Robert Farago Makes His Points in JS Online

[mikeb302000]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/advocate-for-guns-gets-to-make-his-point-qn2vvgc-133586443.html">Eugene Kane handles Robert Farago with kid gloves.
Apparently they had a phone conversation and Eugene let Robert make all his points without challenging anything. For example, when Farago said concealed carry is in the Constitution, there should have been a huge guffaw from Kane and at least an attempt to question that logic.

Robert Farago and his friends are continually pushing the unacceptable leap in logic that works something like this:

1. Right to life
2. Right to self-defense
3. Right to carry a handgun

The distance between points 2 and 3 is too much for me, but Robert slips it into every discussion as if it's just fine.

In response to the law in Wisconsin having been changed to eliminate any requirement of training before receiving the CCW permit, Robert had this to say and Eugene let him get away with it.

"Actually, it's a pretty simple thing to pull out a gun, aim and shoot it," he insisted.

Admittedly, shooting a gun is easy, and granted, most folks who apply for the concealed carry permit do far more training and preparation than any law would require, yet there are those who don't. Web sites like http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/">The Truth about Guns, which are wildly popular, continually browbeat their readers with the fear-driven message that their lives are in constant danger and guns are the answer. Privately, as in this telephone interview, Farago admits this is not true, but the Armed Intelligentsia commenting on his site all seem to agree carrying a gun is the only way to go.

Some folks are influenced by this who are not trained or equipped with the basic coordination skills and/or mental wherewithal to handle a gun safely. They can get a concealed carry permit in places like Wisconsin with no training whatsoever.

Eugene Kane closed out the piece with this.

I can agree with much of what Farago said about the right to bear arms, but I would also hope most concealed gun owners get proper training and attempt to be at least a little intelligent with their decisions.

I can't help but think that would be a good thing for all of us.

Please, Eugene, hopin' ain't gonna get it, man. Gun owners need to be screened carefully, CCW permit applicants even more so. We're past hoping that they get training and are intelligent enough to act responsibly. Some don't and some aren't. http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-official-goal.html">Here's my goal. And the way we're going to get there is http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/09/solution.html">this.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

[midnight]

1. I would hope that operating a dangerous item like a gun would demand such training..

In fact, many gun enthusiasts always site proper training.... However, Attorney General Van Hollen thinks it's not that important, and will side step that part of the carry and conceal bill... I wonder what impact this will have on him when he decides to run for office again... Maybe he will be voted out of office for allowing such a careless attitude toward operating a dangerous tool....

[Oneka]

2. Unacceptable leap in logic?

"Eugene Kane handles Robert Farago with kid gloves.
Apparently they had a phone conversation and Eugene let Robert make all his points without challenging anything. For example, when Farago said concealed carry is in the Constitution, there should have been a huge guffaw from Kane and at least an attempt to question that logic.

Robert Farago and his friends are continually pushing the unacceptable leap in logic that works something like this:

1. Right to life
2. Right to self-defense
3. Right to carry a handgun

The distance between points 2 and 3 is too much for me, but Robert slips it into every discussion as if it's just fine."

GOOSE: MEET GANDER.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," to me means I can bring my kids to the playground without worrying about which of the other parents is carrying a gun, about which one of them might be in a domestic squabble with her husband who's about to storm into the playground shootin'.

But I don't have that. The reason is someone else's idea of freedom has trumped mine."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=477864&mesg_id=477864

[mikeb302000]

13. I really don't get you. nt

[Oneka]

17. Your logical overreach

in your "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" screed, is at least as large as anything Robert Farago has said.

Yet ,here you are complaining about his views,on rights, when yours are just as suspect.

[ileus]

3. The distance between 1&3 is 0.00

[jmg257]

4. "eliminate any requirement of training"? Is this even true?

"WI Deptartment of Justice
Concealed Carry Law
UPDATE 11/09/2011

On 11/7/11, The Joint Committee For The Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) suspended portions of the emergency rules affecting the training requirements for concealed carry licenses. Proof of training is still required to apply for a license.

The changes include:
1.Elimination of any time requirement for the firearms safety and training course
2.Elimination of the word test from the definition of firearms safety and training course
3.Elimination of any time requirement for firearms instructor training
4.Elimination of the instructor’s signature from the certificate affirming they taught the course to the student
5.Elimination of any instructor contact information on the certificate
6.Elimination of the location where the training was provided from the certificate

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/ConcealedCarry/ConcealedCarry.asp

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/news/files/administrative-rules-20111107.pdf




Now I am no lawyer, but the DOJ comments and these administrative rules sure read like training IS required. :shrug:

Yet in the OP, you said:
"They can get a concealed carry permit in places like Wisconsin with no training whatsoever."

Since it appears training is required to get a permit in places that are like Wisconsin, now what? I hope you will correct your statements, to avoid any notion that they are just more examples of someone with an agenda losing sight of reality.

[one-eyed fat man]

6. Why do you want to rain on his parade?

Why do you insist on holding him to an unrealistic level of "thruthiness?"

He should never be expected to let the facts stand in the way of a good screed.

[jmg257]

7. "I thought I was gonna die."

"Never mind!"

[mikeb302000]

14. I think you've got it wrong. Look better nt

[jmg257]

15. Can't look much better then the Wisconsin DOJ...please provide link showing otherwise.

If you don't, then it appears you must be someone with an agenda who is lying intentionally, and not just simply mistaken.

If you show otherwise, I'd be more then happy to apologize.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

8. I love lamp. N/T

[ileus]

10. Nothing sets the mood like the proper lighting.

[Atypical Liberal]

9. Handguns are the best tool to carry for self-defense.

Robert Farago and his friends are continually pushing the unacceptable leap in logic that works something like this:

1. Right to life
2. Right to self-defense
3. Right to carry a handgun

The distance between points 2 and 3 is too much for me, but Robert slips it into every discussion as if it's just fine.

That's because it is just fine.

The fact is, in 2011 the best portable tool to carry for self-defense is a handgun. This is why just about every police officer in the United States carries one, and has done so for well over a hundred years. There simply is no other better tool available today for the job. Tasers and stun guns are useful alternatives, particularly when police are already in control of the situation, but they have limited range and/or a limited number of shots.

There IS simply no other tool as effective as the handgun is today for self-defense.

So if you have the right to self-defense, it would be ludicrous to say that you cannot use the best tool available for that job, especially when our police forces have them and our Constitution specifically enumerates the right to carry them.

Please, Eugene, hopin' ain't gonna get it, man. Gun owners need to be screened carefully, CCW permit applicants even more so.

Actually, some states are now doing away with CCW permits altogether, because they have found out that, predictably, the people who go to the trouble to get such permits are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime. So there really isn't any great need to screen people who go to get CCW permits. Such people are willing to jump through needless bureaucratic hoops to do what criminals just do without a second thought. Such people are hyper-attentive to the law and rules and go to great lengths to be certain they are following them.

Could it be that your distrust or unbelief of people being so law-abiding when it comes to firearms stems from your own admitted criminal ownership of them?

We're past hoping that they get training and are intelligent enough to act responsibly. Some don't and some aren't. Here's my goal. And the way we're going to get there is this.

I am unable to comment on your goal and your method as I refuse to click on links to your blog. If you wish to have discussions here please post the relevant commentary here.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. When are you going to realize that many states have been doing this for 50+ years.

You keep posting this shit like states (like Washington) don't exist.

[ileus]

12. And by "states" he means in America, not nations.

[ManiacJoe]

16. Who is Robert Farago, and why should we care?

The fact that he has a website does not imply expertise in any given subject matter.
:shrug:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[DanTex]

19. The whole "civil rights" line on guns is ultimately pretty silly...

The "right" to own or carry a gun is not remotely comparable to things like the right to free speech, right to trial, etc.

The issues are self-defense and public safety. Not that these aren't important things -- I do believe that people have the right both to defend themselves, and to live in a safe society. Of course, as occurs often, there is tension between these two rights, because making it easy to acquire guns for self-defense also increases the amount of lethal gun violence that law-abiding citizens will face. And that's when the discussion becomes pragmatic. The empirical evidence shows that lax gun laws ultimately produce more gun violence and death. The self-defense benefits are limited and often illusory, whereas the increase in lethality of criminal violence is serious and real.

And the distortion of the gun debate by the maniacal right using the "rights" line is evident in the kinds of policies they advocate. Regardless of the empirical data, it is obvious that things like closing the gun show loophole, gun registration, one-handgun-a-month laws, etc., these have pretty much zero impact on the ability of law-abiding people to defend themselves with guns, while making it more difficult for criminals to get guns. Similarly for a training requirement for a CCW permit. If this is really about self-defense, then ensuring that CCWers are actually competent with a gun and trained in safety and legal issues is a no-brainer.

But once these Farago types get on the "civil rights" path, sanity is left behind completely. It is the same thing that happens when libertarians insist that regulations on wall street, or on CO2 emissions, or on anything are a violation of "rights" because they interfere with their Ayn Randian fantasy.