Skip to main content

Ohio House Votes to Allow Guns in Bars (I will not be drinking to that...)

Alcohol is known to limit one’s thoughts, emotions and judgments, as it minimizes a person’s inhibitions. The U.S. Department of Justice reported that alcohol was a factor in 40% of violent crimes committed in the United States. Published studies have reported that 86% of homicide offenders had been drinking alcohol prior to the crime. What do these statistics suggest? Guns should be allowed in bars, of course.

It’s simple logic when one thinks about it. If Person A were to attend a party where alcohol was present and Person B went to a party where alcohol was not present, obviously Person B would be more likely to drink alcohol than Person A. If a bar permits guns, it’s then logical to believe there will be fewer gunshots fired in that bar than in such an establishment which has banned firearms.

While Democrats are more known to support gun control measures than Republicans, there were even some members of the GOP whom voted against this bill, such as Mike Duffey of Worthington. When asked if he wants guns in bars, he stated, “My common sense tells me no” and went on to say, “There are always limitations to every right and freedom, and our rights generally end when someone else’s life starts. I don’t play games with that.”

On January 13th of this year, a man, whom was eating dinner at Raffa’s in Kingwood, Texas, accidentally shot a 71-year old grandmother, Diana Barker, as his .38 derringer fell out of his coat pocket and shot Ms. Barker in the buttocks. To this day, the bullet is lodged inside of her.

To which Ms. Barker would attest, the only shots in a bar should be of a liquid entering one's mouth and not a bullet penetrating that very mouth and killing a person. Jack Daniels and Coke might mix well. Alcohol and guns do not.



Sources:


http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/05/12/house-votes-to-let-guns-into-bars.html?sid=101

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/apr/06/news/mn-36646


http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/alerts/l/blnaa38.htm

http://www.khou.com/home/FamilyWoman-shot-at-restaurant-has-long-road-of-recovery-114462629.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"