OPINION & EDITORIAL
Happiness is a warm gun… regulation
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ammar Al Marzouqi:
- Misguided attacks sure to sink Dems (April 16, 2008)
- Registration program slow, inadequate (April 2, 2008)
- Spitzer must be held accountable (March 12, 2008)
- Captive journalist exemplifies Gitmo's humanitarian woes (February 27, 2008)
- Teachers, unions need detention time (January 30, 2008)
Related Stories:
- A Kool compromise (October 19, 2007)
- Budget dreams still unrealized (October 22, 2007)
- Concealed-carry not right for Wisconsin (February 6, 2006)
- A crippled Wisconsin (September 18, 2007)
- Wisconsin, we have a budget (October 25, 2007)
Share This:
by Ammar Al Marzouqi
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Recently, Wisconsin legislators finally reached a compromise and voted for the new state budget, ending a four-month deadlock. Even though this breakthrough is highly significant, we mustn’t forget the Legislature’s failure to reach a compromise on some comparably less significant issues, one of which has appeared time and again on the Legislature’s agenda: concealed carry gun laws.
Despite its compromise on the budget, the Legislature’s failure to reach a compromise on this issue is bewildering.
When a friend of mine first explained Wisconsin gun laws to me, he portrayed the ban on concealed carry as one of the reasons behind Wisconsin’s relatively low crime rate. However, just as I don’t believe that the absence of a terrorist attack in the United States in the last six years is a result of the "War on Terror," it’s hard to believe that the absence of crime is proof that a policy is working.
A ban on concealed carry — which might make it harder for criminals to acquire weapons — isn’t going to stop a person bound on breaking the law from breaking yet another one. All a ban on concealed carry does is create a false sense of security that is all too often shattered by a tragedy similar to the massacre at Virginia Tech (which had a complete ban on firearms) and prevents law abiding citizens from defending themselves in such situations.
We also can’t forget that if we allow people to carry concealed weapons, the likelihood of them falling into the wrong hands increases. Groups supporting concealed carry claim if the existing criteria must be satisfied by a person applying for a permit, the risks of guns falling into the wrong hands would diminish. This is simply not the case.
The proposed criteria include age restrictions, background checks, legal citizenship, gun safety classes and mental stability. However, there are several fundamental flaws with these limitations, including the fact that the state may not ask individuals why they are applying for the permit and that it fails to measure the capability of the individuals in handling firearms.
The most troubling aspect of the proposal put forth by pro-concealed carry groups is that once implemented, this law would be a "shall-issue" law. This means that if individuals meet all criteria for the permit, the state cannot, under any circumstances, withhold it from them.
The contrasted is a "may-issue" law giving a supervising body the right to withhold a permit from a qualified person at its discretion. Under such a law, the state would have the ability to question the motives behind an application and prevent people who meet the criteria from getting a permit if they are considered potential threats to others.
Likewise, a flaw in the original proposal is that it would have required Wisconsin to recognize out-of-state permits, regardless of any differences in the requirements for the criteria. This would create a huge loophole, through which unqualified individuals can easily obtain a permit from another state with more lenient requirements and have the right to carry their concealed weapons in Wisconsin.
However, while this particular version of concealed carry law has its problems, similar legislation can be executed with successful results. Last year, I studied at the University of Utah, where the state Legislature has allowed permit holders to carry their guns on college campuses since fall 2006. Even though the school administration made a point to assure students it will aggressively fight this decision, students appeared unalarmed by the new law. Not a single violent crime involving a firearm has occurred on campus since the implementation of the new law. While it has been a relatively short time, this does go to show that it is simply untrue that allowing concealed carry on campuses will lead to an increase in violent crime.
This is not a simple issue, regardless of how some groups on either side try to paint it as a black-and-white issue. Wisconsin legislators from both sides of the aisle must overcome their unwillingness to compromise and try to reach a solution that satisfies both sides. While proponents of the concealed carry law argue they have a constitutional right to bear arms, we must remember that constitutional rights afforded to Americans come with some limiting conditions. The Second Amendment should be treated no differently.
Similar to driving, concealed carry permits should be issued to those who qualify and be revocable when misused. This would also mean that people aren’t guaranteed a permit and will have to work for it. Once the state Legislature reaches this solution, Wisconsin can go on to address more important issues such as unemployment rates, health care and the public school system — just as Gov. Jim Doyle said it should in a statement after he vetoed a concealed carry bill in January 2006.
If our state legislators were able to reach an agreement on an issue so divisive and convoluted as our state budget, they should have no problem finding similar compromise on concealed carry.
Ammar Al Marzouqi (aalmarzouqi@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in computer engineering.
Anonymous (October 30, 2007 @ 7:46am):
Has anyone ever heard of "friendly fire." It happens when soldiers and officers accidentally shoot a non-enemy. Soldiers and officers, despite thorough arms training, still shoot people who are not their intended target.
So, I think it only makes sense to let Mr. Deer-Cabin-Drunk-Tough-Guy to carry a weapon and save us from those who want to harm us.
Although, who will save us from Mr. Deer-Cabin-Drunk-Tough-Guy?
Anonymous (October 30, 2007 @ 9:44am):
"Similar to driving, concealed carry permits should be issued to those who qualify and be revocable when misused."
WIth a car, you get into an accident, usually people arent too hurt, when there is a gun accident, people usually die. I'd rather not wait til someone is injured or killed for another to be determined "irresponsible"
Anonymous (October 30, 2007 @ 4:46pm):
Shall-issue concealed carry is law in 40 other states and we are to believe that all hell is breaking loose in those states? I think not. Same old scare tactics.
Anonymous (October 30, 2007 @ 11:05pm):
The "wild drunken college age party goers with guns" argument is used frequently against CCW on campus. However, keep in mind that when the college students get drunk and stupid, it is almost always off campus, where they already can carry concealed. So the "Mr. Deer-Cabin-Drunk-Tough-Guy" argument is moot.
And to the other anonymous (yes, I also find it highly annoying that I must register before my voice can be heard), far more people die in automobile accidents each year than die by accidental discharge. I would challenge you to find one single incident where an individual was seriously injured or killed by a CCW holder's accidental discharge.
Last of all, to the author: there is a reason why CCW proponents push for a "Shall-issue" permit. The reason is that the "may-issue" process too often ends up a de-facto "no-issue" process. The issuing authority can simply deem every request to be unreasonable. Don't believe me? Check out the stats for the "may-issue" counties around the SF bay area.
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 12:44am):
Ammar, the next time you overhear your fellow students debating healthcare, the war in Iraq, or which party had the best booze over the weekend, remember your argument here. Then remember that your many of fellow students are immature jerks whose arguments tend to escalate. And when those immature jerks lose their tempers, it's very nice for those of us who are already suffering enough from their presence that they're not armed.
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 12:46am):
"Shall-issue concealed carry is law in 40 other states and we are to believe that all hell is breaking loose in those states?"
Compared to what? Have you seen our gun related homicide rates? Name one state -- just one -- that has a lower gun related homicide rate than, say, England?
Just because no one's fired a gun at you yet doesn't mean that we don't have a gun problem.
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 4:08am):
"concealed carry permits should be issued to those who qualify and be revocable when misused."
How are you going to misuse a CCW, give someone a paper cut? At any rate, CCWs can be revoked. Yet they rarely are in states that allow it. That should tell you something.
"This would also mean that people aren't guaranteed a permit and will have to work for it."
So a person meets all the criteria, gets denied anyways, then what? How are they going to work for it?
"Name one state -- just one -- that has a lower gun related homicide rate than, say, England?"
Not sure about that, but I could name 50 states that have a lower knife related homicide rate than England.
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 8:14am):
Thank goodness Anony Mouse can't vote. What drivel, from the OP to the last.
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 8:35am):
Well we have had CCW in Ohio now for over 3 years.
We have a population of 12 million, with over 100,000 CCW licenses issued.
The Homocide rate for the whole state is 437
The Homocide rate for LA so far this year 679, & that was 2 weeks ago, with a population of 1 million.
Banning Concealed Carry does not lower crime, Allowing CCW really lowers crime, but it takes time,
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 9:02am):
The problem with may-issue law is that it relies on the discretion of various "authority figures" who may or may not (usually may not) deign to approve of you. For instance, a racist could deny you because of your race. A gun bigot could deny you because he or she "doesn't believe in guns." It's really bad in places like California (Cali is may-issue), where only those with political connections can get licenses.
Most shall-issue states run thorough background checks (taking a few weeks), as well as requiring between three and sixteen hours of safety and legal instruction. The number of concealed carry permits revoked for gun crimes is next to nil. One of the most common reasons for the revocation of a permit is getting a DUI. Another is the death (by natural causes) of the holder.
Concealed carriers have an incredible record of being law-abiding.
Personally, I like the way Vermont does things... no permit necessary for concealed or open carry. Their crime rate is miniscule. Compare that to the rates in places like Washington D.C. and Chicago, both places that deny a person's right to defend himself or herself, especially with firearms.
Of course, such comparisons must be taken with a grain of salt, as, in the same way that comparing our crime rates to the UK's are somewhat invalid. It is important to examine the trends of crime in areas before and after laws of this type are passed.
Areas passing concealed carry shall-issue legislation have seen significant drops in violent crime. Areas passing stricter gun control have not ever seen any significant crime reductions. Recently, the CDC performed a study of gun control, which found that there was basically no evidence that any gun control law has ever reduced crime.
Also note the significant upsurges in violent (gun and non-gun) crime in the UK since the ban of 1997. Further evidence can be found in Australian statistics.
Also note that the "gun homicide/suicide rate" is essentially a non-sequitur. What is useful often to note is that the total homicide rates are not very different. For example, the gun suicide rate in the US is higher than that in Japan, but the overall rate (regardless of instrument) is quite a bit higher in Japan.
Criminals and the suicidal will find ways to do what they want to do. Blaming inanimate objects for the sake of your own irrational fear is not the answer.
Shall-issue concealed carry legislation allows any adult satisfying the already strict requirements to carry a weapon for his or her immediate defense. It has not ever resulted in any of the scenarios suggested by those who have routinely opposed it. It has been shown to have a significant effect, reducing violent crime.
Now _that's_ common-sense legislation. =)
Gene German (October 31, 2007 @ 9:43am):
I read your article with some interest and thought I would comment on a couple mistaken points you raised about those of us who carry guns since you are in an educational phase of your life.
People have the right to lawfully carry a gun in Wisconsin today without the benefit of any background check or training. Governor Doyle said laws that require those things don't make much sense to him. I doubt that he has changed his mind.
No one carry's a gun to lower any states crime rate. The only crime rate that matters to me is my own, and it remains at zero. Unfortunately for the 90 people who were killed in Milwaukee alone so far this year, it is too late to educate any of them.
There are 48 states that have some form of permitting process. Your concerns about the guns owned by those of us who also carry them daily falling into the wrong hands has not contributed to an increase in the availability of guns for criminals anywhere else in the country. What data do you have to support your fears that citizens in Wisconsin are somehow genetically inferior or incapable of maintaining control of their firearms?
Because a law is "shall issue" you seem to think the issuing of a permit is more or less guaranteed. That is not true. Unless a person is otherwise unqualified (and there are many good reasons why they may be unqualified) the permit shall be issued. Once issued, it may be revoked at any time for any number of reasons as well.
I have compared the 2005 Minnesota crime data against the 2006 Permit to Carry report (most recent data available), which indicates those who have been issued a Minnesota permit are 100 times more law abiding that the general population. Having said that, why would you be concerned with my armed presence in your state? Under the current Wisconsin law, I actually have to go through much more training and scrutiny to obtain a permit to carry a gun where I live, than you do.
You compare the exercise of a right to be safe to the privilege of driving. Ironically, drivers use cars to kill and maim many more people every day than do those using a gun, but no one is proposing more "car control" to reduce the car violence. If we just lower the speed limit to 10 MPH, thousands of lives could be saved every day, but we all want to get where we're going sooner and some deaths are inevitable.
You do not need to justify why you want the privilege of a driver's license when you apply for one do you? Why should anyone have to justify why they want to exercise their civil right to remain safe? Do you also believe that you should be required to obtain permission from your local sheriff before you publish another article or be expected to justify to someone else's satisfaction why you are qualified citizen and want to vote in the next election? What if the sheriff doesn't approve of your particular faith? Are you willing to make compromises on all your rights to appease the sheriff or just your right to keep and bear arms?
Our rights are protected by the state and federal Constitutions for good reasons.
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 10:15am):
"Name one state -- just one -- that has a lower gun related homicide rate than, say, England?" Really? just one?
Montana. Alaska.
The part that so many people ignore is that criminals, by definition, do NOT follow the laws. The only people affected by laws are the law abiding.
It's interesting to note that England has strict gun control but their firearms related crime statistic has been steadily increasing.
A decent article on it can be found at:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
"In reality, the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.
[...]
the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.
[...]
London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
[...]
This is a cautionary tale. America's founders, like their English forebears, regarded personal security as first of the three primary rights of mankind. That was the main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed in the U.S. Constitution. Not everyone needs to avail himself or herself of that right. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the police is also dangerous."
an interesting statistic. Carry permit holders, who have passed a background check and taken class(es) are 3-14 TIMES less likely to commit offenses than the general population. That's ALL serious crimes, not just gun related crimes.
~plblark
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 10:20am):
<i>"Similar to driving, concealed carry permits should be issued to those who qualify and be revocable when misused."</i>
I agree. Remember, though, that drivers' licenses are "shall issue." If you pass the eye exam and driving test, you must be issued a license, and the DMV cannot "ask individuals why they are applying" for the license.
Oh, and the original bill DID indeed require applicants to show proficiency: it was part of the training requirement. You really ought to read it.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2003/data/SB-214.pdf
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 10:28am):
My, there are all sorts of theoretical objections to allowing Wisconsinites access to the most useful tool for self-defense.
Any of the quibblers have a good explanation for why all these nightmares haven't actually shown up in reality in the 48 states that allow at least some citizens to carry handguns for their personal protection?
The metric, by the way, for measuring bad results from modern, mainstream, common sense "shall issue" handgun carry permit laws isn't "gun deaths" but "deaths and injuries caused by the improper behavior of permit holders." Since gangbangers, say, don't get carry permits, whether or not they shoot each other or the public isn't going to be dependent on whether or not others have permission to carry tools for self-defense.
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 7:19pm):
Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.
Anonymous (October 31, 2007 @ 10:01pm):
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html
More deaths due to falls, drowning, fires and the evil lunatic cult of pedestrianism.
Ban Pools, match sticks, walking.
Anonymous (March 15, 2008 @ 8:09pm):
I'm a bit late on this discussion. But, one point i would like to make. She dissagrees with a proposed law allowing Wi. to reconise another states CC. That dosn't really mater. Due to the fact that. I. as a non Wi resident. Can apply for a CC permit for the state of Wi. Which is ironicly denied to the people of wi.
You shouldn't fear outside cc permits. You should fear a Governor that denies his state's people the right to protect them self. While alowing visiters the right.
Anonymous (March 29, 2008 @ 12:27am):
mayne im on these streets and im 16 i got jumped by sum dudes and im on tha south they stay round here 2 and they got clips(guns) i cant get no where without bein nervous i got a chick stay round that way 2 i need protection at all timez when im walkin around here i need protection around here like really and i gotz 2 have a clip but im not wantin 2 resort 2 this but i gotta im more like the friendly guy and comedy actor type alwayz silly so i got bad confadence
Anonymous (June 4, 2008 @ 3:12am):
No cop has ever been killed by a holder of a ccw in the entire USA.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
