Open carry keeps the peace at NH bar - so far

[DadaOrwell]

Story aired today on the Ridley Report:   
http://youtube.com/RidleyReport

[roland]

Story aired today on the Ridley Report:   
http://youtube.com/RidleyReport

You've invited constructive criticism on past videos that you have posted, so I'm making free here, as well.  I'm having difficulty reconciling the premise with what I see presented in the clip.  The premise seems to be that the current bar is an improvement (i.e., "not a problem") over the former club based on the following accounts from patrons:

1] two men who looked like they might have been patrons of the previous establishment (what does that mean?) drove up in a car and gave what were interpreted as "gang signs" before driving away, leading to a conclusion that the reason they drove away was their discovery of open carry at at the bar.

2] at the former club, distinctively dressed male patrons were denied entry if weapons were found during mandatory frisks.

I'm not disputing that the current establishment may be better, safer, and less of a "problem" than the former occupant, as I have no basis on which to judge.  Which is my main issue; after watching the video, I still have no basis on which to judge.  The production quality of the video was marvelous (especially taking into consideration that there was no post-recording editing), it was entertaining, and for the most part pleasant. On the gripping hand, if there was a case to be made for your (assumed) premise, I'm afraid that you didn't make it to me very clearly.  I especially question the second account as evidence.  As I have previously written, I do believe that all else equal, open carry is intrinsically safer than concealed carry; I also believe that disarmed patrons make for a more, not less, dangerous crowd, but neither of those points seems to be what was meant.  Was there an implication intended that the current patrons are more desirable than the former patrons?  If so, I think that you needed to further develop that argument.   I'm also left  wondering about how the former club came to close, and why.  Was there dealing of illegal drugs?  Prostitution?  Was it forced closed by government edict?

-Roland

[DadaOrwell]

thanks for the comments roland. 

the old club was forced to shut I think bc its owners got behind on rent; however there was pressure from the city.  i remember free staters grousing about the intervention by the city and speaking up in defense of the old bar but there was no organized effort to protect it.  it was more of a nightclub actually.   I'm sure I didn't make an extremely full or easy to understand story since i'm just throwing a little narration behind raw video and showing folks what it looks like.
 

[roland]

thanks for the comments roland. 

the old club was forced to shut I think bc its owners got behind on rent; however there was pressure from the city.  i remember free staters grousing about the intervention by the city and speaking up in defense of the old bar but there was no organized effort to protect it.  it was more of a nightclub actually.   I'm sure I didn't make an extremely full or easy to understand story since i'm just throwing a little narration behind raw video and showing folks what it looks like.
 

You did a fine job of that, then.  Perhaps I misunderstood, I thought you were trying to create "stories" to compete with other venues for "serious journalism" (crikey - the fact that I feel compelled to put that in quotes can't be a good thing).  With that in mind I was applying the 6 W's standard to the clip.  You actually did pretty damned well for someone who wasn't trying very hard to meet that standard.  Hope you weren't offended...

-Roland