Good "talking points" for CCW?

[Monkeyleg]

With the battle for concealed carry starting again in Wisconsin, I'm trying to come up with arguements to bring the fence-sitters over to our side.

I'm also trying to distill the arguement down to a very basic point that nearly all would agree with. For example, "Do you think that you have the right to have a means to defend yourself, if you choose, against violent criminals?"

Over the past four years, I've listened to one side say that concealed carry reduces crime, and listened to them cite statistics. Then the other side comes back with their own statistics.

I've come to believe that the arguement that CCW reduces crime is a dead-end, and for a couple of reasons. One is that we are not in the crime-reduction business; we're just trying to defend ourselves. Another is that arguing that it reduces crime puts the burden on us to prove it and, further, paints us as cop-wannabe's.

So, any ideas you have are much appreciated.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I've come to believe that the arguement that CCW reduces crime is a dead-end, and for a couple of reasons. One is that we are not in the crime-reduction business; we're just trying to defend ourselves. Another is that arguing that it reduces crime puts the burden on us to prove it and, further, paints us as cop-wannabe's.

Amen!

As far as I'm concerned, rights are rights whether exercising them reduces violent crime, increases it, or has no effect whatever.

You might try suggesting that lots of people get permits they'll actually use only during emergencies. In the first place, a great many permit holders actually don't carry on any sort of regular, frequent basis, and in the second, saying so may help reduce people's fears.

You might try mentioning that in states that track permit holders' legal status over time, permit holders are less likely to be arrested for felonies than cops.

You might try mentioning that CCW and shall issue are the law in 38 states so far. The laws have been liberalized in a few states; by contrast, not a single state has retreated from CCW and shall issue, although Alaska has done away with the necessity to acquire the permit.

Best of success, eh? I'd sure like to be able to take a vacation in Wisconsin again.

 

[TrapperReady]

Dick - I've spent the past year talking to friends about CCW and RKBA issues. It's really tough to change opinions on this issue. Even folks who aren't overtly anti-gun can tend to have a knee-jerk reaction against non-government types carrying firearms.

The limited luck I've had has been to personalize the issue. I've explained the violent crimes committed against my own family and friends. I explain that I have always lived in decent neighborhoods and come from a solidly middle-class background... yet my immediate family and friends have dealt with:

- a home break in and attack by a serial rapist.
- a car-jacking/hostage situation
- a daylight armed robbery
- a car-jacking/attempted homicide resulting in long-term physical injury
- several home burglary attempts

I then bring up 911 response times. I live in a very low-crime, very well policed town. The one time I called 911, it was nearly 10 minutes before the police arrived, and I found out the next day that several other neighbors had called around the same time. I point out that a heck of a lot can happen in just a few minutes.

One thing I like to point out is that I believe that a pro-self-defense attitude is an enlightened position. I've known quite a few people who were against CCW and other methods of self-defense... until they had an experience which caused them to see the light. I've never known a single person go the other way.

As I've listened to WPR for the past couple years, and read the newspaper articles, I think this isn't an area in which we can win people over with logical arguments. They've already had that. The last WPR show I heard, nearly everyone was against CCW (no surprise there), but their views were almost entirely supported by nothing more than emotions. The few folks who did call in to express support offered logical and accurate arguments.

It's just like the fight for (other) civil rights. There is a certain portion of the population which is fearful, and that fear is a results of long-standing prejudices. Logical arguments won't sway many of them. It will take exposure over time or a paradigm shift (like when something happens to them and the police don't get there in time) to alter their beliefs.

 

[AJ Dual]

Excelent point!

You're right. The crime control argument needs to be taken out of the debate, at least as the central or first thrust. If anything, ancilary crime reduction in CCW states is serindipitous, but not the main purpose of such legislation. Standing Wolf has some good points, but in Monkeleg's idea, we need to take all statistical and overly logical points out of our lead-in position.

Do you have the right to defend your life or not?

Yes? How do you propose to do so?

A non-felon competent adult can legally own a firearm in Wisconsin.
You can legally shoot an attacker in Wisconsin.
You can't carry a loaded firearm for self defense past your door in Wisconsin.

 

[beerslurpy]

I've brought anti-gun folks over to our side a few times, and showing that carrying of firearms (openly or concealed) does not increase violent crime has an enormous psychological impact on someone who has previously beleived the opposite to be true.

When people realize that states with open carry have very low crime, it usually comes as a shock. When they realize that criminals are afraid of commiting crimes when potential victims have guns, its like a light bulb goes off over their head. Seeing things partially from the standpoint of the criminal makes it very easy to see what steps we can take to make their profession less enticing.

It helps if you try to convince friends and acquaintances rather than arguing with strangers. Many will simply focus on winning the argument rather than finding out the truth.

 

[Monkeyleg]

"Seeing things partially from the standpoint of the criminal makes it very easy to see what steps we can take to make their profession less enticing."

Well, there must surely be a prison warden (who cannot legally carry) who just might let one of his most violent inmates go accompanied by guards to tell the Senate/Assembly committees what he thinks about our current law. In fact, that's a story that maybe the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel just might cover....maybe.

One of the best stories we have here in WI is that of Teresa Sweet, who was gang-raped in her small hometown by a bunch of thugs, just across the street from the town police station. The thugs were never caught.

Her sister was also gang-raped, and suspects never caught.

Teresa has very courageously come forward with her story before Assembly and Senate committee hearings. She doesn't hold back. And, after she delivers her story, the room is usually silent for quite some time.

Last session, the NRA ran radio ads with her talking about what happened. The NRA could only afford to run the ads in targetted legislative districts. I only wish there had been the money to run them statewide every half-hour.

The anti's use emotion. There is no anti-gunner story as powerful as Teresa's.

The NRA needs the money to run the ads with Teresa all over the state.

And we grass-rooters need to encapsulize our message into one that will hit home in 30 seconds or less.

Please keep any ideas coming.

 

[Waitone]

--What is the median response time to 911 calls by urban, suburban, and rural areas. During the lower half time how many times can a victim be shot, stabbed, cut, bashed, crushed, etc.

--Where in Wisconsin law does it say LE is under obligation to protect you.

--Does Wisconsin recognize the right to self defense under murderous assault.

--Is the right to self-defense contingent up the nature of that defense.

Real live honest to goodness stories from cheeseheads is hard to refute.

 

[Steam dragon]

Make it personal to the person you are talking to.

Set up:

"I come around a corner and see you being stabbed. The knife is coming out of your chest. The goblin is obviously going to keep stabbing you until you die."

"I have a cell phone with 911 on speed dial. I also have a gun."

Knock 'em down:
"Which tool do you want me to use?"

If s/he chooses 'cell phone', that's dead meat walking. no use talking.

If s/he chooses gun, suggest that even if they don't want to carry their own, they should make sure you can carry yours.

 

[Bam53]

I have used this story a few times to point out the value of folks being armed and the choices criminals would make.

The bad guy is told the following:

There are three rooms. In each room is one million dollars in cash and one person guarding it. In the first room, the person will not armed. In the second, the person will be armed. In the third room, the person may, or may not be armed.

The armed criminal may enter only one room. Which one will he choose?

The response from everyone is always the same.

 

[Zundfolge]

I've come to believe that the arguement that CCW reduces crime is a dead-end

I've come to this same conclusion as well ... whenever I point out that crime rates have dropped in places that have liberalized CCW the retort is always "You can't prove it was the CCW that did it ... they also got all that money from Clinton (or some other excuse)"

So my response at that point is usually;

So even if CCW didn't cause that decline in crime rates, its clear that CCW did not cause an INCREASE violent crime or accidental death in those areas. So there is no negative effect on you (or society in general) if I'm allowed to CCW.

That has stumped a few anti-CCW folk.

 

[Oldtimer]

I've legally carried concealed weapons for 35 years
(31 years active-duty as a police officer and 4 years as an honorably-retired LEO). While my department couldn't "require" me when off-duty, it was "advisable". Having crossed paths with several of the bad guys that I had put in jail/prison, plus the fact that I've been the target of two "contract hits", I'd say that it's a "necessity".

What I'm getting at is the terminology/semantics aspect. Is it a "right" to carry a concealed weapon, or is it a "privelege"? My personal view is that it should be a "right", but as with all rights, it CAN be revoked or restricted for one reason or another.

I've only come into contact with a few CCW permitees through the years (I live in Southern California), and they were all decent, law-abiding and honest citizens. Here, though, the CCW permit is looked upon as being more of a "privelege". For many years, the various Sheriff's that have been in leadership of the L.A. County Sheriff's Department have approved CCW permits for countless "priveleged" persons (i.e., "celebrities"), but RARELY for the "common" citizens, even though they might be able to prove the "necessity" to have a permit. Fair? I've had countless contacts with "celebrities" over the years, and while most of them were decent enough, I'm not sure if ALL of them should be given "special treatment" just because they have "celebrity" status of some sort.

Numerous incidents of armed citizens merely displaying a holstered firearm to thwart a crime go un-reported. More often than not, the bad guy will run after seeing that his prospective victim is armed.....and the armed citizen might be "afraid" to report the incident, due to the laws regarding "brandishing" firearms. All that does is to allow the bad guy to look elsewhere for another easy victim that ISN'T armed, and the police weren't given a description of the bad guy, so that he might be stopped and questioned as a "suspicious" person. Of course, his un-armed, easy target will give a description of him....AFTER he has carried out a crime!

What I'd like to see is some kind of standardized regulations for the issuance of CCW permits. The permitee would be given a copy of those rules, and told that if he/she violated any of them, their "right" to carry COULD be revoked. One of my pet peeves, after having talked with numerous CCW permit hopefuls, is that many of them merely think that it would be "cool" to have a permit, or their reason for wanting a permit is "just in case"!
There is a LOT of responsibility that goes along with carrying a firearm in public, and even though none of you might like this....I'd like to see the insurance companies come up with policies that would cover CCW permitees, instead of them running the chance of losing everything if they are involved in a "reasonable/justifiable" shooting!

 

[ctdonath]

Many who generally oppose CCW seem to grudgingly understand/accept the act if the carrier has already been attacked. Sort of:
- "What do you need that stupid/dangerous thing with you for?"
- "I barely survived a mugging/carjacking/rape/etc.; I'm not going to make the mistake of not having a gun next time."
- "Oh, I understand."

I've considered adapting this to
- "What if I told you I barely survived an assault and will never make the mistake of being unarmed again?"
- "Oh, sorry, I didn't know, yeah, that make sense."
- "Well, is my life any less worth protecting just because I haven't actually been nearly killed yet?"

 

[XLMiguel]

None are so blind as they who will not see -

Heartily agree that 'crime reduction' is not a viable issue for all the reasons cited. Assuming you can engage in a rational discussion, there are a couple of tacks you can take -
Common Sense/preparation
- You have insurance, fire extinguisher(s), first aid kits, right? Why? Do you expect to use them? We all hope not, but better to have & not need. The same goes for some means of self-defense.
- Hurricane, tornadoes, flood, blizzard, etc. What preparations have you made for such things? What if someone wants to take your supplies from you?
Reality Check
- Cops can't be everywhere
- Cops have no legal obligation to protect the individual
- Acquaint them with local crime stats, registered sex offenders in the 'hood, etc.
- Acquaint them with 9-1-1 response times
- In the wake of the recent natural disasters, the Goverment is spending a bunch of your tax dollars advertising that we all should "Have a Plan". This is called "a clue", and the message is: "You're on your own, Sparky". Believe it!
Moral/ethical
- The Great Spirit gave you a life, inherent in that life is the right (and duty) to protect that life
- And the lives of those for whom you are responsible.
- If you will not fight for your own life, why should you expect someone else to do it for you?
- When confronted by Evil, an unarmed man can only flee. Evil is not vanquished by running away (see previous point).
I'm not saying everyone should have a gun, but those who are willing, qualified (i.e. non-felons or mental cases) and responsible should not be hindered. Self-defense is a personal responsibility.

 

[ctdonath]

When confronted by Evil, an unarmed man can only flee.

If you can flee, do so.
If the situation warrants pulling the trigger - assuming one has a gun in the situation - flight is not a viable option.

"Why not just run away?"
"If I shoot someone, it's only because I can't run away."

The problem is that many people believe "just walk away" is ALWAYS an option. Fools. Guns are for those horrible times you can't.

 

[pwolfman]

John Ross has some quips if you want to peruse them...Love reading his stuff.

Mistakes

pwolfman

 

[wahsben]

At the JPFO website they have the Granpa Jack series of booklets which would help also they have the book Dial 911 and Die which gives actual cases in the states and the consequences.

 

[antsi]

My CCW argument:

If a criminal comes after me, he's going to have a gun. It's already illegal for criminals to carry guns, and it still will be after this law is passed. It's already illegal to use a gun to commit a crime, and it still will be after this law is passed. That doesn't matter. Criminals don't obey these kind of laws.

The only thing that changes under the proposed law is whether or not the intended victim will be armed. I am a law-abiding citizen. Under the current law, if a criminal comes after me, he's going to be the only one who's armed. Under the proposed law, if a criminal comes after me, we'll both be armed.

 

[CannonFodder]

My argument:

I am a free man who has done no harm to others, respects the rights of others, and does not seek to oppress others with my faculties. Should events warrant action on my part, I shall actively take responsibility for my deeds.

Ergo, I have the right to do as I please.

Shockingly, this is not enough for most people.