Wendi Thomas, who has created her own website at Eat Gun Free in TN (and is working with us on this project), talks about how to fight guns in restaurants and bars here.
Here's a taste:
The other side will argue that folks without permits are probably packing at restaurants right now -- and I need law-abiding, pistol-packing vigilantes to protect me.
But in 37 years of dining out, I have not been shot. Nor have I had to gaze at a firearm while I eat. And I like it that way.
9 comments:
Using Wendi's "logic", I have never broken my leg, therefore nobody will ever break theirs.
Likewise, I have never been in an accident, therefore all seatbelts should be banned.
Unfortunately, her logic is as full of holes as swiss cheese is, and far less tasty.
Linoge, that's dishonest, it's not what Wendy said and you know it.
What we have here is a change in existing state (TN)law allowing a previously banned practice, allowing handguns to be carried into situations where the law has previously said they cannot go.
Of course it's impossible to know the future ("don't think it won't happen just because it hasn't happened yet," as Jackson Browne sang). But I think her point was that the new legislation is aimed at "correcting" a problem that doesn't exist, and this correction is likely to come with its own set of problems. This is always the case with legislation like this.
For one's gun to be ready to quickly defend oneself, one's family or the general public (whether in a restaurant, park, bar or one's own home) one has to be able to get to it quickly, it has to be ready to use, etc. If it's "really" accessible and ready to use (e.g. locking and safety devices off) it's particularly likely to be used by accident, by mistake, in the heat of the moment, or by a child or irrational adult.
There is a law besides the one just passed: the law of unintended consequences.
Anonymous, my analogies are far from dishonest, and follow the same logic Wendi did.
She effectively proposed that since she has never been shot at while eating at a restuarant, no one will ever be shot at while eating at a restaurant, and no one should be permitted to take precuations concerning the possibility of being shot at.
Likewise, if you apply that same "logic" chain to other situations, I have never broken my leg, thus no one will ever break their legs, thus no one should be permitted to take precautions concerning the possibility of breaking their legs.
If you do not like the rationale in play, I would suggest you take it up with Wendi, though she is known for not being terribly receptive of criticism.
And yes, there was a problem that this piece of legislation corrected - I, as a law-abiding citizen, had to disarm myself every time my family and I wanted to eat out a restaurant that served alcohol. If I am not drinking, there is no rational, logical reason for me to have to disarm, especially given that crime in restaurants is far from uncommon. I am allowed to carry my firearm in Wal-Marts, fast food joints, gas stations, and countless other locations throughout Tennessee - restaurants are no different than any of the other locations, and carrying my firearm into an establishment that serves alcohol will not turn me into a bloodthirsty rampager.
However, no matter how you cut it, abridging a person's inherent right to self-defense is a problem, especially if it is the government doing the abridgement.
Now, if you want to talk about fallacies, you should instead attend to the fourth section of your comment...
Much of this may become moot for all but marginal restaurants. Any bar/restaurant that actually allows firearms will be opening themselves to liability when the inevitable happens.
"You mean you knew people were bringing guns into a place where people might get drunk?"
Just because legislators think its a good idea, doesn't make it so.
Look for the "No weapons allowed" signs to be standard all over Memphis. Those who choose not to go that direction do so at their peril.
Ok, Anonymous, you did not like my hypothetical analogies, so how about a real-life one?
There exists a restaurant chain in Atlanta called "Taco Mac". For their 30 years of operation, those restaurants have never had a robbery.
By Wendi's logic, that mean they never will have robbery, and they should never take precautions against a robbery.
So I guess that means the robbery they had back in April was just a figment of everyone's imagination?
Furthermore, I guess the armed manager who defended his restaurant should not have had his firearm with him, and should have simply given the robber what he wanted? Ironically, the CEO of the company that owns that particular Taco Mac was against Georgia allowing licensed individuals to take their firearms into restaurants.
Can I make it any more clear how specious Wendi's logic is?
The Republicans are so skilled at distracting Democrats from concentrating on important issues like the state economy and budget.
This law would put an enormous burden on bartenders at restaurants that serve food and serve liquor both in a bar area and at table. How is the waiter supposed to ask whether the patron is packing heat before serving them liquor? "Sir, may I see your ID and your carry permit?"
I have a friend who works at a liquor store who got called up not for not checking an ID, but for not knowing it was fake. Are the servers going to be responsible for making sure gun carriers are legit and don't drink something their tablemates order? How?
Are the servers going to be responsible for making sure gun carriers are legit and don't drink something their tablemates order? How?
Were they responsible for checking to see if their patrons were disarmed now? How?
You people do not seem to realize that drunk driving has killed more people and will kill more people than guns will in a society not at war. Does the bartender take the keys from someone who has a car? I thought you liberals were beyond Stalin and Hitler, but you seek to control society like no other before you.
Post a Comment