Ohio VERY close to passing guns in bars law - letting people carry guns in bars/restaraunts

With the ohio senate passing identical legislation only a month ago by a huge margin (and the governor evidently having assured his signature of such a bill) it looks like ohio could allow people to carry concealed guns in places where alcohol is served VERY soon. Story below, bold emphasis mine:

Ohio House passes HB45 (Restaurant & Car Carry Rules Fix) and HB54 (Restoration of Rights)
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7794

right?

Altercations RARELY occur is a setting such as a bar or restaurant, and alcohol only SHARPENS ones good judgment under those situations.

:sarcasm:

Carry into a bar in Ohio, then stand around - *not* drinking, mind you - and just wait for some shit to occur. Everybody needs a hobby, yunno.

I leave immediately. It's the only smart thing to do.

Concealed is not invisible. If I understand that you're carrying a weapon, I'm gone. I don't need you to brandish it like you secretly want to: I just need to interpret that sly little smirk you have when you keep scratching your armpits.

Love the pic, by the way! :D

How rude.

They're all associated with crime and violence and I will surely leave if I know an armed police officer is in the room. They get paid for the risks, I don't even have health insurance.

but sometimes trouble finds you. I once had an altercation at a horse track over a seat with someone who turned out to be an off-duty police officer (or that was his story). He felt compelled to show me the holstered gun under his windbreaker, but not his badge- an issue I'm unwilling to press with an individual willing to kill me over a seating arrangement.

I think I know the look.

In fact, I'm guessing you leave places a lot unnecessarily, because your sense to who is carrying what is about as sharp as a hunk of play-doh.

Haha... I've been flashed. I've been chased in my car. I've seen it with my own eyes. You are in denial if you think it doesn't happen.

...endemic. To compare these instances to legal carriers is irrational at best. I've been shot at while in my car by an illegal carrier of a firearm. However, I'm still able to differentiate between the two.

You claim to live in LA, unless the guy you see scratching his armpit is a connected and famous movie star, you know damn well he doesn't have a permit. There are no ordinary people who deserves a CCW in LA county.

That pretty much leaves crooks and cops, and since you claim you can't stand to be around cops...

How many dead Mexicans has your drug habit paid for?

I read that again and it made me laugh out loud... I see a guy carrying a concealed weapon and I'm to walk up to him, ask if he's a police office and ask to see his badge! I didn't realize how outrageous a suggestion that was until it hit me right now!

Good one.

:D

...as is the condescension, irrationality, etc. It's highly unlikely you would even notice a person that was carrying, because you clearly have no idea what to look for. As has already been stated, this has not been an issue in the many states where it is already legal. But hey, a rational person doesn't look at evidence, but instead relies on fear and talking points to form their opinions, right?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...oh wait, no, it's not. Even printing of a firearm can get you arrested in many states, as it is not "concealed" at that point, so vast majority of carriers do a very sold job of making sure it is as hard as possible to spot it. So yeah, good luck at that.

Even a well endowed man such as yourself wouldn't be able to conceal a gun in normal street clothing here.

wears clothes that show off half their asses, thus concealed carry isn't possible? I doubt 100% of the population wear clothes like that, first of all. Secondly, a person that wishes to conceal carry would dress appropriately to make sure the firearm remained concealed. Many people that carry have 2 different firearms they carry, depending on the season, or just one that works for both. Generally a smaller or pocket pistol that disappears in a pair of comfortable fitting shorts.

I'm sorry, but you are doing nothing but underscoring your extreme ignorance of the topic at hand.

Please don't project onto me the way you think you would behave if your carried a concealed gun. If you are around me (I don't go to bars, but I go just about everywhere else.) you will not know I am armed. No sly smirks. Nothing at all to tip you off. Nor will you be able to tell that my wife is also armed.

This is the part that made me conclude that you didn't understand that concealed means concealed: "and I see a rube with a gun". In most states you aren't allowed for the concealed gun to "print" or give other obvious indication that you have a gun.

No one should ever dine out without a weapon. It's a must-have wherever food or drink is served.

For example, I wouldn't think of sitting down to an evening of watching the toob without strapping on the ol' pistoles.

It could be pose a problem when having sex, but life is full of little inconveniences.

:rofl:

With the constant threat of imminent violence overshadowing all else, I find that strapping on El Pistolero gives me the confidence needed to function as a still-lethal agent of destruction - even while momentarily distracted. Given new meaning to the phrase 'the peacemaker,' eh what?

If so then cite to proof or retract that statement.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

or vote. Strangely, criminals don't give a flying fuck about the laws..

Any idiotic, moronic, wrong, and stupid thing you want to.

Just don't get upset when your posts are called the above.

Because you are not the only one with constitutional right.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It is, of course, entirely your choice.

What're you looking at?

In the first place, who goes to a bar to not drink? In the second place, if the weapon is concealed, why wouldn't a bartender serve someone?

I can see the restaurant thing, sort of, but a bar? I don't think that's a really good idea...

BTW, the person talking at the top of my post IS drunk. He may not be carrying, but he's looking for a fight. I've heard that more than once in my life, and avoiding that fight meant leaving the place. And, no, I wasn't looking at his wife. I see no good coming of this.

have a drink, or two, or three +++. I've fit that pattern many times.

the guy who walks into a bar and has a beer while carrying. I do that frequently in Minnesota where it is legal, this Ohio law would not allow ANY
alcahol to be consumed, while carrying. I find that having a weapon on my person makes the decision,to stop at one, VERY easy.

If you have a self control problem, like you have described above, perhaps carrying a gun into a bar isn't for you.

carrying a gun anywhere probably isn't for you.

Semper Fi,

A *real man* would stand his ground! For that matter, a *real man* would have been looking at his wife! You got a problem with that? Go ahead! Make my day!

:sarcasm:

"In the first place, who goes to a bar to not drink?"

In the first place, who goes to a bar to not drink?

A group's DD.
The band (don't worry, I'm with them) or DJ.
People who like the pub food but don't drink.
People who play trivia and keep sober so they'll win.
Etc.

Im the DD most of the time, unless im busy. Im still hanging out with the pals whether im drinking tea or miller. I save the drinking for when the guys and I are home.

When even the Plain Dealer is editorializing against a bill, you know it is wayyyy right wing.

This billed ALLOWS restaraunt owners the freedom to permit concealed weapons on premesis. The bill grants CHOICE to the establishment owners and the patrons. No rights, on any front, were lost with this legislation. Even the right to continue the prohbition of firearms in your business still exists. Rights and choices were gained, here.

...signs. Google it

Boycotts are one of the most grassroots and fundamental methods indivuals can take political action. Raw democracy.
If people want to boycott for whatever reason... then good.

I think anti gun-rights folk should try boycotting places which do not prohbit firearms. That'd be an appropriate response. Although the idea of protesting for more restrictive rights via the use of boycott does seem to make your head want to explode.

How did I change the subject???

lawful carry have not worked out so well. In fact such boycotts have increased some businesses sales. I refer of course, to Starbucks.

I personally wont patronize a business that puts up the no guns sign. They obviously have made the decision that they don't want me there, i respect their wishes, usually, and take my patronage somewhere else.

Sauce for goose, meet gander.

Because everyone IGNORES theirs....

But hey, when you are part of a very unpopular movement boycotts that almost instantly fall flat and fail, are part of it...


LOL!!! Starbucks...

I like that. There should be smoking bars too, where the staff and the punters get to smoke all they want. I won't go to either place, but I'm all for them existing.

And surely the smoking bars would have mandated excellent ventilation systems and the bars that allow guns would have bullet proof windows and reinforced walls so that stray bullets won't hit anything important.

Think about the outcome of bar fights, I don't want to be there.

....oh wait, no it hasn't been an issue at all in fact. But hey, feel free to just ignore the evidence...

When Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Michigan et. al. people like those in this thread, all wrote letters to the editors and posted here about how there will be shootings over parking spaces and in the produce department over who gets that head of lettuce.

They all predicted a dire "wild west" scenario with plenty of shoot outs and randome deaths in each and every state as CCW passed. Many promised to move out if it passed, until they realized every other state but two already allowed it and none of them wanted to really move to the South Side of Chicago.

All that happened is that none of their predictions came true and crime continues to fall to record low levels.

It's all loudmouth bluster and frustration now, with no real broad voter support or real action to repeal any of the new laws, outside of a few interwebz posts now and then about how outraged they are, how evil the NRA is and how anti social gun owners are. The President, SCOTUS and the vast majority of Congress agrees with the pro 2nd amendment side on this, and there really isn't shit they can do to stop it, so they are hurt and angry to realize they are growing further out of the mainstream. My biggest concern is for a few sick people that I actually think hope for more bloodshed to "prove their point".

The idea of the law required me to open-carry, if I were carrying in a restaurant, felt very unnatural indeed. Thankfully, the laws of states which do allow concealed carry are slowly homogonizing to a much more uniform standard.

I think that it may be your choice of bar that is the problem....

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Should be easy, amIright?

guns and alcohol are good or bad by themselves; it seems obvious to me that guns and alcohol TOGETHER are definitely a bad combination.

ill-concealed weapon on his/her person? Who's gonna bell THAT cat?

Cat... belled.

First a little..


Then some..


And finally it turns out to be..

:beer:

There's a map, start finding incidents. I'll wait.

"I'm rubber, you're glue..."

AmIright?

So is the logic "the more guns there are, the less guns will be used"?

It just seems academic that the more guns, the more they will get used.

I have guns. But they're only for clay pigeons on my own property. Not for "flaunting".

The US has a gun per capita rate of something like 0.9
I'd like to see some sort of reference showing Canada having more guns than the US.

I blame Michael Moore. Bowling for Columnbine is where I got the idea.

As far as I can tell, it started from a distortion told my Michael Moore in 'Bowling for Columbine' where he claimed that Canada had almost as many guns per capita as the US.

First off, that isn't true (unless you try to stretch 'almost' to mean one-third.) Second, somehow that morphed into the inane statement that Canada has *more* guns than the US.

And in the retelling, it got further from truth, a little at a time.

Heck, I heard Moore on Rachel Maddow a couple of months back almost saying the same thing, so it may have even circled around back to the source, unintentionally.

eta: I tried to search msnbc for the clip, but I can't find it. To the best of my recollection, it went something like, "Look at Canada and all the guns they have there, but they don't have the problems we do."

By "civilized," do you mean a situation in which the government deprives its citizens of the means to defend themselves against violent assault, and then refuses to accept liability when it fails to protect them itself?

Think again.

Bad behavior is what the police deal with. Not me and my gun justice.

You people make me want to hide. And that's not how I want to live.

A weapon can provide the means for a potential crime victim to prevent the crime from happening.

You people make me want to hide. And that's not how I want to live.

Your inappropriate negative emotional reaction is your choice and your problem, as is your bad assumption that I am a member of whatever group you mean by "you people."

If only the "good" people had guns, I'd be less inclined to be opposed. Although I still would rather live in a land of laws.

I ride past a shooting range on my bike ride. There are those who cease fire for me, and those who don't. And it's a dangerous path because I'm riding parallel to the trajectory. I've had bullets land near me. We have a second amendment. But we also have a bunch of idiots. The same goes for driving. Just because someone is speeding doesn't mean they're a bad driver. I see bad drivers all over the place who are obeying the laws. I'd like to see educated people. Educated shooters and drivers. And parents, for that matter.

My experience is this is a country of loose cannons. It's that rugged individualism. I've lived in the country for a while, and my observation is people tend to think that freedom is a free-for-all. Anything goes. There's a mentality I'd like to see put to an end. But it takes schooling. How to handle a gun. More than just how to use it. But a true respect for everything revolving around it. Same with the car. Every driver should pass stringent skid pad tests, etc. Everyone piloting a ton of steel should be an expert.

But that's a dream in a country that spends its money on stupid stuff. Like wars.

I don't know. Am I full of it? :)

That is very likely a large part of the problem. Is the range regulated or a complete free-for-all?

I think your ideals are good, and should be required parts of school curriculums.

My experience is the shooters with nice cars tend to be polite, whereas the guys with the monster pickups tend to not be polite. I could easily conjecture what that means. But to be coherent about it, i think it means intelligent people versus those who are less educated. And even if that's elitist of me, I believe it's at the heart of most of the problems we face as humans. Although Dick Cheney is no idiot, I'm sure. So there goes that argument.

Have you ever considered reporting it to the Sheriff?

One bike rider was hit once. Or so I've heard. It's a nasty spot. Not only does one have to travel parallel, but there is a chance of overshoot once going around the back of the place.

I keep expecting to see a no shooting sign. But it's legal in state forests evidently.

You can't shoot within a certain distance of any road or building, and the forest managers (California Department of Forestry) certainly have the authority to specifically prohibit shooting in places.

Because of fire danger, most of the forest areas in San Diego County are flagged as "No shooting except in lawful pursuit of birds or mammals," which occasionally leads to hilarity.

And if two miracles happen, I'll own a piece of land on that road. If so, I'll happily get myself shot just to live there.

But you've given me a tidbit that I'll remember. Although my guess is this little rock quarry is just off the road enough to meet the criteria. Plus, the road is only a forest road, not a public one per se. If that even makes a difference.

Much as I don't like to shut down any public shooting area, this sounds terribly unsafe as you've presented it. Get this looked into.

Period, end of story. The supreme court of the united states has ruled that the police are not directly responsible for the protection and safety of individual citizens. It's up to you to defend yourself against those who may do harm to you, or are "behaving badly" if you will. And a firearm greatly increases your chances of being able to successfully accomplish that goal.

I find that hard to believe. What is your source?

http://www.notangsushi.com/?p=11

Here are some salient quotes from the cases cited:

"The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular."

"the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

"Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

"The statutory scheme employed makes it clear that failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability (Susman v. City of Los Angeles (1969) 269 Cal. App.2d 803 ...), nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law. (Law Revision comment to § 821; Tomlinson v. Pierce (1960) 178 Cal. App.2d 112 ...; Rubinow v. County of San Bernardino (1959) 169 Cal. App.2d 67....) The statutory scheme shows legislative intent to immunize the police function from tort liability from the inception of its exercise to the point of arrest, regardless of whether the action be labeled `discretionary' or `ministerial.'"

"Municipalities are expressly immunized from tort liability for the failure to provide police protection or the failure to provide sufficient police protection. "

"The duty of the City of Philadelphia to provide police protection is a public one which may not be claimed by an individual unless a special relationship exists between the city and the individual. Berlin v. Drexel University, 10 Pa. D.&C.3d 319 (1979); 46 A.L.R.3d 1084."

"Superior Court adopted a no-duty rule, holding that a city was not liable for failing to protect plaintiff's decedent, who was murdered in a particularly dangerous area. See also, Melendez by Melendez v. City of Philadelphia, Pa. Superior Ct., 466 A. 2d 1060 (1983) (city not liable for failing to protect minor injured in racially troubled neighborhood).

The no-duty rule provides that a police officer's obligation to protect the citizenry is a general duty owing to the public at large, and not a specific duty owing to particular persons."

First of all, even if police aren't there to protect us, the logic that says one can take the law into their own hands does not appear to be sound to me.

But these cases sited were for where "police have not been held accountable for failing to protect individuals.". That is very different than police not being there to protect us.

If I call 911, an officer will be at my location shortly to protect me. I can't see any argument there. That's how it works. Otherwise, we don't even need police. Just go back to the wild west scenario.

Granted, I believe cops are there to protect the interests of the state. Don't get me wrong. I do not like police. At all. But that's primarily because they walk around with guns, ready to use them. I don't like people with lots of power. Which is also why I despise the automobile. But this is the kind of thinking that is completely foreign to Americans. Go to Europe and see how foreign it is.

But then I come from a family who had conscientious objectors in world war two.

A legitimate act of self-defense (and the law does define what is legitimate) is not the same thing as taking the law into one's own hands.

But then I come from a family who had conscientious objectors in world war two.

My grandfather was sent to prison for being a CO during World War I, and being unable to convince a draft board that his religion did not permit him to take up arms.

That's really something. World war one.

Well I'm not versed enough to know where self-defense ends, and a crime begins. It used to be you could shoot an intruder into your home. Then that stopped in some places.

I'd just like to see less escalation of force. Like Britain used to have. No guns outside of the home.

I know it's like asking for time to go in reverse.

You're shit out of luck.

So sorry, too bad, they'll try to catch 'em, but if not? Ah well.

It's not "taking the law into your own hands" to defend yourself. That assumes that the "law is in the hands of" the police, when it comes to defending you- as if the only one legally able to defend you is the police.

Not only aren't they the only one legally able to defend you- they have no legal obligation to do so.



So your answer would be to remove the power from people, and add more power (without obligation) to police?!?

Ultimately I've been thinking about killing. Not just defending. If I kill someone while defending myself, I have doubts that the authorities see it the way the rest of us do.

My answer would be to lessen the power of everyone. Like the cops in England used to be. A gun crime there was a big deal once upon a time. We're escalating. And I think that's going the wrong way. But then I'm pissing into the wind on many fronts. I like life the way it was, and that is unlikely to return.

If the perpetrator happens to die as a consequence of your actions, so be it.

We're actually 'going the right way' if you're looking at crime stats.

We're at a murder rate not seen since the late 1960's. Violent crime is down by almost half since the peak in 1993/4.

As someone who commuted by bicycle for many years, I'm uncomfortable around most people who claim to know how to drive. It may not be intentional. And then sometimes I know it is. But I've always seen a parallel between that and guns.

The idea is a good one. Deter people from even thinking about messing with you because they could get kneecapped. Where it fails, in my opinion, is that most people are idiots. Psychopaths, poor judgment, and any number of reasons including just mistaken. I hate the idea that I may just be in the line of fire. Or look just like the guy who is running away from the crime he committed because I am so near the person with the gun.

I'll never like it. Even if it works. I think we were born with the power to negotiate our problems. Then it was sticks. Then it was spears. Then bows and arrows. Now guns. What next, lasers. I can't get behind the same idiots who can't drive, can't vote, brandishing guns.

When it was sticks or spears (then knives and swords), the strongest was always at an advantage. Firearms allow the physically weaker to defend themselves against the stronger.

Until human nature changes and there are no more who would use their strength to assault the weak, I'll take a force multiplier, thanks.

I can easily agree with that.

Damn you. Don't make me rethink my pacifistic stand. :)

There's one interpretation that is more 'anti-war' than anti-violence. Even Gandhi believed in self-defense:







Ganhdi, Non-Violence in Peace and War, Volumes I and II. Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1948.

One I have not ventured to explore. I simply took "thou shalt not kill" as a rule.

You've given me something to think about. More than personally, as a member of a society. A very interesting notion that we take care of each other. It even relates more to a community than to protection or self defense.

I'm kind of a special case. Smallest kid in a high school of 1200. I guess you could say I was a coward in self defense. Haha.

Hey, thanks.

"thou shalt not kill" -- being an old testament proscription would seem to conflict with other sections of the text.

Part of this apparent contradiction can be resolved by picking up any torah and a hebrew-english dictionary.

ratsach (רָצַח) is the word in the commandment, which translates as 'murder or slay'. Modern translations of the commandment are "You shall not murder" or "Do not put anyone to death without cause."

I'm not a religious person, I'm a devotee of language and how it changes over time.

eta: turned off smilies, DU apparently doesn't like hebrew characters.

Like thou shalt not steal.

This easily becomes a complex discussion. Yet is very simple in it's meaning. Only I know if I'm murdering someone. Taking something may very well not be stealing. Once again it comes back to personal responsibility and intent (if that's the right word). I don't trust most people. Especially when they have power. I trust Obama a lot more than Bush. You know the whole thing about power. And most people seem to lack what some of us have. An honesty. This is why I really don't want people toting guns around. I know the argument. You and I would be great peacekeepers. And the world could be such an amazing place if only everyone just kept up their end of the bargain.

However 36 volunteered to be starved, and then brought back to health by the military. They were the human test subjects in a experiment to determine what would be needed to bring starved POW's back to health.


Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

It sounds like you need to actually read up on the laws covering firearms and self-defense.

"If I call 911, an officer will be at my location shortly to protect me."

Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, call for a pizza, see who shows up first.

If you were in REAL danger and had 911 on speed dial you would be fortunate if the cops showed up before the blood congealed.

If you were really, really, lucky a cop would come to your hospital room and ask you what happened for his report.

What special attributes do the police have that you don't?

Rape, robbery, and attempted murder are not typically actions rife with ambiguity or subtlety, requiring special powers of observation and great book-learning to discern. When a man pulls a knife on a woman and says, "You're coming with me," her judgment that a crime is being committed is not likely to be in error. There is little chance that she is going to shoot the wrong person.

BTW, I was born in Europe, in Germany, in 1942. Conscientious objectors went to Poland.

I know if someone were to try and cause me harm, I would resist. But to cause them more harm than they intended for me, I couldn't do. But then I don't know their intentions. And I've never been in a situation like that.

I believe we have to be what we want the world to be. Maybe that's foolish. It probably is. I just know I wasn't going to Vietnam. And if someone were robbing me, I'd let them. But chances are good that if someone were trying to kill me, I'd become violent.

It's a subject that the human being has been pondering since day one.

"I just know I wasn't going to Vietnam."

There were plenty enough of us to take up your slack.

"Those who abjure violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf." George Orwell 'Notes on Nationalism' 1945.

There are evil people in this world who will commit violence upon you and your family without a second thought. Those who accept that can prepare for it. Those who deny it will always call for help from "rough men" at the moment of truth.

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill

Twisted logic. No thanks. And Vietnam was about freedom just like our invasion of Iraq.

"Bad behavior is what the police deal with. Not me

You people make me want to hide."

...and you did.

I will disagree with you about Viet Nam. The real shame was all the South Vietnamese who were sold out and left behind when our government did not keep its word.

"Those who abjure violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf." Like it or not, Orwell is correct, you have the freedoms you do because others have paid the price, and still others remain on guard to secure those freedoms. You can even denigrate those who wear the uniform, you will hardly be the first.

"Yes, making mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep" - Rudyard Kipling (Tommy)

I spent my life as a soldier, served multiple combat tours during two wars, and I'd do it again. I will absolutely fight for what I believe in.

rather someone else did the work, so that they may help reap the rewards.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

I've caused more raucus than most. Kicking in bar room windows.

Don't give me this you and us stuff. It works both ways, and solves nothing. We obviously believe in different ways of solving the world's problems. I'll side with Gandhi over George Bush's mentality any day. Even if it costs me my life. That is courage. Guns are for the weak who can't figure out a better way of dealing with a problem.

...when you were talking to X-Digger. Now not so much, I'm sad to say.

I have no desire to see harm done to anyone, but I'm also not willing to toss away my life like so much tissue paper in the event that someone attempts to do harm to us. Because of this, I take steps to insure that should someone attempt to harm us, we are prepared to deal with the situation. This preparation includes firearms. I don't believe this makes me "weak" in any way, shape or form. I know my own and my wife's limitations when it comes to our ability to overwhelm someone with physical strength alone should the need arise, as well as the fact that it would be foolish at best to hope that an intruder would rely only on their own strength and come at us unarmed.

If you are willing to die for your belief then that is your own choice, but do not look down on or call weak those unwilling to make such a sacrifice of themselves or their family. It's very likely that this life is all we get, and I have no intention of letting anyone, no matter how downtrodden they may be, make mine or my families any shorter than it has to be.

And if used properly, deterrents can have an effect.

I believe in a supreme being of some kind. I don't know. But my observation of the universe has me in awe, and wondering.

I also believe that the first step toward war is defense. What is life worth. What do I want to be. What comes after this life. I'll live as I would want others to live, even if it costs me this life. Furthermore, unless I kill someone, they're free to come back and do me more harm. Maybe I'm making a mistake, and humans are no different than animals. In which case I'd be running around with a minigun. It will always give me great discomfort to see the behavior of humans who use force against each other.

If I have my head up my ass and am not using situational awareness and I get mugged, I will do just what my an excellent martial arts instructor suggested many years ago.

I will look into the attacker's eyes (as the eyes are the mirror of the soul) and if he appears rational and only wants my money, I will simply hand over my wallet. I can replace my credit cards, my driver's license and my money but I can't replace my life or my health.

But if I feel the attacker intends to seriously harm or kill me even if I turn over my wallet then I will take action to stop his attack. Handguns are not as lethal as portrayed in the movies or TV so the attacker may well survive my using my .38 snub nosed revolver in self defense. All I really want is for him to stop his attack.

This is why you might want a gun at a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol.

Thursday evening just after 7:00 Franklin Police arrested the suspect who shot at a local restaurant's employees earlier this week.

Officers were called to the Chili's at 3084 Columbia Avenue on May 16th at approximately 11:00 pm. A male customer had spoken with one of the employees asking her to leave with him after the store closed.

She refused, and then left with two other employees. The suspect left at the same time and pulled a handgun out of his vehicle, firing multiple shots at the employees as they left. No one was injured during the incident.



http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14682120/chilis-shooting-suspect-now-in-custody

Had this clown gone inside the restaurant after her things could have been a lot worse.

whether to sign it or not. He's no friend of the 2nd Amendment or the working man.