Because we love to keep stoking those fires. Last week we brought you a piece of news on gun violence in a local bar that cranked up the debate on the controversial guns in bars law that has changed the face of Ohio’s nightlife. To recap: A Cincinnati man was arrested after getting into a drunken altercation at the local watering hole, grabbing his gun from the car, and walking back into the saloon waving the weapon around, threatening bodily harm. A lot of you readers saw the story and commented something in the ballpark of: “See, this is why this law is stupid.” Now, in order to keep you on your intellectual toes, a news story that may support the other side of the argument.
According to News 5, this weekend a man was arrested in Painesville after squeezing off two rounds from a handgun. The incident went down in the parking lot of McTaggart’s Bar and Grill in the early hours of Sunday. The shooter, 30-year-old Kristopher Williams, was “highly intoxicated” and was found to be in possession of drugs once he was arrested. He also didn’t have a permit to carry a weapon.
When we read the story — about a drunk, dangerous guy in a bar who was already carrying a weapon, permit be damned — we couldn’t help think back to the argument floated by supporters of the guns in bars law earlier this year. In our April story, the law’s Senate sponsor Tim Schaffer couched his support in terms of a defensive move on the part of law abiding citizens. The guns are in the bars already, in the hands of unlicensed a-holes like Williams, the argument runs, so why shouldn’t non-drinking, trained permit holders be allowed to carry for their own protection?
This article appears in Oct 12-18, 2011.
I don’t go to bars more than a couple of times a year.
On the other hand, I go to several local restaurants with liquor licenses. Even before the law changed, I didn’t drink when I did, even though my gun was in the car. I’m frankly baffled by the apparent belief of some that the parking lot of Longhorn Steakhouse or Friday’s should be a “safe harbor” for armed robbers, kidnappers and rapists.
But then let’s be honest: those most vehemently opposed to restaurant carry are really opposed to CARRY, PERIOD. They don’t believe in self-defense, anywhere, at any time. They push the fairytale of police “protection” of individuals that has been shot down by virtually every court that’s had occasion to hear it.
Can’t the same argument apply to gov’t buildings, schools and other no-no sites?
Mr. Joe Garrison; you sir are absolutely right, there is no reason i should have to disarm myself to go into a federal, state, or city building. when i go downtown i have to keep my protection locked in my car, worried that i will be attacted, or my protection will be stolen. i have had to use deadly force to protect myself & family because the police were only minutes away when i had only second’s to responed. i totaly support law enforcement, but they can’t be everywhere, and i don’t have the luxery of having an armed guard payed for with our tax dollar’s.
The guy had illegal drugs, did not have a carry permit, and was drunk while armed. Three felonies right there, so I fail to see how the “guns in bars law” is even relevant. He would have done the same thing even if the “bar law” was not passed. We both know (your research is either poor or you are being dishonest) the law is the same law in most states: may carry in eating establishment which serves alcohol, but may not drink.
my bad, I just woke up and misread your article. I retract what I said about research.