Guns in Bars

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I've seen bar fights and even been in one or two.

I haven't been in one.... So maybe YOU should not carry a gun in a bar, but why should *I* not be allowed?

The point (once again) is that a bar in particular is a venue where there is an enhanced chance of, well, a BAR FIGHT breaking out. So it's not a matter of YOU not having a weapon in that bar, it's a matter of NOBODY being allowed in the bar with a weapon - any kind of weapon. That way, if a BAR FIGHT breaks out, it'll be restricted to fisticuffs, bottles and chairs, while the tinny-sounding piano plays "Oh Susanna" in the background. But no bang-bang.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

And you seem to have changed the question

No, I did not change any part of the question. You ask for "if you're an active CCW permit holder and normally carry, what reason can you think of that they would disarm just because they're at a bar? "
My answer was "maybe if they might have a drink or two or three or four or five..."

Quote

Does bars have signs on them indicating if there will be a bad incident today? No.

There are a number of places that do not allow weapons of any sort, yet there is a slim chance that something may happen. Can you carry a loaded weapon on to a commercial airplane? Gosh, how stupid you may feel if a hijacker commandeers the plane and kills every person onboard and you had to check your gun into possession of the airline after you carried it all day. Golly gee, you could had been a hero.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

In the Bill of Rights, in the Second Amendment, in the phrase "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", what do you suppose "and bear" means? If "keep" means that the citizenry can own guns and store them in their homes, and that's all the Founding Fathers ever intended, as you imply, then why do you suppose they also added the words "and bear"? Don't you think that they meant for the citizenry to also be able to carry their arms freely?

The lines are muddled in the interpretation of of 2nd amendment. Let's look at the amendment... blah blah blah...

You posted a whole bunch of mindless cut-and-paste stuff, none of which had anything at all to do with the subject of bearing arms. Please try again. Try using your own brain, instead of cut-and-pasting from Wikipedia.

Or if you are unable to think for yourself and want to cut-and-paste something, try the appropriate definition of "bear" from Merriam-Webster. Can you choose correctly whether to select the noun or the verb version?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

There are a number of places that do not allow weapons of any sort, yet there is a slim chance that something may happen. Can you carry a loaded weapon on to a commercial airplane? Gosh, how stupid you may feel if a hijacker commandeers the plane and kills every person onboard and you had to check your gun into possession of the airline after you carried it all day. Golly gee, you could had been a hero.

Right, because it's much better that four planes are crashed killing thousands of people, and two wars get fought over the incidents, killing more thousands.

Gosh, we sure were lucky that there weren't any armed citizens on those airliners to stop the hijackers - someone might have gotten hurt!

The degree of illogic you display with your position on guns is astounding. And par for the course for a gun-o-phobe.

[TKoontz 0]

Quote

Quote

how well do you think the average (likely with less training) person will fare?...I'm certainly not against ownership or ccw, but if/when a civilian does decide that lethal force is the best choice, what's the likelihood they'll be shooting on par or better than 15% when they're scared as hell and preparing to end life?

I think that if faced with a guy that has a gun and he is trying to kill you... The guy with a gun stands a much better chance than the guy without a gun.

whoa whoa hold up, that's not what I meant and I think everyone knows that. Intentional or not, I don't appreciate my words being twisted.

We're not talking chances of survival, the entire report was based on accuracy levels when under fire. So let me put this clearly with no room for misinterpretation: If a police officer has a 15% chance of their bullet hitting their target when under fire, it stands to reason that a (relatively untrained) civilian will have a significantly smaller probability of hitting their intended target when also under fire. That's all I said, don't twist it to support something completely unrelated please.

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[quade 3]

Quote

You posted a whole bunch of mindless cut-and-paste stuff, none of which had anything at all to do with the subject of bearing arms.

Here ya go;
http://www.motorcycle-superstore.com/2/9/205/5079/ITEM/Motion-Pro-Swing-Arm-Bearing-Tool.aspx

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Right, because it's much better that four planes are crashed killing thousands of people, and two wars get fought over the incidents, killing more thousands.

The mistakes made by the government allowed the hijackings to happen.
The two wars are the blunder of our own government. One war was pushed aside to invade another country on a false pretense. Today, both of those countries are in major turmoil due to mistakes made by our own government. And you blame it on citizens not being allowed to carry loaded guns onto airliners?

Quote

Gosh, we sure were lucky that there weren't any armed citizens on those airliners to stop the hijackers - someone might have gotten hurt!

So you would allow terrorist the opportunity to carry loaded weapons onto an airliner and risk the outcome of a gunfight onboard inflight?
The degree of illogic you display with your position on guns is astounding. And par for the course for a fanatic.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If a police officer has a 15% chance of their bullet hitting their target when under fire, it stands to reason that a (relatively untrained) civilian will have a significantly smaller probability of hitting their intended target when also under fire.

You're assuming that all other things remain equal, but they don't. Police officers often encounter situations needing arms much differently than other citizens. For example, a police officer arriving on a scene has to consider everybody to be dangerous, and doesn't know who the good guys are, or who the bad guys are. A citizen, on the other hand, is the person being directly attacked, often in their own home, and there is no question in their mind of who the bad guy is. A cop in a traffic stop with four suspects in a vehicle, is not the same as a homeowner with a burglar breaking down their back door.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

is not the same as a homeowner with a burglar breaking down their back door.

And of course, that has nothing to do with people arming themselves when going to bars. But, of course, there has been a number of family members killed by another mistaking them for a burglar.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

support with factual data

Your agencies don't seem to keep track of murder by car key. Stupid isn't it....

But you were never worried about the car key, were you? If you're at a bar trying to take someone's keys from him, you're doing it because you're afraid he'll kill himself or others on the road, not that he's going to drive the car into the bar and kill you. And we have a pretty good idea how many deaths do happen from this scenario. It's a big number. Much bigger than the gun number.

Frankly, it's stupid to worry about the CCW drinking and firing his weapon. You want to be worrying about the guy who is illegally carrying (perhaps because he would not qualify) and drinking at the bar. If you were to track down all cases of bar side shootings, you're going to side that those guys dominate the numbers.

[TKoontz 0]

Quote

Quote

If a police officer has a 15% chance of their bullet hitting their target when under fire, it stands to reason that a (relatively untrained) civilian will have a significantly smaller probability of hitting their intended target when also under fire.

You're assuming that all other things remain equal, but they don't. Police officers often encounter situations needing arms much differently than other citizens. For example, a police officer arriving on a scene has to consider everybody to be dangerous, and doesn't know who the good guys are, or who the bad guys are. A citizen, on the other hand, is the person being directly attacked, often in their own home, and there is no question in their mind of who the bad guy is. A cop in a traffic stop with four suspects in a vehicle, is not the same as a homeowner with a burglar breaking down their back door.

.....and this is why I stay away from posting, but I took the bait, I'll hate myself later for this so here goes:

"Police officers often encounter situations needing arms much differently than other citizens"

I do not contest this as it is a true statement, however:
Logical Fallacy: Red Herring (data I provided applies to one situation for police [a firefight between two armed opponents] with the only major variable affecting accuracy being distance between shooters)

Notice, the data does not relate to survival odds, it does not relate to how you may end up using a gun, and it does not comment on whether or not guns should be in bars. It says one thing: "Accuracy decreases radically when under (fire) stress regardless of prior training"

I then compared the data to a similar scenario in which a civilian might find themselves, and the final conclusion (not backed by statistical evidence) being that the likelihood of them making a hit will be lower than 15%. In my original post I left it at that, allowing people to make of it what they would. I see now that was a mistake, so what I am really saying is that I believe there is at least an 85% chance the civilian will miss and that their poorly aimed round will strike something other than their intended target

You're doing the exact same thing DaVinci did by confusing the premise of my original post to argue a completely unrelated set of variables and scenarios. Stop it.

Rooster out (hopefully for good this time)

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Quote

But you were never worried about the car key, were you? If you're at a bar trying to take someone's keys from him, you're doing it because you're afraid he'll kill himself or others on the road, not that he's going to drive the car into the bar and kill you. And we have a pretty good idea how many deaths do happen from this scenario. It's a big number. Much bigger than the gun number.

Just as I am not worried about the gun, but about the drunk carrying the gun actually using it to fire bullets.

Now, it tends to be less dangerous to wrestle away the car keys than the gun before it happens.

This is where people started screaming I have no facts for that. It does remind me of that saying about common sense not being that common.

And brings us back to the original point I was making. Comparing drunks with car keys to drunks with guns is not an equal comparison.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

But you were never worried about the car key, were you? If you're at a bar trying to take someone's keys from him, you're doing it because you're afraid he'll kill himself or others on the road, not that he's going to drive the car into the bar and kill you. And we have a pretty good idea how many deaths do happen from this scenario. It's a big number. Much bigger than the gun number.

Just as I am not worried about the gun, but about the drunk carrying the gun actually using it to fire bullets.

Now, it tends to be less dangerous to wrestle away the car keys than the gun before it happens.

Ever since the second Aliens movie, I've worried about facehuggers. You know how hard it is to pry them off your head?

Quote

This is where people started screaming I have no facts for that. It does remind me of that saying about common sense not being that common.

And brings us back to the original point I was making. Comparing drunks with car keys to drunks with guns is not an equal comparison.

indeed - the drunk driver kills a lot more people. You could worry about meteors falling from the sky, or Al Queda skunking your beer too. If you ignore the frequency, any irrational fear can loom large. But common sense, when it's not really stupid sense, requires consideration of the likelihood of the event. What is most likely at such a bar is that some people will carry concealed, and you won't know who they are. And when you leave at the end of the night, you still won't know.

Your defense is on par with the flat earthers, you know. 'I got no facts, but it's common sense, man!'

[wolfriverjoe 1,371]

Quote

Quote

Quote

how well do you think the average (likely with less training) person will fare?...I'm certainly not against ownership or ccw, but if/when a civilian does decide that lethal force is the best choice, what's the likelihood they'll be shooting on par or better than 15% when they're scared as hell and preparing to end life?

I think that if faced with a guy that has a gun and he is trying to kill you... The guy with a gun stands a much better chance than the guy without a gun.

whoa whoa hold up, that's not what I meant and I think everyone knows that. Intentional or not, I don't appreciate my words being twisted.

We're not talking chances of survival, the entire report was based on accuracy levels when under fire. So let me put this clearly with no room for misinterpretation: If a police officer has a 15% chance of their bullet hitting their target when under fire, it stands to reason that a (relatively untrained) civilian will have a significantly smaller probability of hitting their intended target when also under fire. That's all I said, don't twist it to support something completely unrelated please.

You seem to think that being a police officer means that they are "highly trained" and experts in shooting.

Not my experience.

While some police officers are highly proficient shooters, who practice often and are interested in maintaining a high level of skill with their firearms, many are not.

I've watched them train and qualify. Some are doing quite well to get most of their shots onto the sillouhette at 7 yards (standard distance) during slow, aimed fire. Some barely qualify.

Keep in mind that the firearm is a very, very small part of their job and most officers never fire a shot during their entire career.

The same is also true among CCW holders. Some are very proficient shooters, others less so.

Some shoot competitively, under high levels of stress and at moving targets.

Others not so much.

BUT... The civilians who are disciplined enough to carry on a regular basis are usually disciplined enough to maintain their training. Those who are too lazy to shoot on a regular basis will often give up carrying the weapon after the novelty has worn off.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[TKoontz 0]

A fair point, one which I had not considered. I suppose I just assumed that a majority of officers, especially those in areas with higher levels of crime than some little po-dunk town, would keep their shooting proficiency decently high.

I guess the next bit of data I'd like to see is a 10 year study (same years as the previous data showed) on how NYPD performs on the range (one of those tactical courses where you're running, using cover, targets are moving, etc. not where you're just standing there shooting at a stationary silhouette) and then look at the discrepancy between that and when taking fire

Find your peace, though the world around you burns

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

A fair point, one which I had not considered. I suppose I just assumed that a majority of officers, especially those in areas with higher levels of crime than some little po-dunk town, would keep their shooting proficiency decently high.

I believe that guess is wrong. The diehards here (I'm not one of them) shoot at the range substantially more than the typical LEO. Even for cops its rare to need to use their gun.

[wolfriverjoe 1,371]

Quote

A fair point, one which I had not considered. I suppose I just assumed that a majority of officers, especially those in areas with higher levels of crime than some little po-dunk town, would keep their shooting proficiency decently high.

I guess the next bit of data I'd like to see is a 10 year study (same years as the previous data showed) on how NYPD performs on the range (one of those tactical courses where you're running, using cover, targets are moving, etc. not where you're just standing there shooting at a stationary silhouette) and then look at the discrepancy between that and when taking fire

It would be a lot lower if the officers were trained on that type of course.

Many aren't. Those types of training facilities are really expensive and not very common.

The training has improved greatly from where it was, but it still has to stay within (shrinking) departmental budgets.

Unfortunately, it is dependent on available funds, available facilities and the quality of the training officers.

There are two local departments (there used to be three) that train at "my" range (I'm a range officer there).

The training for one department is far more of the "Stand there and shoot at the target" kind, while the other has an imaginative and innovative training officer. Fortunately, the two training officers share thoughts and ideas so both of the departments take advantage of some of the really cool improvisations the one guy has come up with (not all are his own ideas).

Movable walls that attach to tires - they can be put up in various arrangements to practice different scenarios and then taken down and stored away.

Reactive targets based on balloons and cardboard boxes - the balloons are inside small holes in the boxes so that when the "vital area" of the balloon is hit the target drops. They put T-shirts on the boxes too.

Moving targets controlled by clotheslines on pulleys - the trainees not shooting are put to work pulling on the ropes controlling the targets. They do a really good job making the targets hard to hit.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

sadly relevant story today:
Police officials said officers noticed a suspect in the 400 block of Broadway at 2:06 a.m. Saturday. The man ran away and pulled out a semi-automatic pistol, and police fire multiple shots in his direction, according to San Francisco police Lt. Troy Dangerfield.

"In the process, the suspect was not hit," Dangerfield said. "There were two other people who were hit, one in the lower leg and one in the thigh."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/17/BAJI1L5VP2.DTL&tsp=1

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

The point (once again) is that a bar in particular is a venue where there is an enhanced chance of, well, a BAR FIGHT breaking out. So it's not a matter of YOU not having a weapon in that bar, it's a matter of NOBODY being allowed in the bar with a weapon - any kind of weapon. That way, if a BAR FIGHT breaks out, it'll be restricted to fisticuffs, bottles and chairs, while the tinny-sounding piano plays "Oh Susanna" in the background. But no bang-bang.

And a bar is also the kinda place where drinking and then getting into a car has a higher chance of happening. But in the case of the car, we ban the ACT of driving under the influence. In the case of the gun you want to ban the object.

Why not either ban both objects at bars, or ban both acts?

This just goes to show an anti gun bias.... Both driving under the influence and carrying a gun is bad... But In one case, you want to ban the act. The other you want to ban the object.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

We're not talking chances of survival, the entire report was based on accuracy levels when under fire. So let me put this clearly with no room for misinterpretation: If a police officer has a 15% chance of their bullet hitting their target when under fire, it stands to reason that a (relatively untrained) civilian will have a significantly smaller probability of hitting their intended target when also under fire. That's all I said, don't twist it to support something completely unrelated please.

Fact is that the guy that has a gun has a much better of surviving an attacker that has a gun if he has one than if he is unarmed. So the hit percentage is really not that important.

Take the Walgreens case. The BG jumped over a counter and pulled the trigger THREE times while pointing a gun at a guy. The guy pulled his own gun and while all three of his shots missed, the BG's ran out of the store as fast as they could.

So even while the good guy missed, the act of having a gun and shooting it changed the outcome and got the BG's to run away. I still call that a victory even with a zero hit rate.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

No, I did not change any part of the question. You ask for "if you're an active CCW permit holder and normally carry, what reason can you think of that they would disarm just because they're at a bar? "
My answer was "maybe if they might have a drink or two or three or four or five..."

Then using your own logic, a person should not be allowed to drive to a bar.... after all, they may get drunk and drive home.

Still waiting on your to answer what "to bear" means and that voting is not a right, BTW.......

Fact is you dislike the idea of anyone carrying a gun in a situation that you do not trust YOURSELF. You admit to being in several bar fights.... So you don't like the idea of anyone having a gun since if you had it YOU might have used it... And that you don't want to face a gun with a gun when you are in a fight.

That speaks to you and your fears.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You admit to being in several bar fights.... So you don't like the idea of anyone having a gun since if you had it YOU might have used it...

that's usually two separate things:

1 - people that don't like guns don't own them (fine), and also don't think others should (wrong) despite the right to own private property

2 - people that brag about all the fights they've been in......well, we know what that means

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DaVinci 0]

Still waiting on this BTW:

Quote

Voting is not a right. There is no such Federal Right that says so

Especially in light of this:

Article I, Section II, Clause I

Amendment XV

Amendment XVII

Amendment XIX

Amendment XXIV

And still waiting on you to explain where you got your definition of "bear" as in "to keep and BEAR arms"

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

still waiting on you to explain where you got your definition of "bear" as in "to keep and BEAR arms"

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070804203507/uncyclopedia/images/9/9b/Right_To_Bear_Arms.jpg

[DaVinci 0]

Still waiting on this BTW:

Quote

Voting is not a right. There is no such Federal Right that says so

Especially in light of this:

Article I, Section II, Clause I

Amendment XV

Amendment XVII

Amendment XIX

Amendment XXIV

And still waiting on you to explain where you got your definition of "bear" as in "to keep and BEAR arms"