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 1-5051-100101-108 next last
Adam Lichtenheld (lichtenheld@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science and African studies.

Hmm I guess this african studys major hasnt gotton around to studying that part of african history about idi amin where he had all if his people diarmed then murdered in mass with select enemys of the state EATEN by the well armed thug.He also must have been sick or struck illiterate when they studied that part of africa that Robert Mugabe rules (that would be Zimbabwe for any idiot college students that happen to be lurking on freerepublic.)with an iron fist and a heavy anti gun agenda.After he disarmed his people he is right now starving them all to death by the hundreds a day and they cant do anything about it becasue they are disarmed and have no way to overthrow the s.o.b. or even hunt down some of the animals so they can eat and live.and where was this asshalf the day the were studing south africa where if you were black you were a third class citizen.(dogs were valued higher the black south africans.)and whenevr they marched in protest to the racist policys of south africa they were gunned down by the well armed police and south african military without having anyway to defend themselfs becasue it was illegal to carry guns.

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

HEY DIPS**T that is going on now and thats what concealed carry is aiming to prevent.The muggers are pulling out guns and robbing people and sometimes shooting them afterwords.(armed robbery is illegal in all 50 states and is only legal in washington d.c at the headquarters of the i.r.s.)This law would give the people the right to pull out their gun and attack the mugger without fear of getting arrested and going to prison for carying a concealed weapon.

1 posted on 10/19/2005 11:37:53 AM PDT by freepatriot32
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: albertp; Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Americanwolf; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

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

2 posted on 10/19/2005 11:39:46 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

>>flawed study by gun-loving economist John Lott<<

It'd be nice if this idiot would tell how the study is flawed rather than assert it is because he doesn't like the conclusion.


3 posted on 10/19/2005 11:41:41 AM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo; Travis McGee; Joe Brower

ping


4 posted on 10/19/2005 11:43:00 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 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. "

Yep, God forbid the government should recognize the fundamental human right of self defense or do anything to acknowledge the amendment to the constitution that helps secure that right. /sarcasm


5 posted on 10/19/2005 11:44:03 AM PDT by gondramB (Conservatism is a positive doctrine. Reactionaryism is a negative doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1L

yeah then he goes on an qoutes this little gem that has been debunked beyond a showdow of a doubt

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.


6 posted on 10/19/2005 11:44:57 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

showdow=shadow


7 posted on 10/19/2005 11:45:42 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Adam Lichtenheld (lichtenheld@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science and African studies.

That explains why he's so sophomoric.

8 posted on 10/19/2005 11:45:42 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (France is an example of retrograde chordate evolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

sophomoronic is more like it :-)


9 posted on 10/19/2005 11:46:43 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Holding you head high & voting Libertarian is better then holding your nose and voting republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

No more controversial than carrying any other tool. A person walking down the street with a holstered firearm should be no more considered a cause for alarm than a person walking down the street carrying a screwdriver.


10 posted on 10/19/2005 11:48:20 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (Anyone who needs to be persuaded to be free, doesn't deserve to be. -El Neil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
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.

Nope, all you need to be is ignorant.

What is it about "progressives" that allows them to both let criminals run free, and assume that lawful citizens will shoot each other without provocation?

11 posted on 10/19/2005 11:50:28 AM PDT by xsrdx (Diligentia, Vis, Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
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.

Can't get further behind the curve than this turd.

12 posted on 10/19/2005 11:51:16 AM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Rarely have I seen such a collection of beliefs and wishes and bold-faced lies presented as though they are hard facts............methinks Adam needs some more eduction, buty he's not going to get it with his current chosen curriculum.


13 posted on 10/19/2005 11:52:18 AM PDT by SW6906
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

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

I love the way liberals throw gun carrying criminals in with gun carrying law abiding citizens.
How many of the 'gun crimes' he cites were committed by people who had permits and legal ownership of the weapon?

Criminals, by definition, don't give a d*mn about laws - INCLUDING gun control!!!


14 posted on 10/19/2005 11:52:39 AM PDT by DesignerChick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: freepatriot32
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.

Oh, really? Name one.

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.

Notice the slide from "using" a gun on an assailant to the measurement of shooting him. This is a classic gun-grabber cheat. The vast majority of such "uses" do not involve shooting anyone. An argument that a gun only escalates a situation coupled with a refusal to measure it when it serves that purpose without shooting is an intellectual fraud.

If gun accessibility is not a problem, then why do firearm fatalities remain as the second leading killer of this nation’s youth?

Because the author is lumping in murder in these cooked statistics, where the only "accessibility" issue is the fact that criminals can get guns where their victims are prevented.

Really, this is puerile nonsense from a young fellow too full of himself and too intellectually dishonest to give the matter a modicum of objective research. If he wishes to live unarmed under the delusion that it makes him safer, let him. If he wishes to force that opinion on everyone else, he needs to stick a sock in it.

16 posted on 10/19/2005 11:54:41 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

"If owning a weapon makes people safer, then why does a gun in the home triple the risk of homicide?"

What does that mean? Is he saying that people with a gun in their home are more likely yo be murdered or more likely to murder?

I hear 99% of murder victims have TVs in their homes. Maybe we should outlaw those, just in case.


17 posted on 10/19/2005 11:54:49 AM PDT by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
While granting citizens the means to protect themselves, it also gives criminals the means to commit crimes.

Pssssttttt… nobody tell Adam that criminals don’t need to change a law in order to carry concealed guns. This is because they’re criminals, dumbass.

What do you expect from a sophomore who looks like he’s about 28 years old?

18 posted on 10/19/2005 11:56:47 AM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

This girly man needs a rabies shot.


19 posted on 10/19/2005 11:56:56 AM PDT by beltfed308 (Cloth or link. Happiness is a perfect trunnion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
"..there is little evidence that the laws effectively deter would-be assailants and thieves."

They might not be deterred the first time, but they certainly would be the second, that is if they survived the first time.

20 posted on 10/19/2005 11:57:27 AM PDT by Jaxter ("Vivit Post Funera Virtus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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]

To: freepatriot32
"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."

Let me get this straight, Mr. Lichtenheld; Your reasoning is based upon the premise that laws against carrying firearms actually deter criminals from doing so. What proof do you have of that?

41 posted on 10/19/2005 12:19:41 PM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Eaker; humblegunner

Yes,

"this $#!+ again!"

It's almost like looking at the exact same BS time and time again...

The template is amazingly similar (to other articles like this over the last few years) with the same "$#!+" again and again...

They'll never learn...

His idol, (since he is an African History buff) like someone else posted here a while ago...

Idi Amin Dada (thats two A's two D's and one gun! Hahahahaha! old Eddie Murphy quote from SNL)...


42 posted on 10/19/2005 12:26:14 PM PDT by stevie_d_64 (Houston Area Texans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
Too many school shootings? Give teachers firearms

And, it was the principle in Pearle,MS that stopped a school shooting where the kids had pulled the frie alarms first. At least I think it was Pearle.

43 posted on 10/19/2005 12:26:41 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
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.

Although this guy has not proven that concealed carry by the public is 'bad', he has made a fairly strong case that police should not be permitted to carry firearms.

44 posted on 10/19/2005 12:27:32 PM PDT by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

He looks like a 40 year old sophomore.

It's sad that college students' (I am one) opinions count for anything and are aired in public.


45 posted on 10/19/2005 12:28:12 PM PDT by JakeWyld (This week's chapter: Romans 1 (I promise to keep working on the formatting). Goto my Profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Undercutting progressive gun-control initiatives...

Translation: The author is upset that not everyone is a limp-wristed pantywaist like himself.

Gun control ain't about guns, moron. It's about control. And there ain't nothin' "progressive" about having government cretins and other criminals control our lives.

46 posted on 10/19/2005 12:29:42 PM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
In a nation where gun violence remains a virtual epidemic, the very poison itself is also assumed to be the anecdote (sic).

In his bizarro world, you treat poisoning with an anecdote!

47 posted on 10/19/2005 12:31:06 PM PDT by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobbdobbs
Adam, if your going to write a story, leave your feeeeelings out of it and, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.0/GunFacts4-0-Screen.pdf

48 posted on 10/19/2005 12:31:19 PM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Poor baby. Although, he must be at least 35. That artfully arranged curl on his forehead is pretty fetching, however.


49 posted on 10/19/2005 12:34:07 PM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

"If I become truly Liberal and Metrosexual,
then lots of hot, liberated womyn will want to
have non-committed sex with me! No...really!
The feminists at NOW assured me it was true!"

50 posted on 10/19/2005 12:35:38 PM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 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