Time for Concealed Carry
It is time Wisconsin adopt some form of a right-to-carry law.
Wisconsin is one of only two states left in the Union that does not grant its citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon — Illinois is the other. Most of the other 48 states enacted this form of legislation within the last decade. Wisconsin needs to get with the times.
While it may seem unnerving to some to suggest putting more guns on the streets, statistics gathered from other states show more guns equal less crime. In fact, according to the National Rifle Association, 2005 U.S. Justice Department data shows states with right-to-carry laws, on average, have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates and a 30 percent lower murder rate.
The fact is, criminals prefer unarmed victims. Criminals will have weapons regardless of any law meant to keep them out of their hands. Whether they attain them via the black market or through other illegal means, criminals — who intrinsically have no respect for law in the first place — will find a way to arm themselves if they really want to. If citizens are disarmed by law, what is left? By definition, all law-abiding citizens would then be disarmed, leaving only the criminals with weapons.
Why punish law-abiding citizens by depriving them of the right to carry while thugs roam the streets fully armed and fully conscious that no one has the power to defend himself? Failure to enact a right-to-carry law in Wisconsin only harms good, honest Wisconsinites. After all, as Plato said, “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”
Sorry - I don’t buy it. How stupid. Shoot someone and regardless of any reason you give, you will go to jail for a long time. People are not trained to react and judge situations like police are to have legal justification to shoot someone. The solution to gun violence is to get rid of the hand guns - period. Outlaw them and destroy them. Beyond police or military use, there is no use for handguns. It’s that simple. Let’s see and read these supposed statistics ... show us the links to the studies. National Rifle Association? Not very independent source is it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 1803 hrs
People are not trained to react and judge situations like police are to have legal justification to shoot someone.
There is nothing magic about the training the police receive - nor is it difficult to acquire.
I think it is possible you are over estimating the amount and quality of training the police receive in this regard.
The solution to gun violence is to get rid of the hand guns - period.
I am with you on this one - if it would work.
It. Can’t. Be. Done.
Prohibition never works. Didn’t work with booze, it’s utterly failed with drugs.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on April 23, 2008 at 1909 hrs
[In fact, according to the National Rifle Association, 2005 U.S. Justice Department data shows states with right-to-carry laws, on average, have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates and a 30 percent lower murder rate.
This doesn’t seem right - it would mean Illinois and Wisconsin combined have violent crime and murder rates 22 and 30 percent higher than the rest of the country combined.
I find that hard to believe. Probably a case of damn lies and statistics.
Anyway I still think we should have it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 2041 hrs
There are about 8,000 other ways to cut down crime and make society (and Wisconsin) safer than arming up everyone…...
-Ban handguns (let storeowners keep shotguns behind the counter which are more effective anyways at short distances)
-Monitor and control immigration
-Put in much tougher sentences for gun crimes. Build more prisons.
-Hire more police in every major city
Those initiatives will save far more lives and make things much safer than encouraging the citizenry of Wisconsin to “arm up” with concealed handguns.
I travel all over the US for work. I feel safest in Wisconsin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 2117 hrs
I’m not opposed to concealed carry, I just have yet tpo be convinced that we need it. But I wouldn’t care either way.
I’ve gotta agree with ATV though, the 22% and 30% numbers are about the biggest crock I’ve ever read, unless they were taken horribly out of context by the author of the article.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 23, 2008 at 2233 hrs
I love the idea of allowing storeowners keep shotguns behind their counter. I assume you’d allow the owner to take the shotgun with him when he goes home? Might be worth talking my wife into opening up her store again ..
Ban handguns
The gun bans we have now don’t keep handguns away from criminals. How would more of the same be effective?
Posted by Brian on April 23, 2008 at 2253 hrs
I’ll admit at the outset, I’m a concealed carry advocate.
Most of the numbers I’ve seen show a reduction in violent crime, or no change upon passage of right-to-carry legislation. So, at worst, there’s no drastic change. However, several studies done in prisons have shown that the one thing violent criminals fear above anything else is an armed victim.
Regarding the “police have training”: bull. I’ve probably got more training and experience with my sidearm(s), and more knowledge of the applicable laws, than any officer in my area. Cops aren’t supermen. And saying that the police have the ability and right to protect themselves with deadly force, but I (and my fellow citizens) may not, creates a special class of people within our society. You may be comfortable with that, but I’m not!
Another fact to consider: the situations for police and “civilians” are drastically different. Where a police officer must deal constantly with criminals, often getting into “contact distance”, an armed citizen doesn’t go “looking for bad guys”. Instead, an armed citizen can only respond with a weapon when there is an immediate threat of death or severe bodily injury to themselves or another nearby, and then only to end the threat.
I am responsible for my own safety: the police are there to clean up the mess afterwards. There was even a court case (don’t remember the exact case anymore), finding that the state has no responsibility for the safety of an individual. So please don’t tell me the police will protect me: they haven’t yet, and they’re under no obligation to do so.
Besides: when seconds count, the police are minutes away!
Posted by Strings on April 24, 2008 at 0029 hrs
Steve Austin - you obviously don’t go to 3rd & Hadley or 32 & Vliet or 27th & Garfield.
You must not have to worry about your wife when she and your daughter leave the school that she teaches at 3:30 pm in those neighborhoods. Or when the janitor has to do a playground and tot lot sweep to pick up the spent shell casings, needles, condoms, and broken glass before school starts everyday.
I would rather spend a hot summer night in Compton CA than the north side of Milwaukee.
Finally how can you feel safe in Milwaukee when the only people who are carrying are the criminals and the few officers? Do you think that if laws allowed law-abiding citizens to carry that they would just go up to you and shot you because you are wearing brown shoes instead of black shoes?? Are you afraid of that??
Posted by Clint on April 24, 2008 at 0738 hrs
Strings-you are exactly right in all you say. The training that we receive as permit holders is vastly different to the training that the police receive. I have been through several training courses and the differences in training are clearly pointed out. The police are out looking for bad guys to apprehend, I am looking to avoid the bad guys but to have a means to defend my life if assaulted with lethal force by one of them.
As a side note: While our civil right to be out own first responder has been denied by our governor and many Democrats in this state, it must be noted that open carry of a sidearm is completely legal and there is a grassroots effort underway in a number of counties at this moment to recognize that. Once recognized, and the police in those counties have been told not to harass otherwise law-abiding citizens who just happen to be exercising their civil rights, you will be seeing many law-abiding people, such as myself, carrying sidearms at Wal-Mart and the local grocery store. Some people have begun to open carry already. Many of us will be people who already have a permit to carry from another state and have received training and have had background checks to make sure we are certified good guys. Thanks to Jim Doyle ‘s veto(s) of the Personal Protection Act however, many will be carrying with NO TRAINING AND NO BACKGROUND CHECKS. Make sure to call Jim Doyle and the other Democrats who failed to override his veto of the PPA and thank them for that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 0809 hrs
Regarding the “police have training”
By the time they find out you need assistance and arrive at your location, you’re already dead. There’s a story like this on the national wires every week.
So until their training includes some sort of telepathy and teleportation…
Posted by HeatherRadish on April 24, 2008 at 1030 hrs
“As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I didnot feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law-abid-ing citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County,and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.”–John B. Holmes, DistrictAttorney, Harris County, Texas (which includes Houston)
Beyond police or military use, there is no use for handguns. It’s that simple. Let’s see and read these supposed statistics ... show us the links to the studies.
Here’s a good start for you Wilson. Now are you going to read it, or is that more work than you really wanted? Do you really want the truth? Do you really want factual data? I’ll warn you now its not going to support your position.
http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1031 hrs
Oh sure Wilson (#1), the NRA is a biased source but we are supposed to accept the Brady Foundation as independent?
The two most prominent individuals asking questions about concealed carry from a non-biased prospective have been David Kopel (a lawyer, if I recall) and John R. Lott (an economist). Google their work, as it is very revealing in its disproval of all (yes all) of the myths spouted by those that hold your views regarding the banning of handguns. Of course, I know facts rarely influence views on this topic but you asked for studies – start with these names.
In the interests of disclosure, I attended grad school at the University of Florida shortly after they enacted concealed carry. School administrators were convinced that blood would run in the streets akin to the Wild West; it did not happen, and it has not in the 21 years since they have had that law. I earned my permit less than a year after moving there (lots of training, by the way), and used my weapon twice; once to defend myself, and second to defend my property – both times crimes were averted without firing a shot.
Doyle can lie all he wants, but both Wisconsin and Illinois are behind the curve on this and their crime stats reflect it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1032 hrs
Rather than looking at what law enforcement officials fear could happen if a shall-issue law passes, perhaps we
should look at what they say did happen in states where shall-issue laws did pass. Consider, for example, the following“change of heart” stories from officials in states with shall-issue legislation.
• “Glenn White, president of the 2,350-member Dallas Police Association, said he lobbied against the (shallissue)
law in 1993 and 1995 because he thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. ‘That hasn’t happened,’
he said. ‘All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen,’ said Senior Cpl. White,
a patrol officer who works the 3-to-11 p.m. shift. ‘No bogeyman. I think it’s worked out well, and that says
good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.’”75
• “Some of the public safety concerns which we imagined or anticipated…have been unfounded or mitigated.”—
Fairfax County, Virginia Police Major Bill Brown.76
• “The concerns that I had—with more guns on the street, folks may be more apt to square off against one
another with weapons—we haven’t experienced that.”—Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina Police
Chief Dennis Nowicki.77
• “The Kentucky Association of Chiefs of Police opposed the bill, saying that more guns would mean more
incidences of gun-related injuries. Craig Birdwhistell, executive director of the association, said so far that
hasn’t happened. ‘No, we haven’t experienced the problems that some of our chiefs of police have anticipated,’
he said.”78
• “‘I have changed my opinion of this (program),’ Campbell County (Kentucky) Sheriff John Dunn said.
‘Frankly, I anticipated a certain type of people applying to carry firearms, people I would be uncomfortable
with being able to carry a concealed weapon. That has not been the case. These are all just everyday citizens
who feel they need some protection.’”79
• “. . .Lt. William Burgess of the Calhoun County (Michigan) Sheriff Department said ‘to the best of my
knowledge, we have not had an issue.’ Burgess admitted he is surprised. ‘I had expected there would be a
lot more problems,’ he said. ‘But it has actually worked out.’”80
• “As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did
not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law-abiding
citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County,
and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless.”—John B. Holmes, District
Attorney, Harris County, Texas (which includes Houston).Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1045 hrs
Through random sample surveys, researchers have learned a great deal about the use of firearms, whether concealed
or otherwise, for self-defense. Their findings undercut the assertions by shall-issue critics, such as the
Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, that firearms are only rarely used to defend against crimes. As with most areas of
research involving firearms, there is some dispute over the survey findings on defensive gun use. The National
Research Council describes the conclusions of this body of research as follows:How many times each year do civilians use firearms defensively? The answers provided to this seemingly
simple question have been confusing. Consider the findings from two of the most widely cited studies in the
field: McDowall et al. (1998), using the data from 1992 and 1994 waves of the National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS), found roughly 116,000 defensive gun uses per year, and Kleck and Gertz (1995), using data
from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (NSDS), found around 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
Many other surveys provide information on the prevalence of defensive gun use. Using the original National
Crime Survey, McDowall and Wiersema (1994) estimate 64,615 annual incidents from 1987 to 1990. At least
19 other surveys have resulted in estimated numbers of defensive gun uses that are similar (i.e., statistically
indistinguishable) to the results founds by Kleck and Gertz. No other surveys have found numbers consistent
with the NCVS.62The National Research Council panel does not offer conclusions on whether the high-end estimate or the lowend
one is more accurate. Significantly, though, it does conclude the following: “even the smallest of the estimates
indicates that there are hundreds of defensive uses every day. . .So what do we have here Wilson. Police chiefs across the country telling us that concealled carry DOES NOT lead to any of the problems anti-concealled carry people fear AND we have studies that show EVEN the low estimates of defensive gun use amount to hundreds of uses each day.
So if there is NO downside to concealled carry, (as stated by ALL those quotes from those in law enforcement) and the UPSIDE is that hundreds of people defend themselves with firearms every day. Isn’t it a NO-BRAINER that wisconsin citizens would benefit from the opportunity to defend themselves like citizens in other states do HUNDREDS of times each day?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1054 hrs
quote]Those initiatives will save far more lives and make things much safer than encouraging the citizenry of Wisconsin to “arm up” with concealed handguns.
Complete and utter conjecture Steve.
Not fact-based. In fact, it flies in the face of factual and historical data that we have.
It has been well stated above how banning alcohol, drugs, and anything else has never worked. (but we sure have thrown TRILLIONS of dollars trying to make it work)
Now you want to throw billions more of taxpayer dollars at more police, more prisons?
Or we could just take the SIMPLE and constitutional step that wouldn’t cost the taxpayers a dime of allowing concealled carry.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1119 hrs
I think this whole debate misses the point. The point is that in a free society it is not (or should not be) the roll of government to determine an individuals rights based on the desired/expected outcomes. Rather its roll is to protect those rights despite what the stats might say. Is there a legitimate and productive reason to sell beer? Clearly every statistic would point to “a better society” (less drunk driving, domestic abuse, etc.) without it. Why don’t we ban it? Because we are grown, free citizens! I’m sure we could make a long list of things that we could ban that would “improve” society. I’d rather keep my freedom…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1135 hrs
Mino -
Are you arguing for legalizing all drugs? How about getting rid of all regulation and testing for drivering a car? Oversight of lawyers, doctors, accountants, realtors, etc, etc?
If you want to argue that concealed carry is a good thing, that’s one thing. But I don’t buy the free society argument. We’re a nation of laws. We live in a state governed by laws. We live in counties and cities with their set of laws. There is nothing illegitimate about government’s involvement here.
This is the same argument you hear on the smoking ban. This attempt to claim that this is a fundemental rights issue. These things can’t be dismissed like that. Like it or not this is a legitimate debate, one for which the legitimacy of government’s involvement has long been established.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1211 hrs
Like it or not this is a legitimate debate, one for which the legitimacy of government’s involvement has long been established.
Actually Mino is right.
Our right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by our constitution and the bill of rights.
Regardless of what the statistics say, this right has been denied to us without due process.
Banning the carry of weapons should have required amending the constitution.
But our government has found a way to thieve our rights from us anyway.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1313 hrs
>This is the same argument you hear on the smoking ban. This attempt to claim that this is a fundemental rights issue. These things can’t be dismissed like that. Like it or not this is a legitimate debate, one for which the legitimacy of government’s involvement has long been established.>
Actually, it IS very similar to the smoking ban debate. The biggest difference being, smoking was never enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Posted by Strings on April 24, 2008 at 1458 hrs
As soon as you show me the majority SCOTUS opinion that prevents states from enacting laws to regulate firearms on a blanket basis I’ll agree with you. In the meantime I will continue to dismiss the debate that the second amendment guarantees you the right to concealed carry and ask that those in favor of concealed carry make a compelling case as to why it is needed.
As I said earlier, I’m not opposed to concealed carry, I just haven’t been convinced that it is needed. Seems to me that if you want to change a law you need to make the case as to why, not just I want it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1513 hrs
I just haven’t been convinced that it is needed. Seems to me that if you want to change a law you need to make the case as to why, not just I want it.
Have you ever turned on the news?
Innocent people are victims of crimes every day. Many of those people would have been able to defend themselves had they been able to carry a concealled weapon.
In other states many people do defend themselves with guns every day.
In 48 states the case has been made lefty. I just am saddened that the state I prefer to live in is so far behind the times in acknowledging and being WILLING to allow its citizens to enjoy the rights that citizens in 48 other states are allowed to.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1528 hrs
As I said earlier, I’m not opposed to concealed carry, I just haven’t been convinced that it is needed. Seems to me that if you want to change a law you need to make the case as to why, not just I want it.
It’s weird to me how no other right in the Bill of Rights would get this sort of argument:
I’m not opposed to freedom of speech, I’m just not convinced it’s needed.
or
I’m convinced that the cops should able to search and seize whomever they want to when they want to. Warrants from a judge? That’s crazy talk.
or
Quartering of troops? Heck, I’ve got a spare bedroom! Move your squad in, Sergeant. Decaf or regular?It’s a failure of imagination on my part, I conclude. Maybe if I’d gone to college I’d understand the nuance and complication.
Posted by Brian on April 24, 2008 at 1548 hrs
“As soon as you show me the majority SCOTUS opinion that prevents states from enacting laws to regulate firearms on a blanket basis I’ll agree with you.”
The US Supreme Court issued that opinion in 1939. Its called US v. Miller and it holds that an individual’s right to own a gun is limited only by type of gun owned. Oddly, the Miller Court found that only guns without a military purpose could be regulated. The gun at issue was a sawed-off shotgun, possession of which was regulated under National Firearms Act of 1936. The Supreme Court held that Mr. Miller’s second amendment rights would be violated if the sawed-off shotgun was of the type that was being used by the military (i.e that the military might expect or accept that he would show up with it if the militia was called up). The Court remanded the case for factual findings related to the military utility of sawed-off shotguns. No further proceedings occurred because Miller was killed.
The most recent Supreme Court case to tackle the issue is called District of Columbia v. Heller and it was argued about three weeks ago. It will add something to this debate. Legal scholars are in almost unanimous agreement that the 2nd Amendment does guarantee an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. The only real debate is on what level of scrutiny the courts should apply to firearms regulations to determine if they are constitutional.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1659 hrs
Sad to see someone so young buying into BS.
There is no reason why we should have conceal and carry other than, “see, everyone else it? Why can’t I…” mommy.
Totally does not make his case. He pulls arguments out his butt.
Wisconsin has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the Untied States and it hasn’t spiked. So why the urgent need?
But no daddy. “I want it, i want it. I want it. I’m going to hold my breath until I get to carry my toy in public.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 1810 hrs
Wow Keith: thanks for showing such a great example of the ad hominim attack. Wow!
Seriously folks: show me where compelling need is necessary for anything. Do we NEED cars that can do in excess of 55 mph? Do we NEED 200+ cable channels? Do we NEED NFL football?
Guns are THE only instance I can think of where the public is supposed to justify why they’re “needed”. Seems kinda silly, don’t ya think?
Posted by Strings on April 24, 2008 at 2033 hrs
The concealed carry guys posting on here seem to really want to make the inner city safer, which is great, because I doubt many of you actually live in the inner city.
My question is what measure will make the inner city of Milwaukee safer.
a) Allowing concealed carry, because I’m sure all the storeowners, single mothers and young adults will go to class, get their permit and buy a handgun.
or
b) Digging in and spending the money to hire about 300 new police officers and letting them solely neighborhood police the inner city. Also give them the right to bust a few heads as needed.
My guess is that “b” will be about 100 times more effective, and it is the one thing I’d actually be fine with them raising my taxes to pay for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 2120 hrs
Sensitive no?
Any imbecile can tell the difference between those ah, items, and guns.
Since a lot of people get needlessly you bet your ass they need to be justified.
That’s the trouble. In this country we don’t justify them enough, and so people get killed.
Before you freak out I’m not against guns, just irresponsible use and lack of regulation.
Let’s compare guns and cars. Yeah, why don’t we treat them the same. If we treat guns like cars, you’d have to be licensed to use them, they’d be registered and traceable, if mis-used they get taken away.
Whad ya say? Deal?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 2224 hrs
Um… guns are enumerated as a protected right in the Constitution of the United States. Cars are not. Are you so willing to ignore the Constitution? What about those other amendments? Would you be so caviler with those?
Posted by Owen on April 24, 2008 at 2226 hrs
Steve - I used to volunteer for Habitat for Humanity in the “inner city”. Getting to and from the construction sites is why I decided to suspend my help until I didn’t have to dodge cars fleeing or spewing bullets. Nothing fosters peace more than making a thief have to wonder if their target is armed. It’s a confidence game after all.
Double, triple, or quadruple the number of police. Just having a thief wonder if a target is armed is more effective and less expensive by an order of magnitude. Hence 48 states, more progressive than Wisconsin enacting concealed carry laws.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 2227 hrs
There is no reason why we should have conceal and carry other than, “see, everyone else it? Why can’t I…” mommy.
Steve.. Its extremely difficult to not just throw my hands up and write you off as a complete idiot.
If ONE person in the state gets attacked and couldn’t protect themselves because they didn’t have a weapon and the police aren’t every where. THERE IS YOUR REASON.
So what are you saying Steve? That NOONE was attacked in Wisconsin last year who could have defended themselves with a weapon?
Good lord…
How could it be more basic?
But no daddy. “I want it, i want it. I want it. I’m going to hold my breath until I get to carry my toy in public.”
Steve… What do you have to fear from law abiding citizens.GO READ THE QUOTES I POSTED from foes of conceaelled carry in other states that now support the law, or at worst, acknowledge that NONE of the purported fears spread by the anti-gunners have materialized.
What is it to you Steve? Why are you scared of armed law abiding citizens? You have issues.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2008 at 2300 hrs
The concealed carry guys posting on here seem to really want to make the inner city safer, which is great, because I doubt many of you actually live in the inner city.
I don’t live in the ‘inner city’, but I have. Not Milwaukee and not in Wisconsin so I guess I don’t get a gold star.
So .. do you have to be fat to advise a person on how to loose weight? In the military to argue for or against a war?
Posted by Brian Dunbar on April 24, 2008 at 2352 hrs
Some of you have reaffirmed my opinion that not everyone should carry a gun, thank you. Conversely, others have restored my confidence that responsible Wisconsin citizens can in fact, handle the responsibility, so thanks to you too.
I would like to speak to those who do not trust themselves or anyone else to carry a gun for self defense. Can we agree to disagree on this one point? You do not think responsible lawful citizens should be allowed to protect themselves with all available means and I believe they should.
Now, let’s imagine we are sitting in a cafe and you have your wife or girlfriend (or husband boyfriend) with you and we are enjoying some lunch (I am always armed).
A guy bursts through the door and he has a gun. The guy starts shooting other people in the café as he makes his way around the room and over towards our table. What do you want me to do?
You have no way to escape. The guy is there to shoot as many people as he can and your wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend can not help you, because they have no gun either. What do you want me to do?
It is obvious he will shoot you and your wife/girlfriend/husband/boyfriend in another second or two. What do you want me to do?
I could wait to draw my gun and stop the threat only when he is getting ready to come around and shoot me and save my own life. Or, would you want me to stop the threat against your life before he shoots and perhaps kills you and your wife/girlfriend/ husband/boyfriend? What do you want me to do?
I have changed the details to include you and me, but I have just described a real attack that until the Virginia Tech massacre was the largest massacre in the US history. 23 people died that sunny afternoon at Luby’s café in 1991 because no one inside had a gun and could stop the shooter.
This is not about guns or how we carry them (concealed or openly). This is about our freedom to decide to exercise a right to protect ourselves with the appropriate tool, including lethal force if it is necessary. Personally, I don’t care what your answer was to my question. I would have made the legally and morally correct decision anyway. I do hope you seriously thought about what you would want me to do.
No one needs anyone’s approval to exercise a right that is protected by both the Federal and Wisconsin Constitutions. Open carry is legal in Wisconsin and a grassroots effort is underway to restore liberty in Wisconsin boarder to boarder. You should have the individual freedom to choose for yourself if you wish to protect yourself or not. I am comfortable with whatever you decide. I know there are people who do not want the responsibility that goes along with carrying a gun, and you might be one of them.
Posted by ccwtrainer on April 25, 2008 at 0937 hrs
Hey Steve - I don’t live in the innner city - my wife teaches there though. Does that qualify me ok to participate in the debate?
Ohh - I know - My son goes to a preschool in the inner city (since it is close to the wife’s work) Since I pick him up as well as my wife, does that allow me to participate. How about since I have lived on 92&Silverspring;, 41 & Villard, 18th & Windlake. Can I comment now?
Keith -Let’s compare guns and cars. Yeah, why don’t we treat them the same. If we treat guns like cars, you’d have to be licensed to use them, they’d be registered and traceable, if mis-used they get taken away.
Whad ya say? Deal?
You obviously haven’t sold a car privately lately. All that you have to do when you privately sell a car is count the cash, sign the title, note the miles on the title, and hand the title to the person buying it. As a seller, you DON’T have to run a background check to make sure that the person holds a valid license. You DON’T have to document who you sold the car to.
All that you have to do is make sure that Ben Franklin shows as a watermark on the bills.
And last time I checked - if a car was mis-used - say for a drive-by, robbery, etc - the cars were impounded.
So it sounds like we have a deal.
Wisconsin has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the Untied States and it hasn’t spiked. So why the urgent need?
Check out these states from City Rating.com
Murder 2.4 times the national average
Rape 1.14 times the national average
Robbery 2.2 times the national average
All Violent crime 1.49 times the national average
Buglary 1.19 times the national average
Theft 1.45 times the national average
Car Theft 1.75 times the national average
Arson 1.93 times the national averageAs to your spike -
From Disastercenter.com -
Milwaukee 2004 Murder/Manslaughter per hundred thousand 14.9
Milwaukee 2005 Murder/Manslaughter per hundred thousand 20.6
US 2004 Murder/Manslaughter per hundred thousand 5.5
US 2004 Murder/Manslaughter per hundred thousand 5.6A 25% increase isn’t a spike???
A murder rate almost 4 times the US average isnt high?
I don’t know what dictionary you are reading that you think there is no ‘spike’ and that Milwaukee has the ‘lowest violent crime rates in the US’ but you might want to consider switching dictionaries.
Posted by Clint on April 25, 2008 at 0948 hrs
Clint, good documentation…
Over and over and over again on these debates its the same pattern of behavior.
An anti-gunner starts making up things and posting conjecture. Nothing fact based, all assumption and hyperbole.
Its difficult to deal with. Frustrating.
In another week we will have another gun thread and there seems to be and endless line of anti-gunners who have a fear-based non-logical opinion on guns and why they are bad.
As a believer in the rights guaranteed by our constitution, I also have the benefit of 48 states worth of REAL WORLD data to prove every fear and every irrational make believe prediction of these anti gunners wrong.
If we didn’t have to go thru this exercize every week it would be more amusing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1017 hrs
Let us take the car analogy further, shall we…
There are few restrictions on where I can take my car. I can drive it, well, almost anywhere. I can take my kids to school in it, take it to work, take it to a liquor store, and even take it on government property. I can take it to a friend’s house, and I do not have to worry about violating car-free zones.
There are also no restrictions on the type of car I can build, purchase, or own. OK, different license plates maybe, but if I want to own an original 1966 Shelby 427 AC Cobra and drive it on a daily basis more power to me. If I choose to pull the engine out of my Saturn, and replace it with a blown 289 Ford V8 the only thing stopping me is the engineering challenge. There are also no limits on horsepower, seating, or the number of cars I can own. I can fill my yard with them, am not required to register them (unless I want to drive them) and I do not need a license to own them (only drive them). There are no tracks on the sale and purchase of cars, I can swap parts in and out of them, and auto parts stores on every corner.
So sure, if you want to honestly treat guns like cars I am all for it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1021 hrs
I have lived on 92&Silverspring;, 41 & Villard, 18th & Windlake.
I never pictured you as the “hoodrat” type. Does your car have spinners too?
Your statistics are meaningless unless you compare them to like sized cities in the same region, during the same time-frame. Milwaukee didn’t have any “spike” that wasn’t also seen in other places like Detroit, St. Louis, Columbus, etc…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1037 hrs
Clint, you have CRCD—conservative reading comprehension disorder. I said Wisconsin, not Milwaukee.
All that work just because you mis-read and you’re off and running.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1048 hrs
How is Clint’s post “good documentation”? That’s comparing Milwaukee to the national average. Really? A major metropolitan area has a higher crime rate than the national average? No kidding?
Go through that website and you find that Milwaukee is on par with other major cities across the country, all in states with some form of concealed carry. It isn’t that hard. Milwaukee might be higher on on murder, but less on rape or vice versa, but on the all violent crime rating it isn’t some giant outlier. Heck, it is significantly lower than that of cities in liberal gun law Texas like Houston and Dallas and lower than nearby Minneapolis and Detriot (by a mile) and equal with Indianapolis.
Those stats are as misleading/questionable as the NRA stats in the article that started this post that claims concealed carry lowers violent crime 22%, when a quick google search will tell you that Wisconsin ranks 45th in violent crime in the nation.
If concealed carry were to be allowed tomorrow, I don’t think the average Wisconsinite would notice a difference. Folks living in the burbs around Milwaukee wouldn’t be any safer or unsafer, folks living in rural Wisconsin wouldn’t be any safer or unsafer, and folks on the north side of Milwaukee wouldn’t notice a damn bit of difference.
There is no statistical evidence either way that concealed carry makes citizens safer or less safe for that matter. That is why in my opinion, since a majority of the state’s population is opposed to concealed carry, that I think the pro-concealed carry folks need to come up with a better argument. Because right now, there is no compeling reasons for it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1053 hrs
Clint, you have CRCD—conservative reading comprehension disorder. I said Wisconsin, not Milwaukee.
So whats your point? You’d support concealled carry in Milwaukee cause its more dangerous?
Right on!
You’re actually starting to make sense!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1056 hrs
Conceal and carry will make a difference. It will be a boon for the people that sell holsters, bullets, guns, etc.
I am sure the NRA pushes for it solely on their concern of peoples “rights” and it has nothing to do with their concern for their bottom line. The NRA is just another lobby for a big money corporate group. If the NRA could find a statistic that said sucking on spent shell casings prevents cancer you guys would be repeating them here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1110 hrs
Conceal and carry will make a difference. It will be a boon for the people that sell holsters, bullets, guns, etc.
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but you’ve got nothing to support this???
In the 48 other states with concealled carry there is not a run on “bullets” and holsters and guns. Most people already own a gun or several and they are just then free to carry what they already own.
As for more “bullet” sales… Well.. most people just buy ammunition or rounds. Its kinda hard to buy just a bullet, unless you are re-loading. (but I wouldn’t expect you to know that)
But as evidenced by 48 other states, there are not shootouts on every corner or anything else like that, so “bullet” usage as you suggest wouldn’t go up at all. Unless of course people were going to the range and practicing, and wouldn’t that be a good thing???
I am sure the NRA pushes for it solely on their concern of peoples “rights” and it has nothing to do with their concern for their bottom line. The NRA is just another lobby for a big money corporate group. If the NRA could find a statistic that said sucking on spent shell casings prevents cancer you guys would be repeating them here.
3rd Way, you’ve really got a twig in your butt about the NRA?
This is not about the NRA. It was mentioned once in this topic.
I’ll have you know that many many gun owners are unhappy with the NRA because they feel that the NRA capitulates too often on gun issues and they play into the mindset that concealled carry is a priviledge to be granted by the sherriff and the government with permits and licenses instead of a right that shouldn’t be infringed.
But seriously… Your going hyper on the NRA when this topic has been nothing to do with the NRA.
NRA statistics… whatever… How about the quotes I posted? These are not statistics but real-world reactions from foes of concealled carry who admit the fears are unfounded, or are even now converts that believe in concealled carry.
Besides the human nature to now want to “lose” an arguement, why are you guys up in arms (no pun intended) about concealled carry? If it passes, you’ll never know. You anti-gunners don’t have to go buy guns. You anti-gunners are not less safe. (you are actually more safe even if you don’t know it)
With 48 states having concealled carry don’t you think if there was ANY fallout from the law that anti-gunners and the media would be ALL over it with hype and front page headlines? It just doesn’t exists. NONE of the fears are legitimate.
Why do you even care?
So we “gun-lovers” want to carry our guns and exercise the rights our founding fathers guaranteed us? What the hell is it to you???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1129 hrs
Conceal and carry will make a difference. It will be a boon for the people that sell holsters, bullets, guns, etc.
Oh, one other thing… Go ask gun show owners when the last “boon” for them was…
They’ll ALL tell you without equivocation the same thing… 9/11
You should have seen the ‘boon’ for gun shops.
And so what… So what if its all about money… (Its not, but I don’t care if you think that) Again… Whats it to you?
EVEN if it is about money for gun shops that affects you how?
The NRA is just another lobby for a big money corporate group.
You’re crazy 3rd way… You’re just reaching into the liberal anti-gun grab bag and pulling out a standard non-sensical demogoguing response. “big corporate group”
Please… The NRA is made up of MILLIONS of members who support it.
Just what “big corporate group” is behind the NRA 3rd way?
Are millions and millions of individuals now a big corporate group?
When are you going to stop making stuff up?
You can’t just reach in the liberal grab-bag-o-trite-sayings and pull something out.
“big corporate group” please…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1139 hrs
edit, typo in the above post, it should read “go as gun SHOP owners when their last boon was and they’ll tell you right after 9/11”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1140 hrs
Great points xxpilot. The world hasn’t fallen apart in states that have allowed some form of concealed carry (not to ignore how different those concealed carry laws are in those states, and how different they are in the most recent states that what advocates in Wisconsin want, but I digress).
At the same time it is also true that violent crime in those states has not changed appreciably after passage of concealed carry. This goes back to my point. Right or wrong, public opinion is opposed to concealed carry in Wisconsin (some of the biggest opponents I know are the hunters in my family ironically). So to overcome that public opinion you need to make a compeling case for improved public safety by passing concealed carry.
Other than very contrived statistics from the NRA (not to make this an NRA issue) I have never seen any significant statistical argument for concealed carry. I know in your mind it makes sense that violent crime will be reduced if criminals are unsure about who is carrying and who isn’t, but the numbers don’t bear that out.
I agree, armageddon will not follow with passage of concealed carry. After a few years no one would even talk about it anymore. But if I’m an elected official why would I vote for something that is politically unpopular when I can’t point to a concrete upside?
There is a reason this never ended up being pushed as a constitutional amendment like the right to hunt and fish, like TABOR, like same sex marriage, etc. The statewide numbers are not only against it, but drastically against it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1145 hrs
Keith - last time I checked Milwaukee was the biggest city in Wisconsin and SE WI accounted for a bit of its total population.
That’s comparing Milwaukee to the national average.
Those stats were compared to the national average in other metropolis’s (metropoli?)
Check out these states from City Rating.com
Murder 2.4 times the national average
Rape 1.14 times the national average
Robbery 2.2 times the national average
All Violent crime 1.49 times the national average
Buglary 1.19 times the national average
Theft 1.45 times the national average
Car Theft 1.75 times the national average
Arson 1.93 times the national averageThose stats were compared to the national average in other metropolis’s (metropoli?) That is why they are called cityrating.com and not -ruralhicktownrating.com
Are you saying that crime is acceptable in big cities??
Want to 1:1 compare - ok for 2006 from 2006
Milwaukee (pop 581k) Murders 103 (17.7 per 100k)
OK City (pop 536k) Murders 55 (10.3 per 100k)
Portland OR (pop 542k) Murders 20 (3.7 per 100k)
Seattle WA (pop 583k) Murders 30 (5.1 per 100k)
Sacramento, CA (pop 460k) Murders 57 (12.4 per 100k)
Tucson AZ (pop 535k) Murders 51 (9.5 per 100k)
LA CA (pop 3879k) Murders 480 (12.4 per 100k)
Omaha NE (Pop 416k) Murders 33 (7.9 per 100k
NY NY (Pop 8165k) Murders 596 (13.12 per 100k)
Chicago (pop 2857k) Murders 468 (16.4 per 100k)Those figures are from areaconnect.com would you like to tell me that they are actually owned and operated by the NRA or “Big Bullet”??
Did I look at Detroit, Buffalo, Dallas - Yes. And yes they were much bigger numbers. We do have lower crime than them. These figures represent 3 really big cities and then cities around our size. Those numbers are a complete opposite of what Keith said by claiming that
Wisconsin has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the Untied States
Clearly we are not amungst the lowest. Are you saying that you want to wait until we have a crime level that of Detroit, before you try and solve the problem??Posted by Clint on April 25, 2008 at 1145 hrs
Where is it written that enacting concealed carry in 48 other states caused even a small spike in gun sales let alone a boom? Where?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1149 hrs
I also find it amusing the the left likes to tout public opinion when it serves them.
The public wants (and votes for) Judge Gableman - the left says that they are ill-informed, unknowledgable voters and should have our voting rights taken away from us.
The public wants (and votes for) a constitutional amendment preventing the courts from defining marriage - the left calls 70% of Wisconsinites Homophobes.
The public is against (when asked in a skewed poll question) whethere there should be guns in day care - and the left touts the public masses intelligence.
Ohh - and 3rd Way - I moved out of the hood when I was a teenager. My mom took a second job (instead of waiting for a handout) so that we could afford rent outside the city.Posted by Clint on April 25, 2008 at 1153 hrs
Clint,
Look a the places in Wisconsin listed on cityratings.org. Everest, Pleasant Prairie, Marinette, Menomonie, among others.
There are rural towns and cushy suburbs across their site that Milwaukee is being rated against. You have to look at Milwaukee in context of similar sized municipalities. That site is not doing that.
And I’m not arguing that concealed carry shouldn’t become law because of popular public opinion. I’m arguing that it would have been political suicide for a Governor to sign concealed carry in a state with such high opposition to it without a compeling public safety argument to explain his decision.
I’d be happy to debate issues such as gay marriage, the supreme court race, and more. But please don’t assume you know my argument on those subjects and align me with the “left” when you haven’t accurately digested my argument on this subject.
I know I sign in as “Lefty”, but I do have some independent thoughts, and don’t adhere to some preconcieved stereotypical ideology.
I will attempt to extend the same courtesy to you going forward, especially if you believe I haven’t done so thus far.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1202 hrs
But if I’m an elected official why would I vote for something that is politically unpopular when I can’t point to a concrete upside?
First, I strongly disagree that its politically unpopular. I had a long conversation with Tony Staskunas when PPA was up for vote a while back and he clung to a biased low-response survey he sent to his constituents a couple years before.
The question was slanted, it made it sound like any old joe would be able to stuff a gun in his pants and go shoot up the bario. And the response rate was so small that he was basing his stance on only a fraction of a fraction of his constituency.
The public is much more educated now, but legislators who don’t personally want concealled carry seem to hid behind the “my constituency is against it” defense, when that really isn’t true.
Secondly:
But if I’m an elected official why would I vote for something that is politically unpopular when I can’t point to a concrete upside?
EASY.
Politicians have been doing it for years…
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=115241
You get a picture of Emily Willegal, the girl who was killed in 2003 when she went out from her UWM apartment to get a burger in the early morning hours.
You get her family and a big picture of her and you call a presser. And you look in the camera with her family and her picture behind you and you tell the viewers that you are supporting concealled carry because its the right thing to do.
You tell the camera that the 48 other states that have concealled carry have proven that their is NO downside, and the UPSIDE is that girls like Emily Willegal, a beautiful college girl from small town Wisconsin who was trying to better her life attending school at UWM who was just out going to get a hamburger in the early morning hours when Kimani Ward, a thug driving around in his pickup truck saw her walking and decided he was hungry too.
You tell the camera that next time a thug with a tire iron comes walking up to a girl walking all by herself, that girl will have the opportunity (if she so chooses) to have armed herself with a gun in her purse so that she can defend herself against guys like Kimani Ward who hit her over the head with a tire iron, took her unconcious body into the back of his pick up truck, pulled her pants off and tried to have sex with her unconsious body.
You look the camera dead in the eye and tell the viewers that no woman should have to walk home from class at night, or walk across the parking lot from work to her car at night, or fear going out to get a hamburger when she is hungry and worry about suffering a similar fate as what happened to Emily, and because of that reason, you are supporting concealled carry so that people who want to, can arm themselves and not live in fear.
Politicians have been doing this for years for all the wrong reasons so their constituency will support the politician. Its about time they did it for the right reasons.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1223 hrs
There is absolutely no comparison to carrying a defensive gun for personal protection, and hunting. Unlike say a deer hunter, when I leave the house, there is no expectation that something is going to die before I get back home.
There are people who are capable of using force, up to and including lethal force, to defend themselves. There are also people who can not (not will not but can not) use force to defend themselves. The odds are exactly equal that either one of you will change the other persons mind. Zero. You are each hard wired that way, so just accept it.
One important distinction to understand is that people who are incapable of defending themselves live in a constant state of denial. That is how they cope with life. They believe they are safe and will never be attacked. When they read about all the crime around them, it REINFORCES their sense of denial – because someone else was attacked or killed, not them. I know it’s backwards, but that is how they process this news.
So, using logic will never work when talking to person who is in a constant state of denial. Nothing you can say affects them in their own imaginary world where they are safe. We know that if the police could really protect us all, there would be no crime, but there is. But as long as it is always someone else, they think they are safe and they think you should be too. It’s their denial working overtime. So, they take the discussion to an emotional level because there is no empirical data to support their phobias about you and me from any of the 48 other states. Nothing.
Don’t waste your time trying to reason with someone who is fundamentally unreasonable. Even when they have a gun pointed in their face, they still won’t get it. It will always be the gun’s fault, not the criminal behavior of the person holding it. Denial again.
I carry a gun everyday not because I give a rip about crime stats going up or down. How many people get shot does not matter to me at all. I do care about is who it is that is getting shot. If it is innocent victims, we need to get that number down. If it is criminals, we need to get that number as high as possible, and we do that by arming their potential victims. When victims shoot the criminals who threaten their lives, the number of innocent victims being shot will come down.
Since open carry is legal, would you please ditch the word “concealed”? You can’t do it and forcing a good guy to act like a bad guy makes no sense to me. No new law is needed unless Jim Doyle begins to get nervous about everyone openly carrying guns without training or background checks. He said before such laws don’t make much sense to him, but he may change his mind as people embrace their right to bear arms, who knows?
Posted by ccwtrainer on April 25, 2008 at 1228 hrs
OK Lefty -
I won’t classify you as among the left that uses hypocritical arguements on public opinion.
If you don’t like cityrating.com (point taken) when comparing to the national average, then will you look at the raw numbers that I mentioned from areaconnect.com?
Raw numbers - shows that while Wisconsin certainely isn’t the worst city to live in (Detroit) we are not the peaceful utopia that Keith makes us out to be.
Does Detroit have issues - you bet. While most of them can be blamed on 60 years of liberal ruling, do you want to claim that their murder rate (3+ times that of Milwaukee) is because they allow law abiding citizens to CC?
Posted by Clint on April 25, 2008 at 1230 hrs
You are right the NRA is more of a grass roots organization than your average lobby, but they function in the same way as every other massive lobbying group. Their main objective is growth and aggregation of power and influence.
These gun debates always reach the point of comical craziness, from the arguments of both sides.
If you don’t think one of the NRA’s objectives is to promote the sale of more guns you are crazy. If you don’t think a significant portion of the support the NRA recieves is from people that will profit from gun sales you are crazy. If you felt you had to go out and buy a gun after 9/11 you are crazy. If you would feel safer when everyone around you carrys a pistol you are crazy. If you would feel safer after confiscating guns from lawful owners you are crazy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1345 hrs
If you are concerned enough about keeping yourself safe that you are willing to carry around a gun at all times you should probably drive around with a helmet on. Driving with a helmet and neck brace (like a nascar driver) is probably going to keep you statistically safer than carrying a gun.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1642 hrs
How is Clint’s post “good documentation”?
It is good documentation compared to the LACK of documentation that ANY poster on the anti-side of this issue has decided to research and post.
You are right the NRA is more of a grass roots organization than your average lobby, but they function in the same way as every other massive lobbying group. Their main objective is growth and aggregation of power and influence.
???? Of course it is? But why the pejorative? Is the assemblage of people to acheive a political means now vilified?
What is a union? How about the AFL-CIO? How about Moveon.org??? Is there something unamerican about assemblage now?
If you don’t think one of the NRA’s objectives is to promote the sale of more guns you are crazy.
Of course it is. So what. Have you BEEN to the National Convention? Every gun manufacturer had a booth. So what.
If you don’t think a significant portion of the support the NRA recieves is from people that will profit from gun sales you are crazy.
Of course it is. So what.. But I know that even more significant a portion is of people like me who just want to support an organization that will move the ball forward to restore our constitutionally guaranteed rights.
If you felt you had to go out and buy a gun after 9/11 you are crazy.
One man’s opinion. I think you’re crazy. Did we get anywhere here?
If you would feel safer when everyone around you carrys a pistol you are crazy
I don’t feel safer when everyone around me carry’s a pistol. But I feel a damn sure bit safer when all the law abiding citizens around me do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 1655 hrs
3rd way makes the point for me why training is a good idea.
I am not concerned for my safety because after all, I’m armed.
Posted by ccwtrainer on April 25, 2008 at 1724 hrs
These gun debates always reach the point of comical craziness, from the arguments of both sides.
I don’t think so.
I think there is a clear and marked difference between the positions tossed about here.
You’ve got a lot of real-world information posted, studies posted all very much supporting the idea that there isn’t any good reason to not support ccw.
And then you’ve got anti-gunners on here (not pointing the finger at any one person) who’ve made stuff up, tossed around hyperbole and conjecture, tried to misrepresent their personal opinions and perjudices as facts.
And you are going to try to run for cover under the suggestion that “These gun debates always reach the point of comical craziness, from the arguments of both sides. ”
Sorry… The comical craziness has been very well apportioned to the anti-gun side of this debate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2008 at 2001 hrs
That is bullshit XX, and don’t call me crazy. I only joined this thread after Clint pulled out some crazy argument using irrelevant statistics. There are a number of relevant arguments in this debate from both sides. The necessity for changing this law based on safety is not one of them. (I have seen all of the statistics posted here, they don’t amount to some dire need for CC.)
My problem with this issue, as with all issues that involve powerful lobbying groups is special interests groups purchasing influence and politicians to put their special interests above the interests of the general public. The NRA would prefer to have the bare minimum of regulation in place and guns in the hands of everyone. More guns in the hands of American’s is not the answer. We have way more guns than any other comparable country and way more gun violence. Can you deny that there is a correlation between those two facts? When there is an earnest effort to reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals we should start to talk about liberalizing our already liberal gun laws. The NRA has no interest in reducing the number of guns on the street because any reduction in guns means fewer gun sales. Every issue in America has a monetary component to it, this one is no different.
After the “reasonable regulation” that every SCOTUS decision agrees should protect us is in place and enforced we should start to talk about loosening laws. We can’t get to that point because we can never get passed the NRA talking points that inappropriately claim that any regulation on firearms are a second amendment violation.
The positions on both side of this debate are based on belief, claiming one side has the upper hand based on statistics is just another belief.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2008 at 1227 hrs
We have way more guns than any other comparable country and way more gun violence. Can you deny that there is a correlation between those two facts?
Yes I can. Violence has nothing to do with gun ownership by law abiding people.
If you take out the inner-city gun violence (gang on gang, etc) our crime statistics would mirror those of Canada.
If you take the ‘inner-city’ shootings out of the equation, our country has a REMARKABLY low incidence of gun violence compared to our very high rate of gun ownership.
Gun ownership does not cause gun violence. Criminals do.
And that puts us right back to the same situation… How do you intend to get guns out of the hands of criminals? By definition they don’t care about any laws. We can’t keep crack and other drugs out of their hands, how would we ever keep guns out of their hands?
We are back to the same situation. We should make it very easy for law abiding citizens if they so choose to arm themselves so that they can defend themselves if they are ever a victim of crime. Those law abiding citizens who live close to or in the crime ridden inner city are the ones we should be most concerned about and most benefiting from having their right to carry a weapon restored.
The positions on both side of this debate are based on belief,
NO, the position on the pro gun side is based on LOGIC.
Can you please tell me the logic in passing a law to regulate criminals when criminals by definition ignore law.
I agree that we could throw more violent criminals in jail for longer. This would help. I am fine with that.
But I’m all ears to hear your logic in just what law a criminal would abide by. And I’m all ears how you would keep guns out of criminals hands when we can’t keep drugs out of criminals hands.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2008 at 1321 hrs
My problem with this issue, as with all issues that involve powerful lobbying groups is special interests groups purchasing influence and politicians to put their special interests above the interests of the general public.
So then you voted against Lena Taylor and Jim Doyle? Do you want a list of ‘special interests’ that bought Doyle his elections and tried to buy Lena ‘I’m not a county expert’ Taylor her election as county executive?
WEAC
MTEA
Tribal Interests
Public Employee Unions
GWC (whoever funds them - they are about as shadowy as you can get without being a spy)
<strike>Dennis T</strike> - ohh wait he isn’t a group - he was one person.And since when are real - raw crime stats used to prove that Keith is full of shit when he claims that “Wisconsin has one of the lowest violent crime rates in the Untied States “
Posted by Clint on April 28, 2008 at 0732 hrs
To tie the discussion of right to carry with gun violence is completely irrelevant.
It would be the same as saying that the way to reduce drunk driving is to get cars off the street.
Thats how rediculous it is for the anti-gunners to be against concealled carry as a way to reduce crime.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 28, 2008 at 0923 hrs
It is just as ridiculous for you to keep walking into the “need to justify” trap too.
It is not the Bill of Justification people, it’s the Bill of Rights.
Now, if you want to actually do something about the mess you have allowed yourselves to get into, go here; http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com/
It does not make a dang bit of difference who win or looses the next election. The fact is that your need to fight for your liberty will never end, so you better learn how to fight back 24/7/365.
DITCH “CONCEALED”. You can’t legally carry a gun that way and the only thing keeping the law prohibiting concealed carry constitutional is your option to lawfully open carry.
There is a plan for success in Wisconsin and it is in motion. This is a lot of work. We need good people who will accept personal responsibility to help carry the water.
If you go looking on the NRA website for more information, you will not find it there.
Posted by ccwtrainer on April 28, 2008 at 1518 hrs
Now, if you want to actually do something about the mess you have allowed yourselves to get into, go here; http://www.wisconsinpatriots.com/
You’re pretty accusatory there ccwtrainer.
I’ve been pretty active in this area for a many years. I think the first time I worked a booth for the wcca was in 2001 or 2002.
I understand what the bill or rights guarantees, and I also understand that we lose our rights incrimentally and getting them back may be incrimental as well.
If you want to get hacked off at someone, you’re picking the wrong guy. I’m not your foe.
So hang up the self-righteousness and lets start to act like we are all in this toghether.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 28, 2008 at 1543 hrs
Do I know you?
What we are doing is not supported by the WCCA, the NRA or any of the household name gun groups (NRA, WRPA, Pink Pistols), lobbyists or “gun guy’s” like Jim Fendry.
I have also raised over ten thousand dollars for the WCCA, and spent many hours and days working with legislators at the Capitol. So what? What you may have done many years ago, just as what I may have done many years ago gets no points for either of us today. What we tried to do failed, twice.
Many of your posts include some form of justification and I was grabbing your ankles. Why is justification necessary for something we already have? It’s like debating the final score of a Packer game on Monday. What are you hoping to change? It’s over. Let’s move on.
Wisconsin’s constitution says we won! Now, everyone (including law enforcement) needs to believe it and accept it.
Posted by ccwtrainer on April 28, 2008 at 1814 hrs
If “concealled” is such a bad word, why do you have ccwtrainer as your handle?
Many of your posts include some form of justification and I was grabbing your ankles. Why is justification necessary for something we already have?
You are just being arguementative.
I realize that we already have the right to carry.
I also realize that if I strap on and walk outside i’m almost certain to get arrested for disorderly conduct.
I also recognize that the federal income tax is illegal, but i gave uncle sam a good 50 grand a few weeks ago when i filed my income taxes.
I may know the truth, but i’m unfortunately not prepared to go to jail for it.
Many of your posts include some form of justification and I was grabbing your ankles. Why is justification necessary for something we already have?
You aren’t making an ounce of sense.
We have the right to free speech but I’ll explain every day why free speech is ‘justified’ and why its a good idea.
Our founding fathers ‘justified’ the reason they wrote the second amendment in their other writings. Now your self-righteous pompous ass is going to take me to task?
You are misguided. And I’ll bet every liberal-anti-gunner left reading this thread is just LOVING watching 2 people who are suppose to be on the same side of an issue go at it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 0928 hrs
I’ll bet every liberal-anti-gunner left reading this thread is just LOVING watching 2 people who are suppose to be on the same side of an issue go at it.
A shootout at the “CC Corral”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 0936 hrs
I am so glad you asked.
I train people so they can carry a gun in almost 4/5 of the United States. Some of those states require concealment. I personally do both styles of carry, depending upon the circumstances (but that is also legal for me to choose). I conceal my firearm at church, at the State Capitol and State Fair as just a few examples - all for different reasons.
As to why I want all of you in Wisconsin to eliminate the word “concealed” is IT’S ILLEGAL.
Posted by ccwtrainer on April 29, 2008 at 0941 hrs
I conceal my firearm at church, at the State Capitol and State Fair as just a few examples - all for different reasons.
Do you live in Wisconsin?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 1027 hrs
I thought I have been obvious all along that I do not live in Wisconsin, and that I fully enjoy liberty.
You have mistakenly thought me as “self righteous” when I am really just not oppressed. I understand that your knowledge is limited to your own experience and daily life. I have no interest in returning to your world any longer than it is necessary to restore liberty.
If you loose your defensive attitude and re-read my posts, perhaps they may make more sense to you now. I am living in your future and reporting to you how life will someday be for you.
Try being more open minded and look ahead instead of behind you. People who dwell on the past usually do so because they think they have nothing to look forward to, or they unwilling to take any future risks because they have failed before when the did. I will predict with a good amount of certainty that you will like your future much more than the past. I’m there now.
Posted by ccwtrainer on April 29, 2008 at 1242 hrs
You have mistakenly thought me as “self righteous”
I have no idea where I got that idea from… hmmmm
Now, if you want to actually do something about the mess you have allowed yourselves to get into, go here;
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 29, 2008 at 1247 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134055
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:03 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 113
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:12 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).