Drizzt
February 11, 2003, 06:22 PM
Guns and gin aren't a soothing mix
The Virginian-Pilot
© February 8, 2003
About 100,000 Virginians with concealed weapons permits want the peace of mind of being able to carry guns into restaurants and bars, says the sponsor of House-passed legislation allowing them to do so, which leaves 6.9 million Virginians who can now start shaking in their boots.
The lunacy of mixing guns and alcohol seems so obvious that one would never expect it to be a topic of conversation, much less a source for debate.
But since the House of Delegates, on a 52-48 vote, has proven otherwise, we raise several red flags.
First, why are the rights of gun owners to carry their weapons more sacred than the rights of private business owners to secure their property?
The Restaurant Association of Virginia, which opposes the guns-in-bars bill, gets no peace of mind thinking about serving up brew to clients who may be packing heat in a purse or suit coat. Nor are the business owners much reassured that the bill has been amended to apply only in restaurants or bars where alcohol sales don't exceed 30 percent of the total.
As a restaurant association attorney noted: ``It's not about dining with your gun. Its about drinking with your gun.''
Plenty of people get drunk or have their judgment impaired by alcohol in places where food is also on the menu. And the 30 percent limitation, while better than no limitation, catapults the legislation from the absurd to the ridiculous. Are restaurant owners to start posting daily updates on their beverage sales? Or should they keep both ``Guns Allowed Today'' and ``Guns Not Allowed Today'' signs handy, alternating them based on the prior month's or week's sales?
Second-amendment zealots like to point to a case in Texas a few years back in which a National Rifle Association activist saw her mother and others shot to death during a robbery of the restaurant at which they were dining. The activist had left her gun in the car in accordance with Texas law.
But there is no assurance that the mother's life would have been saved had the daughter been armed, just as there is no assurance that even more people would not have died if a gun battle had erupted. The presence of guns has sometimes saved lives and it has sometimes cost lives.
The rational approach is to differentiate between those settings in which there is a likely need for protection and those in which weapons stand to do more harm than good. Teachers don't typically carry guns because the danger of an innocent death is greater than the danger of Columbine revisited.
Likewise, there are far more restaurant and barroom shouting matches and fistfights than robberies. Adding guns to what can be an emotional mix is an invitation to disaster.
It lends no peace of mind at all that a majority of the members of the Virginia House of Delegates are so blind to the obvious. Hopefully, the Senate, which now gets to debate the bill, will have clearer vision.
http://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/op0208gun.html
I know here in TX, any business owner has the right to disallow CCW on premises (of course, then we have the right to take our business elsewhere...), wouldn't the business owners in VA have the same right?
The Virginian-Pilot
© February 8, 2003
About 100,000 Virginians with concealed weapons permits want the peace of mind of being able to carry guns into restaurants and bars, says the sponsor of House-passed legislation allowing them to do so, which leaves 6.9 million Virginians who can now start shaking in their boots.
The lunacy of mixing guns and alcohol seems so obvious that one would never expect it to be a topic of conversation, much less a source for debate.
But since the House of Delegates, on a 52-48 vote, has proven otherwise, we raise several red flags.
First, why are the rights of gun owners to carry their weapons more sacred than the rights of private business owners to secure their property?
The Restaurant Association of Virginia, which opposes the guns-in-bars bill, gets no peace of mind thinking about serving up brew to clients who may be packing heat in a purse or suit coat. Nor are the business owners much reassured that the bill has been amended to apply only in restaurants or bars where alcohol sales don't exceed 30 percent of the total.
As a restaurant association attorney noted: ``It's not about dining with your gun. Its about drinking with your gun.''
Plenty of people get drunk or have their judgment impaired by alcohol in places where food is also on the menu. And the 30 percent limitation, while better than no limitation, catapults the legislation from the absurd to the ridiculous. Are restaurant owners to start posting daily updates on their beverage sales? Or should they keep both ``Guns Allowed Today'' and ``Guns Not Allowed Today'' signs handy, alternating them based on the prior month's or week's sales?
Second-amendment zealots like to point to a case in Texas a few years back in which a National Rifle Association activist saw her mother and others shot to death during a robbery of the restaurant at which they were dining. The activist had left her gun in the car in accordance with Texas law.
But there is no assurance that the mother's life would have been saved had the daughter been armed, just as there is no assurance that even more people would not have died if a gun battle had erupted. The presence of guns has sometimes saved lives and it has sometimes cost lives.
The rational approach is to differentiate between those settings in which there is a likely need for protection and those in which weapons stand to do more harm than good. Teachers don't typically carry guns because the danger of an innocent death is greater than the danger of Columbine revisited.
Likewise, there are far more restaurant and barroom shouting matches and fistfights than robberies. Adding guns to what can be an emotional mix is an invitation to disaster.
It lends no peace of mind at all that a majority of the members of the Virginia House of Delegates are so blind to the obvious. Hopefully, the Senate, which now gets to debate the bill, will have clearer vision.
http://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/op0208gun.html
I know here in TX, any business owner has the right to disallow CCW on premises (of course, then we have the right to take our business elsewhere...), wouldn't the business owners in VA have the same right?