• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Bars and Saloons coming to Virginia?

Have Gun - Will Carry

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
290
Location
Kenosha County, Wisconsin
This makes me think about motorcycle Helmet laws in many states...
Those responsible riders that wear the helmet, probably,, have health insurance in case of a wreck.

Those that rile against the law requiring the helmet,, probably do not have insurance!
They will gladly expect to be hospitalized and treated and rehabilitated,, for Years, if needed!!!!

Oh, pleeeeaaase! I'd ask for a cite for that assertion, but trust me, you won't find one... It sounds suspiciously like the claims of anti-gunners that a person is x times more likely to be shot because they keep a gun in the house - good sound bite, but no truth behind it.

This so-called "public burden" theory of helmet laws has been debunked over and over, beginning decades ago. Ever hear of the infamous "Harborview Study" from around 1980 or '81? Its authors tried to claim the same thing you did, until they were repeatedly and mercilessly beat over the head with their own data - which supported the exact opposite conclusion.

Basically, motorcyclists were (are) more likely to have private health insurance than the general public - not less likely. Thus automobile drivers are more of a public burden than motorcyclists will ever be. And there was no distinction in the study's results between helmeted and unhelmeted riders - both were equally likely to carry private insurance. Eventually the Harborview Study's authors were forced to back away from their assertions, and it remains a sore subject for them to this day.

The "public burden" theory is dead. Please don't spread misinformation like this.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
A Bridge Too Far

A counter-argument illustrating the absurdity of demanding a bar opener take full responsibility for all externalities by comparing it to something with even greater destructive externalities, but no such responsibility demand, is off-topic and a bridge-too-far? Really?
 
Last edited:

Kevin108

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
353
Location
Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
Reducing the unfair ratio is an advancement of liberty. I'm all for it. There should be no meddlesome government establishing ratios at all. Businesses should sell what their customers want to buy and let the free market work out the price points. I more fair ratio is not a return to freedom, but it's a step in the right direction. We cannot be afraid of what the gun-grabbers might say. Their figures are lies, their concerns never play out, and it's futile to attempt to reconcile their hysterical thoughts with our rights.
 
Last edited:
Top