Georgia law allows guns in some schools, bars, churches

10 years ago

Seems crazy to have to write laws to protect our rights. Yet, it's very good that we can carry in places where madmen with guns can be stopped when they decide to foam at the mouth and start sniping at will.

I do kinda do an RCA dog head tilt at the thought of a bar with guns. There are too many people who just drink to excess and a lot of them can get pretty violent. I lost a friend who was shot in his own bar. I'm not sure if he was armed or not behind his bar - and I'm pretty sure that nobody knew the killer was armed, so laws wouldn't have changed anything other than someone there might have been able to stop the murder.

I'm pretty burnt on the opposition who seems to think that perps of gun crime should be dealt with with "compassion" rather than just stopping them cold. This is a very displaced empathy. A rapist doesn't deserve to be shot right - she'll get over it. Yeah, okay. Whatever. I think it's more reasonable to see it that the more of these predators are picked off by their "prey" the fewer predators will be on the loose to harm, and maybe kill while committing their crimes. Seems that statistics support that view, too. Where criminals can't be sure of their own safety, they don't take as many risks.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9131716].message }}

AprilCT

10 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

...

I do kinda do an RCA dog head tilt at the thought of a bar with guns. There are too many people who just drink to excess and a lot of them can get pretty violent.

Drunks shouldn't be carrying or driving. The bar and servers are the real problem who keep letting drunks drink more when they should be shut off.

Years ago I used to get off work around 1:00 am and later, working late shift in an office. Many times there were cars going the wrong way on the highways and limited access Interstate. Because some jackass was busy making a bigger profit, they get other people killed.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9132402].message }}

Claude Whitacre 10 years ago

I think it's an idea who's time has come.

What could possibly go wrong?
- [ 5 ] Thanks
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9132440].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Originally Posted by AprilCT

Drunks shouldn't be carrying or driving. The bar and servers are the real problem who keep letting drunks drink more when they should be shut off.

Years ago I used to get off work around 1:00 am and later, working late shift in an office. Many times there were cars going the wrong way on the highways and limited access Interstate. Because some jackass was busy making a bigger profit, they get other people killed.

As much as I am 100% for our second amendment - I have to say I fully agree that drunks shouldn't have guns or car keys. There's a lot of other things that someone shouldn't do when they're drunk either, but they do it.

I AM all for the bartender having one on his person.

As far as people serving too much.....It's not always the server's fault. I've seen people go from dead sober to dead drunk in one drink. Maybe they take something else that just kicks in at a bad time, maybe they just hold it well up until a certain point then do a quick meltdown. I'm not sure what happens, but it's not always the server's fault. When people get completely stinko don't know what the hell is going on drunk........it's their own damned fault. That's what the point of being the age of majority is. While service personnel can help keep situations contained, it's not ultimately completely under their control 100% of the time.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9132825].message }}

Karen Blundell

10 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

As far as people serving too much.....It's not always the server's fault. I've seen people go from dead sober to dead drunk in one drink. Maybe they take something else that just kicks in at a bad time, maybe they just hold it well up until a certain point then do a quick meltdown. I'm not sure what happens, but it's not always the server's fault. When people get completely stinko don't know what the hell is going on drunk........it's their own damned fault. That's what the point of being the age of majority is. While service personnel can help keep situations contained, it's not ultimately completely under their control 100% of the time.

I can 100% agree with this - back in the 70's and 80's I worked in a few dining and drinking establishments and have seen my share of drunks - alcoholism has been a very big part of my life - with family members and partners having the illness - I know how sick real drunks can be - so I totally disagree with allowing the customer of a bar to carry a gun - that is utter insanity in my opinion!

While I do think we all have the right to defend ourselves - there are certain weapons that should be banned outright - I wish we never needed to have to defend ourselves. The truth is, I hate violence period and I have always tried to play peacekeeper in any confrontation - it is a thankless stand to take in life and it has sometimes resulted in me being ridiculed and and left very much drained.

I think that law is a little perverse but then again here in Canada it is illegal for me to carry mace (Pepper Spray) for use on humans. I live in an economically depressed town in Ontario - and I am almost a senior - for some I already am - seniors can be vulnerable to thieves in a town such as this one so I will have to make do with a walking stick as my "weapon" (saw a gorgeous one on ebay that I might just buy for giggles)- that and 911 on speed dial on my cell phone.
There - that ought to be enough - lol -

I seriously hate to even think this way - but I guess such are the times, eh?

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

---------------

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9143721].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Karen Blundell

...I wish we never needed to have to defend ourselves. The truth is, I hate violence period and I have always tried to play peacekeeper in any confrontation - it is a thankless stand to take in life and it has sometimes resulted in me being ridiculed and and left very much drained.

I think that law is a little perverse but then again here in Canada it is illegal for me to carry mace (Pepper Spray) for use on humans. I live in an economically depressed town in Ontario - and I am almost a senior - for some I already am - seniors can be vulnerable to thieves in a town such as this one so I will have to make do with a walking stick as my "weapon" (saw a gorgeous one on ebay that I might just buy for giggles)- that and 911 on speed dial on my cell phone.
There - that ought to be enough - lol -

I seriously hate to even think this way - but I guess such are the times, eh?

It's not just the times, Karen. Ever since Cain and Abel one person has tried to take what another has by force. It's in the nature of some to abhor violence, but it is also in the nature of some to embrace it as a way to get what they want.

And then there are those who hold that your right to life is not as important as someone else's. Those are the ones who try to deny you the right to protect yourself by whatever means are necessary. They are the ones who would have you arrested if you injure someone who is breaking into your home to do you harm. These people are contemptible.

As the old saying goes, "God created men, but Samuel Colt made them equal."

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9143944].message }}

yukon

Banned 10 years ago

Lol you can't drink & drive but you can drink with guns.

Here's something even dumber. In the state of South Carolina you can't buy shoes before noon on Sundays (I tried).

[ 5 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9131930].message }}

kenzo22

10 years ago

I think this is a very good idea to allow guns in such places. If there is someone crazy or with any reason only he knows to go to school and shoot to people he would do it without checking if having a gun is prohibited or not. If more people would have guns(for self defence), such idiots will be shot down quite quickly because others won't be defenceless.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Backup and maintenance plugin for WordPress
www.wpguards.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9132774].message }}

Richard Van

10 years ago

Originally Posted by kenzo22

I think this is a very good idea to allow guns in such places. If there is someone crazy or with any reason only he knows to go to school and shoot to people he would do it without checking if having a gun is prohibited or not. If more people would have guns(for self defence), such idiots will be shot down quite quickly because others won't be defenceless.

I can see your point of view, I really can. My concern with this is based purely on what I see here, so not likely to be completely relevant across the pond, however, I see a lot of nice people turn up at the pub, I also see a lot of those same people punch and glass other people after too much beer.

The question is, how many nutters go around shooting people in bars now compared with how many drunk bar goers, who don't currently have guns in bars, will now be carrying the said gun in bars?

Forgive me but if you armed people in pubs over here, I guarantee you absolute carnage. Sure, the odd crazy may get gunned down and probably after he/she has already shot someone but how many of the standard bar fights will then become shoot outs? Or will the fact everyone has a gun stop people getting drunk and fighting altogether?

The funny thing is, if this was Amsterdam and we're talking about taking guns into coffee shops to have a smoke, the biggest issue would be customers making bongs out of their guns.

So in fact I guess what I'm saying is that booze and peoples lack of responsibility is the problem. Yukon has a point though, if you can't drive a car when you drink, you may not be able to shoot straight either and that might lead to quite a lawsuit.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Wibble, bark, my old man's a mushroom etc...

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9132853].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Who needs to worry about terrorism when we have all these wonderful new gun laws unbalanced and angry people running around?

Its a big, highly populated country and the incidents are starting to pile up.

I'm definitely not in favor of taking away guns from law abiding people (like myself of course), but something needs to be done and some people are just not being very helpful.

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9133218].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Another win for the gun lobby, since they were the only ones pushing for it. I particularly like this part:

"Among its many extreme provisions, it allows guns in TSA lines at the country's busiest airport, forces community school boards into bitter, divisive debates about whether they should allow guns in their children's classrooms, and broadens the conceal carry eligibility to people who have previously committed crimes with guns,"

One church that won't be allowing parishioners to carry weapons is Atlanta's historic Ebenezer Baptist Church, which remembers well the 1974 shooting deaths of a deacon and Alberta Williams King, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s mother, in its sanctuary.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9133336].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

Gun Ownership - It's The Law In Kennesaw

Kennesaw has had a mandatory gun ownership law since 1982. I lived there for several years and gun crimes were almost unheard of.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9133611].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Gun Ownership - It's The Law In Kennesaw

Kennesaw has had a mandatory gun ownership law since 1982. I lived there for several years and gun crimes were almost unheard of.

Undoubtedly an unconstitutional law. Since when can politicians dictate what people have to purchase and keep? Their low crime rate is most likely due to the fact that few people actually live there. 29,000 in 2010, as opposed to Atlanta, the most populous city in the U.S. state of Georgia, with an estimated 2012 population of 443,775.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9133642].message }}

Kay King

10 years ago

It was passed in 1982 in a referendum - the people there love the law becuase it's unique. It's not enforced and no one is ticketed for not owning a gun.
About 30k people there now but it's part of the Atlanta Metro area.

The city doesn't take itself too seriously - and I liked that about it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9133680].message }}

Claude Whitacre

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

It was passed in 1982 in a referendum - the people there love the law becuase it's unique. It's not enforced and no one is ticketed for not owning a gun.
About 30k people there now but it's part of the Atlanta Metro area.

The city doesn't take itself too seriously - and I liked that about it.

This is an interesting case. Sure, the population is low, so a few crimes more or less will show up as a bigger percentage....but it does provide a sample, of a city with more guns..and not more violence.

Is it possible that's because the usual gun crime factors aren't there...gangs, slums, a depressed economy?

Do most small towns have lower crime Per Capita? (I've been itching to use "Per Capita" for weeks now. I want to appear to be a metropolitan sophisticate)

Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9134591].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Undoubtedly an unconstitutional law. Since when can politicians dictate what people have to purchase and keep? Their low crime rate is most likely due to the fact that few people actually live there. 29,000 in 2010, as opposed to Atlanta, the most populous city in the U.S. state of Georgia, with an estimated 2012 population of 443,775.

Well, the current admin says they CAN, and they CLAIM it was found CONSTITUTIONAL! YEAH, the supreme court said THAT was unconstitutional, but so many figured "IT" was pulled through the courts for being unconstitutional, and "IT" was allowed, so "IT" was constitutional. Of course they have different ways of describing "IT", so... ICSM!

Actually, the most populated states are not necessarily the ones with the most deaths as a percentage!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9134519].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Well, the current admin says they CAN, and they CLAIM it was found CONSTITUTIONAL! YEAH, the supreme court said THAT was unconstitutional, but so many figured "IT" was pulled through the courts for being unconstitutional, and "IT" was allowed, so "IT" was constitutional. Of course they have different ways of describing "IT", so... ICSM!

Actually, the most populated states are not necessarily the ones with the most deaths as a percentage!

Steve

Give me the link to where it was found constitutional, because that is simply not true. Nowhere in the constitution is there a clause about the government, whether state or local or federal being able to force you to arm yourself, buy a weapon, use a weapon, etc. Simply isn't there.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9134532].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Give me the link to where it was found constitutional, because that is simply not true. Nowhere in the constitution is there a clause about the government, whether state or local or federal being able to force you to arm yourself, buy a weapon, use a weapon, etc. Simply isn't there.

You said it was unconstitutional for the government to force you to buy SOMETHING!

I AGREED!

The COURTS AGREED!

The people's understanding, and in one case their DESIRED understanding is that it WAS found constitutional by the US Supreme court! The supreme court changed "fine for not purchasing" to "tax not imposed if purchased", and said THAT was constitutional.

HOW can you tax something that doesn't exist though? The idea of a tax has always been to tax something that existed.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9134608].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

You said it was unconstitutional for the government to force you to by SOMETHING!

I AGREED!

The COURTS AGREED!

The people's understanding, and in one case their DESIRED understanding is that it WAS found constitutional by the US Supreme court!

Steve

Maybe I just don't understand you Steve. You said the courts agreed that it was unconstitutional and then you say that it was found constitutional by the Supreme Court. I want the link that says the US Supreme court found it constitutional.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9134618].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Undoubtedly an unconstitutional law. Since when can politicians dictate what people have to purchase and keep?...

LOL, you walked headfirst into this one

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Give me the link to where it was found constitutional, because that is simply not true. Nowhere in the constitution is there a clause about the government, whether state or local or federal being able to force you to buy something you don't want arm yourself, buy a weapon, use a weapon, etc. Simply isn't there.

He is talking about ... wait for it ...

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Maybe I just don't understand you Steve. You said the courts agreed that it was unconstitutional and then you say that it was found constitutional by the Supreme Court. I want the link that says the US Supreme court found it constitutional.

Obamacare, of course. OT, absolutely, but not to Steve's meandering thought train.

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9134751].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

LOL, you walked headfirst into this one

He is talking about ... wait for it ...

Obamacare, of course. OT, absolutely, but not to Steve's meandering thought train.

Yeah, I rather expected it ...

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9134802].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

LOL, you walked headfirst into this one

He is talking about ... wait for it ...

Obamacare, of course. OT, absolutely, but not to Steve's meandering thought train.

HOW is it off topic? She said you COULDN'T do that, and I said many think you CAN!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9135091].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

HOW is it off topic? She said you COULDN'T do that, and I said many think you CAN!

Steve

It's off topic because the topic is 'Georgia law allows guns...', not OC.

I'm really being serious here, not facetious or derogatory in the least - I'm fascinated by some of the side trips your brain takes in the course of some of these threads. How you get from one point to another just astounds me.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141542].message }}

Dan Riffle 10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Undoubtedly an unconstitutional law. Since when can politicians dictate what people have to purchase and keep?

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

It's off topic because the topic is 'Georgia law allows guns...', not OC.

Steve, I, too, am often amazed where Seasoned's brain takes him, but Sbucciarel's question wasn't technically limited to guns. Seasoned offered an example of when politicians have dictated required purchases.

If you ask me, which you didn't, but I digress, this is an example of Seasoned actually being rather coherent.
- Thanks
- 2 replies
Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141675].message }}
- TimPhelan 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Dan Riffle
  
  If you ask me, which you didn't, but I digress, this is an example of Seasoned actually being rather coherent.
  
  I agree with that. Coherent and expected. When I read what Suzanne posted I immediately thought of the ACA and was waiting for someone, most likely Steve, to point that out.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  Over 50 Dating
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141721].message }}
- Joe Mobley 10 years ago
  
  I remember when I was in the fourth or fifth grade, the school had a field trip to a local gun range.
  
  Mom signed the papers. Went to school on a Saturday. School buses took us to the gun range. We had some training, then shot 15 or 20 rounds with bolt-action 22 rifles.
  
  Fun! Fun! Fun!
  
  If you are up for something different, you might sign up for a firearms class at a local gun shop. They'll rent you the gun, sell you the ammo and all you have to do is show up.
  
  You may never get into the "gun scene" but you will have fun trying a new experience.
  
  Just a suggestion.
  
  Joe Mobley
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  .
  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141733].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

It's off topic because the topic is 'Georgia law allows guns...', not OC.

I'm really being serious here, not facetious or derogatory in the least - I'm fascinated by some of the side trips your brain takes in the course of some of these threads. How you get from one point to another just astounds me.

She was talking about constitutionality. SADLY, today, too much is based on PERCEPTION, rather than reality. PERCEPTION then becomes "reality" through a legal concept known as "precedent". Basically it says a previous legal authority judged or claimed X, so I should too.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142376].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

It's off topic because the topic is 'Georgia law allows guns...', not OC.

I'm really being serious here, not facetious or derogatory in the least - I'm fascinated by some of the side trips your brain takes in the course of some of these threads. How you get from one point to another just astounds me.

Ok ... I'll restate the obvious. The Affordable Health Care Act falls under a new "tax." That's how the Supreme Court defined it, so we'll go with that definition.

That brings us back to the real conversation instead of a red herring. I would say that it is unconstitutional to create a law that makes you buy something other than health insurance .... as in physical products, generally made of metal, plastic, and other man made and synthetic properties, like a gun, toilet paper, coffee cups, condoms, breast implants, etc.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142459].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

That brings us back to the real conversation instead of a red herring. I would say that it is unconstitutional to create a law that makes you buy something breast implants, etc.

YA...YA....You mean Rod Serling was WRONG?

The Twilight Zone S05E17 Number 12 Looks Just...

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142466].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Maybe I just don't understand you Steve. You said the courts agreed that it was unconstitutional and then you say that it was found constitutional by the Supreme Court. I want the link that says the US Supreme court found it constitutional.

NO! I said many in the PUBLIC say it was found constitutional. This is about ACA, AKA OC!

Roberts health care opinion, Commerce Clause: The real reason the chief justice upheld Obamacare.

Basically, they said that this WAS constitutional because of the ability to "regulate commerce". The majority opinion, penned by the chief justice, is:

Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress's power to "regulate Commerce."

In other words, it IS UNCONSTTUTIONAL! BUT, they redefined the fee as a TAX and said that the fee was allowed since there was no restriction on taxing. The HELL THERE ISN'T!!!!!!!!!! HOW can you tax NOTHING? If you can tax nothing, what is to prevent you from taxing your inability to go to mars? Believe me, eventually, they WILL!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9135080].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Forcing people to have guns isn't any more right than telling them they can't have them. We're supposed to be a land of individual choice.

I was damned happy to own a gun when the guy came in my back door even with an almost 200 lb dog putting up a fuss. I still wonder whether my guy and myself would have been shot if he hadn't come in to see a gun pointed at his head. I had a mirror by my doors so an intruders own movement would distract them. Told Blitz to "back off" so he wouldn't get killed. To me it's just hilarious to listen to people talk about just "cooperating" to save their lives.

However - I can't imagine telling a person they HAVE to own a gun, even though it seems to work real well in Switzerland. If a person doesn't have the disposition to pull the trigger when they need to, they'll just be killed by their own gun in an emergency. Anyone can learn to use a gun - but not everyone will have what it takes to use it when they need it. If they can't, the intruder just simply takes the gun away and uses it on them. Just the fact. What good does it do to have people with guns that will only be used to arm the invader?

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9134960].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

even though it seems to work real well in Switzerland.

Not even close to being the same thing.

In Switzerland military service is COMPULSORY for all males over 18. For women it's voluntary.

The arms provided to them are deemed to be the property of the individual, not the military.

Source: Military of Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9134996].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Not even close to being the same thing.

In Switzerland military service is COMPULSORY for all males over 18. For women it's voluntary.

The arms provided to them are deemed to be the property of the individual, not the military.

Source: Military of Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I realize there are differences. Still, though - knowing every person in a country is armed is a great deterrent to invasion by countries that have a bee in their butts for take-over. What makes it so different, though - and I really think we need to institute this one, is that the people there are trained very well in the use of the weapons. Training should be compulsory with gun ownership. It might not stop criminals from murdering, but it would stop a lot of accidental deaths by firearms. It would also give those who do decide to own them a better mindset for the correct use of and the correct readiness to use their weapon. Just makes sense to me.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9135012].message }}

lcombs

10 years ago

A law that allows guns in bars and churches..... Hmmmmm

Long story short. (As I can make anyway).

Back in my concrete pouring days we had a gig in Oxford, Oh.
Almost an entire new sub-division.
On the way home after work we would take a little detour through a little crossroads called Reily.
We'd stop in Ray's Reily Inn for a few cold ones.
We knew everybody there.
a lot of the regulars had their ball caps hanging from the ceiling.
My Miami U. cap was there.

So much for the groundwork.

We hired a black guy, Alabama, "Bama" for short.

We stopped into Ray's.
The regular crowd wasn't there.....
As soon as we walked in "Pop", the bartender, pulled his .45 revolver from behind the cash register and loaded it.

A girl that came in right behind made several trips to the "ladies room".
The pay phone just happened to be right outside the ladies room.

Pretty soon there were 8 - 10 guys sitting at the table right inside the door.
Their pistols were laying on the table.

It just so happened that one of the guys knew 'Bama'.

he said we should leave.

Me, 'Bama', and my business partner, Darrell, got into the pick-up.
I was driving.
I started the truck.
A guy runs up to my window with his hand in his pocket and points to me, then 'Bama', then Darrell and says, "I'm going to kill you, you, and you.
I said, "Bubba, you ain't killin' nobody". (Grammer was not an issue at the time.)

Just as I slam the truck in reverse, his brother, who happened to be the guy who warned us, grabbed him by the shoulders and threw him against the building.

There's a part 2 to the story where we went with 'Bama' to HIS bar.

But, that's for another time.

Laws for, or against guns don't mean shit!

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fresh...55326481208883

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141310].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Back in the 50's and 60's most schools had gun programs. It wasn't a big deal. In high school a lot of guys had their hunting rifles in their rigs when they went to school. Nobody got shot, nobody went to jail, and nobody minded someone having a gun. Most, if not all, had actually had training of some sort because of schools having programs.

Guns are not the problem - the problem is people are no longer sane. There's a lot of reasons for that, but it's the truth.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9141858].message }}

Claude Whitacre

10 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142565].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Let's assume that what you say is true. I happen to agree, but with a completely different set of definitions of insanity.

So........insane people should be able to get guns?

Well, that's obvious Claude. As the NRA would be the first to say ....

the only defense against an insane person with a gun is an insane person with a gun. I think it went something like that :p

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142570].message }}

Claude Whitacre

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, that's obvious Claude. As the NRA would be the first to say ....

the only defense against an insane person with a gun is an insane person with a gun. I think it went something like that :p

Remember...The only way to kill a Ninja..is with another Ninja.

Thanks

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9142590].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Yep.

We have a gov that allows corporations to poison us into insanity. We are not allowed to have moods. If you have moods, they put you on psychotropic drugs that are so lethal that "homicidal" and "suicidal" tendencies are listed right on the bottles as side effects. We have sodium flluoride dumped in our water even have test after test shows it causes cognitive disfunction. We have cognitively damaging chemicals - including lead and mercury all over our environment, and spray food with chemicals that cause brain damage.

But of course the answer to that problem is not to force the gov to stop allowing corporations to poison us into insanity. It's to take our natural and instinctual right to protect ourselves away from us. Good plan. Real good plan. Thanks - as long as we have people taking psychotropic drugs at the rate of about 1/3 of the population, I think I'll keep my right to protect against the zombies.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9143522].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

We have a gov that allows corporations to poison us into insanity. We are not allowed to have moods. If you have moods, they put you on psychotropic drugs that are so lethal that "homicidal" and "suicidal" tendencies are listed right on the bottles as side effects.

Sorry, but a lot more people would die without the mental health care that they so desperately need. It's a lot easier to get a gun than it is to get mental health care.

In the news the last couple of days: 23 Mother wandering around a park with a dead baby in her arms. She stabbed it to death. Long history of depression.

From Psychology Today:

"people with schizophrenia...are roughly twice as likely to be violent as those who do not have the disorder, according to a 2009 review of research. People who have schizophrenia and a substance-use disorder are at even greater risk: they have a nine times higher risk of violence than people with neither disorder. The association is especially marked for homicide: those with schizophrenia are nearly 20 times as likely to kill another person as people unaffected by the disease." These are not comforting facts.

Schizophrenia has been behind many of the mass murders in recent history ... that is, untreated schizophrenia. When treated successfully, the patients have a good chance of living normal lives.

Andrea Yates was allowed to have her "moods." Instead of getting the help she so desperately needed, she was treated by her husband like a home schooling baby machine. Her mood that she was allowed to have: My babies are going to a better place.

From all of the school shootings to much of the violent crime, untreated mental illness is a key factor. Of course, there's no shortage of just plain old violent criminals who aren't mentally ill, but most of the mass shootings are done by people who are allowed to have their "moods," however deadly those moods are.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9145222].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

From all of the school shootings to much of the violent crime, untreated mental illness is a key factor.

Most where being treated.
School Shooters & Stabbings Committed by those on Psychiatric Drugs | CCHR International
Fort Hood shooter was being being treated for mental illness, authorities say | NJ.com

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9145657].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Most where being treated.
School Shooters & Stabbings Committed by those on Psychiatric Drugs | CCHR International
Fort Hood shooter was being being treated for mental illness, authorities say | NJ.com

For every link you have of one killing by those who are treated, I have at least the same amount or more of those who are untreated and/or undiagnosed. Sorry, but I completely discount your first source as an unbiased, reliable source of information, with their page screaming for donations, rather than imparting unbiased information. The Fort Hood shooter is one guy, hardly enough of a sample to say that psychiatric medications make people kill people.

For many people, they save lives and enhance the quality of life for those who have a mental illness.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9145722].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

For every link you have of one killing by those who are treated, I have at least the same amount or more of those who are untreated and/or undiagnosed. Sorry, but I completely discount your first source as an unbiased, reliable source of information, with their page screaming for donations, rather than imparting unbiased information. The Fort Hood shooter is one guy, hardly enough of a sample to say that psychiatric medications make people kill people.

For many people, they save lives and enhance the quality of life for those who have a mental illness.

You do have a tendency to discount anything that disagrees with your statements, so that wasn't unexpected.
That just happened to be the first link I came across, there are pages and pages of them on Google.
By the way if you look at the side effects of those drugs you think are so great, the majority of them list depression, suicide and violent behavior as potential side effects.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9145788].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

You do have a tendency to discount anything that disagrees with your statements, so that wasn't unexpected.
That just happened to be the first link I came across, there are pages and pages of them on Google.
By the way if you look at the side effects of those drugs you think are so great, the majority of them list depression, suicide and violent behavior as potential side effects.

They legally have to list those as side effects if 1 person has had those side effects. The vast majority of people who use them, do not commit suicide or start killing people. In many cases, it prevents those who are clinically depressed from walking around a park with a dead, murdered baby in their arms. I've seen the remarkable, life changing results of meds for schizophrenics who had previously had no hope of any kind of a normal life, and I've personally got through clinical depression with the help of anti-depressants. Never killed anyone either.

Your first source was so obviously and blatantly a biased campaign against the mental health profession that no one looking for real information would consider it a reliable source. They have a cause and they also want you to send them your money.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9145843].message }}

Claude Whitacre 10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

You do have a tendency to discount anything that disagrees with your statements, so that wasn't unexpected.

Thom; And how is that different from anyone else on Earth? Me? You?

Didn't you then immediately discount her statements?

I don't mean it personally, it's just fun to watch. And of course I do it all the time myself. I just know when I'm doing it. But I do it anyway.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Yes. I would opt for mental health professionals for mental health concerns.

Suzanne; So...you are advocating mental health professionals, for your mental health care?

Isn't that a little...crazy?

What are you going to suggest next? Going to a medical doctor if you have a broken leg? Jeesh!
- Thanks
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9145996].message }}

Midnight Oil

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Sorry, but I completely discount your first source as an unbiased, reliable source of information, with their page screaming for donations, rather than imparting unbiased information.

As opposed to your Psychology Today source, whose site screams for subscribers and for readers to Find a Therapist? Therapists who pay $29.95 per month to be listed in their directory, by the way.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9145858].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

As opposed to your Psychology Today source, whose site screams for subscribers and for readers to Find a Therapist? Therapists who pay $29.95 per month to be listed in their directory, by the way.

Yes. I would opt for mental health professionals for mental health concerns. It's what has worked for me in the past.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9145872].message }}

Midnight Oil

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Yes. I would opt for mental health professionals for mental health concerns. It's what has worked for me in the past.

I would approach both sources, and any other for that matter, with caution and use them only as one of many when making mental health decisions. I doubt seriously I would use Psychology Today's directory as their only verification process is sending them a check.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9145938].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by Midnight Oil

I would approach both sources, and any other for that matter, with caution and use them only as one of many when making mental health decisions. I doubt seriously I would use Psychology Today's directory as their only verification process is sending them a check.

Well, when I needed anti-depressants for clinical depression, I went to my doctor who sent me to the appropriate doctor. I believe that's the way it's mostly done. Of course, some will go to alternative mental health sites. Good luck with that for those who do. My problem was handled quickly and thoroughly.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9145971].message }}

Midnight Oil

10 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, when I needed anti-depressants for clinical depression, I went to my doctor who sent me to the appropriate doctor. I believe that's the way it's mostly done. Of course, some will go to alternative mental health sites. Good luck with that for those who do. My problem was handled quickly and thoroughly.

In my mid-twenties, I was diagnosed with clinical depression. The first and only course of action my doctor prescribed was Prozac. I trusted her, did no homework of my own, and ended up pretty jacked up for some time (although still functional).

Eventually I went to another doctor. Before he would even discuss medication, he set me on a course of what some might consider "alternative medicine." He prescribed an improved diet, exercise, and more sleep and sunshine. That ended up working for me. No medication.

My point isn't one side is better or worse than the other. I'm very aware that there are serious problems on both sides. One side is too quick to medicate, the other is too quick to poo-poo medicine as a whole, for example. There are snake-oil salesmen and grifters on both sides. Always have been. Always will be.

My only point starting out was that Psychology Today really isn't exactly a reliable and reputable source, itself. The way they operate their therapist directory is a joke. And much of their pop psychology fluff is nothing more than "alternative medicine" of a different flavor. But that's just me as a long-term subscriber once upon a time.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9146265].message }}

Joe Mobley 10 years ago

I take it that we are off of the gun subject now?! Just wanted to clarify.

Joe Mobley
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

.
Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9146280].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

That twisting of our rights, I think, is one of the first means of the gov to break down citizen's resistance to self defense. There are people right now actually advocating that it is wrong to shoot someone who is actually raping you - they don't deserve to die. Considering how many rapes end in murder, I can't help but see such individuals who would advocate empathy for a violent attacker as completely mind controlled. Empathy is a good thing - but when it stands in someone's way of seeing the reality of needing to be able to defend yourself, something very upsetting is going wrong. That's just not natural. At all.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9144416].message }}

Georgia law allows guns in some schools, bars, churches

Trending Topics

How did you turn it all around?

Any thoughts on golf's latest phenom...Scottie Scheffler??

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?

Some interesting stats about brand comms

best high quality crypto traffic.