# Georgia bill HB74 to prohibit rideshare companies from prohibiting lawful carry of weapons



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

I haven't yet seen this pop up here, so here it goes:

In the 2019-2020 legislation session in the state of Georgia is bill HB74. Its title reads as follows:

Ride share network services and transportation referral services; disallowing ride share drivers who are weapons carry license holders from carrying or possessing weapons in a vehicle that is used for purposes of the ride share network service; prohibit

This was introduced by Scot Turner of Holly Springs. All Georgians, please encourage your reps to support this bill. Those of you in the US and outside of Georgia, please talk to your reps and encourage them to introduce similar bills if such aren't already introduced or signed into law.


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1042132Long way to before signed into law.

If u need a gun to do rideshare
you're in the wrong Gig


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

Cold Fusion said:


> If u need a gun to do rideshare
> you're in the wrong Gig


Uber sets themselves up for liability by restricting somebody's lawful right to defend unless they can guarantee the absolute safety of the driver, which they can't.
Drivers are independent contractors using their own equipment, Uber can go @@@@ themselves.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Cold Fusion said:


> https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1042132Long way to before signed into law.
> 
> If u need a gun to do rideshare
> you're in the wrong Gig


This is the wrong attitude. There's no time like now to get the ball rolling. Limiting your activities only to what violent people will permit you to do cannot be tolerated. That's why people have the right to defend themselves.


----------



## 25rides7daysaweek (Nov 20, 2017)

Georgia should be working on
a bill to keep Georgia's nose out
of women's reproductive rights..
If you arent ready to be a parent you probably wont be a very good one.


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

Fargle said:


> I haven't yet seen this pop up here, so here it goes:
> 
> In the 2019-2020 legislation session in the state of Georgia is bill HB74. Its title reads as follows:
> 
> ...


Thank God that Georgia isn't wasting its time reducing poverty and mortality rates and is instead going after those "Menace to Society" rideshare drivers.

https://www.ajc.com/news/state--reg...live-includes-georgia/TeyLyo2UTIxH0LSPEh1K7K/


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

A policy allowing weapons in vehicles would set Uber up for bigger liability than a policy prohibiting weapons. If Uber knowingly allows drivers to carry weapons and a driver shoots a pax, Uber will be sued. If Uber policy prohibits weapons but a driver violates that policy and shoots someone, liability is on the driver. You can be sure Uber's lawyers have looked at this carefully.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

TemptingFate said:


> A policy allowing weapons in vehicles would set Uber up for bigger liability than a policy prohibiting weapons. If Uber knowingly allows drivers to carry weapons and a driver shoots a pax, Uber will be sued. If Uber policy prohibits weapons but a driver violates that policy and shoots someone, liability is on the driver. You can be sure Uber's lawyers have looked at this carefully.


I would like to see some solid evidence to show that bigger liability would result.



25rides7daysaweek said:


> Georgia should be working on
> a bill to keep Georgia's nose out
> of women's reproductive rights..
> If you arent ready to be a parent you probably wont be a very good one.


Let's stick to the topic at hand.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

TemptingFate said:


> A policy allowing weapons in vehicles would set Uber up for bigger liability than a policy prohibiting weapons.


No, actually, it does not.
Uber driver shoots someone on duty.
Uber lawyers say "We couldn't do anything about it. We disagree with the law - but we comply with it."


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

UberBastid said:


> No, actually, it does not.
> Uber driver shoots someone on duty.
> Uber lawyers say "We couldn't do anything about it. We disagree with the law - but we comply with it."


There is no such law. Yet.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Fargle said:


> I haven't yet seen this pop up here, so here it goes:
> 
> In the 2019-2020 legislation session in the state of Georgia is bill HB74. Its title reads as follows:
> 
> ...


Georgia = LAND OF THE FREE !


----------



## jgiun1 (Oct 16, 2017)

TemptingFate said:


> A policy allowing weapons in vehicles would set Uber up for bigger liability than a policy prohibiting weapons. If Uber knowingly allows drivers to carry weapons and a driver shoots a pax, Uber will be sued. If Uber policy prohibits weapons but a driver violates that policy and shoots someone, liability is on the driver. You can be sure Uber's lawyers have looked at this carefully.


Agree 100% ^^^^^


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

25rides7daysaweek said:


> Georgia should be working on a bill to keep Georgia's nose out of women's reproductive rights..


How 'bout a law regarding the reproductive rights of the child? 


TemptingFate said:


> A policy allowing weapons in vehicles would set Uber up for bigger liability than a policy prohibiting weapons.


Why does it have to be one-or-the-other? Many companies don't have any policy PERIOD regarding weapons. Liability then falls on the person pulling the trigger.
A few years back there was a WalMart store that posted a "no weapons" sign on their door, so a law-abiding citizen went back to his car and disarmed. On the way back to the store entrance, he was beaten & robbed by thugs. Jury held WalMart liable for damages for denying a citizen his constitutional right to defend, because WalMart couldn't guarantee the safety of the citizen when their policy denied him his sacred right. 
Even the federal DOT explains that if your state grants you laws to be fully armed while in your car or truck, they don't do a damn thing about it, and that is why damn near every trucker on the road is packing heat.
Uber cannot supersede the constitutional right of an independent contractor to protect themselves - Uber can pretend to, but they step into a can of worms by doing so.


----------



## kingcorey321 (May 20, 2018)

here in detroit you have to be a complete idiot not to have a gun with you.
everybody has guns here its common to see even a mom open carrying and carrying a baby.


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

Why does any of this matter? Uber is a technology company, not a transportation provider. Right Uber? For the love of Benji, make up your @@@@ minds!!! -o:


----------



## Friendly Jack (Nov 17, 2015)

Just curious... Does Uber Freight prohibit truckers from carrying a weapon?


----------



## wn100804 (Jun 9, 2019)

Cold Fusion said:


> https://www.billtrack50.com/BillDetail/1042132Long way to before signed into law.
> 
> If u need a gun to do rideshare
> you're in the wrong Gig


Brother, are you naive or what????

If you need a gun to go to church you're at the wrong church maybe?

The only detrement to a bad guy with a gun (especially in a 'gun free zone') is a good guy with a gun in a gun free zone. Because what thug or bad guy with a gun is gonna pay attention to your stupid "THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE" sign???


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Uber's Guber said:


> How 'bout a law regarding the reproductive rights of the child?
> 
> Why does it have to be one-or-the-other? Many companies don't have any policy PERIOD regarding weapons. Liability then falls on the person pulling the trigger.
> A few years back there was a WalMart store that posted a "no weapons" sign on their door, so a law-abiding citizen went back to his car and disarmed. On the way back to the store entrance, he was beaten & robbed by thugs. Jury held WalMart liable for damages for denying a citizen his constitutional right to defend, because WalMart couldn't guarantee the safety of the citizen when their policy denied him his sacred right.
> ...


I remember that case, but now I cannot find it again. Could you give me a hand?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Fargle said:


> This is the wrong attitude. There's no time like now to get the ball rolling. Limiting your activities only to what violent people will permit you to do cannot be tolerated. That's why people have the right to defend themselves.


No one is infringing on that.



Uber's Guber said:


> How 'bout a law regarding the reproductive rights of the child?
> 
> Why does it have to be one-or-the-other? Many companies don't have any policy PERIOD regarding weapons. Liability then falls on the person pulling the trigger.
> A few years back there was a WalMart store that posted a "no weapons" sign on their door, so a law-abiding citizen went back to his car and disarmed. On the way back to the store entrance, he was beaten & robbed by thugs. Jury held WalMart liable for damages for denying a citizen his constitutional right to defend, because WalMart couldn't guarantee the safety of the citizen when their policy denied him his sacred right.
> ...


That's not how the amendment works.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Ban the firearm for pax and driver. Actually for everyone. Problem solved. Smh.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

Johnny Mnemonic said:


> Thank God that Georgia isn't wasting its time reducing poverty and mortality rates and is instead going after those "Menace to Society" rideshare drivers.
> 
> https://www.ajc.com/news/state--reg...live-includes-georgia/TeyLyo2UTIxH0LSPEh1K7K/





Johnny Mnemonic said:


> Thank God that Georgia isn't wasting its time reducing poverty and mortality rates and is instead going after those "Menace to Society" rideshare drivers.
> 
> https://www.ajc.com/news/state--reg...live-includes-georgia/TeyLyo2UTIxH0LSPEh1K7K/


Dude all the homeless people live in California :rollseyes:

California, New York, and only a few other states believe in disarmament of the population. The rest of the Union believe strongly in 2nd Amendment Rights.

To trade rights and freedoms for the feeling of safety is foolish.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Demon said:


> No one is infringing on that.
> 
> 
> That's not how the amendment works.


You don't seem to have a good grip on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and why it exists. How about you tell us what you think it means?



Alexxx_Uber said:


> Ban the firearm for pax and driver. Actually for everyone. Problem solved. Smh.


14 days from now it will be 100 years since a similarly naive prohibition was tried which very quickly proved to be a failure. What makes you think prohibiting everyone from having guns will be effective at all?



TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Dude all the homeless people live in California :rollseyes:
> 
> California, New York, and only a few other states believe in disarmament of the population. The rest of the Union believe strongly in 2nd Amendment Rights.
> 
> To trade rights and freedoms for the feeling of safety is foolish.


To really hammer this home, California has the most mass killings. Read this article from the AP:
https://apnews.com/4441ae68d14e61b64110db44f906af92


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

Georgia, another God forsaken zhyt hole.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Fargle said:


> You don't seem to have a good grip on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and why it exists. How about you tell us what you think it means?
> 
> 
> 14 days from now it will be 100 years since a similarly naive prohibition was tried which very quickly proved to be a failure. What makes you think prohibiting everyone from having guns will be effective at all?
> ...


It's a matter of what the law thinks. No one is being prohibited from carrying a firearm.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Fargle said:


> You don't seem to have a good grip on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and why it exists. How about you tell us what you think it means?
> 
> 
> 14 days from now it will be 100 years since a similarly naive prohibition was tried which very quickly proved to be a failure. What makes you think prohibiting everyone from having guns will be effective at all?
> ...


Comparing the number of mass shootiings with other advanced countries perhaps?


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Dude all the homeless people live in California :rollseyes:
> 
> California, New York, and only a few other states believe in disarmament of the population. The rest of the Union believe strongly in 2nd Amendment Rights.
> 
> To trade rights and freedoms for the feeling of safety is foolish.


I was being sarcastic, Sir. My point was that it's foolish for Georgia to spend time on restricting gun ownership of U/L drivers when there are far more important problems for Georgia to be working on.

And you're right, you don't want Georgia to become more like California. I've seen the encampments in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco myself. A couple weeks ago I saw a guy smoking crack right outside the window of a local cafe in full view of holiday shoppers. And no amount of gun control is going to fix that.


----------



## TheDevilisaParttimer (Jan 2, 2019)

Johnny Mnemonic said:


> I was being sarcastic, Sir. My point was that it's foolish for Georgia to spend time on restricting gun ownership of U/L drivers when there are far more important problems for Georgia to be working on.
> 
> And you're right, you don't want Georgia to become more like California. I've seen the encampments in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco myself. A couple weeks ago I saw a guy smoking crack right outside the window of a local cafe in full view of holiday shoppers. And no amount of gun control is going to fix that.


Your comment makes zero sense.

Georgia is a deep Republican state, HB74 makes it illegal for rideshare companies to prohibit concealed carry.

Miscommunication somewhere...


----------



## Johnny Mnemonic (Sep 24, 2019)

TheDevilisaParttimer said:


> Your comment makes zero sense.
> 
> Georgia is a deep Republican state, HB74 makes it illegal for rideshare companies to prohibit concealed carry.
> 
> Miscommunication somewhere...





Fargle said:


> Ride share network services and transportation referral services; disallowing ride share drivers who are weapons carry license holders from carrying or possessing weapons in a vehicle that is used for purposes of the ride share network service; prohibit


My mistake. I misinterpreted this to mean the law was to prohibit U/L drivers from carrying. Not to prohibit U/L from restricting carrying.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Comparing the number of mass shootiings with other advanced countries perhaps?


Would you like me to dig up the numbers on this or would you like to discover them yourself? Here's a hint: the US doesn't rank anywhere near what you think.



Demon said:


> It's a matter of what the law thinks. No one is being prohibited from carrying a firearm.


A company attempting to coerce contractors into disarming themselves when operating their own vehicles certainly counts as prohibition. I would like to know why you seem to think it doesn't.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

kingcorey321 said:


> here in detroit you have to be a complete idiot not to have a gun with you.
> everybody has guns here its common to see even a mom open carrying and carrying a baby.


That's a very sad thing to hear about an American city.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Fargle said:


> Would you like me to dig up the numbers on this or would you like to discover them yourself? Here's a hint: the US doesn't rank anywhere near what you think.
> 
> 
> A company attempting to coerce contractors into disarming themselves when operating their own vehicles certainly counts as prohibition. I would like to know why you seem to think it doesn't.


Because legally it isn't. The 2nd amendment stops the government from taking away a gun. A private outfit can tell you not to bring a gun if you want to do business with them. Don't like it? Don't do business with that company.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Demon said:


> Because legally it isn't. The 2nd amendment stops the government from taking away a gun. A private outfit can tell you not to bring a gun if you want to do business with them. Don't like it? Don't do business with that company.


If some entity tells you that you cannot do something, that's called a prohibition, particularly if that entity has some sort of power over you, whether legitimate or not. This is basic English. Sometime in the 1960s it was finally laid to rest that private entities are not allowed to tell people that they cannot exercise their civil rights. That includes the right of self-defense in one's own car. Why was all this done? In the 1960s, it was finally accepted that your advice of "Don't do business with that company." doesn't actually work.



goneubering said:


> That's a very sad thing to hear about an American city. :frown:


What's even sadder is the idea that disarming the public is a desirable solution.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Fargle said:


> If some entity tells you that you cannot do something, that's called a prohibition, particularly if that entity has some sort of power over you, whether legitimate or not. This is basic English. Sometime in the 1960s it was finally laid to rest that private entities are not allowed to tell people that they cannot exercise their civil rights. That includes the right of self-defense in one's own car. Why was all this done? In the 1960s, it was finally accepted that your advice of "Don't do business with that company." doesn't actually work.
> 
> 
> What's even sadder is the idea that disarming the public is a desirable solution.


That's all just wrong. Do you have any cite at all to back that up?



Fargle said:


> If some entity tells you that you cannot do something, that's called a prohibition, particularly if that entity has some sort of power over you, whether legitimate or not. This is basic English. Sometime in the 1960s it was finally laid to rest that private entities are not allowed to tell people that they cannot exercise their civil rights. That includes the right of self-defense in one's own car. Why was all this done? In the 1960s, it was finally accepted that your advice of "Don't do business with that company." doesn't actually work.
> 
> 
> What's even sadder is the idea that disarming the public is a desirable solution.


Here's the actual definition of prohibition, "the action of forbidding something, especially by law.". There is no law that says a legal gun owner can't have a gun in their car.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Cold Fusion said:


> If u need a gun to do rideshare
> you're in the wrong Gig


No one needs a gun - until they do.

That's like saying good drivers shouldn't need insurance.



TemptingFate said:


> A policy allowing weapons in vehicles would set Uber up for bigger liability than a policy prohibiting weapons


Disagree. Uber has demonstrated over and over that they are at arms length at best with drivers and pax. Not their problem.

Driver shot someone? Boy, that is too bad. Not our problem. Driver raped you? Pax robbed you? Wow, what a shame. We are happy to cooperate with police, and by the way we deactivated their account. Not our fault, good luck!


----------



## TemptingFate (May 2, 2019)

Mista T said:


> No one needs a gun - until they do.
> 
> That's like saying good drivers shouldn't need insurance.
> 
> ...


Yeah exactly. Arm's length means a policy against any firearms. If driver or passenger violate policy, less liability for Uber.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Fargle said:


> If some entity tells you that you cannot do something, that's called a prohibition, particularly if that entity has some sort of power over you, whether legitimate or not. This is basic English. Sometime in the 1960s it was finally laid to rest that private entities are not allowed to tell people that they cannot exercise their civil rights. That includes the right of self-defense in one's own car. Why was all this done? In the 1960s, it was finally accepted that your advice of "Don't do business with that company." doesn't actually work.
> 
> 
> What's even sadder is the idea that disarming the public is a desirable solution.


Liberals think criminals obey laws.
FAIL


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> Liberals think criminals obey laws.
> FAIL


This has nothing to do with existing law.


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

goneubering said:


> That's a very sad thing to hear about an American city. :frown:
> 
> 
> Fargle said:
> ...


What is sadder still, is that you can't see that it is not only possible, but also desirable.

.


----------



## troothequalstroll (Oct 12, 2019)

Ubers TOS doesn't supercede the Constitution if your state allows you to carry a gun in your car / property & you have the permits to do so who cares what Uber Lyft thinks, if you're properly trained only way they find out is if you use it & the only reason to use it is if you needed to

Much better to lose cab driver for Ponzi scam job then your life, rather be judged by 12 than carrier by 6

They don't screen riders and offer no protection discounts on partitions, any murderer or rapists can request a ride anonymously it's a top 5 most dangerous job


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

troothequalstroll said:


> Ubers TOS doesn't supercede the Constitution if your state allows you to carry a gun in your car / property & you have the permits to do so who cares what Uber Lyft thinks, if you're properly trained only way they find out is if you use it & the only reason to use it is if you needed to
> 
> Much better to lose cab driver for Ponzi scam job then your life, rather be judged by 12 than carrier by 6
> 
> They don't screen riders and offer no protection discounts on partitions, any murderer or rapists can request a ride anonymously it's a top 5 most dangerous job


No one has claimed that TOS superseded the Constitution.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Demon said:


> This has nothing to do with existing law.


Criminals, by definition do not obey law. Violent crime is inversely proportional to legal gun ownership.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> Criminals, by definition do not obey law. Violent crime is inversely proportional to legal gun ownership.


Has anyone said otherwise?


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Demon said:


> Has anyone said otherwise?


Yes.
Gun grabbing liberals, Nationwide.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> Yes.
> Gun grabbing liberals, Nationwide.


So no one in this thread and it has no relevance to the topic.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Ban the firearm for pax and driver. Actually for everyone. Problem solved. Smh.


Ban idiots.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Who is John Galt? said:


> What is sadder still, is that you can't see that it is not only possible, but also desirable..


I'm going to need some significant proof of this. Mexico is a very good counterexample to your assertion. What makes you think that an attempt to disarm the US public will fare any better?


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

Fargle said:


> I'm going to need some significant proof of this. Mexico is a very good counterexample to your assertion. What makes you think that an attempt to disarm the US public will fare any better?


Well, if you are going to need some significant proof, it is not really that hard to find, but you will need to open your mind as well as your eyes.

Oh, and look a little further afield than Mexico. There is a big wide world out there. 

.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Demon said:


> That's all just wrong. Do you have any cite at all to back that up?
> 
> 
> Here's the actual definition of prohibition, "the action of forbidding something, especially by law.". There is no law that says a legal gun owner can't have a gun in their car.


Mexico is an excellent example of what happens when you disarm a well-armed population: the criminals keep their guns and the peasants are defenseless. Do you have any evidence to show that attempting to disarm the US public will not result in more violence?

The earlier attempts at guaranteeing civil rights had flaws in that only governments were forbidden from violating civil rights. This allowed for private entities to violate civil rights at will. By the time of the 1960s, it was recognized that this approach was toothless in practice because private entities were free to continue to violate civil rights and hide behind the the right of free association. That's why "WHITES ONLY" signs on private businesses were legal. That's what led to the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Let me know if you're still confused.

See https://www.uber.com/legal/policies/firearms-prohibition-policy/en/. See that phrase "Uber prohibits"? Are you telling me that Uber is not actually trying to prohibit something??? Your second sentence is correct though. The problem is that Uber is attempting to thwart that right for a legal gun owner to have a gun in their car.



Who is John Galt? said:


> Well, if you are going to need some significant proof, it is not really that hard to find, but you will need to open your mind as well as your eyes.
> 
> Oh, and look a little further afield than Mexico. There is a big wide world out there. :smiles:.


I took the time to painfully explain to you why you're wrong and to prove my assertion. It's not my responsibility to prove your assertions. Show some proof or admit you're wrong.

Maybe you're thinking of Australia with its much-lauded gun buybacks? Why do you think that model would work in the US? Why would you think any of the "successes" you allude to would work in the US?



Demon said:


> No one has claimed that TOS superseded the Constitution.


Huh? What do you think that Georgia bill is all about?


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Comparing the number of mass shootiings with other advanced countries perhaps?


Let's find some other countries with some mass casualty events,

and virtually no guns..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

Fargle said:


> Mexico is an excellent example of what happens when you disarm a well-armed population...


Yes, it is probably an excellent example if you are looking for a pre-conceived negative outcome.



Fargle said:


> I took the time to painfully explain to you why you're wrong and to prove my assertion.


That is not what I see. I see a closed mind. You have used the one nation of Mexico as a poor example of what may happen. One country, which had and has more than its share of law and order issues, and a country which could not be classified as first world and continues to struggle with transient immigration from South America through its porous borders.

Are there no other countries which have disarmed?



Fargle said:


> Maybe you're thinking of Australia with its much-lauded gun buybacks? Why do you think that model would work in the US? Why would you think any of the "successes" you allude to would work in the US?


Yes, Australia is one nation that comes to mind. 

For *ANY* model to work in the US, it needs to be tried before it can fail. It needs leadership and resolve, both sadly lacking, but it can never go anywhere without a will to do so.

There is currently no leader that I can see, who has the balls to attempt this in the US.

.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Who is John Galt? said:


> Yes, it is probably an excellent example if you are looking for a pre-conceived negative outcome.
> 
> That is not what I see. I see a closed mind. You have used the one nation of Mexico as a poor example of what may happen. One country, which had and has more than its share of law and order issues, and a country which could not be classified as first world and continues to struggle with transient immigration from South America through its porous borders.
> 
> ...


Explain why Mexico is a "pre-conceived negative outcome". You still haven't explained why civilian disarmament would in any way reduce violence. Why would Australia's approach done in the US do anything besides provoke a war? Do you have any inkling of what's going on in Virginia right now? Almost all of the counties there are telling the state to back off on gun control or else.

Look at any country that has previously allowed wide ownership of guns AND has disarmed or attempted to disarm civilians. Every one of them experienced MORE violence and/or oppression. Some more examples: all totalitarian societies (ie Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Venezuela), South Africa, much of Central and South america, Jamaica, the UK, Australia. On the last two, yes, they're more violent. Look at actual news and crime reports. Look at how knife attacks are on the rise and how criminals have no fear of law-abiding civilians.

Assorted states and municipalities in the US have tried civilian disarmament. They failed and have increased crime over areas with looser restrictions on guns. You don't "try out" a potentially deadly public policy on real people. That's how the the Ukraine famine of the 1930s happened. That's how Chinese officials murdered tens of millions of people in the Great Leap Forward.

Your focusing on "balls" seems to suggest that all politicians want to disarm the public and that too many are afraid to do so. Actually what's going on is that enough politicians understand public disarmament as a sham that will lead to more violence, not less. Again, look at Virginia.


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

Fargle said:


> You still haven't explained why civilian disarmament would in any way reduce violence.


According to the details below in the provided article,

"A steady rise in suicides involving firearms has pushed the rate of gun deaths in the US to its highest rate in more than 20 years, with almost 40,000 people killed in shootings in 2017, according to new figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

"The CDC's Wonder database shows that in 2017, 39,773 people in the US lost their lives at the point of a gun..."



> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/dec/13/us-gun-deaths-levels-cdc-2017


40,000 people! You can dispute the figures, but not the extent of the tragedy, the national tragedy which so many people seem to accept as 'normal'. At least you are in good company with Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and Guatemala.

Let me ask you this...how many gun related killings or woundings would there be if the general populace was not able to source or posses a gun?

The question, really is that simple.

.


----------



## Mista T (Aug 16, 2017)

Who is John Galt? said:


> Let me ask you this...how many gun related killings or woundings would there be if the general populace was not able to source or posses a gun?


This question invites speculation at best, but here goes...

- Death by gun suicides drop. Death by other means increase dramatically. Overall, the same amount of deaths occur, but are now attributable to different causes.

- Accidental shootings disappear. Hooray! Politicians flock to this statistic and claim victory.

- Criminal deaths remain the same or INCREASE, as ordinary citizens are now unarmed and unable to be an effective deterrent against criminals who now think their victims are easier to attack. Murder (by criminals with intent) increases.

- Police shootings decrease, as stun guns, tear gas, and bean bag shotguns become a viable alternative to lethal force, in domestic abuse and crazy people situations.


----------



## sadboy (Jul 15, 2016)

So instead of GA trying to help drivers out with their pay, they focus on guns WTF!!!

HAHAHAH.....


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Fargle said:


> Mexico is an excellent example of what happens when you disarm a well-armed population: the criminals keep their guns and the peasants are defenseless. Do you have any evidence to show that attempting to disarm the US public will not result in more violence?
> 
> The earlier attempts at guaranteeing civil rights had flaws in that only governments were forbidden from violating civil rights. This allowed for private entities to violate civil rights at will. By the time of the 1960s, it was recognized that this approach was toothless in practice because private entities were free to continue to violate civil rights and hide behind the the right of free association. That's why "WHITES ONLY" signs on private businesses were legal. That's what led to the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Let me know if you're still confused.
> 
> ...


You're still confused and don't have the background knowledge of how our government works to understand this issue. 
The 2nd Amendment limits ONLY what the government can do. The government is not trying to take guns from you so there is no infringement on anyone's civil rights. 
A private business has the right to tell you that if you want to do business with them you have to do it unarmed. This is NOT a violation of anyone's civil rights. Carrying a gun is a choice. 
The 1964 Civil Rights Act worked to protect people from racism, because what race someone is born is not a choice. The Civil Rights act has nothing at all to do with this case. 
Uber & Lyft are well within their rights to tell someone if they want to do business with them they must do it unarmed. If someone doesn't like it, they should not do business with Uber or Lyft.


----------



## Who is John Galt? (Sep 28, 2016)

Mista T said:


> Overall, the same amount of deaths occur, but are now attributable to different causes.


I don't think so. Just for starters, it is pretty hard to do a high school mass shooting with a knife.

.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Demon said:


> You're still confused and don't have the background knowledge of how our government works to understand this issue.
> The 2nd Amendment limits ONLY what the government can do. The government is not trying to take guns from you so there is no infringement on anyone's civil rights.
> A private business has the right to tell you that if you want to do business with them you have to do it unarmed. This is NOT a violation of anyone's civil rights. Carrying a gun is a choice.
> The 1964 Civil Rights Act worked to protect people from racism, because what race someone is born is not a choice. The Civil Rights act has nothing at all to do with this case.
> Uber & Lyft are well within their rights to tell someone if they want to do business with them they must do it unarmed. If someone doesn't like it, they should not do business with Uber or Lyft.


You missed the critical point yet again. Prior to the 1968 (not 1964) Civil Rights Act, a non governmental entity could not be prosecuted for violating civil rights. Why is this so hard for you to understand?



Who is John Galt? said:


> I don't think so. Just for starters, it is pretty hard to do a high school mass shooting with a knife.
> 
> .


Citation needed.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Fargle said:


> You missed the critical point yet again. Prior to the 1968 (not 1964) Civil Rights Act, a non governmental entity could not be prosecuted for violating civil rights. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> 
> 
> Citation needed.


You're still wrong. No private business is violating your civil rights. You're still lacking the understanding of what civil rights are. No one has the right to tell a private business how they will run their business.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Demon said:


> You're still wrong. No private business is violating your civil rights. You're still lacking the understanding of what civil rights are. No one has the right to tell a private business how they will run their business.


Your information is 50+ years out of date. Congress and the Supreme Court have made it crystal clear that private businesses must respect civil rights. Pro Jim-Crow business owners used that same canard of "no right to tell a private business how to run their business" until that sort of thing was made very illegal.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Fargle said:


> Your information is 50+ years out of date. Congress and the Supreme Court have made it crystal clear that private businesses must respect civil rights. Pro Jim-Crow business owners used that same canard of "no right to tell a private business how to run their business" until that sort of thing was made very illegal.


Cite the court case that states individuals have a civil right to tell business owners how they will run their business. I'm really looking forward to your answer.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Demon said:


> Cite the court case that states individuals have a civil right to tell business owners how they will run their business. I'm really looking forward to your answer.


Ask yourself what will happen to a restaurant that posts a sign on the door reading "WHITES ONLY". Do you really need a court case to know this is now illegal?

Anyhow, here's the first one from Google. It's not quite as blatant as "NO WHITES", but it did go down in 2018, so this should be very easy to understand: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/just...it-against-owners-and-operators-houston-texas


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Demon said:


> Has anyone said otherwise?


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Fargle said:


> Ask yourself what will happen to a restaurant that posts a sign on the door reading "WHITES ONLY". Do you really need a court case to know this is now illegal?
> 
> Anyhow, here's the first one from Google. It's not quite as blatant as "NO WHITES", but it did go down in 2018, so this should be very easy to understand: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/just...it-against-owners-and-operators-houston-texas


So, no, you couldn't cite a single case. 
You keep arguing from your ignorance and claiming that forcing other people to make any choices you want is a civil right. It's already been explained that people don't choose their ethnicity or if they have a disability, they do choose if they want to carry a gun.

Is a 4 star hotel violating someone's civil rights because they can't afford to stay in the hotel?

This is not a civil rights issue.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Demon said:


> So, no, you couldn't cite a single case.
> You keep arguing from your ignorance and claiming that forcing other people to make any choices you want is a civil right. It's already been explained that people don't choose their ethnicity or if they have a disability, they do choose if they want to carry a gun.
> 
> Is a 4 star hotel violating someone's civil rights because they can't afford to stay in the hotel?
> ...


I keep providing you examples and you keep ignoring them and declaring victory. I can only conclude that you have reading comprehension problems or are deliberately being dense. Let's boil this down to the core of my question for you: Is it legal for a business owner to post a sign reading "WHITES ONLY"? This is a yes-or-no question.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Fargle said:


> I keep providing you examples and you keep ignoring them and declaring victory. I can only conclude that you have reading comprehension problems or are deliberately being dense. Let's boil this down to the core of my question for you: Is it legal for a business owner to post a sign reading "WHITES ONLY"? This is a yes-or-no question.


THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF CONVERSATION. The topic of conversation is that private businesses have a right to tell the public that they won't do business with people who carry. The fact that the NRA is not fighting Uber & Lyft's legal decision to prohibit drivers & pax from carrying and that the state of Georgia has to try to pass a law to force companies to give up their rights should be a clue.

I've asked repeatedly for a single example, as of yet you have not provided one. Based on your use of the term "reading comprehension" you clearly don't understand what those terms means. I've asked direct questions and you've run away from them.

Businesses have a legal right to tell people not to bring guns on their property. The NRA understands this and tells people not to spend money at these businesses. Here's a list of companies exercising their legal right to tell people what they can bring onto their property. 
https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/businesses-that-prohibit-guns-or-have-no-gun-policies/
The 1964 Civil Rights Act & ADA cover things that people have no choice over.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Demon said:


> THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC OF CONVERSATION. The topic of conversation is that private businesses have a right to tell the public that they won't do business with people who carry. The fact that the NRA is not fighting Uber & Lyft's legal decision to prohibit drivers & pax from carrying and that the state of Georgia has to try to pass a law to force companies to give up their rights should be a clue.
> 
> I've asked repeatedly for a single example, as of yet you have not provided one. Based on your use of the term "reading comprehension" you clearly don't understand what those terms means. I've asked direct questions and you've run away from them.
> 
> ...


Sure.
Like bakers and florists?
Try asking the Nice Moslem Baker to make you a yummy homosexual cake.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> Sure.
> Like bakers and florists?
> Try asking the Nice Moslem Baker to make you a yummy homosexual cake.


Bakers & florists are legally allowed to prohibit people from bringing guns into their shops no matter what religion they are.


----------



## mbd (Aug 27, 2018)

HB 1 to 73- any cliff notes on those bill's?


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Demon said:


> Bakers & florists are legally allowed to prohibit people from bringing guns into their shops no matter what religion they are.


The 1964 Civil Rights Act & ADA cover things that people have no choice over


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> The 1964 Civil Rights Act & ADA cover things that people have no choice over
> 
> View attachment 400410


YOu seem obsessed with gay people. That has nothing to do with the topic.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Demon said:


> YOu seem obsessed with gay people. That has nothing to do with the topic.


YOu are obsessed against the second amendment. Get over it.

It ain't going away.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> YOu are obsessed against the second amendment. Get over it.
> 
> It ain't going away.


No one is saying it should.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Demon said:


> No one is saying it should.


You're arguing for an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that the SCOTUS struck down in 2008 in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. A "collective rights" interpretation renders the 2nd Amendment meaningless. Why would any country need a law to say that the government can have weapons? That has always been assumed to be true. Therefore you're clearly on the side of those who want it to go away. Furthermore, go have a look at the various politicians who are in fact calling for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Fargle said:


> You're arguing for an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that the SCOTUS struck down in 2008 in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. A "collective rights" interpretation renders the 2nd Amendment meaningless. Why would any country need a law to say that the government can have weapons? That has always been assumed to be true. Therefore you're clearly on the side of those who want it to go away. Furthermore, go have a look at the various politicians who are in fact calling for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed.


Now you're trying to ascribe me a position I have not adopted. Those politicians are not in this thread. You need to educate yourself on the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Demon said:


> Now you're trying to ascribe me a position I have not adopted. Those politicians are not in this thread. You need to educate yourself on the 2nd Amendment.


Educate yourself regarding Virginia Gun Grabbing Democrats


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Wolfgang Faust said:


> Educate yourself regarding Virginia Gun Grabbing Democrats


Are any of them in this thread?


----------



## Wolfgang Faust (Aug 2, 2018)

Demon said:


> Are any of them in this thread?


Don't you think but for anybody you know?


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Demon said:


> Now you're trying to ascribe me a position I have not adopted. Those politicians are not in this thread. You need to educate yourself on the 2nd Amendment.


Your exact position is very hard to nail down and when I try simple questions to figure it out, you get upset, refuse to answer, and revert to policies that are 50+ years out of date. Further discussion with you is pointless. Have a nice plonk.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

Johnny Mnemonic said:


> Thank God that Georgia isn't wasting its time reducing poverty and mortality rates and is instead going after those "Menace to Society" rideshare drivers.
> 
> https://www.ajc.com/news/state--reg...live-includes-georgia/TeyLyo2UTIxH0LSPEh1K7K/


A lot of ride share drivers shouldn't be allowed sharp objects. A good percentage are stoned more often then not and have anger issues, do you want these people armed when you're in their cars.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

It doesn't happen to just rideshare drivers. But tow truck drivers too apparently.
Shot this with my phone on 19th Ave in SF when I pulled up alongside.
The circles are mine.
Willits is about 130 miles north of SF


----------



## Legalizeit0 (Jul 26, 2017)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Ban the firearm for pax and driver. Actually for everyone. Problem solved. Smh.


I can only laugh, but I should probably cry because the person who wrote this actually believes gun free zones deter guns, #SAD.

"Dear criminal, guns are banned in my car, please follow the law."


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

peteyvavs said:


> A lot of ride share drivers shouldn't be allowed sharp objects. A good percentage are stoned more often then not and have anger issues, do you want these people armed when you're in their cars.


Sounds like a good reason to arm yourself. Maybe Uber should do a better job with background checks. Last time I checked, stoners are not the kind of people to have anger problems.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Legalizeit0 said:


> I can only laugh, but I should probably cry because the person who wrote this actually believes gun free zones deter guns, #SAD.
> 
> "Dear criminal, guns are banned in my car, please follow the law."


Any evidence by comparing the gun related crime rate with countries which ban the guns for everyone?


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Any evidence by comparing the gun related crime rate with countries which ban the guns for everyone?


Mexico. Jamaica, and most of Central and South America for starters.


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Fargle said:


> Mexico. Jamaica, and most of Central and South America for starters.


Any reason you excluding countries such as Japan, Germany, Sweden, etc.?


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Any reason you excluding countries such as Japan, Germany, Sweden, etc.?


Japan never allowed commoners to own weapons, even before gunpowder. You'll find Germany and Sweden are a lot more violent than the talking heads will admit and it's getting worse. What makes you think any sort of gun control will work to cut crime in the US?


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Fargle said:


> Japan never allowed commoners to own weapons, even before gunpowder. You'll find Germany and Sweden are a lot more violent than the talking heads will admit and it's getting worse. What makes you think any sort of gun control will work to cut crime in the US?


For your attention

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...o-other-countries-in-deaths-from-gun-violence


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> For your attention
> 
> https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...o-other-countries-in-deaths-from-gun-violence


NPR is your source??? Why should I believe anything NPR has to say about guns?


----------



## Alexxx_Uber (Sep 3, 2018)

Fargle said:


> NPR is your source??? Why should I believe anything NPR has to say about guns?


Smh ... you haven't even opened it. The source is "institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation". My goodness


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

Fargle said:


> I haven't yet seen this pop up here, so here it goes:
> 
> In the 2019-2020 legislation session in the state of Georgia is bill HB74. Its title reads as follows:
> 
> ...


There's only a few places in the universe, not the planet, the universe, where this seems like a good idea, Georgia is one.



Fargle said:


> NPR is your source??? Why should I believe anything NPR has to say about guns?


Well because NPR is one of the last unbiased news sources in the freaking Universe asshat.

Fargle is a Fox person I'd guess.
Used to being lied to all day, every day.

Rupert Murdoch is evil incarnate.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Buck-a-mile said:


> There's only a few places in the universe, not the planet, the universe, where this seems like a good idea, Georgia is one.
> 
> 
> Well because NPR is one of the last unbiased news sources in the freaking Universe asshat.
> ...


Not sure if you're serious or sarcastic...


----------



## bsliv (Mar 1, 2016)

Buck-a-mile said:


> because NPR is one of the last unbiased news sources


Although I like a lot of PBS, NPR is far from unbiased.

The USA has a high percentage of gun ownership. It follows that the USA has a high percentage of shootings. Just as if the USA had a high percentage of private pools, we'd have a high percentage of private pool drownings. We'd also have a high percentage of fun in the water. Likewise, we have a high percentage of crimes prevented due to firearm use. The 1995 study by criminologists Kleck and Gertz conclude there are between 2.2 and 2.5 million defensive uses annually. Compare that number to less than 15,000 non-suicide firearm deaths annually.

The Center for Disease Control during the Obama administration estimated the defensive use of a firearm at between 500,000 and 3,000,000 per year. The CDC estimates 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.

Twenty years ago economist John Lott and his research partner wrote: "We find that allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly."

Image two neighbors. One has an NRA sticker on his window and the other has a "We're not armed" sticker on their window. Which house would be subject to more criminal activity? We teach how to safely use a car in public schools.

Guns can be dangerous. So can cars. Both, used responsibly, can save lives.


----------



## Fargle (May 28, 2017)

Alexxx_Uber said:


> Smh ... you haven't even opened it. The source is "institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation". My goodness


NPR is notorious for citing unqualified authorities, particularly when the topic is crime, and here they did it again by citing a medical institution for crime data. A criminologist is a good source of data on crime. A medical scientist is a good source of data on medicine. A medical scientist has no business talking with any degree of authority on crime. A criminologist has no business talking with any degree of authority on medicine.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Legalizeit0 said:


> I can only laugh, but I should probably cry because the person who wrote this actually believes gun free zones deter guns, #SAD.
> 
> "Dear criminal, guns are banned in my car, please follow the law."


I can only laugh when people think "gun free zones" don't have any guns in them.


----------

