Survivor of the Borderland shooting? I should have been able to be armed...

[cwise76]

Guns in a bar. Sure, what could go wrong there

Not much.....

Allowing guns into bars has ‘surprising’ result - WND



When Virginia passed a law allowing concealed carry in bars and alcohol-serving restaurants beginning July 1 of last year, opponents of the change decried the dangers of mixing guns and alcohol, for fear violent crimes would escalate.

But one year later, the Richmond Times-Dispatch did a study to see if the gloomy prognostications came true.

According to state police records, not only did gun violence in bars and restaurants not increase under the new law, it decreased by 5.2 percent.

In fact, of the 145 reported crimes with guns that occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants in fiscal 2010-11 (compared to 153 incidents in the year before the new law took effect), only two of the aggravated assault cases were related to concealed-carry permit holders. In one incident, the crime took place at a restaurant that didn’t serve alcohol – thus unrelated to the new law – and in the other, the weapon was neither discharged nor withdrawn from its holster.

“The numbers basically just confirm what we’ve said would happen if the General Assembly changed the law,” Philip Van Cleave, president of the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League, told the Times-Dispatch. “Keep in mind what the other side was saying – that this was going to be a blood bath, that restaurants will be dangerous and people will stop going. But there was nothing to base the fear-mongering on.”


Read more at Allowing guns into bars has ‘surprising’ result - WND



More.....actual research by Richmond Times-Dispatch

Gun crimes drop at Virginia bars and restaurants

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper's request.

Really man??? JHC, you are ******* out there.

 

[cwise76]

Guns in a bar. Sure, what could go wrong there

Not much.....

Allowing guns into bars has ‘surprising’ result - WND



When Virginia passed a law allowing concealed carry in bars and alcohol-serving restaurants beginning July 1 of last year, opponents of the change decried the dangers of mixing guns and alcohol, for fear violent crimes would escalate.

But one year later, the Richmond Times-Dispatch did a study to see if the gloomy prognostications came true.

According to state police records, not only did gun violence in bars and restaurants not increase under the new law, it decreased by 5.2 percent.

In fact, of the 145 reported crimes with guns that occurred in Virginia bars and restaurants in fiscal 2010-11 (compared to 153 incidents in the year before the new law took effect), only two of the aggravated assault cases were related to concealed-carry permit holders. In one incident, the crime took place at a restaurant that didn’t serve alcohol – thus unrelated to the new law – and in the other, the weapon was neither discharged nor withdrawn from its holster.

“The numbers basically just confirm what we’ve said would happen if the General Assembly changed the law,” Philip Van Cleave, president of the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League, told the Times-Dispatch. “Keep in mind what the other side was saying – that this was going to be a blood bath, that restaurants will be dangerous and people will stop going. But there was nothing to base the fear-mongering on.”


Read more at Allowing guns into bars has ‘surprising’ result - WND



More.....actual research by Richmond Times-Dispatch

Gun crimes drop at Virginia bars and restaurants

The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper's request.

World Nut Daily advocates guns in bars. Why am I not surprised?

Until liberals/leftist quit spreading their poison upon this nation, then yes it's time to secure ourselves from the evilness that is running rampant today in America.

Please go away soon. Thanks. The world will be a much better place

 

[cwise76]

So it's learned now that the shooter was anti-christian, and a leftist ???? Well, well, well..

Just heard on the news that the gunman was making statements condemning prayers and thoughts as being an inappropriate response to the past shootings.

So this guy's hatred of Christ humble teachings, and Christian's was a reason to go stupid on innocent people ????

It's time to open back up our major mental institutions in this country once again, and it's time to start locking these people up before they strike or hurt anymore innocent people in this nation.

Time to bring back public hangings, and maybe even add the gillotine back to the line up if have too.

The guy was a military veteran and the police had him evaluated by one of their mental health experts who cleared him, supposed noting that he was probably suffering from PTSD. I wouldn't be suprised if they did so in deference to the fact that he served even though he apparently was cause for their concern.

II has always been my opinion that our society is way too permissible with aggression and violence particularly that exhibited by men. So where do you draw the line between not wanting to harm a military vet or his/her reputation and protecting society when said verteran is exhiting all of the same symptoms/signs that would get anyone else arrested or committed?

If showing signs of mental instability, then the person should be detained and evaluated over a period long enough that it would finally force the rest of his illness out into the open for the right people to analyze.

Then once his real condition is known over time, then the proper treatment is to be administered.

Lol detained??? Right

 

[BULLDOG]

Guns in a bar. Sure, what could go wrong there

During the wild West period it worked pretty well, no one wanted to "play fast draw" game in the bar.

Even in the wild, they didn't allow guns in a saloon. I don't care what you saw on TV.

Because that's where you saw that "on TV" ? LOL.

Well, no.

 

[Windparadox]

`
#1 Survival guilt thought;
`
`

I should never have come here.​

 

[BULLDOG]

Guns in a bar. Sure, what could go wrong there

During the wild West period it worked pretty well, no one wanted to "play fast draw" game in the bar.

Even in the wild, they didn't allow guns in a saloon. I don't care what you saw on TV.

The thing is, not everyone who is in a bar, club, casino, etc. is there to consume alcohol. It's not uncommon for people to go out with their friends or to socialize without drinking particularly if they're the designated driver. Or shooter, whatever the case may be.

I never considered that. I guess the few who don't drink make the vast majority that do irrelevant. You realize the purpose for a bar is to serve people drinks, don't you?

True, in a bar I suppose but the point I was trying to make is that any establishment that has a liquor license will require no firearms, I believe it's state law and while the purpose of the establishment may be to sell as many drinks as possible, I believe the majority of their clientele is there moreso to socialize, gamble, dance, etc. depending on the venue than just to sit and drink.

But then again I could be wrong I don't spend a lot of time in places that serve alcohol specifically because they're prohibited areas and I generally won't work venues where there could be obnoxious drunks.

The claim that this particular mass shooting might have been stopped by armed patrons is just stupid.

 

[beagle9]

Guns in a bar. Sure, what could go wrong there

During the wild West period it worked pretty well, no one wanted to "play fast draw" game in the bar.

Even in the wild, they didn't allow guns in a saloon. I don't care what you saw on TV.

The thing is, not everyone who is in a bar, club, casino, etc. is there to consume alcohol. It's not uncommon for people to go out with their friends or to socialize without drinking particularly if they're the designated driver. Or shooter, whatever the case may be.

Designated shooter ??? Good grief.

LOL, seriously, you took that literally? I meant the person who isn't going to be drinking (like the designated driver) and is there armed to ensure that the people who are drinking can do so without worrying about any harm coming to them. Also known as armed body guards, escorts, protection officers, etc.

It this context sure, a designated shooter or shooters for self defense is warranted now.

They need to be like air Marshalls, where as their identities are consealed always.

 

[beagle9]

During the wild West period it worked pretty well, no one wanted to "play fast draw" game in the bar.

Even in the wild, they didn't allow guns in a saloon. I don't care what you saw on TV.

The thing is, not everyone who is in a bar, club, casino, etc. is there to consume alcohol. It's not uncommon for people to go out with their friends or to socialize without drinking particularly if they're the designated driver. Or shooter, whatever the case may be.

I never considered that. I guess the few who don't drink make the vast majority that do irrelevant. You realize the purpose for a bar is to serve people drinks, don't you?

True, in a bar I suppose but the point I was trying to make is that any establishment that has a liquor license will require no firearms, I believe it's state law and while the purpose of the establishment may be to sell as many drinks as possible, I believe the majority of their clientele is there moreso to socialize, gamble, dance, etc. depending on the venue than just to sit and drink.

But then again I could be wrong I don't spend a lot of time in places that serve alcohol specifically because they're prohibited areas and I generally won't work venues where there could be obnoxious drunks.

The claim that this particular mass shooting might have been stopped by armed patrons is just stupid.

Any mass shooting has a better chance of being stopped if there were more responsible armed citizens in this country that are out and about in society. Problem is that most responsible good citizens don't hang around where the shooters choose as their soft targets, and this is why they choose the targets that they choose when they choose them.

If not guns then it's bombs, and if not bombs then it's vehicles/trucks etc.

The best thing for this country to do, is to quit letting the crazies influence and run this country into the ground. It's time to take back the high ground in this country, and get the crazies out of everything they seek to destroy or have since destroyed (time to rebuild). So far the crazies reside more within the Demon-crat party, otherwise way more than they do upon the Republican's side of the isle. That's a no brainer for most who have any sense still left in themselves, and have been paying attention.

 

[JoeB131]

Yep...a survivor of the shooting is speaking out on the truth...he should have been able to defend himself and others against the attacker....

Yeah, because some drunk college kid would have totally outdrawn a trained marine with combat experience.

There was a Security Guard and a Cop there, who were among the dead.. "the Good guy with a gun" didn't work.

 

[JoeB131]

So it's learned now that the shooter was anti-christian, and a leftist ???? Well, well, well..

Just heard on the news that the gunman was making statements condemning prayers and thoughts as being an inappropriate response to the past shootings.

How does that translate into a political view or being anti-Christian.

"Thoughts and Prayers" instead of taking action to fix laws is pretty ******* stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

Any mass shooting has a better chance of being stopped if there were more responsible armed citizens in this country that are out and about in society. Problem is that most responsible good citizens don't hang around where the shooters choose as their soft targets, and this is why they choose the targets that they choose when they choose them.

again, this place had a security guard and a cop was there in seconds... "Good guys" weren't the problem... it was a bad guy who was able to get a gun even though he had mental issues.

 

[beagle9]

Any mass shooting has a better chance of being stopped if there were more responsible armed citizens in this country that are out and about in society. Problem is that most responsible good citizens don't hang around where the shooters choose as their soft targets, and this is why they choose the targets that they choose when they choose them.

again, this place had a security guard and a cop was there in seconds... "Good guys" weren't the problem... it was a bad guy who was able to get a gun even though he had mental issues.

A bad guy with a truck, bomb or anyother method is just as bad, so why is your focus on the gun only, and on the responses to that gun when it goes bad for everyone ? Political agenda ???

If a person snaps due to whatever, and the person is very intelligent as an added problem, then that person can do very serious damage to alot of humans and property.

The only answer is to identify character traits among those who show signs of mental problems. Once these problems are identified, then it's time to lose this PC bullcrap that becomes an excuse to leave the person alone, and leave him to his own evil devices, and his desired time to then strike.

 

[JoeB131]

A bad guy with a truck, bomb or anyother method is just as bad, so why is your focus on the gun only, and on the responses to that gun when it goes bad for everyone ? Political agenda ???

Bombs are illegal, and trucks are pretty strictly licensed....

If a person snaps due to whatever, and the person is very intelligent as an added problem, then that person can do very serious damage to alot of humans and property.

Yes, they can be... which is why we should really restrict who can buy a gun the way we restrict who can drive a truck.

The only answer is to identify character traits among those who show signs of mental problems. Once these problems are identified, then it's time to lose this PC bullcrap that becomes an excuse to leave the person alone, and leave him to his own evil devices, and his desired time to then strike.

Here's the problem with that.. We could probably lock up 90% of USMB members based on the crazy stuff some of us write here.

 

[2aguy]

Guns in a bar. Sure, what could go wrong there

During the wild West period it worked pretty well, no one wanted to "play fast draw" game in the bar.

Even in the wild, they didn't allow guns in a saloon. I don't care what you saw on TV.

Wrong.... you don't know what you are talking about.....

The New York Times Botches America’s History With The Gun

Second, the idea that “Gun control laws were ubiquitous” in the 19th century is the work of politically motivated historians who cobble together every minor local restriction they can find in an attempt to create the impression that gun control was the norm. If this were true, Kristof wouldn’t need to jump to 1879 to offer his first specific case.

Visitors to Wichita, Kan., had to check their revolvers at police headquarters. As for Dodge City, a symbol of the Wild West, a photo shows a sign on main street in 1879 warning: “The Carrying of Fire Arms Strictly Prohibited.”


This talking point has been trotted out for years because it’s the closest thing anyone can find to resemble gun control in the Old West — a picture. But we don’t even know how rigidly the law was enforced, for how long, or if ever. We certainly don’t know that the guns were dropped off at “police headquarters.”

Dodge City-type ordinances—and those of some other towns—typically applied to the areas north of the “deadline,” which was the railroad tracks and a kind of red-light district. By 1879, Dodge City had nearly 20 businesses licensed to sell liquor and many whorehouses teeming with intoxicated young men. It was reasonable that these businesses wouldn’t want armed men with revolvers packed into their establishments.

However, the men voluntarily abandoned their weapons in exchange for entertainment and drink—just as they do today when entering establishments that prohibit the carrying of firearms. Those weapons were handed back to them when they were done. Not in their wildest imaginations would they have entertained the notion of asking the government for permission—getting a license or undergoing a background check—to own a firearm.

In the rest of the city, as with almost every city in the West, guns were allowed, and people walked around with them freely and openly. They bought them freely and openly. Even children could buy them. A man could buy a Colt or Remington or Winchester, and he could buy as many as he liked without anyone taking notice.


The fact is that in the 19th century there were no statewide or territory-wide gun control laws for citizens, and certainly no federal laws. Nor was there a single case challenging the idea of the individual right of gun ownership. Guns were romanticized in the literature and art, and the era’s greatest engineers designed and sold them. All the while, American leaders continued to praise the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny.

Those who praised this right, incidentally, include numerous post-Civil War civil rights activists, who offered particularly powerful arguments for the importance of the Second Amendment. Most gun-control regulations that did exist, after all, were used for subjugating blacks and Indians.

 

[2aguy]

Yep...a survivor of the shooting is speaking out on the truth...he should have been able to defend himself and others against the attacker....

Borderline Bar & Grill Survivor: 'I Should Have Been Able To Be Armed'

Well, at the Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks, CA, we have one survivor who says he would have liked to have been that good guy with a gun, only he couldn’t be.

Last night I went to the country bar Borderline in Thousand Oaks, California with my girlfriend Ally and her two friends. I am 20 years old and have lived in Thousand Oaks my whole life. I currently go to California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks and am a sophomore.

We were having a great time, until at about 11:20 pm when shots started going off. Smoke grenades were thrown by the entrance, which limited my view of the shooter. It was a pistol I believe, and as the shots started, my girlfriend and I ducked behind the DJ booth.

…

I believe this area was a gun free zone, and although there was security, I don’t believe any were armed. I do know that one security officer was killed right when the shooting started.

If just one person was armed, there is a possibility that it could have been stopped then and there. This is why gun free zones are a danger to us all, and if someone had been there armed, those people would still be alive.

The author of this, a man named Alex Chatoff, praised the police for their quick response in taking out the killer, but he has a point. People inside the bar could have done that as well…if California law didn’t do so much to discourage people from being able to protect themselves.

The police officer was armed and well trained.
How responsible to allow a drunk person to carry a gun on him at a dark bar....they cant even aim well at the urinal.

There were 6 off duty officers in the bar at the time of the attack....the only thing they were able to do was help people escape since they were not allowed to have their guns on them in the bar....allowing the killer to murder 12 people...

What you fail to understand is that states all over America already allow people to carry guns into bars, they just can't drink while armed...they would have saved lives ...

 

[2aguy]

A bad guy with a truck, bomb or anyother method is just as bad, so why is your focus on the gun only, and on the responses to that gun when it goes bad for everyone ? Political agenda ???

Bombs are illegal, and trucks are pretty strictly licensed....

If a person snaps due to whatever, and the person is very intelligent as an added problem, then that person can do very serious damage to alot of humans and property.

Yes, they can be... which is why we should really restrict who can buy a gun the way we restrict who can drive a truck.

The only answer is to identify character traits among those who show signs of mental problems. Once these problems are identified, then it's time to lose this PC bullcrap that becomes an excuse to leave the person alone, and leave him to his own evil devices, and his desired time to then strike.

Here's the problem with that.. We could probably lock up 90% of USMB members based on the crazy stuff some of us write here.

Then turn yourself in joe...your psycho-sexual issues with guns are more than enough to have you committed...for a long time....

 

[JoeB131]

Then turn yourself in joe...your psycho-sexual issues with guns are more than enough to have you committed...for a long time....

Naw, man, I'm not the one who has to own lots of guns to compensate for his 'Shortcomings", 2TinyGuy

 

[Rustic]

Lol
I would always rather be armed than unarmed... But then again that’s just me

 

[Rustic]

Then turn yourself in joe...your psycho-sexual issues with guns are more than enough to have you committed...for a long time....

Naw, man, I'm not the one who has to own lots of guns to compensate for his 'Shortcomings", 2TinyGuy

You always seem to have cock on the brain... You may need to get that checked out

 

[2aguy]

During the wild West period it worked pretty well, no one wanted to "play fast draw" game in the bar.

Even in the wild, they didn't allow guns in a saloon. I don't care what you saw on TV.

The thing is, not everyone who is in a bar, club, casino, etc. is there to consume alcohol. It's not uncommon for people to go out with their friends or to socialize without drinking particularly if they're the designated driver. Or shooter, whatever the case may be.

I never considered that. I guess the few who don't drink make the vast majority that do irrelevant. You realize the purpose for a bar is to serve people drinks, don't you?

True, in a bar I suppose but the point I was trying to make is that any establishment that has a liquor license will require no firearms, I believe it's state law and while the purpose of the establishment may be to sell as many drinks as possible, I believe the majority of their clientele is there moreso to socialize, gamble, dance, etc. depending on the venue than just to sit and drink.

But then again I could be wrong I don't spend a lot of time in places that serve alcohol specifically because they're prohibited areas and I generally won't work venues where there could be obnoxious drunks.

The claim that this particular mass shooting might have been stopped by armed patrons is just stupid.

No... it isn't...this happened 2 weeks after the Pulse Nightclub shooting, you didn't hear about it because an armed civilian at the bar stopped the shooter using a gun....

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/0...ss-shooting-night-club-media-remained-silent/

This past Sunday, exactly two weeks to the day after the Pulse attack, there was a mass shooting outside a night club in South Carolina. I’m sure you haven’t heard about it, and for two good reasons. The first reason is that the attempted murderer was unsuccessful in killing any of his victims. The second reason is because the attempted murderer was stopped by a concealed carrier at the club drawing his weapon and putting a bullet into the bad guy.