Just as the owner of Top of The Stairs is opposed to concealed carry in restaurants serving alcohol in “Gun bill faces opposition ahead of vote” (CT, Feb. 6), I urge all owners of Blacksburg restaurants that serve alcohol to oppose the legislation.
It’s already a stressful job to work in a restaurant, as my two weeks of being a busboy will attest. As a waiter or waitress, there are hundreds of on the job stresses, both with the customers and the management. There are very few professions outside of the police and military where there is a threat of a gunshot injury on the job; is it worth it to add waiter/waitress to that list?
As there is concern with losing income generated by “out-of-town” patrons by not allowing guns in restaurants that serve alcohol, I have only two questions:
Is the “out-of-town concealed carry” revenue worth the former local and out-of-town patrons who will take their spending money to a restaurant where guns are not allowed?
Is the “out of town concealed carry” revenue worth the inevitable blacklisting (or closing) of a restaurant if a gun is discharged inside?
Of course it’s not fair to label all concealed carry permit holders as trigger happy drinkers, as it’s been shown that they’re more responsible with weapons and highly-trained to use them correctly. On the other hand, the “what-if” scenario is a life and death situation, something to think about in a school with Virginia Tech’s history.
Jacob Eberhart
senior
industrial design
A version of this article appeared in the Feb 18 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 40 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
First I would like to commend you for realizing that all gun-carrying citizens are not nuts; too few realize that we are usually very responsible.
I must ask how you feel like having someone with a gun in a restaurant suddenly makes it more likely you will be shot. I have concealed-carried my firearm at the supermarket, at the mall, and on the street. And as it is now, guns are allowed in restaurant as long as they are not concealed. How are you less safe if this bill passes than you are at the movie theatre or at a restaurant that does not serve alcohol (where concealed-carry is perfectly legal)?
And finally, I would like to address all those that feel they are safe in a restaurant and have no need to protect themselves. Just read about the Luby's Massacre in Texas from almost 20 years ago. 23 people were gunned down in a diner and they could not protect themselves because Texas did not have a concealed-carry law. One of the survivors went on to force Texas to pass a concealed-carry law.
Reply to this Top
I think allowing someone to conceal and carry in a restaurant or a bar where alcohol can be accessed is dangerous. There are many ways to defend yourself without a gun and quite frankly, a crowded area such as a restaurant is hardly safe under any circumstance.
You can be the most reasonable and gun knowledgeable person on the planet and it wouldn't change the fact that some circumstances simply are out of your control.
I believe in the right to bear arms and I also believe in a right to safety. But let us remember that if no one had a gun there would be no need to carry them in the first place.
Conceal and carry is a little ridiculous anyway. I believe I have a right to KNOW you have a gun on you. And why would you want to conceal it? Are you attempting to use it on someone? Maybe trick them into a fight and then whip it out? Wouldn't have a revealed gun deter people from harassing you? I don't understand the point of conceal and carry.
Reply to this Top
You don't have a right to know whether or not someone is carrying. You are overreacting because we are talking about adults not children. Adults which can be help accountable for their actions. This wont make it legal to consume alcohol while carrying this will allow someone to defend themselves in an Olive Garden.
Reply to this Top
"But let us remember that if no one had a gun there would be no need to carry them in the first place."
Quite right. All we have to do is cause humans to never attack humans.
So, how do you propose to do that?
Reply to this Top
" I don't understand the point of conceal and carry."
There is a portion of the population who are scared of weapons in the hands of non-government employees. They would rather not see the firearm, thus enhancing their "feeling" of safety.
The criminal doesn't want law-abiding citizens to be able to carry concealed... how does a hard-working criminal figure out who the easy targets are?
Reply to this Top
If you are against concealed carry as a whole, I disagree respectfully, but the issue here is whether, presupposing the legality of concealed carry in general, it is reasonable to prohibit concealed carry anywhere that serves alcohol. Given that: 1. open carry is already permitted (with no license required), 2. being under the influence and carrying, regardless of open/concealed is a class 1 misdemeanor (I believe this bill also specifically states that you can't drink at all while concealing, an even more stringent restriction), and 3. that concealed carry is permitted in so many other populated areas, the prohibition of regulated concealed carry in establishments with an alcohol license seems unnecessary.
Reply to this Top
I do not believe you have any right to know who is carrying a gun. If anything gun owners have a right to privacy ensured by the 1st Amendment.
I am growing tired of people thinking that just because you are concealed-carrying you are hiding something or have nefarious purposes. Dave is absolutely correct in that many people fear guns on non-law enforcement and could call the cops. Then there is the whole wasted tax payers money and wasted time for both the citizen legally carrying and the police. Also, many people who do carry concealed feel that if there is going to be a shooting, displaying his or her gun would make them a first target, not allowing them to defend themselves; just like robbers taking out the cops or guards, because they are armed and could stop them.
I want this law passed because I ride a motorcycle and with all the layers I have on, open carry is not really an option. I don't have a place to lock the gun on my bike when I go into a restaurant so I need to take it with me when I go eat.
Reply to this Top
HAHA... You have NO right to know anything about another person in public. To say that you have the right to know if someone has a gun on them is the same as saying you have the right to know if they have a pen in their pocket!
You say, "If no one had a gun there would be no need to carry them in the first place." You are dead wrong it is crazy! Criminals will always have a gun even if it means that they make it themselves. Look at Great Britain, you may not own or carry a gun there, however, they have one of the HIGHEST gun crime rates in the WORLD! This is because criminals do not need permission to carry a gun, they will do it anyway!
On the other hand, look at Switzerland, every male has to serve in the military and when they get out, they are given back their rifle and pistol! By the way, Switzerland has the LOWEST crime rate in the WORLD! Why is this? Because if someone knows that everyone around them has a gun, they would not dare use one, themselves! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FW5vy-Oahw)
But you are right on one thing: Conceal carry permits are ridiculous! My 2nd amendment right should be by conceal carry permit, not a piece of paper.
Reply to this Top
The idea that more guns equals more safety and less crime is unfounded. There are examples the other way. Tokyo has a ban on guns and has a crime rate lower than the Swiss. Mogadishu probably has the highest number of guns per capita and is probably the most violent and crime ridden city on earth.
Top
Japan also does not give freedoms to their citizens that the United States gives to us. Also, crimes in Japan suffer a much harsher penalty there than they do here, because it is against our constitution. I am sure if we increased gun control here, and increased punishment of crimes, crime would drop and you would say "gun control is what made it drop".
As for Mogadishu, You cannot compare them to the United States. That is in a third world country surrounded by corruption and an unstable government. They can't even take care of pirates. That is like comparing an apple to an orange.
Top
However, look at Canada and Great Britain. Countries that have developed like ours but, they have strict gun control and high crime rates. Even Washington DC, same thing happened when they had the gun ban, crimes sky rocketed!
Top
@Refuted: The primary issue is not one of whether more guns = more safety; rather, the question should be whether more guns = less safety. The relatively recent adoption of concealed carry laws in nearly all 50 states without a correlating increase in violent crime suggests that extending the right to carry, with its requisite regulatory measures, is not causal to increased violent crime. The onus is on those wishing to pass laws restrictive to freedom to prove that they will improve upon an existing problem, and even that is only necessary, not sufficient, evidence to pass such laws. Given two options: one with more freedom and one with less, if the same overall crime rate prevails either way, there is no justifiable reason to choose the path of more restriction.
Top
You're lying out of your ass, "Refuted".
>>The idea that more guns equals more safety and less crime is unfounded.<<
. . . except for all the clear-cut instances that were cited that prove otherwise. Sorry, saying "Your argument is unfoiunded" while offering no evidence to the contrary doesn't magically make you're argument correct.
>>Tokyo has a ban on guns and has a crime rate lower than the Swiss.<<
Not true. Check your sources, provided you actually have any.
>>Mogadishu probably has the highest number of guns per capita and is probably the most violent and crime ridden city on earth.<<
Wrong. The country with the highest per gun Capita is Denmark. If you're not going to bothered to do your homework, don't try to pass yourself off as an expert in the field. Unless, of course, you're just deliberately lying.
Also, Mogadishu is a city in a third-world nation facing many problems of a nature related to poverty and religious fanaticism. Way to cherry-pick.
Top
"There are very few professions outside of the police and military where there is a threat of a gunshot injury on the job; is it worth it to add waiter/waitress to that list?"
I don't believe there will be a requirement for a waiter/waitress to carry a firearm, so I miss how this relates to an "on the job" risk.
As for people who are shot by bad actors, I don't know of any job category that is immune.
The author seems to believe that people will commit murder over problems with their food. I would suggest that is not a realistic fear.
Reply to this Top
By allowing someone to carry a concealed gun into a restaurant does not mean you are putting ANYONE in danger of being shot. Ones with a Conceal Carry Permit carry a weapon to protect themselves, not to shoot up the place! Criminals do that, and they do not need a law that gives them permission to carry and gun because they do that anyway.
It is this simple: If everyone carried a gun, there would be little, to none, gun crimes. This is because everyone would know that everybody else has a gun on them. HOWEVER! If nobody carried a gun, then criminals would still carry one!
Why can't people see this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FW5vy-Oahw
Reply to this Top
"Virginia Tech's history"? You mean as a place where the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply, and disarmed people were gunned down?
Perhaps we should compare it to Virginia's Appalachian School of Law, where a few years before VT two students were able to retrieve their pistols from their cars and stop an armed psycho.
But I suppose there could be a bunch of murderers out there just waiting for permission to enter restaurants, right?
Reply to this Top
Amen brother... Amen!
Reply to this Top
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA watch this video
Reply to this Top
Great video. Another good one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujhwzuB1liQ
Reply to this Top
By your logic, Somalia must be the safest place on the planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi_wZMYY_PM
Reply to this Top
Oh come on... "Guns don't kill people, ak-47's kill people." Umm... an ak-47 is a gun! But guns don't kill people, people kill people. Someone could use a Brick to kill someone, or they could use it to build a hospital. Same logic.
Somalia is a completely different country than the United States. No solid form of fair government, all corrupt. You could have convicted drug dealers over there and they would still be allowed to carry a weapon. Obviously, you would not be able to do that here with those convictions, and that is a good thing. But you cannot compare the United States to third world countries like Somalia.
Look at Great Britain and Canada, strict gun control, and crime rates go up. Even Washington DC, when they enacted a gun ban, crime went up. Now that the ban is lifted, crime is going down.
You cannot compare an apple to an orange.
Top
@Josh - yes you can compare them. You're just choosing not to because it doesn't fit your argument. The reality is that all humans operate under the same naturalistic tendencies, regardless of skin color, location, etc. Taking away freedom and the right to defend yourself has the same effect in the US, Somalia, and Iran. Sorry that you choose to disagree, but ignoring facts doesn't make them go away.
Top
Everyone has a gun in Somalia because that is their way of life. They cannot be compared to our country because our country is not constantly in a civil war of some sort. Somalia's high crime rate comes down to constant battles between drug cartels, war lords, and the people that protect themselves. If you want to compare the two then do so, and state facts, not ideas. Most people that kill someone in Somalia don't fear being put in prison, because that typically doesn't happen. They fear being killed by someone else, so the killing goes on. If gun control is a necessary evil, then there should be strict punishment for those that break the laws, such as Japan as was stated earlier. If you would like to enact that here in the US, throw all of your rights out the window and start fresh. Better yet, move to a restricted country and be happy there with all the regulations and limitations on how you can live your life. From my perspective, I would rather have the ability to protect myself, my family and innocent people around me.
Top
Once again, people think that criminals follow laws.
If you are a criminal, and you want to shoot someone, you aren't going to bother with the law.
If you are a law abiding person and the law says "don't carry", you won't carry and thus put yourself in danger to the criminal who has no regard for the law. If the law is in place, you can carry, and make yourself less of a target.
Reply to this Top
"Let's get rid of the guns" while idealistic, is also an impossible task. They'll be around forever and ever. The genie is out of the bottle, and not going to be shoved back in.
"Let's arm only officials" is the way to a fascist and repressive state, and still those pesky criminals will be armed because they have no regard for the law even in a fascist nation.
"Let's educate people and protect the 2nd amendment right to bear arms" is the right way to go. People argue about the 2nd amendment all the time, but it is spelled out in plain language. It doesn't say "you have the right to a gun" but it says "we will not mess with your right to have a gun." In other words, it is assumed and not granted. It's there so you can protect yourself from the government, from crime, and from nature. It's also there so you can feed yourself.
Review: criminals are criminals, and by definition do not follow the law. Passing restrictive gun laws only harms those who follow the law, and not criminals.
Reply to this Top
I just wanted to add that I went to Texas Roadhouse last night and openly carried. I did not drink, and my gun did not jump out of its holster and shoot anyone. As soon as I walked out the door, my coat went back on over it.
Reply to this Top
Ok, I am getting tired of reading Left Wing theology on guns.
Here it is, plain and simple:
1.) If everyone carried a gun, there would be no gun crimes because, who would go shooting up the place when they know everybody else around them has a gun? Example - Switzerland (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FW5vy-Oahw)
2.) If no one carried a gun, there would still be gun crimes because criminals do not need permission to carry and use a gun. THEY WILL DO IT ANYWAY! Example - Great Britain where there is a total gun ban (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujhwzuB1liQ)
Watch that last video. It will change your opinion on gun control. Actually it probably won't, because you left wingers already have your mind made up that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
"My second amendment should be my permit to carry"
Reply to this Top
For some reason, all of the people who oppose this bill feel that allowing a concealed carry permit holder to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol will automatically end in gun violence. If the carry holders obey the law and don't drink, then you are no more likely to be the victim of gun violence in a restaurant than you are at the mall, around town, or in a fast food restaurant that doesn't serve alcohol? I carry a gun to these places everyday, and I never drink while I carry. Somehow I have never managed to get into a raucous fight and shoot someone in Best Buy. So, if I carry in a restaurant and have a Dr. Pepper with dinner, am I more likely to get in a fight or pull a gun on someone? Absolutely not. The only people who will carry in a restaurant and drink alcohol after this bill passes, that's right I said after it passes, are people who aren't permit holders. These are people who have no respect for any laws, including gun laws, and who are more likely to break this law. As a permit holder, and as a representative of all of my friends who carry everyday, I can say that we are well taught and well practiced and we obey the law.
Reply to this Top
Exactly!
And ultimately, it is up to that restaurant to decide if they want to allow guns in their establishment. That is freedom, that the owners of that restaurant have, that is equal to the freedom to carry a gun in the first place. So what is the big deal.
However, I will not go eat at those restaurants!
Reply to this Top
I think of this as very similar to "open container" laws. It is illegal to drink and drive, but why should it be illegal to have alcohol in the car while someone is driving it? The answer is that if alcohol is available, it increases the odds of the driver drinking it. Similarly, if alcohol is available in a restaurant, someone who is carrying a gun is more likely to drink it, and that is a situation we want to avoid.
I don't have any statistics, but I from what I know, restaurants and bars have not had any sort of problem with violent crime lately, so I believe that this bill is attempting to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
Top
If someone does drink a alcoholic beverage in a bar with their gun on them, that makes them a criminal (breaking the law), and I guarantee that they would do this even if their wasn't a law stating it was their "right" to have a gun there in the first place.
However, out of the very very very many conceal weapon holders that I know, they would never dare drink an alcoholic beverage with their weapon on them, because, it is very dumb to mix alcohol with guns and conceal carriers know that.
As for bars not having any sort of problems with violent crime lately, neither did our school (Virginia Tech) before April 16, 2007. You can't have the mind set "well everything has been okay for quite awhile," because that is when you will be blind sided!
Top
Jim,
It isn't that CCW holders feel it necessary to have a gun in a restaurant. The issue is that many CCW holders carry their firearms with them all the time. Under the current law a CCW holder carrying his firearm must now, when entering a restaurant that serves alcohol, either a) expose his firearm, leading to inevitable anti-gun folks going nuts or b) leave his firearm in his car where it could get stolen, falling into the hands of a criminal.
Top
I may be able to save your life someday if I am allowed to carry and something unthinkable happens and I truly hope it never will. It is not legal permit holders you have to worry about.
Reply to this Top
First of all, this law does not prevent anyone from carrying a concealed handgun and drinking. Anyone who wants to do that is already doing it. Those people are called "criminals".
What this law does is make it possible to have a few law-abiding armed people in the restaurant, as well.
The choice a restaurant owner must ask herself is not "Do I as allow guns in my establishment?" The question she needs to ask is, "Do I want *criminals* to be the *only* ones who have guns in my establishment?"
For myself, I will not take my family into a place with a "No guns" sign on the door. All that means is that the only people who walk through the door are criminals, and potential victims, and I do not want my family to be either.
Reply to this Top
If Tech students would focus more on:
A. their administration's shrug off of responsibility in terms of not addressing Cho's mental health issue.
B. and on addressing the dangers associated with their binge drinking culture
perhaps they might actually accomplish something worthwhile rather then their continual focus (and related whining and complaining) regarding Virginia firearms ownership.
I'd love to see Natural Light beer and college football on the chopping block because of the irresponsible actions on the part of many of the fans. That doesn't appear likely to happen either.
I daresay more irresponsibility transpires in regards to those related activities then those that involving firearms owners with legal carry permits.
Reply to this Top
If people who have CCW know the rules they know you are not allowed to drink. If you break the rules you have committed a crime. Poeple who have spent the time to get a CCW are not out looking to start fights with a gun.
Get real!!
People show not be worried about CCW holders. Worry about the people who don't have them.
They are the ones who commit crimes.
Reply to this Top
All I have to say is... "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you dont like the U.S. Constitution, move out! I hear N. Korea is really good at telling its people how they are going to live. Give up your own rights not mine!
Reply to this Top
Brief Fine,aspect trade theatre breath reply different achievement nose limit illustrate client shoe technique force may divide somewhat artist rest purpose energy temperature regular business map southern roll subject signal flow particularly whatever school cheap crisis whatever secondary shall eventually read international light chain special motion dress sentence paint doubt although open walk studio suggestion play when bar even slightly code event memory plastic out trust fuel position those arrange poor exercise sit bank own define distinction corporate onto variety right survey group improve age again control everything relief benefit else build stuff experience clothes
Reply to this Top
Winner Too,okay associate share achieve claim staff arrive everything experience wave dinner although sign end comparison big welfare servant next approach energy station release her branch video bird do sister lady trip capital revenue people question already next fairly active fast bar lean drive basic edge although carefully attention attend consideration hardly ring begin dress signal deputy take attack internal contrast refer traffic head reject purpose design capacity apparently application fall ticket report education those wash instead experience mark finally concentration cheap brief handle light language enterprise glass
Reply to this Top
A site named <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshop Killer</a> can expose PSed images! I just Googled an image which was photoshopped and then uploaded it to pskiller.com. The forensics analysis started just after I clicked the submit button and detailed information was shown then. The result was correct.
Reply to this Top