This type of bill would pass in Georgia... (crime, buying)

[gt6974a]

Originally Posted by JPD

Some people happen to think it's a bad idea to allow guns to be brought to places where there is no history of gun violence (restaurants, for instance).

It's not necessarily the need to have them inside the restaurant but the ability to carry them while in public.

Meaning, if I want to go to a restaurant in Buckhead or downtown, I'm not concerned about getting robbed at the restaurant as much as my walk to and from.

...And that is exactly what happened to me in Buckhead back in 2001.

Currently, you can't carry a gun inside any establishment that serves alcohol. Regardless of if you drink or not.

[AtlDad]

Originally Posted by JPD

Some people happen to think it's a bad idea to allow guns to be brought to places where there is no history of gun violence (restaurants, for instance).

Do you know why some people think this is a bad idea? I am of the opinion that people that want to use guns to rob or shot people are not going to think twice about carrying a gun where they are not allowed. Therefore, I am havinhg a difficult time understanding why some people think it is a bad idea.

Can someone please enlighten me, even if through a PM?

[RainyRainyDay]

Originally Posted by AtlDad

Do you know why some people think this is a bad idea? I am of the opinion that people that want to use guns to rob or shot people are not going to think twice about carrying a gun where they are not allowed. Therefore, I am havinhg a difficult time understanding why some people think it is a bad idea.

Can someone please enlighten me, even if through a PM?

Here are some statistics from a pro-gun website: GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide Comparisons

Take a look at US versus Canada (my home country, so the example most familiar to me). The US has over 5 times the gun homicide rate of Canada. Yet the two countries are adjacent and have quite similar populations and lifestyles. Why the big difference in firearm deaths? Some would say it's because Canada outlaws handguns and controls other ownership of other kinds of weapons more aggressively than does the US. The idea that the solution to excessive gun violence is more guns, more places, just doesn't make sense to me. But I don't think either of us is likely to convince the other.

[kagmypts]

Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay

The idea that the solution to excessive gun violence is more guns, more places, just doesn't make sense to me. But I don't think either of us is likely to convince the other.

Here is where I think the fundamental difference between the two sides of gun control lies. For people in favor of relaxing gun control laws, the relaxed laws do not mean more guns and more violence. Gun control laws only impact people who LEGALLY carry guns (by definition). By and large, people who legally carry guns are not the ones committing the violent crimes. For obvious reasons, criminals do not want to legally obtain firearms. However, by allowing more law-abiding citizens to possess and carry guns, these people act as deterrents to the real criminals - the ones who actually want to kill people with guns. If every single person was forced to carry a gun (and I am not supporting this since it is a personal choice, at least it should be for law-abiding citizens), think about how this would change the mindset of criminals. I am sure most of these criminals would think twice about mugging, etc. people who they knew were armed. Therefore, gun violence would actually go down. Since I am obviously on the side of less restrictive gun control laws, I am not sure what the other side thinks. I am going to guess the "argument" goes something like this... there are more guns so there will be more crimes. To this I would respond, guns do not equal violence... it is people misusing them (I am not referring to accidents caused by improperly handling them, but people who use them to harm others). In this respect, gun control laws do nothing to curb violence since people following laws are not committing crimes. In this , guns are no different than alcohol. In and of itself, alcohol is harmless. Alcohol is only harmful when it is abused - drinking in excess, driving a car while intoxicated, etc.

For all of you who are for stonger gun control laws, I would be very interested in hearing your argument as to how/why crimes go up. Like you said, either side is unlikely to convince the other.

[pirate_lafitte]

Originally Posted by kagmypts

Here is where I think the fundamental difference between the two sides of gun control lies. For people in favor of relaxing gun control laws, the relaxed laws do not mean more guns and more violence. Gun control laws only impact people who LEGALLY carry guns (by definition). By and large, people who legally carry guns are not the ones committing the violent crimes. For obvious reasons, criminals do not want to legally obtain firearms. However, by allowing more law-abiding citizens to possess and carry guns, these people act as deterrents to the real criminals - the ones who actually want to kill people with guns. If every single person was forced to carry a gun (and I am not supporting this since it is a personal choice, at least it should be for law-abiding citizens), think about how this would change the mindset of criminals. I am sure most of these criminals would think twice about mugging, etc. people who they knew were armed. Therefore, gun violence would actually go down. Since I am obviously on the side of less restrictive gun control laws, I am not sure what the other side thinks. I am going to guess the "argument" goes something like this... there are more guns so there will be more crimes. To this I would respond, guns do not equal violence... it is people misusing them (I am not referring to accidents caused by improperly handling them, but people who use them to harm others). In this respect, gun control laws do nothing to curb violence since people following laws are not committing crimes. In this , guns are no different than alcohol. In and of itself, alcohol is harmless. Alcohol is only harmful when it is abused - drinking in excess, driving a car while intoxicated, etc.

For all of you who are for stonger gun control laws, I would be very interested in hearing your argument as to how/why crimes go up. Like you said, either side is unlikely to convince the other.

Well put. Furthermore, you don't need a gun for there to be violence. Look at Germany. Guns are restricted in Germany and yet people find ways to kill. Alot of people in Germany get kicked to death or stabbed.

[SEAandATL]

No way would I support this bill. It would just cause a further rise in crime and violence than what Atlanta already has too much of anyways. In fact, I would however support putting metal detectors in MARTA stations.

Btw, I wonder if the bill passes, will you be able the use guns as Breeze Cards, like the guns will have a barcode which can be read by tapping the circular targets on ticketing gates (like they do with cell phones in Japan), lol.

It's sad that Atlanta has to be like this. So much for becoming the "American Tokyo".

[RainyRainyDay]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

Well put. Furthermore, you don't need a gun for there to be violence. Look at Germany. Guns are restricted in Germany and yet people find ways to kill. Alot of people in Germany get kicked to death or stabbed.

Possibly this post was intended to be funny. But just in case not, the homicide statistics I pointed to earlier (from a pro-gun website), indicate that Germans die by all forms of homicide at one fifth the rate of Americans. So even if "a lot" of Germans are getting kicked or stabbed to death, that's at most 1.17 Germans per 100,000 of population. 5.70 Americans per 100,000 are killed by homicide of all forms. Your point...?

[kagmypts]

Originally Posted by RainyRainyDay

Possibly this post was intended to be funny. But just in case not, the homicide statistics I pointed to earlier (from a pro-gun website), indicate that Germans die by all forms of homicide at one fifth the rate of Americans. So even if "a lot" of Germans are getting kicked or stabbed to death, that's at most 1.17 Germans per 100,000 of population. 5.70 Americans per 100,000 are killed by homicide of all forms. Your point...?

I would like to respond to two points. First, those statistics look at America as a whole. It does not break out states according to how stringent their gun control laws are. Why do areas that do not allows guns (Washington DC) have such a high murder rate? Second, I agree that the level of violence is way too high in the United States. The reason for that is that we do not PUNISH criminals. How many homicides and violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders? If the justice system did its job, the homicide rate would be significantly lower in the United States.

[SEAandATL]

Just to throw this out there, Japan is another country that has strict gun laws and happens to have a low crime rate. However, gun control is not the only reason for their peacefulness, but it is a partial factor. It is the complete cultural difference that makes it a whole different society over here (I am living here in Japan now). The way Japanese do things like handle problems is completely different from Americans in general.

[mg83]

It's naive to compare violent crime in the U.S. to really any place else. Because it's not like any place else... this is not the horn of Africa nor is it peaceful Scandinavia. If you think the foundation of violent crime in the United States lies with "GUNS!!!!!!!!!111111111", you should dive into the deep rabbit holes of why this country is so violent.

It ain't all about GUNS.