Recently, state rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee) issued this statement regarding Wisconsin's gun control laws:
She starts by using the Colorado incident to call for an examination of Wisconsin's gun laws. To start, the person who committed this crime appears to have been as law abiding and clean as you can be, and any amount of gun control wouldn't have changed the outcome. If Rep. Grigsby is talking about an all-out ban on guns, this killer was an intelligent person who had 30 homemade grenades, and could have easily done just as much damage using other methods, assuming he couldn't get his hands on any banned weapons. (Which many bad guys do every day)
She then says:
Lax gun laws drive a U.S. murder rate that is almost seven times higher than the average murder rate of other high-income countries.
Comparing the rates of one country to another is an apples to oranges comparison. There are simply too many variables that affect violent crime and murder rates in a comparison between countries, and gun control actually has little to no impact on them. Otherwise one could also point to countries that directly refute Rep. Grigsby's statement. Take Switzerland, which has a high amount of guns per capita and some of the most relaxed gun control laws there are (gun control is practically non-existent) and yet they have one of the lowest murder and violent crime rates in the world. Or look at what happened to the violent crime and homicide rates in countries after they created a full ban on weapons, such as the UK. Since the UK's ban in 1997, their violent crime rate is up 77%, and their murder rate shot up dramatically until about 2003 (it doubled), at which point it started going back down and currently is at a slightly lower level than in 1993.
"In the summer of 2011, Wisconsin passed concealed carry (Wisconsin Act 35). This new law allows people to carry guns in many public places, including bars and taverns, and to keep guns in cars parked in school, airport, courthouse, prison, and mental health treatment facility parking lots," according to a press release.
Here's a loaded statement that also has incorrect information. To start, ACT 35 didn't make any changes to the laws regarding guns on school property such as a school parking lot. Also notice how the statement should read "This new law allows you to carry guns in public places and keep guns in parked cars in parking lots." But instead, it lists a bunch of places (even though it's talking about parking lots, not the actual buildings) that are intended to make the reader recoil in fear and horror in an attempt to tie CCW to places like schools, prisons, etc.
"Under this new concealed carry regime, 39,644 concealed carry licenses were issued in November and December of last year alone, and by April of this year 100,000 licenses had been issued," continued.
Yes, she actually used the word "regime." I'm actually shocked she didn't manage to work in "AK-47" somehow.
"What this means is that thousands of more guns are out there, as a part of our daily lives. They are in our public places—places where we work, learn, socialize, and worship. And, yes, you can bet they are in our movie theatres," Grisby said, in the press release.
It appears Rep. Grigsby is unaware that the shooter in Colorado was not a CCW holder, and that the city of Aurora, CO, has a ban on concealed carry anyways. But in an effort to drum up fear, she mentions "movie theaters." She also seems unaware that in spite of all of these guns everywhere, CCW holders simply aren't causing any problems, though they have had several instances already in Wisconsin in which they stopped a violent crime. In fact, according to the U.S. Dept of Justice and their National Crime Victimization Survey, an average of about 600,000 crimes are stopped every year by defensive use of a gun. The Democrats promised us that Wisconsin would become the OK Corral, that shootouts would be rampant, and that we should all fear for our very lives as gun-toting CCW monsters would shoot us for no reason. And yet, none of that happened.
"Our standards for legal gun ownership and for concealed carry are deeply flawed," said Grigsby, in the release. "Let’s not wait for the next massacre to talk about gun policy in Wisconsin."
Here is where I actually agree with Rep. Grigsby. She's right. Our standards for gun ownership and CCW are deeply flawed. They are still far too restrictive. This state, like many others have done, should at some point move towards constitutional carry in which you can carry everywhere, without restriction. And you don't even need a permit to do it. We have gone off the deep end when it comes to the 2nd amendment in this country, and even with Wisconsin's current gun laws, we have a ways to go to get back to that freedom.
One more thing. My example of a person addicted to drugs, above, was not meant to be a discussion about the poor on drugs. Rather, it was meant show how some of the poor are addicted to government support, and to enable them is to stop their personal growth, just as if we were doing things that supported a drug addict.
I also agree that the young man living in the parent's basement engrossed in the cyber reality is only being enabled by his parents to continue such. In that type of familial structure, the family is clearly dysfunctional. As long as his parents continue their support, he will not have to change. We could go through each scenario and point out how it is detrimental for reaching self sufficiency, which I think is tangential to our main discussion of creating a better society.
Don't worry - I already know that you don't have the answer. George Zimmerman is your model of a strong, courageous man.
Seriously, you guys are pathetic. Grow up; high school is over, and all of the normal kids who picked on you for being awkward and creepy have no interest in trying to take your sad little stash of guns.
But my point had nothing to do with the man living in his parent's basement, nor the drug addict, per se. Those were simply analogies involving people who are happy with dysfunctional lives, but not living the fulfilling lives they could have if they were given tough love. There are a large number of the poor who are simply more happy to live the way that they are, if the only alternative is to take a long series of steps to achieve a better life. They will do nothing for themselves, unless forced. In such cases, the system has dehumanized them, because given no other alternative, they would find a way to make ends meet, and would therefore live a better, more humane life.
That's all Hoffa really wants to know on this issue!
...
Mr Ruble is acutely aware of the extremely obvious. Talk about a bloviating gas bag of pseudo intellectualism, Mr Ruble, no one is fooled by you.
Aim for the center of his chest or the largest part of him that you can. Trying to take aim with a handgun for a headshot or other part outside the vest will more often than not result in a complete miss. As was pointed out before, a direct hit to the vest will likely be enough to cause pain. Repeated hits to the vest can incapacitate the target--at least temporarily.
I get your point. But since I will never own a gun, I would rather sit by somebody who does. They can make that decision.
Ricochets will take out the feet, legs and lower torso especially on hard surfaces. Patton used this as "marching fire" while advancing on enemy postions to scare and intimidate the opponent into seeking cover and ultimately surrender. In addition to the bullets or their fragments, paving materials, rocks, stones and the like, it will throw up a hailstorm of hurt. Marksmanship not a factor. They will go down fast. Will leave a brain and body for the law to prosecute though they may never walk again. Do you care?
"I think that a large part of you fantasize about becoming guerillas in a pitched battle with a despotic government. Movies you have grown up with are rife with this plot. It aligns with the vigilante fantasy... another very popular movie theme. I bet that most of you tough guys have not been near a real war. My guess. I don't hear vets talking with your blood lust and bravado. They have seen what happens in conflict. You sound like fifteen year old boys." I don't know anyone who wishes for that type of thing. You're trying to draw the connection that people who wish to carry or own weapons are also fantasizing about using it like some action hero in a movie. It's a nonsensical correlation. It might be what the anti-gun crowd likes to paint us as being, but there is no basis in reality.
"Wow. The scariest bunch of mouthy neocons I've seen in one place for a while."