Well, if you allow guns in places where people are drinking and taking drugs, you’ll have a lot of people killed by drunks. And probably a lot of innocent people outside on the street passing by. Drunk people should not have guns.
I see no problem, however, with having armed security in a bar.
Me? I’m 58, and haven’t set foot in a bar in a long, long time. I just do not like drunk people.
“I see no problem, however, with having armed security in a bar.”
In a state where the patrons of a bar are not “allowed” to be armed, it should be mandataory i.e. State Law, the the bar have a non-drinking security force that’s commesurate with the number of patrons. For The Pulse, with more than 300 patrons, there should have been a number of armed security people present, and there needed to be more than one way out! Seems to me that the Fire Marshall should have been seeing to it that there was an adquate way to vacate the premises if the emergency were a fire, let alone a gunman.
I carry in bars because I’m allowed to. And guess what? Not a single shooting that I’m aware of since the law passed here in Ohio by a CCW permit holder. This is the media pushing fear as they did in Ohio to put pressure on the law makers to not pass the bill. Don’t get suckered into the wrong narrative.
Responsible CCW permit holders carry in bars with no issue whatsoever
“”if you allow guns in places where people are drinking and taking drugs, you’ll have a lot of people killed by drunks””
There’s a price to pay for being rid of terrorism, my friend.
Prove it. Oregon allows guns in bars, and we don't have any more bar shootings than other states.
If people are taking drugs, they're already breaking the law.
And they probably already have guns both to protect their money and drugs.
The wonder is not that they would shoot someone while in that state, but rather that they are so restrained while in that state!
I've been armed, and I've been drunk, but I've NEVER shot someone or even brandished during those two intersecting times.