Is Wisconsin a failed State?

[HereSince1628]

The inability of state and local law enforcement to insure order and safety appears to underlie arguments for the right to carry concealled weapons law that was voted out of the senate committee today.

If this premise is true, shouldn't the governor declare that a general state of emergency exists? Shouldn't we recall our NG and Reservists in order to restore order and safety to the state?

In such a dangerous place, shouldn't Cheesheads be afforded the irrevocable right to wear Kevlar, to go shopping and conduct business with gas masks strapped to our waists, and/or first aid and CBR response kits to our thighs? (If you think you have that right, I dare you to walk into any bank in Wisconsin so attired and make a video tape of the next 5 minutes.)

Or is the entire US a failed nation, a place where 40 + states can't protect their citizens? Perhaps we sould appeal to the UN to be placed under international protection...maybe this could be divided between the original colonial powers--Britain, France, Netherlands Spain?

[htuttle]

1. Have you heard whether Doyle's expected to sign this?

Or whether they expect a veto-proof majority?

I'm going to be surprised if Former Attorney-General Doyle signs this thing.

[sybylla]

3. I heard Doyle will veto it in any form

The question is will it get overridden? I haven't heard if there are the votes. I'd write letters but my dunderhead senator and rep are authors/sponsors to this fiasco so it is just a waste of time for me.

[1a2b3c]

2. I am guessing this got moved down here

If youre still here i was wondering what the hell youre talking about.
The whole post sort of lost me.

[sybylla]

4. The Wisconsin Legislature is considering a concealed carry law

Right now no one can carry a concealed weapon in Wisconsin. The extreme righties here are trying to change that by proposing a "shall issue" concealed carry law.

The point the poster was trying to make is that this is getting sold as a personal defense issue and doesn't that then mean that Wisconsin is a failure in protecting its citizens, along with 40 others.

[Wcross]

5. Wisconsin is a failure ?

The State is under no obligation to protect its people. If it were, wouldn't there be quite a few lawsuits for the failure to do so?

I wouldn't want to live in a society that could absolutly say that no harm would come to any citizen. Why? The only way to do that is to lock EVERYBODY up in a cell.

BTW- Diane Fienstien has or had a concealed carry permit- could she be counted in the extreme righties catagory?

[sybylla]

7. Dude, you misunderstand

First: in Wisconsin, it is the extreme righties. I could care less about concealed carry in other states.

Second: I was only clarifying the original post, it wasn't my postulation that the state has an obligation to protect its citizens.

[Wcross]

8. I apologize Sybylla :) n/t

[sybylla]

9. Accepted

I know how things get down here in the dungeon. I have no desire to get involved in any of it even though I'm a middle of the road RKBA proponent.

on edit: spelling

[1a2b3c]

19. The state is not responsible for your protection.

You are responsible for your own protection. I myself think a state has failed when it takes away your right to protect yourself with the best possible means.

[lcordero]

6. any government that denies citizens the means to defend

themselves is a failure. I am not interested in seeing cops after I'm robbed. People out in the street just thinking that everybody else is packing is a deterrent in itself.

[LibLabUK]

10. Hmmm

"People out in the street just thinking that everybody else is packing is a deterrent in itself."

Nah, it just means you have to shoot first and grab the wallet afterwards.

Personally, I'd prefer to discuss the robbery with the cops rather than St Peter.

[Withergyld]

11. That is your choice to make

Why deny my choice to have the abilty to defend myself if I chose to do so?

[LibLabUK]

14. Well..

"Why deny my choice to have the abilty to defend myself if I chose to do so?"

If your "choice" to carry becomes more commonplace, it would mean that the criminals shoot first and grab wallets afterwards. Which means that your "choice" to carry has restricted the victim's right to life.

Criminals in every other field of crime have demonstrated that they will modify their methods of operation in the face of developments in security/crime prevention. Why do you insist that they will act differently when faced with armed victims?

Crimes that would have meant simple loss of property will become loss of life.

What you could be faced with is: more guns = more murder

[Withergyld]

15. can you prove

this statement?
"it would mean that the criminals shoot first and grab wallets afterwards."

[LibLabUK]

16. Can I prove it?

Proof, no. Can you prove your claim?

I'm making a historical inference, based on my observations of how criminals have adapted their methods to maintain their livelihoods.

What have you based your claim on?

[Withergyld]

17. easy

"Why deny my choice to have the abilty to defend myself if I chose to do so?"
There are basically three choices for self defense.
1) carry no weapon at all.
2) openly carry a weapon.
3) carry a concealed weapon.

A law against concealed would remove one of my legal choices of self-defense. I could choose to disobey the law and carry concealed anyway, however this would make me a criminal.

[MrBenchley]

12. And of course

the studies that claim to show "People out in the street just thinking that everybody else is packing is a deterrent in itself" turn out to be riddled with error and outright fraud, by a crackpot hired by the gun industry through a shell foundation.

And in fact, it turns out only about 60,000 neurotics even want to carry in Michigan....but the entire rest of the state has to be endangered and inconvenienced by this tiny bunch of loons.

[Withergyld]

13. How does concealed carry endanger the populace?

"but the entire rest of the state has to be endangered and inconvenienced by this tiny bunch of loons."
Can you support this claim with an UNBIASED source (no VPC, Brady Center, et al)?

[fromthehip]

18. Don't even bother asking him.

I've yet to see Bench cite a non-biased source for any gun related post. I wish he would, I'd be very interested in seeing them.

The fact is that areas with LIBERAL gun laws are safer than those that are restrictive/confiscatory. I have yet to see the antis come up with an excuse for the high gun crime rates in NY, LA, DC, etc. Those towns are very restrictive. Atlanta is safer and has concealed carry. So is Nashville, Dallas, etc.

[1a2b3c]

20. who are you

and why do you never post down here?