It would have been more accurate to label me as a "gun rights advocate" than "gun advocate." Anyone who knows me well, knows that I certainly do not advocate guns for everyone. Don't like guns? Don't get one. Not sure of your ability or willingness to use one to protect yourself? Don't get one. Not sure of your ability to be responsible and safe in your handling of a gun? Don't get one. Not confident in your ability to keep a gun under your control and out of the hands of others? Don't get one. Don't want to know the laws? Don't get one. I advocate for the right and freedom to have the choice to have a gun available as one of many options available for one's personal security.You may remember when Isthmus did an article about me. Unlike Gold, I refused to let them photograph me for the cover. Looking at the picture they did of Gold, I'm reminded of why I didn't trust them to do a picture of me! I assumed they'd choose an unflattering picture. They've got a low angle on Gold, looking up his nostrils. He's got an unpleasant expression on his face. He's plunked squarely in front of a blocky building, which makes him look blocky. I don't know how blocky he really is, but I'd feel terrible if some unsympathetic photographer framed the background and my body to make me look bad.
It's not true that there will no longer be a reason to carry weapons openly once concealed carry laws change in Wisconsin. It will only be true that there is no longer a legal necessity to carry openly. Finally there will be a choice whether to carry openly or concealed, and under certain circumstances one option may make more sense than the other.
Joe Tarr opines that "Gold spends what seems an inordinate amout [sic] of time preparing to shoot his way out of dangerous situations." Joe is entitled to his opinion. But first, as a gun instructor, if people hire me with the expectation that I will be able to share some knowledge and improve their proficiency with a firearm and enhance their ability to survive a bad situation, I cannot simply be "adequate" with a gun. I have to be good. As good as I can possibly become. I owe it to them, because while I may be fortunate and never need a gun to protect myself or others, I can neither predict nor control the circumstances I will find myself in, or that of any person who comes to me wanting to become more proficient with a firearm or to enhance their personal and household security.
Secondly, nobody in their right mind sees "shooting their way out" as the first choice, or even second choice, for getting "out of dangerous situations." Use of a firearm always ought to be one's absolutely LAST way of getting out of a dangerous situation. Having a gun makes one's list of options a longer list than when you don't have a gun. But use of that gun belongs at the very end of the list-- when there are no other options. Anything else is irresponsible.
O'Hern suggests that public attitude and laws will quickly change if folks "go nutso" or if "gunfights erupt in a bar." Perhaps, but it should be noted than no state that has passed concealed carry has gone back and rescinded it. The predictions of blood in the streets have been made in every state that considered concealed carry legislation. Those predictions have never come true. Once Illinois stands alone as the only state not allowing concealed carry in some form, they'll still be predicting bloodshed in Illinois as a consequence of any concealed carry legislation under consideration there, even though it never came true in the other 49 states. Anti-gun people care little for the facts and much about pushing an agenda. Gun control is not so much about guns, as it is about control.
I look like a member of the Allman Brothers? Thanks Joe, you added another half-decade to my age! If you had suggested Metallica I would have been happier. Or Blue Oyster Cult-- I know, they're older, but I prefer them musically.
I didn't submit to the interview either. (The Isthmus writer made stuff up about what my refusal to be interviewed meant. He decided that my avoidance of publicity was evidence of my egotism. Whatever. If he'd approved of my politics, I'm sure the interpretation would signify modesty.)
Posts
119 comments:
I don't think he could've sounded more reasonable and confident. Illinois is a broken state in many ways. No CC is just one of them.
WV. Wow! "ookilled'
Ohio and Michigan have had concealed carry for quite some time and there have been few if any problems.
Hard to quantify any positive results, but if does seem that the car jacking trend has cooled considerably.
The concept of self-defense drives the left nuts.
The individual, in the eyes of leftists, is supposed to always expect the state to provide for his self-defense.
For some reason, the left always equates being aware of and responsible for your own self-defense with being in favor of aggression and violence.
In other words, Ann, the left is always advocating effeminacy. The masculine value of self-defense is transmuted, in the mind of the leftist, into a love of violence.
Why? Because effeminate sissies believe that the solution is for everybody to become a sissy.
You've been belaboring this issue for weeks without seeing the obvious. The problem here is that the left hates (and doesn't understand) the values of masculinity.
I don't see why you gun nuts don't depend on the cops like we do here in New York.
The police. Minutes away when every second counts.
The police. Minutes away when every second counts.
True. I lived in Fort Greene Park in NYC back during the crack epidemic of the 70s.
I was attacked by a black guy with a knife one night. I fought him off with a rare tactic. He backed me into a bunch of garbage cans. I whacked him with a lid and as he backed away I Frisbeed him with garbage can lids.
The cops arrived after it was all over.
"Aren't you packing?" they asked me.
"No," I told them.
"You've got to be fucking nuts to live in this neighborhood and not be packing heat," they told me. "By the time we get here, all we can do is pick of the body."
No individual should have the right to determine whether they survive some incident.
Only the loving, caring community group can rightfully decide that for an individual.
Or the Chicago police department.
But a community can't decide for a baby in its mother's tummy.
It's a bit complicated, but just remember, the community can rightfully decide things unless the community should stay the hell out of things.
There's a long list of each, but I can't remember it all here, but you can look it up or something.
The author, Joe Tarr, used to write for the "alternative weekly" in Knoxville. Maybe he still does, I don't know.
But his articles were like this one. Snarky asides, etc. In a word, unprofessional.
"The police. Minutes away when every second counts.
When they're not, you know, shooting innocent people in the back with their service revolvers instead of pulling out Tasers.
Or arresting people who videotape them committing crimes.
Or when they're not erroneously busting down the door of old ladies houses in search of the drug addict who lives down the street thanks to their own utter incompetence.
You're probably safer with the cops hours away when minutes count.
What kind of fucking pussy needs to show the blue hairs at Culvers who's boss on a Saturday afternoon. Impressive. Reminds of the people I went to high school with -- the complete dorks who could never get chicks, that have to somehow compensate for it.
Huh? Another completely senseless, vindictive and asinine comment, garage.
What's the matter with you?
Here's a helpful pointer on life. Women aren't looking to you for advice on who they sleep with. You really have no idea who women want to sleep with.
You'll save yourself a lot of anxiety if you take this to heart.
This guy's comment was very well done. But, the following sentence could have been rewritten to better reinforce his initial point:
"Anti-gun people care little for the facts and much about pushing an agenda. "
Should be: "Anti-gun rights people care...."
P.S.
Althouse would have had a better picture, regardless of the Isthmus.
Not all of the problem w/ that photo was the bias of the Isthmus. If you know what I mean.
(The Crypto Jew)
Really Garage, that’s the BEST you could do? You, like so many of your confreres , are just ‘phoning it these days. Is it a lack of petrol in the tank or a dearth of ideas in the brain?
OR are you really agreeing with the gun nutz, by making such a poor argument, and conceding defeat and the field to those you agree with but can’t publicly be seen acknowledging as correct?
The problem is that we don't have old school cops anymore. Now some shithead could be shooting up a school or a post office or someting and they are waiting for SWAT or a negotiator or who the fuck knows what.
If you can't shoot back it's all she wrote.
What kind of fucking pussy needs to show the blue hairs at Culvers who's boss on a Saturday afternoon. Impressive.
Sorry to belabor this remark. By "blue hairs," I assume that garage means older people, particularly women.
In my experience, it is precisely the elderly and those around them who need to have a weapon.
These people are often the last people left in an urban environment gone bad... i.e., a white neighborhood that turns black. They make easy prey for thugs.
But one thing, I didn't realize Shouting Thomas was Captain America.
Well done dude. Hee.
I just went to dinner in a cool South African Restaurant in Fort Greene. It is pretty safe these days because Guliani cleaned it up by actually arresting criminals and stoping and frisking them.
Of course the ultra-liberals in New York are putting a stop to that and who knows how bad it is gonna get.
I better start carrying around a garbage can lid.
That's his name? I can guess what they called his sister?
From Ann's posting of the article, "Anyone who knows me well, knows that I certainly do not advocate guns for everyone. Don't like guns? Don't get one. Not sure of your ability or willingness to use one to protect yourself? Don't get one. Not sure of your ability to be responsible and safe in your handling of a gun? Don't get one. Not confident in your ability to keep a gun under your control and out of the hands of others? Don't get one. Don't want to know the laws? Don't get one. I advocate for the right and freedom to have the choice to have a gun available as one of many options available for one's personal security".
Now that is a guy who understands and lives the word pro-choice. Which is why the Lefties hate him.
shoutingthomas said...
The concept of self-defense drives the left nuts.
The individual, in the eyes of leftists, is supposed to always expect the state to provide for his self-defense.
We don't always agree, but, when you are right, sir, you nail it to the wall.
(The Crypto Jew)
These people are often the last people left in an urban environment gone bad... i.e., a white neighborhood that turns black. They make easy prey for thugs.
WOW, you and Cedarford must share a loft….I didn’t realize you were a “Moby” like New Ham….well played sir.
I spent a good chunk of my life living in marginal neighborhoods. I was the victim of three attempted assaults and/or muggings. I managed to escape these scrapes without damage to myself or, unfortunately, to my assailants. Post muggings, I had a recurrent fantasy of pulling out a gun and shooting the bastards. It's amazing how much hate an incident like that can generate.....I'm of two minds about Mr. Gold. I think it's a very good thing that men like him are carrying. It puts a lot of fear and uncertainty in the life of criminals. But, on the other hand, if everyone is carrying, it puts a certain amount of anxiety and tension in the ordinary negotiations of life. I have seen people come to blows over parking place disputes.
WOW, you and Cedarford must share a loft….I didn’t realize you were a “Moby” like New Ham….well played sir.
Whatever that means.
I particularly love people who tell me that my personal experience cannot possibly be true, and that only bigotry could explain my personal experience.
So, I've lived in white neighborhoods in more than one city that had gradually emptied out of whites as everybody who could moved to the suburbs. This left, in both cases, only the elderly whites who did not have the resources to move to live in an entirely black community.
Black thugs tormented and hunted the elderly whites in those communities. It's a fact. An unhappy fact, indeed.
Did you see Clint Eastwood's "Grand Torino?"
Probably, I never should have lived in those black communities and observed this. Then I would have remained pure of heart.
You never need a gun, until you need one very badly.
Mr. Gold writes clearly and persuasively.
Chalk up another one for the citizen journalist.
Shouting Thomas, you must be a racist.
You failed to point out that the black thugs preyed on elderly blacks as well.
(The Crypto Jew)
But, on the other hand, if everyone is carrying, it puts a certain amount of anxiety and tension in the ordinary negotiations of life. I have seen people come to blows over parking place disputes.
1) As that’s not what occurs in states with Concealed Carry, it’s is a moot point….generally anyone who will spend the time and money necessary to purchase a firearm, legally, and then undergo the mandated training is the LEAST likely to whip out the ‘ole Webley-Fosbury .455 and drill the Blighter In the Liver, “That was MY parking space, I told you.”
2) Had you had a firearm and brandished it during in any of those incidents the statistics say you wouldn’t have had the opportunity to “shoot the b@stards.” When confronted, in that manner, most criminals retreat. The much quoted and disputed statistic is that firearms are used in this manner 1.5-2.0 million times yearly, in the US. The Old Codger whipping out his trusty revolver and doing the blackguard in makes the news, even though it’s a fairly rare occurrence. The times that the mugger sees the “victim” is armed and prepared to defend themselves is much more common, but seldom reported…it’s hardly a crime. So you have some selection bias in the image of the use of a fire arm. Bottom-line: having a fire arm, being prepared and trained to use it, PARADOXICALLY, makes you less likely to ever actually have to use it for its intended purpose.
3) Finally a little “tension in the ordinary negotiations of life” is no bad thing. You MIGHT treat the paperboy, barista, server, fellow standing next to you a little better, thinking they might have a fire arm….
(The Crypto Jew)
You failed to point out that the black thugs preyed on elderly blacks as well.
Good point, Dave….
Shouting, had you merely said, when neighborhoods become down-scale, and rife with, as my boss delicately puts it, “Those differently socialized”, you’d have been onto a point. Bad behavior is not something that attaches to Blacks, but Hispanics, Whites, Asians as well.
I can show you neighborhoods that are just as unpleasant that are over-run with White Trash, or M-13 Gang-bangers, or Joey-Boys. It has NOTHING to do with the RACIAL make-up, but EVERYTHING to do with the MENTAL make-up.
It’s a pity you failed to grasp that….
I can show you neighborhoods that are just as unpleasant that are over-run with White Trash, or M-13 Gang-bangers, or Joey-Boys. It has NOTHING to do with the RACIAL make-up, but EVERYTHING to do with the MENTAL make-up.
It’s a pity you failed to grasp that….
Bullshit. The incarceration rates for blacks are what they are because blacks commit a hell of a lot of crime.
Certainly, violence is not something that only blacks commit.
But crime rates for blacks are off the charts. Many times that of any other ethnic group.
You can pretend all you want. I travel, and have traveled throughout my life, in every kind of neighborhood you can imagine, from the slums of Manila to the back alleys of Bed-Stuy. It's part of the reality of being a working musician. I work with black musicians. Acknowledging the overwhelming reality of crime in black neighborhoods doesn't mean that I convict all blacks of complicity. Otherwise, how would I work with black musicians, worship in a black Baptist church, etc.?
My life depends on acknowledging reality. You can believe in fairly tales if that makes you happy. Crime does have something to do with racial makeup.
Looking at the picture they did of Gold, I'm reminded of why I didn't trust them to do a picture of me!
What commanded my attention was his modeling of safe gun handling technique. But I didn't think the photo made him look so bad -- sort of like Penn Jillette on his day off.
But the article's author is an infantile idiot:
There's an instant feeling of authority and power that comes with having a gun at your side.
A gun is not a status symbol. Authority and power comes from your personality and not from your tools. I wonder if the author pointed it at people and made "Bang Bang! noises.
The doctor quoted doesn't seem to know much about firearms, either:
"What are we going to gain by having an increased number of individuals carrying a product that has not undergone rigorous safety testing or the individuals carrying the product not having rigorous training?"
Firearms are safe when used as directed, just like knives or Skilsaws. So I do support gun safety training for people who want to carry concealed in public. This is the requirement in Arizona and I think it works well. Compare that no license is required to drive a car on one's own property, only when driving on the public roads.
Ideally every CC holder would have trained with Massad Ayoob or equivalent. But that is cost-prohibitive.
Joe, I'll put this in another was that you might understand.
Most white people avoid learning what I learned by avoiding ever walking through Bed-Stuy.
I walked through Bed-Stuy many times because musicians I wanted to work with lived there, and venues I wanted to play in did business there.
Have you ever had a reason to walk through Bed-Stuy?
Now that I own and practice with guns, I have discovered the great divide between people who don't give guns a second thought and those who treat weapons as magic totems that should be wielded only by the priestly class, cops and the military.
Hell, they're even freaked out that I carry a pocket knife.
I have a duty to defend my family. You can wait for the cops if you want, but I refuse to be part of the acceptable collateral damage by thugs and criminals, as if them stealing from or killing my family were just part of the cost of being a citizen.
Well, screw that.
(The Crypto Jew)
You Have you ever had a reason to walk through Bed-Stuy?
No, but I daresay you would avoid the L&N Club in Hazard Kentucky too, for much the same reason, or Grapevine Kentucky…and NEITHER area has a significant African-American population.
I will point out that in the 1990’s Lee, Knott, and Owsley Counties, in S-Central Kentucky, had a murder RATE per 100,000 GREATER than NYC’s…at the time Dinkins was going down in flames and Giuliani was coming to power to “Clean up” NYC. I will point out that these three Kentucky Counties have almost NO Blacks….
So yes, I could take you to a number of locations, far from the “Dangerous Darkies” and drop you off, and have a reasonable expectation you’d have a violent if not deadly confrontation…with a White Dood.
None of which “proves” White Appalachians OR Blacks are “dangerous criminals.” Merely that dangerous criminals tend to cluster together, and cluster in ethnically homogenous groupings.
(The Crypto Jew)
You and those who treat weapons as magic totems that should be wielded only by the priestly class, cops and the military.
That’s an interesting “take” on many people’s views…I will now promptly steal that.
It’s clichéd, but if I had to use “psycho-babble” I’d say the ones AGAINST gun rights are the ones projecting or compensating. They seem frightened that people, mostly they, COULD be violent…and rather than confront that human tendency they blame fire arms and argue with no fire arms, there’d be little or no violence. Which is easier than admitting, that YES, in certain circumstances, “You really WOULD have killed that b@stard over the parking space or for having dumped you for a newer/better model.”
None of which “proves” White Appalachians OR Blacks are “dangerous criminals.” Merely that dangerous criminals tend to cluster together, and cluster in ethnically homogenous groupings.
I have no idea what you are trying to prove, although whatever it is seems very important to you.
Do you have any idea what you are trying to prove?
I've known criminals of every race and variety you can imagine. I've been in the music biz my entire life.
If what you are trying to say is that blacks are no more likely to be criminals than anybody else... well you are right on an individual basis, but completely wrong on a group basis.
Once again, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to prove, nor do you.
The reality is that the black community suffers from the highest rate of criminal behavior of any ethnic or national group. Your whistling out your ass in your attempts to dispute this.
Why are you even trying?
I'll cease trying to make sense to you, as you are about to devolve into a fit of sanctimonious self-righteousness. That's usually the next step, isn't it?
Perhaps you can answer the only sane question I can answer: Why in the fuck is it so important to you to deny reality? What do you get out of it?
(The Crypto Jew)
Perhaps you can answer the only sane question I can answer: Why in the fuck is it so important to you to deny reality? What do you get out of it?
It would seem to ME, the person “denying reality” is YOU. You began this with, “…the last people left in an urban environment gone bad... i.e., a white neighborhood that turns black.” Sorry dood/doodette that’s flat-out racist…so neighborhoods go “bad” when Blacks move in?
It’s racist because you ASSUME, “making an @ss of U” that blacks are, a priori poor, antisocial, ill-educated, and criminal…what if Rev. Wright, the Obama’s, and Oprah move into the neighborhood, bringing with them their staff and production assistants, also black…has the neighborhood gone bad or moved UP-SCALE? I’d say the latter, and they might wish YOU gone…
Neighborhoods do “go bad,” but not because BLACKS move in, you Potato-Head, but because the WRONG SORT OF PEOPLE MOVE IN, irrespective of skin colour….
Had you just said, “it is precisely the elderly and those around them who need to have a weapon.
These people are often the last people left in an urban environment gone bad. They make easy prey for thugs.” You’d have been right.
As Dave points out, your “concern” and observation seems focused on the White Blue Hairs, what of the BLACK Blue Hairs, no problems with them or you just didn’t notice them or just didn’t care? It’s OK that Dekwan robs the 68 y.o. Black couple, but it bothers you if he robs the white couple?
I can’t help it if you’re a racist, but don’t expect me to stomach it without comment.
Auric Gold? You know, the criminal mastermind Goldfinger from the 1964 James Bond film was named Auric—coincidence?
I can’t help it if you’re a racist, but don’t expect me to stomach it without comment.
Go fuck yourself, asshole.
Now we know.
Announcement: The sainted Joe loves blacks and is more concerned about them than any asshole on the planet.
You're a serious, worthless asshole, Joe.
It’s clichéd, but if I had to use “psycho-babble” I’d say the ones AGAINST gun rights are the ones projecting or compensating.
I don't even know who you're talking about who is arguing against gun rights. I own guns, grew up around guns, almost all my friends own guns, in fact we were just joking over a beer at my friends place and his roomates in number of guns present compared to Waco. I can't see any of them of them open carrying to a Culvers. Whatever.
(The Crypto Jew)
Go fuck yourself, asshole.
Worthy of Descartes that reasoned response….
The sainted Joe loves blacks and is more concerned about them than any asshole on the planet.
I’m not sure where that came from, it would be better to say, “Shoutingthomas FEARS Blacks and is more concerned about them, than any @rsehole on the planet.” Wouldn’t you say?
I don’t fear/revere ANY ethnic group, I generally try to avoid the CRIMINALS in the area…sometimes they’re Black, sometimes they’re Brown, sometimes they’re Yellow and sometimes they’re White.
I love ME, and fear those who would harm ME, I don’t pick my targets on the basis of skin colour so much as I do by action and dress…a mob of 16-26 y.o. men, hanging on a corner, drinking and smoking says ”Avoid this street corner, if you can.” They can be Latinos, Blacks, Whites, Asians, 16-25 y.o. men, lounging on street corners bodes no good…
Joe, you're a sanctimonious fucking asshole.
If I were standing next to you, I'd kick you in the nuts.
Now, go fuck yourself.
We know that your heart bleeds for blacks.
You're just a no account, worthless asshole, Joe.
I'm not trying to reason with you.
As I said, if I was standing next to you, I would kick you square in the nuts.
You're a regular God damned saint, Joe.
(The Crypto Jew)
I don't even know who you're talking about who is arguing against gun rights. I own guns, grew up around guns, almost all my friends own guns, in fact we were just joking over a beer at my friends place and his roomates in number of guns present compared to Waco. I can't see any of them of them open carrying to a Culvers. Whatever.
The Guilty Flee Where No Man Pursueth….It was an observation, if you loudly want to proclaim, “Look this is NOT how I think! No, NO I don’t think that way” feel free…I addressed you DIRECTLY early on….
You’re still Weak Beer today Garage….So far you’ve argued like Ritmo or MUL….and that’s not saying much.
(The Crypto Jew)
WOW, Shouting, who can compete with the intellects here today, between you and Garage you could light, maybe, a 40 watt bulb…..
You don't have an intellect, Joe.
You're a fucking sanctimonious idiot.
You just proved it.
I'm looking forward to the day when that act earns you a kick in the nuts.
You've got it coming, asshole.
Now, go ahead and answer me.
I'll call you a fucking sanctimonious idiot all day if that will make you happy.
You're a fucking sanctimonious idiot, Joe. A worthless piece of shit.
(The Crypto Jew)
You don't have an intellect, Joe.
You're a fucking sanctimonious idiot.
You just proved it.
I'm looking forward to the day when that act earns you a kick in the nuts.
You've got it coming, asshole.
Now, go ahead and answer me.
I'll call you a fucking sanctimonious idiot all day if that will make you happy.
You're a fucking sanctimonious idiot, Joe. A worthless piece of shit.
I was wrong, not a Moby a COMEDIAN…you’re Sam Kinnison, over-the-top and shouting…I get it now…this is shtick you’re running…I apologize.
From the article: What are we going to gain by having an increased number of individuals carrying a product that has not undergone rigorous safety testing
This is a clear example of someone having been educated beyond his intelligence.
Tim Gunn needs to get his hands on him-he could look pretty good with a makeover...I think.
I was held up one night...while my pants were down...in a park. I thought the guy was going to blow me. Instead he pretended to get on his knees, pulled out a gun, took my pants off and my shoes and ran.
I had to hail a cab while pantless, of course the cops came first, that was fun.
He wasn't even that hot. So not worth it.
There's an instant feeling of authority and power that comes with having a gun at your side.
I found the above comment by the Isthmus reporter to be suggestive. It really is all about the power, for lefties, isn't it?
What are we going to gain by having an increased number of individuals carrying a product that has not undergone rigorous safety testing
Hysterical.
Has this doctor ever bothered to research this issue at all?
So yes, I could take you to a number of locations, far from the “Dangerous Darkies” and drop you off, and have a reasonable expectation you’d have a violent if not deadly confrontation…with a White Dood.
I think the point you're missing is that blacks deliberately target whites. So, bad neighborhoods being equal, shoutingthomas and elderly whites are MUCH more likely to be assualted by blacks than whites.
FBI Hate Crime stats prove that blacks are the most racist demographic in America. Look it up.
Dotor_Libtard: What are we going to gain by having an increased number of individuals carrying a product that has not undergone rigorous safety testing
Jay: "Hysterical.Has this doctor ever bothered to research this issue at all?"
Note the hypocrisy too. That doctor will never call on schools to teach students how to safely handle a firearm. Millions on safe sex practices, rolling condoms over bannanas, but not a dime to protect themselves from handgun accidents.
Titus, he should have just grabbed your wallet while your pants were down and your mind elsewhere. Guess he didn't like your hog.
A good reason NOT to go commando when cruising.
The crypto Joe has been thoroughly trained in PC language skills and wants to pass on his knowledge.
Geez, the article has 3 comments.
He should just link to here for discussion. Although I doubt the liberals from Madison could handle themselves here.
Interesting blog and comment thread. I am used to seeing the same arguments over and over again at volokh.com, with all their 2nd Amdt. blogging. Here, it is a lot fresher.
The individual, in the eyes of leftists, is supposed to always expect the state to provide for his self-defense.
I think that this is part of it. The left is fundamentally communitarian, while the right is fundamentally individualistic. So, from their point of view, some individual here or there sacrificed for the benefit of the collective is acceptable collateral damage. Not though from the point of view of those individuals.
What it inevitably comes down to though is that collectivism does not work as well as individualism. Not in the economy, and definitely not when it comes to protection against human violence on the individual basis (I distinguish here the case of violence by organized groups, such as countries, Mafia, etc.)
the same arguments over and over again at volokh.com, with all their 2nd Amdt. blogging. Here, it is a lot fresher.
Something about the tone on Volokh disturbs me. Its as if they are more in love with the Law than Justice. Maybe I'm not being clear, but if I was on fire I would expect to burn to death because the Law says they can't steal my neighbor's hose and water to put me out.
Since you're a regular reader/poster over there, do you see what I'm saying? Or am I reading them wrong?
(The Crypto Jew)
I think the point you're missing is that blacks deliberately target whites. So, bad neighborhoods being equal, shoutingthomas and elderly whites are MUCH more likely to be assualted by blacks than whites
Really, they do? Your citation please, and counter-balance it with statistics demonstrating that Asians target Whites, or Latinos target Whites, or that in racially mixed neighborhoods, the MINORITY race is disproportionately targeted by the majority race.
The crypto Joe has been thoroughly trained in PC language skills and wants to pass on his knowledge.
So now it’s “PC” to object to a bald, racist statement, “…the last people left in an urban environment gone bad... i.e., a white neighborhood that turns black.” (Emph. Added.) So a neighborhood goes “bad” when it turns “Black.” That’s not racist, no that’s just speaking the truth, “we all knowz what them-yar Darkies is lahk, doan we’all?”
Fen writes: "Something about the tone on Volokh disturbs me. Its as if they are more in love with the Law than Justice." The bloggers--and, I presume, many of the commenters--at Volokh are lawyers and/or acaedmics having serious discussions about the law. There's nothing wrong with the tone over there. But no, Volokh is not generally the place you want to go if you want to just spout off about something--or read the comments of people who are just spouting off.
"Althouse would have had a better picture, regardless of the Isthmus."
You clearly haven't been paying attention to the most famous Althouse photo in wide circulation.
http://cache.abovethelaw.com/uploads/2010/11/law-student-Ann-Althouse.jpg
As Dave points out, your “concern” and observation seems focused on the White Blue Hairs . . .
I was kidding about ST being a racist. I do not actually believe that every time you say something negative about the behavior of members of one race you must make the equivalent point about persons of other races.
The high rate of serious crime for young black males is one of the most heartbreaking and destructive problems our nation has. Black people know this well, as blacks are the victims of the vast majority of these criminal acts.
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence
I think these are the parts of the Constition that the liberals dwell on AFA guns go. (I know, I know.)
They assume that's the job of the governmenet, rather than the overview of the whole We the People thing.
The 2nd Amendment is there for a reason, And it wasn't to give more power to the "government" so they could take care of us like we were dependent subjects.
You never know what situation may expose you to danger where you need to protect yourself AND others.
I have never seen information that suggests that young black criminals target whites. In the part of South Carolina where I live, blacks and whites live in close proximity. There are issues with young black males being disproportionately involved in crime, but no one suggests that blacks target whites.
A few decades back, and for many decades before that, we had a bit of a problem with whites targeting blacks, at least those who crossed any of the invisible lines they were forbidden to cross.
Fortunately that habit has died out, though some Yankees do not seem to have gotten the word of its demise.
We have lots of problems, some of which are tangled with race, but the targeted crime is gone. (As to blacks targeting whites, it barely existed in the first place.)
I have no idea what a Culvers is or what that has to to with open carry versus concealed carry.
As Trooper says. Police...minutes away when seconds count.
In my location: Hours away when seconds count.
I am for open carry, if nothing else for convenience. I don't want to have to rumage around in my purse for my weapon.
Even in the most mundane of situations, maybe even a Culvers, you might need to have protection at a moments notice.
Case in point. A several years ago a deranged ex husband came into the local market and murdered his wife at her check out station. Injured several other people and threatened to take hostages. Until the owner of the market, who is always packing, shot him. (Didn't kill him). He was stabilized and tied up by other patrons until the police came.
It took them over 45 minutes to arrive from the time of the 911 call. Too late to be effective. Had it not been for the people who were armed and who took action, it could have been much worse.
Be prepared.
(The Crypto Jew)
DBQ, you must live in a fairly rural area or an area with very bad police force…45 MINUTES?! Really?
I have no idea what a Culvers is or what that has to to with open carry versus concealed carry.
In California terms, a Culvers would be as if In-n-Out also sold gelato.
Open carry is legal in Wisconsin; concealed carry is illegal. Armed people are meeting in restaurants in both states. (Guns must be unloaded in California.)
"A gun is not a status symbol. Authority and power comes from your personality and not from your tools. I wonder if the author pointed it at people and made "Bang Bang! noises."
This is both true and not true.
Weapons are frequently, over centuries and diverse cultures, symbols of status simply because the subjected are frequently disarmed. To deprive the Samurai or the Saxon or the Sikh of identifying blades was to deprive them of identity.
Over centuries and diverse cultures the right to carry a weapon identified a free man.
“…the last people left in an urban environment gone bad... i.e., a white neighborhood that turns black.”
It sounds bad, doesn't it? My wife's grandmother refused to move away after the neighborhood changed. Her place was broken in so many times that my father-in-law boarded up all the first floor windows. He was in the process of remodeling their attached garage into a mother-in-law unit when the old lady passed away, in her own house, in her own time.
Maybe the new neighbors had honed their skills on elderly widows of their own ethnicity, but there were no elderly, vulnerable, black widows buying houses in these neighborhoods for them to prey on.
Joe, you and I both missed the racist part of his sentence:
"...the last people left in an urban environment gone bad..."
Black thugs aren't people, I guess.
The rest is what we've seen the last 40 years. It isn't blackness that makes them bad, but bad urban neighborhoods are almost always poor and black (and government owned).
"They seem frightened that people, mostly they, COULD be violent…and rather than confront that human tendency..."
I think this gets it right on the nose and probably right back to original sin, which most of you have heard me go on about before.
It has to do with being fundamentally *honest* about human nature. Convincing one's self that one is not inherently capable of violence and even atrocity is a dangerous sort of denial. Humans are inherently capable and efficient killers. We are apex predators and possibly more importantly we're apex survivors.
A person who believes that people are "born good" is also likely to believe that we're most likely to conform to that happy state so long as other influences do not prevent us. So long as that initial goodness of nature is not corrupted we're going to BE good.
Thus we've got all the "it's not his fault, it's his bad childhood" excuses. Because conforming to that non-corrupt condition means conforming to the *corrupt* condition.
And so anyone, like me, pointing out that humans are inherently capable of violence is frightening because the assumption is that we must BE what we are.
It's a fundamental element of basic world view and nearly everything else is built upon it. One way or another.
BTW, I think that nit-picking about how something is expressed is mostly only useful in bolstering the self-worth of the nit-pickers.
We learn more about our world by listening to what people saw instead of insisting that it's only true if they say it *properly*.
EK: The bloggers--and, I presume, many of the commenters--at Volokh are lawyers and/or acaedmics having serious discussions about the law. There's nothing wrong with the tone over there.
I disagree. Their writings convey sense of Law for the sake of Law not Justice. For me, thats off the path.
But no, Volokh is not generally the place you want to go if you want to just spout off about something--or read the comments of people who are just spouting off.
No need to get defensive. I was merely asking Hayden if he saw the same things I saw over there. There's something about it thats disturbing but I can't seem to put my finger on it.
During my twenties, I lived for several years in East Harlem. I'm pretty sure I was the only white person on the block. I never got singled out for street crimes, although it did happen. I was burglarized repeatedly, however. I think there's an inhibition against crossing racial lines to commit violent crimes. OK, it's not quite as strong as the incest taboo, but it's definitely there.....The world is full of people who cannot safely be entrusted with a peanut butter sandwich, so I have my reservations about guns. I was in a bar one night. One of the patrons was a thuggish bully. He slapped around another guy who was much smaller. The little guy went out to his car and brought back a gun. He shot the bully four of five times. The little guy was an off duty corrections officer. I presume he had weapons training and was certified sane before being given the gun. He, nevertheless, lost it. Maybe there's an overall advantage to having a lot of armed people wander the streets, but shit happens.
I think the point you're missing is that blacks deliberately target whites. So, bad neighborhoods being equal, shoutingthomas and elderly whites are MUCH more likely to be assualted by blacks than whites
Joe: Really, they do? Your citation please
FBI Hate Crime Stats. Racially motivated attacks. Look it up.
And so anyone, like me, pointing out that humans are inherently capable of violence is frightening because the assumption is that we must BE what we are.
And I should add... the argument that this is our *nature* is interpreted as a desire to act out that nature.
If we have to be what we ARE, then arguing that we are dangerous beings must be the same thing as wanting it.
Joe: DBQ, you must live in a fairly rural area or -
Joe, have you ever lived outside of the City?
"I was in a bar one night. One of the patrons was a thuggish bully. He slapped around another guy who was much smaller. The little guy went out to his car and brought back a gun. He shot the bully four of five times. The little guy was an off duty corrections officer. I presume he had weapons training and was certified sane before being given the gun. He, nevertheless, lost it. Maybe there's an overall advantage to having a lot of armed people wander the streets, but shit happens."
I consider that a tragedy.
If the bully hadn't been conditioned to believe that little guys were no threat, he might still be alive.
FBI hate crimes statistics
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/october/hatecrime_102708
Victims
52 percent were targeted because of their race
17.1 percent were targeted because of their religious belief
15.9 were targeted because of their sexual orientation
14.1 were targeted because of their ethnicity/nation origin
Offenses
Of crimes against persons, nine people were murdered and two were raped
Intimidation accounted for 47.4 percent of crimes against persons
Simple assaults accounted for 31.1 percent
Aggravated assaults accounted for 20.6 percent
Offenders
62.9 percent were white
20.8 percent were black
9.8 percent were of an unknown race
Synova: If the bully hadn't been conditioned to believe that little guys were no threat, he might still be alive.
Now if only we could get the Left to apply that concept to foreign policy.
"Case in point. A several years ago a deranged ex husband came into the local market and murdered his wife at her check out station."
A few years ago now an "ex" attacked his ex where she worked at the Deli at Walmart here in town. He was stabbing her with a knife and one of the customers who was armed shot him dead.
The woman he was stabbing lived.
Sounds right to me.
52 percent were targeted because of their race
62.9 percent were white
20.8 percent were black
Census (2009)
White 79.6%
Black 12.9%
Do the math.
In the 90's, a guy killed his ex in the Winn Dixie here. A sargeant from the recruiting office next door put him down, IIRC.
A few responses for Fen:
“Their [Volokh] writings convey sense of Law for the sake of Law not Justice. For me, that’s off the path… No need to get defensive… There's something about it that’s disturbing but I can't seem to put my finger on it.”
I won’t go so far as to say that you’re flat out wrong in your perceptions, but I’ve just never picked up the “Law not Justice” vibe that you get from Volokh. We’ll have to agree to disagree on that point. As to my being defensive, well, perhaps I expressed myself badly. I didn’t think I was being defensive; I certainly didn’t intend to be. The idea I was getting at was simply that the folks at Volohk Conspiracy tend to maintain a rather formal, dispassionate tone, while some might find the more informal, laid-back atmosphere of Althouse more congenial. I had the thought that this might perhaps be the source of your unease, at least in part.
I’ll give you this, though: the elevation of law for the sake of law at the expense of the pursuit of justice is something that I would expect from a great many lawyers generally in this day and age—and yes, there is something disturbing about it.
No problem, EK. And well spoken.
Maybe I'm just getting a false read on Volokh.
Culvers is a fast-food chain. Far better food than McDonald's.
Somtime this past summer, open-carry aficionados -- 3 of them? -- entered the Culvers off the Beltline in Madison, just to show that they had the right to do so. They were arrested (I think the charges were dropped? Not sure, maybe a disorderly conduct is still there). One of the men does this for a living apparently -- did it in Racine or Kenosha and got a $10K court award for false arrest or something.
Auric Gold was mentioned in the news articles with these incidents. That is what Garage is referring to.
No need to get defensive. I was merely asking Hayden if he saw the same things I saw over there. There's something about it thats disturbing but I can't seem to put my finger on it.
I hadn't thought of that, but you may be correct. They may be more interested in the law, than in justice. As with Ann here, they are mostly law professors over at volokh.com, and mostly of a libertarian bent.
But I do think that there is a place for debating the law, as opposed to someone's idea of justice. One problem is that justice is supposed to be blind, but many people define justice by knowing it when they see it, or not.
The other thing to keep in mind is that 2nd Amdt. jurisprudence has advanced a lot in the last couple years, with Heller and progeny being decided in the Supreme Court. Those legal scholars that you think might be more interested in law than justice did their part. In particular, the historical legal research on gun laws in this country by Eugene Volokh there appears to have helped the cause.
Let me add though that lawyers are weird, and law professors (excluding, of course, Prof. Althouse) are even weirder. When you get enough of them together (in my family, it is either 2 or 3), they shift into lawyer mode, where they analyze most everything from a legal point of view. Pretty much every thing is viewed abstractly. I usually don't notice it, since I have lived around it for 60 years now, until, for example, my kid calls me out for it. So, I don't usually notice the problem you had over at volokh.com, because that is how I usually think anyway. Which may be why I am not married.
An armed citizenry is a polite society
What are we going to gain by having an increased number of individuals carrying a product that has not undergone rigorous safety testing
They have got to be kidding. Of all the things I would consider buying, only medicine would be more rigorously safety tested than a hand gun. When the trigger is pulled there is a controlled explosion. Guns are meant to kill whatever they are pointed at. People die when weapons are handled carelessly, and so guns are tested with great respect. Weapons have exploded in the operators hand. I was told not to wrap my fingers around the bottom of the magazine, as a malfunction might lead the energy wishing to leave the gun through that avenue. The Springfield 1911 was standard issue in the United States Armed Forces from 1911 to 1985. You can be darn sure that weapon has been tested rigorously.
David said...
I have never seen information that suggests that young black criminals target whites. In the part of South Carolina where I live, blacks and whites live in close proximity. There are issues with young black males being disproportionately involved in crime, but no one suggests that blacks target whites.
You must know something I don't. As a student at a large, state supported university in a racially diverse community, I receive emails about strong arm and armed robberies in the area of the campus. In the 6 years I have been getting these emails, the over whelming majority of perpetrators are young black males, and most of the victims white. Just saying. While there is extensive Black on Black crime, I would guess some young people view the students at this university as walking ATMs. Heck, one of my students missed class because a group of black males of high school age took his cell phone, and other things, away from him at 3 in the afternoon.
@william:
I think there's an inhibition against crossing racial lines to commit violent crimes.
This is a plausible sounding theory, but is not at all borne out by statistics. If you GIS for "black on black crime" you'll get an eyefull.
Check it out: (2009 data)
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_06.html
This is for homicides only, but:
-----
white victim, white offender: 2983
white victim, black offender: 454
--
black victim, black offender: 2604
black victim, white offender: 209
------
Here's the thing: estimated census data for 2009* shows whites at 80% and blacks at 13%.
Total homicides for 2009: 13636
Total white victims: 6568 = 48%
total black victims: 6556 = 48%
----
Many years ago I did some data-mining of the firearm mortality statistics of the CDC and found this:
Total homicides and legal interventions (ie, self-defences, police shootings)(1996 data):
all males, ages 15-24 : 4934.
white males : 1703
black males : 3104
63% of the homicides
occurred within 13% of the population; 35% of the homicides occurred within 82% of the population.
Mortality rate per 100,000:
white males 15-24 : 11.4
black males 15-24 : 112.6
The math is pretty horrifying there; it might have gotten better since then, but it still paints a stark picture of a sub-culture where violence is the norm.
*http://bit.ly/es2NdD (census.gov)
Joe,
You assume that because shouting thomas did not mention the ethnicity of every criminal in the NYC metropolitan area, that he is being racist. But it is clearly you that is being disingenuous. As far as inter racial violent crime goes, black on white crime exceeds white on black by an order of magnitude. You are wielding your weapon, false accusations of racism, without doing the basic background research. Statistically, black people commit a much higher percentage of violent crime than their percentage of the population. Numbers do not lie. The reasons for these numbers may not be racial, but the effects are. You are being purposely obtuse in order to enrage shoutingthomas, rather than refuting his argument. His argument is correct. Black neighborhoods are much more dangerous to other ethnicities than any others in this country. And using the heavily armed marijuana farmers of Kentucky as an example is also disingenuous, as all illegal drug dealers are violence-prone, no matter their ethnicity. You might as well try using the Mafia as a strawman as well. Statistics back up shoutingthomas, not you.
I live in NYC, and the bulk of what shouting thomas has said here is correct. Maybe, Joe, you will get out of your gated community and visit BedStuy, Harlem, Newark, Jersey City, the South Bronx, or one of the other black majority hell holes in this area. I have personally worked in all of them. Most recently I dove behind my truck after hearing automatic weapon fire at a set of housing projects (majority black) in Brooklyn. Hope to see you there soon.
As a photographer with 30+ years of experience, I certainly was aware of how lovely I would appear in the pictures. Freezing cold, wind blowing my hair, the photographer using a wide-angle lens about two feet from my face creating distortion. That's not what was bothering me. What bothered me was knowing that somebody was bound to take issue with the fact that I had a gun in my hand, and not in the holster. And most likely it would be a pro-gun rights person. I was correct. The day the article was published a contributor to the Wisconsin forum on opencarry.org suggested that I was illegally "brandishing" a firearm during the photo shoot. Of course this is nonsense. I can understand Ann's concern about submitting to a photographer's creative eye. 80-90% of the photos taken of me were with a holstered firearm. The art director didn't use any of those but, of course, selected the more eye-catching gun-in-hand photos. This said, I like both the photographer and Joe Tarr. They seem like decent guys. I would have preferred Joe to have written that in addition to the feeling of power and authority, he felt a sense of responsibility also when he held a gun. But I trusted him not to put words into my mouth, so I ought not to put words into his.
Dr. Hargarten also impressed me as an honest and decent man. Joe attended a session where Dr. Hargarten and I presented opposing views regarding "smart gun" technology to 2nd Year medical students at the U. of Wisconsin. The doctor likes the idea of smart guns. I much prefer guns as dumb as rocks, and think the best place for the software to be installed is between the ears of the gun owner.
I'd like to correct MadisonMan's synopsis of the "Culver's incident."
Five individuals were at the East Towne Culver's-- not to show they have a right to carry a gun-- but to have a meal and to get to know one another. With the exception of two of them, they had never met previously and were acquainted only as forum contributors on opencarry.org. This was simply a social event by individuals with a common interest, not unlike many held around the state. They were not there to prove a point or to test any laws. Those points and laws are well-established, with no further need of proof or testing. Madison police initially issues obstruction citations to two open carriers who refused to provide ID. The Madison police quickly learned that those citations were mistakes, so they were withdrawn. Subsequently, disorderly conduct citations were issued to all five individuals. Wisconsin Carry, Inc., of which I am the Secretary, has provided attorneys to defend these individuals against bogus d/o conduct charges. Additionally WCI has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Madison and Madison Police Department challenging the department's announced policy of encouraging citizens to contact the police whenever they see an armed person, even if that person is doing nothing illegal. Additionally the policy instructs police officers to illegally seize firearms. Once the disorderly conduct citations are resolved, a second lawsuit will almost certainly follow for the violation of constitutional rights of the "Culver's Five."
Auric Gold is a shiny name...but I digress.
Lawyers, guns and money...
But sadly, no Warren Zevon...
Personally? I want to know how butter was eliminated from an age old equation, only to be replaced by a friggin' attorney?
And YES, "guns or butter" was an equation.
Clarification..."Guns or butter" was an equation for a country that gave a damn about fiscal responsibility.
Anyway, sorry, Auric.
I got in the way of your conversation, just not like the way that attorneys have a way of getting involved in our collective conversations these days.
Oh, and if you see it as the same...feel free to shoot me with your gun! haha I will consider it a suicide, leaving a note to my attorney to corroborate your gun's innocence. ;)
Yes I have a shiny name, however I'm not very flashy.
Guns v Butter?
I have four pounds of butter in the refrigerator, and probably a couple hundred pounds of guns-- none of them in the fridge. What does that make me?
A: Someone you better think twice about before trying to steal my freshly-baked cookies Sunday afternoon!
I willingly shoot someone only with my camera! I hope that's not too disappointing, Penny.
P.s., big fan of the Big Bang Theory
Buttery, sugary things once a week?
Impressive discipline, Auric.
Auric,
The author of the Isthmus piece seemed to give as evenhanded portrayal of you as could be expected from that paper. However, reading your posts not only corroborates you being a good guy, it shows you to be intelligent and wise; unlike some of the angry posters earlier in the day. I hope some of those dudes aren't armed w/ anything but a new script for Prozac.
Penny,
If only! I was referring only to today, Sunday. Christmas cookies today!
However, I'm sure you have no idea of the massive sugar intake required to make me such a sweet guy. In fact I'm giving serious consideration to lobbying Congress to resume full trade with Cuba in order to ensure an adequate supply.
ndspinelli,
I don't know. Perhaps the portrayal of me was distorted to give the appearance of me as non-angry, good, intelligent and wise. I may actually have none of those qualities. Well, maybe one.
But thanks!
deleted comments guy:
THEANCIENTROMANSDIDNOTPUTSPACES
BETWEENWORDSSURLYYOUHAVENOTDEVOLVED
TOTHEPOINTWHEREYOUAREUNABLETO
COMPREHENDMYWRITINGUNLESSITCOMPLIES
WITHYOURSTANDARDSOFPARAGRAPHING.
Ha! You gotta admit, that was two long, long paragraphs. I deleted my comment, because you're not the only one.
WV: sonsoach
Stick around, Auric, you'll love word verification.
DBQ, you must live in a fairly rural area or an area with very bad police force…45 MINUTES?! Really?
VERY rural. We have, during the day approximately 5 officers/county sherrifs who cover an area of over 200 square miles, maybe even more.
The sub-station is 40 miles away from our general area. The jail is over an hour and half drive and if they have to take some one in, it removes two officers for almost the entire day.
At night we are down to two officers who do their best to try to patrol the entire area. However, they can't be everywhere and if they are at one end of the area it can take them quite a long time to get to the other.
We are used to being self reliant.
The Second Amendment, rewritten by the left:
"Citizen subjects have the duty to retreat, to hand over their goods or to be raped, to give entry to vehicle, home, or place of work for this purpose, to any that ask, especially when violence is threatened."
This of course is how the state behaves to its subjects. They expect compliance and submission.
Auric,
Good to see you here!
Regarding the Culvers incident, hasn't the WI Supreme Court ruled that, given the recently added right-to-bear arms provision in the state constitution, and given the fact that concealed carry is not legal, then by necessity open carry must be permitted? If so, this seem quite relevant, especially to the kind of charges and/or civil cases that might be brought against the arresting officers.
Word verification? Sounds exciting! (In the same sense that watching a slide presentation about sap gathering in Maine is "exciting.")
AllenS, I'm frequently out in public while wearing a loaded Glock. This is Madison, not Deadwood, South Dakota (Where they actually respected my right to carry a gun either openly or concealed.) I have to be prepared for the possibility of an encounter with the real police, so thoughts of grammar, spelling and punctuation police don't particularly faze me.
Pogo, that almost sounds how "self defence" in the UK is portrayed, although that's a bit of an exaggeration.
In Wisconsin everyone has the same right (Okay, I understand that lawyers sometimes read this blog: technically it is a privilege, not a right)to self defense.
When it comes to guns and self defense I don't draw a strong liberal/conservative or right/left line. I know plenty of liberals, even Madison liberals who completely support the right to bear arms. Few criminals care about or know the political persuasion of their victims.
Neither the liberal nor conservative political camps would wholeheartedly embrace me, since I hold beliefs guaranteed to piss off either side. We can make generalizations about the politics behind this, but I think the bottom line is that it is an individual choice. Liberals do not wish to become crime victims any more than anyone else.
"Perhaps one day, Gold's training will come in handy, but I doubt it. I've traveled the world and walked on streets at night alone in cities around the U.S., Central America and Asia, and never once been accosted. It seems far more likely that both he and I will end up falling victim to a distracted motorist, clogged artery or cancer cells than armed bandits. "
I own a fire extinguisher and a smoke detector too. I do not live in fear of my house burning with me asleep in it either. However, a pruden man takes reasonable precaustions.
Mr. Gold, that is how I would have addressed that remark.
With the exception of correctly spelling reasonable and prudent.
Rusty, that's an excellent way to state the position. Security has two aspects, there's a psychological aspect, wherein one feels safe, and then there's being in a state of actual security. The two may or may not overlap. A sense of security does not mean one is really secure. I would argue that many victims of crime probably felt safe up until the moment they became victims. It is easy to feel a psychological sense of security when living in a relatively safe society, but few take the time to ponder their real security also. I try to stay firmly rooted in the real world, identifying the tenuous nature of one's security, and how easily and unexpectedly it can be ripped away by circumstances beyond our control.
I don't whistle in the dark. I don't assume that because nothing has gone wrong nothing WILL go wrong. I don't assume there will always be outside help immediately available. But I am neither paranoid nor pessimistic. So I do not assume something will go wrong. But if it does, I'm better prepared for it.
The case I referred to might be State of Wisconsin v. Munir A. Hamdan, but there are possibly several others on point too.
Kirk, yes the Hamdan opinion, and Cole-- released on the same day in 2003, I believe, are important cases regarding open and concealed carry in Wisconsin. The lawyers here may be able to offer better analysis than I can, but as I read these opinions, the WI Supreme Court stated that the prohibition on concealed carry is not absolute, i.e., there may be circumstances when there is no practical alternative to a concealed weapon. In one's business and residence, the state's interest in prohibiting concealed weapons is at it's lowest point, whereas the individual's interest in concealment is at the highest. Consequently, it appears that as long as it is not for an illegal purpose, it is legal to have concealed weapons in one's home and place of business. The court held out the possibility of identifying other exceptions to the concealed carry prohibition, but did not bother to delve into them.
Regarding open carry, the gist of the opinion is that there must be a practical manner in which to exercise the right to keep and bear arms in Wisconsin if the Constitutionally protected right is not illusory. Since concealed carry remains illegal under most circumstances, open carry must be allowed.
Obviously there is a tension between the principles outlined by the court and the policy of the Madison police department. If one cannot be reasonably assured that one can openly carry a firearm within the city of Madison without having to deal with the police stopping you, questioning, searching, taking your private property and possibly citing you with some flimsy disorderly conduct citation when you are doing nothing more than eating and talking at a restaurant, or simply walking down the street, then one wonders if open carry is the practical manner in some communities to exercise the right that must exist.
It appears that the Madison police wish to continue to arrest for concealed carry and do everything possible to discourage open carry. I consider it to be a rather disturbing treatment of a right protected by both the federal and state constitutions.
Thanks for the clarification on the Culver's incident. It was long enough ago that my memory wasn't quite clear. It'll be interesting to see how this works out.
One thing I always want to ask folks like these WI law enforcement officials is: do you really think the residents of your state are that much less trustworthy that those of other states. Because here in WA, we've had shall-issue concealed carry since the 60s, open carry is acknowledged and trained for as legal by most of the larger law enforcement agencies, we don't even have a training requirement for issuing a Concealed Pistol License... ... ... and it doesn't cause us the slightest problem. So what's wrong with your population*?
As an illustration, here's an account of an amusing incident at a hearing at the WA state capitol. It turns out that WA has no prohibition against carrying arms in government buildings; in fact the only state government building in Olympia where you can't is the Supreme Court.
So a bunch of people turned out to testify against a bill to ban "assault weapons", and some of them were open carrying. The head of WA's premier (if you can use that word with reference to such a rump outfit) gun-control organization tried to get the State Patrol officers outside the hearing room to "do something" about all the visibly armed folks. Much indifference followed.
----------------------------
*Just to clarify, I would not bother asking this question of officials from NJ!
@Knox: Snarky asides? What in the world qualifies as a snarky comment in that article?
Post a Comment