True, but the irony is in the turnabout. In the 1990's, the Brady Bunch argued that guns made it too easy to kill people. As the number of shall-issue states grew, they changed their talking points to say that guns are too difficult for the average person to use for defense.
One point I forgot to address about the above letter is Ms. Schmitt's statement that the " vast majority of law enforcement personnel is strongly against this legislation..." Wisconsin's CCW bill has (or at least had when I was there) the support of the Milwaukee Police Association, the Wisconsin chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, and the Wisconsin chapter of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. In 2006 the bill's authors also finally got the support from the Wisconsin State Troopers Association after they made a couple of minor amendments.
I think Ms. Schmitt just awoke from a coma.
On the latter point, all she needs to do is make things up or state what she imagines to be true. Facts just confuse things.
On the former point, I noticed something similar. Back when the argument was over
possession of guns, I read a couple of articles that said most rapes occur outside the home, therefore having a gun will not help a rape victim. More recently, when the argument had shifted to
carrying guns, an anti-gunner claimed that most rapes are committed in the home, so carry will not help.
But of course, the anti's are always contradicting themselves on the skill level required by guns. They have never wavered from the belief that violent people find guns easy to use, while peace-loving people find them almost useless (because the bad man will just take it away). They would have us believe that a man defending himself from a home invasion will have his gun used against him, while a man experiencing road rage will maintain a deadly control over his weapon.
But I'm sure you've heard all this before.
