I think you’re correct, Razorsharp. “A well regulated militia…” is the dependant clause in the sentence, and I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear on that. The point is that the two thoughts are connected; they are not independent ideas, as some here are trying to suggest. They are incorrectly reading it as a conjunctive clause, which it is not. It doesn’t say “A well regulated militia is necessary AND the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” And I think your interpretation that “the existance of the militia is dependent on the people’s right to keep and bear arms” is right on. But here’s where I think we would disagree: to me, that means we have the right to bear arms to the extent that we are participating in a militia. There is nothing in the wording at all to suggest that we have the right to privately possess guns for personal self-defense.
If you wish to argue that your state has the right to form a militia to defend against tyranny, I will give you no argument. The only problem is, I don’t think the founding fathers were anticipating the federal government amassing a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons. So while I agree that states have a constitutional right to take on the U.S. army, I don’t think they’re gonna get too far.
That doesn’t mean that having a gun is a “freedom” that trumps other freedoms.
If you’re saying that everyone who is ever shot deserves it, I’m afraid I’d have to disagree.
And you speak for every gun-possessor in the country, eh? If only that were true.
The solution to criminals having guns is to take the guns away from the criminals, not give more guns to everyone else. That’s simply anarchy.
You are twisting my words. I said no “peaceful” purpose, yet you pretend that I said no “legitimate” purpose. Tsk, tsk - poor debating form. Guns are designed to inflict injury - that’s what they’re for; you have not refuted this.
I think your argument is better served in opposition to guns in general. Not in opposition to law abiding citizens being able to defend themselves.
Oops, the last sentence of my last post is of course from Razorsharp’s post; I neglected to trim that off.
Ugh, I’m really screwing up here. It was Uncommon’s post, and I think I fouled up my attributions. Sorry about that. Hopefully you can figure out who said what.
Ya, I’m aware of YOUR m.o. also, blowero. You don’t actually READ what I write. You pick out a word or two, then fly off the handle. Such is life. Sorry I’m so unreasonable in asking anyone in this thread to back up ANY assertion, and that I complained about the dearth of such evidence. Especially I find it ironic coming from you as so far in this thread you had started a hijack about 2nd amendment syntax and pretty much stayed there. Didn’t even know what your position WAS until now.
They aren’t MY ‘good guys’, blowero. Looks like (according to your own cite) many of them are folks who should NOT get a CCW permit and got one by slipping through the cracks…no?
It doesn’t surprise me that folks with CCW permits commit crimes. It would be surprising if they didn’t, as it looks like the process is definitely got some VERY serious problems with it. Hell, your own article supports this assertion (over and over again). Its definitely disturbing that, according to your cite, people in Texas WITH CCW permits commit violent crimes at a rate thats 66% more than the general population, though not surprising if a large percentage of folks who should NOT have CCW permits in fact have them.
All this really shows, though, is that 3,370 people with CCW permits were arrested for crimes ranging from murder, rape, sexual assault and weapons-related crimes between 1996-2000 in Texas. Doesn’t exactly show a correlation between allowing CCW and people committing crimes (especially in light of the fact that your article shows that many folks with CCW permits also have criminal backgrounds). Does seem like a lot of arrests in a 4 year period for a single state though, but not sure if thats true or not.
What your “CCW LICENSE HOLDERS: “LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS?”” cite boils down to is that the PROCESS of CCW permit administration seems to be flawed, as an inordinate amount of people who should not have such a license in fact do have one. To me, thats really all you can draw from this data. Maybe you’d like to take a shot at saying what YOU think it means, blowero.
Bolding mine. This seems to indicate (again) that there were serious flaws in the process, if there was a revocation rate increase of 241% due to new checking proceedures. Thats quite a large increase, to say the least. So, this certainly shows that there are flaws in the system that would need to be seriously addressed if CCW is to continue (at least in Utah, but probably in nearly every CCW state at a guess). It doesn’t exactly prove that the THEORY of citizens with good records having CCW permits and carrying weapons is flawed though. Or does it? You gave the cite, whats YOUR analysis of this data?
I guess you overlooked the fact that I already said this. I assume you figure if YOU say it forcefully enough while pointing at me it will magically make the reverse position mine? Not only did I post ITR’s cite from a previous thread showing murder rates, I made the tenitive assertion that in fact states without CCW seem to have their murder rate drop faster than the national average…certainly they dropped faster than the majority of CCW states (on average). Just glance at the chart with reference to the map showing the states that are CCW and those restricted or denied. Or can I assume you just glossed over this like you normally do? Can I assume you don’t actually KNOW what my position is, and simply (again) assume you do?? Ya, that sounds about par for the course with you.
Just to make it clear to you (in theory, if you actually read this), I DON’T think that CCW permits makes people safer (quite the opposite in fact), nor do I feel that states with CCW magically have their crime rates drop…again, just the opposite. In fact, I would even say that it makes sense to me that states WITH CCW would have more crime than states without, especially in light of the fact that a large percentage of folks with CCW licenses have criminal records and have managed to slip through the administrative cracks.
To me it comes down to the fact that people suck at risk analysis. For example, my father in law DOES carry a gun (he’s an ex cop) to ‘protect himself and his family’, blah blah blah, but he and the rest of his family (excluding my wife) NEVER wear seat belts, in spite of the fact that they have been in a few accidents, one of them fairly serious and resulting (unsurprisingly) in a nasty injury to my mother in law (head through windshield…good thing she has a hard head :)). My father in law doesn’t believe in seat belts, despite first hand knowledge of what happens when you don’t wear one, but carries the gun everywhere he goes, in spite of discharging it ONCE in the 20 odd years on the police department, and never since.
Personally, as I said before, I think its not very smart to carry a weapon in public, concealed or otherwise, unless you are in law enforcement. So, why do I ‘support’ it? Because I DO believe that its a right, and that law abiding citizens should have the choice (ya, I’m ‘pro-choice’ on most subjects :)). I think citizens should be responsible for their own actions, and allowed to do what they want, within reason, as long as they stay within the law. If they fuck up and shoot someone by accident or in some kind of road rage situation, they should pay the consequences…just like the more likely possibility that if they drink or use drugs and get behind the wheel of a car and kill someone, they should pay the consequences.
You can’t protect everyone from everything that is a threat in our society…folks have to be responsible for their own actions at some point. Given the choice, most citizens IMO would do what I do…i.e. NOT carry a weapon anyway. But it would be their CHOICE, not a government mandate. Looking at it statistically, allowing CCW (even in the appearently fucked up manner its currently being handled) is a very minor increased potential risk for society as a whole in allowing law abiding citizens the CHOICE to carry a weapon or not…much less of a risk than, say, allowing the public to drive cars or smoke cigarrettes or eat fast food, among many other things.
BTW, weren’t ALL the citizens denied guns in 1984?? So, which position exactly is ‘Orwellian’??
Blowero, as a firm supporter of gun rights I thought your opening arguements re a different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment were cogent and thought-provoking. Really, I did. However, supporting your new angle of attacks vis-a-vis quoting and citing the VPC, and the Brady Bunch et al, has totally diminished your credibility as a knowledgable opponent, in my view. Not an attack on you, but your methods in this regard. As a fervent supporter of gun rights in our country, I’ve read the opposition’s attacks on the 2nd Amendment, and have come to the conclusion that if you tell a lie often enough, soon it becomes truth.
Former president Clinton once said in a press conference that 13 children die a day in this country from firearms. He was presented with this information by the organization called Handgun Control, Inc. (now known as the Brady Bunch, slangily), who included in this statistic, “children” up to the age of 24, who died in drug and gang related violence. If you were to delve further into the cite you provided on Texas CCW violations, you’ll see that a significant number of arrests (even if they were not carrying at the time of their arrest), etc., include things like reckless driving, drunk in public, and other misdemeanor type offenses, which resulted in the revocation of their license, regardless of whether or not they had a firearm in their possession at the time of the transgression.
To make a long story short, many of us in the gun totin’, law-abiding community are ready, willing and able to have some form of gun control laws on the books which prevent criminals from obtaining firearms for the purposes of criminal intent (bottom line, crime control not gun control). However, when a biased government (the Center for Disease Control) organization can finance a study on the efficacy of gun control laws in this country, and find that there is no correlation on existing laws in this country and controlling crime rates, then what’s the point? Are our gun laws enacted to prevent crime, or are they designed to remove them from the hands of the law abiding?
As far as bazookas, et al., those weapons are classified IIRC, as explosive devices and as such fall under the National Firearms Act which you can read up about on the BATF’s (now the BATF&Es) web page, and are a totally different animal re what a standard militia’s TO&E is. BTW, yes, take with a grain of salt the link to the Washington Times, but I think they gave equal vent to the study, IMHO. Thank you.
Perhaps you should take this up with xtisme, then:
It would appear that your “few” is a bit of an understatement. It would also demonstrate the hazards of handing out CCW permits without proper resources - which you (artemis) seem convinced are readily available. It would seem that Texas (and Utah…) demonstrates otherwise. Either that, or CCW permits owners aren’t as law-abiding as you’d like to believe. Either way, it doesn’t strike me as a point in favor of concealed carry.
Nice ad hominem attack, there. I’ve always thought one of the most immature forms of argument was making up silly names to smear your opponent. Good job. Someone’s credibility has been diminished, and it’s not mine.
No evidence, no reasoning, just the bald assertion that anyone who disagrees with you is “lying”. Is that all you got?
O.K., so now, instead of attempting to refute any of the cites I gave, you substitute your own strawman cite. This just gets better and better.
That fact was not disguised at all. The point of the article was to refute the assertion that CCW permit holders are “law abiding citizens”, an assertion that was made in this thread by the OP. Some, but not all of those arrested were arrested for committing violent crimes with their guns. I never said it was all of them, and I never implied that it was all of them. Please stop trying to knock down straw men.
I believe the point was that they didn’t have enough evidence. The fact that you would use the study to try to support your view that gun control doesn’t decrease crime shows how biased you are. The studies done haven’t shown no effect, they have shown contradictory effects.
There’s the conclusion, right there in your cite.
That wasn’t the point at all. Please go back and read it again.
And in general, remember that I made that point that this was just going to turn into a “battle of the blogs”. I only agreed to play that game because I wanted to put the lie to xtisme’s continual protestations that the pro-gun camp has provided evidence and that the anti-gun camp supposedly doesn’t have any evidence. Anyone with access to google can dig up cites, which I proved. It’s not really fair of you to try dismiss all my cites because they are anti-gun. The only neutral cite you have provided is one that proves absolutely nothing. Let’s not play that game where one of you baits me and then the other tries to hook me.
Oh, I see - no true Scotsman, eh? CCW permit holders are law-abiding citizens, except the ones who aren’t.
Hmmm…you and BF both missed the point there. From my last post:
“The point of the article was to refute the assertion that CCW permit holders are “law abiding citizens”, an assertion that was made in this thread by the OP.”
But the gun lobby continues to push for fewer restrictions, not more. How exactly are fewer restrictions going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? And we haven’t even touched the subject of gun trafficking. The criminals have to be getting their guns somewhere, and that website presents evidence that guns are flowing from states with fewer restrictions to states with more restrictions. In other words, the supposed “law abiding citizens” are selling guns to criminals.
And for the sake of argument, let’s say we could hone the application process to the point that no bad guys get through. That’s still not decreasing crime; it’s just giving a piece of paper to the people who already aren’t committing crimes. It’s a circular argument: “CCW permit holders commit fewer crimes if we only give permits to the ones who don’t commit crimes.”
Good, then we agree. Uncommon has definitely come down on the other side of that argument.
O.K., still with you.
Well we disagree on that. As the old adage goes: “Your right to swing your fists stops where my face begins.” I don’t think we should have to wait until someone ‘fucks up’ to decide if we want to control the prevalence of guns. By the time someone fucks up, someone else might very well be dead.
But cars have a purpose besides injuring people. If injuring people were the only thing cars did, I’d say “ban 'em”.
As you probably know, I am not against restricting cigarettes to the extent that they affect others (i.e. in public places).
Now that’s another kettle of fish. Now you’re talking about “nanny government”, which I don’t support. I think a legitimate function of government is to keep others from harming us, but not necessarily to keep us from harming ourselves. If I eat bad food, it’s bad for me, but it doesn’t hurt other people, and has no potential to hurt other people. IMO, that’s a crucial distinction.
There’s an xtisme-ism for you - deliberately missing the point of the reference and substituting an unrelated tangential one. An “Orwellian” statement is one that is patently contradictory, e.g.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
I wasn’t talking about how many guns are in the book. Don’t be so frickin’ literal all the time, o.k.?
Reading through this debate, it seemed to have taken a rather confusing turn. Then I saw this:
Now I understand what’s happening. blowero, I direct your attention back to the OP. The OP invites posters to provide reasons why CCW laws should not be liberalized, “liberalized” meaning, in part, that CCW permits shall be issued to “law abiding citizens”, “law abiding” meaning (I would presume) “having no criminal record at the time the permit is issued”.
I don’t think anyone in this thread has made the assertion that no CCW permit holder ever commits any crime after being issued a permit. In order to meet the challenge made in the OP, you would need to show that violent crimes are committed by permit holders at a higher rate than the general population, or that in some fashion liberalized CCW laws cause the overall rate of violent crimes to increase.
Now, you have come up with some cites. Someone actually called me “childish” for asking for cites, but it seems to have finally worked, so…uhhhh…nyah nyah nyah.
We’ll start with this one. The fact that it is from the Brady Campaign certainly raises my hackles, but we can’t say that’s enough reason by itself to dismiss it:
Let’s break that down, shall we?
1 - They were arrested. That’s not very informative. We are logically more interested in how many were actually charged and/or convicted for comitting a violent crime with a gun, as opposed to those who were arrested for things like not having their permits actually on them while carrying, or for crimes unrelated to guns, or for that matter, by mistake. Police do make mistakes…
2 - This statistic is not comparative, it does not tell us how many non-permit holders were “arrested” during the same time frame. You do understand why this is important, yes?
It’s this sort of weaselling that gives the Brady Campaign such a bad rep. “Including” serious violent offenses…including how many exactly? What percentage? They don’t say. Again, I trust you can see why this is a problem.
And now we finally see something comparative. But they are still talking only about “arrests”. How many were charged, how many were convicted? They don’t say. And what do they mean by “weapon-related offenses”? Are these violent crimes, with victims? Or something else? They don’t say.
So…you want to have a battle of anecdotes? I know how to use Google too, do you think I can’t come up with a long list of anecdotes about brave CCW permit holders saving the day using their guns? Or would you like to stick with statistics?
The second cite was this:
Let’s beak it down again. The first bullet point has no statistics; the assertion in it is supported by the others. The data in the second one is simply restated more comprehensively in the third, so I will start there:
Unless you have a theory about how the issuance of CCW permits causes an increase in the rate of violent crime not related to guns, these statistics are not germane to our discussion here. I remind you again, the OP asked if anyone could demonstrate why CCW laws should not be liberalized. What we would need to see, then, is what happened to the rate of gun-related violence, specifically if violent gun-related crimes were comitted disproportionately by CCW permit-holders.
Again, we need to see the rate of robberies comitted with guns, by CCW permit-holders. I will further note that this statistic feels like cherry-picking to me. Why are they only reporting on the robbery rate? Why aren’t they more comprehensive?
Finally, to continue our ongoing hijack:
I note with interest that you responded to someone else’s argument about the Second Amendment, but not my own
Excellent point. After all, you remember how the Chechens and the Afghans were utterly crushed by the Russians, and how we won a resounding victory in Vietnam…
Wisconsins State Constitution does. Uncommon Sense should have included a very important fact in his OP: the entire CCW issue got propelled by a State Supreme Court ruling that said individuals have the right to bear concealed weapons on their property (homes and businesses). The court all but ordered the legislature to come up with a law changing the CCW laws, because the CCW laws conflicted with the State Constitution.
Everyone on this thread carrying on about the Second Amendment, when the Wisconsin case involves the State Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution.
See, when I put the smiley in, that means I’m talking tongue in cheek blowero. I knew what you were talking about but just wanted to tweek your nose. Seemed to have worked. Well, I thought it was funny anyway…
Don’t really have time to get into this as I’m off to work, but wanted to hit a few things in a drive by, as it were.
Well, thats true enough. The other side of the thing is that the anti-gun crowd is constantly pushing for more and more restrictions in an effort to ban the things outright ultimately. So, its unsurprising that the pro-gun crowd is pushing back by trying to have fewer restrictions. There is definitely a middle ground here, but the issue has become so polarized and so emotional that I doubt we’ll ever get there, unfortunately.
However, I never said the gun lobby’s efforts to push for fewer and fewer restrictions was a good thing. I have no problem with registration and regulation of weapons, and I think its fairly obvious that IF we are going to have CCW permits available to the general public (something that I do support, at least in theory) that we need to tighten up the process and make it effective and efficient as possible. I don’t think the fact that it currently is not working correctly is an indication that it CAN’T work correctly.
Again, I never made the arguement that it WOULD decrease crime, blowero. What it does is it allows the citizens in this country to excersize something I feel is a right, just like the right of free speech or assembly. I know you disagree this is the case, as you’ve made plain. But not everyone agree’s with this interperetation, as you also said. So, honing the process in CCW basically gives us a system that allows citizens to excersize their right to bear arms (or bare arms? Isn’t bear in english a large furry animal?? An oso??) while minimizing the harm to society as much as possible. It won’t ELIMINATE it completely, but will minimize it while still allowing citizens their rights.
I don’t think its a circular arguement either as there has been no evidence presented as to the rate of people issued CCW permits but without PRIOR criminal record of any kind for committing a large percentage of weapons related crimes. Your own cite seems to point to large numbers of people with criminal records getting through the process and being issued CCW permits. Unless you can show that ordinary law abiding citizens without criminal records who are issued CCW permits in fact DO commit weapons related crimes in relatively high number AFTER recieving their permits, its not a circular arguement. And if you set up a proper system that constantly reviews the CCW permit holders and weeds out those that DO (there will always be some) you will have a system that is relatively safe while still allowing citizens their rights.
Well, its not the first time we’ve agreed, but its the first time in a political type debate I suppose. I don’t see how you can look at the data objectively and not agree to be honest.
Sure, thats true enough, and I even agree that people have the right NOT to be attacked by fellow citizens. Of course, some folks will decide that they don’t care about your ‘rights’ and use that fist (or a knife, gun, large stick, their car, an attack cat, etc etc) anyway. Any of the list, including the fist can be lethal after all. Statistically speaking, again, you are VERY unlikely to be shot by a gun, and even less likely to be shot by a gun wielded by a CCW permit holder, and even less likely to be shot by a gun wielded by a CCW permit holder with no past criminal record.
So, should we ban something based on such a low probability, or should we simply take steps to insure that the guns are properly registered with authorities, properly regulated, and CCW permits are properly issued to people meeting ALL the qualifications? At some point we have to say we’ve done the best we can to ensure OVERALL public safety…and that shit happens, unfortunately.
Its all about statistics, and being murdered by a gun in the US is pretty well down the list on ways you are most likely to snuff it…and thats murder by gun IN GENERAL, not even getting into all the subsets I mentioned.
Well, thats a good point, but I suppose you could argue that guns have a purpose besides simply injuring or killing people too. However, their main function certainly IS to kill or injure. This again touches on whether owning and ‘bearing’ firearms is a ‘right’ or not, of course. If it IS a ‘right’ then the ‘purpose’ of owning them is because its your right to do so as a citizen (with further break downs from there of ‘target shooting’, ‘hunting’, ‘personal protection’, etc). If it IS a ‘right’ to, er bear arms, then the ‘purpose’ of CCW or openly carrying is to allow citizens to exersize this ‘right’, to protect themselves in public (even though I don’t agree it necessarily does this) and deterrent value.
The point I was trying to make was simply that, statistically speaking, the odds of injury or death by a gun are far less than a lot of everyday things, not that those everyday things should be banned also. Living is a risk itself. We can attempt to minimize that as much as possible by having laws about, say drinking and driving…but SOME fool out there, inspite of the laws is going to do it anyway and get people hurt and/or killed reguardless of what you do. At a certain point you’ve done all you can and its in the hand of your citizens to act responsibly…and if not, those citizens are responsible for their own actions and have to pay the consequences.
Well, got to run. I threw this together pretty fast so I missed a lot of stuff obviously. If the discussion is still going and reasonably civil I’ll try and expand if necessary later tonight.
Yes, but here’s the point you are missing. “We the People” are not dependent on either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights for the right to possess guns. As I previously pointed out, each of the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights is NOT the grantor of any rights, but a restriction placed on the government from infringing on those pre-existing rights listed. Now, just because certain rights or privileges are not mentioned in the Constitution, doesn’t mean that the government has free reign to subjugate a right or privilege. Even if there were no 2nd Amendment, the federal government would still be stepping outside its constitutional boundaries, as outlined in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights, if it were to attempt to regulate the ownership of firearms.
Just because the Constitution is silent on the issue of possessing guns for personal self-defense, does not remove that right from “We the People”.
I think you’re engaging in a little selective reading, because you totally missed the point. I made it very clear that the U.S. Constitution cannot prevent individual states from allowing guns. You have it exactly backwards; gun advocates claim that the U.S. Constitution protects their right to own a gun. In my opinion, the U.S. Constitution does not do that, and my opinion is in agreement with court rulings as well as the position of the ACLU. I’m simply disagreeing with the notion that you have a FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own a gun. And this is key, so please read it: That doesn’t mean the Constitution says you CAN’T have a gun.
The gun lobby believes that the individual states and the federal government are constitutionally barred from restricting gun ownership. I, the courts, and the ACLU disagree.
Blowero sorry that you misinterpreted my post as a an attack on you. As for “telling a lie often enough, it becomes truth” that refers to most of the bs served up by the VPC, the Brady Bunch and the AGS (and if your on the other side of the fence, the NRA). I’ll leave it at that.
See my previous post; I didn’t miss that point at all. You just imagine that I did. Like I said, the Constitition doesn’t forbid gun ownership.
Well, actually - disregarding your incorrectly calling things “rights” that are not, yes it does mean that. The government is constitutionally allowed to pass laws. If they want to pass a law restricting gun ownership, they may do so, so long as it’s not constitutionally barred. The debate here is whether the U.S. Constitutions bars the government from passing such laws. If it’s a constitutional right, they can’t restrict it; if it’s not a constitutional right, they can restrict it. You’re trying to muddy the water by blurring the distinction between what is a right and what isn’t a right. You can have a gun if there’s no law against it; I agree with you there. But if you contend that such laws aren’t allowed to be passed, then I disagree.
I really hope I don’t have to keep explaining this.
If you are making a legal argument regarding the 9th and 10th Amendments, you’re gonna need a little more than that, I’m afraid. Bald assertions don’t hold up very well here in G.D.
What does that mean? - What is contained in the words “We the People”, that has anything to do with guns? You have it backwards; the Constitution grants us certain rights - we don’t have infinite rights that are then taken away by the Constitution. I don’t have the right to murder or rape or steal or commit arson.
My apologies BF; I didn’t mean to offend. I was just trying to assail your argument; I really didn’t mean anything personally about your character. My point was that changing names and calling the “The Brady Bunch” is a form of ad-hominem attack, tantamount to people saying “Shrub” instead of “Bush” and that sort of thing. My other point was that instead of specifically addressing my cites, you misdirected by saying “that group is a bunch of liars.” You pointed to other examples that you claim are lies, rather than addressing my points. Didn’t mean to accuse you of anything; I was probably being too smart-alecy.
Apparently, Governor, Jim Doyle does not carry a gun, nor do his bodyguards(?), so apparantly he feels no need for protection.
If neither he nor his bodyguards don’t need/use any protection, why should anyone else need protection?
It all depends on whether or not your governor, Doyle, is protected by guns, and I dont know his habits.
Does he routinely require that the police that accompany him to various places disarm, unload their weapons and lock them in the trunk, leave them at home before they pick him up, or whatever? If he does do this, then at least he is honest and not hypocritical.
If not, if he(the governor) himself is personally protected/surrounded by armed guards, then whatever the governor says, is highly suspect. If he doesnt make those routinely around him disarm, why not? He certainly has the power, as governor, to require that any, and all, state police around him be totally prohibited from carrying any firearm.
Apparently, Governor, Jim Doyle does not carry a gun, nor do his bodyguards(?), so apparantly he feels no need for protection.
The Governor of Wisconsin is protected by the Wisconsin Capitol Police, by both uniformed and plain clothes officers. Wisconsin’s Capitol Police are a state police agency, have state wide jurisdiction, and are, in fact, the highest police authority in the state. (many people believe that Wisconsin State Patrol is the highest police authority. That is incorrect. Wisconsin State Patrol, by statute, is not a state police agency, but instead an enforcement division of the states Department of Transportation.)
Wisconsin Capitol Police officers are always armed. The issue handgun is a Sig P226 9mm, but many of the officers carry their own weapon of different make and caliber. They also have access to shotguns and Ar-15’s.
WCP not only protect the Gov., they also patrol the highways, make building checks of the 100+ government buildings in the state, actively hunt fugitives/parole violators, provide security at lottery drawings and Green Bay packer football games, and patrol many of the states parks, including Wisconsin State Fair Park. He certainly has the power, as governor, to require that any, and all, state police around him be totally prohibited from carrying any firearm.
I’m don’t think this is correct. I can find out for sure, though. I know of no law that grants him that power. He is not the Chief of the Capitol Police, and does not dictate their policy any more than the President does of the Secret Service.
I would love to ask Doyle if he would feel comfortable with the WCP not being armed, and hear him eplain how his safety is more important than anyone elses
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, there were 16,204 murders in 2002, and 71.1 percent involved a firearm. Fists (or other body parts), only 7.1 percent. If you are murdered, chances are a gun did it. I’m sure it’s true that you’re statistically unlikely to be murdered, but then that just raises the question of why people think they need guns for self-defense.
But you’re even less likely to be shot by a person with no past criminal record who doesn’t own a gun at all. Again, it’s illogical to try to solve the problem of criminals having guns by handing out more guns.
Why do we have to say ‘shit happens’? Except for special circumstances (like being a police officer, for example), I don’t see any reason why people need to carry concealed guns. I am against vigilanteeism. You don’t need a gun, so why have one? I agree that more regulations on CCW permits is better than fewer regulations, but no CCW permits at all is even better.
As I said, if you are murdered, there’s a 71% chance it involved a firearm. So it is statistically likely. What’s not statistically likely is that you would be murdered at all, so the only argument you can make here is that we shouldn’t care about murder in general. Surely you don’t believe that.
Well yeah - they kill and injure animals too.:rolleyes:
for sarcasm.