Opinion

Conceal-and-carry not the answer

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Related stories:

• Allow conceal, carry for safety (September 17, 2003)
• They voted for what? (November 6, 2003)
• Legislators: Override Doyle on conceal and carry (January 22, 2004)
• For safety's sake, state needs new gun law (April 23, 2008)
• Don't 'conceal' gun control (April 15, 2008)

Also by Sam-Omar Z. Hall:

Sharing tools:

E-mail this article:

Your e-mail address:

Recipient e-mail address:

Optional message:

Share on:

• Facebook
• Digg
• Newsvine
• reddit
• StumbleUpon
• delicious
• Google
• Yahoo! My Web
• BlogMarks
• Linkroll
• Simpy

• Spurl
• Connotea
• Fark
• Feed Me Links

• Magnolia
• BlinkList
• Sphere
• LinkedIn

• Furl
• Technorati
• AddToAny
• Permalink

 

Imagine yourself walking down a street where everyone is carrying a concealed weapon. Now every argument, fight or domestic disturbance has the potential for massive bloodshed. Hurrah!

In her Sept. 17 column, Nicole Marklein attempts to present guns as the cure-all for crime and other societal problems. She asks the brazen question, “Have you ever traveled out of Wisconsin?” I would ask Marklein: have you ever traveled out of the United States? Have you seen or even heard about the massive number of gun deaths we have in this country compared to others with much stricter gun laws?

Marklein points out, as though it were a bad thing, that Wisconsin is one of only five states that does not issue conceal-and-carry permits. Oh no, the people of Wisconsin aren’t armed! What if Minnesota invades?

As for the statement that all citizens can reap the benefits of this bill, Marklein is right. From the fist-fight participant who gets shot to the victim of now-deadly road rage, everyone can share in this bill’s warm, fuzzy glow.

Even on page two of the very issue of the Herald in which Marklein’s column appeared, there is a report on a man who pulled out a gun after a driving incident. Are more guns really what we need in our glove boxes and pockets? What if the other driver had pulled a gun, too?

As for the defense of elderly people, women and the disabled, there are a number of non-lethal methods for self-defense (pepper spray, tasers, etc.). Is the solution to all assaults for everyone to be constantly afraid of everyone else?

Also, Marklein’s explanation of why criminals wouldn’t be able to get these permits is totally irrelevant. She herself states earlier in the article that criminals already have all the guns they need.

Marklein uses some extremely suspect logic in making her next couple of points. First, she glazes over gun-control concerns and over-generalizes them into a fear of “a return to the Wild West.” A good column is supposed to take opposing viewpoints and clearly counter them. Marklein’s column simply mentions opposing arguments and then disregards them.

She then makes the claim that since none of the other 45 similar laws have been repealed, they must be working fine. Just because the laws haven’t been repealed doesn’t mean they’re responsible for a drop in crime.

I’m not one to spout buzzwords, but Marklein’s column has a serious problem linking correlation and causality. She states that “overall violent crime, homicide, robbery and aggravated assault are lower” in states with conceal-and-carry laws. Aside from not making sense, this claim does not hold water logically. Pointing to concealed weapons as the sole reason for this drop in crime is laughable at best. I’d also like to see the gun-death statistics in the 45 conceal-and-carry states.

The piece concludes with a massive over-generalization and stereotype. Apparently, all we “PPA opponents base [our] arguments on gut feelings, not research and facts.” I, for one, am glad that she had the foresight and good sense to dig up some real facts.

Sam-Omar Z. Hall is a UW freshman with an undeclared major.