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.
Marine recounts role in capture of Wal-Mart suspect (Off-duty Marine holds assailant at gunpoint)
I ll let everyone here know if I get a responce. (I'm not holding my breath)
it looks like hes afairly regular communist...er um columnist.Heres the other storys hes written or dictated to his mom for them.
With Iraq war, pride continues to win over rational arguments (October 11, 2005)
Voter-ID bills create new barrier(September 28, 2005)
He is an antiwar activist and a Greens party member.
http://www.mendotabeacon.com/
here's a little boy just two years away from discovering a cruel truth about the job market.
With a double major in Poli/Sci and Afr/Studies Adam had better get used to asking "Do you want fries with that"
I'll bet a year or two selling burgers and he will be happy, with his Poli/Sci degree, to get an interview for a job working for the NRA/ILA.
"How many of the 'gun crimes' he cites were committed by people who had permits and legal ownership of the weapon?"
How many "conservatives" are aware that NO GOVERNMENT PERMISSION is required to exercise a RIGHT? How many "conservatives" understand that in allowing government to regulate or demand compliance with its dictates regarding RIGHTS turns what is a RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE, which can be granted or withheld at the whim of any petty gummint bureaucrap? WE DO NOT NEED GOVERNMENT PERMISSION TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS, no way, no how. To suggest that we do is hardly CONSERVATIVE.
He is just one of the crazies on our campus. The worst is Chris Dols, a professed communist!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1485244/posts
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.