could wisconsin be next?
 

with the state senate and house assembly approving the personal protection act, it is left to Gov. Doyle if he will abide by the people of wisconsin and sign in to law this act which will allow wisconsin citizens the ability to carry concealed weapons or if he will continue to declare that the people of wisconsin are too immature and ignorant to be allowed to carry a handgun to provide for their own defense.

I certainly hope that with the governers VETO (which he promised he would do) that the senate and house override that veto and the voters remember Doyle's position next election cycle.

After that, we can work on the peoples socialist republic of illinois and run Blag and Daley out of office so the people of Illinois can defend themselves finally.

I couldn't quite figure out how you stand on the matter; could you please tell us?

defense against what?

I am in full support of the PPA. I believe that all americans should have the ability to carry for self defense.

you serious?

Being forced to carry openly does not equate to not being able to carry at all.

I'm curious, do you think a person carrying a fully exposed sidearm is more likely to be mugged than a person carrying a tiny pistola in his pocket?

there is nothing wrong with open carry, however, in wisconsin there is no state pre-emption so any locality can make open carry illegal within their jurisdiction for whatever reason and has been done in places like washington state for something as petty as 'alarming' the citizenry.

absolutely. dead serious.

I guess theres no crime in your part of wisconsin?

There's crime in Wisconsin?

I go about DC without so much as a rusty can opener and feel safe.

I'm not taking a position on this one but i'd like to know what the argument for carring a concealed vrs carring open is.

congratulations to you. Most others in DC aren't as lucky, considering it was the number 2 murder capital of the nation in 2003.

in wisconsin there is no state pre-emption so any locality can make open carry illegal within their jurisdiction for whatever reason and has been done in places like washington state for something as petty as 'alarming' the citizenry.

As of 2000: there were 169 murders in Wisconsin. The population was about 5.4 million. Out of 50 states, Wisconsin was rated: 36 in murder, 47 in rape, 35 in robbery, 43 in assault, and 43 in burglery. (http://www.morganquitno.com/DANG00RANK.htm)
2003 CRIME RATE INDEX:
http://www.doc.state.ok.us/MAPS/incrimus.gif

Top Ten Murder Rates in 2002
The following chart shows the ranking for the top ten cities in murders per capita for 2002:

Top Ten Rankings for 2002
(cities over 500,000 population)

http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html


http://www.safestreetsdc.com/graphic...dy/releas1.jpg

Poppinjay was trying to tell you that even in somewhere where crime is at it's worst, it's really not that bad. I've been to D.C. many times and I've not once seen or been involved in a crime of any sort (except homelesness). In comparison to D.C., anywhere in Wisconsin is like paradise, as far as crime in concerned. Soooo, why do you need a gun again?

as i've heard said before, I would rather have a gun and not need it then need a gun and not have it. while the murder rate in wisconsin may be low (I don't live there but used to live in Illinois) were I ever to move there I would like to have as much insurance as possible to make sure that I, or any of my family, become one of those few that are now statistics.

Um, the concealed weapons can be used by criminals, too. This isn't trying to take your gun, or whatever yiou deem necessary to preotect your family, but it's taking away the danger of not knowing who is or isn't armed. If you have a gun in your house, in a drawer, then you can protect your family. If you're walking down the street and get mugged (which is basically unheard of in Wisconsin), who's to say a conceiled weapojn will work better than one that's out in the open? If guns are supposed to be a deterrant, then they should be out in the open, so as to deter. Concealied weapons are used for one thing, shooting someone who doesn't know you have a gun.

I don't have a solid opinion re: concealed carry (while I do have a solid opinion that one should be ABLE to carry, with proper licensing, training, etc), but I will say that open carry means a potential criminal KNOWS you do or do not have a gun, concealed carry means a potential criminal must wonder with every potential victim if that person has a gun or not.

That said, I'd also like to point out that I've lived in Chicago for about 5 years now and have not only not been involved in any crime, I have also not witnessed any crime nor do I know any person who has been involved in any crime. No, the statistics don't lie, but by applying a little common sense to where I'm going alone and/or at night, I have managed to stay quite safe in the fifth murderous city in the US ;)

Also, the TARDIS is bullitproof. That helps.

I have considered the idea that because a criminal doesn't know if one is or isn't carrying a weapon, he or she might avoid robbery alltogether, but crime rates do not support this. There is still plenty of crime in places where you can conceal guns. Why? Because a criminal with proper and legaql owndership of a weapon can also legally conceal a gun. That's just not safe.

Concealed weapons have two advantages over open carry. Open carry tends to alarm anti gun people. Many is the time in open carry states that the police have been called about 'man with a gun', usually embellished with 'waving it around'. So concealing the weapon removes the 'alarm' factor from those that seem to be afraid of them while making those who wish to prey upon others consider whether they should risk attacking someone who may be armed.

Now, this can be a good argument ONLY IF you're intended criminal does NOT have any kind of felony record. For someone with a clean record to go through the legal process of applying, training, waiting period and background check, to get a handgun before he commits the crime seems a bit farfetched. Not impossible, but highly improbable, considering he can buy the gun illegally (which you wouldn't be able to stop anyway) and commit the crime in the same day.

Time out! I'm gonna threadjack here, for just a moment.

So...there's more violent crime, per capita, in Nebraska than there is in New York? Even taking the population density into account...that just doesn't seem right somehow.

But if it's legal to carry an exposed weapon, and you're not doing anything illegal or alarming (shooting children, waving it around at a gas station), then let people be alarmed by the mear sight of it. Hopefully anyone with ill intent will also be alarmed.
Yeah, it's not like we can take steps to deter illegal gun sales. It's much easier to arm every citizen. :hmm:

It's a long stretch from a sentence written 200 years ago:
to right to carry a conceal weapons.

If the majority of people in Wisconsin, Illinois, and California (or their legally elected representatives) decide that concealed carry is a bad idea, why is it any of your business as a Texan?

I'm indifferent as hell to gun ownership. I won't own one and couldn't care less if you do. I live in Colorado where concealed carry is fairly common and previously lived for 40+ years in Illinois where it is difficult. I have never lived anywhere where I felt a need to carry a gun (I'd move if I did). I have never felt that owning a gun would make myself or my loved ones safer. I think it is sad that your environment is so much more dangerous than mine.

Does that speak more to my naiveté or your paranoia?

that statistic includes property related crimes also.

Good observation! I didn't notice that dksuddeth was from Texas. That explains a lot. I've gotten the same stuff from a lot of Texans about the San Francisco gun ban. I'm ure you're happy with your gun laws. We're happy with ours.

In states that do NOT have pre-emption laws, local law enforcement can arrest you for just carrying it in a holster if someone calls 911.

should citizens not be allowed to defend themselves from criminals? why would you want to give the advantage to criminals and leave law abiding people defenseless against them?

I was born and raised in Illinois and still have family there. So i'm concerned for them. On top of that, I'd like to be able to provide for my protection when I go to visit them.

If you wish to call me paranoid, go ahead, so long as if I ever need the weapon, I can have it.

i don't live in Wisconson, but rather in a metropolitan area of 5.2 million people. And I must confess that I have never seen a "crime" committed. I have lived here since 1986, continuously. To be sure there are crimes committed, it's always in the news, and also to be sure, innocent people often get victimized.

I just don't see how having a gun will stop a by stander from being a victim, unless there is a situation such as car jacking, or a bank hold up. If you are mugged, i would expect that by the time you "reach" you will either be popped, or pistol whipped.

And if i see a crime committed, I would more likely call the police, rather than pull a 'batman' with my weapon.

I am just surprised that it is an issue in a place like Wisconson.

Don't strawman. I specifically said "it's legal to carry an exposed weapon", in other words, where it is lgal to carry a weapon.
How many justifiable homicides were there in the US last year? How many people have guns in their homes? The answers might surprise you.

you should ALWAYS be aware of your surrounding environment.

So you'd just dial 911 then run away while someone gets beat to death?

Crime is an issue everywhere. What should be considered more threatening to you is that, legally, the police are not required or obligated to protect you personally. YOU are responsible for your own safety and protection. why would you not ensure that?

It's no strawman. IT actually happens. In Glenview IL, a homeowner is facing a gun possession charge. The city has made ALL firearm possession ILLEGAL, yet when the homeowner shot at an individual who had broken in to his home, the homeowner was charged. THAT is insane. In certain locales in wisconsin open carry has been made illegal because people who are unaware of the legality of open carry call the police. That legally carrying individual COULD be arrested for causing a public disturbance at the minimum.

there is a real serious flaw with that argument. You're basically telling the entire country that because you're odds of being killed are so low, you don't deserve to protect yourself.

i agree. and i am.


a hypothetical situation. However, you are correct with respect to 911, but incorrect about running away. I think it is unfair of you to suggest something like that.

Like I said, I have never seen such an action, and I remind you I live in the downtown area. But if I did, i would call the police. This is what any citizen would do.

[IMG]

I agree. and I do take responsibility for my own safety (part of point 1 above) having a gun is not a guarrantee. In fact I would submit that it is more of a liability.

So you'd be able to tell who was about to victimize you 100% of the time?
That's black and white thinking. One can dial 911, then try to interveine.
Having a gun is not ensurance of safety. It is ensurance of having a weapon, but there are no absolues as far as safety.

and in that 90 seconds to 5 minutes that it takes an officer to respond to your call, what happens to that victim?


I disagree, with the liability. Is it a guarantee? no, but it improves your odds of surviving over not being armed.

That is a case where someone broke the law. Not only did the man own a gun illegally, but he discharged it illegally. He should be prosecuted alongside of the person who was obviously guilty of breaking and entering. It's not insane, it's the law. What if I wanted to rape someone? What if I wanted to own slaves? I can't just do it because I think the laws are wrong. That's insane.
I can protect myself from crimes without a gun. Many Americans own guns. This helps to boost production fro gun companies, which makes guns more available for everyone, including criminals. I'm suggesting that gun hungry people are partially responsible for all gun crimes because of their unwillingness to back down from MAD.

no, unless you have spidey sense, but you'd be more aware and have a better chance of responding if need be.

Would you jump in on a 5 on 1?

again, I've never said that having a gun will ensure your survival. It just increases the odds and thats better than being defenseless.

It's insane to defend your home and family? please explain that logic?

I call bullshit. It is completely insane and illogical for anyone to tell me that I do not have the right to defend myself or my family. Absolutely ludicrous.

Tell me, how do you protect yourself from a home invasion without a gun?

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'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?

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)

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.

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.

nope. don't be silly.

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.

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. :rolleyes: 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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

http://www.orlyowls.com/owls/orly.jpg
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?

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

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.....

:rolleyes: some people are just so silly.

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

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

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.

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

So much for aharchy [sic].

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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?

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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. :thumbsup:
I guess the operative question would be: does your family travel with you to Wisconsin?

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

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

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.

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.

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.
:thumbsup:

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.

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?

Irresponsible gun owner = criminal with a gun.

Don't forget the part where spit beechnut in someone's eye and run a trout line.

Couldn't resist.

let me guess, you're spinning this so that you can call every criminal with a gun, whether they technically own the gun or not, an irresponsible gun owner so you can lump a larger group together, right?

Holy... crap...

Against whatever you may legitimately ned defending against.

Where in D.C.? Try walking around Detroit, MI or Flint, MI at night. Maybe Gary, IN? Chicago, IL? Hmmm...

False! People cannot then legally carry a concealed weapon. This does not mean you are safe to assume that nobody is carrying a concealed weapon. Those that one might need to defend against will carry however they see fit regardless of the local laws.

It's our business as Americans, actually...

Are you married? What if someone broke into your house tied you up at gunpoint and had his way with your wife? I bet you'd be glad you were a law abiding citizen that didn't own a gun. Because, of course, he'll be caught, and punished, and that justice will satisfy you and your wife. WTF world do you live in will?

Wow... I'd rather shoot someone, and maybe kill them, then risk that they may be willing to commit violent crimes against me and my family. If they already BROKE INTO MY HOUSE, their well-being is not my concern.


Okay, I'll stop now...

Spin? 'Irresponsible gun owner without a permit', or rather one who obtained a firearm illegally, and has mal intent. Better?
Not false. If it is illegal to have a concealed weapon, and someone is caught with a concealed weapon, that's it. The gun is gone, and they are in trouble. This applies to both the legal gun owners who will be slapped with a fine, and the illegal gun owners who will be tried and convicted. I realize that this law clearly won't ensure that everyone will get caught, far from it in fact, but as we've already argued: why would a legal gun owner need to conceal a weapon?
Well, in my case, it would be easier to rape me than my wife...gun or not. My wife is better at martial arts (which included disarmament of people using a gun) than I am. I live in reality where there is a difference between taking responsibility for your own safety, without needing to shoot and kill anyone and everyone who could pose a threat, and your world where everyone lives in the matrix, and you can shoot and kill everyone and be all important because of it. Take the blue pill, you're not the one.

Close. You are making the same assumption that alot of people who are against guns make. You are assuming that anyone who has a gun that is illegal is irresponsible. The truth is that there are millions around the country who own guns, illegal or not, that ARE responsible. You would never know that they had a gun, but that gun is still there for there protection.

I've explained this to you before Will. In some states where open carry is legal (washington state for example) the police will generally harass people who are carrying legallly, because those police think that a licensed person carrying is more dangerous than a criminal concealing. what kind of logic is that? On top of that, because of the continued misrepresentation put out there by the antis, people continually think that ANYONE with a gun is bad.

This is perplexing to me. People that continually believe that because they know 'self defense' or martial arts think that they don't have to worry about breakins or assaults are just asking for that eye opening, world shattering, life threatening experience. I'm sorry to say it Will, but you don't live in reality. People who carry for their protection ARE taking responsibility for their own safety. Just because its a way you don't approve of is irrelevant. Read the stories I posted in the other thread and tell me that you still believe that every one of them could have defended themselves without a gun.

Holy... crap...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto
defense against what?

Against whatever you may legitimately ned defending against.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppinjay
There's crime in Wisconsin?

I go about DC without so much as a rusty can opener and feel safe.

Where in D.C.? Try walking around Detroit, MI or Flint, MI at night. Maybe Gary, IN? Chicago, IL? Hmmm...


Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Um, the concealed weapons can be used by criminals, too. This isn't trying to take your gun, or whatever yiou deem necessary to preotect your family, but it's taking away the danger of not knowing who is or isn't armed.

False! People cannot then legally carry a concealed weapon. This does not mean you are safe to assume that nobody is carrying a concealed weapon. Those that one might need to defend against will carry however they see fit regardless of the local laws.


Quote:
Originally Posted by StanT
If the majority of people in Wisconsin, Illinois, and California (or their legally elected representatives) decide that concealed carry is a bad idea, why is it any of your business as a Texan?

It's our business as Americans, actually...


Quote:
willravel]That is a case where someone broke the law. Not only did the man own a gun illegally, but he discharged it illegally. He should be prosecuted alongside of the person who was obviously guilty of breaking and entering. It's not insane, it's the law. What if I wanted to rape someone? What if I wanted to own slaves? I can't just do it because I think the laws are wrong. That's insane.

Are you married? What if someone broke into your house tied you up at gunpoint and had his way with your wife? I bet you'd be glad you were a law abiding citizen that didn't own a gun. Because, of course, he'll be caught, and punished, and that justice will satisfy you and your wife. WTF world do you live in will?


Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?

Wow... I'd rather shoot someone, and maybe kill them, then risk that they may be willing to commit violent crimes against me and my family. If they already BROKE INTO MY HOUSE, their well-being is not my concern.


Okay, I'll stop now...




!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



like i've posited before... a completely different mind-set. not mecesarily bad, just different, probably developed for a different environment.

If you own a gun without a permit, you are breaking the law. Breaking the law is iiresponsible. It's no more complicated than that.
Then those specific cops are idiots, and people should report them. There are plenty of pro gun police officers.
I don't fear criminals. Most of them are stupid. Most of them are desperate. Most of them have little to no training (in gun fire or fighting). This isn't about your reality, in which the world is out to get you. This is about the reality reflected in EVERY statistic in the country. This is the reality in which the odds of my house being broken into are so small that making an investment like a gun would not only be a waste of money but would bring a very dangerous weapon into a house with a two year old girl in it. That is what I deep a larger danger. I've seen too many stories about kids playing with guns, even when they are locked up, and hurting or killing with those guns accedentally. Even on the microscopic chance that my house is broken into, the odds are that the person is just down and out and looking for some stuff to hawk. I'm not saying this person isn't dangerous, but this person probably isn't a career criminal. Let's say that the odds are really not in my favor and I hit the lottory and a real career criminal does break in. Well, and you can ask Long about this in the other thread, odds are that they will break in when we are not home. Career criminals know that their job is much easier when there is no one home, so they usually strike during the dat when the house is empty, or when the amily is on vacation. Confrontation is not on the top of their list of things to do. I have the financial security where I can afford to lose a TV or DVD player. Now lets say that I really get struck by lightning, and the person who breaks in doesn't want to steal frim us, but breaks in with the pure intention of doing harm. This is the person that matters. This is the person where we would have to fight back. Do you know what the odds are that a person like this will break in to my house? I challenge you to find the statistics, and then convince me that I am in any kind of danger.

so you ARE equating illegal gun ownership with murder. it's no more complicated than that.

Have you ever filed a complaint against a police officer? It's not as easy as it sounds. try it sometime and see.

Again, you do not live in reality. Read the stories I posted. What do you think THEY thought the odds were about being invaded? I'm sure THEY thought that confrontation was not on the criminals mind either, and yet it happened. It's like playing russian roulette with your family. THAT is insane.

That's cute! I never said anything about shooting and killing anyone and everyone who could pose a threat. I think in the spot you quoted me before saying this, I was talking about someone who had violated the law, my private space, and may possibly cause my family harm. I don't consider that a movie-goers experience... I consider it a possible, real-life nightmare. It DOES happen. Actually, it happens fairly frequently in metro cities. Watch the news in Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, NY, Dallas... 5:00 news... you'll see something similar at LEAST once or twice a week. I don't personally carry a gun... and currently I don't have one in my home, simply because I have not purchased one... however, I feel it's a good thing, and that with proper care and use, the ownership of a firearm is a huge benefit from a safety perspective.

Yes, most criminals are stupid... some are VERY bright. There's also organized crime, which involves both types of people. Yes, the chance is minimal, but this chance also varies depending on where you live. Go buy a house in Hamtramck, MI and try to tell me the chance of something happening to you is minimal. As for the two-year-old daughter... that comes down to good parenting. In rural areas, where nearly every house has a rifle or shotgun for hunting and safety uses, children are MUCH less likely to shoot themselves or someone else than in urban areas where parents try to "hide" the gun from their kids. Children have an amazing capability to learn. Just be a parent and teach your child about guns and gun safety, and she's FAR more likely to be safe around the house with a firearm in it. *shrug*

Again, not every criminal is there with intent to steal. There are rapists, murderers, kidnappers. Those types are more likely to break in when you ARE home... they don't want your DVD player or TV... they want to harm you. I'm not paranoid. I lock my doors and that's about it. I don't have an alarm system, or sleep with a gun under my pillow... but I also think you are mildly delusional, or you live in an EXTREMELY safe area. Either way, good for you, but not everyone does. In fact, the vast majority of the US population live in dense urban areas, which also happen to be the places with the highest occurance of violent crimes.

I'm equating illegal gun ownership with breaking the law. Jeez.
I've had an officer screamed at by a judge, does that count? If you write me a speeding ticket for going 38 in a 35 zone, you're not protecting the welfare of society, you're trying to meet quota. If there is no evidence of you committing a crime, then what will they charge you with? You don't need to go to the police, a lawyer can make them get back in line.
Let's say that I have a random number generator that will pick a number between 1 and 30,000. What are the odds that you'd guess correctly on the first time? You are more likely to guess the correct number, between 1 and 30,000, than you are to be murdered in Wisconsin in a given year (and that's murder total, not just gun related murders). There is no danger.

Let's talk about those stories you posted. How many stories are there out there about a family that lives through the night and wakes up alive and well the next morning? Tes, there is crime. No crime is not a big deal.

Russian roulette gives you a 1 in 6 chance, not a 1 in 50,000-60,000 chance.

Unless you take into account how many justifiable homicides there are every year in the US. According to the FBI data, there were 1,412 justified homicides in the United States from 1987 through 1991 (the most recent figures available). That's about 141 justifiable homicides a year, on average. How many people in America own guns? I'd guess about 8 million. Those figures don't equate.
I'm more likely to be hit by lightning that to be broken into and murdered in San Jose. Even still, I take more preventative measures for the breaking and entering threat (the security doors were kinda expensive).
Rapists: Not really a threat because most rapists aren't trained fighters. ALSO, my wife and I are home at the same time at almost all times. 2 fighters who have a combined experience of almost 30 years vs. one rapist (they don't travel in packs) = I'm not too worried.
Murderers: Statiscitcally speaking, it's a virtual impossibility. San Jose is the safest large city - city of over 1,000,000 - in the US (we either rank #1 or #2, either way, not too bad). Combine that with security doors, and having good connections with neightbors, and we;re quite safe.
Kidnappers: this would be my greatest concern. I can't guerentee my daughters safety when she's in daycare, but no one really can. Having a gun wouldn't really help me in this scenereo.

We shouldn't use me and my family as examples, though. Not everyone has training in martial arts. Not everyone lives in San Jose. Not everyone has security doors.

Would you mind if we were to use you?

if theres even a SLIGHT chance, and I mean 1 in 5,000,000,000 that you're house could be broken in to and your family injured and you DON'T do everything necessary to protect your family, you are the failure. end of story. your family is the most important thing in the world, don't play the odds, because if you lose, you lose big time.

Then you are a failure in protecting your family from a volcano. your family is the most important thing in the world, don't play the odds, because if you lose, you lose big time. There could be volcanic activity beneith your house right now!

This is, of course, absurd. Everyone lives their life playing the odds. You could be hit by lightning tomorrow as you pick up your morning paper, BUT you venture out into the unknown despite the possible danger! Everything in existence works on odds possibilities. Things tend to happen. You could be invaded by a home invader, and you could get flesh eating bacteria. The odds of being effected by either of those things makes preperation a bit silly.

will-

Sure, use me. My wife and I are both soldiers in the US Army. We've both been trained in hand-to-hand and armed combat. We live in Phoenix, specifically Tempe, AZ which is fairly safe. We have no alarms. Our front door has two bolt locks, and our back is a slidign glass door. What is different in these scenarios? What is the same? Also note that being a trained fighter doesn't always give you the upper hand. The person breaking into your house in the middle of the night gains a lot of that back out of sheer suprise alone. Also, how do you know they aren't trained? Why is a criminal somehow less likely to have martial arts training or firearms target practice? I can't see a logical path to that conclusion.

you're making the stupidest comparisons. this is the mark of someone who knows they don't have a stronger argument. my gun can't stop a volcano but it can stop a criminal. comparing criminals to volcanos is like comparing guns to seatbelts.

hows that for torpedoing stupid arguments.

You've been shut down and you're frustrated, I can understand that.

Let's keep the anti-gun/pro-gun stuff in the san fran thread, as this thread is about being able to conceal a weapon in Wisconsin.

Do you have a lightning rod on your house? You CAN protect youself and your family from the dangerous effects of lightning with a lightning rod. Of course the odds of a lightning strike are small (but bigger than the odds you are broken into).

i've shown more than was necessary to prove to any reasonable minded individual that a gun can be necessary for defense. I can't help it if you refuse to acknowledge reality because of your judgemental perceptions. good luck with that ban in san fran. when it doesn't work, can i tell you i told you so? also, with this ban, will san fran become liable for their citizens safety?

Just curious but have you or your wife ever been in a real live actual fight, with someone who was actually trying to hurt you? If not, then your sum total experience in those types of situtations is 0. The criminal is likely to have the upper hand.

I have been in 22 seperate street fights in my life (not counting fights in grade school or HS). All have been defensive, all I have won without difficulty. Your assumption that because I am a martial artist that I have no real life experience is telling of your experience with martial artists.
This thread is about the right to conceal a gun in Wisconsin.

you're right. between the two, i've gotten em mixed up.