I like guns. I like having them, I like shooting them. I believe that as Americans and citizens of the modern world, we have the right to have guns for responsible recreation and – if we feel we need them – defense. The Wisconsin Legislature’s latest gun related bill, however, takes this right entirely too far.
Under a bill known as Castle Doctrine, Wisconsin homeowners are granted more legal leeway if they shoot and injure or kill an intruder. The homeowner is also granted more protection from civil litigation in that it is up to the victim to prove they were not intruding – previously, it was up to the homeowner to prove they had the right to shoot a deadly weapon at someone.
The bill has already passed through the Assembly and Senate and is only waiting on a signature from Republican Gov. Scott “Rubber Stamp” Walker before it becomes law.
Rep. Dean Kaufert, R-Neenah, the man responsible for this legislative bowel movement, defended the rights of Wisconsinites to shoot people without first figuring out if they indeed do intend to harm you. His logic? When people need to defend themselves, they shouldn’t have to stop and think about whether or not they will be charged.
Kaufert and I agree on that point. If your life is legitimately in danger you should be able to defend it any way you possibly can. The thing is, the law already allows you to do this. When you are threatened physically, you are allowed to fight back without worrying about the law. This particular bill allows you to shoot an unarmed, non-threatening person: something that will absolutely lead to unnecessary deaths.
“If a person unlawfully breaks into your home, it’s assumed that you believe he’s there for a criminal purpose,” Kaufert said on the Assembly floor Tuesday. “You don’t have to ask them; you’re afforded that protection.”
The problem here is that criminals break into houses and on to property for a variety of reasons, many being completely non-violent. There is a large jump between busting in a window to steal an iPod and breaking into a home to do physical harm to its resident, but under this legislation a petty criminal can be shot and killed. Legally. While I agree the asshole who stole my roommate’s purse last year should be punished, I’d stop short of pumping him full of lead.
It is not just criminals who could be the victim of unnecessary gun use under this bill. A drunken college student accidentally stumbling toward the wrong house could theoretically be injured or even killed without any repercussions for the trigger happy homeowner. Again, the theoretical lush is trespassing and should face repercussions for their actions, but a deadly hangover is probably more appropriate than a deadly bullet to the face.
A trespasser does not even have to break in to the house in question to be shot. Home owners can shoot anyone with two feet on their property as long as they claim to feel threatened.
Ultimately, this bill will do nothing to help people who shoot out of the legitimate need to defend themselves. Those people are already taken care of under our laws. Anyone who benefits from the extra protections this bill would extend is someone who fired a gun in a legally dubious situation. Providing legal immunity to these people and then forcing victims of gun crimes to defend their possibly completely harmless actions makes this one of the most backwards pieces of legislation to come out of this farce of a session.
There is nothing wrong with liking guns. There is nothing wrong with wanting to shoot them. There is something wrong with wanting more legal situations to shoot them at people. This attitude seems to be exactly what our public servants, who have pledged to keep us safe and well, should be legislating against.
Carolyn Briggs ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in English.
