Wisconsin Gun Business is Booming

[mikeb302000]

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110717/GPG0101/107170578&located=rss">The Green Bay Press Gazette reports

Area firearm instructors and gun dealers are seeing a steady increase in business since the concealed carry bill was signed into law.

Training options include courses offered by certified firearm instructors, the state Department of Natural Resources or a law enforcement agency.

Naturally I was wondering just how inadequate that required training is. I suppose it's better than what's required in Arizona, but probably not much. To get an idea, the optional training, the one that people who really want to be responsible can take over and above what's required, is described here.

Training courses cost between $100 and $150 and last from three to eight hours. Topics covered include safety, firearm maintenance, shooting fundamentals, and liabilities and law.

Is it any wonder guns do more harm than good in our society. In Wisconsin, not only will we soon have many more insufficiently trained people owning and carrying guns, some who will actually misuse those guns, but the gun flow into criminal hands will increase. It's simple math.

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment

[Angry Dragon]

1. Bears have the right to arms

[gejohnston]

3. like these?

[Angry Dragon]

4. ..............

:fistbump:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kolesar]

5. You don't need a gun to travel in Wisconsin

Insect repellent would have more of an application.

[RSillsbee]

19. For once I have to agree

Although, you probably could use a gun on some of them skeeters

[SteveM]

23. Actually, you don't even need a car. Or horse.

At any rate, I'll be the judge of my needs.

[Kolesar]

26. Or a tissue to weep into

:cry:

[SteveM]

27. First, apply bugspray to hands, THEN wipe on face away from eyes.

Don't pull that "I'm-more-compassionate-than-you" crap on me.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. The "I'm (more compassionate / saner /smarter ) than you" schtick is big with some.

The need for uncritical acceptance of what they say seems to go along with it.

[SteveM]

34. As you know, I "go along with it" everytime. Never question it. nope. uh-uh.

[melm00se]

6. how much training

is required to be, in your estimation, sufficiently trained?

[mikeb302000]

8. a lot n/t

[melm00se]

12. care to expand on that?

[RSillsbee]

20. Bottom line

More than "you" have regardless of how much training that is


I sooooo can't spell

[melm00se]

22. seeing you can't spell

you obviously don't have enough training to enjoy your 1st amendment rights.

[oneshooter]

29. Lets get specific. What training would you require? n/t

[RSillsbee]

40. You're sooooo not getting an answer, you know that right? NT

[oneshooter]

43. Ya, I know that he is too ignorant/scared to answer. But the question had to be raised. n/t

[mikeb302000]

44. all right I'll answer

just to show that I'm neither ignorant nor scared (what are you on the middle school playground?).

Training should be extensive and thorough. I'd like to see one week in the classroom and one week in the field. At the end of this, life-saving lessons will have been repeated over and over again and grooved. Even where training is required now, the cursory coverage of some of these essentials is insufficient unless the student continues on his or her own afterwards, which most probably do not.

The tragedy is that instead of admitting this is what's necessary, gun-rights folks are trying to move us towards the Arizona theory of no training at all.

[rrneck]

58. A week. Simple.

What would you teach for a week that someone who has handled firearms for years didn't already know? If they show proficiency do they get a pass? Successfully observe the four rules and you're done.

Would criminal law attorneys or former LEOs be exempt from the coursework? Could you CLEP it? What would you teach people in almost a three credit hour semester of coursework that a half day wouldn't do?

Guns are fairly simple gadgets to operate. The rules of engagement for their use are not much more complicated. The penalties for ineffective or irresponsible use are dire.

The great advantage of firearms safety training is that it educates people on the use and responsibilities of firearms ownership. Education gives us common ground so that we can work to better understand each other.

Unless of course you're trying to set the training bar so high that nobody would ever be able to get a gun. The people most likely to have to defend themselves with deadly force don't live in affluent gated communities (or expatriate to Rome). Regressive and onerous fees and regulations reduce the common ground between socioeconomic groups and reduce the chance of understanding between them. Such unfair treatment at the hands of those with wealth and power significantly increases the possibility of civil strife.

Good citizens produce ideologies to serve others including themselves. Good consumers select ideologies to serve themselves. Good authoritarians serve an ideology without considering its impact on anyone.

[oneshooter]

61. Insufficient answer. What type of training? Who trains who? What type of field work?

What would be the cost? What type of life saving lessons?

As for me I am a former Marine E5, and have legally carried firearms in Italy and most of Europe.

You have given a non-answer, which is typical of those who do not know of what they speak.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[X_Digger]

7. My, that's a textbook example of 'begging the question'..

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

Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

Example 1:

Naturally I was wondering just how inadequate that required training is. I suppose it's better than what's required in Arizona, but probably not much.

Example 2:

Is it any wonder guns do more harm than good in our society. In Wisconsin, not only will we soon have many more insufficiently trained people owning and carrying guns, some who will actually misuse those guns, but the gun flow into criminal hands will increase. It's simple math.

Have any arguments that don't rely on logical fallacies?

[mikeb302000]

9. what's your point?

do you think the training required is adequate? Is the permitless carry they do in Arizona a good thing? Will Wisconsin be better off a year or two from now, or not?

Why don't you offer something instead of your juvenile critique of my writing. You see, I don't give a fuck what you think about my "logical" deductions or my literary figures of speech, but I'd very much like to know what you think about those questions I specified just for you.

[X_Digger]

11. My point? When you present a valid argument, it'll be worth addressing.

When you start with the premise as an assumed fact, you're not arguing in good faith.

do you think the training required is adequate? Is the permitless carry they do in Arizona a good thing? Will Wisconsin be better off a year or two from now, or not?

Wisconsin's crime trends will continue as they were, regardless of this-- Just as previous states moving to 'shall issue' concealed carry did not lead to chicken littles' dire predictions. You do realize crime has fallen, and is at lows not seen since the 1960's, correct? (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2010)

Whatever the level of training, permitted persons have little affect on any measurable statistic. As such, why does the level of training matter?

Why don't you offer something instead of your juvenile critique of my writing. You see, I don't give a fuck what you think about my "logical" deductions or my literary figures of speech, but I'd very much like to know what you think about those questions I specified just for you.

I give your writing the response it deserves. Derision and scorn when you duplicate topics already posted on the same page, and a guffaw when you rely on logical fallacies to attempt your 'argument'.

[Atypical Liberal]

14. Obviously the training is adequate.

do you think the training required is adequate?

Almost certainly it is. Texas requires 10-15 hours of training before issuing CCW permits, and their data for over a decade shows that CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than non-CCW permit holders.

Is the permitless carry they do in Arizona a good thing?

Probably. The reason why many states are now abandoning the requirement to license CCW carry is because the data is clear - CCW permit holders hardly ever break the law. There is little justification for the expense of a bureaucracy to track such law-abiding people, and the criminals are going to carry no matter what the law says.

Will Wisconsin be better off a year or two from now, or not?

Almost certainly. Law-abiding Wisconsin residents will have the ability to resist violent criminals on equal terms, rather than being at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are. And almost certainly the data will show that Wisconsin CCW permit holders, just like CCW permit holders everywhere else, tend to be hyper-law abiding citizens and less likely to be involved in any kind of crime than your average citizen.

This should not be surprising. CCW permit holders are going to a voluntary expense of time and money to navigate government bureaucracy to exercise an optional right. These kinds of people are committed to following the letter of the law. They also know the consequences of being convicted of crimes that can cost them their CCW permit, and thus the time and expense to obtain it would be wasted.

[mikeb302000]

46. Ha. "CCW permit holders hardly ever break the law" n/t

[X_Digger]

56. Want proof?

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[Blown330]

17. Why don't you offer something...

...more than half-baked assumptions and shameless blog-spamming? You think the level of training inadequate yet you cannot articulate what IS a reasonable amount other than just saying "a lot". That answer is one that requires the least amount of critical thought. Par for the course for you.



Oh, and unrec for the usual reasons.

[RSillsbee]

21. Please note that you asked specific questions

and got specific answers (You might want to try it some time)

do you think the training required is adequate?

Yes

Is the permitless carry they do in Arizona a good thing?

Yes

Will Wisconsin be better off a year or two from now, or not?

I don't think having shall issue carry will make that big an impact

Why don't you offer something instead of your juvenile critique of my writing.

Your writing sucks, you aren't interested in dialog you just want to shit your opinions here

You see, I don't give a fuck what you think about my "logical" deductions or my literary figures of speech,

Obviously, you do

ETA Almost forgot: untrec due to blogspam

[SteveM]

24. Personally, I think it wise to have training for any firearm...

including concealed-carry. But this is a state matter, and if the legislature in a given state does not require training for CC, then that's its business.

"Is the permitless carry they do in Arizona a good thing? Will Wisconsin be better off a year or two from now, or not?"

Who knows? But perhaps we can use a state which has had many years experience in requiring neither permits or training: Vermont. What do you think of Vermont, mike? If it is so damned dangerous in Vermont, get Bernie on your side and persuade Vermont's legislature to pass a law. But I gotta feeling Bernie will say back to you: "Why? What's the problem?"

[Hangingon]

10. Texas training is fairly thorough.

It involves the state laws on firearms, non-violent conflict resolution and firearms use. There is a written test and an arms qualification at the range. It is a minimum. A responsible gun owner will go to the range and practice. It is better to take an advanced course in tactical shooting.

I am curious about the following quote, "Is it any wonder guns do more harm than good in 'our' society." Is 'our' Italy?

Usual unrec for blog spam.

[mikeb302000]

49. No, "our" refers to the U.S. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Ahem. "I'm an American expat living in Italy these last 22 years."

http://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933

Which society is 'yours', again?

[Atypical Liberal]

13. You really need to look at some data.

Is it any wonder guns do more harm than good in our society. In Wisconsin, not only will we soon have many more insufficiently trained people owning and carrying guns, some who will actually misuse those guns, but the gun flow into criminal hands will increase. It's simple math.

You are right, it is simple math.

Why don't you go look at the data for all the other states that have allowed concealed carry for some time now? The data is there. Here is Texas:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=374332

Here is the conviction rate for CCW permit holders for all crimes, covering everything from Public Lewdness to Homicide:

2006: 0.2340%
2005: 0.2530%
2004: 0.1648%
2003: 0.1422%
2002: 0.1597%
2001: 0.2437%
2000: 0.2718%

As you can see from the data, CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than non-CCW permit holders.

This pearl-clutching over CCW holders is completely unwarranted, as has been demonstrated in every other state that has embraced it.

[ileus]

15. Excellent post....Thanks

[Hoyt]

31. Compare public carriers to those who could get a permit, but choose not to do so.

[X_Digger]

32. Glassunion already did so..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=435991#436164

Have fun with that. I notice you stopped responding to that thread.

Got that pic, yet?

[Hoyt]

36. As you guys like to say, "show me peer reviewed studies." GUnion is merely playing with numbers.

Besides, you continue to assume that all convictions of CCWs are reported -- we know that is not true.

I stop responding to most threads after 2 days -- by then you guys are posting new threads to rationalize your fear of being on the streets without your guns.

[X_Digger]

37. Take an algebra course, if you're having trouble with the numbers.

So you don't back up your claim, yet you ask for proof when your claim is refuted? And then you run away when such is provided? LOL!!

Sauce.. goose.. gander.

[oneshooter]

38. That is because he is skeered to answer and questions! Got that pic yet? n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

42. How about data from the FBI and the State of Texas?

As you guys like to say, "show me peer reviewed studies." GUnion is merely playing with numbers.

But they are publicly available numbers provided by reputable sources.

Glassunion subtracted violent felons out of the general population and still demonstrated that even with the violent felon population removed from the general population, the general population is still several times more likely to be involved in crime than CCW permit holders.

But I still say it's not necessary to break them out.

You've got the self-selecting group of CCW permit holders, who you claim are dangerous individuals who should not be allowed to carry firearms. And the data clearly shows that compared to everyone else in the population, illegible to have a CCW permit or not, CCW permit holders are many times less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm crime, than the rest of the population.

The case that CCW permit holders are dangerous individuals who should not be allowed to carry firearms cannot be made.

[Atypical Liberal]

41. They are already included.

Compare public carriers to those who could get a permit, but choose not to do so.

We've been over this before.

They are already included.

CCW permit holders have a conviction rate for all crimes that is many times lower than all the rest of the population, including those who could get a permit, but choose not to do so.

[mikeb302000]

51. I guess you missed the reports

which showed that CCW permit holders continued to enjoy their concealed carry rights after having been convicted of felonies or misdemeanor wife-beating. Look it up.

The implication is that those so-useful stats you provided are good for nothing since there's no proper connection between the felons list and the CCW list. The data, that you like so much is corrupt.

[gejohnston]

57. what reports are these

since it has been a federal crime for a conviced felon to possess a firearm since the 1930s, wife beaters since the 1990s, your point is moot. That said, what reports are these?

[rrneck]

16. More content free blog flogging.

It's difficult to maintain altitude in a free floating ideology without at least the illusion of an anchor in reality. But these undergrad coffee house bull sessions can serve as a lesson to others who have an interest in something outside themselves.

What sort of training would you require?

[gejohnston]

18. OK let me try this again

how do you define adequate? Why do you think is this inadequate? What knowledge or experience do you base this on?

[SteveM]

25. Vermont, maybe? nt

[rrneck]

28. HEY!

You have been asked more than once what kind of training is sufficient.

I bet you don't know which end of a gun to walk up yo.

[oneshooter]

30. Un Rec I don't care waht an Italian has to say about American gun law. n/t

[gejohnston]

35. How about we start commenting on Italian and Canadian gun laws?

Hey, they are doing it to us.

[iverglas]

45. I wouldn't advise it

You are sure to be turned on by the general mass of posters here and told to quit talking about useless garbage like Canadian gun laws, that they don't give two snaps of their fingers about.

Oh wait, no. That's what happens when I do it.

What a gun fan does it, that's a different matter.

Off you go.

[Blown330]

48. Actually...

...very few here care for anything you have to say, Canadian gun laws notwithstanding.

[ileus]

39. Here is another link confirming freedom is welcom in Wisconsin

http://gazettextra.com/news/2011/jul/25/concealed-carry-law-triggers-increased-consumer-in/

[iverglas]

47. odd

I thought this was just another story about what the right-wing union-busting piece of shit Republican governor of Wisconsin had done now.

[Blown330]

50. So much anger..

Are you not supportive of the females who can now carry firearms for their own protection now?

[iverglas]

52. yeah, heh heh,

so much "anger" ... yeah ... not on the part of people applauding the public policies of right-wing union-busting pieces of shit and their Republican legislative fellow travellers though, eh?


Are you not supportive of the females who can now carry firearms for their own protection now?

Remind me. Were those female cats, baboons or rattlesnakes?

You people just can't help yourselves, can you?

[Blown330]

53. They are...

female-type humans. My bitch cat can't help sleeping on my DVOMs, so cute.

[iverglas]

54. a female cat is called

a queen. But hey, you did it again, congratulations.

[Blown330]

55. Did what a again....

I always call her my little bitch. She very annoying and has the most unfortunate meow. You two would get along. You are both noisy and you are both...









...you get the point.

[RSillsbee]

59. That was uncalled for

attack the argument not the poster