On Thursday, Republican State Rep. Joel Kleefisch, better known as the Lt. Governor’s husband, shared the story of how his wife was threatened 12 years ago as a reason why he’ll be glad when concealed carry becomes the law in Wisconsin:
“This is a great day for my wife. My wife will have the ability to protect herself,” he said.
Kleefisch said he didn’t know whether his wife will choose to carry a gun. But he said if she did, “That gun would be the great equalizer.”
Given the push by Republicans in the legislature to allow virtually anyone here in Wisconsin to carry a concealed firearm with a minimal amount of training, I thought it would be topical to take a look at an entry I wrote three years in which I asked if putting guns into the hands of more citizens would reduce crime rates.
I’ve heard a lot of conservatives talk about how Wisconsin’s citizens need more guns, as if our state’s lack of concealed carry laws have made our citizens somehow unsafe. “More guns” seems to be a common mantra among conservatives, but their rationale that more guns equals less crime simply doesn’t hold water if one takes a look at crime statistics.
For example, let’s compare crime rates per 100,000 inhabitants (2006) for Wisconsin as well as Florida and Texas, both of which allow residents to carry firearms:
- Wisconsin:
- Robbery – 100.2
- Forcible Rape – 20.4
- Murder – 3.0
- Burglary – 485.8
- Vehicle Theft – 226.6
- Texas:
- Robbery – 158.5
- Forcible Rape – 35.6
- Murder – 5.9
- Burglary – 917.3
- Vehicle Theft – 405.9
- Florida:
- Robbery – 188.8
- Forcible Rape – 35.8
- Murder – 6.2
- Burglary – 944.6
- Vehicle Theft – 422.5
One look at the statistics and it’s obvious Wisconsin has much lower crime rates than states like Texas and Florida.
Now maybe you’re thinking, “But what about states that are more similar to Wisconsin, both in population size and demographics?” Well, here’s the crime rates per 100,000 residents (2006) for both Minnesota and Michigan:
- Minnesota:
- Robbery – 105.1
- Forcible Rape – 31.8
- Murder – 2.4
- Burglary – 583.9
- Vehicle Theft – 258.9
- Michigan:
- Robbery – 140.7
- Forcible Rape – 52.2
- Murder – 7.1
- Burglary – 753.9
- Vehicle Theft – 495.4
One look at the statistics for Minnesota and Michigan show they both have higher rates per 100,000 residents for Robbery, Forcible Rape, Burglary, and Vehicle Theft, and Michigan has a higher Murder rate while Minnesota’s Murder rate is slightly lower than Wisconsin’s. It doesn’t appear concealed carry laws have made for lower crime rates and increased safety in either state, so I don’t necessarily believe the argument that putting more guns into the hands of Wisconsinites will result in lower crime rates.
Concealed carry does not equate to “more guns”.
The word “infringed” in the Second Amendment has meaning although too many liberal people think it shouldn’t mean anything.
Having said all of that, it is probably better that the general population does not know how many people actually carry firearms everyday in a concealed state. No need to unnecessarily frighten the ignorant.
Some things are better left to the adults to manage without everyone knowing about it.
The word “infringed” in the Second Amendment has meaning although too many liberal people think it shouldn’t mean anything.
A strict construction of the Second Amendment would allow unfettered access to “arms” of all kinds. I don’t think you want to make that case, unless you seriously want to say that there’s no reason why people shouldn’t have the ability to buy rocket launchers if they want to.
Bear in mind, out of the first nine syllables of the 2A, seven of them are used up by the words “regulated militia.”
Some things are better left to the adults to manage without everyone knowing about it.
What a hideously paternalistic, anti-democratic thing to say. We’re talking about state regulation of the carrying of firearms, not highly classified, national security matters here, you goof.
Hmmmm, no one that I am aware of in the early days tried to restrict “arms” to guns. Knives and bows were not restricted to my knowledge. If we purport to say that the maximum technology that can be employed to protect oneself is ‘guns’, should we then have the same limited view of free speech and say that it only applies to paper and the spoken word and does not apply to the internet, radio, TV, or any other media?
As for “regulated militia”, the reading is clear that it is a reason for the right to keep and bear arms. It does not mean that only militias can have arms. Read it again, please.
Paternalism is not what you think it is. What you say is paternalistic: you are limiting the rights and responsibilities of people like a father limits his children for their own good.
And lastly, the rights enumerated (and not enumerated) in the Constitution and its amendments have nothing to do with democracy (“you goof”) so stop using the word ‘anti-democrat’ as if they did. It is neither democratic or undemocratic to support the rights of men.
I neglected to mention that if the “rocket launcher” argument was applied to religion that no religion founded after 1800 would receive any benefits from “freedom of religion”. Do you want to walk down that road?
The fact is they came one vote shy of having no standing armies and just having all of the men own a gun and be able to mobilize when an army was needed. They did not want the british to ocme into their houses and take their gun. That is what the second amendment is about not about Joel Kleefisch being able to carry a gun with him 24/7.
So technically “constitutional carry” would prohibit the british from taking anyone’s guns which I am in complete support of.
The point being made also is why have any limits? why cant i carry my gun into church or the mall or the bar?
I personally think we should be able to carry anything we want and we have to announce what we have. I cant protect myself if I dont know what your carrying. Maybe my neighbors have guns and I need to put up a turret onm y house or i wonyt be able to protect myself.
also the Founders could have cared less what religion anyone was they just wanted people to keep it away from them.
So you are not a strict application of the Constitution kinda person I guess…LOL
I neglected to mention that if the “rocket launcher” argument was applied to religion that no religion founded after 1800 would receive any benefits from “freedom of religion”. Do you want to walk down that road?
Well, I’m an atheist, so walk down that road as far as you please. I’d keep reading my Epicurus and Lucretius, while the God-botherers could leave me alone and argue among yourselves over whether your chosen religion was or was not founded after 1800. Sounds like I’d be getting the better part of that arrangement, don’t you think?
And when I said “paternalistic” and “anti-democratic,” I’m sure you know I was referring to your wish that some problems be solved by “adults” without the messiness of “everyone knowing about it.” Congratulations, you have just discovered every tyrants justification for their tyranny. “Isn’t this much more convenient? I govern and make all the decisions, so you don’t have to worry about it.” That sort of thinking is paternalistic, and it is anti-democratic, so don’t come squawking about “supporting the rights of men” after you just dropped the “let the adults manage it without everyone knowing about it” blast.
Such a twister you are! Who was talking about governing? My comment was that free and responsible adults can make these decisions about carrying firearms without government intercession…just as they are doing today. How did you take that to mean anything more than freedom from government?
My attitude may be interpreted as condescending but surely not paternalistic.
And I find it amusing that an aetheist does not care about religious freedom for others because he does not embrace religion himself. If only aetheists would use the same logic in relation to the Second Amendment…
You’re actually making a comparison between the practice of religion and guns? One of them is primarily designed to kill, the other (presumably) is not. Someone I walk up to on the street being a Mormon, a Muslim (sorry, Glenn Beck), or a Catholic does not in and of itself pose a danger to my life. That person being armed with a Glock on the other hand, most definitely does.
Of course I wouldn’t be in favor of so interpreting to the 1A as to outlaw all religions organized after 1800. That’s farcical. I was simply illustrating my point that, as an atheist, I find such comparisons and discussions at best trivially amusing, and at worst stupid and indicative of just why I am an atheist in the first place. But I digress.
I’m not opposed to gun ownership. Truth is, I like target shooting. I don’t own guns, because I wouldn’t use them often enough to justify it. But I’m not insane enough to suggest that the founders use of the term “arms” should make it legal for me to own, say, a flamethrower or a machine gun, let alone howitzers or nuclear weapons. Common sense and the need to “insure domestic Tranquility” (US Const., preamble) make that apparent.
I’ve no problem with people using firearms to defend their home. I may not be crazy about the way certain states (Florida, for example) are expanding the “Castle Doctrine,” but I understand the sentiment. A person’s home is sacrosanct. The Constitution makes that very clear in the Third and Fourth Amendments. I don’t have a problem with hunting or target shooting, either. I do have a problem with people carrying concealed weapons outside the home. The 2A gives you the right to have firearms, not do whatever you please with them.
Let me ask a question, PB: State and Federal law prohibits people convicted of certain felonies from possessing a firearm. Knowingly selling arms to a felon, purchasing a firearm with intent to give or sell it to a felon, or being a felon in possession of a firearm are all felonies punishable by stiff prison terms. According to your strict interpretation of the 2A, isn’t the felon’s right to keep and bear arms being infringed by that law?
If your answer is “no,” explain why Congress and the states can regulate firearm ownership in that sphere but no other. If your answer is “yes,” please explain how I can take someone who has no problem arming felons seriously on any issue whatsoever, let alone public safety.
Good question. Obviously, anarchy results if all citizens exercise their rights to the detriment of all other citizens. One man cannot exercise his right to the detriment of other men’s rights. The commission of crimes against other citizens, a society, or a government contains an inherent message that the citizen is not acting freely and responsibly if he is taking the life, liberty, or property of others. Because his actions deny the rights of others in an irresponsible manner, his own rights are suspended or curtailed. In our society, those who commit crimes, and are convicted of them, face restrictions upon their own life, liberty, and property as determined by a judge and jury.
I see no duplicity in preventing criminals from exercising their rights, while also supporting the rights of a responsible citizen. Removing a right from a responsible citizen because one fears an irresponsible one is a weak argument at best; never-the-less it is often mis-used by some.
Removing a right from a responsible citizen because one fears an irresponsible one is a weak argument at best; never-the-less it is often mis-used by some.
What I’m getting at, PB, is that Congress and the states are allowed to make finer distinctions than just “to infringe” or “not to infringe.” Of course there’s a distinction between felon and non-felon citizens who are alike in every other respect. But the Constitution is silent on those distinctions. The 2A just says “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (US Const., Amend. II) The ability of Congress and the states to hash out that there’s a difference between classes of citizens with respect to their rights to keep and bear arms is entirely extraconstitutional. If you’re into strict construction, that’s not acceptable.
What I’m arguing for is a pragmatic reading of the document. I’m not a fan of David Breyer’s “living constitution” theory, if only because it sounds too sentimental and those two words have been slandered by right-wingers to mean something else entirely. The document simply wasn’t written for all times and circumstances. It could not have been. If the founders had seen nukes and flamethrowers coming (let alone organized crime and the drug trade), they might have had some very different thoughts regarding the keeping and bearing of arms. And we don’t live in the 1790s.
Does that mean we throw the document out entirely? Absolutely not. Does it mean that the 2A is meaningless? No. But we do need to reevaluate how we actually treat that Amendment. Clearly we have made a distinction between classes of people, some who can bear arms and some who cannot. Maybe we need to look at where arms can be borne permissibly as well.
Literalism is easy in theory, but awfully hard to put into practice. That was the point of my question to you.
Removing a right from a responsible citizen because one fears an irresponsible one is a weak argument at best; never-the-less it is often mis-used by some.
Isn’t that exactly what Voter ID is doing?
Good point, Ed, though I’m sure PB will counter with the argument that Voter ID laws don’t remove the right to vote from responsible citizens; they just make it that much harder for responsible citizens to exercise that right.
No, I don’t think that a person is acting irresponsibly if they choose to vote. It is irresponsible not to vote at all.
Voter ID identifies citizens that can vote and discriminates against those who should not. This is akin to identifying responsible citizens who can possess firearms and discriminating against those who should not (criminals).
“My comment was that free and responsible adults can make these decisions about carrying firearms without government intercession”
Well sign me up for three Stinger missile systems and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher or two once we’re free from all that pesky government intercession.
And you would act responsibly with those arms, Zach.
I would use my RPG’s to kill chipmunks…
I want a Tank…can I get a tank? I would then be a responsible citizen and make sure no one ever runs a yellow light again!
Which leads us all to think that you do not qualify as a free and responsible citizen and your rights should have limitations, your weapons should be taken from you, and you should be denied future weapon purchases and charged with a crime if you possess any.
Same for Jeff below.
Sooooo…just to be clear, you’re saying you do indeed think people have the right to rocket launchers (and, hell, nuclear arms too!)?
Wow. that’s quite the radical position.
Speaking of slippery slopes…how far down yours are you willing to go…
Al Qaeda leader instructs terrorists to purchase firearms at U.S. gun shows
I do not think that Al Qaeda members qualify as free and responsibe citizens. Do you?
Ah, but you see, absent some all-powerful dictator to make such distinctions all willy-nilly for us, it would seem one needs some sort of unambiguous written line drawn in the proverbial sand to make that distinction. Now PB, in some civilizations such written lines of distinction are what one would refer to as a “law”. Which one may even go all buck-wild and in this case refer to as a “gun control…UNAMERICAN!!!!
Snark aside, your little “Do you?” patronizing should really be reserved for the NRA and its bidders. I mean cripes, the U.S. House explicitly brought up a bill that would explicitly require purchasers at gun shows to be checked against the terrorist watch list, and the it was explicitly voted down.
Who are the adults? Seems to be they are harder to recognize now.
Rebecca Kleefisch carrying a gun is not what I picture an adult and is actually more of a reason that we should never have CC.
“well regulated Militia” also has meaning in the second amendment that our friends on the right tend to gloss over.
Redact I believe that a strict construction of the 2nd amendment would allow, as many of the Founders envisioned, to have no standing army and have all men armed so they could come together when needed. It was not about a group of yahoo’s carrying guns into Culvers.
Besides PB, How can I protect myself if I dont know what everyone else is carrying?
You wrote: “Besides PB, How can I protect myself if I dont know what everyone else is carrying?”
I can only quote Rumsfeld in response:
“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”
How many victims were carrying A weapon?
Small note: Are you saying those people deserved being attacked because they may have not had a weapon? Or that every American should hold a gun to avoid attack? I’m not trying to sound like I’m attacking you, but this is implying these people who were attacked were deserving of it because they didn’t hold a gun even if they could have been children. While we have a right to keep and bear arms, that doesn’t mean everyone is going to keep weapons.
Furthermore, if these people had guns – what would it say about them? We’re they not fast enough and deserve what happened to them? Of course not.
Huh? That you’d read it that way says more about you since it’s not at all implied by that single sentence.
Please don’t use that argument with me that it says more about ‘me’ than ‘them’. It is implying it whether you realize it or not. Everytime I hear an attack, someone steps up and states “Should have been carrying a gun!” or “I bet it was a libtard hippy.” whether they may have or not. I have my reasons to believe there are unconscious implication.
And I’ll be honest with you: I am all for concealed carry. It just makes me irritated that people think a gun would have made all the difference in an attack when it may have been a personal choice for those people not to be carrying one.
T. you’re really making my point for me. All of that pertains to things you’re bringing in to this. Maybe you have a history with ray – maybe ray has posted on this before and there’s more to it (I have an awful memory, I don’t recall any other posts from ray). But unless that’s the case, you’re reading something into that post that just wasn’t there.
When I read “How many victims were carrying a weapon” my take is that he’s saying by and large victims are not carrying weapon. That in no way necessarily means it was their fault – that they should have. As you say, it’s personal choice. I support an interpretation of the 2nd (just like the rest) that is biased towards individual freedom – yet I’m not going to be carrying around a gun under any circumstances. That statement also doesn’t mean that carrying guarantees you won’t be a victim. Just that by and large, victims don’t.
So are you suggesting that everyone should carry a gun for their safety just in case even if it’s their choice not to carry it or they themselves feel uncomfortable using a weapon? I’m not clear on what you are trying to say – however with Ray’s statement of “How many victims were carrying A weapon?” sounded very… “Well they should have protected themselves and had a weapon!” in implications even if it was unsaid. This is despite them having concealed carry and lax laws to get the said guns.
Whether you like it or not, guns were made as a tool to kill. That was their intended purpose as a weapon and many people are uncomfortable with that feeling even in states that have extremely lax gun laws. They are not necessarily liberal or conservative either, it’s just a type of choice. Furthermore, I would expect more stories of vigilantes of personal justice to happen in those states but I hear one too many times – they don’t think to get their gun. They fumble with it. They miss. The only exceptions I hear to this rule are often veterans, law enforcement officers, and perhaps people who live in more rural areas who live more off the land but even then – you don’t hear of those stories too often.
What I’m trying to say is I’m all for concealed carry, but the implications of that it might have been a personal choice not to carry a gun and that they were somehow ‘well they should have expected it!’ is a logic I cannot get behind because it ultimately puts responsibility on the victim more than the individual who pulled the trigger.
It’s a certain type of personality to hold a gun, and I’m not saying that it’s a bad one either. But you got to keep in mind that certain people will not use that freedom even if it’s there, but it’s still good that it is.
Not quite sure how you could’ve read my post and feel the need to ask that question. I don’t know what was ambiguous when I said:
Yeah, I got that part. I didn’t get the first portion because it sounded like you were defending Ray for (likely unconsciously) implying that the victims were at fault for not having guns when it was a personal choice.
Rather than compare (in many cases vastly) different states, there’s plenty of data to compare before & after the law changes in same states. Why not cite that data? We have 30+ states that have either added or expanded their concealed carry laws over the last 20-some years. What are the before & after crime stats for them?
I’d like to know that as well. Good point.
Locke, you and I can be on the ground floor of exactly that research as soon as the WI law is implemented…along with accidental discharges and accidental injuries.
I would expect that criminals in concealed carry states assume that each person they intend to victimize is carrying…that’s the major point of this exercise, correct? As I’ve stated before I expect them to continue doing what they are doing but change their work habits. Instead of implying they have a weapon they will simply brandish it immediately. Ain’t no one alive that can out draw a drawn piece.
I don’t honestly know what side of the debate that data supports – my point was the different states comparison is a poor argument and there should be plenty of data out there for same state, before & after since so many (everyone but Illinois) have preceded Wisconsin in making the changes.
I don’t believe that’s categorically true. Rational criminals would probably proceed that way. But then, I’d guess those who are rational represent a minor subset of all criminals.
Irrational criminals are already brandishing weapons anyway…LOL!
Which is sort of why making it illegal is rather silly then, isn’t it? 🙂
Exactly false. It’s why having gun laws to be able to lock those guys up is useful. We’ve just granted them immunity.
Pretty much my view on it. I heard one too many stories that these people with illegal guns were simply given a slap on the wrist after their actions. Concealed Carry I’m all for. Using the logic of ‘making it illegal won’t stop anything and is a waste of time’ is the logic that keeps people with those weapons and allowed to keep going back.
“This is a great day for my wife. My wife will have the ability to protect herself… That gun would be the great equalizer.”
Here’s a scenario I can see. Rebecca Kleefisch is standing in line at a convenience store when a person brandishing a gun walks in and demands all the money from the cashier. Rebecca reaches into her purse and…
A) fumbles around in her purse saying “Where is that damn gun?”. She is shot.
B) pulls out her gun and points it at the robber yelling “drop the gun scumbag!”. Forgetting that the safety is on, she is shot.
C) pulls out her gun, releases the safety and fires into the ceiling. She is shot.
D) pulls out her gun, releases the safety and accidentally shoots the cashier. She is shot.
E) pulls out her gun, releases the safety and shoots the robber squarely between the eyes. She blows the smoke from the barrel of the gun, and in one swift move spins the gun in her trigger finger and replaces it in her purse. Paralyzed from shock, the other customers watch as Rebecca quietly pays for her yogurt… then steps over the body and out into the noon day sun.
Option E is what every person who decides to carry is envisioning at this very moment when scenarios A through D are the more likely. And even if anyone avoids any real harm they will lose their wallet, purse, cell phone AND handgun.
That is sadly true, the only times I heard people who handled guns well were the ones who were in a war or were in law enforcement. People in rural areas of Texas often have guns too, but for more practical purposes because they are often ranchers in a way of life.
I have only heard a few people who actually held off people trying to rob them or kill them, and they all came under those specific circumstances in their past. (Aka, an old man in Minnesota getting robbed, he brought out his gun and shot one of them, with no intention to kill so they freaked out running away. He was a veteran which is why he had no hesitation or freeze. )
A lot of people have this fantasy that they will know what to do if something like that comes off, and as someone who owns a gun? I don’t think those people if they were in that moment, would know what to do as much as they fantasize about it. These hypothetical situations you can control in your head but when it comes to reality – things can be a lot more brutal.
The gun would only be ‘a great equalizer’ if you know how to properly use it. A lot of people who have them … don’t. As I stated before, I have no issue with people having guns – I just have a issue of with suburban idiots with more money than sense thinking they can magically know what to do.
You obviously have never taken a stitistics class and don’t understand variables and empiricability. The comparisons you make are worthless. Most national crime statistics are derived from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). Here’s part of what they say about such comparisons:
“Each year when Crime in the United States is published, many entities—news media, tourism agencies, and other groups with an interest in crime in our Nation—use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rankings, however, are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region, or other jurisdiction. Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents.”
Go here if you want to read the rest on the fallibility of trying to make such comparisons:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/about/variables_affecting_crime.html
You’d have to compare the same geographic area both before and well after concealed carry passed to start gathering meaningful statistics. For instance, the following are the FBI UCR stats for Minnesota in 2009:
Robbery – 68.7
Forcible Rape – 34
Murder – 1.4
Burglary – 484
Vehicle Theft – 161.8
That’s a major reduction in every category except rape from what you posted, but there is still no statistical correlation that can be drawn to concealed carry for that reduction because there are a multitude of other variables that would have to be accounted for before any conclusion could be drawn. Trying to use statistics without knowing what you’re doing may not be as dangerous as using a gun without knowing what you’re doing, but it’s still very inadvisable. There are plenty of research products available on this topic that wre produced by people who know how to actually do true, empirical research, and the statistical correlation between gun ownership and reduced crime3 has been made numerous times.
Thank you for pointing out that the statistics show a drop since CC in Minnesota AND that it is not relevant to connect CC with this data.
I haven’t checked when Minnesota concealed carry went into effect but it seems to me that it was before 2006…so the decrease in crime in Minn. from 2006 – 2009 might have nothing to do with it.
Bob:
You realize that quoting meaningful statistics is useless here. Thank you for providing a dose of truth to the conversation. Unfortunately, you are wasting bandwith.
I’m going to take a shot in the dark and guess that demographic factors have a much stronger effect on crime rate than gun laws. Also, this doesn’t at all factor in guns per 100,000 inhabitants.
A good point – that gun laws do not correlate perfectly to gun usage/ownership. A fact illustrated perfectly by Wisconsin where concealed carry is illegal…and yet shocker of shockers, armed robberies still happen.
How did we get up to a total of 23 responses in a post about Rebecca Kleefisch without a mention of a “bag of hammers?” Seriously, I’m thinking there’s a bit of slippage going on here.
why dont we just use logic? more guns will equal more gun violence its that simple.
Also I have not seen what is written in this bill, but many states make it so people who are carrying concealed weapons have less of a responsibility burden when something goes bad.
Carry a gun all you want but if there is a problem in public and you pull your gun and shoot someone you didnt “mean” too, that is murder in my book. Not involuntary manslaughter either!
I think you need a refresher course in logic.
You don’t think the person carrying the gun isn’t the single biggest factor in whether there will be gun violence?
Sure but its pretty indisputable if he/she does NOT have a gun, he/she can not commit gun violence. The ONE factor that is universal in someone hurting/injuring someone with a gun is they have to have a gun in the first place.
Well… it’s also pretty indisputable that bad guys are fully capable of getting guns regardless of laws in the books. By making guns hard to get/illegal, you only disarm the law abiding public. Kinda useless since they wouldn’t be running about shooting people in the first place, no?
Besides, maybe having a few good citizens that are armed might make criminals think twice about using a gun?
Just sayin’…
You’ve also now legalized all the gang-bangers’ guns, making it much harder to lock them up on such charges.
Soft on crime. Just sayin’.
Adding to “Besides, maybe having a few good citizens that are armed might make criminals think twice about using a gun?”.
Because if this country has proved anything, it’s that we’re chock-full of rational, level-headed mature adults capable of carrying out untrained vigilante justice.
I’ll stay away from all the thread rift and just address the opening post. The Wisconsin / Texas / Florida statistical comparison above is exactly why when John Lott worked on the book “More Guns, Less Crime” he discarded statewide numbers such as that and drilled down to the individual county level. Those numbers reveal an entirely different picture.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott.php
John Lott’s work is irrelevant and phony
Pb….kinf of like the tepubs taking collective bargaining rights away
Agree with you.
I have been the NRA-ILA election volunteer coordinator (EVC) for the Wisconsin 2nd Congressional District for more than a dozen years, and I have actively testified and published on behalf of the kind of personal protection legislature our state is now about to pass.
My involvement with this program began shortly after I researched the story of Dr Susan Gratia, a licensed chiropractor in the area of Ft Hood, Texas. One day in autumn 1991, she drove over to the popular local Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen for lunch with her parents, Al and Ursula Gratia. Dr Gratia, a trained target shooter, kept a pistol in her car, but refrained from carrying it into the restaurant, which at the time was forbidden by Texas law, and she was fearful of losing her state license if stopped by a police officer.
When I spoke with her at length by telephone four years later, she told me: “Arnold, leaving that handgun in my car instead of carrying it with me into the cafeteria was the biggest mistake I ever made in my life, law or no law. With that firearm, I could have saved the lives of both my parents and of many others of that day’s victims.”
Because what happened is that a heavily armed man, George Hennard, drove his pickup truck through the plate glass front window of Luby’s, walked through the restaurant, and began slaughtering more than 20 patrons. Susan and her parents were underneath a table. She told me that early in the systematic chain of killings, Hennard was positioned so that if she had her firearm, she could have shot him dead and stopped the massacre. But with her gun in the car, all they could do is try making a dash for an escape from the building. Susan got out safely. Al and Ursula were hit and they both died.
When I talked with her in 1995, Dr Gratia had gotten married, and as Susan Gratia-Hupp, she was elected to lower house of the Texas state legislature, partially based on her struggle for the present Texas “shall-issue” concealed carry law. That means the state has no option but to issue a citizen the license unless that person is specifically disqualified for cause under statute. That struggle over citizen gun rights also ended the career of liberal Democrat Ann Richards, who lost her seat to George W Bush.
Emergencies such as the one that killed her parents, Al and Ursula Hupp, almost killed their daughter, can happen to anyone, anytime, and almost anywhere. It could happen to me, my wife, our children, or neighbors. So I am not interested in the statistics about crime control, national, state or local. I intend to have the means of defending myself, if necessary with deadly force. That is one of my fundamental rights as an American, and one that I never, ever will give up.
Do I recognize the need for training for purposes of safe handling of firearms? I do indeed. I not only am a trained gun-range safety officer, both for pistols and automatic weapons. I have fired some 20,000 rounds of pistol-caliber ammunition over the course of some 14 years of action firearm matches.
I also recognize that use of deadly force in any situation such as what those innocent people in Killeen, Texas endured is itself dangerous and car get you killed even if you attempt to fight back. Irrespective of that, there are situations in which you almost certainly will be killed if you cannot escape from the threat and if you have no means to fight back. Like many other such emergencies, everything involved is strictly situational.
In any case, Wisconsin will now be the 49th US state enabling its residents to protect themselves. I think most of you will find no major changes in the way most of us live our lives or go about your routine activities. But those of us who sign up for a concealed carry permit will have reason to feel that if needed, they shall have a tool which may enable them to save themselves from extreme bodily harm or even from death. Because one thing that can be said about guns is the same thing that can be said about parachutes. If you need one and do not have it, you will never need it again.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
NRA-ILA EVC WI2CD
Thank you for this completely meaningless copy-and-paste job, Mr. Harris. Please go spam some other blog with your prefab NRA form letter.
[redacted], I don’t copy and paste, and I don’t do form letters, I also have the courage to use my real name on blog-site comments, apparently a quality standard you do measure up to.
I really did talk at length on at least two occasions with the Dr/State Representative Susan Gratia-Hupp. I really have testified for this and similar legislation at the state level, and on related issues at the local level of government, for 17 years. And now it really is about to be enacted into state law.
Some of you people on the left have made a major tactical error over the past few decades by buying into the social policies of the liberals who are now losing their political power all across America. Wisconsin, in terms of its gun owners, is one of the most heavily armed American states. Programs such as the ones I help represent are more important to many of them than union bargaining powers of public employee unions, the power of the teachers unions, and the funding of various state programs for the indigent. People such as you more or less openly invited them to permanently side with your Republican opponents.
Some of your friends, if and when they think about political tactics such as that, may well have cause to regret having made themselves unfriendly to such a large segment of the Wisconsin population. This will be especially true if your plans to regain control of the state senate and state assembly have more or less the same result as your recent effort to capture control of the state supreme court. You also should remember that once legislation is enacted into state statutes, it requires a majority vote in the state senate, the state assembly and control over the governorship to reverse any legislation previously passed.
Are you so certain that the political anomaly that brought total Republican control to Wisconsin in 2010 will soon occur in reverse, with liberal Democrats in control of all three centers of power in Wisconsin government? And if you knew the history of this issue as well as I do, you would know that concealed carry always had the votes of a considerable number of Democrats in the two houses of the legislature. We of the NRA have power because we carefully constructed it over many decades. You will not easily overturn what we have accomplished in the other 48 states, and what soon will be accomplished here in Wisconsin as well. We are in fact an armed citizenry, and we think we have the power and influence to keep it that way.
But if matters do not work out for you here, of course, there is always Canada or the United Kingdom, where no such citizen gun rights are respected.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Why are you assuming that all NRA members are conservative? Just like every other organization in this great nation it is made up of citizens from every walk of life and every belief system.
Exactly. My cousins down in Milwaukee and up in the Northwoods is fairly left leaning but are members of the NRA. Sadly, these are reasons why one of them chose not to vote for Barrett was because of the gun issue, everything else he agreed with. Even if he knew full well that Walker was an ‘utter asshole’ in their words since he suffered in Milwaukee County because of it.
It’s funny to me…you cited Canada as someplace where gun rights aren’t respected, but I’m wondering if you can also cite data on Canada being a much more dangerous and crime-ridden country as a result of its citizens not being armed.
After all, if those poor Canadians whose gun rights aren’t respected aren’t as armed to the teeth as we Americans, Canada should be a really violent and dangerous place, right?
I also have the courage to use my real name on blog-site comments
Oh, what courage to spout off NRA talking points. Someone get this man a medal. Carrying all that water for the gun lobby must be so hard for Mr. Harris.
As for my hiding my identity, a couple things: 1) Zach knows who I am. We’re friends, for what it’s worth. 2) We happen to live in a country where speech is free, but announcing that one, say, doesn’t believe in supernatural beings can be hazardous to continued gainful employment. That’s just a sad reality. For that reason, I chose to speak my political mind anonymously online. I suppose you wouldn’t understand that, since there’s no taboo in American culture on being a in favor of easier access to devices whose primary purpose is to kill people. But, take it from me, there certainly is a taboo on being an atheist.
In short, keep your snide remarks about my anonymity to yourself, please.
Finally, I loved this bit:
Some of your friends, if and when they think about political tactics such as that, may well have cause to regret having made themselves unfriendly to such a large segment of the Wisconsin population.
You know all those thousands of angry people in Madison a couple months back? Pretty sure some of your friends are going to regret having made themselves unfriendly to them. Don’t believe me? Ask Randy Hopper about his prospects for reelection. Now is not the time for you to be doing victory laps. It’s the time to be running scared from an electorate outraged by conservative overreach.
Mr. Harris…I obviously use my real name here and at some cost…in the past 4 months my home and car have been vandalized…and I doubt it was anyone from my side of the aisle…
Do you support background checks (including criminal history and screening for mental health) for purchasing firearms?
btw: and I want everyone to be perfectly clear on this…the nuclear reactor in my backyard is purely for peaceful purposes…I am going to generate electricity with it…under no circumstances am I refining weapons grade uranium and my trip to the uranium mines in WY next week is purely coincidental. Really…I’d rather use the space for the four chickens I am allowed to ranch…but electricity is getting so expensive!
I would trust you with a nuclear reactor but I would also want to be sure that your reactor does not deny your neighbors the right to enjoy their life , liberty, and property… so I might have a few things that would regulate your placement and operation of it.
Ah, but you can’t draw that distinction, PartiallyBlue. In order to attract companies to the nuclear business back in the 1950s, Congress passed a law making an exemption from the doctrine of ultrahazardous strict liability that covers nuclear power plants. In English, if that plant next door to you has a “whoopsie” and denies you your right to life, liberty, or property, your chances of being successful in court against the company operating the plant are essentially zero.
The More You Know.
Well I’ll make sure it’s at least 25 feet from the neighbors homes just like the chicken shacks requirement!
JCG, I do indeed want background checks on anybody who will apply for a concealed carry license; the same as have been reequired for many years of anybody purchasing a handgun.
Note that the concealed carry applies solely to handguns. I happen to own automatic weapons that are duly registered with the United States Treasury Department under federal law. To the best of my knowledge, none of these are concealable in any case.
Therefore, allusions made here by some commenters about licensing nuclear weapons for their back yard simply are evasions by people who cannot or will not address the qestions I raised here in my first comment. That was, and remains, the right Dr/State Representative Susan Gratia-Hupp to carry a concealed firearm to defend her own life and that of her parents, Al and Ursula Gratia.
That right had been denied her by state law, that day in September 1991 in Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas. Because of that, she almost lost her life and she could do nothing to stop the murder of both her aged parents.
Therefore, in arguing against her right to arm herself for self-defense, you essentially are arguing on the side of criminal murderers who obey no such laws to begin with. Because when guns are outlawed, only criminals will have them. That, by the way, is the way life is organized in places such as Chicago and Milwaukee, where otherwise law-abiding residents are perpetually at the mercy of well-armed gangs that operate irrespective of the large local police forces of those cities.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Note that the concealed carry applies solely to handguns. I happen to own automatic weapons that are duly registered with the United States Treasury Department under federal law. To the best of my knowledge, none of these are concealable in any case.
That is manifestly untrue. If you don’t believe that automatic weapons can be concealed, you’ve obviously never heard of machine pistols like the Beretta 93, the Glock 18, the TEC-9, the Micro Uzi, the MAC-10/11, and on and on. Weapons like those, by the way, happen to be favorites with criminals.
Just because your Tommy gun or whatever machine gun you own isn’t concealable doesn’t mean that all automatic weapons are not concealable, so stop dissembling.
I am sorry that you lack a sense of humor…but nuclear reactors are NOT nuclear weapons…
I’ve lived in both Chicago and Milwaukee…and neither city is perpetually at the mercy of armed gangs…please stay in Mount Horeb…I understand it is a Troll Haven!
Great brew pub there though! the Grumpy Troll!
Arnold. I live in Milwaukee. Not the suburbs. City proper. Not the outlying parts of the city proper. Downtown. And when not working, I spend much of my time volunteering at community organizations all over the city, so I get around, too. Your dripping-with-fear comment that this is a place “where otherwise law-abiding residents are perpetually at the mercy of well-armed gangs that operate irrespective of the large local police forces of those cities.” is, in a word, laughable. And completely typical of the naive, fearful perception suburbanites and rural(ites?) who’ve never spent time in the city without their windows rolled up and doors locked, and who’s only knowledge of city life comes from the sensationalized headlines they read in the paper and see on the 6:00 news. While I won’t deny crime is higher in cities than in suburbs (even on a per capita basis), 95% of the violent crime is gang-bangers shooting each other in the ass. When you pare it down to truly “innocent” victims, the crime rates look pretty similar to anywhere else (on a per capita basis, of course). Not to mention, crime has already been steadily and rapidly declining here for going on 5 years now. So, when I step out of my house or my car or the bus, am I ducking bullets? With the caveat that of course you learn to be aware of your surroundings and follow some simple guidelines, the thought honestly never even crosses the mind.
I think it illustrates how completely out-of-touch you are on how this issue affects big cities. Come visit here once. I promise you won’t have to dodge any bullets. And you might even fall in love with this place as much as those of us who live here do. But you’ll also learn the last thing Lincoln Memorial Drive at Bradford Beach needs on a steamy summer day is hundreds more guns added to the mix in the hands of some overcompensatingly macho hothead who thinks he’s gonna be a vigilante and end up accidentally shooting some 7 year old and her mom in their eye sockets. We have professionals to handle that job. The wild west mentality of the 1850’s cannot fly here.
I think ultimately that’s the heart of the issue that never EVER gets talked about, even in this thread: the vast difference in the dimensions of this issue for urban vs. rural areas.
arnold using a single case is ridiculous. As we have discussed here before, AZ has one of the most open gun laws in the country, how did that work for Gabby Giffords?
You folks seem to fear that negligent discharges will be the order of the day, vigilantism will run rampant and irresponsible individuals will be shooting neighbors over letting their dog run lose. Do you really believe the drivel you’re spouting? If so, I would suggest you’re engaging in what psychologists refer to as projection, and I certainly urge you to NOT consider even purchasing, much less carrying a firearm. I will freely admit it’s not for everyone. Much soul-searching should be done before making the decision to be an armed citizen.
You’re painting a broad brush, I’m all for concealed carry and keeping the right to own and bear arms. I am actually all for people who deal with money also to have weapons on them too, even if I am different from liberals in that respect. I just think citizens who get them illegally, do a crime, should have that charged against them for getting the said gun illegally in the first place along with their crime. The purpose of the laws against illegl guns is not to criminalize the people who get them illegally by mistake and plan to use them responsibly – it’s to get the people who are using the weapons for a rush of power to do illegal actions. (I had a family member in the northwoods who accidentally bought an illegal gun from an illegal gun show, once he explained the situation to authorities they were understanding.)
Vigilantism won’t run rampant. If that was the case we would hear more heroic stories of inspiration from the states with the most lax fire arm laws. I hear stories of regret that people should have had a fire arm on them so they could change the situation, like Arnold Harris’ story. I hear of stories of how a woman is raped and she now is prepared from now on by carrying a firearm on her for if it happens again. I hear stories of how they attempt to do so but end up failing and ending in tragedy because they were caught in the moment. But I rarely if ever hear stories of how a weapon stopped a horrible thing from happening, and when I do? I’m happy when it does happen but I feel it’s so rare.
That being said: The bright side of this is there will be increased penalties for concealed carry of those who do it illegally.
“But I rarely if ever hear stories of how a weapon stopped a horrible thing from happening, and when I do? I’m happy when it does happen but I feel it’s so rare.”
Prepare to be happy then. Several years ago I was able to prevent mineownpersonalself from being robbed by merely displaying my firearm. Keep in mind, I didn’t even have to draw it. Merely pulling my jacket back so it was visible was adequate to deescalate the situation.
That’s good and I’m actually happy that was successful. As I stated before, I’m not against guns in the very least – I know a lot of people have them for practical purposes for daily life since I have many people who live up in the northwoods.
However, a lot of people are still attacked by people with illegal guns because these slimeballs often prey on people they deem helpless specifically. I think it’s important that we catch those criminals and bring them to justice. And while, yes it’s possible to hold someone up with a knife or bat – it’s also a lot a lot easier to intimidate and control with a gun due to the connotations to it and if it’s powerful enough – it doesn’t matter if you’re skilled with it or not. (As we’ve seen in the case of Jared Loughner, who to me shown that he didn’t know how to properly use it – which in my opinion… was a good thing.)
As I stated before, I’m personally more worrie about suburban nitwits getting a hold of the gun and killing their friends/family/themselves because they were showing off. Then again, my ideal would there to be a state funded and state certified gun program that could teach you how to handle and take care of your guns — but I am rambling.
Oh my. You raise a couple points I agree with. Although possibly from a different perspective. You say, “…it’s also a lot a lot easier to … control with a gun … doesn’t matter if you’re skilled with it or not.” While a certain skill level is in fact necessary, nonetheless one can become reasonably proficient with one far more quickly than with edged or impact weapons, or traditional martial arts. That being the case, the gun is obviously the hands down best choice for a lot of people. Me, for example. I’m too old and weak to fight, and certainly to crippled to run. Where does that leave me?
“…my ideal would there to be a state funded and state certified gun program that could teach you how to handle and take care of your guns…” I couldn’t agree more. Inasmuch as the phrase “well regulated” in the late 18th century would most accurately be rendered today as “well trained,” and that the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment was actually pretty much all able-bodied men, it would seem the gov’t has a responsibility to teach firearms safety and marksmanship skills in the public schools from the earliest possible age.
Well then – I guess this thread is just about a moot point, eh?
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20110615/APC0101/106150593/Wisconsin-Senate-votes-legalize-concealed-carry
That being said? I was very, disappointed with the Republican party on this bill. This state had a valid shot at Constitutional Carry which wouldn’t have cost this state’s tax payer’s a single dime. There were documents circulated that showed it would actually save the state money. This means that when the Democrats take control again they will just push this right back. It’s very short sighted in that respect. I’m happy it’s legit, but at the sametime … so easily pushed back.