“Concealed weapons in Wisconsin have been illegal for over 100 years, and we have one of the safest states in the whole country,” Sen. Judith Robson, D-Beloit, said....Choose your fantasy.
“I can’t imagine Halloween on State Street. … What a disaster that would be for Madison,” Robson said. “I can’t imagine going to the mall knowing the person next to me may have a concealed [weapon].”...
“This is an important issue for people who want to protect themselves [and to have] control of their own destiny,” Sen. David Zien, R-Eau Claire, said.
December 7, 2005
The concealed carry law in Wisconsin.
Last night, the Wisconsin Senate passed a bill to legalize the concealed carrying of weapons. This has been a hot button issue around here for years.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
31 comments:
If I felt the need to carry a weapon, I would not let the law stop me.
However, having lived and worked in Wis all my life, including some of the nastier areas of Milwaukee, I have never felt the need.
This law seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. A problem that does not exist
“Concealed weapons in Wisconsin have been illegal for over 100 years, and we have one of the safest states in the whole country."
A very conservative argument, but OTOH it's hard to argue just based on correlation. Vermont allows anyone to carry a concealed weapon without even a permit (and has for years), and it's also one of the safest states in the whole country. (I believe safer than Wisconsin, but I'd have to double-check).
This is one of those issues on which there seems marginal factual basis one way or the other. There is some evidence that concealed carry reduces crime rates. There is even less evidence, but some rationale, that they might increase accidents or "in the heat of anger" armed confrontations.
This lack of good substantive evidence, of course, makes the issue perfect for a pure application of ideology.
Those who believe that they should control the actions of others strongly oppose concealed carry. Those who believe that individuals should control their own destinies strongly support it.
Much lightning on the horizon; litttle change in the weather.
Debate is not likely to clarify things. I have rarely seen such studied ignorance and error as that the MSM displays when it comes to firearms. It is as if we discussed fire prevention starting with a belief that fires need heat,air, and a fuel such as milk or sand.
In Wisconsin, isn't the legislature in a presumably limited period of grace to pass a law before the courts take action in furtherance of the constitutional amendment?
"“I can’t imagine Halloween on State Street. … What a disaster that would be for Madison,” Robson said. “I can’t imagine going to the mall knowing the person next to me may have a concealed [weapon].”..."
Ah, yes, but while you may feel some discomfit at the possibility that the guy next to you may be carrying a firearm, imagine the comfort I, as the mugger / rapist / whatever, feel approaching you, knowing that you aren't carrying firearms. Having a concealed weapons scheme dramatically changes the calculus when deciding whether or not to attack them: unless they're wearing a "fuck Bush" t-shirt, or they have a Kerry bumper sticker, you have to assume they're carrying, and thus, you could get shot.
Opponents of a similar law in Minnesota predicted dire consequences. It hasn't played out that way. I think advocates lose credibility when reality fails to line up with their rhetoric.
Here in CO, there has been no increase in shooting deaths, and only a relatively small number of people avail themselves of the law.
But when I was in AZ, there were a lot more, and I had to have a sign posted at the plant where I worked stating that guns were not allowed (for corporate liability reasons). Needless to say, there was an armory in the cars in the parking lot.
And in UT, I remember a story about when the VP came into town. The Republican convention and the Secret Service had a go-around over guns. Finally, apparently, they provided gun lockers for all the guns there so that the VP could speak.
Oh, and the law firm I worked for in SLC paid for the CCW class. I think at least half the attys. there had permits.
I think that the culture of a state has a lot to do with how many avail themselves of the CCW laws. I am just surprised that CO is that different from UT and AZ.
Here in CO, there has been no increase in shooting deaths, and only a relatively small number of people avail themselves of the law.
But when I was in AZ, there were a lot more, and I had to have a sign posted at the plant where I worked stating that guns were not allowed (for corporate liability reasons). Needless to say, there was an armory in the cars in the parking lot.
And in UT, I remember a story about when the VP came into town. The Republican convention and the Secret Service had a go-around over guns. Finally, apparently, they provided gun lockers for all the guns there so that the VP could speak.
Oh, and the law firm I worked for in SLC paid for the CCW class. I think at least half the attys. there had permits.
I think that the culture of a state has a lot to do with how many avail themselves of the CCW laws. I am just surprised that CO is that different from UT and AZ.
Sorry about the double post. Blogger problems.
I had just told myself that one of the advantages of the word verification Ann uses is that it eliminates double posting. I stand corrected. It USUALLY eliminates double posting.
Ann, I am sad to see that you consider the notion of armed citizen protecting themselves against criminals to be a "fantasy". Is it a fantasy to believe that people with spare tires in their trunks are better prepared to deal with a flat tire?
I have a CCW permit, and carry my .45 in an over-shoulder computer case. Passed my federal and state background checks, which would not necessarily be true for some of my interlocutors. When asked about my 'murse,' I tell them I am getting in touch with my yang side, which seems to convince here in Boulder.
I would like to concur in Jonathan's remarks. As I have before mentioned, I teach personal protection to women. About a third of the women have been the victims of violent rape, and are very focused students indeed. They have no wish to undergo it again. My job is to help them get to the point where they can avoid it, at all costs. Violence may be instigated impersonally, but it is always received individually. My thought is, if it saves just one life - espeically if that one life is saved at the expense of excising one violent dirtbag - I'll be proud of having done my work.
It is sometimes said that the need for a firearm is rare, this sort of thing never really happens, if it did you'd know someone who has used a firearm, etc. It happens. I've broken up an armed assault - without firing. I have 2 friends who have broken up, respectively, a burglary, and an assault which left a kid in a coma and would otherwise have left him dead - with firing. It happens. And when it does, it's better to be armed and competent in advance.
Assuming you can pass the background tests, are mentally calm and stable, and are willing to put in plenty of practice time, I think you have a social obligation to get your CCW permit. It helps us all be safer.
Why do people assume that Ann has voiced her opinion on the issue? She's certainly taken aim at the hyperbole on both sides, but other than that, I can't determine a position for or against.
While I have no problem with concealed carry, I think it is hyperpole to suggest that anything will allow people to control their own destiny.
I am 57. I grew up owning guns and worked my way through law school as a gunsmith. I have shot competitively with both rifle and handgun, though not in many years.
Nonetheless, I have mixed feelings about concealed carry. The problem is that concealed carry means a handgun, and just as my experience tells me that firearms are sometimes necessary, it also tells me that handguns are far too prone to accidents, especially in the hands of a an occasional user. Unless it is ingrained in one by training over time, it is far too easy to point a handgun carelessly, and far too hard to hit what you mean to, particularly when scared and keyed up. This is particularly true of the compact handguns most likely to be chosen to carry.
A long gun, by preference a shotgun, is a much more effective and safe home protection weapon.
Because concealed carry means handguns, I worry that even with the mandatory training courses, there will be some accidents.
Nonethless I do support concealed carry because I appreciate that people can be in circumstances where the need is there, and denying them the ability to defend themselves is deeply wrong.
Still, I hope that concealed carry does not encourage widespread carrying, and I hope that it does not by a "penumbra" effect (heh) make a handgun the preferred firearm to keep at home.
It seems odd that Sen. Robson doesn't realise that there are probably people in that crowd carrying illegally, without any background check or training, in the absence of a concealed carry law.
It's not so much "knowing that the person nexto me may have a concealed weapon" as "having to admit that they might, after having the possibility legalised and codified", it seems.
Peter: It seems to me that people are responding to my imperative: Choose your fantasy. Clearly, fantasy #2 is more popular around here.
Let me just say that I'm an agnostic on this one. I think both sides are overemphasizing the good of their own side and ignoring the bad. Whichever side wins, some good and some bad will come of it. The folks who were taking the microphone in the legislature were not conceding this simple truth.
Personally, I'd like to be able to have the choice to carry a gun. There are things I'd like to do that I don't do because I'm afraid someone might attack me. But if I had that gun and I knew how to use it and someone came at me, well then, what would happen?
Kirk Parker,
Yes you are accurate--declining firearms accidents would suggest that my supposition is likely all wet.
Do you have a source for firearms accidents over time?
All I could find in a quick google was accidental deaths with kids which seem to be relatively rare, if tragic events.
"Personally, I'd like to be able to have the choice to carry a gun. There are things I'd like to do that I don't do because I'm afraid someone might attack me. But if I had that gun and I knew how to use it and someone came at me, well then, what would happen?"
Do you mean that you're not sure you'd be able to shoot in self-defense, or that you're worried about the moral and/or legal ramifications of doing so?
Ann questioned;
"But if I had that gun and I knew how to use it and someone came at me, well then, what would happen?"
They wilt, 95 times in 100. We sometimes role-play this in class, with plastic guns, of course. The women can see very clearly the difference between 1) cringing back, weeping, and saying, "O God. Please! Please don't make me do it. I don't want to have to shoot you." 2) Taking a cover position, locking the sights just left of the perp's sternum, flicking the safety off, and saying, "Hands up, asshole. On your knees. Cross your ankles. Fall forward on your face. Arms to the side, palms up." If you know how to use it, if it's clear you would really like to use it, it shows in voice and body language. They'll nearly always decline to throw the black dice under those circumstances.
Besides competence, one of the things you have going for you as a confident armed woman is that bullies have been bullied, often by their mothers. The big authoritative bitch-voice reverts them, and they become bullied again.
There've been interviews with jailed felons who were shot by citizens. They all have the same emotional response: indignation. The citizen cheated, didn't play the game correctly. The dirtbags were anticipating all the pleasures of the 'shroom being rational and convincing, crying, collapsing and begging for their life, and instead they were simply shot, many right after saying, "Now, now, put the gun down. You know you don't really mean to use it," and walking forward.
Ann, you want real fun, take one of John Ross's classes, or better still, go to Gunsite.
I'm not so sure I want to be around other people learning to use guns. They can't all be good guys. But they all have guns.
"I'm not so sure I want to be around other people learning to use guns. They can't all be good guys. But they all have guns."
-- If I didn't know better, there are moments when I'd take you for an urbanite surrounded by lefty law professors. Generally speaking they are all good guys, and good gals. After all, they are expecting after the class to put themselves under the scrutiny of the FBI and the Colorado (or Wisconsin) Bureau of Investigation. And we are very rigorous dealing with complete newbies: one instructor per shooter, the gun is not allowed to deviate from a safe direction, etc.
Ms Althouse, one of the things this blog is bringing you is adventure and new experience in ways you never envisioned when you started it. I think this an example. Call them at Gunsite (http://www.gunsite.com, 928 626 4565) and tell them you're a newbie. This can be one of the year's best adventures.
The stats above:
91% - the attacker runs away.
8% - the attacker fights.
1% - results in fatality.
Question: what happens in the 7% of situations where the attacker fights but the situation does not result in fatality, and what fraction of the 1% of incidents resulting in fatality is the fatality a person other than the attacker?
I do, however, agree with people take classes to learn how to shoot. Carrying is all well and good, but if your hand shakes so much you look like you couldn't hit a barn door, the effect is diminished.
Simon: "If I didn't know better, there are moments when I'd take you for an urbanite surrounded by lefty law professors. Generally speaking they are all good guys, and good gals."
Well, they are unarmed. They believe themselves to be good, not that I trust people with that belief. But that's not why I'm not physically afraid of them. There are a lot of people in this world who believe they are good that I would be physically afraid of -- even if I were armed.
Anyway, I was talking about the concealed carry law in the faculty lounge yesterday and said I might consider carrying a gun so I could be free to walk places that I'm currently afraid of. After they laughed at me, they started right in talking about how they'd used machine guns and flame throwers and various other impressive weapons. I thought that was funny.
What everyone has to realize is that criminals do not buy guns legally at gun stores, they buy them on the streets and do not follow the laws like the rest of us. They ARE GOING to carry concealed weapons if we like it or not. What we are trying to do is create a situation where the crimials are not the only ones that have the right to defend themselves. Law biding citizens should at the very least be able to defend their families and property and businesses with the same rights the crimial element takes. They will certainly think twice before commiting a crime(robbery, home invasion, carjackings, etc., this has been overwhelmingly statistically proven) when they beleive there to be a chance of being confronted with force. It is amazing to me that we are more worried about the rights of dirtbags than we are law biding honest hardworking citizens. As for myself I would like to get a concealed carry permit. I carry large amounts of cash from my business to be deposited at a local bank. And usually this takes place later at night. Many times I have been walking out thinking... boy it would be so easy if someone was casing me. Just walk up jam a gun in my face and there would be nothing I could do about it, because the law is protecting the crimial. Now, I am not saying we hand out concealed carry permits like candy. You would have to state your reason for needing it and of course have the corresponding background checks. Liberals have a funny way of jumping behind conservatives when the proverbial crap hits the fan. Lets face it there IS crime in Wisconsin, plenty of it, and we must never cower to that element but meet it head on with adamantine determination. At some point in you life you are going to have to defend yourself, what you have to decide is how you are going to react to that situation. Be a victim or make the dirtbag the victim. It's your call.
If I was a criminal and knew that the public or person to be my prey was "unarmed", due to our wonderful justice system, hmm, what does this add up to be, advantage for the good guy who did the "right" thing by giving up his right to bear arms, or the advantage the bad guy who advantage because they now have all the weapons? The law cannot possibly stop all criminal attemtps on you or your family's attempts at protecting itself. Unfortunately, we must use the very thing the criminals are using to protect ourselves, which is what the government would have us do without! Do they actually think they are able to protect every citizen out there by themselves? That's what they are trying to setup, isn't it? no one believes this crap that if there are less guns in peoples homes, there will be less crime. balogna. Even if the governent could disarm all of the honest tax paying citizens of the USA, they cannot stop all the illegal guns that are out there. And dont slap that crap on me that if we didnt have guns in our homes, the crooks couldnt get any guns. This is a true story I've heard regarding how these thugs get their firepower. Now you'll have a public that's unable to protect itself and family. If anybody forced me to give up my weapons, and I lost a confrontation (by death or other tragic results) due to the fact that I could not protect myself because of some law a polition supported, I would not want to be that politician. I hope that doesn't happen to him/her. but its going to happen and keep happening if they continue to disarm the honest american. The Thug to Cop ratio is far to extreme to expect law inforcement to protect us. I don't understand how they wouldn't invite our enthusiasm to help them help us. That, I believe, would be a much better way of dealing with this gun issue than just disarming everyone. Tell me, just how many of the dishonest gun holders would you see give up their guns as opposed to the honest citizen? I could go on and on here, but I think I've made my point. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day.
If I was a criminal and knew that the public or person to be my prey was "unarmed", due to our wonderful justice system, hmm, what does this add up to be, advantage for the good guy who did the "right" thing by giving up his right to bear arms, or the advantage the bad guy now has because they now have all the weapons? The law cannot possibly stop all criminal attemtps on you or your family's attempts at protecting itself. Unfortunately, we must use the very thing the criminals are using to protect ourselves, which is what the government would have us do without! Do they actually think they are able to protect every citizen out there by themselves? That's what they are trying to setup, isn't it? no one believes this crap that if there are less guns in peoples homes, there will be less crime. balogna. Even if the governent could disarm all of the honest tax paying citizens of the USA, they cannot stop all the illegal guns that are out there. And dont slap that crap on me that if we didnt have guns in our homes, the crooks couldnt get any guns. This is a true story I've heard regarding how these thugs get their firepower. Now you'll have a public that's unable to protect itself and family. If anybody forced me to give up my weapons, and I lost a confrontation (by death or other tragic results) due to the fact that I could not protect myself because of some law a polition supported, I would not want to be that politician. I hope that doesn't happen to him/her. but its going to happen and keep happening if they continue to disarm the honest american. The Thug to Cop ratio is far to extreme to expect law inforcement to protect us. I don't understand how they wouldn't invite our enthusiasm to help them help us. That, I believe, would be a much better way of dealing with this gun issue than just disarming everyone. Tell me, just how many of the dishonest gun holders would you see give up their guns as opposed to the honest citizen? I could go on and on here, but I think I've made my point. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day.
If I was a criminal and knew that the public or person to be my prey was "unarmed", due to our wonderful justice system, hmm, what does this add up to be, advantage for the good guy who did the "right" thing by giving up his right to bear arms, or the advantage the bad guy now has because they now have all the weapons? The law cannot possibly stop all criminal attemtps on you or your family's attempts at protecting itself. Unfortunately, we must use the very thing the criminals are using to protect ourselves, which is what the government would have us do without! Do they actually think they are able to protect every citizen out there by themselves? That's what they are trying to setup, isn't it? no one believes this crap that if there are less guns in peoples homes, there will be less crime. balogna. Even if the governent could disarm all of the honest tax paying citizens of the USA, they cannot stop all the illegal guns that are out there. And dont slap that crap on me that if we didnt have guns in our homes, the crooks couldnt get any guns. This is a true story I've heard regarding how these thugs get their firepower. Now you'll have a public that's unable to protect itself and family. If anybody forced me to give up my weapons, and I lost a confrontation (by death or other tragic results) due to the fact that I could not protect myself because of some law a polition supported, I would not want to be that politician. I hope that doesn't happen to him/her. but its going to happen and keep happening if they continue to disarm the honest american. The Thug to Cop ratio is far to extreme to expect law inforcement to protect us. I don't understand how they wouldn't invite our enthusiasm to help them help us. That, I believe, would be a much better way of dealing with this gun issue than just disarming everyone. Tell me, just how many of the dishonest gun holders would you see give up their guns as opposed to the honest citizen? I could go on and on here, but I think I've made my point. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day.
If I was a criminal and knew that the public or person to be my prey was "unarmed", due to our wonderful justice system, hmm, what does this add up to be, advantage for the good guy who did the "right" thing by giving up his right to bear arms, or the advantage the bad guy now has because they now have all the weapons? The law cannot possibly stop all criminal attemtps on you or your family's attempts at protecting itself. Unfortunately, we must use the very thing the criminals are using to protect ourselves, which is what the government would have us do without! Do they actually think they are able to protect every citizen out there by themselves? That's what they are trying to setup, isn't it? no one believes this crap that if there are less guns in peoples homes, there will be less crime. balogna. Even if the governent could disarm all of the honest tax paying citizens of the USA, they cannot stop all the illegal guns that are out there. And dont slap that crap on me that if we didnt have guns in our homes, the crooks couldnt get any guns. This is a true story I've heard regarding how these thugs get their firepower. Now you'll have a public that's unable to protect itself and family. If anybody forced me to give up my weapons, and I lost a confrontation (by death or other tragic results) due to the fact that I could not protect myself because of some law a polition supported, I would not want to be that politician. I hope that doesn't happen to him/her. but its going to happen and keep happening if they continue to disarm the honest american. The Thug to Cop ratio is far to extreme to expect law inforcement to protect us. I don't understand how they wouldn't invite our enthusiasm to help them help us. That, I believe, would be a much better way of dealing with this gun issue than just disarming everyone. Tell me, just how many of the dishonest gun holders would you see give up their guns as opposed to the honest citizen? I could go on and on here, but I think I've made my point. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day.
If I was a criminal and knew that the public or person to be my prey was "unarmed", due to our wonderful justice system, hmm, what does this add up to be, advantage for the good guy who did the "right" thing by giving up his right to bear arms, or the advantage the bad guy now has because they now have all the weapons? The law cannot possibly stop all criminal attemtps on you or your family's attempts at protecting itself. Unfortunately, we must use the very thing the criminals are using to protect ourselves, which is what the government would have us do without! Do they actually think they are able to protect every citizen out there by themselves? That's what they are trying to setup, isn't it? no one believes this crap that if there are less guns in peoples homes, there will be less crime. balogna. Even if the governent could disarm all of the honest tax paying citizens of the USA, they cannot stop all the illegal guns that are out there. And dont slap that crap on me that if we didnt have guns in our homes, the crooks couldnt get any guns. This is a true story I've heard regarding how these thugs get their firepower. Now you'll have a public that's unable to protect itself and family. If anybody forced me to give up my weapons, and I lost a confrontation (by death or other tragic results) due to the fact that I could not protect myself because of some law a polition supported, I would not want to be that politician. I hope that doesn't happen to him/her. but its going to happen and keep happening if they continue to disarm the honest american. The Thug to Cop ratio is far to extreme to expect law inforcement to protect us. I don't understand how they wouldn't invite our enthusiasm to help them help us. That, I believe, would be a much better way of dealing with this gun issue than just disarming everyone. Tell me, just how many of the dishonest gun holders would you see give up their guns as opposed to the honest citizen? I could go on and on here, but I think I've made my point. Thank you for your time and have a wonderful day.
sorry about those repeated msg's, Not sure how that happened. If I knew how to delete those multiple entry's.... hmm.. anyone have any comments
thank you
Wisconsin and Illinois are the only two states in the U.S. right now that will not issue a carry permit. Milwaukee has a higher crime rate then most parts of chicago. Whether you think you have lived in the more troubled areas of this city, you more then likly have only had a small taste. People who would apply for a carry permit would be law obiding citizens who would use their weapons stricktly for protection. My evidence that can show this is all in a previous post. "If I felt the need to carry a weapon, I would not let the law stop me." Simply stated, those who want to carry a gun, for good or bad, ( more then likely bad ) will do so whether a law says they can or not. I would rather have the option at least to carry a gun with me for protection then feel helpless when I find myself in danger, or anyone else for that matter. Not saying this will turn everyone into a vigil anti of sorts, but crime would go down ( as studies have shown ) because people are less likely to rob a bank, or mug a person if there is even a slight chance that everyone in that building, or even that one individual, also has a gun. It is childish to think otherwise. This is how America works. It is a society where either everyone can have a gun, or no one can have a gun. And you can thank our founding fathers if you so wish, because as the constitution so kindly points out, We as americans, as shown in the second ammendment, have the right to bear arms. It should be listed as an act against the constitution to not be allowed to carry one with us. Set an age limit, or a long list of requiremnts before you are allowed to do so if you so wish. But to just toss it completly out of the option field is unamerican.
Post a Comment