The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Trovato shoots self in foot

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Letters to the Editor:

Trovato shoots self in foot (April 24, 2008)
Kittridge claims careless (April 17, 2008)
True liberty for all knows no boundaries (April 15, 2008)
Practice what you preach, Karns (April 10, 2008)
UW Athletics, what were you thinking? (April 8, 2008)

by Letters to the Editor

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Conceal and carry is a dangerous and idiotic policy that has no business in any state, let alone this one. Joe Trovato’s column (“For safety’s sake, state needs new gun law,” April 23) advocated that this vigilante strategy be implemented in Wisconsin — or as he would have it, the new Wild West. Scare tactics are often used to cloud reasonable people’s judgment, but don’t be fooled. This is absolutely the wrong plan for anyone concerned with safety.

The National Rifle Association statistics quoted in Mr. Trovato’s article should not be trusted, for it has been widely studied and proven that countries with low numbers of firearms have much lower rates of crime. More guns do not equal lower crime and are best left out of the equation altogether. We must counter a culture of violence by standing up and declaring that violence is not acceptable. Because where does it end? Any slight provocation, spurred on by racism or small feuds, may end in a shooting. And even if there is evident wrongdoing, where do we cross the line? Does petty theft really qualify in the right to shoot a person?

And while we are on it, imagine this policy’s real efficacy. You are walking home and an armed robber corners you and demands your wallet. Is it really possible to unholster your weapon, undo the safety and aim before the robber has already taken care of the job? Come on. It only makes a bad situation worse.

For states to really “get with the times,” society needs to attack the root causes of crime, such as poverty, by focusing on education and family assistance programs. These are the kinds of progressive and forward thinking policies that really will ensure safety; Mr. Trovato’s eye-for-an-eye justice is outdated and best left for Sunday school.

Sierra Ready

UW junior

sready@wisc.edu

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 8:02am):

So it is better to not interfere with the poor miscreant that does you harm than defend your self and family? You feel it is better to be murdered, robbed, and raped rather than defend yourself? It is your life! I'll keep mine. Yes, I can survive and WILL make the criminal pay. Only Illinois and Wisconsin prohibit self defense. Enjoy the increase of criminals coming to your state. I do carry, legally and have survived 2 episodes where their gun was negated by pulling my weapon. I did not have to shoot, just show it discreetly. They decided they have business elsewhere.

Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 8:15am):

"policy that has no business in any state"

The people of 48 states disagree.

But then maybe a know-it-all like you is right instead? The British wanted better gun control a while back too.

Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 9:17am):

countries with low gun numbers may have lower crime rates, but america will never be a country with low gun numbers. all strict gun controls will do is lower the number of legal guns. it seems cliche to say it, but criminals don't obey laws.

Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 1:44pm):

"The National Rifle Association statistics quoted in Mr. Trovatoâ��s article should not be trusted"
Why? Just because they are evidence that your point of view is wrong? Its not just NRA statistics that have these results. Just google conceal carry/ crime statistics, its all there.

"for it has been widely studied and proven that countries with low numbers of firearms have much lower rates of crime. More guns do not equal lower crime and are best left out of the equation altogether."

Please explain how you plan on magically eliminating all the guns in this country to make it safer. The guns are already out there, criminals are carrying them in a concealed fashion, isn't it time for law abiding citizens to carry them as well?

"We must counter a culture of violence by standing up and declaring that violence is not acceptable."
Has anyone been standing up and declaring that it IS acceptable?

"society needs to attack the root causes of crime, such as poverty, by focusing on education and family assistance programs."

In your dreams, where are you planning on getting the money for these programs? Its easy to make vague judgements on society, if you have a realistic alternative please share, but please leave your inane comments out of public press.

Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 3:09pm):

With all due respect, which doesn't seem to be much, your argument has been used before and been proven to be false. Maybe you should do your research and think about what you write before you do it.

You want a gun free zone? Okay. Hang a "GUN FREE ZONE" sign on your apartment door. Or your parents house. Congratulations, you just made yourself a victim.

Heidi Voss (April 24, 2008 @ 4:40pm):

Allowing concealed carry does not put more guns into the hands of criminals, it puts the guns into responsible, law-abiding citizens who have passed a licensing course and background check. Criminals already carry concealed weapons, so its not like they would go to all the trouble of getting a license. But by passing the bill to allow concealed carry, people can defend themselves from rapists, murderers, etc. I know I want to protect myself, and not have to rely on other people (aka the government, police, etc) to do it for me.

To think that this would be a "new Wild West" is completely false. 48 other states have some form of concealed carry, and I don't see them having the shootouts you see when you watch westerns. Even back then they didnt happen nearly as much as you would believe by watching the westerns. Those with a permit for concealed carry are not vigilantes in any sense. They carry only to protect themselves, not to go around and hunt down criminals. They do not look for danger.

Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 6:00pm):

**CORRECTION**

The people of 50 states agree. Only 2 governors are too involved with their own agendas to pay attention to their constituents.

Anonymous (April 24, 2008 @ 7:28pm):

"Criminals already carry concealed weapons"

WAIT, isn't that against the law? Oh, yeah, they're criminals - it's only the non-criminals that can't have concealed weapons. Too bad the criminals know that though. Kinda makes the non-criminals into sitting ducks - don't it?

I do wish the criminals had the tiniest little doubt that the non-criminals could defend themselves. But I'd couldn't be in Wisconsin if I want my wish. Maybe it's not just a brain drain, but also a common-sense drain that Wisconsin should worry about.

Anonymous (April 25, 2008 @ 1:02am):

A rule that goes with any gun carrying law - even encouraged by the NRA - is saftey training and a background check. You don't get a license if you don't know when to use it or carry it.

Do you think we should outlaw martial arts? Heck, The ability to fight someone like that is better concealed than any weapon.

People learn to use these things to make would-be criminals think twice about what they're about to do, not to punish them afterwards.

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.