OPINION & EDITORIAL
For safety’s sake, state needs new gun law
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Joe Trovato:
- High taxes hamper Milwaukee growth (March 11, 2008)
- Miller a keystone of Old Milwaukee (February 27, 2008)
- Naysayers beware: McCain GOP's best choice for presidency (February 11, 2008)
- HillaryCare veils socialist disaster (January 29, 2008)
- America, treat Russia with some respect (December 5, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Concealed-carry misunderstood (February 6, 2006)
- Concealed carry provides protection (December 9, 2005)
- Concealed-carry not right for Wisconsin (February 6, 2006)
- Vote gives no shot for guns (November 16, 2006)
- Citizens have a right to concealed firearms (September 27, 2007)
Share This:
by Joe Trovato
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
It is time Wisconsin adopt some form of a right-to-carry law.
Wisconsin is one of only two states left in the Union that does not grant its citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon — Illinois is the other. Most of the other 48 states enacted this form of legislation within the last decade. Wisconsin needs to get with the times.
While it may seem unnerving to some to suggest putting more guns on the streets, statistics gathered from other states show more guns equal less crime. In fact, according to the National Rifle Association, 2005 U.S. Justice Department data shows states with right-to-carry laws, on average, have 22 percent lower total violent crime rates and a 30 percent lower murder rate.
The fact is, criminals prefer unarmed victims. Criminals will have weapons regardless of any law meant to keep them out of their hands. Whether they attain them via the black market or through other illegal means, criminals — who intrinsically have no respect for law in the first place — will find a way to arm themselves if they really want to. If citizens are disarmed by law, what is left? By definition, all law-abiding citizens would then be disarmed, leaving only the criminals with weapons.
Why punish law-abiding citizens by depriving them of the right to carry while thugs roam the streets fully armed and fully conscious that no one has the power to defend himself? Failure to enact a right-to-carry law in Wisconsin only harms good, honest Wisconsinites. After all, as Plato said, “Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”
The Department of Justice reports these states also have a 46 percent lower robbery rate and a 12 percent lower aggravated assault rate. Just the very threat of armed citizens deters criminals.
It has been a year now since the tragedy at Virginia Tech, yet we have not learned our lesson. The tragedy there was a microcosm of the scenario on streets where citizens do not have the right to carry. Virginia Tech had been declared a “gun-free zone,” and thus the only one with a weapon was the man planning on using it to kill his unarmed classmates. Had the people around the killer been armed, 32 people may not have been slain.
Florida was the first to enact right-to-carry legislation in 1987. According to the NRA, since then it has issued more than 1.2 million carry-and-conceal permits to its citizens. Only 157 have been revoked because of a gun-related crime, and in the first five years after Florida enacted the law, its murder rate dropped by 23 percent.
Why? Because good, honest people were sick of being easy prey for criminals, and they finally stood up for themselves.
A study conducted by the Department of Justice found “34 percent of felons had been ‘scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim.”
Obviously there must be common sense that goes along with this law. It seems only logical that people should have to go through a screening process to attain a permit to carry a concealed weapon — though Vermont and Alaska have unrestricted right-to-carry laws.
Wisconsin has tried to pass the right-to-carry law in recent years, and it has passed both the state Senate and Assembly. Governor Doyle, however, vetoed the bill and the decision fell just two votes short of overriding the governor’s veto in 2006.
The statistics are hard to argue with. The passage of this law has coincided heavily with reduced crime rates all across the country, and it is time that Wisconsin wises up and gets on board by enacting a right-to-carry law.
Joe Trovato (jtrovato@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in journalism.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 5:07am):
Joe, way to use the NRA as a source, twice! Now that is some unbiased and damning evidence there!
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 7:22am):
You obviously don't get that it isn't going to happen. Put your efforts into helping the Safewalk program; something worthwhile.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 7:44am):
This again? I thought we were a smart people, hence our current laws. More guns=less crime. Rrrrriiiiggghhhhtttt. 80% of people who want this law probably live in towns with an average population of hooterville.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 7:58am):
from Michigan, my wife and I got our CCW just yesterday, Wisconsin you need yours too, have a right to protect yourselves because you never know when crime is going to attack you or your family...
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 8:12am):
Great article.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 9:16am):
Did you check the stats for Japan, France, UK, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Portugal? Every other first world nation has drastically stricter gun laws and has drastically lower crime rates and much much lower murder rates.
Wes Howard (April 23, 2008 @ 9:37am):
Mr. Trovato's article is spot-on, simple as that. Truth can't be refuted. It's long past time that the Governor quit twisting arms of his lackeys to get a veto supported (twice) and get Wisconsin on board with caring about those citizens who take responsibility for their own safety. Members of law enforcement across the country have said that all the hysterical babbling about "wild west" and "blood in the streets" has not come to pass. The Governor of this state is currently denying citizens a right affirmed by the Constitution - the WISCONSIN Constitution. Go read the WI Supreme Court decisions in this area recently rendered and ask yourself: Do you want the existing statute simply struck down such that there is no permit process or other mechanism and Vermont-style carry ('legal to own, legal to carry') is what's in place? Great; take no action, it'll eventually happen as more citizens are criminalized unnecessarily. Otherwise, call Governor Doyle and tell him to sign (or just sit mute) the next WI Personal Protection Act.
Bruce Jackson (April 23, 2008 @ 10:39am):
You tell 'em Joe!
In America, 2.5 MILLION times per year, Guns SAVE Lives!
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 11:04am):
Canada does not have concealed carry laws.
The adjoining American states do.
There is not a statistically significant difference between the homicide rates in these areas.
I would rather have less guns than more guns.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 11:05am):
Orrrrr, we could just ban the sale and possession of guns in this country. It probably wouldn't be that hard to roundup all the weapons if we put half as much effort into finding guns as we do into finding drugs.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 11:50am):
Joe, if we grant you this right to carry a concealed weapon, will you move to the ghetto for a chance to actually use it? Please say yes.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 11:51am):
Why not just go all the way and enact a law allowing concealed hand grenades? No ones gonna fuck with you if you're packing hand grenades!
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 11:52am):
Here's a better idea: Stop the black market purchase of guns and require strict registration of all guns. I'd prefer to take the guns OUT of the hands of criminals, and not put them IN the hands of average citizens.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 12:46pm):
You know, the funny thing is that people who argue against carry concealed weapons fear a "wild wild west" scenario, but many places in the west had almost no crime, and what crime there was was usually against someone that the criminal knew would be too drunk to defend themselves. A sober man was just too well armed...and altogether too willing to use his weapon to devastating effect to trifle with. Read up on <a href="www.guncite.com"> Guncite.com </a> about two <a href="http://www.guncite.com/wild_west_myth.html"> wild wild west </a> cities.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 1:11pm):
So Florida passes a concealed weapons law, and 5 years later, the murder rate drops 23% . . . obviously this must be open-and-shut case of cause and effect. There were no other significant things that happened during those five years. Absolutely no changes to the economy or law enforcement. Only a new gun law and a drop in the murder rate 5 years later.
Are there really no better examples out there, or were you just lazy in researching this op-ed?
Mark Davis (April 23, 2008 @ 2:18pm):
Joe,
Thanks for the fine article. Before the anti-gun and anti-NRA segments post, I wish to say that the stats you quote are verified by other sources such as the CDC and DOJ.
Wisconsin law constructively prohibits me from exercising my 2nd Amendment right. Following is a little insight into how Wisconsins' current gun law regarding possession works in real life.
When Gov. Doyle vetoed the wishes of Wisconsin citizens to carry concealed, he stated that if the citizens wanted to carry, they could carry them right here...(padding his hip), which means open carry.
That my be fine in concept, but never works in real life:
1) When a person in Wisconsin goes armed, as in open carry, they are stopped, detained, interrogated, and in almost all reported cases, issued a citation for Disturbing the Peace. A clear infringement of your 2nd Amendment right.
“The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. U.S., 230 F, 2d 286, 489.
2) You cannot open carry while in a vehicle. Sounds stupid, and it is. Wisconsin law states that one cannot have a gun (loaded or unloaded) that is in plain view in a vehicle. It must be unloaded and cased. What this means is that if you decide to exercise your 2nd Amendment right to carry, you have to unholster, unload, and encase your weapon before entering your car. Reverse the process each time you exit your car. Keep in mind that this is all done while being viewed by the general public. How many calls do you think the police will get when they see me uncase, load, and holster my weapon just before going into a grocery store? And, when the police do arrive because of a report of "Man with a Gun", they will come at me with guns drawn while I'm hoping they will not get excited and shoot me or someone else.
3) Carrying open also poses the problem of take away. The determined criminal will see this as an opportunity to attack me and take my weapon.
As you can see, the ONLY common sense approach is to allow concealed carry. We can exercise our constitutional rights and at the same time nobody will be aware of it until such time as a thug attempts to harm me or someone else.
Gov. Doyle and Lt. Gov. Lawton do not go anywhere without armed guards but they feel that the citizens of Wisconsin do not deserve to protect themselves (or others). I just wish that our tax dollars were not paying for their protection while they refuse to allow us to protect ourselves.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 2:43pm):
Allow guns, ban bullets.
Simple: right to bear arms, but not bullets.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 3:58pm):
Joe Trovato -- the BH's latest one-trick pony.
Mark Davis (April 23, 2008 @ 4:30pm):
It appears anonymous is busy today. I just wish that the people against guns would provide an accurate, reasonable, and common sense debate that supports their position.
There is not a gun law in the world that has or would ever remove guns from the hands of criminals.
Look to Washington DC which always ranks among the highest crime rates in American...and they have a total ban.
Look to Chicago, next in line regarding gun control, and what happened this past weekend.
Look to Canada which, in reality, has banned guns. In 2005 their homicide rate was twice that of the U.S.
Look to Hitler, even he could not take all the guns as is evidenced by the underground resistance.
England, Canada and Australia could not have confiscated all the weapons they did if it were not for the fact that in previous years they required registration and the citizens sheepishly complied with the program.
I cannot believe anonymous made the argument that if we spent the same amount of time and money on gun confiscation as we have on drugs, the guns would be out of the hands of criminals. We have been fighting drugs since forever; I believe it was in the 1970's that the United States officially declared war on drugs. Drugs are worse now than ever before in our history. Is this what anonymous wants for our future?
Again, I just wish the anti-gunners would provide a common sense argument and demostrate to the rest of us why we are wrong.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 5:08pm):
The ignorance of some people is truly frustrating. The comment about banning firearms entirely is so foolish it is a wonder to me someone would even suggest it. They think concealed carry is a touchy subject? Try an all-out ban. As for putting as much energy into confiscating firearms as we do drugs: How successful has the war on drugs been? As far as I know, people still posses illegal drugs. As a matter of fact, I could probably find someplace to get them within the next 10 minutes if I chose. Why would firearms be any different? I know it's been said before, but apparently it has not caught on; If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But, I digress...
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 5:11pm):
Orrrrr, we could just ban the sale and possession of guns in this country. It probably wouldn't be that hard to roundup all the weapons if we put half as much effort into finding guns as we do into finding drugs.
Yeah, cause we've sure showed we can take care of the drug problem...
Dick Baker (April 23, 2008 @ 5:40pm):
A couple of questions for those who are obviously opposed to concealed carry:
1. Do you never leave Wisconsin? If you have, chances are you've been standing next to someone who was carrying a gun. Concealed carry is legal and common in just about every state in the US. It's only uncommon in a couple of states.
2. If legal concealed carry is such a bad idea, why hasn't even one of the other 48 states tried to change its law? Every state that has passed shall-issue concealed carry laws over the last 20 years has seen the same arguments: more shootouts, more crime, can't trust the permit holders, etc.
But the experiences of these states has been that permit holders are far less likely to commit crimes than the general public.
The original article needs some clarification. Vermont and Alaska require no permits to carry either openly or concealed. Also, Florida wasn't the first state to enact a concealed carry law. Indiana has had such a law on the books since the 1930's. Washington state enacted similar legislation in the 1960's.
In fact, the carrying of concealed weapons was not prohibited in most states until after the civil war. Prohibitions on carrying concealed began in the South, and were lobbied for heavily by the Ku Klux Klan. Klan members didn't want to face newly-freed slaves who might have weapons under their jackets.
The Klan lobbied in many states for laws prohibiting concealed weapons, and lobbied as far north as Indiana. As they succeeded, other states followed through in "me too" style, without giving the issue much thought.
The idea of legalizing concealed carry in Wisconsin seems radical only because we have no prior experience with citizens carrying arms. Minnesota and Michigan passed shall-issue laws with relative ease because those states, like many others, were previously discretionary-issue. Discretionary issue means that issuance of a permit is at the discretion of the police chief or sheriff.
Thus, when shall-issue laws were proposed in MI and MN, as well as other discretionary-issue states, the public as well as law enforcement already was accustomed to the idea of citizens carrying concealed.
We've had the votes in the state legislature for years to pass a shall-issue bill. The problem has been Governor Doyle. Perhaps if he would forego his 24/7 taxpayer-funded security detail and walk the streets of Milwaukee, he might change his mind.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 5:47pm):
"Did you check the stats for Japan, France, UK, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Italy, Spain, Portugal? Every other first world nation has drastically stricter gun laws and has drastically lower crime rates and much much lower murder rates."
Every other first world nation has better everything than us. Education, health care, quality of life... But we're still the greatest country on Earth.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 8:17pm):
"According to the NRA." That's the problem with this article. You need to find a number that isn't interpreted by the NRA into your article.
Anonymous (April 23, 2008 @ 9:23pm):
if you dont like guns move to a country were
they are outlawed
Mark Davis (April 24, 2008 @ 3:33am):
Since Anonymous posted the same question twice but appearently too lazy to check himself, I decided to check myself. World stats are very misleading due to many factors such as, but not limited to:
a. Difference in legal and criminal justice systems
b. Rates of crime report and police recording
c. Differences in the point at which a crime is measured – some countries believes it is the time when the offense is reported; others only do the recording when a suspect in identified and the papers are transferred to the prosecutor
d. Differences in the ruling of which multiple offenses are counted
e. Differences in the lost of offenses to be included in the whole crime figures
f. Differences in data quality
That being said, I checked the latest UNITED NATIONS DEMOGRAPHIC YEARBOOK (2005) and they list only the total death and cruel death rates by whatever means:
Compared to the United States rate of 8.2
Japan...........8.5
France..........8.6
UK..............9.7
Australia.......6.4
Germany........10.1
Sweden.........10.2
Finland.........9.1
Norway..........8.9
Denmark........10.1
Italy...........9.7
Spain...........8.9
Portugal........9.7
I suppose Anonymous could make the argument that one would be safer if they were stabbed to death rather than shot to death. If people are intent on doing you harm, they will...by whatever means.
I will be the first to admit that providing accurate information of this type is next to impossible since almost every source is skewed to the result they are trying to project. I have found stats that reflect the US as even better and some even worse. I chose the middle ground.
I also wish Anonymous would explain his statement that every other first world nation has everything better than us but yet we are still the greatest country on earth.
Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 8:38am):
Hey buddy...I'm with you on this cause, but you probably should have used other sources beyond the NRA. No one is going to take you seriously if you use the NRA as a source. Go to the Justice Dept. and find the data the NRA is talking about, and then you'll find credibility.
Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 9:49am):
I really can't believe what i was just reading in the comments section, you guys are ignorant.
Leave the guns ban the bullets? Come on... where is your common sense. oh thats right your a democrat, you have no common sense.
Let's blame the inanimate object for our problems, instead of the real issue, Criminals. Let's BAN THEM.. oh thats right there are already laws against them...
When that rapist or murderer breaks in to your house you will be the one wishing you had a gun to protect yourself.
But by all means call 911, they will get to you when they can. because they have no legal standing to protect you. they have a legal standing to protect the community as a whole.
And I am not knocking the police. they have a tough job to do.
Do some research before you spout off about things you know nothing about.
My guns have never killed anyone and I carry everyday.
Hopefully they never have to. But they are there if I need them.
Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 12:34pm):
Thank you, Joe Travato, for that great column! As a Jewess in the US, I would like to remind everyone that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. And that America wasn't won with a registered gun! That is why all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST! -Wendy Weinbaum
Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 3:55pm):
yeah wisconson has some crazy law. i feal bad for you. i live next door in MN and have my ccw. the really F up part with wisconson laws is you cant have a ccw but you can leagaly own a suppressor and a class3 full-auto???? what is with that.
and to all you who say look at UK and australia. you ask any one from those countries and they will say things have gone to the worse. crime rate is up.
all i know is if they try to ban guns in the US they will have to pry it from my cold dead hands. it is my constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 10:30pm):
Re: http://badgerherald.com/oped/2008/04/23/for_safetys_sake_sta.php
Sir,
Thank you for a timely and insightful article. Now if only we can get those who would disarm the lawful, trustworthy, and innocent in a vain attempt to stop violent thugs to read and understand it we will have won a small victory of evidential Truth over anecdotal rhetoric.
Thanks again.
--
M.J. Ackermann, MD (Mike)
Rural Family Physician,
Box 13, 120 Cameron Rd.
Sherbrooke, NS
Canada B0J 3C0
902-522-2172
mikeack@ns.sympatico.ca
"Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst".
Anonymous (April 25, 2008 @ 9:16pm):
I just got my CCW in Michigan, and I will never be with out it again, If you choose not to get a CCW fine, but leave the rest of us alone. The extensive background check is intense. Not everone can get one. When ask why i need to carry my answer is simple, why do people keep fire extinguhers around, just in case right. samething for me, I don't ever want to even draw it, but if I need it I don't want to be with out it.
Anonymous (April 25, 2008 @ 10:58pm):
Conceal carry has another side benefit for the public. Those who are approved for conceal carry pay VERY CLOSE ATTENTION to laws. If a conceal carry approved individual gets a alchol related conviction, they risk loosing their CCW permit. Many who have a CCW license have given up drinking/drinking and driving completely! Can you say safer streets?
Anonymous (April 26, 2008 @ 2:36pm):
Great article but I think you're wasting your time basing your arguments in favor of concealed carry on thing such as crime rates and other irrelevant statistics.
Trying to convince people that concealed carry will lower crime is useless. Just look at some of the responses.
For every statistic you pull out, I can dig one up to counter. That volley is pointless.
The righteous argument with regard to concealed carry rests on the shoulders of freedom, fairness, and justice. As a law-abiding citizen, I should be able to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, for lawful purposes, including the defense of my own person, and loved ones.
Whether my choice to exercise that right affects crime rates, or some other obscure factoid -- I could care less.
Anonymous (November 1, 2008 @ 5:36pm):
hey this is for the ones that only speak spanish and are legal citizens,law obiding ones;
Mi jente en el estado de Wisconsin nos prohiben cargar armas de fuego ocultas lo cual es un derecho constitucional ,tratan a la jente como ciudadanos de segunda clase al prohibirnos este derecho ,el governador quiere que si alguien los asalta,viola o te amenasa con un arma llames a la policia enves de defenderte.
Es nuestro derecho y tenemos que defenderlo antes de que tambien nos lo quiten;solo quedan 2 estados que no permiten cargar oculto y Wisconsin es uno de ellos .
abran los ojos
BDW. I am PUERTORICAN an i carry on dayly basis {armed security} GOD BLESS YOU
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.
