I’m uncomfortable with this one

The gun bill has passed the Senate. I’m a big second amendment supporter, but I kind of cringe at the thought of anyone being able to go out to dinner with their Smith & Wesson, get tanked, then start shooting up the place.

I see Senator Douglas’s point about people who have stopped gun violence by using their own gun. I get it — let the restaurant employees keep a gun around. But I don’t know that I want to go out to Cheddars or even McDonalds with a bunch of folks bringing their guns along.

Leave it in your car when you go inside.

Besides, we’re at a stage in this society where there are too many random shootings into homes. It’s happening all the time in Macon now. Heck, it is happening in funeral homes more frequently. I like to think I don’t hang out in places where someone is going to get drunk and shoot up the place, but this bill sure makes it a lot easier for that to happen.

I’m certainly not opposed to owning guns and I have no problem with people carrying them in their cars or what have you. But guns scare me too. And there are far too many people who are far too cavalier about them. It looks to me that, sadly, the Senate is too.

53 comments

  1. heroV says:

    Under this bill does a restaurant owner still have the choice to prohibit guns on his property?

  2. Doug Deal says:

    Why not make it a crime to consume any kind of alcohol while carrying a firearm. Make it a felony, so they can never have access to a gun again.

    Your getting drunk and shooting up the place demonstrates a failing of alchohol, not a failing on gun ownership.

  3. boyreporter says:

    Okay, let’s get right down to it: Gun-lovers are basically scared. They think they need an “equalizer” (shades of Old West myths and movies!) to make them real men. To make them tough, someone to reckon with, since they feel so empty and impotent without “protection.” Pitiful. The proliferation, toleration and yes, LOVE OF, guns in our society is shameful. And as for those who cry out for even more access to them (and they are plentiful)? Perhaps they’re simply overcompensating for the fact that the gun they were born with doesn’t work.

  4. Doug Deal says:

    boy,

    That comment is a perfect demonstration as to why you have zero credibility.

    I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, and have no desire to own or even fire a gun. The fact is that the threat of any homeowner having a gun is the very thing that stops a lot of people from breaking into my home in the dead of night to harm me, my wife, my son or my property.

    Also, guns are known as “the great equalizer” for a reason. With a gun, it does not matter if you are a 120 pound 60 year old woman, you can defend yourself just as well as a 19 year old 250 pound thug. In any other form of defense, there would be no contest.

    Go ahead and post your nonsense, it just makes your side of the argument look weak.

  5. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    Doug, I enjoy your posts on PP they’re always funny and insightful. I own a gun, but don’t have a permit to carry. I see your point here, but I do think the old fashioned fistfight has now become obsolete. People have become too comfortable with settling scores with guns rather than their fists. Erick hit the nail right on the head when he said that there are far too many people who are far too cavalier about them[guns].

  6. SouthFultonGuy says:

    Gun laws only restrict law abiding citizen’s ability to protect themselves.

    Criminals by definition do not obey the law and you already have these thugs carrying guns in all these places folks want to restrict them.

  7. ksuowls81 says:

    Amen Doug I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Boy, that was a horrible pshcological analyst that you gave. I two am an avid support of gun rights, yet have never owned a gun or have any intent to own a gun. I may have shot a gun when I was a young buck.

  8. albert says:

    Good for the legislature. Not all people are stupid, drunks and inept. Perhaps we should ban automobiles because there are accidents. Perhaps we should ban McDonald’s hamburgers because they are high in fat and cholesterol. Perhaps we should ban all fast food and make only bran available.

    The nanny state does not work. People can think for themselves.

  9. Doug Deal says:

    LIMH,

    I agree that there are too many people who are cavalier about guns. I would support any measure that punishes people who misuse guns (like threatening other with them, using them to celebrate holidays and marriages, or having them in their possession while intoxicated). I am against any measure that tries to “prevent” these behaviors by limited the freedoms of law abiding citizens.

    Not that I have much of an opinion about this particular bill, I just react strongly to arguments that try to hold up some extremely rare danger as a means of getting one’s way on some issue.

    According to the US CDC, the number of gun related deaths in 2005 (the last available year) were about 30,000. That sounds like a huge amount, but let’s breaks that down further.

    Only 789 of those were “accidental”
    17,000 of them were suicides (out of 32,000 total suicides)
    a few hundred were legal interventions (police, etc).
    The remainder, 12,000, was homicides.

    That means that only 789 people died from legal but careless operation of a firearm. This is hardly a crisis in a country of 300,000,000 people (0.263 deaths per 100,000 people, Macon will get one every 4 years). Compare that to the reality of things we see no danger in.

    45,000 people died in car accidents, almost everyone was an accident from the careless but generally legal operation of a motor vehicle. No one is clamoring to disarm us of our cars.

    The problem with guns is no because of a cavalier attitude about guns, it is because criminals and people who really want to die have them. When law abiding citizens have them, it evens the playing field for everyone, including 60 year old women with a bad case of lumbago.

    (As an aside, why do I always think of “The Secret Of NIMH” when I respond to one of your posts?)

  10. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    “I agree that there are too many people who are cavalier about guns. I would support any measure that punishes people who misuse guns (like threatening other with them, using them to celebrate holidays and marriages, or having them in their possession while intoxicated).”

    I was whole-heartedly support that too. And you’re car analogy is right on too. We do punish those who are a hazard on the roads. (Use your turn signal people!!!!!) I do wish we had stricter punishments for people who misuse guns though.

    The truth is, I have a hard time arguing this issue because I’m constantly conflicted by both arguments. As fun as they are to shoot, I wish no one had guns, but it’s way too late for that.

    The Secret Of NIMH? I vaguely remember the film, and never read the book 🙁

  11. Erick says:

    The truth is, I have a hard time arguing this issue because I’m constantly conflicted by both arguments.

    Loyalty, I agree. I consider myself 100% in favor of the second amendment as an individual right and, frankly, I think regulation should be left to the states without federal interference.

    But I also think too many people are too cavalier and too many people think of they have much better judgment than they actually do. Our collective voice is exercised through our representatives elected to exercise our collective will in their best judgment. I think it shows a lack of judgment on their part to allow anyone into a restaurant with a firearm, with the possible except of that person being an employee under management approval.

  12. jsm says:

    “The proliferation, toleration and yes, LOVE OF, guns in our society is shameful.”

    Shameful? I LOVE my guns, and if you enter my home uninvited, I will blow a hole in you without hesitation. This is my Constitutional right.

    Scared? Try vigilant and proactive. Police can’t be everywhere all the time.

    I agree with Doug–alcohol and firearms should not mix. I also believe that a restaurant-owner’s restriction of gun possession on his property should trump this law.

  13. SouthFultonGuy says:

    From Neal’s Nuze today :

    PROTECT YOURSELF, GET SUSPENDED

    Man these stories just get my boxers in a bunch. A thug by the name of Kenneth Jimmerson called his local Pizza Hut in Des Moines, Iowa.

    James William Spiers, who has been delivering pizzas for ten years, makes the delivery. When James shows up to make the delivery, Kenneth puts a gun to his head and demands money.

    So think about the different ways this scenario could play out. James could refuse and be shot in the head. James could give the guy the money and run and this thug could get away with armed robbery. James could give the guy the money and get shot anyway. Or James could pull out his own registered handgun, shoot the armed robber three times and get away with his life.

    Thankfully James went with the last option. He had a valid handgun permit and used it at an appropriate time to protect himself when he had a gun pointed at his head. There is some bad news here. The predator survived his injuries. He does, however, face first-degree robbery charges. Perhaps he’ll get a short sentence and when he gets out of jail he’ll pull this stunt again and get killed for good this time.

    So where does this story really turn sour? Pizza Hut has now suspended James William Spiers.

    http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080402/NEWS/804020358/-

    And who knows if he will ever be able to return to work. The vice president of human resources at Pizza Hut says that employees are not allowed to carry guns “because we believe that that is the safest for everybody.” Gawd, what a fool. Tell that to James, whose life was possibly saved because he chose to protect himself. Basically, what this woman at the Pizza Hut headquarters is saying that she would rather have had one of her employees shot (and possibly killed) rather than allow them to protect themselves. What an asinine train of thought.

    http://boortz.com/nuze/200804/04032008.html#pizzahut

  14. StevePerkins says:

    How typical is this? “Sure I believe in civil liberties and privacy, but I still don’t see why we can’t just eavesdrop on every phone in the country without a warrant.” “Sure, I support your right to carry a firearm… but golly jeepers, not around PEOPLE obviously!” What exactly is the point of being armed when you’re alone?

    Also, as an aside… if Erick has to worry about people coming into MCDONALD’S to get drunk, then I’m starting to understand the neanderthal teetotaler attitude that Middle-and-South Georgia folks have toward Sunday sales. You guys should move closer to civilization… I don’t have to worry about drunks ruining my fine dining experience unless I upgrade all the way to Cracker Barrel or something!

  15. boyreporter says:

    You posters just proved my point: fascination with shooting something or someone, though you hide behind “protection” of the home, etc. You just love to shoot. Target shooters would rather shoot at animals; hunters would rather shoot people. You guys get all lathered up about the 2nd Amendment and whip yourselves to ecstacy with fantasies of being Dirty Harry and carrying the day all neat and tidy. If as much imagination and enthusiasm were placed instead toward getting rid of guns (yes, it would take a long time), we’d all be better off. Of course, fantasizers would then spend more time and money with cross-bows and dynamite, I guess, ’cause heck, a guy’s gotta kill sompin’!! Eff the 2nd Amendment (legally, of course, as in repeal).

  16. StevePerkins says:

    boyreporter… both sides on this issue (or any other) can engage strawmen rather than each other, but they would be wasting time and energy by doing so. I’m one of the most pro-2nd people posting here… yet I’ve never been hunting in my life (no desire), and I only make it to the practice range about once every 2 or 3 months. I do enjoy shooting guns, in the same way that I enjoy occasionally shooting some basketball… but I don’t wake up every morning jumping out of my skin to get to the hoop on my patio.

    Likewise, I could paint you out to be some fruity Buddhist pacifist… rather than engage you honestly as someone who simply holds a genuine belief that prohibition can work. I choose the latter path, and respond by arguing that it cannot. Banning drugs and prostitution has hardly rid the world of those things, and banning weapons will hardly rid the world of that. However, although you can make the argument that there’s no “good” place for drugs or prostitution in society (I tend to agree)… I would argue that there is a good place for firearms in the possession of law-abiding citizens.

  17. Progressive Dem says:

    Absurb comment of the day!

    “The fact is that the threat of any homeowner having a gun is the very thing that stops a lot of people from breaking into my home”

    I can think of about 20 better reasons
    why people don’t break into your home. That statement above is also paranoid as hell.

    And btw you’re not protecting your family as much as you are endangering them to an accident. The American Acadamey of Pediatricians conducted a study and determined it was safer for your family not to have a gun in the house. Teenage suicide, accidental shootings and deaths from conflict among family members are all increased dangers for families with guns.

    The idea that more guns in our communities is going to make us safer is sheer fantasy. The US has over 30,000 deaths and 60,000 injuries each year from firearms – the highest number of firearms related deaths of any industrialized country. Murders and most violent crimes are committed with firearms. Ask the police and prosecutors, the experts on crime, if they think more guns will help reduce crime and make us safer. Their answer is a resounding, “No!” Gun policy should be based on facts, research and experts in the real world, and not upon Hollywood fantasy of heroic, protective, solitary men guarding their cattle, homestead and womefolk.

  18. jsm says:

    “…hunters would rather shoot people. You guys get all lathered up about the 2nd Amendment and whip yourselves to ecstacy with fantasies of being Dirty Harry and carrying the day all neat and tidy.”

    Making statements like this is clear evidence of mental retardation.

  19. Doug Deal says:

    Hey Dim,

    I guess you should not let facts get in the way of a bad argument.

    Your statement that prosecutors think that guns should be prohibited is absurd. My wife is a prosecutor, she works in an office full of prosecutors and each one of them thinks that the use of guns for self protection is a good thing and a deterrent to crime. Unlike you, they have seen what happens first hand when an unarmed victim faces an armed burglar. 10% of the time it results in rape, 25% of the time it results in assault and death of the victim. There may be a number that oppose gun ownership, but if you take a look at their jurisdictions, you will find that they are the ones with the highest reported cases of burglaries. In the UK and Canada, there is a significantly higher probability of a burglar entering a home than in the US. Canada and the UK have strict gun laws, the USA does not.

    I have already addressed the 30K gun deaths a year. 17,000 of them are suicides, which can be committed with knives, drugs, CO2, cars, ropes and a number of other things. In fact 15,000 suicides are caused by things other than guns, should all of those be outlawed as well?

    I have already also addressed the fact that 12,000 gun deaths are homicides. That is ILLEGAL uses of guns resulting in death. People ILLEGALLY using guns will not respect a ban on gun ownership by law abiding citizens. That leaves around 800 accidental gun deaths a year, which is less than 1/50th of the accidental deaths due to automobiles, and driving a car is not a right.

    Below, I have posted excerpts of a footnoted article posted to the Arizona Law Review. For the article in its entirety, including footnotes go to http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/LawyersGunsBurglars.htm

    The most thorough study of burglary patterns was a St. Louis survey of 105 currently active burglars. [FN65] The authors observed, “One of the most serious risks faced by residential burglars is the possibility of being injured or killed by occupants of a target. Many of the offenders we spoke to reported that this was far and away their greatest fear.” [FN66] Said one burglar: “I don’t think about gettin’ caught, I think about gettin’ gunned down, shot or somethin’…’cause you get into some people’s houses…quick as I come in there, boom, they hit you right there. That’s what I think about.”

    In addition to the St. Louis study, the Wright-Rossi National Institute of Justice surveyed felony prisoners in eleven state prison systems on the impact of victim firearms on burglar behavior. [FN73] In that survey, seventy-four percent of the convicts who had committed a burglary or violent crime agreed, “One reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot.”

    Real-world experiments yield results consistent with burglars’ reports of their desire to avoid confrontations with armed victims. In Orlando in 1967, the police responded to a rape epidemic by initiating a highly publicized program training women in firearms use. [FN85] While rape increased in the nation and in *357 Florida over the next year, the rape rate fell eighty- eight percent in Orlando, and burglary dropped twenty-two percent. [FN86]

    In 1982, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring every home to have a gun. [FN89] Exceptions were made for conscientious objectors, people with criminal records, and for people in various other categories. [FN90] In the seven months before the ordinance, there had been forty-five residential burglaries; in the seven months after the ordinance, residential burglaries declined eighty-nine percent. [FN91] Over the next five years, the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was eighty-five percent below the rate before the enactment of the ordinance. [FN92]

    When burglars do encounter victims who cannot protect themselves, the results can be tragic. In thirty percent of these cases, the victim is assaulted or threatened. [FN101] In ten percent of these cases, the burglaries turn into rapes. [FN102] Over the ten-year period of 1973-82, this meant 623,000 aggravated (felony) assaults and 281,000 rapes. [FN103] Overall, the victim rate of death from “hot” burglaries is six times the death rate from street muggings. [FN104]

    Thus, careful burglars must (and most do) take care to avoid entering any home where a victim might be present. Because about half of all American homes contain a gun, burglars tend to avoid all occupied American homes. [FN112] People who do not own guns–even people who belong to gun prohibition organizations–enjoy free rider safety benefits from America’s armed homes. This free-rider *362 problem is present in many cases of crime prevention which rely on changing the physical environment in which the criminal operates. [FN113]

  20. boyreporter says:

    Progressive: You are so right. I’m proud to share the page with you.

    JSM: I yield to you in knowledge of retardation.

  21. Progressive Dem says:

    Hey Doogie,

    I know I’m in for a good argument when the opposition begins with “my wife says”.

    You fail to refute the recommendations of the pediatricians that it is more dangerous for your children to have a gun in the house. You want to risk your kid’s life with a gun – that’s shameful and criminal. If you risk the life of a visiting neighbor’s child – that is beyond criminal. There is a special place in hell for those people. Suicide completion is much higher when a gun is used compared to any other method. Citing UK and Canada is laughable and a statistically insignificant fact since their overall burglary rates are much lower than the U.S.
    The International Association of Chiefs of Police (that’s an American organization) has historically been a strong supporter of gun control. The American Prosecutors Research Institute (a division of the National District Attorney’s Association) has consistently called for better enforcement of gun laws. They have never advocated for more guns, despite your anecdotal citing of “people you know.”

    You have also confused crimes. Burglars usually attempt their crimes when the home is uninhabited. They get in and get out unseen. They try to come when you aren’t there, and if they carry a firearm, they are committing armed robbery. So I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in the word of convicted burglars who don’t carry weapons and are trying to avoid homeowners regardless of whether a gun is present. As for the Wright-Rossi study, it is 25 years old and again it cites burglars. While their overall conclusion was that the gun control laws in 1983 were ineffective, it isn’t a document that supports higher gun ownership.

    Here is a link http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press01112007.html to 2007 study demonstrating that states with higher gun ownership have higher murder rates that are overall 60% higher than states with lower rates of ownership. Let me spell this out for you: more guns = more murders. States with fewer guns have fewer murders. Gun ownership increases a community’s murder rate. Stop watching TV Doug it dulls the brain.

  22. Larry says:

    It never ceases to amaze me. Every time a discussion about firearms comes up it turns into an emotional pissing contest where each side ends up throwing around epithets and later, and more disturbing, throwing around statistics. No minds are ever changed and no points are ever proven.

    Erick started this by saying he is not comfortable with this (referring to a bill to allow guns to be carried into restaurants which sell alcohol). Arguments should include “you should feel uncomfortable because…” or “you shouldn’t worry because…”, but instead it’s morphed into an argument about the safety of having a gun in one’s home. Thankfully, we’re way past that discussion here in the real world.

    Later Erick said “Our collective voice is exercised through our representatives…” and that’s what is happening.

    The end result of any legislation prohibiting law abiding citizens from owning and/or carrying firearms is that criminals are the only winners.

  23. boyreporter says:

    Oh, and JSM (jizzum): Your comment about being willing to blow my brains out…I think you fantasize about being a hero like that…killing an intruder. ‘Course, if the “intruder” turned out to be your teenage son coming home late…well, guns don’t kill people and all that.

    And to the poster who took my words as favoring prohibition: You’re right, prohibition wouldn’t work. Not in this country. But we all could focus on lessening the number of guns available, closing down the stores down here that supply the street gangs up north, just trying for some common sense and humanity instead of daydreaming about being a hero stopping the bad guy and worshipping a weapon of mass destruction,the hand gun.

    The psychological implications of you gun nuts’ fascination with firearms is both sad and frightening. Oh, and perhaps a substitution for lacking a good woman in your lives. Speaking of which: Forgive your mom for all those frilly things she made you wear (though you secretly loved it).

  24. boyreporter says:

    That old shibboleth again about only criminals winning if we try to control effing guns. Look, we’re bright enough to solve that problem, too. But we’re not even trying, and it’s largely because of excuse-makers and (see above) gun nuts who aren’t criminals but who are psychologically attuned to them.

  25. Doug Deal says:

    Dim,

    You have no reading comprehension skills either. I said in my post that I have no desire to personally own a gun or even shoot one, but whatever you want to believe is fine.

    Since every paragraph you have written is filled with error after error, I do not have the time to touch them all, I will stick with a couple.

    Just because it starts out as a burglary, does not mean it cannot become armed robbery. Many do. Most buglers carry weapons with them, whether it is a gun, knife or pipe, and all it takes in an unexpected encounter with an occupant to turn it into a robbery.

    In the study you quoted from, the authors themselves admit that:

    Although causal inference is not warranted on the basis of the present study alone, our findings suggest that the household may be an important source of firearms used to kill men, women and children in the United States.

    One study, posted as only an abstract of their conclusions does not a definitive study make, but all it seems to need in your mind is agreement with your biases to be accurate.

    Here is some raw data that refutes their proof-less assertions:

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html

    I took this data and created a plot of murder rate versus gun ownership fraction and there is clearly no correlation. Here is the graphic evidence. Notice the area with the lowest gun ownership has the highest murder rate. http://www.safehavenpointe.com/noguncorrelation.gif

    You also try to equate “better enforcement of gun laws” as evidence that prosecutors support prohibition. This is utter nonsense, and intellectually dishonest. I support “better enforcement of gun laws” that punishes gun crimes, I am sure we all do.

    You also quote support from a organization for Chiefs of Police, that you will note are not prosecutors, more intellectual dishonesty. Surprise!

    Go back and get yourself more credibility, you are all out here. I will let the buzzards pick apart the rest of your corpse or your arguments at their leisure.

  26. Jace Walden says:

    Steve,

    I agree with you 100%. Erick is right in line with the mainstream GOP view on freedom of any kind.

    “Oh I believe in freedom, as long as it’s not X…”

    For “X”, insert any of the following:

    Gay Marriage, Privacy, Free Speech, Spending Cuts, The 10th Amendment, Separation of Church and State, etc…

  27. jsm says:

    “‘Course, if the ‘intruder’ turned out to be your teenage son coming home late…well, guns don’t kill people and all that.”

    boy,

    I live alone. However, in the instance you mention, I have enough sense to find out who’s in the house before shooting.

    Good luck with the stereotypical hogwash about gun owners. Repeating it won’t ever make it true.

    BTW, spoons don’t make Michael Moore fat, either… and all that.

  28. Doug Deal says:

    Jace,

    I agree with you, but it is not GOP, it is the two major parties. Harping on the GOP alone, as you often do, gives a pass to the Democrats, who I personally think violate this more grossly than the Republicans.

    One deserves no rights at all if he is unwilling to defend those of another.

  29. Progressive Dem says:

    Doogie:

    Let’s weigh this: a published Harvard peer reviewed study from 2007, or your instant handywork on the internet??? Hmmm? Which one has more credibility? Oh what the hell, I’m sure everybody will take your word, or your wife’s friends. And, Doogie, don’t forget to look both ways before you cross the street to school.

  30. Doug Deal says:

    Which has more credibility, the one published with all source data, or the one that publishes nothing but conclusions using data that was “normalized” based on criteria known only to the experimenters which has never been validated by subsequent researchers?

    It is sad that the only support of a study that you can provide is that is has the name Harvard stamped on it. Ever try something novel like think for yourself, or are you content reading the talking points faxes from the DNC every morning?

    Your comments are just more worthless tripe posted by someone afraid to using anything other than a pseudonymn.

  31. Malum Prohibitum says:

    Erick, please go and read the text of HB 257 as amended. You wrote that you “cringe at the thought of anyone being able to go out to dinner with their Smith & Wesson, get tanked, then start shooting up the place,” but you neglect to point out that the bill forbids consumption of alcohol by people who are carrying a firearm.

    I am curious whether you have ever checked to see what other states permit this? Here is a handy-dandy map to make that checking easy for you. http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/about/prohibited-places/?page_id=3&data_file=http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/map%20data/restaurants%20with%20alcohol.xml&title=Restaurants%20with%20Alcohol
    Most of those states that are green on the map have no restriction on alcohol consumption and yet they do not have problems with licensed carriers of firearms going “out to dinner with their Smith & Wesson, get[ing] tanked, then . . . shooting up the place.”

    In fact, many of the states that are green on the map trust Georgians to carry in their restaurants, too, even though until now Georgia has not. Isn’t that ironic? My Georgia firearms license means more in other states than it does in Georgia! I recently visited both Florida and Colorado, and ate in restaurants in both states while armed, legally.

    As for your comment that people should leave it in the car, that is currently illegal at a restaurant (in Georgia). Even if it were not, what good would that have done the customers of the Mexican restaurant in Macon who were herded into the freezer during an armed robbery, and gang raped (the females, anyway)? Oh, wait while I go to my car!

    Erick, please write another article in a year about whether your worries pertaining to peaceable Georgians with firearms licenses in restaurants have come true. Similar predictions in other states have always turned out to be wrong, but maybe THIS time, in THIS state, it will turn out to be right. Maybe.

    Take another look at that map in the link, above.

  32. Paul Shuford says:

    Suzanna Gratia Hupp left her handgun in the car on October 16, 1991, when she went to Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen Texas. She left it in her car because people like Erick had enshrined their “But I don’t know that I want to go out to Cheddars or even McDonalds with a bunch of folks bringing their guns along” feelings in Texas law, much like it is in Georgia’s current law.

    Suzanna Hupp’s parents were both killed when George Jo Hennard shot and killed 23 people, and wounded another 20. If she had only ignored the law, she could have saved the lives of both of her parents and more than a score of other people. Instead, because she was a law-abiding citizen, she was disarmed when she needed her firearm for protection the most.

    Law-abiding concealed carry permit holders in Georgia have been similarly disarmed by our State’s laws. This is why HB 257 needs to be passed, regardless of how uncomfortable it makes Erick and those who think as he does. Because his and their discomfort is not worth my life, nor the lives of my family, nor anyone else’s. Concealed carry permit holders are one of the most law-abiding demographics in our society, moreso than many others we trust to carry firearms wherever they go, such as the police. The idea that one is going to go out and “get drunk and shoot up the place” is laughable, and should not be considered a valid reason to prevent the passage of this bill.

  33. Sedition says:

    A bit “cavalier” about removing inalienable rights, are we not?

    As long as we’re raping the Constitution…

    How about we remove your 1st Amendment rights to free speech? You had to go through a background check with neither the GBI nor the FBI, so who licensed you to speak freely?

    I hear the argument coming…”My right to free speach can’t kill anyone like a gun can”.

    Oh, really?

    Hitler, Stalin, Castro…the list of tyrants who used their own eloquent free speech rights did a pretty good number on millions of people could eat up a lot of bandwidth.

    Jim Jones? Never raised a weapon against anyone, but he killed more people with his free speech than almost any one man with a firearm ever could.

    Helter Skelter… Charles Manson killed people with a silver tongue.

    Do I really need to go any further?

    Before you wish upon a star to remove the right of a group of people the ability to protect themselves and their families, as yourself if you would be willing to give up any other of the rights that you may hold so dear.

  34. dmaynor says:

    I don’t understand the push back against this law. I have never been asked if I own a gun when buying a bottle of liquor at the local store so I don’t see how the “getting tanked” part is any more important now that yesterday.

  35. boyreporter says:

    Wow. Why didn’t we think of this before. THE GUN is the answer to all of our problems of safety and security. Let’s see…guns are all over the place…worldwide…guns are everywhere. How wonderful is the world because of them? Maybe we should try something else. Damn the Wild West syndrome that has infected weak-minded scaredy-cats and made us all potential — and actual — victims of a ludicrous mindset.

  36. Ed says:

    Erick needs to get his facts straight. It is already legal to carry a concealed weapon into McDonald’s. (See State vs Burns 1991. 200 Ga. app 16).

  37. liberator says:

    As the Macon Libertarian Party Chief let me simply repeat the words of John Lott and Ted Nugent ie…More Guns =Less Crime. Let Freedom and the 2nd Amendment Rule! Bob Barr for Prez!

  38. rabuncountyman says:

    Malum Prohibitum

    I am glad you are posting here and not just at that old outdoor forum.

  39. Jace Walden says:

    Doug,

    I don’t mean to sound like I’m giving Democrats a pass on anything. Because I’m really not. I think the Democratic Party is just as much of a threat to personal liberty and economic freedom as the Republican party.

    The difference is (and this is the reason I direct my vitriol toward the GOP) that the national democratic party doesn’t even attempt to portray itself as the party of small government, free-markets, personal responsibility, individual rights, economic freedom, and pro-second amendment. The GOP does. GOPers constantly, and I mean constantly preach about the virtues of ideas listed above while continuing to restrict freedom and grown government at a more alarming rate that the national Democratic Party.

    With a Democrat, you typically know what you’re gonna get: a big-spending, big-entitlement, big-government, big-taxing, liberal. With a Republican, you typically know what you’re gonna get: a big-spending, big-entitlement, big-government, big-taxing liberal. Then Republicans have the gall to claim that the GOP is the party of “small-government”. It’s the hypocrisy that I cannot get over.

    The difference between a democrat and a republican is the same difference as between a Baptist and a Catholic. The Catholic and the Democrat will talk to you in the liquor store.

  40. rugby fan says:

    “In the UK and Canada, there is a significantly higher probability of a burglar entering a home than in the US. Canada and the UK have strict gun laws, the USA does not”

    With all due respect, higher probability means nothing. There is higher probability that someone will go on a shooting rampage in America because there is more access to guns.

    To follow up with your anecdotal evidence, in Australia, a country with great restrictions on gun ownership, there was one point where only one murder by firearms was done in a five year period. Sounds like restrictions on gun ownership reduce the number of homicides.

    Paul:

    Suppose in your example that the woman had brought a gun into the restaurant. Is there any proof of her marksmanship? What happens if she has poor aim and shoots and kills several innocent bystanders and still misses the perp? Sound like good gun safety to you?

    You can’t prove that her having a gun would have saved the life of her family, nor can I prove that it wouldn’t. That “proof” is a logical fallacy and does not strengthen your claim. Perhaps it does to you but that doesn’t mean you are correct.

    Sedition:

    The Constitution calls for regulation of guns. Having regulation of guns does not automatically mean that the Constitution is being violated.

  41. Stephen C says:

    Rugby,
    No, the Constitution does NOT call for the regulation of guns.

    It calls for a “well-regulated militia” and that militia is NOT the National Guard, as that was created over 100 years later. The militia is made up of the citizens of the United States and their arms, and that right to both own those arms and carry them, “keep AND bear,” shall not be infringed.

  42. jsm says:

    “The Constitution calls for regulation of guns.”

    “Calls” for it? That’s quite a stretch.

  43. Paul Shuford says:

    Rugby Fan,

    It’s not very difficult to hit a man-sized target at across-the-room distances, in fact, it doesn’t require much marksmanship at all. And Suzanna Hupp was trained in the use of her firearm, so evidence shows that she would have been able to do so.

    As it stood, she had no chance, she just had to sit there while someone killed 23 people, including her parents, and injured another 20. If she had her firearm with her, instead of out in her car like she was required to do by law, she would have had a fighting chance.

    Your suppositions are nothing more than straw-man logical fallacies themselves.

  44. AJGlock19 says:

    I own/carry a firearm because I value my life and my families’ lives. The courts have upheld the fact that police have no duty to protect individuals, just society in general. It is not because they don’t want to, it is because they can’t be everywhere at once.

    I would rather take my chances with a GFL holder confronting an armed criminal than nothing at all.

    Those that oppose my right to carry a firearm don’t realize that it only takes one time to lose your life and there are no do-overs. Yes, the chances are slim to never, but that is not good enough for me. I pray that I NEVER fire my weapon in protecting my life, but I would rather have the option. I would rather be prepared than figure out how to not let it happen again.

    Those that oppose the right also seem to have a hard time distinguishing between those that hold valid permits, follow the law, etc. vs. those that own guns illegally and committ crimes with those guns.

    I wonder of all the “children in danger at homes with guns” studies differentiates between legal, responsible gun ownership and illegal ownership? The fact is that your child is in more life-threatning danger when they get in the minivan with the soccer mom and when they play around your swimming pool vs. being in a home with a firearm. Check out John Stossel’s documentary about gun facts.

    I also hope that those that oppose the right are never in a situation where 5 seconds before they are killed by an armed criminal, the have a para dime shift and realize how important it is to defend oneself. I hope they realize this before it happens so they may save their own life.

    Guns are safe. Don’t let a fear of guns and propaganda from the media make the decision for you. Become educated and responsible and protect your life. Nobody wants you to live as much as you do.

  45. Doug Deal says:

    Glock,

    I wasn’t trying to comment on your spelling, just trying to pass along my joke on the word paradigm. “Do you know what a paradigm (pair a dime) is? About twenty cents.”

Comments are closed.