Today, the first of November, Wisconsin’s new concealed-carry gun law goes into effect. And I don’t feel one bit safer.
I’m not a gun hater. I am thoroughly trained in firearms use by a highly-decorated World War Two Combat Infantry Veteran - my late father. I have trod the woods and fields of Wisconsin legally hunting deer and small game. That’s me, above, a few years ago, doing some target-shooting on my land in Colorado.
The reason I don’t feel safer today, mainly, is that those people who argue most vociferously for their right to carry a concealed weapon are, I believe, also the most likely to actually USE that weapon. The same people who will say things like “an unloaded gun is a useless thing” and “I carry it for protection” and “cars and baseball bats kill people; nobody’s talking about taking them away from us”.
The rights-demanders are seemingly just itching for a situation where they can draw their concealed weapon and put it to use. We can debate this assertion, but you won’t likely change my mind.
I will feel less safe because I, or a member of my family, may find themselves in a situation where somebody with four hours of weapons training actually uses a concealed weapon, and I or my family member ends up injured or worse because we happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Law enforcement officers are thoroughly trained in weapons use, and they have professional protocols to follow. I want them to be carrying a weapon wherever and whenever. I trust they will know when to shoot, and when not to shoot. The rights-demanders: not so much.
As to my personal relationship with concealed carry: I won’t apply for a permit, and I will not violate the law by unlawfully concealing or carrying a weapon. Suffice it to say that if someone invades my home when I’m around, there will be nothing concealed about what I choose to greet them with.
Actually, the ones who are most likely to use a firearm are those who have been illegally carrying them already. Criminals aren't required to have any training at all before they whip out a handgun to mug someone.
ReplyDeletePurple's right, you know.
ReplyDeleteAs to your contention, that remains to be seen. It has NOT been the experience of the other 48 States who allow CCW.
My only recc'dation to CCW carriers: find and read the book "In the Gravest Extreme." (Paladin Press, IIRC.) Lays it out very well. In sum: NEVER pull the gun except....in the gravest extreme.
We often hear that concealed carry of weapons will allow the average citizen to defend himself when confronted by a bad guy, or keep a bad guy from committing a crime against a third person. The next news story I read describing this will be the first one, however. I suppose some bad guy could be deterred from committing a crime in the first place by the thought that his victim may be packin', but I dunno.
ReplyDeleteI will say that for the first time, I find myself agreeing with Dad: about when to pull the gun if you've got one.
I also agree with Dad in this case. People should be extremely reluctant to pull a gun and shoot another human being. I'm pleasantly surprised that Paladin Press, publisher of "Get Your Neighbor" and "The Revenge Book" among other titles, is providing some responsible information.
ReplyDeleteI hope no one decides they have the right to shoot a panhandler who approaches them on State Street because they felt threatened. I also hope no one decides to be a hero and hit an innocent bystander because they didn't have a clear shot. I hope that Wisconsin's 4-hour training courses include some of those basic protocols. All in all, I still think I'm in more danger in most of Wisconsin from a drunk driver than a gun-owner (legal or not).
Uhmmnhhhhh....you'd read a lot more about how licit use of guns--even just brandishing--saved lives and property if the MSM would print it.
ReplyDeleteThe NRA's "Rifleman" carries about 10 stories/month on just such occurrences. Strangely, AP doesn't pick them up. Nor does CBS/NBC/CNN/ABC.....not even the eeeeeeeevil Fox.
Dad29 wrote ... Uhmmnhhhhh.... (etc.): If the MSM (I presume the reference is mainstream media) do not pick up such stories, it may be because they are ficticious.
ReplyDeleteDadster's faith that the NRA propaganda stream shoots straight facts may be misplaced. The site's "Armed citizen" section currently features a tale about how a teenage home intruder was shot with his own gun, wrestled from him by the courageous family-defending homeowner, who was exonerated.
The perfectly formed (from the NRA perspective) account carries a link to The San Francisco Chronicle. But follow the link and search the newspaper's own archives for the story and you may conclude that the tale is tall.
It is easy enough to find Chronicle stories that carry components of the supposed incident: Gang member shot with his own gun in a street dispute ... Cop shoots home invader ... that sort of thing. But the stirring "Rifleman" account, as presented on the NRA site -- if it exists at all -- is well camougflaged.
You've gotta watch those Internets. As Abraham Lincoln used to say, "It's difficult to be sure what you read on websites is true."
*Cough*
ReplyDeleteRead the hard-copy, not the 'nets.
And your suspicion is correct: I don't verify the stories personally.
In like vein, have you personally verified the Obozo story that 'we're better off now than when I took over'?
Well, have ya, punk?
It might be time for some truth from Florida. We have had shall issue laws in Florida for over 20 years. I believe most of the fear mongering stories were printed here first. Although you might be able to find stories that conform to fear mongering blueprint, if you will look at the actual statistics you will see that ccw holders have a lower incident of crime than police officers, as well as a lower percentage of bad shoots. In general ccw holders tend to be the safest gun owners in the state.
ReplyDeleteDan29 ... you look very small
ReplyDeleteHieronymous, I don't doubt that there are plenty of stories that are exaggerations or phony on gun defense. That is tempered by the fact that the media routinely leaves out examples of guns saving lives/preventing crime. Just because the media won't talk about it, doesn't mean it don't exist
ReplyDeleteRegardless, common sense and my own experiences (no guns involved) tell me that a show of superior force prevents unpleasant/unwanted incidents from happening.
We've had concealed carry here in Indiana since 1989, and amazingly, neither me nor my family have been shot at by any yahoos with CCW permits.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think is the deficiency in your fellow Wisconsites, that they can't handle the same rights as have been exercised by the residents of 48 other states for years without creating the calamities you are predicting?
Alath
Carmel IN
Regarding accuracy of American Rifleman "armed citizen" stories.
ReplyDeleteJust for fun, I tracked the stories from this month's issue.
#1 http://orangeleader.com/local/x616691018/Homeowner-shoots-intruder-in-self-defense
#2 http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/police-id-slain-home-942224.html
#3 not able to verify
#4 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/fired-walgreens-gun-toting-michigan-pharmacist-filled-robbers/story?id=13705438
#5 http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/MAN-S-CONCEALED-HANDGUN-SAVES-HIM-AND-HIS-DOG-br-When-3-pit-bulls-stage-surprise-attack-668700
#5 http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110509/NEWS/105090324
I spent about 5 minutes on this, using nothing more than simple Google searches.
In 80% of the armed citizen stories, I was able to confirm the Rifleman's account of the news story in all essential details.
The one story I could not comfirm was from a TV news station that apparently does not archive their past stories. Note, this is not a case where I found contradictory information to the Rifleman account, I just couldn't find anything on the story either way.
Admittedly this is a limited sample, but it appears that this month, the NRA was 80% confirmed accurate in their stories, with the other 20% unconfirmed (but neither did I find anything to contradict their account).
Based on my sample, it looks like Rifleman does a pretty good job relating these stories.
Can you cite anything to the contrary? Or are we to just take your unsupported opinion that they just make it all up?
Alath
Carmel IN
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/nov/04/armed-pizza-delivery-man-shoots-would-be-robber/
ReplyDeleteNovember 3, 2011, Memphis. Armed robber shot by pizza delivery man. Pizza delivery man unharmed.
If you don't believe the NRA, would you believe the newspapers?
ReplyDeletehttp://wheelgun.blogspot.com/search/label/self-defense A collection of stories, gleaned from the headlines, as it were.
Of course most newspapers don't keep stuff online as long as blogger does, but a lot of them will still be there....
That link http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/search/label/self-defense
ReplyDeleteSorry - what I meant to say was that link is a list of self-defense stories, most occur at home, but some occur on the streets.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the press doesn't like stories of people standing up for themselves. You see, the Left loves it when people are dependent on the state for everything. Especially safety.
Alath the Anonymous defensively wrote ... "Based on my sample, it looks like Rifleman does a pretty good job relating these stories. Can you cite anything to the contrary? Or are we to just take your unsupported opinion that they just make it all up?"
ReplyDeleteThe one Zendo Deb repeats a tired Fox canard: "It seems that the press doesn't like stories of people standing up for themselves. You see, the Left loves it when people are dependent on the state for everything. Especially safety."
To both selective readers: I said nothing of the sort. I do, however, stand by the observation that if the mainstream media do not pick up your favorite florid stories, it may be because they are fictitious, or maybe tweaked a wee bit to make them read better.
As it happens, there's really no need for the gun lobby to make stuff up, although I am sure the urge to burnish the accounts must at times be difficult to suppress. Stories about intrepid homeowners shooting intruders -- armed or not -- are a dime a dozen. The press (you meant to say "liberal press," didn't you?) reports such tales with abandon.
The reviled media also report plenty of stories (you may have missed these) of armed citizens shooting family members or acquaintances, or themselves. Here's one about a marksman who contrived to nick his own willie http://bit.ly/mP5V47 Hey, accidents can happen!
No few of these newsmaking pistoleros missed their shot at being in "The Rifleman" archives because they end up shot by cops, however accidentally, or spouses, or, luckily, surviving an armed encounter while having their weapons stolen when a bad guy got the drop on them. Do not be faint of heart. It even happens to highly trained cops.
On average, about one half of one percent of firearm deaths in homes where guns are kept for protection involve intruders shot while breaking in. Easy there, deadeye. I don't want to confuse you quick-draw artists with facts because that will only make you angry and you'll start venting again.
I won't bother you fans of the fusillade with statistics that show more than 70 percent of firearm-related deaths occur in the homes of armed citizens, or that "protection" guns are most likely to be used in homicides in the home.
The grisly list goes on. But there's no need to regale you with those numbers. Wisconsin will now begin building its own statistics database.
I hope that, 130 enlightened years after the gunfight at the OK Corral, none of you shootists are on track to get hurt, and that Wisconsin's numbers run counter to history and experience, but that's asking a lot.