Concealed weapons in bars: SC leads the way!

Great Debates
1

Rep. Edie Rodgers (R - Beaufort) is introducing legislation that would allow people to carry concealed weapons into bars. Currently in SC, concealed weapons are not permitted in or on the property of restaurants or other facilities that serve alcohol. Rodgers thinks that this is opening up all the bar patrons to criminals who know that they won’t be carrying weapons. (No actual incidents were cited in the article I read) She wants people who aren’t “under the influence” to be able to bring their guns into places that serve alcohol. She acknowledges that it will be difficult to monitor who is or isn’t under the influence and hasn’t specified exact limits.

My question is…how does this better the state we live in? Is this really going to improve people’s quality of life or safety? I can just see the gunfights happening…we already have plenty of incidents in our local area where fights break out in bars because someone looked at someone else funny.

Do all of you pro-gun, absolutely no-gun-laws, card-carrying NRA members REALLY think this is necessary?

2

[sarcasm]Oh, yeah, this is a great idea. [/sarcasm]

I would guess that it might stem from some (relatively) recent nightclub shootings, including here in Columbia. However, all the ones I have heard of took place outside the clubs, and said clubs are invariably closed down afterward.

C3, maybe we should get out of this state while the getting is good!

Of course, if I go back to my original home state of Kentucky, I will have to contend with concealed weapons in churches.

3

I’m betting that even the NRA wouldn’t support the passing of this piece of legislation. Guns and alcohol, now there’s a good combination!

4

Why not? We have a Federal bureau with “alcohol” and “firearms” in its name already…

5

Have any of you considered justifying why we take away this right from people?

This sounds exactly like what every against concealed carry laws said. In spite of what you “think” you “feel” might happen, sober law abiding people lower the violent crime rate. Gun fights have not broken out.

Yet you ignore the facts and focus on rhetoric.

Since it would have been all over the news if these guys were legally carrying concealed weapons and then shot someone, I am going to assume they were criminals.

So your logic extends to…

Let’s make sure law abiding people are unarmed around areas you think are dangerous.

hhmmmm…

Nice logic again.

How much effort are you going to spend contending with concealed weapons in church? If they are concealed, you won’t even know about them.

BTW…Those contentious concealed weapons would have been mighty handy when that pyscho walked in and started shooting the place up. Considering he reloaded several times, I think it is reasonable to assume an armed citizen would have saved lives.

It would be nice if we could focus on facts instead of rhetoric. The fact of the matter is, guns save lives.

6

“In spite of what you “think” you “feel” might happen, sober law abiding people lower the violent crime rate.”

I don’t believe this point was ever debated. Since, however, sober people tend to be few and far between at places like, well, bars, I really don’t see your point.

“Yet you ignore the facts and focus on rhetoric.”

If by “you” you mean “I”, then I agree completely.

"Since it would have been all over the news if these guys were legally carrying concealed weapons and then shot someone, I am going to assume they were criminals. "

Would you care to justify that assumption? I don’t mean the one about criminals, just in case thats what you were thinking.

“Let’s make sure law abiding people are unarmed around areas you think are dangerous.”

And once again it seems that “not carrying a concealed fire arm” has become “unarmed”. Yeah. Right. Would you care to explain how drunk people with guns would make this unsafe area safer? Even if people are out there preying on the innocent, law abiding drinkers, I don’t want those drinkers to have guns. Big ass sticks wouldn’t hurt, but really, you think that a drunk person is, well, rational enough to handle a firearm?

“How much effort are you going to spend contending with concealed weapons in church? If they are concealed, you won’t even know about them.”

And anything you don’t know, can’t hurt you. The problem of course being that you might end up knowing rather suddenly. Which would be a bad thing indeed.

“It would be nice if we could focus on facts instead of rhetoric. The fact of the matter is, guns save lives.”

I love this sentence. It’s really really amusing. “guns save lives” uh huh. Of course they save lives, it’s not like they’re designed to kill people or anything. Whats that? you say that they are? hm, well, if good people carry concealed handguns, then they’ll be protected from people who are…well…carrying handguns as well. Loving the logic here Freedom. Care to strip some of the rhetoric from your post and clearly and logically tell us why
concealed handguns+Booze=good thing?

7

Haha. That’s a good one. I’m starting to think the NRA would even support legalized hunting of Democrats for sport. (“I just nailed a 6 point Clintonite, Billy Ray! If he wasn’t a bleeding heart before, he sure is now!”)

I am the user formerly known as puffington.

8

Your post is a perfect example of twisting words and using rhetoric. Maybe if you keep repeating that drunk people shouldn’t have guns then the issue will change. At least someone skimming through might misunderstand the point being debated. That is the point of rhetoric isn’t it? To mislead people who do not yet have a position on the issue. The truth just doesn’t matter when you have an agenda to push.

You are the only one talking about drunks with guns. You create a straw man arguement that is easy to knock down and avoid the real issue because the facts are not on your side.

Here are a few choice quotes:

And here is your interpretation:

Pure rhetoric. You are debating yourself. From everything we know from the OP to everything that has been said in this thread, no one wants to have people drinking while they carry concealed.

What is being supported here is the right for people who are already allowed to carry concealed weapons to be able to carry them into restaraunts.

I will look for the actual story, but do you know about the Texas Congresswoman who had her family killed in front of her? She followed a law exactly like this one. Before coming in to eat with her family at a public restaraunt she removed her concealed pistol and left it in the car. While they were eating some nut case came in a shot the place up, killing her family. Had she been allowed to bring her pistol in with her lives would have been saved.

Criminals don’t follow stupid little technical rules like this one.

Another straw man arguement. The arguement is whether or not to INTRODUCE handguns into existence,but whether or not to allow law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves against criminals who do not follow laws.

Guns exist. The NRA did not invent them, I did not invent them and you can not un-invent them. They are. So unless you want to preface this kind of statement with a whole proposal on removing all the guns from existence, you are the one missing the point. Criminals will ALWAYS be armed. From about 200 years ago to the end of time criminals will have access to guns. The effort to pretend we could wish guns out of existence is similiar to a toddler trying to shove the toothpaste back into the tube.
So here is the real issue as I see it.

Do you support the right of a sober, no-drinking person who has already been background checked to death and is allowed to carry a concealed pistol by the state to be able to carry it into Bennigans during lunch?

9

This law is already on the books.

It’s called the 2nd amendment.

10

Freedom: I think you’re mixing people up. When you say “you”, who exactly do you mean? I posted the OP. You are mixing quotes from the OP and NuVoDaDa’s replies. Thought I better point this out before I really confuse you.

Two scenarios:
A criminal walks into a bar, pulls out his gun, says “Bartender, empty your till.” Bartender does, criminal runs away, cops are called, maybe the guy’s caught, maybe not.
Scenario two:
A criminal walks into a bar, pulls out his gun, says “Bartender, empty your till.” Sixteen people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons and have had a beer or two whip them out and fire on the criminal. The criminal turns around, randomly shooting in the direction(s) of the other fire. 3 people are killed in the crossfire.

Which do you want to be a part of?

The law that’s being introduced specified restaurants, but also specifies OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS THAT SERVE ALCOHOL (aka, “bars”). Edie Rodgers has said that only people who are under a legal (unspecified) limit would be able to carry the guns, but she’s not particularly sure how that little, tiny part is going to be enforced and doesn’t really seem especially concerned.

So, yes, this gives you the freedom to carry a gun into Bennigan’s for lunch (just in case, you know, someone opens fire on you between the potato skins and the club sandwich). But, it also allows people who are going into an establishment that exists primarily to get people drunk, to bring their trusty firearm. Does this sound like a good mix to you? Forget reading something out of the NRA propaganda book…does this REALLY appeal to your common sense???

11

I think this is a great idea. No better way to enforce natural selection than by letting a bunch of drunk people shoot at each other.

Aside to Freedom:

If you would like the right to go into a bar wherein a fight is about to ensue, and everyone in said bar is carrying a concealed weapon, then I will not attempt to stop you. OK?

SanibelMan - My Homepage
“All right. Have it your own way. Road to hell paved with unbought stuffed dogs. Not my fault.”

12

Also, Freedom, you keep on repeating that one person with a gun will prevent deaths from happening.

Do you remember that at Columbine high school an armed guard was present?

What makes you think that congresswoman from Texas would have been able to stop the killer?

Another example. When I went to college, in the town where I lived (Boise, Idaho), several robbers entered a gun shop, beat the owner about the head with a pistol (because he tried to pull a gun on them), emptied the cash register and left. The owner of the gunshop, understandably irate, ran out with a gun and started shooting at the getaway car. Unfortunately, the robbers had left on foot, and the car he was shooting at was driven by a 70-year-old man who happened to be driving by. No one was injured, but only because the gun shop owner was firing wildly and not aiming too carefully.

That’s why it’s dangerous for every Joe Blow to walk around carrying a concealed weapon.

13

I’m not especially worried about the criminals who have guns. Like you said, they have them, they’ll always have them, no matter what laws we enact. I AM concerned about the other random idiots who have guns. Maybe they’ll at least follow the laws.

14

I’m going to start a collection of people avoiding the issue and intentionally mistating the facts.

I am going to assume that it is intentional, I can’t imagine how anyone could read this thread and think I support a right to drink while you are carrying a weapon.

This covers quite a bit more than bars where I come from.

I forgot that Bennigans had been Ordained by God to be a “safe” zone where he (or any other personal diety you believe in) will divinely protect you.

I must have lost my copy. I support individual freedoms. I support allowing people to make their own decisions. I also support letting them take the responsibility when they screw up.

If someone gets all messed up when carrying their firearm, then throw them in jail. I think that are already laws on the books in most states with CCP about carrying while you are drunk.

The real issue here is that you picture a roadside biker bar with plywood floors and fruniture made out of 2X4s. I picture a regular old restaraunt where anybody might come in and eat. It is rare for me to have a beer during lunch and I don’t even carry a firearm. Why do you assume that they will drink?

If they get drunk, I support them being subjected to any and all the PC brainwashing techniques you can think up.

15

Freedom, armed drunks in bars is not beside the point of this topic-it is PRECISELY the point of this topic! Would you mind, without a bunch of bumper-sticker “logic”, telling us how a group of drunks whipping out their guns in a bar to fend off some real or imaginary threat would make you feel safer?
This time, though, try staying on topic, o.k.?

16

This is the topic right here:

(quoted from the OP)

The debate is about whether sober people who allowed to carry concealed weapons should have to leave them in their car before having lunch in a place that serves alchohol.

The debate is not about people being allowed to drink and carry.

Of course you guys are throwing that all over the place, but there is not one erson here who has supported an armed person drinking.

17

Here you go, read this testimony to understand my point of view.

http://home1.gte.net/bforeman/suzan.htm
In case you doubt the accuracy of the story, maybe you should visit her home page:
http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/dist54/dist54.htm

And here is a little extract from here bio:

18

Here’s how “having the right to carry concealed weapons into bars” helps society. It is fact that people break the law, some people who break the law by carrying illegal guns into bars. Those illegal guns may kill one or more innocent people in bars. Making it legal to carry guns into bars allows innocent people to blow the heads off of drunk murderers. Budee-budee-budee-, That’s All Folks!

R.J.D.