b s

“Other states have bowed to our fear-driven culture and the junk science it produces, undermining rapid advancements in curtailing crime and dealing a blow to effective gun control. I would hate to see Wisconsin do the same.”

Yes, Adam, and how many other states have concealed carry? Answer: 46.

And how many of them have devolved into the chaos that you write about and predict happening here? Answer: 0.

Isn’t there supposed to be at least some basis in fact for the opinions argued on this page?

Man, that has been the best though-out, well-reasoned, well-supported article the Badger Herald has had all year. Adam, well done. You should sit down and help out your colleagues before they sumbit an “argument.”

Your editorial is chock full of hysterical anti0-gun nonsense, but one comment in particular stands out to me. And that is that WI “gun owners” oppose the PPA. Where did you get that false info? As evidence to the contrary I’ll submit this FACT. Check it out.

Every April, there are statewide hearings held in each of WI’s 72 counties, on issues pertaining to fishing, hunting, and other outdoor pursuits. WI has a strong fishing & hunting heritage. The hearings consist of a series of queries put forth by the Conservation Congress and the DNR to guage public opinion, when they’re crafting laws and regulations pertaining to these outdoor pursuits. Obviously those attending are mostly fishermen and hunters (read - gun owners). Occasionally a “touchy” subject will bring out non-fishing & non-hunting people to attend. Example was the dove hunting issue, when 1,000s of “bird watchers”, who had never attended a hearing before (nor since), showed up to voice their opposition. I thought that would be the situation again, when the PPA was on the questionaire a few years ago. But I was wrong. When the PPA was on the agenda (I think it was April 2003), it was one of only two of the sixty-three questions that got approval in ALL 72 counties of WI. In some counties it was unanomous. In my sparsely populated rural county (comprised of mostly “gun-owners”), it was approved by a vote of 118-2!!! In the next county over, it was approved 96-3. Those in attendance were mostly gun-owners… so where was this alleged opposition by WI gun owners?

Blaming violent crime on guns is like blaming spoons for making Rosie O’Donnell fat.

If 36 other states have passed “shall issue” concealed carry laws without any of the dire consequences you imagine, perhaps you’re the one quoting junk science in your argument in favor of gun control.

You know its going to be a well-argued editorial when you can’t help yourself from taking a personal pot shot at the bill’s drafter by the second sentence.

The left’s arguments against concealed carry have become so tiresome. If you actually had a logical, factual argument, you would point to the other 46(!) states that have concealed carry and identify all the problems it has caused.

Unfortunately for you, states with concealed carry have no more or less statewide crime problems than WI.

While I’ll admit there is little evidence that concealed carry reduces crime, there is even less that it increases death/crime. You claim to disagree with the fear mongerers, but fear is your whole argument. “You don't need to be a staunch anti-gun advocate to see why letting people carry guns in banks, churches, university dormitories, and the state Capitol is a fundamentally bad idea” GIVE ME A BREAK! First, the concealed carry law would not make it legal to carry in the state capitol. That you would even use that as an example shows you have no argument but fear. Second, any of those places can enforce their own rules of what people can or cant carry. But of course saying that wouldnt help your agenda.

The fact is that passing this bill would change almost nothing. Very few people in the state, especially in Madison, would take the time and effort to get trained and get a licence, because they simply have no need. But in places like the north side of Milwaukee, where someone is getting killed almost every other day, the law abiding citizens who are afraid to answer their door and leave their house deserve to be able to protect themselves legally, because all the gangs roaming around are all carrying illegally anyway. And btw they would still be carrying illegally if the bill passed because they would have to get a license, which they would be denied because of their past criminal record.

Nice hyperbole! Sensational sensationalization!

Now, let’s talk reality for a little while:

Paragraph 2 - “progressive gun-control initiatives”. What does that mean? Gun control laws have been so very ineffective in America since 1930s. CDC and other anti-gun groups have published studies that show gun control laws have accomplished little to stop violent crime. The Lott study that you claim led to personal protection laws across the nation wasn’t even published until almost two-thirds of the states already had the laws in place. And the NRA had nothing to with the study.

Paragraph 4 - Which study has debunked the Lott study using the DOJ, FBI and county crime records Lott used? The CDC has followed homicide rates (showing an increase) but not violent crime rates in their study to debunk Lott. The ultimate flaw in that study is ERs treat injured people regardless of which side of the crime. A study based on hospital reports can’t render a conclusion regarding violent crime. And the last sentence of paragraph 4 doesn’t relate. Only 2 states have enacted personal protection laws since Sept 11. The other 46 states’ laws were from before, clear back to 1987.

Paragraph 5 - “gives criminals the means to commit crimes”. That’s shear ignorance. Read the crime statistics again. Most crimes are committed with weapons other than guns. Even in the “loose states” there is no increase in criminal use of guns. Edged weapons and impact weapons are still the preferred choice by criminals. As for Wisconsin Chiefs of Police being aginst the Personal Protection Act, you should check with the other states police departments. 63% of police chiefs and sheriffs across America support personal protection laws. In Minnesota during the “re-certification” of their personal protection law, the Sheriff’s department published a letter of support. During the original enactment of the law, they were against it but came to a different conclusion two years later.

Paragraph 6 - “Police, more than anybody, would know…” If 12 percent of LEOs killed are killed with their own gun then why don’t the police give up their guns for “officer safety”/ Because they know that the officer’s safety is more often protected by the gun? Well, that alone shold make the case for the victims of violent crime, don’t you think? Drunken brawls are not a good example. The Personal Protection Act clearly defines that a drunk with a weapon is a criminal just like a drunk in a car. The mugging on the other hand is a good example. Go back to your criminology classes - look up escalating recidivism. Most violent criminals start out as small time muggers. Having the victim pull a gun could curb a career criminal’s future. He could decide his life isn’t worth the risk and change careers or he could be stopped before he hurts someone. This part is speculation, but not nearly as much as your entire paper.

Paragraph 8 - “In America guns are presented as the solution…” Where have you seen that? Although those ideas have been presented, they have never been implemented. Instead, other methods have been implemented and no result. Teachers aren’t being armed and school shootings continue. “Gun-free” school zones only stop people who obey the law from leaving their guns home. And the shootings continue. The only school shooter that was ever stopped before polcie arrived was in Pearl, MS. The prinicipal of the school ran to his car (outside the “gun-free” zone) to retrieve his pistol and came back to catch the shooter in the parking lot after a number of kids had already been shot. He then held the shooter until the cops came. Had his gun been on him, he might have saved a few of his students.

You claim that Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas and Nebraska are the only states with enough sense to keep their citizens “safe from themselves” by restricting their personal protection rights. I say we are the only states that are stuck in “progressive gun-control” mode and need leaders like Senator Zien and Representive Gunderson to continue to push “effective personal protection” mode instead.

The law isn’t about guns or “threatening order”. It is about personal protection and rights of individuals to be secure in their lives.

Miles Littlefield Genoa City, WI

“Concealed-carry extends more rights to crooks and felons, guaranteeing that some weapons will fall into the wrong hands, making law-enforcement a virtual nightmare.”

So crooks and felons would never carry a concealed weapon without the new CCW law? Wow, college does make you smart.

“In a nation where gun violence remains a virtual epidemic, the very poison itself is also assumed to be the anecdote.”

I think the word that you’re looking for is “antidote”, college boy.

Well, you certainly used every adverb and adjective you could think of, both to demonize your oppositon and lavish praise upon yourself - good job, I suppose.

But really, as you said yourself, Wisconsin is one of only four “hold-outs” that don’t yet trust their citizens with weapons. Your position is in the minority, and losing allies all the time.

Whether or not Wisconsin passes a concealed-carry law, the thugs and felons you mentioned will still arm themselves as they see fit - back alley muggings included.

Over time, those that would deny others their fundamental rights always lose - as will you and your fellow anti-self protection cohorts.

Good luck with your side of the fight though - even if you have to resort to overly embellished and somewhat goofy scare-tactic articles to pursue it.

Classic form: A pinch of exaggeration, a few insults, all emotionally mixed together with a dose of projection.

Wow. I've never been more afraid of the world.

Geez, I can’t imagine there could be a more liberal piece of tripe. This guy is the poster child for liberal acadamia. I didn’t read one single original idea in this article. It appears he borrowed every available liberal cliche to make his point.

Dude, you didn’t win any converts with this article. Take my advice and don’t quit school.

Professor Lott’s study has not been “debunked”. It has been challenged, but the research has been validated in a number of follow-on research studies. While violent crimes have gone down (probably as a result of higher incarceration rates for habitual criminals) overall, the decrease has been most significant in states that have conceal carry laws. Most dramatic it has been proven that “car-jackers” in Florida now targets rental cars leaving airports rather than in other areas because they know that such persons DO NOT carry weapons. This is emphasized by the fact that rental car companies no longer identify their cars with stickers that advertize their companies.

Interstingly, states that pass carry laws have seen DECREASE in self-inflicted gunshot wounds (people inadvertantly hurting themselves). This is attributed to such individuals taking gun-safety classes prior to purchasing firearms.

Women and teh elderly have been the biggest beneficiaries of these laws. An increasing number of women and the elderly are cited in reports where they have used a firearm to chase off or discourage an attacker.

Most violent criminals are repeat offenders. They are not permitted to purchse firearms under existing law. They obtain their weapons illegally. Laws permitting civilians to exercise their constitutional right to possess firearms adds to their ability to protect themselves.

Criminals target the weakest, not the strongest in our society. They avoid citizens who they believe will defend themselves. As more citizens have the ability to defend themselves, the criminals will be discouraged from targeting citizens. Don’t believe it? Check out the reports:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

A well-armed society is a polite society.

Dear Adam Lichtenheld,

In regard to your Wednesday, October 19, 2005 article “Concealed-carry law threatens order”. May I suggest that if strict gun laws reduce crime that you should move Washington D.C.

In a drunken brawl Someone who is legaly carrying a concealed firearm is not alowed to drink so would not be in a “drunkin brawl.” However if someone with impared judgment (on drugs, drunk, mentialy unbalanced, psycotic, what ever) should decide to harm another person should not that other person be able to defind themself?

In a back alley mugging it should be up to the person being mugged to make the desision to defind themself. If they do decide that the criminal should not profit they should have the most effective tools avalible to them to defind themselfs.

Ask yourself if you would be willing to put your fate into the hands of someone who has shown you that they have no respect or regard for your wellbeaing? What if the mugger decieds that he does not want a witness. what if the “drunken brawl” does not stop at a black eye?

“…for 12 percent of law enforcement officers killed by firearms are shot to death with their own service weapon.” because there weapon is visible, and out inthe open. A concealed weapon is just that concealed, it is up to the person who is carrying it to use it at his or increasingly her discression.

as far as a handgun escilating a situation, quite often it does just the oposite, a small number of self defince firearm uses actualy ended up in anyone being shot, the perpitrator often looses there motivation to folow thrugh with the crime.

“A well-armed society is a polite society.”

Ah, so it takes the threat of certain death to make everybody nice, eh?

You wrote:

“While granting citizens the means to protect themselves, it also gives criminals the means to commit crimes”

This is a pretty foolish statement to make. Concealed carry laws will not “allow” criminals to commit crimes. Crimes are illegal by their very definition, so how could any law “allow them? Furthermore, the idea that criminals don’t do something because it’s against the law is also silly. Criminals already ignore the laws on rape and murder; why would they care about gun laws? Criminals will carry guns no matter what. Just pick up a newspaper in a city with strict gun control laws like Washington, DC or Chicago and read about gun crimes committed in “gun free” zones.

Making a connection between lawful concealed carry and gun deaths is equally ludicrous. Only a tiny sliver or gun crimes are committed by permit holders. Statistically speaking, permit holders are less likely that police officers to commit crimes.

For decades, anti-gun groups have rallied around the idea that blood will flow in the streets and that there will be shootouts over fender benders and parking spaces every single time a state has enacted right-to-carry laws. History clearly shows that this has NEVER happed. Why do you think it would be any different in your beloved Wisconsin? Do you think its law-abiding citizens are less stable and more likely to go on a shooting rampage at the slightest provocation?

Look, if you don’t want to own a gun, then don’t. You would still benefit from the law because criminals won’t know who is armed and who isn’t. But don’t deny others the right to self-defense based solely on either your emotional reaction to an inanimate object or a torrent of doomsday scenarios.

P.S. It’s a good thing none of those pilots on 9/11 were armed… somebody could have gotten hurt!

It is truly amazing how the media loves to present a world where the police are always there just in the nick of time to save the citizenry.Please realize that this doesn’t happen and most times we are on our own.At least I’ll be able to defend myself if I have the ability to carry a concealed weapon.

The person who wrote this article represents one of the many great dangers to the U.S. citizens rights under the Constitution….and natural human rights. He is literate and appears to make sense to anyone who cares little for the indivduals right to protect themselves…or just does not know any better. He, and those like him, play into the hands of tyranny and dictatorship. His logic is flawed at its foundation. His “facts” are slanted and off base. I will give just one example: He talks about getting a black eye or a bloody nose in a fight. They’re any number of cases where a fistfight resulted in someone being beaten to death by a bigger..stronger..trained…or drug or drunken attacker. No weapons involved…other than fists and feet. If the victim was a law abiding citizen.who did not initiate the attack…he..or she…should have had the right to protect themselves in the best legal way possible. A gun might have saved their life. There is case after case where a citizen with a handgun may have..or did.. save themselves or someone else from death..maiming..or rape. His logic is flawed because of an assumption often used to muddy the water on this subject. Again..I will give just one example: That the individual must depend upon the society for personal protection…and if that protection is not available..then “too bad”. It’s time to challenge this dangerous illogic. The police cannot be everywhere..and law abiding folks should not be stopped from the best protection they can have in the situation. Shall we ban baseball bats..kitchen knives..screwdrivers….etc…etc…just to satisfy those who are blind to reality..or those that want to have a facist dictator type of society that ignores the Constitution and God given rights of the people? I think not. I could go on debunking this foolishness…but open eyes will see my points.

gp martin

Quick, hide under your bed before it’s too late.

“While granting citizens the means to protect themselves, it also gives criminals the means to commit crimes.”…News flash…criminals don’t get concealed weapons permits! Criminals…get this…break the law and carry anyway!

ADAM LICHTENHELD,

YOUR ANTI-GUN DIATRIBE JUST PROVES YOUR AN IDIOT, AND A TYPICAL LIBERAL COLLEGE STUDENT.

“of the over 30,000 gun deaths in 2002, only 163 were deemed "justifiable homicide,"” Thats because only a few of the estimated 2.5 million defensive uses of a gun that take place every year in this country actually involve a shot being fired, which shows how the mere presence of a firearm in the hand of a potential victim can cause a criminal to turn tail and run.

“and it's well known that a gun is 43 times more likely to be used in killing its owner or a relative than an intruder.” I guess you did not hear that the author of the study that produced that statistic himself revealed it to be bull.

I disagree with your article, and many of the facts that you used. Here is a good article from the Cato Institute which disputes many of your points: http://www.cato.org/pubdisplay.php?pubid=975&full=1 This article is a must read for anybody who wishes to discuss gun rights or gun control.

well sir you say, “30,000 gun deaths in 2002, only 163 were deemed "justifiable homicide,"”

Bet your statistics include gangs fighting against gangs, shootouts between cops and criminals, criminals shooting innocent victims and the 163 people who used it for legal self defense

If you wish to be a willing victim, that’s your right. Natural selection’s in my favor.

Mr Lichtenheld, you are obviously so wrong on all counts, that I surmise that you simplly wandered to the websites of the anti-gun groups that lie the most, and copy and pasted parts of their diatribe to your note book and cribbed from that.

Young man, I might suggest that you actually do some research on a subject before you start to write. Your assumptions are 100% WRONG!!! Your attempts at a logic train are laughable and your overall viewpoint is…well…”stupid” is the kindest way to put it.

Mr. Lichtenfeld, a sophomore, has delivered a rather sophomoric diatribe. I encourage him, and others, to check the root definition of “sophomore.”

As a student, one of the things you are attempting to do is learn. We all learn by our own mistakes, the mistakes of others, and by what we are formally taught from instructors.

Please carefully read the responses to your article and learn from them. The public responses can be the equivalent to an instructor. They are far from ranting gun advocates just trying to make noise, they are truthful responses to your written mistakes.

It has been determined in the courts that the police are not legally bound to protect individuals from all situations they may encounter. So by legal definition, we have to take responsibility to protect ourselves. Contrary to the belief of some, the constitution gives us the right to do so although many states like yours are actively trying to take that right away. It isn’t going to happen, just look at the number of other states that are now recognizing individuals rights to arm. This is not just a movement, it is becoming, as well as it should, an awakening.

Sir: An anecdote is a story. An antidote is a cure. Cheers.

What a pack of lies and drivel. Anyone who believes anything written in this article should never be let out of their room without adult supervision. A total disregard of rhe facts.

Can you please provide documentation on the alleged 30,000 gun deaths. It is my understanding that this is an undocument statistical number not based on facts! Names and dates would be helpful!

This guy has his head where there is no light. Hasen’t got a clue to the real world.

While granting citizens the means to protect >themselves, it also gives criminals the means >to commit crimes. Excuse me? They’re criminals. They have already chosen to commit illegal acts. The only effect this legislation has on the criminal is to increase the probability that their intended victims might have the ability to fight back effectively. Time perhaps to sign up for that course in logic you’ve been putting off.

Mr. Lichtenheld quoted the infamous Kellerman Study (43 times more likely…), a piece of work so fundamentally flawed that even it’s author has renounced it. This is blind ideology at it’s worst.

I further note that the comment section begins with the admonition: We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.

It’s a shame that Adam Lichtenheld wasn’t able to present his dialog without violating every single one of those points.

Sophmoric doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Wow. Where to start? Ignorance, twisted logic, and mangled English of this sort are the expected substance of letters to the editor, but it is a stunning realization that this guy is a regular contributor to the Badger. That he has a forum in what must be a highly read medium at a major American university is a sobering testiment to our system of public education in general, and higher education in particular, and is an ominous prognosticator for the future of our children and America. Stick to Africa, Adam, where gun prohibition has brought many decades of peaceful bliss. Doh!

If gun control is the answer, why do the cities with the most strict gun laws (Washington, DC; Chicago, Ill; New York City; Boston, MA) also have the highest murder rates per capata?

Just like the Clinton gun ban from 1995 - even the Centers for Disease Control and the GAO (among others) said it had no effect on crime. Quit with the ‘chicken little - the sky is falling’ routine, please.

So lets see…with 46 states allowing law abiding citizens to carry firearms, the FBI announced last week that in 2004, our country had the lowest per capita murder rate since 1965.

While it would be fallacy to say that concealed carry laws were the direct cause of this, how could we possibly have reached this state if misguided (or willfully ignorant) persons such as yourself Mr. Lichtenfeld were allowed to run rampant over our God given right to self defense?

When even the CDC says that gun control laws don’t have any effect on crime, how can anyone possibly attribute criminal behavior to legally concealed firearms?

FBI says murder rate lowest since 1965: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051017-101154-3532r.htm

G Morris, Tucson, AZ

I would like to know some of the sources for your statistics, not to mention conclusions. As one of “those crazy gun people” who feel a right to self defense, and a fellow college student, I am saddened by the fact that a person who sounds as intelligent as you do can be so misguided, and blinded to the truth. Brady, Feinstien and Co. really do not care about gun control. In fact, they agree that the common person would probably be better off carrying guns, hence the reason Diane Feinstein is one of about 10 people in LA county who can carry a gun. It has nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with control. An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a subject.

From the Wisconsin state constitution “Right to keep and bear arms. SECTION 25. [As created Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. [1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998”

Also, “a gun is 43 times more likely to be used in killing its owner or a relative than an intruder.” is based of the Kellerman study which was so flawed even Kellerman himself renounced it.

Young man, you are way off base in your "analysis" of how concealed carry laws impact our society. Please review the data from other states with concealed carry laws before jumping in with both feet. Citizens who are issued concealed permits have squeaky clean backgrounds and don't just go around shooting people. They are upstanding citizen who understand the real world reality and know that the police can not always protect them and their loved ones. So they have chosen to be prepared and have obtained the training and permit to allow them to protect themselves if the need were to ever occur.

I thought it was a great article…I never post on these things but after reading the other ignorant comments I decided it was necessary…I went to school with Adam, and our hometown is most definately a redneck’s paradise…surprisingly enough some of us escaped and are now able to write very informative and TRUTHFUL articles that I read here. You can’t fake statistics, and the ones he spoke of haven’t been refuted, even by the political geniuses that commented below me. So deal with it.

I’m very interested if you could provide statistics and quotes regarding Gun Owners who are against having Concealed Carry of Handguns, or was this made up to emphasis a point? Can you provide any evidence that states the majority believes this?

I know various elderly and disabled (physically) folks that have CCW permits, and carry on a regular basis. One in particular is in a wheelchair and had no problems passing the proficiency course, nor the written course.

I think you have some major flaws in your analysis and have not presented information that fully supports your argument.

Mr. Lichtenheld:

You lament the fact that the proposed concealed handgun permit bill will allow citizens to carry handguns in banks, supermarkets, and churches. Obviously, you don't seem to realize that citizens already have the right in Wisconsin to openly carry handguns in all these locations.

The proposed concealed handgun license bill merely will allow citizens to apply for the privilege of carrying their handguns concealed. A privilege, I might add, already enjoyed by criminals who do it illegally already.

Mike Stollenwerk www.OpenCarry.org

It seems that for an institution of higher learning, doing one’s homework doesn’t seem to be a high priority. But hey, who said free speech had to be substantiated?

For example, “You don't need to be a staunch anti-gun advocate to see why letting people carry guns in banks, churches, university dormitories, and the state Capitol is a fundamentally bad idea.”

This is an example of a rhetorical tactic known as “fearmongering”—planting the unreasonable suggestion that, in this case, somehow passing a concealed carry law will turn these zones into killing fields. The situation in the real world is different from the propaganda (of course, you lose sight of that in the ivory tower of academia—I came across that quite often on the road to my Master’s). I was licensed for concealed carry when I lived in Florida. Banks were off-limits (unless you had written permission by the bank manager on your person), as well as churches, schools, and government buildings.

Those who are licensed know this already—it was part of our training required prior to applying for the license, and we were each issued with a copy of the Florida Statutes (section 790.06) governing concealed carry.

Then there’s this jewel: “Concealed-carry extends more rights to crooks and felons, guaranteeing that some weapons will fall into the wrong hands, making law-enforcement a virtual nightmare.”

If it is being inferred that crooks can get a license and carry concealed, again, then it is an inference based on misinformation. Getting back to how things were done in Florida, each CCW applicant undergoes a background check and is fingerprinted. Criminals naturally fail the check, and cannot legally get a permit. Neither can those with a history of mental illness, for that matter (which I guess leaves out all those who suffered nervous breakdowns after the ‘04 elections, but I digress).

Continuing on: “Police, more than anybody, would know how the presence of a handgun endangers all parties, including the gun's owner…”

Interesting how it was conveniently left unmentioned the police officers (and I daresay there may be even several in Wisconsin) who appreciate an armed responsible citizen (like Sherriff Carona of Orange County, California, of all places).

“…imagine a drunken brawl or back alley mugging…”

Note the key word here: “imagine.” But once you get beyond your own expectations and biases, reality plays out differently. To my knowledge, gun-related crimes committed by CCW licensees are practically nil.

Letting imagination run a little bit wild leads to this little bit of speculation:

“Let citizens wield their semi-automatics and use the law at their own discretion.”

It sounds like the law suddenly changes for you if you have a .45 on your hip. In reality, if you do happen to wind up using your gun in self-defense, some sort of litigation will follow. That includes a trial to see if the shooting was justified. If not, you get sentenced for manslaughter, and all the benefits pertaining thereunto. CCW licensees are not above the law, and that is also something we know full well, and are quite aware of it whenever we carry.

And that is the reality, as opposed to speculation colored by fear. Granted, opinions are what op-ed pages are for, but for them to have any bite, they need to be rooted in something more than imagination.

I live in Oregon. Since 1987 anybody who has not commited a felony, a violent misdimeanor, or a misdimeanor in the last 4 years can get a Concealed Handgun License (CHL). Since then, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever commited a crime with their concealed firearm. A few people have commited other crimes that have gotten their CHLs revoked, but they haven’t shot anybody they shouldn’t have. There are currently 90,000 licensed CHL holders in Oregon, and Oregon’s murder AND violent crime rates are both lower than England, where (most) guns are completely banned and nobody can carry execpt for police.

Q.E.D.

PS- If you want to read a good pro-gun book written by some very smart (liberals, I beleive). Read Armed by Gary Kleck and Don B. Kates.

Criminals are already carrying weapons in public. Establishing legal concealed carry does not give criminals “the means to commit crimes.”

Which post 9/11 laws are you talkng about? Why have the Draconian gun control measures enacted in the UK been followed by a steep INCREASE in violent crime?

What studies indicate John Lott’s position is flawed? Can you provide a reference to a statistical analysis of the data?

Can you provide a list of the horrors concealed carry has caused in other states? Florida has had its law since 1987, surly something you fear mujst have happened down there by now.

Sir, You obviously have not done any serious study on this subject. You assert that John Lott’s work, which shows that concealed carry laws lower crime rates, have been debunked. No, they haven’t. John Lott’s study is one of three comprehensive studies of gun use and crime. The other two were done by the CDC and the National Academy of Sciences. The panels of the second two groups were filled with anti-gun personnel, yet the findings of all the groups were the same. Right-to-carry laws are the ONLY gun laws that reduce crime. Waiting periods don’t work, mandatory gun locks don’t work, registering guns doesn’t work, laws taking away guns don’t work. Not surprisingly, the National Academy of Sciences tried to hide this fact when it presented its final report. Like usual, the “liberals” were closing their eyes to the truth. Open your eyes. Have no fear; there’s nothing behind the saying “You’ll be blinded by the truth.”

 Are the insults to people with opposing views supposed to supliment the absence of realistic, relative facts which would normaly be evident if your points were truly valid? Or are you just propaganda mongorer rather than a factual journalist. A sort of super liberal Rush Limbaugh??

I have lived in Brazil, a land where some of the largest gun manufacturers of weapons are, and where police set up roadblocks on a regular basis to check your papers and make sure you have no weapons of any type including knives. If you follow the news there, you will see that it does absolutely nothing to deter crime. Criminals are very well armed, much more so than the police. In spite of laws upon laws, checkpoints, etc, the police are totally helpless to stop any crime. Don’t tell me that being allowed to carry a weapon will cause crime. I have no interest in ever shooting anyone, and as a full-time emergency medical tech and ER tech, I have seen what severe damage to a body looks like, and I don’t want to cause that. However, I want the right to defend myself and my family. Waiting for the police to show up to fill out the paperwork would not be good enough if something happened to my loved ones.

dumb.dumb, and dumber