OPINION & EDITORIAL
Concealed-carry misunderstood
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Julia Fieldbinder:
- Fieldbinder - Abstinence-only education lacking (December 2, 2005)
- Skyrocketing tuition hurts class selection (November 18, 2005)
- Concealed-carry misunderstood (February 6, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Vote gives no shot for guns (November 16, 2006)
- Legislators: Override Doyle on conceal and carry (January 22, 2004)
- LTE: Gun control not as popular in Wisconsin (December 1, 2005)
- Concealed-carry not right for Wisconsin (February 6, 2006)
- Concealed carry provides protection (December 9, 2005)
by Julia Fieldbinder
Monday, February 6, 2006
Wisconsin is one of four states in the U.S. that bans concealed weapons. Governor Doyle recently vetoed the concealed-carry bill, claiming that it endangered public safety, and attempts made by Republicans to override the veto earlier this week were unsuccessful.
Concealed carry is a controversial issue that has sparked much debate and even caused some Democratic legislators to cross party lines. The argument in support of this bill is based on three main ideas: concealed carry deters crime, an individual's right to self defense and the constitutional right to bear arms.
At a glance, concealed carry scares people. Many ask what good can come from allowing people to carry weapons in public places, and many fear its implications for public safety. However, many states that have passed concealed carry have found that it may have an effect contrary to what most would think.
The misconception that this bill will increase violence by putting weapons in the hands of those who mean to cause harm is a stereotype and fear tactic. Under the bill, those who apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon must meet a long list of requirements including an age requirement of 21 or older, undergoing criminal background checks, participating in a training course and various other tests that determine an individual's competency. Data from those states where concealed carry is in effect indicates that permit holders do not create law enforcement problems and that crimes committed by permit holders are a rare occurrence. No state with concealed-carry permits has ever repealed its law.
There is evidence that concealed carry has the opposite effect, that of deterring crime. Several studies have shown that violent crime, homicide, robbery and aggravated assault rates are higher in those states with the most restrictive laws regarding concealed carry. It is suggested that the decrease in crime rates is a result of potential criminals avoiding confrontations due to the fear that their selected victims may possess a weapon and use it for self-defense purposes.
Finally, the concealed-carry bill protects the second amendment right to "keep and bear arms." In an ideal world, this wouldn't be an issue and people would not wish to harm one another. However, those who are qualified to possess a weapon should not be punished for the wrongful behavior of others or denied their constitutional rights. Denying law-abiding citizens the right to carry guns is placing them in the same category as thugs illegally carrying guns.
It is unquestionable that those who possess a concealed-carry permit must also act with a great deal of responsibility — most of them do and this is reflected in extremely low crime rates in those states that grant permits. It is also undeniable that the proposed legislation would require that those who possess a permit must undergo several tests to ensure their background credentials and certification to use and handle a gun properly.
Contrary to stereotypes believed by those opposed to the bill, it would not put guns into the hands of criminals or create anarchy in public places. Perhaps the licensed individual can even act as a protective class by deterring crime and responding to help fellow citizens in dangerous situations. Thirty-seven states have shown that law-abiding citizens can be trusted, and by failing to pass this bill, the thugs illegally carrying guns will not have to look over their shoulders while committing crimes and will sleep a little sounder tonight.
Julia Fieldbinder (jfieldbinder@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in communication arts.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 6:24am):
"There is evidence that concealed carry has the opposite effect, that of deterring crime. Several studies have shown that violent crime, homicide, robbery and aggravated assault rates are higher in those states with the most restrictive laws regarding concealed carry."
You'll have to do better than that. Are you referring to Lott's study? Other than the fact that he doesn't adequately control for other factors, Lott found a drop in all crime--not differentiating between violent crime and property crime. In other words, even if Lott was correct, it might have meant a drop in property crime in exchange for a rise in violent crime. I'm curious--can you cite any other studies regarding concealed carry?
I'm skeptical of deterrent effects for two reasons. First, many crimes won't be easily swayed by rational weighing of costs and benefits. Second, even if the criminal was rational, he or she might figure (correctly) that very few people will engage in concealed carry.
Which raises the question--what sort of person is most likely to go through all the hoops to get a gun? My guess is it will include both the best and the worst folks. Can't wait to be walking around campus at night, wondering if somebody's packing--and drunk.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 7:44am):
Julia, it's the simple fact that Madison is full of extremists that many of us are glad the conceal-carry bill failed. Seriously, what wacko wouldn't jump at the chance to off somebody and claim it was for humanitarian reasons, that the world is "now a better place without them?"
Sorry, but there are too many fanatics out there on the street that I just don't trust.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 7:55am):
The only folks that truly won by the defeat of concealed carry in Wisconsin are the criminals. Our neighborhood thugs, gang-bangers, crooks, rapist and murderers may now continue their rampage among us uninhibited.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 9:16am):
The good folk of WI must realize that bad guys carry concealled no matter what the law says... right?
The idea that guns in the hands of the law-abiding causes more crime is as silly as the idea that police cause crime.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 9:40am):
Well written article,
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 10:36am):
Restricing the right to "keep and bear arms" is just part of the efforts by our intellectual "bettors" to control the lumpen.
An armed society is a polite society.
"In other words, in the face of evidence that an armed populace prevents genocide, the human rights community has largely gotten behind a campaign to ensure that there will be no armed populaces anywhere in the world."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65889,00.html
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 1:44pm):
To the guy who cited Faux news as a credible source: you are drinking too much right wing "koolaid" as hate-spewer O'Riely would say.
Secondly the second amendment says this:
"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."
That's right you gun toting crazies - "A well regulated Militia" or, in other words an army. Washington, Jefferson, et al, wanted the states or the State to be defensible in time of war, not carry an Uzi around to protect themselves from the would-be criminals. But hey, if you want to carry a gun so bad, fine: join the army. The righties need cannon fodder for their religious crusades, so Johnny get your gun, carry it, and get blown up by a roadside bomb.
And remember, its not guns that kill people, its Americans.
Z
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 1:46pm):
To quote someone who understands a lot more than I do, "It's so simple, it's stupid."
Criminals are called that because they don't care what the law says. Someone who wants to kill someone else is not going to wait for the law to tell him that he can carry a weapon. On the other hand, someone predisposed to violence may indeed think long and hard about acting on their impulses if there is a good chance that their intended victim is armed, and willing to protect their own life. My life, and those of my family, are precious to me. They are important enough to me to defend. Why, if my family or myself is threatened with a weapon, should I have to call someone else with a weapon, who will take more time than a criminal is going to stand around to arrive? My life is important enough to me to protect...is yours?
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 3:55pm):
A fact which seems to go unrecognized is there are two kinds of people carrying concealed weapons - those with permits, and those without permits. Most of those applying for permits in any jurisdiction are already carrying concealed. If a person carrying a concealed weapon allows any part of it to show, that person is brandishing a weapon, so it must remained concealed at all times. Concealed means hidden, so when a weapon is properly concealed, who is gonna know? The entire permit thing is an oxymoron. A CCW law does not magically put concealed weapons on the street, because they are already there. And the reality is the bad guys will always carry concealed so any CCW law does not apply to them. Furthermore, there is that little thing about a constitutional right.
I suggest the poster who questioned John Lott's work, actually read and reference what he writes which is a result of extensive research. You might also check out Vermont and Alaska which do not require a CCW. These are two of the safest states in the Union.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 5:21pm):
"All able-bodied males were expected to be members of the town militia."
I guess they'll all need guns.
"In the American Revolutionary War, colonial militiamen or armed citizens agreed to turn out for service at a minute's notice."
Sounds like they'll need to carry them with them. Best not to upset the ninnies - better keep 'em concealed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
Mike Westling (February 6, 2006 @ 6:34pm):
I'm not scared of putting guns into the hands of criminals (although there are too many illegal guns in areas of WI) and I'm not afraid of anarchy. But I am afraid of an increase in gun-related accidents. If you're held up on the street, are you really going to pull out a gun and shoot the guy. Likewise, if someone pulls a gun on you, are you really going to pull your own gun out on them? Wouldn't that just scare them and make them more likely to shoot you? Guns for hunting and target practice are more than OK, but guns on our streets are not.
I won't feel any safer knowing that the guy walking next to me on the street can have a legal weapon. It's seems that the risks of an increase in gun accidents (and incidents... imagine a guy walking into Miller Park with a gun.. "sir, you're going to have to take that back to your car") far outweighs the slight chance that I'll be able to shoot someone who's attacking me with a gun. What are the statistics of people just being threatened with guns in the streets (not in their home... which is a different case than concealed carry)? Extremely small, I'd bet. And even if someone was holding me up at gun point, there's no way I would just take out my own gun and shoot them.
You talk about the right to bear arms, I'm talking about the right to feel safe walking down the street, without thinking that the guy coming towards me is strapped.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 7:07pm):
To "Z"
Read the 2nd Amendment again. It doesn't say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is solely for the purpose of having a militia. The second clause is not limited by the first.
Also, "militia" certainly doesn't refer to a professional, government army. (Nor, as some people seem to think, does "well-regulated" refer to the guns.) The Founding Fathers very clearly believed in private gun ownership, having just fought their way out from under an oppressive government. Do some research.
Finally, if you want guns banned (and you trust the government more than your fellow citizens), push for a constitutional amendment. Don't, however, try to twist the words of the constitution to support your tyranny; that's just plain dishonest.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 7:51pm):
A good job of presenting the truth. Thank You.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 8:28pm):
Kudos to Ms. Fieldbinder for a well written piece.
I live in Washington state, which has had a provision for carrying concealed weapons since at least the 1930s. I have had a concealed pistol permit for some 25 years and I discretely carry a weapon wherever I go. I have never had to draw it and, like most who carry weapons, I endeavor to avoid situations where that might be necessary. However, if a criminal elects to commit serious assault on me or in my presence, the criminal will regret it only if they are lucky enough to survive.
It amazes me that Wisconsin does not trust its citizens to exercise the elementary right of self defense.
As to the meaning of the Second Amendment, the meaning given to it by those who wrote it is easily discerned by examining their own writings:
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them...the weak will become a prey to the strong." -- Thomas Paine
"...The people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." --Article in the Philadelphia Gazette ten days after the introduction of the Bill of Rights. Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col. 2.
"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent "the people" of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." -Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," published by Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850, pg. 86-87.
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people." -William Rawle, 1825; He was offered the position of the first U.S. Attorney General, by President Washington.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 9:59pm):
"The Founding Fathers very clearly believed in private gun ownership, having just fought their way out from under an oppressive government."
So they believed in holding arms in case they needed to rise up against an oppressive government again... what does that have to do with petty crime?
As Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." Sounds to me like their intent was to enable the people to bear arms to protect themselves from the government... but as you know, even speaking out against the government now can land you in jail or on an NSA watch list.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 10:17pm):
honestly... i've made a decision. this is a pointless piece of legislation, on either side. I bet that really there is no difference in crime deterrence, and especially not violent crime deterrence. The number of felonies that turn into violent crimes is already miniscule (I believe less than 1%).
However, it does make certain people feel safer. Does it actually make them safer against violent crime? I doubt it. It might make them safer against the mugger who really just wants their wallet. But if I'm a nut job who wants your wallet and doesn't mind killing you, the first time I see you reach for anything that isn't your wallet I'm shooting you. And here's the thing. If the mugger had let's say a knife or a razor or an antenna, and you pull out your gun and shoot him 3 times and kill him, self defense won't help you. There is a reasonableness requirement for that, so you'll go down for voluntary manslaughter at the least.
The process for getting a conceal and carry license, though, seems like enough of a pain in the you know what that only the people who really think they are in danger without their piece on them will go do it.
Pointless legislation... Ah, just leave it to our legislators to waste time and money. Good for them.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 10:52pm):
A major point which seems to have been missed by everyone on here is that crime is very rarely random, assult, robery, homicide, are all crimes which in the significant majority of cases, the offender knows the victim. Secondly, those who seem to be advocating the 2nd ammendment here are not taking into account that other arms are regulated, for example the legislature sees fit (rightly) to ban automatic weapons, so this is not, as some are arguing, such a horrible infringment on rights. Thirdly, the Lott study has been discredited severl times, which Conservatives seem to have not payed attention to (ie, this legislation would have no deterant effect on criminals as they are not rational actors, or random actors). Lastly, to accuse the left of using scare tactics when the most substantial part of your argument is based on the fact that random attacks happen all the time is ludicrous. It seems very hypocritical, but thats just me. The only case which I have heard in favor of this bill which makes any sense is that there is a potential that through litigation the Supreem Court could mandate that WI allow conceal and carry, which would then lead to no regulation. But honestly, this court has no desire to be seen as "activist" so that would never happen. This legislation should be seen for what it is, politiking with a hot-button-issue in an election year.
Anonymous (February 6, 2006 @ 11:57pm):
The intellectual vacancy of the left is deeper than the grand canyon and wider than the pacific ocean.
Apply the same sad logic to other problematic activities, things or products that result in death and you will be outlawing, dogs, cars, thrashers, silos, mines, surfing, etc...
If your afraid of law abiding citizens carrying guns then I have a bad idea and a dark ally with your name on it. Where don't you walk at 3:00 am in Milwaukee, Chicago, D.C. or LA, wait they don't allow concealed guns in those cities so all you libs are strolling through Compton at 3:00 AM saying howdy to the homeboys who are so safe to hang with because it is against the law to have a concealed weapon or to rob your dumb white a**. Walking down State Street hopped up on goof balls with 10 of your best buddies is hardly risky business now is it.
Anonymous (February 7, 2006 @ 9:38am):
Mr Westling,
This is a very interesting theory you have:
You are not afraid of criminals carrying concealed weapons as opposed to a law-abiding citizen? Because of a possible increase gun-related accidents?
While I don't have a good study to back this up, I have not read or heard of an increase in gun-related accidents in those states with Concealed CArry (aka CCW). For starters, thoe who wish to obtain aa CCW permit must do the minimm of the following had the PPA veto been overridden: 1) Have no felony criminal record. 2) Not have a record of mental illnesses 3) Take a firearm safety course that will most definitely explain the nuances of the law that they wish to carry under and 4) show minimum proficieny with the firearm they wish to carry.
Are you also aware that current statistice show that Citizens that shoot a firearm while protecting themselves injure bystanders far less than Law Enforcement?
As for your questions: "If you're held up on the street, are you really going to pull out a gun and shoot the guy. Likewise, if someone pulls a gun on you, are you really going to pull your own gun out on them? Wouldn't that just scare them and make them more likely to shoot you? "
Studies have shown that those with a CCW have produced the firearm in their defense without the need to fire far more than than the times that shots have actually been fired. The reported ratio is 10:1.
Most americans that currently CCW are also trained to be more aware of their surroundings. That is they can see a possible threat before it is too late to react. Most also do not engage in activities that put them at risk.
The fact is that had the law passed, you wouldn't know if the guy next to you was "packing" or not.
Fear is indeed a strong motivator. But not near as strong as those who show an opinion on an issue without looking at the facts on both sides.
Anonymous (February 7, 2006 @ 8:28pm):
Most excellent article Ms. Fieldbinder, well thought out and inarguable. Its time will come in your state, and the citizens will be safer for it.
Mr. Westling, you miss the point completely. The people who are granted permits will be the most law-abiding, responsible members of the citizenry of your state. They will have invested considerable time and money to comply with the requirements of the permit law. These are the very people who SHOULD be carrying a means of self-defense, not only for themselves but for the deterrent effect mentioned by Ms. Fieldbinder. Emotionalism has no place in serious issues.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime." -- Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."~ Ted Nugent
Anonymous (February 7, 2006 @ 8:48pm):
Mike, what you are effectively saying is that the citizens of Wisconsin are not as trustworthy as those in the other states that allow concealed carry and you don't think that they can be responsible. None, absolutely none of the states that have passed the concealed carry laws have had any of the problems that you cite. Are Wisconsin residents really that irresponsible? You sure seem to think so.
Anonymous (February 7, 2006 @ 9:48pm):
Julia, great article! Its nice to see someone taking the time to examine the issue objectively.
Mike, what are you going to do when you (or your wife/daughter/GF) are car-jacked at gun-point home some evening? Are you going to let them kill you and your family or are you going to defend yourself?
You have the right to choose not to defend yourself or your family but you do not have the right to tell me that I cannot defend my life.
Private citizens carrying a gun deters crime. That is a proven fact, crime rates have dropped everywhere CCW has been passed -- read John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" for examples.
So you feel safer walking down the street knowing that all the 'good guys' around you are unarmed? Knowing that if you get held up there is noone to come to your defense? We know there are armed criminals around, they don't obey the law. In your view it is 'safer' knowing that the goons have guns and the good guys can only stand and say 'stop or I'll say stop again!'
As for gun 'accidents', they are a miniscule problem -- you have a better chance of winning the lottery this month. Most of the bous statistics on this that you see are including suicides, which are in no way an accident!
I for one feel much safer knowing that my state (Wasington) has one of the highest rates of armed citizens.
Brian C. Lane
http://www.brianlane.com
http://www.my1911.com
Anonymous (February 10, 2006 @ 10:09am):
I would venture to say their are more conceled carry illegaly than legally in most states. The same as no or suspened drivers license . Whats the beef? You can't trust your fellow man?
Anonymous (February 13, 2006 @ 6:28am):
Fearing that someone who goes through the process of obtaining a concealed weapon permit will have an accident is a valid fear. The statistics prove it to be un warranted though. Most people consider it a great responsibility to carry and are warned in their classes that penalties can be strick for improper use or accidental discharge of their personal defense weapon. The same old deception is being used here that has been proven wrong by looking at other states. You have more at risk from someone driving their automobile than you are from a concealed carry permit holder.
Anonymous (February 21, 2006 @ 4:11pm):
I live in a state where concealed carry of weapons (with a permit) is legal. Very few people actually get the permit and fewer still actually carry a weapon on them.
That's beside the point.
The point is, they never make the news. Sure, there are plenty of shootings and murders and robberies at gunpoint, it's just never someone with a permit to carry a handgun comitting that crime.
There are those of us out here who recognize a natural right to self-defense. My life is MINE and it's precious and it's a gift from my creator and it's worth protecting. Without the means to protect it, the 'right' is meaningless lip service.
Gun control has a lot less to do with guns than it has to do with control.
