As someone who has always had insurance, either through a private policy or through companies I've worked for, I can safely say it is all too expensive and doesn't cover enough. Sure, you can get antibiotics or some cough syrup for under $20, but what about real health concerns? Health care costs should not be a major cause of bankruptcy in our country.
I'll never forget going to the EMERGENCY room for a deep cut and not having stopped by the ATM or having my check book on me. Five hours later I was asked "So you don't have $300 to put down?" Didn't figure I needed a separate savings account for medical costs when I was paying for insurance...you know, what you pay into for health emergencies and care?
Of course, their credit card machine was down, so they needed cash. I simply said "This was an emergency." I signed my papers and walked out with debt in order to not bleed to death. Should have picked up some fishing line and stitched up myself rather than dealing with that crap. It's scary when you see a chunk of your pay disappear into what you thought would allot for emergencies but ends up going somewhere else (all I can discern). Wonder how much four stitches would have cost someone without insurance?
This seems very backwards. Someone hiking alone in the woods of a park needs personal protection from the elements as well as from a lone criminal. When shots are fired it's usually around fewer people, thus lowering the level of someone getting shot accidentally.
It comes down to personal protection and when someone is firing shots in a crowded area, it no longer about the gun owners personal protection. The safety of those around him can come into jeopardy as well, either from the criminal going after the gun owner or from ricochet. I'm sure "wives and children" go into these places (no 21 and up establishments)much more than they do the woods of public parks for that very reason--safety in numbers.
indian, I support your right to protect yourself and your family and your right to bear arms. I have the right to free speech, but I don't go cussing up a blue streak at Toy's R Us because it's irresponsible. I wouldn't stand outside of a church when it lets out and blaspheme because it's irresponsible. Those actions affect the people surrounding me.
When you bring a gun into a crowded room, it's no longer about you. Your actions can have dire consequences to the people surrounding you. We aren't talking about your home, your car, or even for personal protection when hiking alone in a public park. We're talking about crowded areas. Unless you're constantly watching the door to see if a criminal walks in and starts firing, the likelihood of a single concerned citizen stopping a situation from escalating is very low.
If you feel so unsafe in your city that you have to bring a gun with you, maybe you're the one who should stay at home. I'll take my chances with the criminals. I don't frequent establishments where I feel unsafe. I do, however, feel unsafe in an establishment where anyone who has $115 and can pass a safety course can sit next to me with a gun. Maybe I should get a gun, despite my poor aim and arthritis, that way I can defend myself too. I have the right, $115 and am certain I can pass a safety course.
huh, I'm not worried about the responsible owner. I'm sure most permit owners are responsible, but like I said, a permit doesn't make someone responsible. I'm worried about the rowdy drunk at the sports bar (for ex. buffalo wild wings, 18 and up est., other all ages est.) or restaurant that causes a disturbance and ends up causing a gun to be discharged, or, several responsible owners trying to help in a situation at the same time. We aren't equipped with "good guy" radar, so once one shot goes off, who's to say who's the assailant and who's the victim? If three responsible owners decide on their own to go after an assailant from three different positions in a room, it quadruples the amount of shots being fired within the establishment. No doubt that in a perfect situation an assailant would be subdued immediately and with as little gun fire as possible, but it's not like there's going to be a "permit" only section in which methods of action will be discussed before dinner is served. Yes, massacres do happen. This law will not be a deterrent considering many assailants turn the gun on themselves.
I'm not concerned with the other 36 states. I'm concerned with Tennessee's legislation and the ability for the law to be enforced. More guns in crowded areas does not make them safer, it adds to the law of probability that if more shots are being fired more people are at risk.
brandon, if by liberal bs you mean holes in the law, then yes, liberal bs it is. Why do you think police and establishment owners are questioning this?
huh, sooner or later a Handgun Carry Permit owner will end a violent attack. And sooner or later innocent people will be shot in the line of fire by a Handgun Carry Permit owner.
indian, just because someone has a permit does not mean they will refrain from breaking the law. How many licensed drivers get arrested for DUI or reckless driving? I don't think you can speak for the entire population of permit owners. Regardless of how many hours one spends shooting at a target range, it does not necessarily qualify someone to take the lives of everyone in the establishment into his/her own hands. What about the law abiding citizen who pulls out his firearm to help in a situation and is shot because he is believed to be assisting with the crime? What about the law abiding citizen who pulls out his firearm and the drunk/antagonist who causes it to discharge? There is a reason why we have law enforcement trained to deal with these situations.
And what about an intoxicated gun holder entering an establishment? Will there be a required sobriety test before entering said establishment? We are told that alcohol cannot be served to a gun holder, but there is nothing stopping a gun holder from drinking beforehand. For this law to be properly enforced, there will be a much greater invasion of privacy. When it comes to bringing weapons into public places, giving the benefit of the doubt just doesn't cut it.
Health care reform
As someone who has always had insurance, either through a private policy or through companies I've worked for, I can safely say it is all too expensive and doesn't cover enough. Sure, you can get antibiotics or some cough syrup for under $20, but what about real health concerns? Health care costs should not be a major cause of bankruptcy in our country.
I'll never forget going to the EMERGENCY room for a deep cut and not having stopped by the ATM or having my check book on me. Five hours later I was asked "So you don't have $300 to put down?" Didn't figure I needed a separate savings account for medical costs when I was paying for insurance...you know, what you pay into for health emergencies and care?
Of course, their credit card machine was down, so they needed cash. I simply said "This was an emergency." I signed my papers and walked out with debt in order to not bleed to death. Should have picked up some fishing line and stitched up myself rather than dealing with that crap. It's scary when you see a chunk of your pay disappear into what you thought would allot for emergencies but ends up going somewhere else (all I can discern). Wonder how much four stitches would have cost someone without insurance?
Lawmaker says “cut a deal” with Bredesen on handgun legislation
This seems very backwards. Someone hiking alone in the woods of a park needs personal protection from the elements as well as from a lone criminal. When shots are fired it's usually around fewer people, thus lowering the level of someone getting shot accidentally.
It comes down to personal protection and when someone is firing shots in a crowded area, it no longer about the gun owners personal protection. The safety of those around him can come into jeopardy as well, either from the criminal going after the gun owner or from ricochet. I'm sure "wives and children" go into these places (no 21 and up establishments)much more than they do the woods of public parks for that very reason--safety in numbers.
Tennessee: Bredesen mulled other priorities in gun veto defeat
indian, I support your right to protect yourself and your family and your right to bear arms. I have the right to free speech, but I don't go cussing up a blue streak at Toy's R Us because it's irresponsible. I wouldn't stand outside of a church when it lets out and blaspheme because it's irresponsible. Those actions affect the people surrounding me.
When you bring a gun into a crowded room, it's no longer about you. Your actions can have dire consequences to the people surrounding you. We aren't talking about your home, your car, or even for personal protection when hiking alone in a public park. We're talking about crowded areas. Unless you're constantly watching the door to see if a criminal walks in and starts firing, the likelihood of a single concerned citizen stopping a situation from escalating is very low.
And what about the 278 permit holders who had their permits revoked last year (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-tc-nw-briefs-0604-06055jun05,0,6328257.story)? They obviously weren't law abiding citizens.
If you feel so unsafe in your city that you have to bring a gun with you, maybe you're the one who should stay at home. I'll take my chances with the criminals. I don't frequent establishments where I feel unsafe. I do, however, feel unsafe in an establishment where anyone who has $115 and can pass a safety course can sit next to me with a gun. Maybe I should get a gun, despite my poor aim and arthritis, that way I can defend myself too. I have the right, $115 and am certain I can pass a safety course.
Tennessee: Bredesen mulled other priorities in gun veto defeat
huh, I'm not worried about the responsible owner. I'm sure most permit owners are responsible, but like I said, a permit doesn't make someone responsible. I'm worried about the rowdy drunk at the sports bar (for ex. buffalo wild wings, 18 and up est., other all ages est.) or restaurant that causes a disturbance and ends up causing a gun to be discharged, or, several responsible owners trying to help in a situation at the same time. We aren't equipped with "good guy" radar, so once one shot goes off, who's to say who's the assailant and who's the victim? If three responsible owners decide on their own to go after an assailant from three different positions in a room, it quadruples the amount of shots being fired within the establishment. No doubt that in a perfect situation an assailant would be subdued immediately and with as little gun fire as possible, but it's not like there's going to be a "permit" only section in which methods of action will be discussed before dinner is served. Yes, massacres do happen. This law will not be a deterrent considering many assailants turn the gun on themselves.
Tennessee: Bredesen mulled other priorities in gun veto defeat
Police Chief Freeman Cooper did say this will be a problem for law enforcement and for citizens, which is my concern. (http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/jun/04/video-debating-guns--bars-bill/?localvideo-news). Police and their liberal agendas, I suppose.
Tennessee: Bredesen mulled other priorities in gun veto defeat
I'm not concerned with the other 36 states. I'm concerned with Tennessee's legislation and the ability for the law to be enforced. More guns in crowded areas does not make them safer, it adds to the law of probability that if more shots are being fired more people are at risk.
Tennessee: Bredesen mulled other priorities in gun veto defeat
brandon, if by liberal bs you mean holes in the law, then yes, liberal bs it is. Why do you think police and establishment owners are questioning this?
Tennessee: Bredesen mulled other priorities in gun veto defeat
huh, sooner or later a Handgun Carry Permit owner will end a violent attack. And sooner or later innocent people will be shot in the line of fire by a Handgun Carry Permit owner.
Tennessee: Bredesen mulled other priorities in gun veto defeat
indian, just because someone has a permit does not mean they will refrain from breaking the law. How many licensed drivers get arrested for DUI or reckless driving? I don't think you can speak for the entire population of permit owners. Regardless of how many hours one spends shooting at a target range, it does not necessarily qualify someone to take the lives of everyone in the establishment into his/her own hands. What about the law abiding citizen who pulls out his firearm to help in a situation and is shot because he is believed to be assisting with the crime? What about the law abiding citizen who pulls out his firearm and the drunk/antagonist who causes it to discharge? There is a reason why we have law enforcement trained to deal with these situations.
Guns in bars override heads to Senate
And what about an intoxicated gun holder entering an establishment? Will there be a required sobriety test before entering said establishment? We are told that alcohol cannot be served to a gun holder, but there is nothing stopping a gun holder from drinking beforehand. For this law to be properly enforced, there will be a much greater invasion of privacy. When it comes to bringing weapons into public places, giving the benefit of the doubt just doesn't cut it.