This is one of the things that my more reasonable friends will disagree with me on

April 21st, 2009

But, viagra usa drugstore as far as I’m concerned, sovaldi Jim Doyle is responsible for the death or injury of any law abiding citizen who was kept from defending him or herself because he twice vetoed conceal carry in Wisconsin.

Entry Filed under: Gun Control

23 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Michael Mathias  |  April 21st, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    Will you give him credit for any law abiding citizen still alive because of his vetoes?

  • 2. Elliot  |  April 21st, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    Yes!

    But I doubt there are many.

    If concealed carry= a sudden uptick in the death of innocents, it wouldn’t be legal in 48 states.

  • 3. Zach W.  |  April 21st, 2009 at 5:41 pm

    Elliot, has concealed carry resulted in a serious downtick in violent crime in states with concealed carry?

  • 4. Rustmeister  |  April 21st, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Depends on who you listen to, but most objective observers would say it doesn’t greatly impact crime either way.

    So, the question is, on a personal level, would you rather have the means to defend yourself from attack, or not?

  • 5. Michael Mathias  |  April 21st, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    I have lived nearly my entire life in a central city neighborhood that many people wouldn’t drive through during the day, and I have never once been attacked. The myth behind the notion of carrying a gun, concealed or not, is that one is always in danger of being attacked and that having a gun might somehow help. The reality is that most of us are not attacked, most homes are not robbed, and most drivers don’t get car-jacked.

    The question Van Hollen raises is whether my right to feel and be secure in a public place has a lower priority over someone’s so-called right to brandish a handgun because of a misconception about personal safety. My answer is no.

  • 6. Michael Mathias  |  April 21st, 2009 at 9:17 pm

    Wow, that “click to edit” feature rocks.

  • 7. Elliot  |  April 21st, 2009 at 9:36 pm

    Glad you like it!

  • 8. Dean  |  April 21st, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    There should be something I could say here….

  • 9. Rustmeister  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 6:59 am

    Michael, news and police reports are full of variations on the phrase “this happens to someone else”.

    While it’s true most people will never be attacked, that’s also true of house fires. Does that mean I don’t need a fire extinguisher in my home?

    Also, brandishing a firearm, in most places, is illegal. I carry my firearm just about everywhere, and at no time have I brandished it.

    I’ve also used a gun in self defense (I’m not as lucky as you). I didn’t even have to pull it, but once the person trying to break my door down heard I had a firearm, he left the scene.

    While I usually avoid this one point, I have to use it this time – there is no “so-called right” to firearms. It’s a right recognized by the Constitution. The same document that recognizes our right to use blogs to discuss issues.

    Finally I have to ask Joe Huffman’s Just one question:

    Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

  • 10. Elliot  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 9:17 am

    Hey Rust, have I mentioned that I would love to hang out with you sometime?

  • 11. Michael Mathias  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 9:40 am

    These folks?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

  • 12. Chris from Racine  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 am

    The right to bear arms is in the constitution. No one is talking about “brandishing” a weapon, only that it is legal to carry a weapon. Why would you feel “unsafe” if a person is simply carrying a firearm, as is his/her right?

  • 13. Rustmeister  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am

    Michael, Virginia Tech was a restricted location. No one outside of law enforcement could legally carry there. People there were not made safer by preventing the lawful carry of firearms, they were made victims.

    Could a person carrying a handgun have stopped that rampage? Maybe, but we’ll never know, because no one there had the means to defend themselves. They just had to wait their turn to die.

    Elliot, any time you find yourself in the Memphis area, let me know. We’ll have a drink and a cigar, maybe do some Elvis impersonations.

  • 14. Elliot  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 10:53 am

    Damn, flew through Memphis like a week ago. Oh well.

    Might have to skip the cigar. Last time I had one was at the opening day of Octoberfest in Munich and I only had one then because a very, very, beautiful girl insisted. You’re not a very, very beautiful girl are you?

  • 15. Rustmeister  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 11:13 am

    No I’m a fat guy pushing 50, but my gal think’s I’m still hot. (I hid her glasses)

  • 16. Michael Mathias  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 11:54 am

    With the Virginia Tech example, I am trying to answer Mr. Huffman’s question. It’s incredibly easy for nearly anyone to purchase a gun in this country. Had some common sense restrictions been in place (ban on Internet sales, wider background checks), the tragedy might have been prevented. This is apart from the fact that Van Hollen seems to be suggesting that Wisconsin police would have had no cause to question the shooter when he was entering the campus building, providing he wasn’t “barking.”

  • 17. Dan  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 12:59 pm

    “This is apart from the fact that Van Hollen seems to be suggesting that Wisconsin police would have had no cause to question the shooter when he was entering the campus building, providing he wasn’t “barking.””
    Might want to reread what Van Hollen wrote.

  • 18. John Foust  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    So this means I can open carry into the Post Office? A high school football game?? The Capitol? The AG’s office? Oh. That’s different? Because someone might be more likely to be mad about something there compared to anywhere else, and want to do something about it with a bullet or two?

  • 19. Rustmeister  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm

    The question asks you to point out any time in history where taking guns away made people safer.

    It’s not asking for examples of “what if”.

  • 20. BobG  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 5:46 pm

    “Had some common sense restrictions been in place (ban on Internet sales, wider background checks), the tragedy might have been prevented.”

    Have you ever tried to buy a firearm over the internet? You might want to do a little research first.

  • 21. John Foust  |  April 22nd, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    So why does the AG feel safer with his office in a place where an ordinary citizen can’t bring a weapon?

  • 22. Rustmeister  |  April 23rd, 2009 at 8:16 am

    Because he has armed security to protect him, I would think.

    Being an average guy, I have to provide my own security.

  • 23. John Foust  |  April 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Wouldn’t everyone be safer if everyone had a gun in the Justice office? Why don’t we start handing out weapons at the door? Would the building be safer?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta