could wisconsin be next?

[dksuddeth]

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.

[Toaster126]

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

[Leto]

defense against what?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Toaster126

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

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

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Leto

defense against what?

you serious?

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

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

[Poppinjay]

will allow wisconsin citizens the ability to carry concealed weapons

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?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by kutulu

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

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.

[Leto]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you serious?

absolutely. dead serious.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Leto

absolutely. dead serious.

I guess theres no crime in your part of wisconsin?

[Poppinjay]

There's crime in Wisconsin?

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

[Rekna]

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.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

There's crime in Wisconsin?

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

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

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Rekna

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.

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.

[Willravel]

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:

[dksuddeth]

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

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

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?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

[SecretMethod70]

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

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

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.

[dksuddeth]

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. 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.

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.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

Yeah, it's not like we can take steps to deter illegal gun sales. It's much easier to arm every citizen.

[StanT]

It's a long stretch from a sentence written 200 years ago:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

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?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

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.

that statistic includes property related crimes also.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by StanT

... why is it any of your business as a Texan?

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.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Originally Posted by willravel

Yeah, it's not like we can take steps to deter illegal gun sales. It's much easier to arm every citizen.

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?

[dksuddeth]

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?

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.

Originally Posted by StanT

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?

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

[Leto]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I guess theres no crime in your part of wisconsin?

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.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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?

How many justifiable homicides were there in the US last year? How many people have guns in their homes? The answers might surprise you.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Leto

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.

you should ALWAYS be aware of your surrounding environment.

Originally Posted by Leto

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

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

Originally Posted by Leto

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

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?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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.

Originally Posted by willravel

How many justifiable homicides were there in the US last year? How many people have guns in their homes? The answers might surprise you.

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.

[Leto]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you should ALWAYS be aware of your surrounding environment.

i agree. and i am.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

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.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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?

[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.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

you should ALWAYS be aware of your surrounding environment.

So you'd be able to tell who was about to victimize you 100% of the time?

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

That's black and white thinking. One can dial 911, then try to interveine.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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?

Having a gun is not ensurance of safety. It is ensurance of having a weapon, but there are no absolues as far as safety.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Leto

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.

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

Originally Posted by Leto

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.

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

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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 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.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

So you'd be able to tell who was about to victimize you 100% of the time?

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

Originally Posted by willravel

That's black and white thinking. One can dial 911, then try to interveine.

Would you jump in on a 5 on 1?

Originally Posted by willravel

Having a gun is not ensurance of safety. It is ensurance of having a weapon, but there are no absolues as far as safety.

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

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by willravel

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.

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?