Representative Bob Gannon has stirred some controversy with this press release today:
The shooting this weekend at the East Town Mall in Madison makes clear that the leftist theory that a gun symbol inside of a circle with a line through it does not make the citizens of this state safer. It is evident that the criminal whom shot off his pistol at the mall either couldn’t read the gun ban sign or he didn’t comprehend the universal symbol that is now referred to as a “target rich environment”?
Personally I’ve never been in East Town Mall, as I refuse to spend my money at any business that believes my second amendment rights have to be left in my car. I’ve been unable to get a safe and secure feeling with the extra mall security that is now in place, yes, those individuals carrying nothing more lethal than a flashlight and maps explaining how to get to the coffee shop. I’m sure these employees are there to help clean up the mess, as an unprotected shopper gets caught in the criminal cross fire.
Currently our university students are as unprotected as the shoppers at this mall. Unfortunately, these students don’t have the option of studying at a different state college, as I have the option of shopping at other retailers, as all state universities have implemented the “target rich environment” theory.
AB 363 is in process in the state legislature at this time, and needs to get passed quickly so that students have a fighting chance if a criminal element picks their campus as the location of their next shootout. This bill allows students, faculty, and visitors, the same rights of self-protection as are enjoyed by state residents throughout this fine land.
Wisconsin does not have a death penalty law, but with significant practice and careful aim, law abiding citizens can help clean our society of these scum bags. Criminals no longer have any fear of our courts or our prisons, so it’s time that the citizens of this fine state stand up and fight back. A gang banger in the mall with a gun is going to think twice if there could be a law abiding CCW holder standing behind them fully prepared to shoot center mass, as this is how you’re trained to eliminate the threat these creeps pose to you, your family, and all law abiding citizens unwillingly dragged into their public crime spree.
He had me up until that last paragraph. I agree that gun free zones merely serve to disarm the good guys while having, at best, no deterrent effect on the bad guys. I also agree that allowing people to legally carry weapons on campus, if they so choose, is a good thing.
But then we get to that last paragraph. I believe that Gannon is trying to express the common sense idea that good guys with guns deter, or limit the damage of, bad guys with guns from behaving badly. Unfortunately, his rhetoric comes off as advocating violent vigilantism.
As someone who often carries a weapon, I pray that I never, ever, have to use it. And if I do, it will only be as a last-ditch effort to preserve my life or the life of someone else. Encouraging people who carry weapons to use them to “fight back” is reckless and dangerous for everyone involved. No, don’t use your weapon to “clean up our society.” Only use them to as a last resort to preserve a life.
Furthermore, as a passionate supporter of exercising our Right to Bear Arms, Gannon’s comments are frustrating because they damage the cause by playing to the worst emotions of those who oppose our rights. It feeds their fear that 2nd Amendment supporters are a bunch of yahoos looking to shoot someone. The fight to protect and expand our 2nd Amendment rights has come a long way in the last 20 years by saying and demonstrating that armed, law-abiding citizens are a net positive to our society. Gannon’s rhetoric is not helpful. I fear that his last paragraph may have torpedoed the campus carry bill for which he advocates.
Define “yahoo” and “yahoos looking to shoot someone.”
There’s no law against yahoo-ism, right? Almost anyone can carry. There’s no requirement that I actually have any skill at identifying the proper target in a real-world situation, much less have the skill to hit them “center mass” at the random distance I’ll encounter in the real world.
You’re one of the good guys who practices proper trigger discipline and visits the range often enough to keep in shape. You think there are “yahoos” out there. You know how they talk. You know their gun love borders on fetishism. You know there’s plenty of people who encourage and thrive on yahoo-ism. You know a fraction of them are posers, and that . You’re just upset that an elected official capable of writing laws is acting like a “yahoo.” Obviously he feels safe in appealing to his “yahoo” constituency. Oh, wait – he’s the Assembly rep for West Bend?
So you dream that you’ll be the guy in the white hat who saves a life, but you also believe there could be a number of yahoos in that crowd, and that because they’re not as skilled as you, they could make a mistake, and perhaps even cancel out the life you saved because the yahoo took an innocent life.
So why is saving a life part of your daydream, but the yahoos aren’t?
Why will adding a random number of randomly-skilled shooters to a situation deter the bad guy who’s already decided to do wrong, and how will the additional yahoos limit the damage to the rest of the crowd?
John and Owen:
I agree with both of you in some regards. Owen has a great take on Gannon’s last paragraph; it will do more damage than good.
And with John about the yahoo that wants to be a hero is what scares me. Very few that have a CCW have had much for training or experience. I know a number that would have a hard time loading the weapon let alone firing it accurately. Couple that with the speed at which an armed confrontation occurs and we have un-aimed bullets all over the place. Hopefully those yahoos take off a body part of their own before they hurt an innocent.
Gannon is sort of West Bend’s version of Trump. Don’t say Mark Belling didn’t warn you guys.
Now since Bob reads this site, I will say that I do agree with 90% of his positions, he’s just not PC on how he expresses them. And post-Trump I’m more understanding and appreciative of the raw open dialogue that Bob engages in even if I do not always agree on specifics.
Someone has to replace Glenn now that he’s off in DC voting with the establishment for Omnibus.
I’m with Owen on this one.
However, compared to liberals yelling “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon” about law enforcement officers, this is a nothing comment about criminals by comparison.
Liberal nonsense against law enforcement officers in the war against criminals, is still 1000 times worse than this. A “tickle” compared to liberal rhetoric.
I’ll grant the left is looking for wingnut statements like this to help make their case for them but also agree that this thought process is the feeling of more gun holders than gun rights advocates care to acknowledge .
I can accept if not agree with concealed carry
I can’t accept folks spoiling for a fight
I Would love to see how all the badasses with guns like the representative would do in a real fight ( like when we were kids )
My sense ? The bigger the gun, the more longing the person is for some action the more ass whippings they got as a kid in real fights .
The gun is the great equalizer and what a sick proposition that !