[EyeBrock]

Well, this is just pretty loony and shows a side of US society that is not admirable.

I just can't see the plus to this.

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Well, this is just pretty loony and shows a side of US society that is not admirable.

I just can't see the plus to this.

It is not "loony" at all. Tennessee enacted the very same law because bars were being targeted for robberies as they were the only businesses where no one was supposed to be armed.

The law only allows non-drinking CCW holders to carry concealed in bars that allow it. All other bars have to post a state authorized sign that they prohibit guns - and that's basically a sign for robbers to know that that's the place that's safe to rob. In short order all bars in AZ will allow non-drinkers to carry concealed or else they'll be frequent targets for robbery.

The reasoning for the law came from the observation that no one robs bars that are frequented by off-duty cops - who are allowed to carry concealed AND drink even in bars that prohibit non-drinkers from being armed.

The law has been successful in Tennessee and that's why Arizona is adopting it.

[EyeBrock]

Well, maybe it works in Tennessee but I can't see it working in Burlington, On.

It's a sad state of affairs when people think having armed civilians in bars is a good thing.

[Brenda]

$1:

...bars that are frequented by off-duty cops - who are allowed to carry concealed AND drink even in bars...

THAT I don't understand. Does that mean that as a cop, you are never a civilian anymore?

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Well, maybe it works in Tennessee but I can't see it working in Burlington, On.

Because inbred hicks from Podunk, TN can comport themselves better when armed than the people of Burlington, ON who are inclined to murderous rampages if they come into the possession of a firearm?

If you say so.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It's a sad state of affairs when people think having armed civilians in bars is a good thing.

We already have armed criminals in the bars so your objection is that the law abiding people are able to resist when the criminals try to rob them?

I'm guessing 'criminals' are now a protected group in Canada and armed victims would violate their rights?

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

...bars that are frequented by off-duty cops - who are allowed to carry concealed AND drink even in bars...

THAT I don't understand. Does that mean that as a cop, you are never a civilian anymore?

It just means cops are special. Ask one if he thinks he's special and after you pick yourself up off the floor you'll have your answer.

[Proculation]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm guessing 'criminals' are now a protected group in Canada and armed victims would violate their rights?

you didnt know ?

[Proculation]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Well, this is just pretty loony and shows a side of US society that is not admirable.

I just can't see the plus to this.

It is not "loony" at all. Tennessee enacted the very same law because bars were being targeted for robberies as they were the only businesses where no one was supposed to be armed.

The law only allows non-drinking CCW holders to carry concealed in bars that allow it. All other bars have to post a state authorized sign that they prohibit guns - and that's basically a sign for robbers to know that that's the place that's safe to rob. In short order all bars in AZ will allow non-drinkers to carry concealed or else they'll be frequent targets for robbery.

The reasoning for the law came from the observation that no one robs bars that are frequented by off-duty cops - who are allowed to carry concealed AND drink even in bars that prohibit non-drinkers from being armed.

The law has been successful in Tennessee and that's why Arizona is adopting it.

That should be more specified. The problem is not the place but the booze. When you see "Bars allowing guns", you think "drunk shootings".

[EyeBrock]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Well, maybe it works in Tennessee but I can't see it working in Burlington, On.

Because inbred hicks from Podunk, TN can comport themselves better when armed than the people of Burlington, ON who are inclined to murderous rampages if they come into the possession of a firearm?

If you say so.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

It's a sad state of affairs when people think having armed civilians in bars is a good thing.

We already have armed criminals in the bars so your objection is that the law abiding people are able to resist when the criminals try to rob them?

I'm guessing 'criminals' are now a protected group in Canada and armed victims would violate their rights?

Well, I can safely say nobody, legal gun owner or crazed criminal has gone on a gun rampage in Burlington during the 10 years I have lived here.

Do all these guns, legal or otherwise, make the US a safer place?
Looking at the homicide rate it would appear not.

[BartSimpson]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Well, I can safely say nobody, legal gun owner or crazed criminal has gone on a gun rampage in Burlington during the 10 years I have lived here.

Count your blessings.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Do all these guns, legal or otherwise, make the US a safer place?
Looking at the homicide rate it would appear not.

As politically incorrect as it is to say this, our principal problem in the USA is not a gun problem, but one of unassimilated minorities.

Interestingly, your principal problems with gun violence in Canada come from much the same groups.

[EyeBrock]

Very true.

[BartSimpson]

Proculation Proculation:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm guessing 'criminals' are now a protected group in Canada and armed victims would violate their rights?

you didnt know ?

Thanks for the giggle!

[OldChum]