Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Concealed-carry law threatens order(pants wetting retarded college student hoplophobe barf alert)
http://badgerherald.com ^ | 10 19 05 | Adam Lichtenheld

Posted on 10/19/2005 11:37:35 AM PDT by freepatriot32

Last week, two state legislators finally introduced the controversial Personal Protection Act, a proposal that would allow citizens to bear a gun, knife or — as ridiculous as it sounds — a billy club in public. The bill’s drafters include every gun-lover’s hero, Sen. Dave Zien, R-Eau Claire, a man with more rifles and shotguns on his office walls than the Madison police, and Rep. Scott Gunderson, R-Waterford, the Assembly’s alleged hunting expert.

Undercutting progressive gun-control initiatives, state politicians around the country have bowed to the NRA-rabid right and their backward “more guns, less crime” rhetoric in their absurd belief that hidden handguns deter crime, that everyone would be afraid to harm anyone else out of fear that a weapon is shoved down every pocket. This has spawned the passage of laws in almost every state to allow citizens to carry concealed firearms in public. Wisconsin, as one of four remaining states that has thus far rejected political conformity, is now threatening to succumb to the pressures of the gun lobby.

While alarmists like to predict a chaotic scene reminiscent of the Wild West, there are many risks associated with allowing citizens to sport hidden handguns whose logic is more concrete than fantastic predictions of “Matrix”-style shootouts on Bascom Hill.

In support of their legislation, Messrs. Zien and Gunderson have continually quoted a flawed study by gun-loving economist John Lott, whose linking of concealed-carry laws to lower crime rates has been frequently debunked by a multitude of esteemed scholars and pro-gun criminologists. Just as there is minimal proof that conceal and carry brings out the Clint Eastwood in every citizen, there is little evidence that the laws effectively deter would-be assailants and thieves. Rapid decreases in crime rates across the nation can be more directly associated with strict gun access laws and post-Sept. 11 security initiatives than weak provisions that allow individuals to bring their pistol to the supermarket.

You don’t need to be a staunch anti-gun advocate to see why letting people carry guns in banks, churches, university dormitories, and the state Capitol is a fundamentally bad idea. While granting citizens the means to protect themselves, it also gives criminals the means to commit crimes. Concealed-carry extends more rights to crooks and felons, guaranteeing that some weapons will fall into the wrong hands, making law-enforcement a virtual nightmare. Perhaps this is why the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association strongly opposes the Zien-Gunderson bill.

Police, more than anybody, would know how the presence of a handgun endangers all parties, including the gun’s owner — for 12 percent of law enforcement officers killed by firearms are shot to death with their own service weapon. Guns quickly escalate a situation, and bringing one into the fold — imagine a drunken brawl or back alley mugging — only stands to make things much, much worse. You go from losing your wallet to losing your life; you go from enduring a black eye or a bloody nose to suffering from a gunshot wound.

Proponents of the legislation especially love to claim that conceal and carry is necessary for self-defense. Yet the odds that one would use a gun on an assailant or thief are quite minimal — of the over 30,000 gun deaths in 2002, only 163 were deemed “justifiable homicide,” and it’s well known that a gun is 43 times more likely to be used in killing its owner or a relative than an intruder. The legislation, which is opposed by a majority of Wisconsin citizens and state gun owners, is supposedly intended to protect the disabled and the elderly. Yet these are the very people who would have the most difficult time obtaining the necessary gun permit, and the citizens who would be most incapable of effectively operating a firearm at all.

In America, guns are presented as the solution to everything. Too many school shootings? Give teachers firearms. Airplane hijackings becoming a problem? Arm the pilots. Too many criminals running loose? Let citizens wield their semi-automatics and use the law at their own discretion. In a nation where gun violence remains a virtual epidemic, the very poison itself is also assumed to be the anecdote. If more guns lead to less crime, then why does the United States, with the developing world’s most lax gun laws, suffer from 93 gun deaths every day, four to five times more than any other industrialized nation? If owning a weapon makes people safer, then why does a gun in the home triple the risk of homicide? If gun accessibility is not a problem, then why do firearm fatalities remain as the second leading killer of this nation’s youth?

Other states have bowed to our fear-driven culture and the junk science it produces, undermining rapid advancements in curtailing crime and dealing a blow to effective gun control. I would hate to see Wisconsin do the same.

Adam Lichtenheld (lichtenheld@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science and African studies.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: academialist; alert; bang; banglist; barf; bigfag; carry; college; concealed; donutwatch; hoplophobe; law; madison; madistan; moscowonmendota; needsfreshdepends; order; pants; student; students; threatens; weenie; wetting; wi
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last
To: freepatriot32

This guy is obviously very impressed with himself. Too bad he lacks original thought. A liberal in search of a mugging.


21 posted on 10/19/2005 11:57:30 AM PDT by CATravelAgent (Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

His parents should have listened when they said "drugs are really bad for you, and can cause defects in your children..."


22 posted on 10/19/2005 11:58:41 AM PDT by xcamel (No more RINOS - Not Now, Not Ever Again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesignerChick
Crime at an all time 30 year low coincides with states reasserting an individual rights to arm themselves.
23 posted on 10/19/2005 11:59:01 AM PDT by mr_hammer (They have eyes, but do not see . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: DesignerChick

""While granting citizens the means to protect themselves, it also gives criminals the means to commit crimes." "

Yep, and so does walking. Maybe we should ban that too... /sarcasm


24 posted on 10/19/2005 11:59:19 AM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

"While granting citizens the means to protect themselves, it also gives criminals the means to commit crimes. Concealed-carry extends more rights to crooks and felons, guaranteeing that some weapons will fall into the wrong hands, making law-enforcement a virtual nightmare. Perhaps this is why the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association strongly opposes the Zien-Gunderson bill."

His ignorance is dripping wet. What a maroon!


25 posted on 10/19/2005 11:59:32 AM PDT by CSM (When laws are written, they apply to ALL...Not just the yucky people you don't like. - HairOfTheDog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1L
He says it right in the same sentence: ...frequently debunked by a multitude of esteemed scholars and pro-gun criminologists.
Of course he doesn't name these so-called scholars or the studies that "confirm" these findings.
26 posted on 10/19/2005 12:01:16 PM PDT by wolfpat (Congress is the only whorehouse in America that loses money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: namsman
This is one of those anti-gun columns that you just wonder where to start in tearing it apart because just about every senetnce is crap. Then, you just give up because the author is one of those that is such an ignorant sheep that you will never be able to change his mind.

It's like trying to teach a pig to sing: you waste your time and annoy the pig.

27 posted on 10/19/2005 12:03:22 PM PDT by SW6906 (5 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, guns and ammo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Jaxter

When I was in high school, the local sheriff came around to give us a tlak. One of the topics he touched on was crime and home invasion. We were in a small southern town. To all the would-be home invaders he ofered this piece of advice:

"If you break into someone's home and are lucky enough to live through it, I will make you wish you hadn't"


28 posted on 10/19/2005 12:03:25 PM PDT by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
...and it’s well known that a gun is 43 times more likely to be used in killing its owner or a relative than an intruder.
He conveniently leaves out the fact that this statistic includes suicides. If you remove suicides from the equation, the number becomes insignificant.
29 posted on 10/19/2005 12:05:50 PM PDT by wolfpat (Congress is the only whorehouse in America that loses money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

"Rapid decreases in crime rates across the nation can be more directly associated with strict gun access laws and post-Sept. 11 security initiatives than weak provisions that allow individuals to bring their pistol to the supermarket."

Yeah, thats what it is; Now I am informed......This guy should visit East St.Louis or some other crime ridden inner city.

"Concealed-carry extends more rights to crooks and felons, guaranteeing that some weapons will fall into the wrong hands, making law-enforcement a virtual nightmare."

I wonder how it extends "more" rights to crooks and felons. I would like to hear this guy explain that comment.

Sorry, I can`t read any more.....The article sounds so sophomoric.


30 posted on 10/19/2005 12:06:29 PM PDT by Peace will be here soon ((Liberal definition of looting: "Self-help Humanitarian Aid."))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
"it’s well known that a gun is 43 times more likely to be used in killing its owner or a relative than an intruder"

I don't buy that supposed statistic no matter how one spins it. It is also worth noting that most of the time when a gun is pulled out to stop a crime, nobody is killed, or even injured. Just showing a gun can change someone's attitude real quick, all without firing a shot. It's fight or flight, usually resulting in flight. The anti-human rights left conveniently forgets to factor this into their statistics.

31 posted on 10/19/2005 12:07:04 PM PDT by Rob_DSM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Email sent to Mr. L.

Dear Mr. Lichtenheld,

I have to most strongly disagree with your editorial in the Badger Herald. I several reasons:
1) Most persons who harbor intent to do violence will strongly hesitate to do their violence if they are fully aware that the person(s) they mean to attack is similarly armed. IF only because most of these criminals are weak minded fools whose courage is found in the gun THEY hold. Confronted by another person carrying a gun and that criminal coward will flee if not give himself up.
2) Concealed Carry Permits (CCP’s) are issued to people only after that person goes through a background check, and has gone through some sort of training from the Police or Sheriff in their area. What does that mean? It means that the State Authorities KNOW WHO THAT PERSON IS! They also know about the weapons that person has. They also know that this person has no criminal history or any record of anything illegal!!! ANYONE with more than 6 brain cells to rub together is going to tell an Officer, should he or she be pulled over, that they have a Concealed Carry Permit and that the weapon is with them. You see, the people who WANT a CCP are LAWABIDING Citizens, which is a world of difference from what you are making them out to be.
3) CCP’s will reduce the number of people who illegally carry weapons. Why? The honest ones will get the permit!!!!!! They have every reason in the world to! What does that do? It separates the honest good people from the criminals who would use these weapons in acts of Violence against others. Opposed to those who carry legally to protect themselves and their Property from the Criminals!!! They become an asset to the Legal Authorities because of it!!!
4) I have to say this. Guns don’t kill people. Billy clubs don’t. People kill People. If someone truly wants to kill someone, the lack of a CCP, or a gun isn’t going to stop him or her. However, if the person they intend to hurt can fight beck in like fashion, he or she just might save their own lives with out having to wait however long it takes to get help.
Mr. Lichtenheld, I have to ask a personal question. You look like a big strong man. Have you ever been attacked? At one point in my life I was a single woman, working in sales that required me to drive and fly allover the Pacific Northwest. I put 40K miles on my truck in less than a year. I was alone nearly all of that time, in rural areas, truck stops (nothing else out there you see), and all sorts of places where I was essentially on my own. 5”6’ and 120 lbs, I was at the mercy of anyone wanting to do violence. A CCP and a good weapon could literally be the line dividing living or dying, and I knew it.
Please reconsider your position. These permits simply make for an identifiable population that is not only clean, but with out intent to do any harm. Please tell me why it would be inadvisable to somehow separate the good people from the evil ones intending harm?
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Danae
St Helens, Oregon
32 posted on 10/19/2005 12:07:49 PM PDT by Danae ( Anál nathrach, orth' bháis's bethad, do chél dénmha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfpat

That's true.


33 posted on 10/19/2005 12:08:13 PM PDT by Rob_DSM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32; adam_az; American in Israel; Ancesthntr; aragorn; archy; Badray; buccaneer81; ...

Aw sheesh, not this $#!+ again!


34 posted on 10/19/2005 12:10:49 PM PDT by Travis McGee (--- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rob_DSM

The time I "used" my gun to stop a crime, all it took was showing the punk I had it (didn't even point it at him) and the situation was defused. He left, I left and no police or report was ever involved.


35 posted on 10/19/2005 12:11:32 PM PDT by SW6906 (5 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SW6906
This is one of those anti-gun columns that you just wonder where to start in tearing it apart because just about every senetnce is crap. Then, you just give up because the author is one of those that is such an ignorant sheep that you will never be able to change his mind.

I always try to extend hope that young fools will eventually outgrow their foolishness.

The sad truth is that sometimes they don't. That leaves muggings, beatings, rapes, etc. hitting him close to home as the only vehicles of change.

36 posted on 10/19/2005 12:11:57 PM PDT by AngryJawa (NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

More proof that colleges don't teach.


37 posted on 10/19/2005 12:12:21 PM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Correction: More proof that colleges don't educate, they teach liberalism plenty.


38 posted on 10/19/2005 12:13:15 PM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
If any college coeds at this university ever sleep with this "man" they will have just had thier first lesbian experience

LOL!

Real women aren't afraid of guns, but sissy liberal not-quite-men are.
39 posted on 10/19/2005 12:13:41 PM PDT by JillValentine (56% of American women voted against BJ Clinton in 1992.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Why confuse this fool with the facts?


40 posted on 10/19/2005 12:14:42 PM PDT by NY Attitude (You are responsible for your safety until the arrival of Law Enforcement Officers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson