Reject campaign for concealed guns (barf alert)

Wisconsiin State Journal ^ | 14 Jan 07

[rellimpank]

Wisconsin remains a holdout in the nationwide trend to allow people to carry concealed guns. The Legislature should keep it that way.

The state has survived quite nicely for 134 years with a ban on concealed weapons. There is no compelling reason to now invite people to carry hidden firearms. In fact, there are compelling reasons to retain the ban.

Bills to permit concealed weapons have passed the Legislature in each of the past two sessions, only to be vetoed by Gov. Jim Doyle. Last fall's elections have only strengthened Doyle's hand against concealed weapons legislation, but Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, R-West Salem, has suggested that another attempt to pass a bill is likely.

[rellimpank]

--same old worn out arguments--

[dhuffman@awod.com]

My response...

The Editorial Board of the Wisconsin State Journal writes,

"The state has survived quite nicely for 134 years with a ban on concealed weapons." The RKABA is not about survival of the state but protects citizens from the failures of the state.

"Bills to permit concealed weapons have passed the Legislature in each of the past two sessions, only to be vetoed by Gov. Jim Doyle." Doyle proves that he is a willing tyrant working against the expressed interest of the citizens and their representatives. Tyranny is at the bottom of infringements slippery slope slid.

Wisconsin should expand freedom by capitalizing on its legal open carry laws and enabling good people to safely conceal their defensive arms.

Unfortunately the National Rifle Association will join the squabbling special interests protecting their various rice-bowls. Each will demand its share until there is nothing left for the good people of Wisconsin.

The NRA sucks. The NRA sucks the oxygen from RKABA advocacy. The NRA sucks the money away from patriot activists. The NRA sucks.

[Lunatic Fringe]

Naturally. If there was no threat to the 2nd amendment, there would be no NRA.

[ozoneliar]

What about skipping Doyle and going for an explicit constitutional amendment? Its proven to work, even in Wisconsin!

[Jaysun]

--same old worn out arguments--


Yep. But sometimes the facts bare repeating for the benefit of the uninformed.

The author basically says that concealed guns are trouble waiting to happen and gives an example of one specific case. The guy had a permit to carry a weapon and ended up shooting a doorman. He was sentenced to 36 years in prison. Then he makes the assumption that more concealed guns will lead to more crime.

But numerous studies say otherwise. The link to one such study is below. The study, done by two University of Chicago professors, demonstrates that laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deter violent crime. And they appear to produce no increase in accidental deaths, contrary to what was routinely predicted by various anti-gun lobbies. The nationwide survey compiled data from counties across the United States from 1977 through 1992. In jurisdictions that passed concealed carry laws, violent crime fell measurably - homicides were down 8.5 percent, rapes down 5 percent, and aggravated assaults, down 7 percent.

http://hematite.com/dragon/Lott_ORDu.html

[rellimpank]

-- The guy had a permit to carry a weapon--

--since the guy obviously didn't have a permit in Wisconsin, I suspect that my byline applies (there may not have even been such a "guy")----

I agree with you otherwise--

[Beagle8U]

"In Minneapolis in the spring of 2005, police apprehended Zachary Ourada shortly after he had shot and killed a restaurant doorman. The doorman had earlier asked Ourada to leave the restaurant because he was harassing women."

Why does the Madistan press bring up cases from another state?

They have plenty of armed gang-bangers in Milwaukee that they could site for far more gun crime cases.

[CPOSharky]

OK, Wisconsiin State Journal editorial board, cite one state, just ONE state, where concealed carry has has gone down in a flaming crash of failure that all the anti-gunners said it would.

[Jaysun]

--since the guy obviously didn't have a permit in Wisconsin, I suspect that my byline applies (there may not have even been such a "guy")----

It was in Minneapolis

[Shooter 2.5]

The NRA sponsors hundreds of shooting matches a year. Without gun control, that number could expand to thousands.

The only gun group that has been effective is the NRA. Once in awhile, the SAF and the Citizen's Committee join with the NRA. The NRA's legal actions also help about sixty cases a year.

JPFO, as much as I like them is not a lobbying group. They're listed as an educational group.

[Wonder Warthog]

"If there was no threat to the 2nd amendment, there would be no NRA."

Not true at all. The NRA was originally established by a bunch of Civil War ex-generals to improve civilian marksmanship (after the South's marksmen regularly shot their asses off). Its original established purpose had zip to do with defending the RKBA, and, in fact, it came very late to that game. Fortunately, though, it did "see the light" (i.e. that the real goal of the gun-grabbers was indeed the complete elimination of civilian firearms ownership), and is now the most effective lobbying arm that the RKBA has.

[kAcknor]

The state has survived quite nicely for 134 years with a ban on concealed weapons. There is no compelling reason to now invite people to carry hidden firearms. In fact, there are compelling reasons to retain the ban.

Well hey, let's correct this paragraph to reflect what the writer actually means:

The state has protected us nicely for 134 years with a ban on concealed weapons. I don't wish to pee my pants at the thought that somebody might have hidden firearms. In fact, innocent people should die before they are trusted with something that could hurt anything larger than a mouse. I'm scared to death, we have to retain the ban.

[berdie]

I have yet to see a "gun" shoot a person.

[dbehsman]

Unfortunately the National Rifle Association will join the squabbling special interests protecting their various rice-bowls. Each will demand its share until there is nothing left for the good people of Wisconsin.

What does that mean? The NRA doesn't get any government funding. Care to provide some links showing otherwise? Care to provide some evidence?

The NRA sucks. The NRA sucks the oxygen from RKABA advocacy. The NRA sucks the money away from patriot activists. The NRA sucks.

Well, that's just great. It looks like there is another Neal Knox in the making. Spend more time and energy attacking the NRA than the anti-gunners. If your so dissatisfied with the NRA, why don't you put a sock in it and start up a new group? Nobody's holding you back.

I've gotten so sick and tired of the so called "purists" out there who can't stand the NRA, because the NRA backed an incumbent luke warm candidate instead of some green challenger. The guys are so nauseating. I run into them at gun shows and it's always the same thing. They don't like the NRA because the NRA is not pure enough for them. Well, fine. Why don't they join up with the GOA or the CCRKBA or the JPFO? I ask. They respond that none of those organizations are big enough to have any impact. These folks are nothing more than armchair activists. They will try to think of any excuse to save the $35.00 per year membership fee. These jokers are like libertarians on steroids. They're time wasters. And if by some miracle they do join up with another organization, you can be sure that they will be so short sighted as to spend the majority of their time slamming the NRA instead of the anti-gunners.

[rellimpank]

---agreed-- and I would even state that it is the only effective lobbying group for the RKBA--

without the clout of the NRA the Gun Owners of America would have about one vote in the House (Ron Paul) and none in the Senate The JPFO, in spite of its good intentions couldn't get a return phone call from even Joe Leiberman---

[rellimpank]

--amen--

[spunkets]

"The state has survived quite nicely for 134 years with a ban on concealed weapons."

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that folks have been denied the right to effective self defense. What is relevant is the folks that have died, or been raped defenseless at the hands of scumbags. Folks have been twice denied that right by a D Gov's veto of 2 bills that passed a vote short of a override. The qualifier "quite nicely" here, just means the twit's oblivious both to other folks rights and their deaths and sufferings. Being oblivious lets them feel good.