Skip to comments.Concealed-carry law threatens order(pants wetting retarded college student hoplophobe barf alert)
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 bills drafters include every gun-lovers 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 Assemblys 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 dont 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 guns 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 its 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 worlds 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 nations 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 (email@example.com) 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.
If any college coeds at this university ever sleep with this "man" they will have just had thier first lesbian experience
>>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.
"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
yeah then he goes on an qoutes this little gem that has been debunked beyond a showdow of a doubt
and its well known that a gun is 43 times more likely to be used in killing its owner or a relative than an intruder.
That explains why he's so sophomoric.
sophomoronic is more like it :-)
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.
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?
Can't get further behind the curve than this turd.
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.
"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!!!
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 its 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 nations 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.
"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.
While granting citizens the means to protect themselves, it also gives criminals the means to commit crimes.
Pssssttttt nobody tell Adam that criminals dont need to change a law in order to carry concealed guns. This is because theyre criminals, dumbass.
What do you expect from a sophomore who looks like hes about 28 years old?
This girly man needs a rabies shot.
They might not be deterred the first time, but they certainly would be the second, that is if they survived the first time.