If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   SC Gov "Nikki" Haley: let people carry guns without any training or permits, even in bars? Sure, why not? I mean really, what's the worst that could happen?   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 232
    More: Dumbass, South Carolina, Nikki Haley, business license, Beretta  
•       •       •

1456 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Feb 2014 at 12:54 PM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-12 01:30:13 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.


Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.
 
2014-02-12 01:30:54 PM

Dimensio: As several states already allow the carrying of concealed firearms by licensed citizens in establishments where alcohol is served, then substantial data should exist to show that those states experience a higher rate of violent incidents caused by licensed firearm carriers who became intoxicated in such an establishment


You're right, of course. The fact that the law sets up horrible scenarios is no argument against passing the law, or even examining ways to reduce the incidence of such situations, perhaps through a rewriting of the law, or changing its focus.

No, clearly THIS is the one perfect gun law that will finally end the debate in SC and elsewhere and prove that guns are no more or less safe than bubble wrap.
 
2014-02-12 01:32:21 PM

sprawl15: TonnageVT: Ideally, evolution would happen and the idiots will shoot themselves.

technically speaking evolution would only ensure the most capable shots survive which would probably be linked to aggression and psychopathy

 proper and sufficient training with their firearm of choice.
 
2014-02-12 01:32:42 PM
From what we've seen later it won't be any worse than letting cops carry guns.
 
2014-02-12 01:33:12 PM

ManateeGag: OK.  then let's also let people drive without a license or training.  what's the worst that could happen?


How about letting people vote without a license?  GOP:  no no no no no!
 
2014-02-12 01:33:49 PM
As long as individual business owners remain free to ban firearms on their own premises, I don't have a huge problem with this. Personally I would prefer to avoid drinking among armed gun nuts, but that's just because I grew up in a place where getting drunk, driving out of town, and shooting up speed limit signs was a local tradition.
 
2014-02-12 01:35:23 PM

Dr Dreidel: Dimensio: As several states already allow the carrying of concealed firearms by licensed citizens in establishments where alcohol is served, then substantial data should exist to show that those states experience a higher rate of violent incidents caused by licensed firearm carriers who became intoxicated in such an establishment

You're right, of course. The fact that the law sets up horrible scenarios is no argument against passing the law, or even examining ways to reduce the incidence of such situations, perhaps through a rewriting of the law, or changing its focus.

No, clearly THIS is the one perfect gun law that will finally end the debate in SC and elsewhere and prove that guns are no more or less safe than bubble wrap.


I have reconsidered my position. Previously, my conclusions were based upon observable reality but until you suggested the concept, I had not thought to contemplate entirely hypothetical "horrible scenarios", which I must now concede are a far better basis for legislative policy.

Additionally, are you unaware that two laws are being discussed, not a single law? The first, already passed, eliminates the state's current prohibition upon the carrying of firearms by licensed civilians into establishments where alcohol is served (though carriers cannot consume alcohol on the premises). The second, which is under consideration (and which is unlikely to pass) would eliminate the state's permit requirement for carrying a concealed firearm.
 
2014-02-12 01:35:58 PM

Dr Dreidel: Magorn: DrBenway: When I read stories like this, I'm reminded of old Westerns where lawless towns were cleaned up and made safe for citizens to walk down the street without wearing a gun. In retrospect, I now see how very silly that idea was. Thoroughly and utterly unprogressive.

The most iconic moment in the lore of "the Old West"  was the shoot-out at the OK Corral.  A shootout that occurred when the local sheriff tried to enforce a city ordinance banning the carrying of guns within town limits.  I wonder why the NRA glosses over that fact when they wax nostalgic about  about those days?  To them Wyatt Earp should be cast as the villain of the piece, trying to deny the Constitutional rights of innocent gun owners, no?

Part of me wishes that something like the shower scene from The Rock happens, and all these tough-guy "I'll carry my piece where I wanna carry my piece!" just blast away at each other in a Stuckey's over an unkind word and someone dropping a plate.

I mean, surely if it's impermissible to wear a gun and have any alcohol in a bar, these law-abiding citizens - who have many times let us know that if gun laws were tighter, they'd own all the illegal guns they can fit in an underground bunker - would never dream of imbibing the Bad Decision Juice while wearing hip-iron, right?

The total lack of DWI/DUIs in South Carolina is further proof that alcohol and firearms law may as well be gospel in the Palmetto State.


I'd like to see someone propose a criminal law for CWI "carrying while intoxicated"  public intoxication is already a crime, so itf you do it with a gun it is what lawyers call an "aggravating factor" or "sentence enhancer"   It's be interesting to see whether the NRA would oppose a common-sense safety measure like that.
 
2014-02-12 01:37:47 PM
I wonder what her view is on cranky constituents carrying guns into the governor's office.

"That's different, obviously."
 
2014-02-12 01:40:05 PM

FnkyTwn: I don't see what the problem is with allowing responsible gun owners to carry weapons anywhere they want. It's a little like Pit Bulls in that, until they do something horrible, they're perfectly fine dogs, and then if something bad happens it's the owners fault, and then that's what the court system is for.


Ya im with this guy. If youre going to allow open or conceal carry, i dont see why youre limiting the location unless you can show that certain locations are inherently more risky. Maybe alcohol consumption qualifies, but id like to see data supporting that.

Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.
 
2014-02-12 01:40:09 PM
I strongly support this bill.  This would be so awesome to watch.

/from a safe distance
//with at least a two-state buffer
 
2014-02-12 01:41:38 PM
Magorn

public intoxication is already a crime...

No.
 
2014-02-12 01:43:56 PM

Magorn: Just like "Bobby" Jindal, what kind of grown-ass man still wants to be called "Bobby"?


Piyush picked the nickname "Bobby" after watching one too many re-runs of the Brady Bunch.

I wish I was kidding.
 
2014-02-12 01:44:19 PM

Magorn: Dr Dreidel: Magorn: DrBenway: When I read stories like this, I'm reminded of old Westerns where lawless towns were cleaned up and made safe for citizens to walk down the street without wearing a gun. In retrospect, I now see how very silly that idea was. Thoroughly and utterly unprogressive.

The most iconic moment in the lore of "the Old West"  was the shoot-out at the OK Corral.  A shootout that occurred when the local sheriff tried to enforce a city ordinance banning the carrying of guns within town limits.  I wonder why the NRA glosses over that fact when they wax nostalgic about  about those days?  To them Wyatt Earp should be cast as the villain of the piece, trying to deny the Constitutional rights of innocent gun owners, no?

Part of me wishes that something like the shower scene from The Rock happens, and all these tough-guy "I'll carry my piece where I wanna carry my piece!" just blast away at each other in a Stuckey's over an unkind word and someone dropping a plate.

I mean, surely if it's impermissible to wear a gun and have any alcohol in a bar, these law-abiding citizens - who have many times let us know that if gun laws were tighter, they'd own all the illegal guns they can fit in an underground bunker - would never dream of imbibing the Bad Decision Juice while wearing hip-iron, right?

The total lack of DWI/DUIs in South Carolina is further proof that alcohol and firearms law may as well be gospel in the Palmetto State.

I'd like to see someone propose a criminal law for CWI "carrying while intoxicated"  public intoxication is already a crime, so itf you do it with a gun it is what lawyers call an "aggravating factor" or "sentence enhancer"   It's be interesting to see whether the NRA would oppose a common-sense safety measure like that.


Merely declaring a measure as "common sense" renders it easily dismissed; many entirely unreasonable proposals are claimed to be "common sense" as a substitute for presenting any rational justification for them (because, in those cases, no real justification exists).

Rather than arguing "common sense", the prohibition should be advocated because alcohol impairs judgment, which may cause a firearm carrier to be unable to determine whether or not the use of their carried firearm is appropriate at a given time. Using that as the argument, rather than merely an appeal to "common sense", will make opposition more difficult to argue.
 
2014-02-12 01:45:28 PM

Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.


Pretty sure actuaries require a license, hoss.
 
2014-02-12 01:45:32 PM

Dimensio: pueblonative: Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.

FTFY.

Seriously, the only way it doesn't kill another individual is if it's misused.  If it's used the way it's intended, something's gonna die.

Are you saying that I have misused my firearms on every occasion that I have taken them to a local firing range?

Did attaching my silencer to my handgun cause it to be misused also, or was it properly used (as a noise reduction tool) while the handgun itself was misused?

I was imagining I was Jack Bauer.

FTFAccuracy
 
2014-02-12 01:45:45 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Magorn

public intoxication is already a crime...

No.


It depends. In some jurisdictions it is, and in other jurisdictions it isn't.
 
2014-02-12 01:46:26 PM

Kiriyama9000: There are penalties for breaking the law.


That the NRA is actively trying to get removed.

One
Two
Three
Four
 
2014-02-12 01:48:21 PM

TwistedIvory: So, very similar to the legislation that Arizona has? Because let me tell you, since that law went into effect three years ago it has been nothing but bloodbaths in the streets.

Oh wait, no, the opposite of that.


**sigh**

This.  I think that's what really has the gun grabbers getting so desperate.  Also whenever one kid gets shot in a racially charged case, even the President chimes in on it.  However, 40-70 people are shot in Chicago every week and it barely makes their local news.

The simple fact is that firearms have become much more available, carry permits are widely available, SCOTUS has validated the individual right, and restrictions have repealed over the last 20 years.  And violent crime involving firearms has fallen 50%.

Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming already do this and there is no blood in the streets.  What exactly is the objection?
 
2014-02-12 01:48:36 PM

justtray: Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.


Is there a state that prevents businesses from disallowing firearms from  the premises?
 
2014-02-12 01:49:07 PM

John the Magnificent: Dimensio: pueblonative: Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.

FTFY.

Seriously, the only way it doesn't kill another individual is if it's misused.  If it's used the way it's intended, something's gonna die.

Are you saying that I have misused my firearms on every occasion that I have taken them to a local firing range?

Did attaching my silencer to my handgun cause it to be misused also, or was it properly used (as a noise reduction tool) while the handgun itself was misused?I was imagining I was Jack Bauer.

FTFAccuracy


You have confused your psychological projection for "accuracy".
 
2014-02-12 01:49:52 PM

Dimensio: Additionally, are you unaware that two laws are being discussed, not a single law? The first, already passed, eliminates the state's current prohibition upon the carrying of firearms by licensed civilians into establishments where alcohol is served (though carriers cannot consume alcohol on the premises). The second, which is under consideration (and which is unlikely to pass) would eliminate the state's permit requirement for carrying a concealed firearm.


Oh. My mistake.

// then it's just the second one I have a real problem with (though I still maintain that a state with 14,742 DUIs in 2013 should probably not rely on the honor system for allowing guns in bars)
 
2014-02-12 01:50:08 PM

justtray: FnkyTwn: I don't see what the problem is with allowing responsible gun owners to carry weapons anywhere they want. It's a little like Pit Bulls in that, until they do something horrible, they're perfectly fine dogs, and then if something bad happens it's the owners fault, and then that's what the court system is for.

Ya im with this guy. If youre going to allow open or conceal carry, i dont see why youre limiting the location unless you can show that certain locations are inherently more risky. Maybe alcohol consumption qualifies, but id like to see data supporting that.

Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.


You need to see data that alcohol consumption reduces inhibitions and causes ordinarily sensible people to act like jackasses... sometimes in an overly aggressive manner.

Seriously?  You need data on that?

Have you ever even been to a bar?
 
2014-02-12 01:50:19 PM

Dimensio: A Cave Geek: Out of morbid curiosity, I wonder what would happen if I were to wear a claw-dagger to a bar...I'd be exercising my rights, and no one would have the right to be frightened of it, according to the NRA.  They couldn't kick me out for wearing it, either.

You are correct, because private establishments are not allowed, in any state, to request that persons leave the premises.


Ok, I'll grant you the bar thing.  Spoke without thinking it through.  But the city council one would hold.  That's public property, and if the "Low" midwest is any indication, city councils won't be able to deny "law abiding" citizens to carry their arms wherever they want on public property(Kansas).
 
2014-02-12 01:51:39 PM

Facetious_Speciest: Magorn

public intoxication is already a crime...

No.


---
actually, yes

SECTION 16-17-530. Public disorderly conduct.

Any person who shall (a) be found on any highway or at any public place or public gathering in a grossly intoxicated condition or otherwise conducting himself in a disorderly or boisterous manner, (b) use obscene or profane language on any highway or at any public place or gathering or in hearing distance of any schoolhouse or church or (c) while under the influence or feigning to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor, without just cause or excuse, discharge any gun, pistol or other firearm while upon or within fifty yards of any public road or highway, except upon his own premises, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days


Interestingly FIRING a gun in such condition is already criminalized, but by the construction of the statute,  if you are already grossly intoxicated, you may as well pop off a few rounds since it has no extra penalty
 
2014-02-12 01:52:16 PM

Dimensio: John the Magnificent: Dimensio: pueblonative: Lord_Baull: We need training to operate a backhoe. We need training to drive a car. We need training to swing a bat. We need training to use a computer. We need training to even friggin operate a cash register.

But to carry a tool that can easily cause the death of another individual through misuse? Meh.

FTFY.

Seriously, the only way it doesn't kill another individual is if it's misused.  If it's used the way it's intended, something's gonna die.

Are you saying that I have misused my firearms on every occasion that I have taken them to a local firing range?

Did attaching my silencer to my handgun cause it to be misused also, or was it properly used (as a noise reduction tool) while the handgun itself was misused?I was imagining I was Jack Bauer.

FTFAccuracy

You have confused your psychological projection for "accuracy".


Ooooooooookay.
 
2014-02-12 01:52:16 PM
Of course, let people carry guns into the bar, provided that they don't drink.

Gun crazed people that want to drink will eagerly leave the gun behind and most likely to get drunk will behave very rationale and responbisbly.
 
2014-02-12 01:53:03 PM

DrBenway: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Pretty sure actuaries require a license, hoss.


And is that some sort of argument against? It doesn't really matter if the amount is negligible or steep, we've identified that guns can cause unintended harm and have put the burden of paying for that harm on the ones who insist we still need guns, the gun owners.
 
2014-02-12 01:54:14 PM

Magorn: I'd like to see someone propose a criminal law for CWI "carrying while intoxicated"  public intoxication is already a crime, so itf you do it with a gun it is what lawyers call an "aggravating factor" or "sentence enhancer"   It's be interesting to see whether the NRA would oppose a common-sense safety measure like that


There is only one state I can think of where carrying under the influence isn't already a crime.  In many, it will cost you your permit.
 
2014-02-12 01:55:03 PM

Magorn: I'd like to see someone propose a criminal law for CWI "carrying while intoxicated"


They're already on the books.  I'm not aware of any state where it's legal to carry while drunk.

Here in Michigan the limit is .02 BAC.
 
2014-02-12 02:01:48 PM

BMulligan: As long as individual business owners remain free to ban firearms on their own premises, I don't have a huge problem with this. Personally I would prefer to avoid drinking among armed gun nuts, but that's just because I grew up in a place where getting drunk, driving out of town, and shooting up speed limit signs was a local tradition.


The business owner can post the signs, but what's the recourse against someone smuggling a gun in and using it?  They'll be tried with whatever the penalties for using the gun are, but there wouldn't seem to be an incentive to obey the no-guns policy instituted by the owners.  Sure, the owners can kick them out if they detect the weapon, but that's it and only then.
 
2014-02-12 02:03:35 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: DrBenway: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Pretty sure actuaries require a license, hoss.

And is that some sort of argument against? It doesn't really matter if the amount is negligible or steep, we've identified that guns can cause unintended harm and have put the burden of paying for that harm on the ones who insist we still need guns, the gun owners.


I was not arguing against the concept; I was merely asking for an assessment of the "damage" that licensed concealed weapons permit holders typically cause through negligence.
 
2014-02-12 02:04:36 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: DrBenway: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Pretty sure actuaries require a license, hoss.

And is that some sort of argument against? It doesn't really matter if the amount is negligible or steep, we've identified that guns can cause unintended harm and have put the burden of paying for that harm on the ones who insist we still need guns, the gun owners.


I reckon that's intended for Dimensio, right? I thought there was some irony in him calling for off-the-cuff rate calculations being made when professionals who do it for a living are required to have a license. A license, can you imagine? What about our precious freedom to miscalculate?
 
2014-02-12 02:04:45 PM
Yes, because this worked so well in the old west.
 
2014-02-12 02:07:06 PM
A young cowboy named Billy Joe grew restless on the farm
A boy filled with wonderlust who really meant no harm
He changed his clothes and shined his boots
And combed his dark hair down
And his mother cried as he walked out

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

He laughed and kissed his mom
And said your Billy Joe's a man
I can shoot as quick and straight as anybody can
But I wouldn't shoot without a cause
I'd gun nobody down
But she cried again as he rode away

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

He sang a song as on he rode
His guns hung at his hips
He rode into a cattle town
A smile upon his lips
He stopped and walked into a bar
And laid his money down
But his mother's words echoed again

Dont take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

He drank his first strong liquor then to calm his shaking hand
And tried to tell himself he had become a man
A dusty cowpoke at his side began to laugh him down
And he heard again his mothers words

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town

Filled with rage then
Billy Joe reached for his gun to draw
But the stranger drew his gun and fired
Before he even saw
As Billy Joe fell to the floor
The crowd all gathered 'round
And wondered at his final words

Don't take your guns to town son
Leave your guns at home Bill
Don't take your guns to town
 
2014-02-12 02:10:50 PM

Saiga410: justtray: Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.

Is there a state that prevents businesses from disallowing firearms from  the premises?


I honestly don't know. But I wouldn't be surpirsed, and if there is, I disagree. I vaguely remember some arguments on here about how certain area men think that their 2nd amendment right is unlimited thus they just ignore "no guns" signs as non enforcable. Which is why I brought it up.
 
2014-02-12 02:14:08 PM

John the Magnificent: justtray: FnkyTwn: I don't see what the problem is with allowing responsible gun owners to carry weapons anywhere they want. It's a little like Pit Bulls in that, until they do something horrible, they're perfectly fine dogs, and then if something bad happens it's the owners fault, and then that's what the court system is for.

Ya im with this guy. If youre going to allow open or conceal carry, i dont see why youre limiting the location unless you can show that certain locations are inherently more risky. Maybe alcohol consumption qualifies, but id like to see data supporting that.

Conversely i support individual businesses not allowing guns on their premises if they choose.

You need to see data that alcohol consumption reduces inhibitions and causes ordinarily sensible people to act like jackasses... sometimes in an overly aggressive manner.

Seriously?  You need data on that?

Have you ever even been to a bar?


No, I need to see data that shows that just because someone acts like a jackass it means they're going to shoot someone. I don't personally equate being a douche with murder. Additionally, having seen and been in a few bar fights myself, having had a dozen stitches in my forehead from being hit with 'something,' I don't personally consider the availability of a gun to necessarily be more dangerous in that situation than not. At the very least I'd like data that shows that it is. I haven't even heard anecdotal stories of it happening in bars. To me it seems like people just want to beat eachother, not kill
 
2014-02-12 02:14:34 PM
I suppose someone should point out that Indiana has no training requirement for it carry permit and you can drink in bars while carrying. I can't find anything saying there is a BAC equivalent either. Then again, there hasn't exactly been a rash of CCW drunks shooting people either. Last time I heard anything like that was a guy who shot people in self-defense in Broadripple. No charges were filed.
 
2014-02-12 02:17:58 PM

redmid17: I suppose someone should point out that Indiana has no training requirement for it carry permit and you can drink in bars while carrying. I can't find anything saying there is a BAC equivalent either. Then again, there hasn't exactly been a rash of CCW drunks shooting people either. Last time I heard anything like that was a guy who shot people in self-defense in Broadripple. No charges were filed.


True, but the only thing worse than dying in Indiana is living in Indiana.
 
2014-02-12 02:19:19 PM

EyeballKid: redmid17: I suppose someone should point out that Indiana has no training requirement for it carry permit and you can drink in bars while carrying. I can't find anything saying there is a BAC equivalent either. Then again, there hasn't exactly been a rash of CCW drunks shooting people either. Last time I heard anything like that was a guy who shot people in self-defense in Broadripple. No charges were filed.

True, but the only thing worse than dying in Indiana is living in Indiana.


I'd come up with a witty retort, but it would be undermined by me leaving Indiana for a job and not coming back (yet).
 
2014-02-12 02:19:29 PM

redmid17: I suppose someone should point out that Indiana has no training requirement for it carry permit and you can drink in bars while carrying. I can't find anything saying there is a BAC equivalent either. Then again, there hasn't exactly been a rash of CCW drunks shooting people either. Last time I heard anything like that was a guy who shot people in self-defense in Broadripple. No charges were filed.


You are making the common mistake of relying upon reality rather than upon hypothetical scenarios in your decision-making.
 
2014-02-12 02:20:39 PM

Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.


Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?
 
2014-02-12 02:23:45 PM

The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?


Hey man, if you cant meet his impossibly specific standards personally with data either not available, or difficult to obtain without estimation then the concept itself is wrong and furthermore such as...
 
2014-02-12 02:24:29 PM
Magorn

SECTION 16-17-530. Public disorderly conduct.

Public disorderly conduct. Not public intoxication. The statute itself mentions "grossly intoxicated," which usually means "drunk and screaming at the cops or random bystanders" or the like You can be charged under this without a drop of alcohol in you. The meaningful part of your citation is conduct, not intoxication, contrasted with many states that specifically outlaw actual public intoxication, rather than a more general "disorderly conduct," or the more common specifically stated "drunk and disorderly" conduct.

Not really worth arguing about, though; I was simply suggesting (in an obviously overly-curt manner that necessitated explanation) that your idea of "CWI" as a "sentence enhancer" to public intoxication would first require public intoxication to be illegal itself, as it is in some states, but not South Carolina.
 
2014-02-12 02:27:40 PM

justtray: No, I need to see data that shows that just because someone acts like a jackass it means they're going to shoot someone. I don't personally equate being a douche with murder. Additionally, having seen and been in a few bar fights myself, having had a dozen stitches in my forehead from being hit with 'something,' I don't personally consider the availability of a gun to necessarily be more dangerous in that situation than not. At the very least I'd like data that shows that it is. I haven't even heard anecdotal stories of it happening in bars. To me it seems like people just want to beat eachother, not kill


Well now, if "something" happens to be a bullet, I'm guessing stitches in your forehead won't be doing you a whole lot of good. But you're apparently okay with that possibility so here's to you. Skoal, brother.
 
2014-02-12 02:28:50 PM

The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?


I mean required gun insurance would probably run afoul of a court challenge anyway.
 
2014-02-12 02:29:29 PM

The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?


No.
 
2014-02-12 02:30:16 PM

The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?



Yeah - I mean, it is clearly impossible to have any coherent system of insurance covering things like cars, houses, construction equipment, negligence, health care, people's lives, celebrities' boobs, etc.  So how could anyone think that it could possibly work for guns?
 
2014-02-12 02:31:19 PM

Chummer45: The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?


Yeah - I mean, it is clearly impossible to have any coherent system of insurance covering things like cars, houses, construction equipment, negligence, health care, people's lives, celebrities' boobs, etc.  So how could anyone think that it could possibly work for guns?


I have merely requested an assessment of the damage caused by concealed weapons permit holders. I have made no statement regarding the feasibility of an insurance system for such individuals.
 
2014-02-12 02:31:47 PM

redmid17: The Name: Dimensio: Sergeant Grumbles: Gun insurance.
Carry guns wherever you want, but you will be subsidizing cleanup for the inevitable accidents caused by your little toys.

Using the average yearly damage costs caused by concealed weapons permit holders through negligence (thus discounting any justified use of force), please calculate a reasonable insurance rate for concealed weapons permit holders.

Ah, I see we're going down this road again.  Fark gun nuts confusing the politics tab with a Congressional committee.  I bet if he can't come up with a specific number down to the penny, that means the whole idea of gun insurance is bunk, huh?

I mean required gun insurance would probably run afoul of a court challenge anyway.



Why would you think that?  Let me guess - "because second amendment is absolute whaaargarrrbl."
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report