Wisconsin: "Weapons laws not matching hype"

Status
Not open for further replies.

cuchulainn

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
3,297
Location
Looking for a cow that Queen Meadhbh stole
from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/nov03/182381.asp
Weapons laws not matching hype

By STEVE WALTERS
[email protected]
Last Updated: Nov. 3, 2003

Madison - With the Assembly poised this week to repeal the ban on concealed weapons that passed in 1870, Wisconsin finds itself at the center of a national debate over whether such measures promote a "Wild West" mentality or allow law-abiding citizens to protect themselves

It's a fight over handguns that divides individual Wisconsin lawmakers, and it has Republicans who have already pushed the change through the state Senate facing off with Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, who has promised to veto it.

The same emotional dialogue has occurred in 45 other states - including Wisconsin's neighbors, Minnesota, Michigan and Iowa - that have concealed weapons laws.

Officials in those states have several bits of advice for their Wisconsin neighbors:

Be aware that both sides - the National Rifle Association and gun-control groups such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - fan public opinion to turn out their supporters and drown out their opponents.
Beware of national experts packing statistics that, they insist, prove that the numbers of murders, armed robberies and other violent crimes dropped in states that legalized the carrying of concealed weapons.
Once such laws are enacted, it is rare for a legally armed private citizen to be involved in an incident that threatens public safety.
"I have never encountered a (threatening) event that involved an individual with a gun permit," said Minnesota's Hennepin County Sheriff Pat McGowan, whose county includes about 25% of the state's population.

For now, he and other officials from neighboring states say, Wisconsin residents should take a deep breath and get past the emotional claims - claims that the Legislature is either poised to be the next pawn of the NRA, or on the verge of giving citizens the right to defend themselves, their families and their property.

"There's a lot of hype on both sides," McGowan said.

When McGowan looks at the number of Hennepin County residents who have actually applied for a concealed weapon permit since Minnesota's law was enacted five months ago, he sees that the demand will be much less than the 90,000 statewide that had been predicted for the first year.

So far, just over 2,300 applications for concealed weapon permits have been requested in Hennepin County, the sheriff said.

Likewise, Iowa has had "a relatively good experience," said Doug Marek, deputy attorney general for criminal justice. "The system that we have in Iowa seems to be working well."

Iowa allows, but does not require, the state's 99 sheriffs to issue concealed weapon permits - a so-called "may issue" provision that is law in 11 states.

If the bill making its way through the Wisconsin Legislature becomes law, Wisconsin would be the 35th state to have a "must issue" law, which would require local sheriffs to issue concealed weapon permits to those 21 and older who have completed firearms and safety training, who have never been convicted of a felony and who would otherwise qualify.

About 1% of Iowans 20 and older have concealed weapon permits, said a spokesman for the state's Department of Public Safety. Wisconsin budget analysts have estimated that 1% of Wisconsin residents 21 and older would apply to carry a concealed weapon. They predict that 37,500 residents would apply for such permits in the first year.

Based on the experiences in neighboring states, officials there say, Wisconsinites should not believe predictions of shootouts between citizens legally carrying concealed weapons and armed criminals.

"We have not seen, in Michigan, that people get out their guns and start blasting each other," said Matt Davis, of the Michigan attorney general's office. "It appears the new law is working."

Both sides in the controversy offer statistics they say prove their point. Conservative scholar John Lott, for example, has written two books concluding that violent crime has dropped significantly in the 45 states with concealed weapons laws.

But Luis Tolley, director of state legislative affairs for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Lott's research was flawed and has been discredited.

When you look at FBI crime reports, Tolley said, "crime has fallen faster in states that don't have concealed weapons than in states that do."

Joe Olson, the Minnesota law professor who wrote that state's concealed weapons law, said applicants must pass a background check, pay hundreds of dollars for a handgun, complete some type of training or safety course, and fill out paperwork to request a concealed weapon permit. Such a person is not likely to lose his or her temper easily and start shooting, he said.

Olson said there may be some evidence that criminals with guns turn to stealing cars or other property in states that legalize concealed weapons, instead of targeting adults who may be armed.

"An armed robber just all of a sudden doesn't get a job as a roofer," Olson said. "He starts stealing cars."

Several states, including Iowa and Tennessee, require that the names of those with concealed weapon permits be public records. In Michigan, residents can obtain from each county's "gun board" the names of those who have concealed weapons permits.

Much as Minnesota does, the proposed Wisconsin law would keep secret the names of those who apply for permits, whether they are granted one or not.

Legislators pushing the Wisconsin law say that secrecy provision is necessary to prevent what happened in 1994 in Tennessee, when the Nashville Tennessean newspaper ran a list of all metropolitan Nashville residents with concealed weapon permits. A public outcry followed, but the names remain public in Tennessee.

Doyle has called "absurd" the bill's secrecy provision, which would provide a blanket exemption to the state open records law.

"Under this bill, hunting licenses would still be considered open records in Wisconsin, yet permits allowing people to carry concealed weapons into Little League games would be kept secret," Doyle said in a statement last week.

© Copyright 2003, Journal Sentinel
 
Okay, the majority of states have some kind of CCW legislation and yet we have not decended into blood soaked mayhem. In fact, crime has gone down in the last decade. Yet we still hear the shrill cries of "wild west shootouts" coming from the blissninny crowd.
 
All in all, a nicely balanced article.

One gripe:

Conservative scholar John Lott...

But Luis Tolley, director of state legislative affairs for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence...

That should read, in the interest of balance, "Gun-grabbing socialist fright-ninny Luis Tolley"
 
But Luis Tolley, director of state legislative affairs for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Lott's research was flawed and has been discredited.

How? Because you say so? Show me proof. Give me numbers. Be, and I know this is extremely hard for people like this, honest. These damn liars infuriate me.

"Under this bill, hunting licenses would still be considered open records in Wisconsin, yet permits allowing people to carry concealed weapons into Little League games would be kept secret," Doyle said in a statement last week.

Typical grabber logic and emotionalism. Hunting permits and concealed weapon licenses aren't quite the same thing, no matter how much you squint while looking at it.
 
Really?

When you look at FBI crime reports, Tolley said, "crime has fallen faster in states that don't have concealed weapons than in states that do."

How true is this and where do you find that stat?
 
When you look at FBI crime reports, Tolley said, "crime has fallen faster in states that don't have concealed weapons than in states that do."

From the bar graphs that I have seen in the past, this seems true.

EXAMPLE:

Non carry states have gone from 100 incidents per 100,000, to 75 incidents per 100,000, so a 25 percent decrease in crime. Carry states have gone from 50 incidents per 100, 000, to 40 incidents per 100,000, so only a 20 percent decrease crime. So, looking at these facts, yes crime has gone down more in states that are non carry, even though their decreased figure of 75 incidents per 100,000 is larger than the starting numbers in the carry states. These are not exact numbers, but is similar to a bar graph that I had seen about a year ago. So the quote is correct, but when you look at the numbers, it shows how misleading this quote is.
 
But Luis Tolley, director of state legislative affairs for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Lott's research was flawed and has been discredited.
Anyone who reads these forums knows that this statement is baseless propaganda put forth by someone with an obvious agenda to pursue. Bu I am curious, how many average folks who'd read this in their morning paper have enough critical thinking abilities to question this statement?

Olson said there may be some evidence that criminals with guns turn to stealing cars or other property in states that legalize concealed weapons, instead of targeting adults who may be armed.
This is a good thing, isn't it???
If given the choice, I would much rather have the local criminal thug attack my unoccupied car with a jimmy than attack myself or my girlfriend with a gun. Yet strangely this article would have me believe that concealed carry is worthless because the total number of crimes committed isn't decreased. That the nature of the crimes committed changes dramatically for the better is irrelevant, acording to the article.:scrutiny:
 
This is amazingly balanced for the Journal Sentinel.

Even though they manage to pussyfoot around it every sentence, the main thrust of the article is the well known (to us anyway) fact that at a minimum CCW holders haven't been a danger in any other state that has them.

My cynical side says the Journal Sentinel editorial staff is merely hedging their bets that if CCW goes through here, they don't want to go down the credibility drain with the "blood in the streets" crowd, and thus lose all opportunity to comment on their usual anti-gun stance in the future.
 
Good points, Andrew. Coming from the Journal Sentinel, this article is absolutely astonishing in its balance.

All in all, I think the statements from public officials in other states outweigh Luis Tolley's.

And we should all keep in mind that Doyle's approval ratings have tanked to the mid-thirties. I'm sure every pro-gun Democrat has that in the back of his mind already.
 
Conservative scholar John Lott...
John Lott is NOT a conservative. Like Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University ( a minimum of 2.5 million defense gun uses per year), When Lott began his research, he did not expect his data to show what it did.

As for the bar graphs. The analysis is correct that since the non-shall-issue states started with such outrageously high crime rates, the odds were stacked in their favor. But of those states, they include New York and Massachussetts which were spending enormous chunks of money on neighborhood crime reduction ("Broken Windows" theory type interventions) as well as excruciatingly expensive longitudinal follow-up on all the people they attempted to rehab. When Boston stopped doing the follow-up, the crime rate went up. NY's plan didn't include follow-up but used good, old-fashioned broom sticks up the buttts of innocent suspects.

Lott said in his book, the most effective way to reduce crime is to catch, convict, and lock up the perps. But is is also very expensive. The second most effective method in reducing crime is to have a subset of the potential victims arm themselves. A $400 pistol is lots cheaper than a prison cell, and it doesn't cost a dime of tax money.

Lastly, check out that headline: "Weapons laws not matching hype." Don't ya just wish the press would use the same scrutiny over all those bajillions of gun control laws which criminologists such as Wright & Rossi, Jacobs & Potter, and even the anti-gun Cook & Ludwig can't find linked to a reduction of crime?

Rick
 
Thanks for the interesting post, AZRickD. It appears you read a lot about these laws. Can you tell me what the effects of business and property owners have been? To me, it seems they should be in an uproar based on our (Wisconsin) feelings towards the DNR. I would appreciate any info you can provide. Maybe that’s why many here call them sheep – they only cry while they’re being attacked and not before. Seems strange that the same people don’t like business crying out in advance though. I guess that turns the wannabes into the wolf. They don’t own a business, yet they feel they should have the right to enter and enjoy all the benefits that business has to offer whether that business owner wants them there or not. Some dip $h__s don’t have a clue.

I don’t think you or John Lott or Gary Kleck or me or anyone else can help this bunch. Some people still think they have the right to scream FIRE in a crowded theater because of their 1st amendment rights. Many in the USA don’t remember that the Constitution was written more than a few years ago. Some nuts think that the right to bear arms means in your face, on your property, and without major penalty.

I don’t think that’s what our forefather’s had in mind. Someone will correct me though I’ll bet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top