Tennessee new gun law

[GrimJack]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Handguns will soon be allowed in bars and restaurants in Tennessee under a new law passed by state legislators who voted to override the governor's veto.

The legislation that takes effect July 14 retains an existing ban on consuming alcohol while carrying a handgun, and restaurant owners can still opt to ban weapons from their establishments.

Thirty-seven other states have similar laws.

The state Senate voted 21-9 on Thursday against Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen's veto, a day after the House also voted 69-27 to override.

They overrode critics, including Bredesen, who said it's a bad idea to have guns and alcohol in close proximity.

Well, who could be surprised by this outcome:

In what is almost too predictable to be true, the lead sponsor of a Tennessee law allowing handgun permit holders to bring guns into bars “has been arrested on charges of drunken driving and possession of a gun while under the influence.” Pulled over in Nashville, Tennessee late yesterday, state Rep. Curry Todd (R) “failed a roadside sobriety test and refused to take a breathalyzer. A loaded Smith & Wesson 38 Special was found in a holster stuffed between the driver seat and the center console.”

You can get a little more info here

[BitBlt]

I can just hear the trial now:

Rep. Todd: "But, your honor, it wasn't in my posession at all! It was stuffed down beside the car seat!"

Judge: <facepalm>

[WaltP]

Where else but Tennessee?!?! Sheesh!

Well, maybe Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Minnesota, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc, etc, etc... :icon_rolleyes:

[pseudorandom21]

The gun law doesn't seem to be the issue, I support repealing the hughes amendment:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/push-congress-repeal-hughes-amendment-fopa-and-nfa/FWXhjh9s

The man knew what he was doing, it's his fault.

Btw repealing the hughes amendment will make machine guns more affordable, currently you can get one but it will cost you thousands of dollars, which is stupid when criminals have them anyway.

[GrimJack]

The gun law doesn't seem to be the issue, I support repealing the hughes amendment:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/push-congress-repeal-hughes-amendment-fopa-and-nfa/FWXhjh9s

The man knew what he was doing, it's his fault.

Btw repealing the hughes amendment will make machine guns more affordable, currently you can get one but it will cost you thousands of dollars, which is stupid when criminals have them anyway.

wtf?!?! what do you need a machine gun for?

[frogboy77]

Well it is difficult to kill 127 of one's schoolmates without one. DUH.

[Ancient Dragon]

I would like to use a machine gun to go bird hunting. We have blackbirds that fly in herds of thousands. A machine gun would be just the thing to break them up :)

[pseudorandom21]

wtf?!?! what do you need a machine gun for?

Truthfully it's more about my right to own one than wanting/needing one.
You can get one now if you pay the tax (like $200 extra), but they stopped allowing in NEW machine guns, meaning all the existing ones are now worth like 10 grand a piece (at the minimum) and will only go up in value unless this is repealed. So basically people are just getting the shaft on them at the moment, but they're still available.
I would like to see a criminal pay 10 grand for one them (never going to happen), so why do regular joes get the shaft?

[pseudorandom21]

I would like to use a machine gun to go bird hunting. We have blackbirds that fly in herds of thousands. A machine gun would be just the thing to break them up :)

lol a .22 machine-gun and shooting bird-shot would be fun.
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/65126-5.html

[GrimJack]

Well, if you want to get rid of the black birds you might want to use a 6 gauge shotgun but I recommend NOT shoulder-firing it. Rumor has it this is the gun that wiped out the carrier pigeon. Also, the same rumor-mill suggests that the carrier pigeon was wiped out on purpose - for the same reason you want to get rid of the black birds. When a flock of carrier pigeons came by, it would leave bird poop inches deep that would destroy crops.

[GrimJack]

Truthfully it's more about my right to own one than wanting/needing one.
You can get one now if you pay the tax (like $200 extra), but they stopped allowing in NEW machine guns, meaning all the existing ones are now worth like 10 grand a piece (at the minimum) and will only go up in value unless this is repealed. So basically people are just getting the shaft on them at the moment, but they're still available.
I would like to see a criminal pay 10 grand for one them (never going to happen), so why do regular joes get the shaft?

Grenade launchers, shoulder-fired missiles, quad-.50s all cost more because they are not legal - do you propose that there be no line between legal arms and illegal arms?

[Agilemind]

Btw repealing the hughes amendment will make machine guns more affordable, currently you can get one but it will cost you thousands of dollars, which is stupid when criminals have them anyway.

Ooo goody machine guns next to bubble gum at the dollar store, the vision of the American Dream ......

[Agilemind]

I would like to see a criminal pay 10 grand for one them (never going to happen), so why do regular joes get the shaft?

Are you serious????

Criminals can kill people and own sex-slaves too, do you really defend regular Joes being able to do the same just to be 'fair'? If not you're admitting you just made an EPIC FAIL argument.

[pseudorandom21]

AgileMind, no. I spent about a half hour last night explaining my arguments to a friend of mine (anti-gun as he was) so I don't want to take the time to debate you.

But... What makes you think citizens would start killing people and owning sex-slaves because they have a bigger gun? It seems your vision of Americans consists of homicidal maniacs and psychopaths/criminals. That just isn't the case.

[VernonDozier]

>> But... What makes you think citizens would start killing people and owning sex-slaves because they have a bigger gun?

They wouldn't, and nothing in AgileMind's argument implies he thinks they would. He's simply pointing out the fallacy of any argument along the lines of "Criminals get to do x, therefore non-criminals should get to as well..."

Fill in the blanks with any absurd crime you can think of. AgileMind chose "murder" and "sex slaves". Clearly there are laws against both of these, and for good reason. Clearly criminals do both of these things and non-criminals do not. When they do, they become criminals by definition. Thus criminals "get to" commit murder till we catch them and lock them up, after which time (hopefully) they can't do that anymore. By definition, criminals "get to" kill people and own sex slaves and the rest of us law-abiding suckers don't. Life just sucks that way.

[pseudorandom21]

No I stand by my argument, even if you should decide to misinterpret it.
My question to you is, what are you worried about?

[VernonDozier]

frogboy put it pretty well...

Well it is difficult to kill 127 of one's schoolmates without one. DUH.

You can't. If Seung-Hui Cho, Dylan Klebold, Eric Harris, Jared Loughner, or any of these other nuts had had the ability to buy a machine gun, their death tolls would have been way higher.

[pseudorandom21]

The hell you can't! It still doesn't change the fact that those people probably would have murdered others regardless of having guns.

They would probably have only ran out of ammo quicker, and you certainly didn't account for Dylan and Eric's fetish for bombs.

VernonDozier, have you ever even fired a gun? I'm sure you're aware of the concept of actually hitting the target with it.

http://www.acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

[VernonDozier]

>> The hell you can't!

Kill 127 people with a pistol or a non-automatic weapon? I don't think so. Or at least none of THESE people could have. Someone was able to take Loughner's gun away from him, thank God. If any of them had been able to buy a machine gun with a couple of those big ammo chains, they would have killed quite a few more. Bombs, well that's another issue entirely, isn't it? If they could have bought a bomb that worked, who knows? Supposedly if Harris' bomb had gone off, he would have killed hundreds. Fortunately he was a lousy bomb-builder. But still quite doubtful anyway. Even organizations like al Qaeda and Hamas, who are clearly quite good at building them, only kill about a dozen at a time.

>> It still doesn't change the fact that those people probably would have murdered others regardless of having guns.

They would have murdered one or two with a knife or a sword or whatever, then everyone would have been able to run away or people would have gotten close enough to tackle them. Cho in particular would have never been able to kill as many without a gun. Again, if he'd had an actual MACHINE GUN, he would have killed quite a few more. When was the last time anyone was able to kill a whole bunch of people in a crowd with anything but a gun?

>> VernonDozier, have you ever even fired a gun? I'm sure you're aware of the concept of actually hitting the target with it.

When you stoop to this sort of ad hominem, you've lost the argument. You know nothing about how much experience I've had with guns. Yes, I've fired guns. Yes, I've hit the target occasionally, key word occasionally. I'm at best an average marksman. But that's quite irrelevant to the conversation, isn't it?

[MosaicFuneral]

Then lets just pray that he was stupid enough not to know how to build an elementary grade explosive or sub-machine gun(so easy to assemble with a trip to the hardware store that it's disturbing).

[VernonDozier]

Then lets just pray that he was stupid enough not to know how to build an elementary grade explosive or sub-machine gun(so easy to assemble with a trip to the hardware store that it's disturbing).

Well it's either not quite that easy or these guys weren't very bright or they weren't creative and resourceful enough to learn how to do it. Generally they're not the most stable bunch and they don't have access to a shop where they can tinker around with bombs and guns without their dad waking in on them in the garage, nor do they own their own car, so it's a bit of a chore to get your bomb out into the middle of that desolate state park at midnight to see if it works. I can't think of the last time any of these guys modified a regular semi-automatic gun into a machine gun. I also can't think of the last time any of them USED a machine gun on any of these rampages. As far as bombs go, whenever amateurs build them, they seem to NOT go off more often that they go off (i.e. the underwear bomber, Times Square Bomber, the guys who tried to bomb Heathrow Airport, and of course, Eric Harris).

[frogboy77]

As bad as these guys?

[Rashakil Fol]

Wow, some people here sure don't like the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

[Agilemind]

Wow, some people here sure don't like the idea of innocent until proven guilty.

I don't know what made you come to that conclusion.

But about 1% of the population are psychopaths, and 50% of people will have some kind of mental illness some time in their life. Asking that all people not have access to weapons of mass destruction (machine guns, bombs, etc...) so that those few who will become criminals have a limited capacity to cause mayhem and chaos doesn't assume everyone is guilty or everyone will become a murderer. It is accepting the fact that there has never been a time in human history without some murderers (thus it is unlikely there will be such a time in the near future).

[Rashakil Fol]

I don't know what made you come to that conclusion.

But about 1% of the population are psychopaths, and 50% of people will have some kind of mental illness some time in their life. Asking that all people not have access to weapons of mass destruction (machine guns, bombs, etc...) so that those few who will become criminals have a limited capacity to cause mayhem and chaos doesn't assume everyone is guilty or everyone will become a murderer. It is accepting the fact that there has never been a time in human history without some murderers (thus it is unlikely there will be such a time in the near future).

Going by that reasoning you might as well throw everybody in prison right now. The only reason you think that's preposterous is because you want to live outside of prison. Other people want to have shoot man-killing devices, or simply have them. Yet here you are applying your fallacy to what they want to do, while not applying it to what you want to do.

If you want to go for some utilitarian "thousands of people should go without the freedom to have automatic weapons in case one madman gets his hands on one" route, you're going to have to daydream about scenarios that are extremely rare. There is a vast scarcity of mad gunmen in this country, who could just as well be mad food-poisoners or mad derailers. You're building your ideas about "gun security" out of movie-plot threats. The reason you're so scared of guns is that you've watched all these movies with guns in them. If you actually cared about people you'd derail this conversation to talk about heart disease or traffic accidents. But you don't care about people.

[pseudorandom21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

[VernonDozier]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

And the point is? Don't just link something with no explanation. We all know what the Oklahoma City bombing was. Presumably the point was to find a bomb that did go off and killed more than 127 people. Noted.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bombs+that+failed+to+detonate

[Rashakil Fol]

The point is that we should ban fertilizer.

(And we should ban technology in general.)

[pseudorandom21]

Yay no more food or computers or guns!

[Agilemind]

Clearly the right-wingers do not understand the concept of "trade-off" or "cost vs benefit" (which is odd since they are usually so supporting for the market which is all about that stuff).

Anyway, the cost of removing the freedom to own a machine gun/grenade launcher/hand gun is small since almost no-one will ever use such and item for useful purposes and most people have no desire to own one. The benefit while not huge (because as you rightly point out there are few madgun men) however it is not zero since in the rare case of a madgun man the benefit is huge (100 fold reduction in loss of life). Thus cost-benefit says it is better to ban them.

Hunting rifles of course are a different case since in north America many people do use them for useful purposes thus swinging the cost-benefit in the other direction.

A similar argument hold for fertilizer, although clearly there are a limited number/type of person who will be able to put bomb-making quantities of fertilizer to good use, as such most places quite reasonably have restrictions/limits on the sale of large quantities of fertilizer.

PS I'm quite curious how many of the pro-gun posters would describe themselves as pro-life, since these two positions seem to be completely contradictory to me, since as I have explained being pro-gun means you value your personal freedom above the lives of other people and pro-life mean you value the 'life' of unborn children above the personal freedom of the mother.