Monkeyleg
Member.
Last year I begged the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel to publish a rebuttal to their anti-CCW editorial. I'd asked for just 650 words, and they turned me down.
Now they've called me and asked if I would write a 1200-word article on concealed carry for the Sunday editorial section. Of course, they're going to have an article by the anti's as well.
The article right now is 988 words. Anything else I can think of just becomes redundant.
So, critiques, please?
***********
In October of 2002, a 42 year-old woman was dragged into an alley on Milwaukee's north side by five thugs. There, for 45 horrible minutes, she was repeatedly raped and beaten by her assailants. They made a bonfire of her clothing. Neighbors heard her screams and called the police, who scoured the area. Finally, but too late to save the woman, one officer saw the flames from her clothing.
Against her will, this woman became one of the 1,100 women who are raped in Wisconsin every year. She will bear the same emotional scars that more than 6,800 victims of assaults in our state have to suffer with each year, the same scars as the 4,500 victims of robbery, the same scars suffered by the more than 12,000 Wisconsinites who are victims of other types of violent crimes every year.
Had she been able to defend herself, she wouldn't have been attacked at all. But she was unable to defend herself because Wisconsin only allows law enforcement officers to carry weapons for self-defense.
Those who oppose legalizing concealed carry argue that we don't need a concealed carry system because Wisconsin already has a relatively low crime rate. In essence, these opponents are saying that the numbers of rapes, assaults, robberies and violent crimes cited above constitute an acceptable level of criminal violence. But, really, what should an acceptable level of criminal violence be? Logic would dictate that the only acceptable level is zero; any number higher than zero is purely arbitrary.
Forty-five states have now recognized that arbitrary levels of criminal violence are unacceptable, and have restored the right of self-defense to their citizens. Just ten days ago, Missouri became the 45th state to pass a concealed carry law, after the legislature overrode Governor Holden's veto of a bill similar to that proposed for Wisconsin. In June, Minnesota passed a concealed carry law nearly identical to the one proposed for Wisconsin, just as Michigan did in 2001.
In every state where legalized concealed carry has been proposed, opponents have predicted apocalyptic consequences, and have advanced the same arguments almost verbatim. Will their predictions of "blood in the streets" come true in Missouri, Minnesota, or Wisconsin? Will there be, as they argue, "shootouts at every stoplight?"
No.
Consider that, from October 1987 to October 2002, Florida issued 828,608 concealed carry permits. During that period only 1,542 permits were revoked for convictions for any offense more serious than a traffic ticket. The majority of those convictions were for offenses unrelated to firearms. Moreover, as of 1996, Florida reported that only five permit revocations were the result of a conviction for a violent crime. Data available from other concealed carry states show similarly miniscule permit revocation rates. Clearly, those citizens who take the time to undergo training, background checks and who are willing to go through the process of applying for permits are overwhelmingly law-abiding.
Opponents argue that armed citizens have no effect on crime. They argue that a citizen with a gun doesn't have sufficient training to thwart a criminal attack. Incredibly, they claim that a criminal will just take the gun away from the citizen, a suggestion that is countered by data from the FBI, not to mention pure common sense: any criminal who would try to grab a loaded gun from a citizen whose finger is on the trigger is a candidate for the Darwin Awards.
The US Department of Justice estimates that approximately 500,000 citizens successfully defend themselves with firearms against criminal attack every year. This indicates a one-to-one ratio of citizen vs. criminal uses of firearms. An ongoing study by the criminology department at Florida State University indicates that the number of defensive uses of firearms could be as high as 2.5 million annually, or a five-to-one ratio. The study reports that 86% of the time, no shots are fired; merely threatening a criminal with a firearm is a sufficient deterrent.
The FBI reports that, for the most recently analyzed year, 215 criminals were killed by armed citizens, including concealed carry permit holders. The above data shows that, not only are citizens capable of defending themselves with firearms, but that they do so with remarkable restraint. Permit holders are not the "shoot-'em-up cowboy" types that opponents portray.
Currently under Wisconsin law, the only weapon available to citizens for self defense is pepper spray, which is nothing more than an aerosol form of a Cajun condiment. It is effective against attacking dogs, but not against a drugged-up assailant. In the event of a criminal attack, a cell phone in the hand means help is ten, twenty or even thirty minutes away. A gun in the hand means help is just a trigger pull away or, far more often than not, that the criminal will turn tail and run away.
Wisconsin can be proud of our law enforcement officers. Their level of professionalism and dedication is unquestionable. But it is the rare officer indeed who happens upon a violent crime in progress. Usually the officers arrive in time to take statements from witnesses or victims. There's no doubt that the officer who came upon the burning clothing of the rape victim was trying his absolute best to save her. But, with just one officer for every 400 citizens, police help simply cannot be guaranteed. That's why the majority of street officers support legalizing concealed carry for citizens. They know the limitations of police resources.
In just a few weeks, our elected officials will have to make a decision regarding concealed carry. Some will decide to restore the right of self-defense to trained, licensed, law-abiding citizens who want the ability to defend themselves.
Other elected officials will vote with the anti-gun lobby to maintain the status quo. They will vote to maintain the current "acceptable" levels of rapes, robberies, assaults and other crimes of violence.
For the good people of Wisconsin, such a coldly-calculated, purely political vote should be completely unacceptable.
Now they've called me and asked if I would write a 1200-word article on concealed carry for the Sunday editorial section. Of course, they're going to have an article by the anti's as well.
The article right now is 988 words. Anything else I can think of just becomes redundant.
So, critiques, please?
***********
In October of 2002, a 42 year-old woman was dragged into an alley on Milwaukee's north side by five thugs. There, for 45 horrible minutes, she was repeatedly raped and beaten by her assailants. They made a bonfire of her clothing. Neighbors heard her screams and called the police, who scoured the area. Finally, but too late to save the woman, one officer saw the flames from her clothing.
Against her will, this woman became one of the 1,100 women who are raped in Wisconsin every year. She will bear the same emotional scars that more than 6,800 victims of assaults in our state have to suffer with each year, the same scars as the 4,500 victims of robbery, the same scars suffered by the more than 12,000 Wisconsinites who are victims of other types of violent crimes every year.
Had she been able to defend herself, she wouldn't have been attacked at all. But she was unable to defend herself because Wisconsin only allows law enforcement officers to carry weapons for self-defense.
Those who oppose legalizing concealed carry argue that we don't need a concealed carry system because Wisconsin already has a relatively low crime rate. In essence, these opponents are saying that the numbers of rapes, assaults, robberies and violent crimes cited above constitute an acceptable level of criminal violence. But, really, what should an acceptable level of criminal violence be? Logic would dictate that the only acceptable level is zero; any number higher than zero is purely arbitrary.
Forty-five states have now recognized that arbitrary levels of criminal violence are unacceptable, and have restored the right of self-defense to their citizens. Just ten days ago, Missouri became the 45th state to pass a concealed carry law, after the legislature overrode Governor Holden's veto of a bill similar to that proposed for Wisconsin. In June, Minnesota passed a concealed carry law nearly identical to the one proposed for Wisconsin, just as Michigan did in 2001.
In every state where legalized concealed carry has been proposed, opponents have predicted apocalyptic consequences, and have advanced the same arguments almost verbatim. Will their predictions of "blood in the streets" come true in Missouri, Minnesota, or Wisconsin? Will there be, as they argue, "shootouts at every stoplight?"
No.
Consider that, from October 1987 to October 2002, Florida issued 828,608 concealed carry permits. During that period only 1,542 permits were revoked for convictions for any offense more serious than a traffic ticket. The majority of those convictions were for offenses unrelated to firearms. Moreover, as of 1996, Florida reported that only five permit revocations were the result of a conviction for a violent crime. Data available from other concealed carry states show similarly miniscule permit revocation rates. Clearly, those citizens who take the time to undergo training, background checks and who are willing to go through the process of applying for permits are overwhelmingly law-abiding.
Opponents argue that armed citizens have no effect on crime. They argue that a citizen with a gun doesn't have sufficient training to thwart a criminal attack. Incredibly, they claim that a criminal will just take the gun away from the citizen, a suggestion that is countered by data from the FBI, not to mention pure common sense: any criminal who would try to grab a loaded gun from a citizen whose finger is on the trigger is a candidate for the Darwin Awards.
The US Department of Justice estimates that approximately 500,000 citizens successfully defend themselves with firearms against criminal attack every year. This indicates a one-to-one ratio of citizen vs. criminal uses of firearms. An ongoing study by the criminology department at Florida State University indicates that the number of defensive uses of firearms could be as high as 2.5 million annually, or a five-to-one ratio. The study reports that 86% of the time, no shots are fired; merely threatening a criminal with a firearm is a sufficient deterrent.
The FBI reports that, for the most recently analyzed year, 215 criminals were killed by armed citizens, including concealed carry permit holders. The above data shows that, not only are citizens capable of defending themselves with firearms, but that they do so with remarkable restraint. Permit holders are not the "shoot-'em-up cowboy" types that opponents portray.
Currently under Wisconsin law, the only weapon available to citizens for self defense is pepper spray, which is nothing more than an aerosol form of a Cajun condiment. It is effective against attacking dogs, but not against a drugged-up assailant. In the event of a criminal attack, a cell phone in the hand means help is ten, twenty or even thirty minutes away. A gun in the hand means help is just a trigger pull away or, far more often than not, that the criminal will turn tail and run away.
Wisconsin can be proud of our law enforcement officers. Their level of professionalism and dedication is unquestionable. But it is the rare officer indeed who happens upon a violent crime in progress. Usually the officers arrive in time to take statements from witnesses or victims. There's no doubt that the officer who came upon the burning clothing of the rape victim was trying his absolute best to save her. But, with just one officer for every 400 citizens, police help simply cannot be guaranteed. That's why the majority of street officers support legalizing concealed carry for citizens. They know the limitations of police resources.
In just a few weeks, our elected officials will have to make a decision regarding concealed carry. Some will decide to restore the right of self-defense to trained, licensed, law-abiding citizens who want the ability to defend themselves.
Other elected officials will vote with the anti-gun lobby to maintain the status quo. They will vote to maintain the current "acceptable" levels of rapes, robberies, assaults and other crimes of violence.
For the good people of Wisconsin, such a coldly-calculated, purely political vote should be completely unacceptable.
