what could go wrong?

[GenuineRisk]

I do not see how combining alcohol and firearms is preferable to not combining them.

[dellinger63]

In Wisconsin we are a land of bars, in fact only two States have more bars per capita and like GA passed a carry conceal law allowing bar owners to determine whether guns are allowed as of Nov. 1, 2011. I'd say less than a 1/3 of the bars I've been to prohibit guns and I am unaware of any bar shootings either justified or not by a carry/conceal licensed person during the past two and a half years.

The problem with guns has very little to do with lawful gun owners and everything to do with illegal owners.

So while we fight for mandatory minimum gun crime sentencing and sensible stop and frisk laws we instead pass laws aimed at legal gun ownership that has nothing to do with the underlying problem.

Kind of like having an oil leak on your car and taking it in for a wash to fix it.

[Clip-Clop]

I own guns, quite a few. I have opted out of getting my CCP because I know that when I go out to dinner/happy hour/brunch etc, I am going to have a drink or four. This way I will not be carrying my gun when UI (whether actually intoxicated or not it doesn't matter here). That said I do think that their are plenty of law abiding citizens that can make that decision. There have been an awful lot of people carrying guns into bars for a long time and doing bad things with them. Perhaps this might discourage that behavior.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

I own guns, quite a few. I have opted out of getting my CCP because I know that when I go out to dinner/happy hour/brunch etc, I am going to have a drink or four. This way I will not be carrying my gun when UI (whether actually intoxicated or not it doesn't matter here). That said I do think that their are plenty of law abiding citizens that can make that decision. There have been an awful lot of people carrying guns into bars for a long time and doing bad things with them. Perhaps this might discourage that behavior.

Alcohol makes smart people do really stupid things. Don't want to be on the receiving end of that nor do I want to be near a gun while UI.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The problem with guns has very little to do with lawful gun owners and everything to do with illegal owners.

So while we fight for mandatory minimum gun crime sentencing and sensible stop and frisk laws we instead pass laws aimed at legal gun ownership that has nothing to do with the underlying problem.

What laws are being passed to limit gun ownership? All I'm seeing are laws doing exactly the opposite. Links, please.

The vast majority of illegal guns used in crimes were originally purchased legally. The reason we have so many illegal guns is because guns are so easy to get. Because we have so many of them. They're cheap and accessible.

Gun sentencing laws don't mean anything. It's easier for felons to (legally) regain right to gun ownership than it is to regain the right to vote. Which says something about which right the government is more afraid of its citizens having. Private gun ownership does nothing to protect one against gov't tyranny. The gov't will win that fight every time. It has bigger guns.

Fact is, you stand a greater chance of dying by homicide if you own a gun than if you don't own a gun. Here's a link to an article weighing the pros and cons of ownership:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_1

And stats don't support the self-defense justification for ownership for the vast majority of people. From the piece:

Overall, the limited data on self-defense gun use suggest that (a) genuine self-defense gun use is rare, (b) there are many ways that people defend themselves without a gun, and (c) many of these other methods may be as effective as self-defense gun use in preventing injury. Perhaps surprisingly, the evidence does not indicate that having a gun reduces the risk of being a victim of a crime or that having a gun reduces the risk of injury during the commission of a crime.

What the data do indicate is that much of the self-defense gun use reported on private surveys is inappropriate and socially undesirable. The possibility of using a gun in a socially useful manner— for example, against a criminal during the commission of a crime—will occur, for the average person, 0 times, or perhaps once in a lifetime. At other times, the use of a gun against another human is socially undesirable. Regular citizens with guns, who are sometimes tired, angry, drunk, or afraid, and who are not trained in dispute resolution, have lots of opportunities for inappropriate gun use. People engage in innumerable annoying and somewhat hostile interactions with each other in the course of a lifetime.

In the rare instance of a real-world shooting situation, confusion, stress, and fear can become overwhelming. Heart rates skyrocket, and it is difficult to think clearly and act deliberately. This creates 2 major problems for civilians with guns, particularly those who are not well trained. The first is that they may act inappropriately. Indeed, police officers, who receive large amounts of training, are still often inadequately prepared to handle ambiguous but potentially dangerous situations, and they often make serious mistakes. Individuals without practical training do much worse.

The second problem is that the pounding heart, muscle tension, trembling, dizziness, and nausea that may accompany a real-world shooting situation will degrade the owner's ability not only to use the gun wisely but to use it effectively. Although adrenaline may enhance animal fighting skills and be useful for either flight or fighting, it creates a severe loss in the fine motor coordination needed for the accurate shooting of a handgun as well as the ability to think rationally, reflectively, or creatively.[97]

Thus, many gun experts believe that a handgun is far from an ideal tool for home self-defense, except for a small minority of especially well-trained individuals who maintain their skills through intensive, regular practice.[97] Currently, few homeowners are sufficiently trained for that tiny chance when they may have to use their handgun to ward off an intruder.

Obviously, I'm not judging any of y'all as gun owners; you all, I imagine, are incredibly careful and responsible with them. I grew up in a conservative area; I have many near and dear people to me who own guns, and the several of them, in my opinion, should not be owning guns. One of them flashed his gun in a dispute over a parking space. He also threatens suicide on a regular basis. His daughter, when she was 21, stuck his gun in her mouth and, by some miracle, had second thoughts and didn't pull the trigger. She still lives with him and he still had a gun. Legally, of course. And he's EXACTLY the sort who would love to go to a bar where he's allowed to bring his gun.

[Pants II]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Private gun ownership does nothing to protect one against gov't tyranny. The gov't will win that fight every time. It has bigger guns.

They will win every time?

Are you certain of this due to the amount of top military brass being replaced plus the ammount of ammo and weapons the government has supplied to its various agencies?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

What laws are being passed to limit gun ownership? All I'm seeing are laws doing exactly the opposite. Links, please..

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...town.html?_r=0

Still can't find a gun shop in Chicago because it's illegal.

Wonder what your response would be if gun-shop was replaced by abortion clinic?

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Gun sentencing laws don't mean anything. .

Had gun sentencing laws for a felon carrying/using a gun been even a year minimum/mandatory at least six kids would not have been shot on a basketball court last year in Chicago. Because the culprit would have been in prison. And that's one instance.

I'll post more tomorrow when I gots me sum time.