More anti-gun fun from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

[Monkeyleg]

Even with the WI CCW bill ready for signing, opponents won't stop with the mayhem arguments. Ten years from now, after the newspapers have all run the obligatory "well, we guess it's not that bad" articles, there will still be some folks predicting blood in the streets.

Tonight's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel once again provides some light entertainment, courtesy of idiots.

First, a brief letter to the editor, which I'll just copy here for time's sake:

CONCEALED CARRY

Pistol not needed in North Dakota

Letter writer Greg Plautz of Greenfield would have one believe that his permit to carry a concealed weapon in North Dakota, but not in Wisconsin, was an "absolute inconvenience." He thanked Wisconsin Carry Inc. for easing his torment ("Ability will affect others around U.S.," Your opinions, June 25).

Had I known Plautz and others were under such mental anguish about their pistol withdrawal symptoms, I would have sympathetically supported concealed carry long ago.

I've been to North Dakota many times. The only personal defense Plautz needs while visiting that wonderful, virtually crime-free state is to drive slowly enough to avoid the stray bison crossing its highways. For this, he doesn't need a pistol strapped to his inner thigh.

M.J. Mangan
West Allis

AJ, this guy lives not far from you. Also, did everyone catch the "inner thigh" implied statement?

The next writer was accorded a much bigger article. Funny how proponents seldom get as much column space. Here's a tidbit to entice you:

In regard to the "right to bear arms," I'm willing to concede that under our Constitution, citizens possibly have the right to carry a concealed weapon to work, to the dentist, the hairdresser, golfing, to the synagogue or the movies.

My question is who would want to? With crime rates falling in even our toughest neighborhoods, who besides paramilitary militias could possibly conceive of a clear and present danger that daily necessitates carrying a gun?

How nice of him to concede a "possibility" of a right.  As for falling crime rates, I know I thought long and hard about not carrying a gun when Milwaukee's annual homicide count went from 120 to 110, and the number of assaults per thousand population dropped by five.

This clown lives about half an hour north of Milwaukee, in one of the whitest of white areas, far from the shootings and stabbings and mob beatings that are a daily routine, not just in the bad parts of town, but everywhere.

I know it's not "Polite" to say this, and I may get in trouble for doing so, but I really wish the people who write this drivel would get a good beating from a couple of punks. It just might rattle loose some rational thought.

Article is here.

[Perd Hapley]

Thanks for posting that first one. It proves that the unexamined life letter is still worth living writing, at least for the amusement of people smarter than the author.

[AJ Dual]

Interesting.... Mr. Mangan...

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS409US409&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=MICHAEL+MANGAN+west+allis

I actually think I've seen him in some city parades on his "Harley Sparkster". And a school district employee to boot...

[TechMan]

The "blood will be running in the streets" gets really tiring. When Buckeye Firearms Association and Ohioans For Concealed Carry where working to get restaurant/bar carry passed the MSM pulled out the "blood will be running in the streets".  They ran around like chickens with their heads cut off, proclaiming that a CCW carrier could shoot a bartender/waitress if the CCW carrier didn't like his/her drink/meal.  It really get old after awhile.  Welcome WI to CCW, but be prepared for the broken record from the antis.

[Monkeyleg]

Welcome WI to CCW, but be prepared for the broken record from the antis.

We heard the broken record for twenty years while we tried to get a bill passed and signed. It's a shame that Wisconsinites will have to listen to the same record for another twenty years.

Down here in AL, nobody ever says a word about CCW. It's just part of life, and has been for who knows how long.

[wmenorr67]

Does anyone stop and think the "drop" in crime rates might have something to do with CCW becoming legal in most states now?

[MechAg94]

Does anyone stop and think the "drop" in crime rates might have something to do with CCW becoming legal in most states now?

It is similar to the complaints about putting criminals in prison and such. 

[longeyes]

There's already blood in the streets--but not from guns going wild.  Ask the people in Chicago and Philadelphia.

[wmenorr67]

There's already blood in the streets--but not from guns going wild.  Ask the people in Chicago and Philadelphia.

Anyone seen pictures from Greece lately?

[AJ Dual]

Does anyone stop and think the "drop" in crime rates might have something to do with CCW becoming legal in most states now?

Honestly, I don't think there's that much of a link. Although one can certainly prove that CCW, and ever rising rates of gun ownership, and the number of guns in circulation DOES NOT have any impact on increasing crime.

When discussing strategy over CCW with Monkeyleg, he pointed out some time ago that even if the statistics did clearly prove CCW reduced crime, we did not want to argue it on that basis. Because even if the facts were more clear cut about CCW and crime reduction, the other side can always just drum up whatever doctored statistics they have which claim the opposite, and then you just slide into the morass with the anti's, debating minutiae over math, methodology, and numbers, rather than staying on-message over the core issues.

Once it's clear CCW and RKBA does not increase crime, it's time to put the stats away. It's an individual rights issue, and needs to be argued as such. It's about one person's individual right to defend themselves from violent crime, not about what CCW may or may not do for the state collectively.

Arguing collective benefits to society as a whole over CCW is really just falling into the nominal leftist/collectivist/statist paradigm of the anti-gunner in the first place.

Hell, even if RKBA and CCW did increase crime and death, it's still an individual rights issue. Much like how our legal system is supposed to be predicated on protecting the innocent, even at the expense of failing to convict the guilty at times.

[stevelyn]

Does anyone stop and think the "drop" in crime rates might have something to do with CCW becoming legal in most states now?

The enemy camp really doesn't care about crime or crime rates unless they can be conveniently used to bolster justification for gun control.

[Matthew Carberry]

Yep.

We will never convince the anti's.  So we need to tailor our arguments at the undecided, not really caring, middle.

So we start with the "it's a fundamental right, like speech or religion" position, but not in the angry "what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand!!!eleventy!!!" nonsense. That will immediately lose you your audience.

When talking facts, it is best to simply lay them out and don't make any contended claims.  Lott hurt himself with the Mary Sue thing, if we start quoting "More guns, Less crime" the anti's will just start a digression about Lott.

Instead go with what even the CDC and DOJ acknowledge, there is no evidence that allowing (and yes, use the word allow) concealed carry, or other gun rights, increases crime or accident rates.

All we need the majority to be is "not anti", we don't need them as passionately "pro" as we are.  By making limited arguments in a calm manner we then force the antis to make their most absurd claims. 

As we know, if we structure the conversation to give them rope they'll gleefully hang themselves.

[TechMan]

Yep.

We will never convince the anti's.  So we need to tailor our arguments at the undecided, not really caring, middle.

So we start with the "it's a fundamental right, like speech or religion" position, but not in the angry "what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand!!!eleventy!!!" nonsense. That will immediately lose you your audience.

When talking facts, it is best to simply lay them out and don't make any contended claims.  Lott hurt himself with the Mary Sue thing, if we start quoting "More guns, Less crime" the anti's will just start a digression about Lott.

Instead go with what even the CDC and DOJ acknowledge, there is no evidence that allowing (and yes, use the word allow) concealed carry, or other gun rights, increases crime or accident rates.

All we need the majority to be is "not anti", we don't need them as passionately "pro" as we are.  By making limited arguments in a calm manner we then force the antis to make their most absurd claims. 

As we know, if we structure the conversation to give them rope they'll gleefully hang themselves.

Please explain, as I am not aware of the issue.

[Matthew Carberry]

Sorry, Mary Rosh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Mary_Rosh_persona

In the end it isn't that big of a deal, but it gives the anti's a hook to digress on.  Since the undecided middle doesn't particularly care, they have no motivation to get to the truth at the end of the side argument. 

So, by going for more than is required to win, "concealed carry helps" as opposed to "concealed carry doesn't hurt"  you weaken your own argument.  Why give the anti the opportunity?  Keep your argument simple, concise and not reasonably assailable on semi-valid grounds.  Save the "better" details for when they ask.

The same argument can be made for not going for the top figure (3.2 million) on defensive gun usage.  The Feds themselves came up with like 2.2 million, and the average of the 13-14 studies done is about 1.5M using the same methodology.  1.5M makes the "gun homicide" percentage (<15K) a bit less than 1%, which is a convincing ratio to an undecided middle once you point out that the 15K "gun homicides" the antis throw around also includes police and justifiable killings.

By going for the top number unecessarily you open an opportunity to digress about Kleck.  By going for the sound middle number, if the anti tries to ad hominem Kleck you can then make them look stupid by pointing out you aren't citing him but the average of multiple studies and that the Feds came in even higher than the number you chose.

Know and preempt the anti's positions and set em up to fail in front of the target audience.