

We are talking about an 8 year old here.

Please provide the intellectual rationale for this.


I can't. I'm not that child's parents, so I have no idea what was going on in their minds when they made that decision. Are you assuming I speak for all gun owners everywhere?

SIL50
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:54:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/3/2009
Posts: 62
Location: Alabama
Hey Doll just posted that for discussion. Like I said heard it on a news show and looked it up. Never even said I believed it. Now to the case of the child killed with the Uzi. What sensible would allow their child to fire a Class III weapon in the first place? What sensible ClassIII owner would allow a 15 year old to supervise firing one. There were alot of bad decisions made that day, unfortunately it cost this young child his life. It was an unfortunate and preventable loss of life, and with that being said irresponsible people inhabit all walks of society.

Oh and for the record and I'm sure this will piss off some. I know we cannot put a $ value on the childs life although the courts will. But the Uzi currently is approx$20K (US) plus $300 per year license fee just to own it. You just don't walk into Billy Bob's guns and buy one
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:55:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:


Wow, this is becoming exhausting...




Well, you're right about one thing. Since you admit that I'm right, and that a lawful, sober person is going to remain a lawful sober person no matter what venue they choose to be in, I'm done wrestling with this particular pig.

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:00:45 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,234
Location: West Coast
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:

And that was my point as well. The 15-year-old was clearly not mature enough to realize what he/she was doing was a mistake. And since I really doubt that the 15-year-old was in charge of the entire exhibit, then whatever adult WAS in charge should have been held liable. To be honest, I also hold blame with the child's parents. They should have been aware of the dangers and should have taken steps to keep their child safe instead of wailing and moaning after the fact. I've taught my daughter how to shoot, but before I ever allowed her to hold so much as a pellet gun I made her memorize the safety rules, and she only shoots under MY direct supervision. I'm not going to pass her off to some stranger and trust that they know right from wrong.


Again... my question remains... why do you (on behalf of gun owners everywhere) feel the need to teach a small child how to shoot a machine gun (or any gun), regardless of who is 'supervising' them?

We are talking about an 8 year old here.

Please provide the intellectual rationale for this.


I can't. I'm not that child's parents, so I have no idea what was going on in their minds when they made that decision. Are you assuming I speak for all gun owners everywhere?


You just said that you have taught your daughter how to shoot a gun etc so I presume that you are a gun owner you doesn't have any issue with teaching kids how to shoot guns. So in that respect, I figured you could enlighten us.

As well, with the article, you said your main issue was that the parents handed the child over to a stranger to shoot the Uzi, not in fact that it was ridiculous to ever let a child shoot an Uzi in the first place.




MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:00:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
sprite wrote:


wow, talk about mis-quoting - i'm not blaming you for anything, i'm just pointing out that the important thing here is someone is dead because someone wasn't responsible AND because our gun laws are ridiculous. WHY anyone needs to own an Uzi, is beyond me - for hunting deer? for self defense? seriously, explain to me why anyone besides a member of the armed services needs an automatic or semi automatic gun? i'm curious to hear the rational. really, would we let a child drive a car on the freeway? nope. not even with supervision, but somehow it's ok for him to be shooting an Uzi?

and tell you what, how about the next time a drunk driver kills someone we put him in jail and never let him drive again. you're just being reactively silly again. btw, if it was up to me, we'd have breathalyzers installled in cars so you can't start them without testing legally sober, something that has been experiemented with - that said, that's another topic :)


No, I'm not mis-quoting you. But you want to penalize all gun owners for the actions of an irresponsible few, and that's just like penalizing all drivers for the actions of a few who choose to drive drunk. Why does anyone "need" to own an Uzi? I dunno - why does anyone "need" to own a car that will drive faster than the posted speed limit? That's 65 in some places, 70 in others, yet we have cars that will do well over a hundred. My car will do a hundred-forty. If you can explain to me why we don't restrict all cars to 65, then Ill do my best to explain to you why someone would choose to own an Uzi.

DamonX
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:01:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:


Wow, this is becoming exhausting...




Well, you're right about one thing. Since you admit that I'm right, and that a lawful, sober person is going to remain a lawful sober person no matter what venue they choose to be in, I'm done wrestling with this particular pig.


Are you fucking kidding me? Or are you just pullling one of your nudie-style, ignorant fight to the death arguments?

And how is an authority supposed to know which patron of their particular establishment is a "lawful person"?

I'm beginning to think that my "Why are republicans so dumb thread" actually has something to it.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:01:49 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:

And that was my point as well. The 15-year-old was clearly not mature enough to realize what he/she was doing was a mistake. And since I really doubt that the 15-year-old was in charge of the entire exhibit, then whatever adult WAS in charge should have been held liable. To be honest, I also hold blame with the child's parents. They should have been aware of the dangers and should have taken steps to keep their child safe instead of wailing and moaning after the fact. I've taught my daughter how to shoot, but before I ever allowed her to hold so much as a pellet gun I made her memorize the safety rules, and she only shoots under MY direct supervision. I'm not going to pass her off to some stranger and trust that they know right from wrong.


Again... my question remains... why do you (on behalf of gun owners everywhere) feel the need to teach a small child how to shoot a machine gun (or any gun), regardless of who is 'supervising' them?

We are talking about an 8 year old here.

Please provide the intellectual rationale for this.


I can't. I'm not that child's parents, so I have no idea what was going on in their minds when they made that decision. Are you assuming I speak for all gun owners everywhere?


You just said that you have taught your daughter how to shoot a gun etc so I presume that you are a gun owner you doesn't have any issue with teaching kids how to shoot guns. So in that respect, I figured you could enlighten us.

As well, with the article, you said your main issue was that the parents handed the child over to a stranger to shoot the Uzi, not in fact that it was ridiculous to ever let a child shoot an Uzi in the first place.



No, I didn't say that. You're mis-quoting me again.

DamonX
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:03:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
SIL50 wrote:
Hey Doll just posted that for discussion. Like I said heard it on a news show and looked it up. Never even said I believed it. Now to the case of the child killed with the Uzi. What sensible would allow their child to fire a Class III weapon in the first place? What sensible ClassIII owner would allow a 15 year old to supervise firing one. There were alot of bad decisions made that day, unfortunately it cost this young child his life. It was an unfortunate and preventable loss of life, and with that being said irresponsible people inhabit all walks of society.

Oh and for the record and I'm sure this will piss off some. I know we cannot put a $ value on the childs life although the courts will. But the Uzi currently is approx$20K (US) plus $300 per year license fee just to own it. You just don't walk into Billy Bob's guns and buy one


Hey SIL... if you are going to continue posting in such a proliferative fashion, I think you should get an avatar. Might I suggest.......



MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:07:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:


Wow, this is becoming exhausting...




Well, you're right about one thing. Since you admit that I'm right, and that a lawful, sober person is going to remain a lawful sober person no matter what venue they choose to be in, I'm done wrestling with this particular pig.


Are you fucking kidding me? Or are you just pullling one of your nudie-style, ignorant fight to the death arguments?

And how is an authority supposed to know which patron of their particular establishment is a "lawful person"?

I'm beginning to think that my "Why are republicans so dumb thread" actually has something to it.


For someone that professes to be such a logical person, you do a lot of assuming. That's not very logical at all. Let's clear something up right now - I'm not a Republican. But you're still an insulting jackass. But I'll play. Back into the pigpen I go. (sigh) People who are legally allowed to carry concealed weapons either have identification to prove it, or they live in a jurisdiction where such proof is not necessary. Either way, I still think it should be up to the bar owner to either allow it, or forbid it - not the government.

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:07:45 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,234
Location: West Coast
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:

And that was my point as well. The 15-year-old was clearly not mature enough to realize what he/she was doing was a mistake. And since I really doubt that the 15-year-old was in charge of the entire exhibit, then whatever adult WAS in charge should have been held liable. To be honest, I also hold blame with the child's parents. They should have been aware of the dangers and should have taken steps to keep their child safe instead of wailing and moaning after the fact. I've taught my daughter how to shoot, but before I ever allowed her to hold so much as a pellet gun I made her memorize the safety rules, and she only shoots under MY direct supervision. I'm not going to pass her off to some stranger and trust that they know right from wrong.


Again... my question remains... why do you (on behalf of gun owners everywhere) feel the need to teach a small child how to shoot a machine gun (or any gun), regardless of who is 'supervising' them?

We are talking about an 8 year old here.

Please provide the intellectual rationale for this.


I can't. I'm not that child's parents, so I have no idea what was going on in their minds when they made that decision. Are you assuming I speak for all gun owners everywhere?


You just said that you have taught your daughter how to shoot a gun etc so I presume that you are a gun owner you doesn't have any issue with teaching kids how to shoot guns. So in that respect, I figured you could enlighten us.

As well, with the article, you said your main issue was that the parents handed the child over to a stranger to shoot the Uzi, not in fact that it was ridiculous to ever let a child shoot an Uzi in the first place.



No, I didn't say that. You're mis-quoting me again.


OK... here's your direct quote:

MrNudiePants wrote:
I've taught my daughter how to shoot. she only shoots under MY direct supervision. I'm not going to pass her off to some stranger and trust that they know right from wrong.


Better?




sprite
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:10:37 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,415
Location: My Tower, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
sprite wrote:


wow, talk about mis-quoting - i'm not blaming you for anything, i'm just pointing out that the important thing here is someone is dead because someone wasn't responsible AND because our gun laws are ridiculous. WHY anyone needs to own an Uzi, is beyond me - for hunting deer? for self defense? seriously, explain to me why anyone besides a member of the armed services needs an automatic or semi automatic gun? i'm curious to hear the rational. really, would we let a child drive a car on the freeway? nope. not even with supervision, but somehow it's ok for him to be shooting an Uzi?

and tell you what, how about the next time a drunk driver kills someone we put him in jail and never let him drive again. you're just being reactively silly again. btw, if it was up to me, we'd have breathalyzers installled in cars so you can't start them without testing legally sober, something that has been experiemented with - that said, that's another topic :)


No, I'm not mis-quoting you. But you want to penalize all gun owners for the actions of an irresponsible few, and that's just like penalizing all drivers for the actions of a few who choose to drive drunk. Why does anyone "need" to own an Uzi? I dunno - why does anyone "need" to own a car that will drive faster than the posted speed limit? That's 65 in some places, 70 in others, yet we have cars that will do well over a hundred. My car will do a hundred-forty. If you can explain to me why we don't restrict all cars to 65, then Ill do my best to explain to you why someone would choose to own an Uzi.


how am i penalizing gun owners by not allowing them to carry concealed guns inside bars? i didn't say you can't have guns, just keep them out of public places - there's a time and place for everything - guns do NOT belong in clubs/bars! and STOP derailing the debate by talking about drunk drivers - the subject is GUNS in BARS, silly. if you can't argue your point without dragging in stuff that has no place here, better stop arguing. you didn't answer my question - answering a question with another questions isn't polite - let me repeat...

Why does anyone "need" to own an Uzi? and why does anyone need to carry a concealed gun into a bar/club? the onus is in your lap, honey.



http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:12:13 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:

And that was my point as well. The 15-year-old was clearly not mature enough to realize what he/she was doing was a mistake. And since I really doubt that the 15-year-old was in charge of the entire exhibit, then whatever adult WAS in charge should have been held liable. To be honest, I also hold blame with the child's parents. They should have been aware of the dangers and should have taken steps to keep their child safe instead of wailing and moaning after the fact. I've taught my daughter how to shoot, but before I ever allowed her to hold so much as a pellet gun I made her memorize the safety rules, and she only shoots under MY direct supervision. I'm not going to pass her off to some stranger and trust that they know right from wrong.


Again... my question remains... why do you (on behalf of gun owners everywhere) feel the need to teach a small child how to shoot a machine gun (or any gun), regardless of who is 'supervising' them?

We are talking about an 8 year old here.

Please provide the intellectual rationale for this.


I can't. I'm not that child's parents, so I have no idea what was going on in their minds when they made that decision. Are you assuming I speak for all gun owners everywhere?


You just said that you have taught your daughter how to shoot a gun etc so I presume that you are a gun owner you doesn't have any issue with teaching kids how to shoot guns. So in that respect, I figured you could enlighten us.

As well, with the article, you said your main issue was that the parents handed the child over to a stranger to shoot the Uzi, not in fact that it was ridiculous to ever let a child shoot an Uzi in the first place.



No, I didn't say that. You're mis-quoting me again.


OK... here's your direct quote:

MrNudiePants wrote:
I've taught my daughter how to shoot. she only shoots under MY direct supervision. I'm not going to pass her off to some stranger and trust that they know right from wrong.


Better?



When did I say that my "main issue was that the parents handed the child over to a stranger to shoot the Uzi, not in fact that it was ridiculous to ever let a child shoot an Uzi in the first place"?

Never.

What I did say was that I taught my daughter safety rules, made sure she memorized them, and then taught her to shoot, under my direct supervision. I never said I did it when she was 8, either. There's plenty of blame to go around in the case you've brought up. But the gun itself isn't responsible for any of it. Irresponsible adults are.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:17:00 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
sprite wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
sprite wrote:


wow, talk about mis-quoting - i'm not blaming you for anything, i'm just pointing out that the important thing here is someone is dead because someone wasn't responsible AND because our gun laws are ridiculous. WHY anyone needs to own an Uzi, is beyond me - for hunting deer? for self defense? seriously, explain to me why anyone besides a member of the armed services needs an automatic or semi automatic gun? i'm curious to hear the rational. really, would we let a child drive a car on the freeway? nope. not even with supervision, but somehow it's ok for him to be shooting an Uzi?

and tell you what, how about the next time a drunk driver kills someone we put him in jail and never let him drive again. you're just being reactively silly again. btw, if it was up to me, we'd have breathalyzers installled in cars so you can't start them without testing legally sober, something that has been experiemented with - that said, that's another topic :)


No, I'm not mis-quoting you. But you want to penalize all gun owners for the actions of an irresponsible few, and that's just like penalizing all drivers for the actions of a few who choose to drive drunk. Why does anyone "need" to own an Uzi? I dunno - why does anyone "need" to own a car that will drive faster than the posted speed limit? That's 65 in some places, 70 in others, yet we have cars that will do well over a hundred. My car will do a hundred-forty. If you can explain to me why we don't restrict all cars to 65, then Ill do my best to explain to you why someone would choose to own an Uzi.


how am i penalizing gun owners by not allowing them to carry concealed guns inside bars? i didn't say you can't have guns, just keep them out of public places - there's a time and place for everything - guns do NOT belong in clubs/bars! and STOP derailing the debate by talking about drunk drivers - the subject is GUNS in BARS, silly. if you can't argue your point without dragging in stuff that has no place here, better stop arguing. you didn't answer my question - answering a question with another questions isn't polite - let me repeat...

Why does anyone "need" to own an Uzi? and why does anyone need to carry a concealed gun into a bar/club? the onus is in your lap, honey.



The point I was making was that "need" hasn't got anything to do with it. Just like I don't "need" a car that will do 140, but I've got one. I may never "need" to carry a gun, ever. Since I haven't got a working crystal ball, I don't know what's going to happen today, or tomorrow. All I really do know is that I'm a law-abiding adult, and I bear the responsibility of watching after, and keeping safe, a wife, five children, eleven grandchildren, two dogs, and nine puppies. And as a law-abiding adult, there's no compelling reason why I shouldn't be able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere I go.

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:22:35 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,234
Location: West Coast
MrNudiePants wrote:
[

When did I say that my "main issue was that the parents handed the child over to a stranger to shoot the Uzi, not in fact that it was ridiculous to ever let a child shoot an Uzi in the first place"?

Never.

What I did say was that I taught my daughter safety rules, made sure she memorized them, and then taught her to shoot, under my direct supervision. I never said I did it when she was 8, either. There's plenty of blame to go around in the case you've brought up. But the gun itself isn't responsible for any of it. Irresponsible adults are.


Again, outside of this specific case, you have stated that you taught your daughter how to use a firearms... I'm trying to understand the logic of how anyone can justify putting a gun into the hands of a child. At what age do you think kids should be allowed to start shooting?

And again, we aren't just talking about you... although your logic clearly doesn't extend much beyond that. Laws are in place allowing kids to shoot at gun shows. While you may be a responsible gun owner, clearly you agree that this child's parents, and those that were in charge of this gun show were NOT... therefore... those are the gun owners that most people should be worried about (including yourself, actually).

Human beings are prone to error and have flawed judgement. Many of those people are gun owners. Those are the ones I don't want standing next to me at a nightclub with a gun on them.




sprite
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:28:06 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,415
Location: My Tower, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
sprite wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
sprite wrote:


wow, talk about mis-quoting - i'm not blaming you for anything, i'm just pointing out that the important thing here is someone is dead because someone wasn't responsible AND because our gun laws are ridiculous. WHY anyone needs to own an Uzi, is beyond me - for hunting deer? for self defense? seriously, explain to me why anyone besides a member of the armed services needs an automatic or semi automatic gun? i'm curious to hear the rational. really, would we let a child drive a car on the freeway? nope. not even with supervision, but somehow it's ok for him to be shooting an Uzi?

and tell you what, how about the next time a drunk driver kills someone we put him in jail and never let him drive again. you're just being reactively silly again. btw, if it was up to me, we'd have breathalyzers installled in cars so you can't start them without testing legally sober, something that has been experiemented with - that said, that's another topic :)


No, I'm not mis-quoting you. But you want to penalize all gun owners for the actions of an irresponsible few, and that's just like penalizing all drivers for the actions of a few who choose to drive drunk. Why does anyone "need" to own an Uzi? I dunno - why does anyone "need" to own a car that will drive faster than the posted speed limit? That's 65 in some places, 70 in others, yet we have cars that will do well over a hundred. My car will do a hundred-forty. If you can explain to me why we don't restrict all cars to 65, then Ill do my best to explain to you why someone would choose to own an Uzi.


how am i penalizing gun owners by not allowing them to carry concealed guns inside bars? i didn't say you can't have guns, just keep them out of public places - there's a time and place for everything - guns do NOT belong in clubs/bars! and STOP derailing the debate by talking about drunk drivers - the subject is GUNS in BARS, silly. if you can't argue your point without dragging in stuff that has no place here, better stop arguing. you didn't answer my question - answering a question with another questions isn't polite - let me repeat...

Why does anyone "need" to own an Uzi? and why does anyone need to carry a concealed gun into a bar/club? the onus is in your lap, honey.



The point I was making was that "need" hasn't got anything to do with it. Just like I don't "need" a car that will do 140, but I've got one. I may never "need" to carry a gun, ever. Since I haven't got a working crystal ball, I don't know what's going to happen today, or tomorrow. All I really do know is that I'm a law-abiding adult, and I bear the responsibility of watching after, and keeping safe, a wife, five children, eleven grandchildren, two dogs, and nine puppies. And as a law-abiding adult, there's no compelling reason why I shouldn't be able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere I go.


there is a very compelling reason, actually - it's against the law. we can't all have the laws we want - me? i wish drugs were legal. you, you want to carry guns - honestly, i'd rather have drugged out bar patrons then armed ones.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
SIL50
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:28:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 9/3/2009
Posts: 62
Location: Alabama
Those at the ClassIII shoot are exactly the type of firearms owners I worry about. No one shoould have ever allowed children to serve as a RSO or even worse shoot a ClassIII weapon.
Just my opinion
DamonX
Posted: Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:29:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:


Wow, this is becoming exhausting...




Well, you're right about one thing. Since you admit that I'm right, and that a lawful, sober person is going to remain a lawful sober person no matter what venue they choose to be in, I'm done wrestling with this particular pig.


Are you fucking kidding me? Or are you just pullling one of your nudie-style, ignorant fight to the death arguments?

And how is an authority supposed to know which patron of their particular establishment is a "lawful person"?

I'm beginning to think that my "Why are republicans so dumb thread" actually has something to it.


For someone that professes to be such a logical person, you do a lot of assuming. That's not very logical at all. Let's clear something up right now - I'm not a Republican. But you're still an insulting jackass. But I'll play. Back into the pigpen I go. (sigh) People who are legally allowed to carry concealed weapons either have identification to prove it, or they live in a jurisdiction where such proof is not necessary. Either way, I still think it should be up to the bar owner to either allow it, or forbid it - not the government.


I did assume. I'm sorry. Did you vote for Obama? Because aside from your propensity to show your nutsack in public, I can't really see any demoratic ideals in the comments you've posted.

Oh wait! You're an independent! Got it.

And ok. Leave it up to the bar owners. Because no nightclub would ever let a gun in. So are you admitting that it would be a bad idea to allow guns in nightclubs?

So you are pro gun, anti government regulation, anti health care, and anti mosque at ground zero? But not republican.... ok.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, January 16, 2011 4:01:13 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,807
I'd ask what the difference is between giving a drunk man a gun and putting him in the driver's seat of a car with keys in hand, but there is no difference whats so ever.

Guns in places where alcohol(or anything that can intoxicate you) is served should not be allowed.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:07:02 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:


For someone that professes to be such a logical person, you do a lot of assuming. That's not very logical at all. Let's clear something up right now - I'm not a Republican. But you're still an insulting jackass. But I'll play. Back into the pigpen I go. (sigh) People who are legally allowed to carry concealed weapons either have identification to prove it, or they live in a jurisdiction where such proof is not necessary. Either way, I still think it should be up to the bar owner to either allow it, or forbid it - not the government.


I did assume. I'm sorry. Did you vote for Obama? Because aside from your propensity to show your nutsack in public, I can't really see any demoratic ideals in the comments you've posted.

Oh wait! You're an independent! Got it.

And ok. Leave it up to the bar owners. Because no nightclub would ever let a gun in. So are you admitting that it would be a bad idea to allow guns in nightclubs?

So you are pro gun, anti government regulation, anti health care, and anti mosque at ground zero? But not republican.... ok.


So... reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, I get it. Did I say that guns in nightclubs are a "bad idea"? No, I didn't. I said, "...it should be up to the bar owner to either allow it, or forbid it - not the government." I know several bars where the owners don't give a rat's ass about whether permit-holders go armed or not. I don't know any bar owners personally that are wholly anti-gun, but they're out there, I'm sure of it. Either way, the owner or manager know their clientele better than I do, and certainly better than the government does. It should be left up to them. Whatever customers they earn or lose will either be to their benefit or their loss.

As to my party affiliation or who I voted for in the last Presidential election, they really have no place in this thread. Neither does my nutsack, though I can see why you would be jealous of it. Quite a handsome nutsack, isn't it?

MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:09:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
Yuzar wrote:
I'd ask what the difference is between giving a drunk man a gun and putting him in the driver's seat of a car with keys in hand, but there is no difference whats so ever.

Guns in places where alcohol(or anything that can intoxicate you) is served should not be allowed.


I agree with you that alcohol and firearms don't mix, as does any responsible gun owner. Just because I'm in a bar doesn't mean I'm drinking. It's not the venue that counts, it's the person's actions in that venue. And it's a matter of holding that person responsible for his actions, instead of blaming the gun, or the booze, or Nintendo, or Boondock Saints...

MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:11:12 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
sprite wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:

The point I was making was that "need" hasn't got anything to do with it. Just like I don't "need" a car that will do 140, but I've got one. I may never "need" to carry a gun, ever. Since I haven't got a working crystal ball, I don't know what's going to happen today, or tomorrow. All I really do know is that I'm a law-abiding adult, and I bear the responsibility of watching after, and keeping safe, a wife, five children, eleven grandchildren, two dogs, and nine puppies. And as a law-abiding adult, there's no compelling reason why I shouldn't be able to carry a concealed weapon anywhere I go.


there is a very compelling reason, actually - it's against the law. we can't all have the laws we want - me? i wish drugs were legal. you, you want to carry guns - honestly, i'd rather have drugged out bar patrons then armed ones.


Not gonna argue that one. There's a time and a place for everything. I choose to not do drugs, and I choose to not go armed when I've been drinking. Just as I choose to not drink when I'm armed.

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 9:29:27 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,234
Location: West Coast
MrNudiePants wrote:
Yuzar wrote:
I'd ask what the difference is between giving a drunk man a gun and putting him in the driver's seat of a car with keys in hand, but there is no difference whats so ever.

Guns in places where alcohol(or anything that can intoxicate you) is served should not be allowed.


I agree with you that alcohol and firearms don't mix, as does any responsible gun owner. Just because I'm in a bar doesn't mean I'm drinking. It's not the venue that counts, it's the person's actions in that venue. And it's a matter of holding that person responsible for his actions, instead of blaming the gun, or the booze, or Nintendo, or Boondock Saints...


Drinking and driving also don't mix, but we all know that it happens (often).

Drinking impairs judgment. Just because you can walk into a bar with a gun and not start drinking does not mean that everyone has that ability.

It's like saying "well, I would never drink and drive, therefore I expect all other people who hold car keys and go into bars to obey the same course of logic."

A bit naive, but hey... I think we've beaten this one to death. You live in your gun-toting utopia, and we live in the real world. It is what it is...




Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.