Arizona moves to allow concealed guns in bars

[Nibe]

A

[FNH]

You can't quantify that. You are confusing correlation and causation. If it goes up a significant amount, you can probably reasonably conclude that the lessened restrictions had something to do with it. If it only goes up a little bit, you can't really make that assumption rationally from a statistical point of view. All things go up and down over time. Until you can point to firm evidence that a relaxation of this kind leads to escalated incidents, you really have no ground to stand on. If you think about this rationally, you lead to the conclusion I posted earlier which everyone ignored: The kind of people who want to bring concealed weapons to bars already do, law notwithstanding.

woahhoho, don't bring rationality to rhinox, it is his kryptonite. He cannot live without kneejerk reactions.

[Rhinox]

sorry it was such a retarded question that it didn't even belong in this thread.

why is it retarded? because no one in their right mind would allow it to happen? I wonder why that is. Maybe its because people often assumes the worst in people and take action against the possibility of anything happening.

Thanks for proving my point.

[pohibaba]

how many people have to die before you say "Hey, Maybe this isn't such a good idea". With me you see one is to many even if that one is a hundred years from now.

How many lives have to be saved before you say, "Hey this is a pretty good idea"? With me you see one is enough, even if that one is a hundred years from now.

[FNH]

why is it retarded? because no one in their right mind would allow it to happen? I wonder why that is. Maybe its because people often assumes the worst in people and take action against the possibility of anything happening.

Thanks for proving my point.

Thank you for supporting concealed carry, but anyway Nibe was arguing for trust of people who have proved themselves as trustworthy.

[FNH]

How many lives have to be saved before you say, "Hey this is a pretty good idea"? With me you see one is enough, even if that one is a hundred years from now.

nice
http://thenextweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/hi.jpg

[Correction]

Trust is not a permanent thing. This law panders to people who want to a) carry their guns and b) get drunk. The combination is dangerous and it's happening after the fact of them getting this 'trust.' Would you write a law making it legal for lawyers to drink while on duty? They've already proven their trustworthiness by passing the bar exam, right?

[pohibaba]

Trust is not a permanent thing. This law panders to people who want to a) carry their guns and b) get drunk.

Nope, that would still be illegal.

[Correction]

Nope, that would still be illegal.

So your argument rests on the notion that folks with CC permits will take them into bars, and then not drink? Sounds like we're both speculating and you're the optimist here.

[FNH]

So your argument rests on the notion that folks with CC permits will take them into bars, and then not drink? Sounds like we're both speculating and you're the optimist here.

if they've followed the law up to this point it, why have wasted the time and money when they can get drunk at home legally?

[Rhinox]

You can't quantify that. You are confusing correlation and causation. If it goes up a significant amount, you can probably reasonably conclude that the lessened restrictions had something to do with it. If it only goes up a little bit, you can't really make that assumption rationally from a statistical point of view. All things go up and down over time. Until you can point to firm evidence that a relaxation of this kind leads to escalated incidents, you really have no ground to stand on. If you think about this rationally, you lead to the conclusion I posted earlier which everyone ignored: The kind of people who want to bring concealed weapons to bars already do, law notwithstanding.

I agree that People who do it already do. Following the logic you posted however do you believe If they highered the DUI BAC level to say 3.0(Hyberbole) and it lowered the number of DUI cases and the number of DUI deaths stayed constant that we can draw a conclusion the law would be considered a sucess in terms of effectiveness of lowering the amount of people who drink and drive? Considering that not all drunk drivers get into car accidents or alchohol related fatalities?

[Nibe]

A

[Rhinox]

Thank you for supporting concealed carry, but anyway Nibe was arguing for trust of people who have proved themselves as trustworthy.

Oh hey, its not like I said a word like sometimes. I forgot we live in the world of Minority report. keep trolling.

[FNH]

I agree that People who do it already do. Following the logic you posted however do you believe If they highered

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/300g667434.gif

[Rhinox]

If they've proven themselves up to that point, why should I not trust them? It's a slap to the face saying you trust them to carry a loaded weapon at all times, but not at a bar.

Why do you slap them in the face then? Didn't you say you wouldn't allow it in your bars?

[Rhinox]

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/300g667434.gif

.Gif retorts and such have a possibility of being funny if they actually worked.

[FNH]

.Gif retorts and such have a possibility of being funny if they actually worked.

the butt of the joke need not approve. stay cool bro.

[Rhinox]

the butt of the joke need not approve. stay cool bro.

such fail.

[Alleya]

I agree that People who do it already do. Following the logic you posted however do you believe If they highered the DUI BAC level to say 3.0(Hyberbole) and it lowered the number of DUI cases and the number of DUI deaths stayed constant that we can draw a conclusion the law would be considered a sucess? Considering that not all drunk drivers get into car accidents or alchohol related fatalities?

Your wording is strange, so let me get this straight. If we changed the legal BAC to 3.0, and the rates of DUI deaths stayed constant, would the change be a "success"? I guess it depends on your measure of success, really. Obviously people dying is not optimal. But if enforcement of BAC doesn't affect accident rates, then you kind of have to question if there's really any value in trying to enforce it. So applying that back to this, the logical conclusion would be to let people carry weapons wherever they want and use the money saved on an ineffective program to find a different solution.

[Rhinox]

Your wording is strange, so let me get this straight. If we changed the legal BAC to 3.0, and the rates of DUI deaths stayed constant, would the change be a "success"? I guess it depends on your measure of success, really. Obviously people dying is not optimal. But if enforcement of BAC doesn't affect accident rates, then you kind of have to question if there's really any value in trying to enforce it. So applying that back to this, the logical conclusion would be to let people carry weapons wherever they want and use the money saved on an ineffective program to find a different solution.

yeah I edited my original post because I caught that too. Check the edit