More crap from the primary Milwaukee rag:
Editorial: It's baaack. Make it go away
From the Journal Sentinel <--- SUCKS
Posted: Sept. 7, 2005
Note: Send your responses to:
Editorial response: http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/submit.asp
Forum Topic: http://www.jsonline.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=16947&catID=21&sessionID={E66487F8-EB2B-4747-84A3-E2C4C46293AD}
Last time around, the state Senate showed appalling disregard for public safety and the Assembly only slightly less so. This time, with Milwaukee's homicide rate approaching a record pace, we're hoping some modicum of propriety, leadership and common sense takes hold.
The issue is a renewed effort to enact a law allowing Wisconsinites to carry concealed weapons. This is a bill that should simply go away.
More than 80% of Milwaukee's killings this year were the result of gunfire. So, more guns - what a concealed-carry law would surely bring about - is the answer? Wrong.
Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford) and Sen. Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire) are reportedly crafting another bill. Wisconsin narrowly escaped such legislation last year when the Senate overrode a veto by Gov. Jim Doyle, but the Assembly failed to override by only one vote.
This time, such a bill shouldn't be allowed to get that far. Republican leadership in both houses should do just that: Lead.
There is no public clamor for such legislation. There is no public need. There is, however, a crying need by the gun industry to create an ever-expanding domestic market. Getting states to enact permissive concealed-carry laws is just part of that strategy.
If the gun industry or its minions are not involved in crafting this bill, Gunderson and Zien should have no problem giving the state's attorney general a draft version. Recently, the attorney general's office asked for a copy but was denied, though the legislators apparently already shared a version with a National Rifle Association representative and others.
But it really is immaterial who writes this legislation, though we, too, believe that the legislators are obligated to share the bill with the public if they've already shared it with interested parties. If the bill allows people other than law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons, it constitutes fuel on fire. It shouldn't even emerge from committee, provided that legislators do in fact allow it to have a full and public airing.
The argument for concealed carry, of course, is self-defense - the notion that people carrying these weapons will deter crime either because they will take out the bad guys or that the bad guys won't commit violent crimes for fear that their victims might be armed. Both are dubious claims. Unless a person has years of training, practice and experience in dealing with criminals, it is just as likely that guns will be taken away and used against their owners or used carelessly by them, endangering the innocent. And a suspicion that a victim is armed may result less in deterrence than in criminals shooting first and checking for weapons - to steal - later.
We await details of a bill to determine what other flaws might be present but are certain that the first would be such legislation's existence in the first place.
Editorial: It's baaack. Make it go away
From the Journal Sentinel <--- SUCKS
Posted: Sept. 7, 2005
Note: Send your responses to:
Editorial response: http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/submit.asp
Forum Topic: http://www.jsonline.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=16947&catID=21&sessionID={E66487F8-EB2B-4747-84A3-E2C4C46293AD}
Last time around, the state Senate showed appalling disregard for public safety and the Assembly only slightly less so. This time, with Milwaukee's homicide rate approaching a record pace, we're hoping some modicum of propriety, leadership and common sense takes hold.
The issue is a renewed effort to enact a law allowing Wisconsinites to carry concealed weapons. This is a bill that should simply go away.
More than 80% of Milwaukee's killings this year were the result of gunfire. So, more guns - what a concealed-carry law would surely bring about - is the answer? Wrong.
Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford) and Sen. Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire) are reportedly crafting another bill. Wisconsin narrowly escaped such legislation last year when the Senate overrode a veto by Gov. Jim Doyle, but the Assembly failed to override by only one vote.
This time, such a bill shouldn't be allowed to get that far. Republican leadership in both houses should do just that: Lead.
There is no public clamor for such legislation. There is no public need. There is, however, a crying need by the gun industry to create an ever-expanding domestic market. Getting states to enact permissive concealed-carry laws is just part of that strategy.
If the gun industry or its minions are not involved in crafting this bill, Gunderson and Zien should have no problem giving the state's attorney general a draft version. Recently, the attorney general's office asked for a copy but was denied, though the legislators apparently already shared a version with a National Rifle Association representative and others.
But it really is immaterial who writes this legislation, though we, too, believe that the legislators are obligated to share the bill with the public if they've already shared it with interested parties. If the bill allows people other than law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons, it constitutes fuel on fire. It shouldn't even emerge from committee, provided that legislators do in fact allow it to have a full and public airing.
The argument for concealed carry, of course, is self-defense - the notion that people carrying these weapons will deter crime either because they will take out the bad guys or that the bad guys won't commit violent crimes for fear that their victims might be armed. Both are dubious claims. Unless a person has years of training, practice and experience in dealing with criminals, it is just as likely that guns will be taken away and used against their owners or used carelessly by them, endangering the innocent. And a suspicion that a victim is armed may result less in deterrence than in criminals shooting first and checking for weapons - to steal - later.
We await details of a bill to determine what other flaws might be present but are certain that the first would be such legislation's existence in the first place.
