NYC has c.c. but almost no one gets permits. Ex police mostly. Effectly NO c.c. yet crime is at all time low. No guns AND no crime. Ive been there . Harlem, central paek is all safe day and nite. So why is wi so dangeeous that we all need c.c. ?

What a waste of money and soon to be life as we march toward un-civilizarion

This is what NASS should be concerned about - not the Cap Police - that are doing a great job, but now MORE IDIOTS will have guns. NASS says he does not feel safe now - is that before or after he wanted everyone to be able to carry guns. One more thing - NASS - can the teachers have a $39,000 pay raise like Archer got....

RETIREDAIRFORCE - Thank you for the EXCELLENT comments. The gun CrAzY people will end up hurting others or killing the innocent. Just like the guy that had the hand gun that shot and killed the guy in the downtown Janesville area. We don't need more nutjobs in Janesburg with guns.

Concealed carry is about 40 times more prevalent in deterring violent crime than is law enforcement. All gun free zones without a peace officer present are asymmetrically more dangerous.

Ok, To all you anti gun liberals...

1. 48 other states have CC and have NOT had an issue nor have thry reinstated a gun ban.

2. Crime in those 48 states have gone DOWN, NOT up.

3. Denying us the right to carry is unconstitutional, a right given to us by the 2nd amendment.

4. Felons and the mentally ill CANNOT legally own or possess a firearm. The guns obtained are most likely stolen

5. That armed citizen you just cussed out, might save you and your families life next week.

Violent crime DOES happen in Wisconsin. It may not happen often, but it does happen. My 3yr old daughter may be the one in danger next time, and I will be able to save my little princess from harm!

If you choose to go unarmed, thats fine. But some of us know police CANNOT be everywhere and save you when you literally have 5 seconds to save an innocent life.

Writer CriticalEye doesn't look too hard for evidence of people protecting themselves with a firearm In the last year in Charlotte, NC. Pizza Hut kills 2 of 3 bandits while he and a coworker are being pistol whipped. Subway worker kills 1 and wounds 1 bandits in a attempted armed robbery. 1 killed, i escapes during a push in robbery. Man's girlfriend shoots when they enter the home. Man shoots armed robber at ATM. Robber misses at close range(no range practice?) Intended victim does not. This week, Belmont NC Robber is killed after breaking into home and threatening surprised victims with tire iron. All the robbers had previous records for armed robbery and were on parole. All were of the same ethnic group. Remember to go to the range and practice. It's important

Wisconsin has NO self defense law, so even if you carry a concealed weapon just to defend yourself, once you use it your the one going to jail. That is just absolutely stupid...

"Roe v Wade is a perfect example."
-
Roe v Wade has to do with the 2nd Amendment how? Typical diversionary tactic.

" the Constitution has been batardized over the years. It's easy for people to wrap themselves up in the Constitution when they think it's supposed to mean whatever they want it to mean."
-
Roe v Wade is a perfect example.

spark,
How do you not understand the difference between the phrases "keep and bear" and "conceal and carry". Note also the reference in the 2nd amendment to the context of keeping and bearing those arms are part of a miliitia which reenforces the idea that PUBLIC concealed carry by civilians was not what the 2nd amendment ever intended. Of course, the Constitution has been batardized over the years. It's easy for people to wrap themselves up in the Constitution when they think it's supposed to mean whatever they want it to mean.

WalterReuther - What part of the right to keep and bear arms don't you understand?

spark,
No, the 2nd amendment contains no language pertaining to the passage of any laws. It merely states that people have the right to keep and bear arms:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That's it. That's the 2nd amendment. Nothing to do with concealed carry. Nothing to do with passing laws.

WalterReuther - The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows those 49 states (all but one I might add) to pass such a law.

RetiredAirForce,
Again, if it were in the Constitution, states would not have been individually permitted to keep laws on their books outlawing concealed carry, and they wouldn't have had to pass new laws legalizing concealed carry. "Keep and bear" is not the equivalent of "conceal and carry". Never has been and never will be.

RetiredAirForce says:
"...no one said one is more unsafe than the other only that one kills more innocent people every year...the same thing bleeding hearts claim they care about."
The implication is made by initiating the idiotic argument using the ridiculous comparison of gun fatalities to car fatalities that guns are safer than cars. Why else would you point out a fact that everyone knows? Yes, cars kill more people than guns. So what? Oh that's right. You are still trying to dictate the particular issues that people are supposed to concern themselves with. That's what this whole thing boils down to for you. You want to try to shame "bleeding hearts" because they don't care enough in your view. That's pretty sick, but not surprising coming from you. While your willingness to disregard the feelings of others is disheartening, your delusion continues to provide a pretty much endless source of enertainment for me. Keep it comin'.

walter show where the 2nd amendment declares arms are to be unloaded and not concealed...

spark,
If concealed carry was in the Constitution, those 49 states wouldn't have had to pass a concealed carry law. If it was in the Constitution, concealed carry could not have been made illegal in the first place. It is not in the Constitution, and that is why it is left up to the states to decide.

“Why are so many motor vehicle maimings (sic) and killings called "accidents" while other forms of violence properly identified AS "violence"???”

Wow, really, really deep thoughts truth1 but they have absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Perhaps it’s a rhetorical question and only you know the answer. Do you plan to share it with us?
-
I have found that to be true of those who watch FOX news as well, Shrek. No matter what evidence, facts or rational thoughts are expressed, they cling to their narrow minded view; if it’s on FOX then it must be true.
-
spark, most who support conceal carry do so under the guise of creating a safer environment for both the general public and those carrying yet there is no proof of that. I don’t oppose gun ownership but I don’t believe it’s appropriate to allow the general public to carry loaded guns on college campuses based on the crime statistics of ANY UW campus. There is no denying that a greater risk of harm exists where there is a higher concentration of the general public carrying loaded guns. It’s a risk that would be diminished with better legislation. Based on risk factors, open and conceal carry has a much greater potential to do harm than it does preventing harm. Of course, the risk factor would be much different if we lived in a more violent prone area.

WalterReuther - Anyone arguing against conceal and carry might want to brush up on the Constitution. 49 states are following the constitution.

RetiredAirForce,
The 2nd amendment says nothing about carrying concealed, loaded weapons in public. You might want to brush up on the Constitution.

Easy JCK -- The explainantion would be that if the individual were truely planning to harm, there would be more of a likely-hood that someone would be able to defend and stop the person. At least people on campus would have a fighting chance opposed to walking around in total fear with no means of defense.

PanamaRed - Those statistics you provided. What do they have to do with conceal and carry? Conceal and carry didn't make those crimes happen. That is the difference. You say those that support conceal and carry can't provide evidence. Those that are against it can't either. Those against it blame conceal and carry for murders that occur daily regardless of conceal and carry. They use statistics that have nothing to do with it. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? It's being used as a crutch to try and justify the real complaint. Your only solution would be to ban guns period because those murders are going to occur regardless of conceal and carry.

Walter, I follow your stated reasoning on not comparing cars/guns as they are not comparable for comparison but you end every iteration of your argument stating that cars are "safer". perhaps I'm being dense but I don't see how you can make the statement that 1- you can't compare the two then follow up with 2- cars are "safer".
as for the supervisors on ranges - not all ranges are supervised. and even the ones that are, usualy only have one RSO per line (larger ranges this can be 1 RSO to 30-40 shooters). Roads are supervised by the State, County and local police. This also does not include hunting where you pretty much are on your own for safety.

I have to laugh that there is a certain group of people on here that will staunchly defend what they have been told on MSNBC, no matter what the subject is, even if they don't understand what they are arguing about.

I see PanamaRed using the word "accident" as those who excuse motor vehicle violence always do.
I would ask, do drivers "accidently" drive 100mph??...Do they "accidently" run red lights??...Does alcohol "accidently" get into their systems before they decide to drive??
Why are so many motor vehicle maimings and killings called "accidents" while other forms of violence properly identified AS "violence"???
Somehow the object with which killing is done makes the excuse for the killer........How silly is that??

Virgina Tech is on lockdown because someone reported seeing an individual with what they thought was a gun. Campus and local police are currently searching for the person. Explain to me how concealed carry would help in this situation.

"Those individuals who share the view that’s its reasonable and safe to carry concealed loaded guns in public places are unable to present a reasonable argument to support their claim."
-
The 2nd amendment of the US constitution...

There are 49 US states that have decided against your point of view.

btw, how has the search for a petroleum free keyboard going?

Those individuals who share the view that’s its reasonable and safe to carry concealed loaded guns in public places are unable to present a reasonable argument to support their claim. That is quite evident from the arguments presented here. Conceal carry advocates can present no proof that ANYONE will be safer if individuals are allowed to carry loaded guns on college campuses, much less anywhere else. Instead they try to compare gun deaths to deaths resulting from vehicular accidents. Our Legislators could have supported public safety by restricting areas where conceal carry would be legal such as ALL college campuses, churches, government owned property, bars, etc. but they failed. Now the University’s are forced to spend resources and craft policies that will best protect students, faculty, administrators and visitors to their campus. University’s may also face the added expense of litigation should their policies be challenged; money that can little afford to waste on something the legislature SHOULD have addressed. According to 2009 FBI statistics, 13,636 individuals were killed in the U.S. where the circumstances surrounding the murder could be verified. Of that total, 54% were killed by someone they knew while 24% were killed by a family member with 22% killed during the commission of a crime. How many carrying for protection are willing to shoot a friend or family member? Allowing loaded guns to be carried in public is not a practical solution to preventing crime or ensuring public safety.

People that go through the approval process, firearm training, etc...are not inclined to use those weapons to intentionally kill. People that illegally access and obtain firearms are. The reality when you look at good intentions vs bad intensions, it becomes clear that the only people you are affecting when you deny concealed carry are the victims. They now have no way to defend themselves against people with bad intentions.

"When gun lovers use this argument that cars are more unsafe than guns, its just a sophomoric diversion that everyone but the truly dim-witted can easily see through."
-
Hey dim, no one said one is more unsafe than the other only that one kills more innocent people every year...the same thing bleeding hearts claim they care about.

bub bun,
My point all along has been that the two are not comparable. I have offered a way to better compare the two.
Roads are not regulated in the same way that a gun range is. If there was a supervisor on hand for every few feet of road, then perhaps that would be comparable. Such is not the case, so I only compare the two objects in similar environments where their use is only regulated by law and only involves the authorities when they are summoned. To keep all things equal is to best try to compare them, but at its base the argument is silly. When gun lovers use this argument that cars are more unsafe than guns, its just a sophomoric diversion that everyone but the truly dim-witted can easily see through.

Walter, look at it this way, I see lots of "guns are only designed to kill" commentary. If that is accepted as a fact(despite being an over generalization ) then we need to look at how cars are NOT designed to kill (or even harm) but to transport people safely and efficiently from point A to point B yet still cause great carnage in the US alone. You have a projectile that is capable of being turned, slowed or stopped unlike a bullet. I also still have a problem with the rounds fired/miles driven portion of the argument. Most homicide shootings involve multiple rounds (fatal accidents I would go out on a limb and state are probably only single shots). Saying that you don't want to count rounds that are not accidentally, or deliberately fired lethally because of a "controlled environment" of a range or hunting field, yet want to count every mile driven on a set of controlled and regulated roads (where automobiles still knock off people) does not seem to be a good method of comparison.

When considering fatalities whether it be per firearm discharge or mile driven, a temporal quantifier is unnecessary. I realize that cars kill more per day/week/month. Why would they not considering they are used exponentially more frequently than guns? That is why frequency (deaths per day, for example) as a variable does not produce accurate results as far as determining the inherent danger of the two objects we have been discussing.
Also, I'm glad you think you get to decide what everyone should feel strongly about. Please live blissfully within your delusion, and let those of us that remain sane live vicariously through your mental instability.

Why not deaths per day/week/month/year as a comparison? You are obfuscating your position by rationalizing on a quantifier that makes you think your position is sound. I am glad you think you care about innocent life...

RetiredAirForce,
Your delusion that you are the authority on what issues anyone other than yourself should be most concerned about is truly the mark of a loon. Based on deaths per firearm discharge vs. deaths per mile driven, I find guns to be far more dangerous than vehicles. Who are you to tell me that my concern isn't important? That's like trying to shame someone that donates to juvenile diabetes research for not donating to cancer research. When did your opinion become the end all be all on how people should feel? Your arrogance is what is quite staggering.

Sad really the bleeding hearts don't understand no one is comparing guns to cars. The discussion is over deaths and protecting the innocent. Since those wanting to keep people from having a concealed weapon use the notion of protecting people as their stated goal it is staggering these same people don't want to protect all innocent life. If they really did want to protect the innocent they would surely focus on the most deadly first; claiming the most lives. Since they don't claiming protection of the innocent is a red herring, then again expecting honesty of a position or a principled stance on a subject is not something the loons ever do.

germancaveguy & PanamaRed,
Great points and very well written. Thank you for some excellent contributions.

RetiredAirForce,
Yes, a death is a death. A gun, however, is not a car. What don't you understand?

Just for point of reference, Elars1400 post on 8/02 was directed at comments I posted on the Walworth Co. Today article titled with the same heading as this article.

How much more of this mindless comparison between guns and cars must we endure. Walter has patiently offered sensible thoughtful explanations of why you can’t and shouldn’t compare guns to cars. It would be like comparing a balloon to a football; their ONLY common denominator is they both hold air. Or comparing my furnace to RAF because they both expel hot air (ok, I’ll admit the latter is hypothesis since, to my knowledge, I’ve never been around RAF).
The real argument is whether individuals will be safer by allowing loaded guns to be carried on college campuses. One argument is that violent crime will go down since the “criminals” won’t know who might be carrying a weapon. On the other hand, criminals may have more of a reason to carry and use guns knowing their potential victims may be armed as well. One fact that can’t be disputed is that putting more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens will also lead to more guns in the hands of criminals. A National Institute of Justice Research in Brief study back in 1997 found that “slightly more than half of all privately owned firearms were stored unlocked.” Approximately 500,000 guns are stolen each year. Reuters reported that “only about 12 percent of civilian weapons are thought to be registered with authorities.” Bottom line is that allowing guns on UW campuses, in dorms, classrooms, etc. will do nothing to stop the criminal activity that most frequently occurs on those campuses.

Walter if a death is a death what don't you understand?

RetiredAirForce,
I honestly don't believe you are dumb, so I'm just going to assume that you're feigning ignorance. I fully support all advancements and further research into safety for automobiles as well as heavier enforcement and stricter laws pertaining to dangerous drivers of any kind. Banning vehicles would obviously shut down society as I'm sure you're well aware. Concealed carry is not essential to most daily commutes as I'm also sure you're well aware. That is why these comparisons are not "apples to apples". The nature, necessity, and frequency of usage makes the two incomparable yet you seem now to be enamored with this "apples to oranges" comparison. It would appear that consistency is, in fact, a problem for you.

WI does NOT have to be like other states. We do NOT need concealed weapons of any kind on any college campus and / or in the our buildings of education. Say what you want, but having them is a potential risk to others. On June 17th, 2011 in an open letter to Scott Walker from the MOTHERS OF VIRGINIA TECH & NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY SHOOTING MASSACRES they asked the WI Assembly & Walker TO STOP GUNS IN PUBLIC PLACES. They will be the first to tell you that carrying guns on campus does not make it safer. There is NOT EVEN ONE SURVIVOR that is saying guns should be allowed on campus. Many groups of faith have asked Walker to not pass this law. Walker is leading WI in the wrong direction--> more money & tax breaks for big business, more guns and more guns to legally carry, and LESS money for EDUCATION. The innocent blood of even one person due to the concealed gun carry law will be on the hands every supporter and Walker.

" As it stands the nature of the usage of the two objects in question is so vastly different that the comparison is completely worthless. In your past posts you have seemed so insistent that comparisons have to be "apples to apples". Why change your philosophy now?"
-
How more apples to apples is the removing of innocent live regardless of the meens? If the reasons for opposition was really just for the perception of protecting innocent life than why not want to protect all innocent life? If banning one is the answer why not ban the other? Consistency here seems to be a problem for you.

Fear is the tonic of the ignorant. Take that for what it's worth. You can twist it both ways.

Just because lawabiding people can conceal carry does not necessarilly mean that they will. I will get my permit, however probably will not carry all the time. My choice when and where, this does not make me a homicidal maniac that drives drunk and shoots up college campuses; or the local Culver's for that matter.

criticaleye - I bet you read a lot about defenseless people being attacked, victimized and murdered though.

How come when I check papers out from around the nation I never read a headline of 'Conceal and Carry Saves the Day'??

Myself and thousands of others would drive smaller cars that use less gas if it weren't for fear of being severely injured or killed by some violent maniac with a bigger car...That is another consequence.

It's good that we've come to that understanding.
The fact remains that motor vehicle misuse is a greater menace in general society today than is all use of guns, not to continue the argument but just to make the statement.

bunbun,
I don't think that guns being carried without being fired complicates the situation at all as it is not all relevant. A person carrying a gun is not using the gun for its ultimate intended purpose. It is only when a gun is being fired that it can be considered being used. Just as a car sitting in a driveway is not being used, but a car being driven is.

bunbun & truth1,
You have both finally made the same point I am making: The fatality rates of the two objects can't be accurately compared because they are designed, built and used for completely different things. You both also seem to be clear on the fact that cars are used exponentially more frequently than guns which adds to the incomparability. When you compare the two, cars kill a higher total number of people yet guns kill at a higher rate relative to frequency of use. That's all there is to it.

bunbun & truth1,
You have both finally made the same point I am making: The fatality rates of the two objects can't be accurately compared because they are designed, built and used for completely different things. You both also seem to be clear on the fact that cars are used exponentially more frequently than guns which adds to the incomparability. When you compare the two, cars kill a higher total number of people yet guns kill at a higher rate relative to frequency of use. That's all there is to it.

What is perhaps most shocking is how often the term "accident" is used in cases of vehicular assault or vehicular manslaughter and how the phrase "known, or should-have known" is not used in non-prosecutions of same.

Walter- The sheer numbers actually tell a different story.......The sheer number of people violently killed by motor vehicles is far larger than those violently killed by guns.
While we all know that if guns were used illegally as often as motor vehicles are, there would proportionately be more people killed and injured by those guns but the fact that motor vehicles are used violently in vastly greater proportion is why they cause vastly more harm.
Nothing "diversionary" about it.

walter, sorry it was an early morning for me. should have said 3mil total rounds fired per year and left out the per firearm.
one point though, by your own standard of data there is no way to make a statement that firearms are more dangerous per round than cars per mile (and vice versa- I admit my own point suffers here). I would be interested in seeing how one could correlate rounds fired in accidents with mileage per accident. not all rounds fired are a criminal/negligent act and not all miles driven are criminal/negligent. I could also point out that the ammount of time loaded firearms are carried without being fired complicates the equation. to make an accurate comparison rounds fired to miles would have to only count the mileage during the crash.

truth1,
I'd be more than willing to tell those families that the argument is silly if they start comparing traffic fatalities to gun fatalities. Even if you more than double the traffic fatalities in the argument, you would still have to account for every drunk driver, speeder or other type of reckless driver that doesn't kill anyone. That is why the argument doesn't make sense. Because when you do factor that in, illegal car users kill less per use than illegal gun users. We can keep going back and forth, but sheer numbers continue to back me up in this silly diversionary argument.

Walter- Tell the families of those injured and killed by reckless motor vehicle users about how you think its a "silly argument".
The drunk driving you alluded to is less than half the cases in which dangerous people injure and kill with motor vehicles.

truth1,
The nature of the use of cars lends itself to more illegal use. When 3 trillion miles are driven every year. Illegal use is going to happen on a much larger scale than illegal use of guns. However, given the vast size difference in that scale, guns might not kill as many people but they kill more often during illegal use than cars do during illegal use. The only numbers I can find for illegal use fatalities involving vehicles is drunk driving deaths. About 11,000 per year. Compare that to firearm murders. About 9400 per year. Not that far apart really considering how many people drive drunk and never kill anyone, and it means that since illegal use of firearms occurs far less often than illegal use of cars, guns are the more efficient killer during illegal use. Honestly the comparison is ridiculous. The nature of use of the two objects makes them incomparable. I've played along with this silly argument and it's killing my brain cells. The argument is meant to be nothing more than a diversion from the unnecessary danger that guns pose in society and the threat to a lasting peace among the people of this nation that guns represent. The man from Ixonia that was killed with his own gun is a prime example of what guns can do. A man killed over an unmowed lawn. My, how far we've come as a people.

callit,
I just don't see the point of introducing guns to a campus as some sort of pre-emptive measure. As I've stated before, numerous guns in a chaotic situation like a mass shooting could result in aiding the bad guy and responsible gun owners being mistaken for the bad guy. Crazy people are not deterred by the possibility of other people carrying concealed weapons. AZ has been a concealed carry state. That didn't stop the crazed gunman there. Plus, nobody drew a weapon to stop him. They disarmed him while he was reloading. Where were all the responsible gun-toting good samaritans that day? The only guy that did show up with a gun admitted that he was a split second away from blowing one of the good guy's heads off. He said he couldn't tell who was the good guy and who was the bad guy. At least he had the clarity at the last possible moment to not use his gun. As in any mass shooting, the fewer guns the better. Why confuse the situation any further? Why confuse the police? They will immediately shoot anyone that appears to be a threat in a situation like a mass shooting.

Many people here keep expressing that by having concealed carry, law abiding citizens will now be able to help others that are in trouble. While I have doubts that this will happen, I do hope that it is true.

Yet, I wonder if the only time they will help is when a chance to be a hero presents itself. The thought of being the person to take down a violent shooter tends to be the only scenario in which people express potentially utilizing the benefit of carrying their weapon. The chance for glory is clouding the overall picture of what concealed carry could do.

It is my stance, that if concealed carry does indeed offer a person as much protection and safety as many here present, Wisconsin should see a decrease in all types of public crimes. Crimes such as vehicle break-ins, burglaries, and fights in public.

Not because the criminals will be worried whether or not a person has a gun. Instead because citizen's carrying will have no reason not to intervene. I think of the potential good that can come out of this law as being a 'Neighborhood Watch Enhancer'.

In fact, we might even see more people offering help to others. For instance, a broken down motorist on the highway will no longer be a 'threat'. The typical, 'just look the other way' approach will no longer be needed when crimes are happening. People will once again feel the ability to help their fellow man.

Unfortunately, I doubt my hope will actually manifest itself as the reality it could be. The notion that people don't help 'strangers' because of the chaos that could ensue is a red-herring at best. Instead, more often than not, people a willing to let crime happen to others unless they see some gain or loss for themselves.

The overall problems with crime in our nation are due to the indifference people have to other members in society. The easiest way to fix this is for people to become more involved with their community. People need to interact in a meaningful way with their neighbors and reap the reward of being an active part of society.

Whether they are carrying a gun or not.

Ok, back to it today...
My argument is not about banning cars or banning guns, it is about the fact that illegal uses of motor vehicles injure and kill far more people than all uses of guns.
Therefore, a herculean effort to stop the illegal uses of motor vehicles would logically take precedence over any restriction whatsoever on the use or carrying of guns by non-criminals.
.
Key phrase here is "illegal use".
.
It is the illegal use of deadly objects that is the problem and the object causing the most deaths by ILLEGAL USE, by far, is motor vehicles.

Walter-Why? The point is that these campuses have had zero problems and not that they cured any previous indiscretions by unlawful campus gun carriers. The fact is that they are not a bunch of drunken young people shooting up the campus but lawful carriers who may be there to help the next time a criminal carrying decides to shoot up a classroom.

janesvillecomments- Lisa Spanton's killer was pardoned early from prison with far less than half the time served by then Republican Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus. When can we trust that a 22 - year or "life means life" sentence will be served? I have faith in God but not my state's governor and other politicians.

""This is just a warning that will be retained in my records."" Elars that might be one of the funniest comments in the history of these blogs!! Should Walter be afraid, now that he has been warned? Come out of the bunker sarge, the war is over, oh wait....
Agree with CC or not its clowns like these that give us all a reason to chuckle, so be warned !!LOL

Elars , you might want to settle down a little bit. People can come into this anonymous blog sit (as you have) and post wild and crazy skewed numbers to prove their point it happens everyday. Libel?? definition:1.defamation: a false and malicious published statement that damages somebody's reputation.
2.attacking of somebody's reputation: the making of false and damaging statements about somebody
3.written statement: the plaintiff's written statement in a case under admiralty law or in an ecclesiastical court
I hardly think that anything Walter or anyone else has said falls under that umbrella. To bad that making crazy statemnets isnt a crime. If you like the CC law just make arguments for it, make your point. Threatening people with libel, now you just look silly. You might want to skim the rules up above the text box that you post in. There is spomething pertaining to libel in there. A little sensitive there skippy? Put that in your records. You keep records of the gazette blogs? Really??

RetiredAirForce,
You fail to grasp that by public usage, which is a much better indicator of an object's inherent danger to the public, a gun is much more likely to kill someone than a car. Now had there been 3 trillion rounds whizzing about our homes, streets and highways and fewer people were killed than you'd have a sound arguent. As it stands the nature of the usage of the two objects in question is so vastly different that the comparison is completely worthless. In your past posts you have seemed so insistent that comparisons have to be "apples to apples". Why change your philosophy now?

Elars1400,
I don't know who you're referring to, but I dare you to report me and try to get me banned from the site simply because you don't agree with me. Also, you're understanding of libel is, to use a gun term, half-cocked. Libel involves personal accusations and attacks. You can't libel government policy.

I don't know who you are or what your issue with concealed carry is. However, I do not appreciate your baseless arguments. If you are going to estimate dollar amounts or probabilities of something happening you need to back that up with credible sources otherwise its known as libel. A CRIME. This is just a warning that will be retained in my records. Further libel comments will be brought to the attention of the Gazette staff and to the person whom the comments pentane to. In addition I will petition for removal of your posting privileges on this site. Thank you.

Walter if you read the posts no one claimed guns were bad at their intended purpose. You still fail to grasp by population they harm less people than cars. If the bleeding hearts really wanted to protect people they would ban cars.

Lisa Spanton was murdered by her ex-husband in 1973 at U-Rock. He shot her in the parking lot and none of the law-abiding students or faculty on campus had a gun to come to her assistance. Her killer was served less than 10 of his 22 year sentence before being released.

Concealed carry offers the chance that someone nearby might be a Good Samaritan and come to the defense of someone being violently attacked. The law inhibits violent crime perpetrated by career criminals. That's why some version of concealed carry has become the law in all but one state in this country.

All students (even those under 21 years of age) can show their support for concealed carry on campus should consider getting a "I'm carrying a concealed firearm" t-shirt. Let's see the liberal anti-gun element on campus will complain about First Amendment rights as well as Second Amendment rights.

callit,
Please give us the numbers of incidents of gun violence, gun accidents and gun thefts that occurred PRIOR to allowing concealed carry on the campuses of those 12 schools mentioned in the study from the Journal of Legal Studies. Without a comparison of those numbers how can you determine whether concealed carry is an effective deterrent or not? If it went from 0 to 0, what does the study really prove?

RetiredAirForce,
If you read the posts you'll see that fatalities per round fired vs fatalities per mile driven prove guns to be the more efficient killer which is exactly what they're designed for. I don't see how so many people want to argue that guns are bad at killing when that's what they're meant to do.

bun bun,
You can't be serious. Read your own post. You didn't say 3.5 million rounds per firearm. That would be ridiculous anyway. An average of 3.5 million shots fired per firearm? People have work to do and families to raise you know. You said 3.5 million rounds fired total. Which you had reduced from 11.5 million rounds. I was just giving you math from your own numbers. I don't consider miles driven on race tracks either just as I don't consider rounds fired within shooting ranges and the like. I also noticed that you don't consider drunk and/or reckless driving fatalities as deliberate. That's interesting as some people attempting to argue your point don't consider those to be accidents. I consider all of them together as unintended or criminally intended fatalities, and the numbers continue to prove that a gun being fired is more likely to kill than a car being driven. I don't know why this is hard to understand for some people.

"Argument: Guns on campus would lead to an escalation in violent crime.

Answer: Since the fall semester of 2006, state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of the nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses) in Utah. Concealed carry has been allowed at Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. After allowing concealed carry on campus for a combined total of one hundred semesters, none of these twelve schools has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides), a single gun accident, or a single gun theft. Likewise, none of the forty ‘right-to-carry’ states has seen a resulting increase in gun violence since legalizing concealed carry, despite the fact that licensed citizens in those states regularly carry concealed handguns in places like office buildings, movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, churches, banks, etc. Numerous studies*, including studies by University of Maryland senior research scientist John Lott, University of Georgia professor David Mustard, engineering statistician William Sturdevant, and various state agencies, show that concealed handgun license holders are five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.

"Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” John Lott and David Mustard, Journal of Legal Studies (v.26, no.1, pages 1-68, January 1997);

“An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population,” William E. Sturdevant, September 1, 2000; Florida Department of Justice statistics, 1998; Florida Department of State,

“Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report,” 1998; Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September 2000; Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000, compiled by the Texas State Rifle Association

Walter, my guesstimate is 3,520,000 rounds averaged per firearm in a year. for cars the average is 12,334 miles. I also said accidentally- 613 firearms accidents (fatal) in 2006 compared to 98,356 automotive accidents(assuming that none of the automotive fatalities were deliberate). Total vehicles also include commercial vehicles (lots of highway straight line driving) while total firearms don't break out defensive usage of firearms. ( and it also does not include mileage on controlled situations like racetracks ;) ) The numbers also don't include non-fatal automotive or firearms accidents (couldn't find any accurate numbers)
.
"Obviously guns are far more efficient killers than cars." - to me, it is only obvious that cars are not a prime choice to kill not that they are less efficient.

"Because of that, one is more likely to be killed by a gun than a car."
-
Yet surprisingly, the numbers are reversed.

bun bun,
So by your own numbers, there is 1 fatality for every 870 rounds fired, yet there is only 1 fatality for every 30,643,784 miles driven. And that's using your 11 and a half million rounds fired number. Obviously guns are far more efficient killers than cars.

bun bun,
How could you possibly conclude that? The number of rounds fired outside of firing ranges and shooting competitions where activity is strictly controlled obviously doesn't even come close to the 3,014,000,000,000 miles driven by American drivers in 2006. Cars are put to their intended use exponentially more often than guns are used for their intended purpose in the uncontrolled environments of highways, streets & homes. Because of that, one is more likely to be killed by a gun than a car.

just playing with some numbers.
of the 288000000 est firearms, assuming that only 1/2 of 1% are ever fired (1,440,000 - the rest being parts of collections or antiques with no ammo available) even if they only fire eight rounds per year = 11,520,000 rounds fired per year. heck, even knock another million arms off the list and it is still 3,520,000 rounds per year at the 8 rnd per mark.

100 mph wouldn't even make a good bb gun.
a .25 ACP at 810 fps = 552.3 mph.
.
the car/ gun comparison suffers because there is quite a bit of missing data. for the year 2006 in a quick search I found the following:
288000000 firearms of all types in the US (estimated by the ATFE)
250844644 registered viehicles in the US (cars and trucks)
13245 firearms fatalities (including 613 accidental)
98356 automotive fatalities
12334 miles per year driven (average)
.
what is missing to even begin to compare is the number of rounds fired in a given year. Sales data only covers dollar ammount. Even without the missing data, you could conclude that you are more likely to have a fatal car accident than an accident involving a firearm

Point well taken Mooshoo, the problem would be solved if cars were limited in weight to one ounce and could only go in a perfectly straight line.

I never said cars should be prohibited, I would never say something so ridiculous, but the fact that some people want to put restrictions on guns but see no problem with selling cars that go 100mph is hypocritical.

Mooshoo- Sorry, thats not even relevant to the argument because I obey all traffic laws.

Mooshoo- You want to talk "restrictions"?
Why is it anyone can buy a car capable of going 100mph?

Mooshoo- "YOU FOOL"
.
There you go, thats intelligent.

.....as a matter of fact, I had a car pass me last week going at least 20 over the limit in the middle of the day in a no-passing zone and ran the oncoming car right off the road and would have hit it head-on with the driver not thinking twice about it, it was shocking.

Walter -Ok then, if you want to go the "common knowledge and statistics" route, then we'll cite the states that have had concealed carry for years and haven't had a bunch of unlawful killings as a result.
As far as motor-vehicle maimings and killings go, I personally witness several close-calls by reckless drivers every year and the fact those people are driving and not in jail, thats what I mean by saying very little is done about it.

truth1,
Also, if you're just going to denounce common knowledge statistics and pretend they don't matter, then we can't have an adult conversation. I know you really liked your argument, and you wanted so bad for it to hold water. I'm sorry, but sometimes you just have to look at things logically.

truth1,
Very little is done about it? Have you heard of air bags and other safety standards in cars? The problem with those that argue that cars are so dangerous are the same that are against the "big" government ideas of how to prevent certain accidents. I, like many others, think breathalizers should be installed in ALL cars so that the car will not start if ANY alcohol is detected.
I think the gun lovers only use the car argument because the numbers on the surface do seem rather high, but, as I've said before, if you take the time to actually look at the incredibly high usage of cars relative to car related fatalities, the number of deaths is really not that high. You can keep using the same argument over and over mr. truth1, but the statistics are not on your side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYvAxLX6O...

Walter- Again, even though I alluded to statistics, the argument itself is not about statistics, its about the sheer amount of death and destruction wrought by illegal use of motor vehicles vs. guns and what is done to try to stop it, which is very little when it comes to killings OF TOTALLY INNOCENT PEOPLE done by reckless use of motor vehicles.
This fact makes illegal motor vehicle use the larger problem.
See?.....I know its not that complicated.

truth1,
I repeat with a slight revision to include speeders:
Then you would have to consider every mile driven by anyone breaking the law that doesn't kill anyone. For every drunk driver that makes it home without incident. For every driver with a suspended or revoked license that drives without incident. For every speeder that doesn't kill anyone on the daily commute. They are breaking the law. And again even the law breakers kill less per mile than law breakers do per bullet fired. I am arguing on point. Your argument still makes no sense, and you remain with the brainless followers. Good luck with all that.

proartist- Medical/hospitals and morticians already get plenty of business from those who use motor vehicles illegally.

truth1,
Obviously your grasp of statistics leaves much to be desired. It is about how dangerous an object is. If you consider the number of users in public and frequency of public use of cars vs. the same type of users and use of guns in America and then compare that to the number of deaths caused by each one, you find that guns are FAR more dangerous in the hands of any American, whether they are law breakers or law abiders. It's really not that complicated.

"routinely operate at 65mph or more"
.
See?.........thats the key........

How many people are killed by someone driving 65 in a 65mph zone, probably near zero...Its the driver illegally driving WAY over 65 that kill people along with the other reckless uses of motor vehicles.
You're trying to include the law-abiding motor vehicle users in the argument and those are not part of the equation.

There are only 2 entities who will benefit and see profits rise from more guns on the streets - legal or not - the manufacturers/retailers and the medical industry/morticians. SHAME on Wisconsin state government and anyone who is so completely terrified of their fellow citizens to think they need to carry a gun endangering everyone else around them. If the gun-toting egocentric fools weren't afraid of you and me, they would NOT fantasize that their guns "protect" anyone.

Walter- Its not about "per mile" or "per bullet", its about the sheer number of injured and killed by the illegal use of either object.
Its about the sheer FACT that more people are killed by the illegal use of motor vehicles than ALL uses of guns.
.
Death is death and dead is DEAD, and it is illegal motor vehicle use that is the bigger problem.

truth1,
Of course they're not designed to kill people, but they are 2000 pound objects that routinely operate at 65 mph or more. They are a necessary evil given the way our society has evolved. Guns are not. We don't have to kill our food. We are not under constant threat of invasion and occupation. Even if we were we have police and military forces to defend us. Yet for some reason the efficiency with which firearms can kill keeps increasing. Conversely, the efficiency with which cars can kill people has been decreasing with advancements in safety features. Yet another reason why your argument is baseless.

truth1,
Then you would have to consider every mile driven by anyone breaking the law that doesn't kill anyone. For every drunk driver that makes it home without incident. For every driver with a suspended or revoked license that drives without incident. They are breaking the law. And again even the law breakers kill less per mile than law breakers do per bullet fired. I am arguing on point. Your argument still makes no sense, and you remain with the brainless followers. Good luck with all that.

Walter- The very fact that motor vehicles were not designed nor intended to kill people with, but yet thousands of people ARE injured and killed by them makes their illegal use even MORE egregious.

Ezoner,
So you believe that if one sane armed person had been present at the VT shooting, lives would likely have been saved. I agree that is possible. However, if concealed carry is allowed you could have more than one sane armed person, perhaps many more. Given that possibility, say a crazed gunmen opens fire at another campus and you have people running and screaming. Now you have numerous people pulling out weapons in a very chaotic situation. Perhaps the concealed carriers will just shoot whoever they see carrying a gun assuming they are the bad guy. How do they know? Couldn't more lives actually be lost because of the concealed weapons in a situation like that? Maybe while the concealed carriers are shooting each other, the real bad guy has more time to claim more victims. I only bring this up because a man admitted that he was a split second away from shooting one of the people that disarmd the man who shot Congress woman Giffords in AZ. Fortunately, he arrived late enough to realize what was really going on. Had he came on scene during the struggle, the tragedy may have been much worse. Why is flooding the streets with more of what's causing the problem seen as the solution to the problem? How about we push more drugs out into the streets to clean up the drug problem (marijuana excluded of course because there is no such thing as a marijuana problem). Why don' we just push more pollution into the environment to clean up our pollution problem. Real peace in our streets can only be achieved by eradication of these machines designed and built to kill as many people as possible. Peace achieved by more weapons on the streets is not actually peace. That is fear.

Walter- You're the one who looks stupid.
No one is talking about "per mile driven".
Its about the use of a deadly object while BREAKING THE LAW.
More people are killed by others BREAKING THE LAW with a motor vehicle than breaking the law with a gun.
Please learn how to argue on-point.

Far more people are killed per bullet fired unintentionally or with criminal intent than per mile driven. The cars kill more people than guns argument is only made by the brainless. Cars are used exponentially more often than guns. Obviously, that is why they kill more people. If as many bullets were fired in public places as miles are currently driven by cars, the statistics would be a lot different.
Please stop buying into and repeating ridiculous arguments. You just make yourselves look stupid.

INSANITY I tell 'ya!!...(wringing hands)

Complete insanity!

I think many here do not have a CLUE what they are talking about. Maybe this will help, even if just a little:
You have to be 21 to purchase and carry a hand gun in Wisconsin. I will double check that but I believe that is a fact.
If that is a fact then to follow you have to be 21 to carry concealed. So that leaves out many college age ADULTS.
Because you can now carry concealed does not make you a mass murder any more than because you have a driver’s license makes you a drunk driver.
Someone mentioned about felons etc. not being able to carry, you may need to brush up on your gun laws; a felon CANNOT own a firearm.
Look at the other 48 states that have had the CC law for years, the few issues that have come up are NOTHING compared to all the concerns people seem to have in Wisconsin.
I often Wonder about my fellow Badgers

fear- You DO need a gun to "defend yourself" if the person trying to kill you also has one and THEY are not going to have a "permit".
.
For goodness sake...........GET REAL.
.
No difference between 18 or 35 dead......I STILL can't get over that one from you.

fear- And drop the "accidents" thing, thats really really old....Killing someone while driving 100mph is NOT an "accident", neither is driving drunk or speeding and running a red light....GET REAL.

There you go, just arm everybody, fight, fight fight!! More guns for everyone because a couple of crazy kids went nuts!! Nice logic.
Icontinue to wonder of the "right" to defend yourself. I feel you do have the right to do so, but the right to defend yourself most times should NOT be linked solely to a firearm. I can defend myself without a gun. Why is it that people need guns to defend themselves?? Do you think that a meth addict will be deterred by the prospective that a citizen would have a gun in pocket? Or would that desparate drug addict just still commit the crime, with no regard to the law, my guess is the latter. A person that is drug addicted or mentally ill is NOT going to be less desparate because the gun lobby finally got what they wanted. This is just a move to make more money by the gun manufacurers, they could care less about anyones safety, otherwise why make such a product?

fearandrhetoric said: "whats the difference 18 or 35 dead"....
REALLY????...you REALLY said that??????
Wow, just wow.
.
And you think the motor vehicle killing comparison is not relevant because of "intent"???....Let me tell you something, a dead person is just as dead from illegal and reckless actions regardless of "intent".

You're just FULL of heartess, empty platitudes, aren't you?

I am all for Concealed Carry on campus and plan to do so if my school allows it. And the last I heard guns will probably be allowed in the Capitol building. Let's look at all these school and college shootings, many lives are lost in these facilities that ban firearms. They deny us the right to defend ourselves as well as others. A criminal walks in and sees a shooting gallery of people with NO WAY of fighting back!! Virginia Tech, NIU, and many more had gun bans, and look what happen. Is that criminal going to attempt that at a college where students are armed and ready to fight for their lives?? I doubt it...

Sorry I mispoke- Rarely do you ever hear about a person using a CAR to commit intentional homicide. So the comparison is just not right at all, IMO. Find a better analogy, accidents happen in every walk of life, including with firearms. The fact is that accidental deaths and intentional deaths related to firearms are what 50-1? Im just saying.

AT elementary schools too. Maybe the three or four school shootings could have been averted if the teachers ,janitors , and principals were packing.
The idea of college campuses being opened to this should scare the crap out of anyone who has been through college and the campuses FULL of drunken, testosterone 18-22 year old men. I am sure that if they have a permit, their decision making while intoxicated will improve exponentially then!(sarcasm)
As far as VT goes, what Ezoner 18 dead as opposed to 35? Okay, but whats the difference? Crazy is crazy, you cant assume that a hero would have arose from the ashes, or even assume that someone would have been carrying in that building. Assumptions do nothing to change the FACTS. The facts remain that 35 people died on the VT campus because a student freaked out and went on a shooting spree. Concealed carry or not it will happen again, high stress environment. Young people are incredibly stressed out in college, why add the thought of legally concealed firearms? I just dont see the need.
The whole comparison to cars is just silly, apples and oranges. Very rarely will you ever read someone using a gun to murder someone else intentionally. Cars kill people through accidents, irresponsibility, and inattentiveness, NOT by pulling the trigger and making a concious choice.

I would remove my son or daughter from a school that would allow such a stupid idea. Officerfriendly1..."maybe had the victim been armed she would have been able to defend herself and would still be alive" oh great, a shootout at the OK corral...DUMB !

Unfortunately if someone wants to kill they are going to do it whether that be with a gun, knife, truck, golf club, etc.... It comes down to a personal choice of doing right or wrong. What's to stop me from driving my 4x4 truck through a campus running over everyone there. Surely I could do more damage than a pistol in a short time. Again, personal choice prevails evertime no matter how much we want to blame an object. In all the cases listed below I don't recall any of them carrying the weapons legally. They may have been purchased legally but they still chose to conceal them to get on campus to commit murder.

If guns make us all safer, why not allow them into the State Capitol buildings? It should make things safer there, shouldn't it? How about courtrooms? Those would be safer too, if we all were packing. Personally, I find it interesting that I would have to work in an environment where anyone can carry a concealed weapon, but state lawmakers excused themselves from the same.

One time I managed to get permission from the University of Wisconsin and the Campus PD to bring a locked, cased, unloaded firearm into a classroom to have a professor help me install sensors on it for an experiment (my final project) in that class. I almost couldn't complete the course because of the weapons ban (and less than stellar planning that wouldn't have affected any of my classmates). The people who take care to legally possess firearms are almost never the ones who take illegal actions with those firearms. When all motor vehicles weighing more than 2500 pounds or capable of going more than 65mph are prohibited as dangerous (which they are), then I will at least be able to say "we are consistently safety conscious." As long as manmade objects remain legal that kill more people than firearms do every year, I will call the gun control lobby by what they are: Ignorant at best and evil hypocrites at worst. Just like the TSA.

I would be more worried about being killed by someone using a motor vehicle in an illegal manner while going to and from campus than someone legally carrying a gun.
.
More people are killed and injured by the illegal use of motor vehicles than by ALL uses of guns.

Many campuses allow concealed carry. There has never been an incident at any of them involving a legally carried firearm.

I would favor professors or instructors have to option to carry or conceal inside buildings.
People with a history of drug, alcohol, mental illness, battery, felons, and people that flip me off while I turning into my driveway can and should be denied.

From what I have seen or heard -- And I do have the knowledge and background.... my wife was on the VT campus when the 30+ people were shot.

If one other student or prof would have had a gun, the number dead may have been significantly less. Certainly while the shooter was switching clips, someone would have gotten a shot off to stop the bast$^%.

"""If it becomes a problem, he said, legislators could amend the bill with a solution."""
.
So after people are killed while attending college...they could "amend the bill."
.
How reasurring!?!?!?!
.
Knowing what happens on college campuses especially on the weekends...glad to be done!

I recall that several years ago a young woman was shot to death on the "U-Rock" campus. The idea of guns being readily available to all attending classes is frightening. What would it mean to "restrict" academic freedom simply because of their presence on campus? Something tells me that the cool head of a thinker will not prevail over a hot-headed shooter.