Leto

he what???? shot at somebody because they broke into his house??? wtf? where is his mind at? He could have killed whoever that was. Yes the person was breaking and entering, but holy shit, that's not worth killing somebody. Where is this going to go?

Before you know some non-English speaking tourist will get shot just for knocking on somebody's door for directions.

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

dksuddeth

you're joking, right? surely you could not be suggesting that the homeowner should offer tea and crumpets, along with his wallet, jewelry, and maybe throw his daughter in for a little fun, to the guy that just broke in through the front door. are you?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Leto

considering the extreme luck of my being there to see it in the first place, a lot less than would have happened if I didn't call the police. You have to realize there are no guarrantees in life, but society does operate within certain guidelines. I can yell for help, draw attention to the fighting. do all the things that are required. If I had a gun, I could probably get into a gun battle too. Or at least try to intimidate with it. If I start shooting it off, then i run the risk of injuring not only nearby people, as bullets travel a long way and there are a lot of people in the city. (see liability below)

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

dksuddeth

If you take the training, you know NEVER pull a gun to intimidate. If you're going to pull it, USE IT. You also TRAIN with it. Learn how to hit what you're shooting at. It could mean the difference between life and death. Imagine having to look at the mother who lost her child in the street because all you could do is call the police when you could have saved her sons life by shooting those that were trying to kill him. Better yet, imagine YOUR mother having to bury you instead of being able to thank someone for saving your life by shooting the person who was attacking you.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

How would conceiled weapons give you a better chance of respoding?
In a heartbeat. I've lost firghts, been stabbed and even been shot before. I also had the common sense to take martial arts.
It also increases the odds that the crimial will use deadly force against you - you now being more of a threat - , and that you could be charged with manslaughter.
Gladly. It's insane for that man in that specific case to believe that he was above the law. You cannot disregard laws that you don't agree with. If we lived in a society with a judicial system that tolerated that, we'd be in aharchy. You can protect your family within the guidelines of the law. You cannot defend your family outside of the guidelines of the law. He WAS guilty of a crime, and was charged and sentenced as such. He could have legally used a bat, or knife, or crossbow, or pepperspray, or tazer, or whatever. He had a gun, and that was illegal.
It is not illogical to assume that higher production means greater availability. Higher production means more availability for any good or service, including weaponry. Would you like to know how to protect yourself from home invasion? Simple. Bar your windows and get security doors. No gun needed.

Leto

nope. don't be silly.

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

Leto

i agree with you on the training. But we're miles apart on the whole concept. Your scenarios are spurious in the extreme. Worthy of a tv thriller, but not true to real life as I have experienced it. But then, I don't live in the wilds of NYC, Soweto, or Wisconson so cannot comment on those areas.

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

dksuddeth

Don't confuse what I've said. The weapon isn't going to give you a better chance of responding, better awareness will. The weapon betters your chances of surviving if something happens.

I've taken martial arts as well, but why should I jump in to risk getting stabbed or beat when I can shoot first and save someones life?

If someone is going to attempt to use deadly force against me, no court in texas will EVER convict me of manslaughter. Also, the way I shoot, I'm not worried about the criminals odds.

wow, its absolutely terrifying to believe that you think its legal to outlaw defending your home. Taking the knife to a gunfight comes to mind. Also, a Ball Bat against a gun? What you're advocating is a defenseless populace at the mercy of criminals. does that make sense to you?

Why should I be forced to turn my home in to a prison? There is absolutely no good reason to force law abiding americans to become prisoners of society because YOU want to disarm them.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

I hear alot of people talk about the 'it never happens to me' scenario...but it leaves me wondering something. What about those that WERE killed? If they could have a do over, would they want to carry a gun then?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Leto

In my burgh, with the exception of the bystanders who were in the line of fire, the dudes that did get killed HAD guns too.

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

dksuddeth

so you're telling me that in ALL gun related crimes, ALL the actual participants (not bystanders) had guns?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Leto

That would be correct. and to give you figures, city (not metropolitan) population of 2.4 million, there were 52 gun related deaths in 2005. This actually represents a double of gun murders over 2004 and is therefore a matter of concern.

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

Poppinjay

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a Texan with family in Illinois worrying about Wisconsin's gun laws. Has the mighty WI been making menacing gestures towards Illinois?

That notwithstanding, I find the argument that we need conealed carry because exposed carry is being outlawed, people can go to jail blah blah blah specious. yeah, if somebody is walking around with a gun in their hand, that's a worry. If it's holstered or shouldered, not so much. Additionally, every cop in concealed carry territory now has one more thing to be on edge about in every traffic stop or jay walking. This guy may have a gun somewhere.

Like I said, I live in DC, never seen a gun related crime, and at 45-100,000 ratio, I can see why not.

Plus, like in every other city I've lived in, you know where the crime is, and you don't GO there.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Willravel

Have you ever pulled a gun during an attack? Did you know that sometimes other people have guns, too? UIf you pull your gun are they
:
a) less likely to pull their gun
b) just as likely to pull their gun
c) more likely to pull their gun
d) none of the above
You'd shoot first and ask questions later. That's the scariest thing I've ever read on this board. What if you misinterpret a situation and end up killing someone who was just roughhousing? I realize that's not likely, but is it impossible?
We're talking about Wisconsin, not Texas.
It's legal to outlaw anything, as long as it's done legally. If congress inacted a law tha said no more lollypops, you'd have to stop eating lollypops until the legislation could be reversed. It doesn't matter if you think the law is wrong, absurd, illogical, or whatever. You have to abide by the laws you live under, or face the consequences.
I am basing this on YOUR perceptions of danger, not mine. Also, it would be a fortress, not a prison. Prisons keep people in, and fortresses keep people out.That's the strawman I was talking about. If you call what I reccoment a prison, suddenly it's unreasonable. What I see as unreasonable is to put a divice intended to harm or end life in your house, just because of some phantom menace. I'll bet you $5 that between now and when you duie, you will never have anyone break into your house.

Do you have meteor insurance? I mean the odds are you'll never be hit by a meteor, but it could happen. Why do you have a gun, but not meteor insurance?

dksuddeth

can you post any kind of link for that stat? I'd like to read the report please.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

No, I have not and I hope I never have to.
I live in Texas, of course I know.

irrelevant. If I pull my gun, i'm going to use it.

Damn straight. you'll see why below.

No, its not impossible...theres like a .02 percent chance i'm going to misinterpret a situation as roughhousing. You're assuming that here in texas all we do is walk around looking for a reason to shoot someone. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, common sense SHOULD tell anyone that 99% of us who are armed will seriously evaluate a situation BEFORE we pull our gun.

wisconsin....the home of hunters. I'm not too worried about how they are going to shoot also.

And i'll have not lost anything either way, having the gun or not having the gun. It's like wearing a seat belt. I COULD have an accident even though im wearing it, but if im not wearing and i'm in an accident.....

some people are just so silly.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ratbastid

Hunh! Gives whole new meaning to the term "red state", doesn't it?

I apologize, I just couldn't help myself....

Leto

here is what I could dig up in the short term:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/am...nada.crime.ap/

full story below

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ub=TorontoHome

full story below

~~~~~~~~~~

TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- Canadian officials, seeking to make sense of another fatal shooting in what has been a record year for gun-related deaths, said Tuesday that along with a host of social ills, part of the problem stemmed from what they said was the United States exporting its violence.
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Toronto Mayor David Miller warned that Canada could become like the United States after gunfire erupted Monday on a busy street filled with holiday shoppers, killing a 15-year-old girl and wounding six bystanders -- the latest victims in a record surge in gun violence in Toronto.
The shooting stemmed from a dispute among a group of 10 to 15 youth, and the victim was a teenager out with a parent near a popular shopping mall, police said Tuesday.
"I think it's a day that Toronto has finally lost its innocence," Det. Sgt. Savas Kyriacou said. "It was a tragic loss and tragic day."
While many Canadians take pride in Canadian cities being less violent than their American counterparts, Toronto has seen 78 murders this year, including a record 52 gun-related deaths -- almost twice as many as last year.
"What happened yesterday was appalling. You just don't expect it in a Canadian city," the mayor said.
"It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the U.S. is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto," Miller said.
Miller said Toronto, a city of nearly three million, is still very safe compared to most American cities, but the illegal flow of weapons from the United States is causing the noticeable rise in gun violence.
"The U.S. is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto," he said.
Miller said that while almost every other crime in Toronto is down, the supply of guns has increased and half of them come from the United States.
Miller said the availability of stolen Canadian guns is another problem, and that poverty in certain Toronto neighborhoods is a root cause.
"There are neighborhoods in Toronto where young people face barriers of poverty, discrimination and don't have real hope and opportunity. The kind of programs that we once took for granted in Canada that would reach out to young people have systematically disappeared over the past decade and I think that gun violence is a symptom of a much bigger problem," Miller said.
The escalating violence prompted the prime minister to announce earlier this month that if re-elected on January 23, his government would ban handguns. With severe restrictions already in place against handgun ownership, many criticized the announcement as politics.
Martin, who says up to half of the gun crimes in Canada involve weapons brought in illegally from the United States, raised the smuggling problem when he met with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in October.
Martin offered his condolences in a statement Tuesday, saying he was horrified by the shootings.
"What we saw yesterday is a stark reminder of the challenge that governments, police forces and communities face to ensure that Canadian cities do not descend into the kind of rampant gun violence we have seen elsewhere," Martin said.
John Thompson, a security analyst with the Toronto-based Mackenzie Institute, says the number of guns smuggled from the United States is a problem, but that Canada has a gang problem -- not a gun problem -- and that Canada should stop pointing the finger at the United States.
"It's a cop out. It's an easy way of looking at one symptom rather than addressing a whole disease," Thompson said.
Two suspects were arrested and at least one firearm was seized soon after the shootings Monday. Kyriacou said it was an illegal handgun.
Three females and four males were injured, including one male who is in critical condition. Police believe they were bystanders.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Toronto sets a new record for gun-related carnage
Ken Regular, CTV.ca News
Toronto has almost doubled its number of gun-related homicides over last year: There were 27 in all of 2004. Going into Boxing Day, there were 77 murders, 51 of which involved firearms.
While there have been plenty of terrible incidents to shock this city of 2.5 million, fate had at least one more up its sleeve.
The Boxing Day shootings on bustling Yonge Street just north of the Eaton Centre sent shoppers ducking for cover, left six people wounded and claimed the life of a 15-year-old girl. A bullet struck the teenager in the head during a shopping expedition with her family.
She became a grim statistic -- the 52nd person killed by gunfire and 78th homicide victim in Toronto's Year of the Gun.
The next day, Det. Sgt. Savas Kyriacou said that the city is experiencing a dramatic change.
"Toronto has finally lost its innocence," he told reporters during a Dec. 27 news conference.
A murderous year
Boxing Day's violent scene is the latest in a string of brazen attacks using firearms.
On Nov. 18, Amon Beckles was gunned down on the steps of a church, while the funeral for his friend Jamal Hemmings -- another shooting victim -- was happening inside.
In the days that followed, the community tried to understand how violence could reach the doorstep of a house of worship.
Beckles' mother summed up what many people were feeling during an interview with CTV Toronto's Desmond Brown.
"This violence has to stop, and I hope and pray it will stop," Nadia Beckles said on Nov. 21.
At various other times, people have been shot in broad daylight, gunned down in drive-by attacks, and murdered in parking lots and secluded alleys.
Many suggestions for peace
Community leaders have not settled on a strategy for peace in the streets, although many solutions for curbing gun violence were proposed in 2005.
In late November, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler tabled legislation to increase minimum sentences for some gun crimes and create tougher parole rules for gun crime offenders. However, the proposed legislation did not become law because the government fell in a non-confidence vote.
Just days before, Prime Minister Paul Martin had met with Toronto's African-Canadian community to discuss solutions and promised a high-level summit for further discussions.
And church minister Al Bowen -- who conducted the funeral service for Amon Beckles -- called on the government to invoke the War Measures Act and send the military to patrol violence-plagued neighbourhoods.
The gun violence issue has also popped up during the federal election. Martin used an appearance in the troubled Jane-Finch neighborhood in northwest Toronto to promise a handgun ban and other measures to fight gun-related crime.
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper promises tougher sentencing and some community intervention programs.
NDP Leader Jack Layton has talked about getting tough, but frames the problem mainly as a social issue, saying, "We also need to get tougher -- much tougher -- on poverty, unemployment and social exclusion."
The day after the Yonge Street shootout, a coalition of city youth groups demanded money and co-operation from all levels of government to attack feelings of marginalization and hopelessness among city youth.
The group believes Toronto reached a crisis point in 2005 and are hopeful that an innocent by-stander's death is a turning point towards the co-operation they seek.
However, Toronto police have repeatedly said they have problems getting witnesses to step forward and provide information on those doing the shooting, stymying many homicide investigations.
Statistically still 'Toronto the good'
In 2004, Toronto ranked as one of Canada's safest places to live when compared to other major cities, according to a Statistics Canada report released in July.
The per capita murder rate was 1.8 per 100,000 people. Montreal's per capita rate is 1.7 per 100,000, while the prairie city of Winnipeg comes in at almost five per 100,000.
Nationally, the average is 1.95 per 100,000. Manitoba had the highest provincial rate at 4.3 per 100,000, while Ontario's was 1.51 per 100,000.
And while there are spectacular exceptions, most of the gun-related homicides take place in what have been deemed at-risk neighborhoods, where unemployment is high and social services are in short supply.
Numbers equal real people
However, statistics do not provide comfort to the dozens of families grieving for murdered loved ones. For them, the numbers represent people who are gone forever.
"I raised him for 18 years and some bastard just took him away," Nadia Beckles said shortly after a shooter took her son's life.
Other people fear for their children's safety. Benjamin Osei fled with his family from a violent situation in another country, only to be confronted with what is happening in Toronto. He wanted something better for his daughter.
"We need a better place for her (his daughter) to live and all the children," Osei said during an Oct. 29 rally to end the violence.
Many parents in at-risk neighborhoods are afraid to allow their children to play outside. There have been stories of people killed in their homes by stray bullets.
During that same rally, a boy named Tyreik explained his daily experience in a rap he penned.
"It's hard for you and me living in this society. Late at night or in the middle of the day ... there ain't no place for us kids to stay," rhymed the seven-year-old.

__________________
You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey
And I never saw someone say that before
You held my hand and we walked home the long way
You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr

http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

Coppertop

I'd just like to point out that such acts were the foundation of our country.

So much for aharchy [sic].

dksuddeth

Leto, your link/story does not tell me that all of the gun related deaths were armed with a gun themselves.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

I also wanted to point out to you that this is not true. Congress cannot enact a law that violates the constitution and then force me to abide by the law.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Mojo_PeiPei

I like how liberals in general tend to think that law abiding citizens are incapable of legally owning a gun, also operating said guns, nor should they be allowed to.

One thing that I have always said, and liberals have never been able to counter is this: Criminals don't care about the legality of owning/operating guns. They get them illegally, and use them illegally, they don't care. Do you think by taking away the constitutional right to bare arms that crime and guns will disappear? Or do you think you will have a disarmed population at the mercy of criminals who will still get illegal weapons from illegal sources?

I mean seriously, what sort of a delusional world do some people live in. It's actually upsetting to me because it is so stupid and confounding to any semblence of rational thought.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Willravel

So are they. Even if you're a good shot - which I have no doubt you are - you are putting yourself into a situation where they are MORE likely to shoot at you first or shoto back if you happen to miss. ALSO, you would be endangering any bystanders.
Because there have never ben accedantal shots fired in Texas, naturally.
If you get in an accedent, your seatbelt doesn't strangle and kill the person who hits you. Apples and oranges.
You mean like people who wear guns to movie theaters or Starbucks?
I also want to point out that nowhere in the Constitution does it say we have the right to lollipops, or CONCEALED weapons.
It's more a matter of monitoring the guns after they are produced by the factories. If we can better monitor how and where criminals come into posession of guns, then the necessity for law abiding citizens to own guns will drop (with the exception of things like hunting, where the gun is not intended to do harm to humans). What we are talking about here is the right to conceiled weapons in Wisconsin. dksuddeth seems sure that his family depends on him being able to conceal a weapon the next time he is in Wisconsin. We disagree. This is not a general pro gun/gun control/anti gun thread or conversation (despite efforts by some). This is specifically about the legality of concealed weapons in Wisconsin and it's effects.

dksuddeth

2nd amendment guarantees my natural right to keep and bear arms. whether the state forces me to conceal them or not is up to them.

when you figure that out, i'll consider not wearing a concealed weapon. but not until then.
thats not what this is about, misdirecting the thread this way is.....ridiculous.
THATS what this is about.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

The Second Amendment allows you to keep and bear arms in order to be a well regulated militia. You're not in a regulated militia. The issue IS whether a state can make a law stating that one cannot conceal a weapon. That's what the OP was all about.
It's funny...when pro gun people get their guns taken away they get all pissed, but when we ask for help in getting guns from the hands of criminals, everyone stays silent.
You've mentioned the right to protect your family SEVERAL times in this thread. The OP was about conceiled weapons. You are misdirecting the thread by bringing your family (which is not in Wisconsin) into the discussion.
Then why do you keep saying:

Mojo_PeiPei

Hey will not to take a swing or stab at you, but by and large to me you seem like a person who most definitly does not trust the government (obviously case in point because it's Shurb). So let me ask this of you, why would you want them to monitor weapons of citizens?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

dksuddeth

You have to interpret the second amendment as it was written then, not as you define it now. If you actually study HOW the bill of rights was written and what was said about crafting the second amendment you will realize that militia was defined as ALL able bodied men 18-45. That, combined with the part about 'right of the people', should explain the rest.

why do you think taking guns away from law abiding citizens is also going to get them away from the criminals?

when the thread started shifting, I would use me and my family as examples. If you would like me to stop doing that so I don't confuse you on the issue, i'll be glad to stop.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Simple. I trust corporations EVEN LESS than the government. It's the same reason a lot of people voted for Kerry. I don't see a viable third party alternative, so I have to go witht he lesser of two evils (though I did not vote for Kerry). EEDIT: I have to adapt as organizations adapt. I realize that the gun corperations make money off illegal weapons sales, and thus they do not do anything to stop it. This means that the only organization with enough power and influence to do something is either the government, or very large private organizations that are not lible to be bought off by the weapon p[roduction corporations (such an organization does not exist, at least with enough power to get the job done).

Willravel

Do you bear an arm to make sure our government doesn't turn the US into a police state? Or do you carry an arm to prevent crime?
This is about conceiled weapons, not gun bans. I have posted in gun ban threads, and if you want to talk aobut gun bans, we can discuss it in one of those threads (located in Tilted Weaponry).
I fail to understand what your family has to do with law in a place where your family is not. Texas obviously isn't effected by Wisconsin state law.

martinguerre

Mojo...do you really think the 2nd ammendment provides an effective check against government authority?

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

dksuddeth

Both. It initially serves as a tool to help defend my family and me. It also serves as my protection against a tyrannical government.

I did not know that. I'll have to look in to that. thanks.

actually, it is. When you consider that of the 4x some states that allow some sort of licensed carry also recognize the license of other states for carrying, it becomes a big deal, especially for those that travel...like me.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

with the military of around 2 million and around 80 million registered gun owners in the country, what do you think?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

I have to wonder what effect civilian arms would have against a military technology, but I digress....This thread isn't about the right to bear arms, and I got it off track by discussing the 2nd Amendment's meaning in pertaining to gun ownership. What I meant was when in the 2nd Amendment does it talk about whether one has the right to conciel? The fact is that this decision really has little to do with the constitution.
My better arguments were made in the San Francisco gun ban thread. You're more than welcome to join me there, and I welcome your wider, gun ban related discussion there.
I guess the operative question would be: does your family travel with you to Wisconsin?

Ustwo

We wouldn't expect any more from you, don't worry.

Of course look where the 'blue' areas are vrs the murders per capita

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dksuddeth

I'm at fault also and you're right. I'll drop that part of it.

my wife hates the north, but I keep working on her. As for me, I'm currently working in Indianapolis, have family in Illinois and Kentucky. My original point was going to be that as soon as wisconsin legalizes it then we can focus on Illinois with some better pressure.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

raeanna74

If the government wants to take my guns away from me they can kiss my ass. (I have no criminal record so there's no reason to expect me to be a threat to society.)

Now if they want to determine whether I can or cannot conceal my weapon. I don't really care. One way the attacker would know I am armed and my hope would be they would leave me alone. On the other hand I would have the element of surprise and perhaps I could escape serious harm. It's a gamble either way. Personally I don't think I would carry a gun but I would like to at least have that option.

As for crime in Wisconsin - It all depends on where you go. Here in our local paper today for the police reports for the past week we have: 25 traffic violations, 1 burgery which resulted in a cedar chest being the only thing stolen, and one a highschooler who accidentally broke a window by knocking on it. The highschooler was taken to the ER for stitches. In past weeks we often have numerous reports of raccoons invaiding trash cans, skunks spraying people, deer accidents, and bear trespassing on people's back porches. I could DEFINATELY see carrying a firearm in order to defend against aggressive critters but in that case they won't care a bit whether it's concealed or not.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

scout

This is a stretch don't you think??????????

Why can't we all just be happy?

Here's an idea, why don't we all just mind our own business. If my neighbor chooses not to own guns then so be it. Likewise, if my neighbor on the other side chooses to own guns then so be it. Neither is anything I should stick my nose into. To each his own.

Someday all the bleeding heart liberals will be happy some of us redneck SOB's have a few guns stashed away in the safe. I prefer it never happen in my lifetime but one never knows what tomorrow might bring. If it should happen tomorrow or even in my lifetime all of you free born people that choose not to own guns can sleep well and rest assured that I and a few million other gun owners got your back.

Willravel

Some people have proven that they are not responsible with guns, and they have made everyone so afraid that many are willing to buy guns themselves to defend themselves from those irresponsible gun owners. If you want to stop gun crime, buy a gun? That's not an answer, that's escilation and will do nothing to stop gun crimes.

dksuddeth

where do you get that people are buying guns to protect themselves from 'irresponsible gun owners'? The only people I hear mention irresponsible gun owners are the ones that want to rid the world of guns (which will never happen btw) but they say NOTHING about the criminals. why is that?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Irresponsible gun owner = criminal with a gun.