Arizona now allows concealed weapons in bars (Goodyear: violent crime, credit)

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by YAZ

Unfortunately, the majority of news articles about civilian firearm casualties contain tragedies such as young 'uns having accidents with firearms.


More unfortunate is the many stories of heroes that go unreported.

Shameful.

More kids drown in their parents' swimming pools than die from gun accidents. Don't expect any swimming pool control laws coming down the pike though.

[pbenjamin]

Originally Posted by 61scout80

I'm genuinely curious, do you feel more secure because of the sign and permitted gun owners staying out?

I'd rather not be surrounded by people that feel the need to carry guns, whether legally or not. The fewer the better.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by pbenjamin

I'd rather not be surrounded by people that feel the need to carry guns, whether legally or not. The fewer the better.

So one is better than 10? Too bad for you if the one guy packing is a bad guy and there's no one else around to protect the unarmed sheeple. Signs protect no one. And guns are the one tool that equalize disparity of force, especially between men and women. Look around at where all mass shooting occur - schools, churches, post offices - all gun free zones. Why do you feel safer in such places? I know I'm totally safe when I'm in a gun store, where every employee is carrying and most of the customers are too. Why is that?

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

So one is better than 10? Too bad for you if the one guy packing is a bad guy and there's no one else around to protect the unarmed sheeple. Signs protect no one. And guns are the one tool that equalize disparity of force, especially between men and women. Look around at where all mass shooting occur - schools, churches, post offices - all gun free zones. Why do you feel safer in such places? I know I'm totally safe when I'm in a gun store, where every employee is carrying and most of the customers are too. Why is that?

Well, actually this isn't completely correct. While there happens to be few and sensationalized "mass" shootings in schools and such, most actually happen in areas of high crime. Shootings in schools, churches, post offices (), etc are rare; shootings in settings where it isn't a sensation are not. As for the gun owners disarming an armed criminal...that seems just as comical to me as "unarmed sheeple" being a victim of a crime and not having "equal" protection from a criminal. So because you have a gun you'd somehow "disarm" a criminal intent on using his gun if necessary without incident? That is a very unlikely event and one which might get you shot or killed just as quickly as the criminal.

[Rick Lee]

Actually, I'd not take action against a criminal who did not threaten a loved one or myself. Other people's problems are not mine. I won't risk financial ruin and a jail sentence to help strangers in situations where I'm not sure of what's going on. However, I do know that I'm a law abiding citizen, a very well-trained shooter, have held CCW's in many states for the last 17 years and no one, especially a business owner, has anything to fear by my carrying concealed on their property. Criminals might have something to fear, but only if I'm their target. I'm not a helpless victim. Anyone out there think 911 is gonna save them in a violent, life-threatening situation? When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

[Arizona Mike]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

So one is better than 10? Too bad for you if the one guy packing is a bad guy and there's no one else around to protect the unarmed sheeple. Signs protect no one. And guns are the one tool that equalize disparity of force, especially between men and women. Look around at where all mass shooting occur - schools, churches, post offices - all gun free zones. Why do you feel safer in such places? I know I'm totally safe when I'm in a gun store, where every employee is carrying and most of the customers are too. Why is that?

I agree with what you're saying. Statistically, mass shootings are a rare event, but statistical probability doesn't matter if you're the person in Mumbai or Columbine or Virginia Tech or wherever. And the more likely possibility of one-on-one violence is an even better argument. Having well-trained and regulated CCW carriers probably makes the state safer.

But...

I wish people would stop using that inane "sheeple" line. The Left started using it when talking about Bush, the Right then adopted it, and from either side it sounds arrogant and snotty and high-handed and condescending. It turns undecided people off and makes them less likely to consider your argument. It also makes you sound like a soda-shop cowboy. Please consider dropping it from your lexicon. You're better than that.

[Rick Lee]

No, I'm not better than that. There are people out there who think it's the state's job to provide for their personal security and think signs protect them. They are sheeple. Police have no legal obligation to protect anyone and don't even have to respond to 911 calls. I have no problem with that, since I am always armed and capable of defending myself and my loved ones. I have a problem with sheeple supporting laws that deny my right to self defense because they think real criminals will be deterred by signs or a trespassing charge when they think nothing of committing violent felonies.

[kek1993]

Alcohol and guns. What a great combo. The interesting thing, is that Montana/Wyoming, that is not even news, and no one gets shot in those places, every one has a gun in the bar. Compare that with NYC, where NO one is supposed to have a gun, yet has more problems with guns and violence than Montana, and Wyoming combined.

Set me up with a tequila shooter and .44.

[Arizona Mike]

I'm talking to a brick wall, yet again today.

[fcorrales80]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

No, I'm not better than that. There are people out there who think it's the state's job to provide for their personal security and think signs protect them. They are sheeple. Police have no legal obligation to protect anyone and don't even have to respond to 911 calls. I have no problem with that, since I am always armed and capable of defending myself and my loved ones. I have a problem with sheeple supporting laws that deny my right to self defense because they think real criminals will be deterred by signs or a trespassing charge when they think nothing of committing violent felonies.

Police don't have a legal obligation to respond to a call for help or to protect citizens from crime/criminal? Ok, now that is simply untrue and that comment pretty much discredits most of your arguments. Their core value is to "protect and serve" and take an oath for such an obligation. Either way, as an expert marksman with urban warfare training, I wouldn't want armed citizens thinking they could protect themselves from criminals like every street in American was Tombstone or Iraq for that matter even if you have all the training in the world shooting a target on the wall or have a permit. The truth is if you engage an armed individual, you are likely to cause death, injury, etc to yourself, a loved one, or someone else. Now doing this at home is different from a bar/restaurant. Now while other people's problems are not mine, I do have a civil disposition that makes it hard to ignore others in need, help, or danger and don't mind helping but situations require common sense and a shoot 'em up attitude is just as dangerous as a complacent "sheep" who'd call police for help.