Concealed Handguns vs Orlando terrorism last night

The legality of guns in bars and nightclubs is another gun control logic. Yes, I know some states prohibit it... but they absolutely should not. Its just another "gun free" zone and look at the results.
Click to expand...

Yes, look at the results, criminals break the law and shoot people at their whim.

If there is one place where I think it is actually a good idea to prohibit being armed, it is a place where people deliberately go to be intoxicated. UNLIKE places were the majority of people are expected to be sane, sober, of reasonably good judgment, such as a school, public building, hospital, courthouse, etc., bars and nightclubs ARE different.

I'm against the idea of gun free zones, generally, but in a bar someplace where people choose to go to have their judgment impaired, I'm ok with a no guns (or any other weapon) policy. While it does put patrons at an increased risk IF a shooting happens, I think not allowing guns where people get drunk DECREASES the risk of a shooting actually happening.

As far as "would a CCW have made a difference?" The answer is obviously "yes". ANY change to the situation would be a difference.

Now, "would a CCW have stopped the attack?" (made a significant difference?) THAT IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION.

The ONLY thing we can accept as valid is the fact that a CCW not being there (because of law) renders the "could they have been stopped" question irrelevant.
 
44amp

I agree, except I think it should be up to the buisness to decide if they want to provide security etc. just not a law. Some nicer bars/clubs dont have gang or violence problems and there are other factors to consider too such as walking many blocks after hours to and from the car.
the only people that are going to purposely get drunk when packing a gun are gang bangers and other criminals, the law does not apply to them. CHL folks are overwhelmingly lawful ask any one of them on this topic and none will say they would carry if they wanted to imbibe on the town. What good does such a law do in light of the gang bangers and thugs that wont follow it? I understand the concern with drinking and lawful carry but its a non issue with CHL holders, gun free zones of any kind do not work anywhere including bars.


and more on topic, in the grand scheme of things its become quite obvious that "gun free" clubs are sought after soft targets. Orlando isnt the first, or the worst...

...except now when we need our 2A right the most, some states have already passed such alcohol laws prohibiting lawful citizens the right to designate a sober CCW the same way we designate a driver when we go out on the town. I think this is what we call "common sense" gun laws.
 
Last edited:
Iowas CCW used to be no alcohol when it was a can issue state. Controlled by each County Sheriff. Now that it has been a shall issue state for over 4 years there has still never been an issue with a CCW holder in a bar. Over 500,000 CCWs out there now.
 
Remember that Florida was one of the leaders in liberalizing concealed carry licensing, and it is thus entirely possible that the prohibition against carry in bars was a concession that was negotiated to get enough votes for passage.

I have always accepted that prohibition, even though I have occasionally been in situations when it was an unnecessary nuisance. I appreciate the different perspectives offered here, especially regarding designated drivers. Perhaps that provision should be revisited after things calm down.
 
on the issue of carry in bars, consider for a moment, the state's point of view. Despite all of us who are sane and sober about our weapons, there are lots of those who are not. LOTS of them.

We know actual criminals are going to break the law, (and small point of order here, this
criminals, the law does not apply to them
Click to expand...
is a very poor choice of words, in this case. The law DOES apply to them, they just choose to break it) so the law is "aimed" at protecting us NOT from the deliberate criminal, but from the "responsible" person who may not be so responsible when drinking.

Yes, it does make the "gun free zone" a soft target, but overall, I think the law provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

In my state, the no guns prohibition applies to those areas where alcohol is served. Absent the business's objection, of course, you can carry in a Denny's (for example) in the restaurant but NOT in the bar/lounge.

A designated driver/CCW person could wait there, entirely legally. Or they could wait in the bar with the drinkers, unarmed, (gun in the car) by their own choice.

There is no perfect solution, if you are unwilling to accept the risks of armed drunks, and the state is not willing to do that. No matter how well some of us behave, others do not. So an armed drunk (likely with a bad attitude) IS going to happen, if you allow arms where people get drunk.

(and drunk as I use it in this case covers all level of impaired judgment)
 
Designated drivers should not be allowed in bars, because drinking and driving don't mix. Sounds kind of stupid, doesn't it?

In Ohio, you cannot drink at any level if you are carrying. You are not precluded from entering an establishment that serves alcohol. Believe it or not, some of us carriers are actually capable of passing up a drink. For that matter, a lot of people go into clubs and don't consume alcohol.

The club in Orlando had over 300 people in it. Had their laws permitted it, they would likely have had at least a handful of armed patrons out of the 300. I doubt the perp was capable of focusing on a single individual with 300 people running and screaming. Could a few carriers have made a difference? Is it possible that one carrier may have had a shot, and the perp was not looking at him?

We'll never know, but seems to me the mathematical odds would be at least just a tiny bit better.
 
the only people that are going to purposely get drunk when packing a gun are gang bangers and other criminals,
Click to expand...

Absolutely FALSE. There are a LOT of folks for whom drinking to intoxication is a form of self-medication - and for a variety of reasons. Then there are alcoholics - and they all aren't like Otis on Mayberry - slobbering and falling down - but they are perfectly functioning (or so it seems) while intoxicated.

Your assumptions are not founded in reality.
 
This threads question:
***Without*** getting into politics and religion, there is a simple question: Would a CCW / LTC / CHL made a significant difference last night, and why.
Click to expand...
It's not a drunks with guns thread.
 
The law DOES apply to them, they just choose to break it) so the law is "aimed" at protecting us NOT from the deliberate criminal, but from the "responsible" person who may not be so responsible when drinking.
Click to expand...

respectfully disagree. The law only affects them if they get caught,I dont even think they even give the law any thought at all if they even know about it. Also, the law is not aimed at protecting anyone, its aimed as an attempt to prevent drunken shootings but the thing is any person responsible enough to take the time to get their CHL is responsible enough to leave the gun at home if they want to imbibe on the town.

I cant help but wonder since Oregon never has had such a law and had no issues, why is it Wa. has the law? The two states are demographically identical, why is it a non issue here but an issue up there.... it makes me wonder if the law was merely a compromise when they passed their slall issue law?

Was the Wa. law created in response to a rash of bar shootings?
 
I live in AZ. And here if you have a permit to carry you can go into any eating place or bar with your firearm. But you cannot drink alcohol. And if you're caught then you can be arrested. And yes I've been in places that serves alcohol while carrying. But I was also the driver as well. So I did not drink anything that had alcohol in it. With no problems.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
First of all I made a decision many years ago that if I can't carry in a particular business, location, etc. based on law or the owners signs, they don't need my business. I absolutely refuse to do business with anyone, anywhere that refuses to allow me to practice my constitutional right to defend myself. I even told a preacher once when he came to visit that if he didn't allow me to carry in church then I didn't need to go there. (I found out the pastor carries as well.)

Second, If I were somewhere and gunshots rang out I would retreat if possible but if not, I would at least have an option to defend myself. I always want that option. I've carried a weapon my entire career. It would be ashamed after all those years of training, etc to be killed because I didn't have a way to defend myself.

We need to always remember that we can also defend our 2nd amendment right based on where we do business.
 
Le Bataclan attack, Nov 2015, Paris

89 killed
Click to expand...

Ah! You are making references outside of the US, outside of our laws and what would apply to us and our 2nd amendment possibilities. Got it.

Of course, Bataclan was one of numerous locations attacked that night. Eight cafes/restaurants were attacked as well. http://www.eater.com/2015/11/16/974...cks-la-belle-equipe-le-petit-cambodge#4881595

...as was the sports stadium.

Given Frances laws, the terrorists were not after "gun-free clubs" but any place where people aggregated was a potential target as they are all pretty much gun-free. So that was something of a completely different situation than what went on at Pulse and it would be hard to say that they were targeting gun-free clubs. In general, clubs have often been places of attack, often with bombings, because it is a place where people congregate.

Hakoah 1982
La Belle 1986
Otherside Lounge 1997 (gay club in Atlanta)
Sari Club 2002
El Nogal 2003
Stage Club 2005

The same could be said for eateries and bars. I am not going to go through and list them as this is too far off topic to making the point. Mass shootings tend to happen where people are congregated. A lot do happen in gun-free zones. A lot don't happen in gun-free zones.
 
That's all well and good. In San Antonio, when you have a heart attack or are severely injured in an accident, you are not going to the ER as they are posted against carry.
 
I strongly suspect that if I am seriously wounded that I will no longer have control of my weapon. They can toss it in the bushes otherwise and get me for an unsafe storage violation.

It is a damn shame that we always resort to hyperbole and threats of thread locks rather than a straight topic when it comes to this...

Some of us have heroes' blood, or at least think we do, and honestly would prefer fighting to hiding, and hiding (waiting for an opportunity) to running. In my state of WA they released a video of a school shooting I bet you've never heard of, it was Seattle Pacific University and only three students were killed. The shooter had a pump action shotgun and as he reloaded a student saw an opening and attacked, ending the threat with his pepper spray and fists. I too would hope to find the courage to engage and though I have not been tested I feel comfortable stating that I'd plan to engage rather than save myself at the expense of others.

Some of you would rather run than hide, and rather hide than fight. I think that's cowardly, and in a world where unarmed students have the courage to fight I'd hope grown men with weapons might feel the same. At the very least have the dignity to admit you're a coward (there are worse things). This is not to say throwing your life away is something worthwhile, if there is no chance of doing anything running is fine, I'd rather run than die, but jeez if it's a 1 on 1 and he is looking the other way and you STILL take the "me and mine" approach you shouldn't be proud of it.

I am reminded of a quote, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act". To advocate against action troubles me deeply.
 
Last edited:
if it's a 1 on 1 and he is looking the other way..
Click to expand...

Yes, you can be the hero of the hour...until someone points out how you shot him in the BACK.....:rolleyes:

In a situation like this, no matter what you do, someone will say you were wrong. Hopefully someone will say you were right, as well.

A gun in the hands of a good guy in that situation MIGHT make a difference. It has before. It has also failed, before. The only thing one can be sure of is that if a gun is NOT THERE, it cannot make a difference.
 
Woe betide the mental midget that moans about shooting some murdering active shooter in the back, and the media giving said midget his 15 minutes of dubious fame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top