“A person carrying a concealed weapon must be capable [of] distinguishing real from perceived threat. It would be foolhardy to believe that a person who is so terrified they cannot leave the house without a loaded gun is capable of distinguishing a real threat from their own fearful worldview.” – Nicholas Wiedenhoeft in a letter to the editor at madison.com
Whenever I see such an argument I think about the Wiki tag “[Citation Needed]”
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png
After all, we can cite many studies that CCW doesn’t cause blood to run in the streets. Mr. Wiedenhoeft in his emotional plea seems to forget to actually reference any studies to support his position.
I love this part of his letter:
“Perhaps the worst aspect of concealed carry is that it will replace our “constitutional rights” with “might makes right” —literally placing in the hands of the people who can obtain the permit the ability to decide who in our community will live and who will die.”
I believe he forgets that the 2a is part of the constitution and the only ones who would NOT be able to obtain the permit are criminals.
….hopefully one of the daily readers/posters can have a follow up to this letter.
Once again, FUD vs Facts and intelligence is thrown out the window
I always wonder what these people feel about seat belts, fire extinguishers, guard rails, school speed zones, warning labels, hurricane straps, bicycle helmets, air bags, and other safety systems that have low statistical chances of being used.
The problem is a massive over-estimation of the additional danger of carrying a loaded gun, not the difference in estimation of the risk it is protecting against.
Not to mention CPR, spare tires, swimming lessons, smoke alarms, oil changes, etc, etc.
You know how many people suffer broken ribs from paranoid freaks without proper training performing CPR? Who are they to play God?
I think this is akin to not wearing seatbelts because of the possibility of being trapped in the car should it become submerged in deep water.
I feel like the gun control advocates have power issues rather than a genuine concern for crime control. It is as if they do not trust their neighbors and look towards the government for protection. Maybe they should read some US history to see how that concept is backwards. I would rather give a gun to my neighbor than to a policeman who practices at a range once a year, might shoot an innocent bystander in a crossfire, and has a tendency to infringe on personal liberties.
In the town where I live, once a year may be too much: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/10/grand_haven_area_residents_now.html
Some jackasses cops from GVSU practice at a range here and end up sending several rounds into area homes and HITTING A CONTRACTOR working on a house. What the story doesn’t tell you is the cops insisted on using one of their own members as a range officer while they practiced. Nice work. Now the range is shut down while they try to figure out what to do next. To my knowledge, no cop has been suspended or reprimanded.
Clearly, Nicholas has never read “The Gun Is Civilization” by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret).
“When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.”
Wow, I like that quotation. That is the best, most succinct, most clear-headed and most rational explanation of why we carry concealed that I have ever read. I need to do some research on that author.
I think that essay is by Marko Kloos. There was a profile of him in Concealed Carry Magazine several months ago.
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/
The sheep have spoken at Animal Farm and the pigs are satisfied. Long live the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
Usually people who carry guns do so because they aren’t fearful or if they are, the fear is justified, e.g., they live in a gang infested neighborhood.
There are two kinds of people who oppose concealed carry by law abiding citizens. People who are projecting their fears upon others to make themselves appear brave or criminals who don’t like the idea that their potential victims will fight back.
“This notion assumes that crime will be held in check because the criminal will never know who is armed and therefore fear to attack.” I give you Phil Tagami defending his building against “protester”, “I was standing there and they saw me there, and I lifted it – I didn’t point it – I just held it in my hands,” Tagami said. “And I just racked it, and they ran.“ The OWS crowd didn’t know for sure it was loaded, and yet the potential that it was loaded was a deterrent. They left without even breaking a window. Also, this isn’t about all criminals, some of the more fearless one’s will end up being shot.
“replace our “constitutional rights” with “might makes right”” , which rights do you mean, this one, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”?
“For you basically good people out there who think concealed carry to be necessary please ask yourself: Do you truly believe the world will be a safer place when globally all factions have nuclear weapons?” It would be safer than if nuclear weapons were only available to criminal dictators bent on taking other people’s stuff and eliminating races of people and countries they don’t like.
Peace is not about love and mutual understanding, it’s about fear, respect and superior fire power.
Good try Cheesehead, but your logic is flawed, and your irrational fear of guns and law abiding citizens with CCW’s makes you look like a pansy. Please stop trying to sway public opinion with your uneducated swill.
A person carrying a concealed weapon must be capable [of] distinguishing real from perceived threat. It would be foolhardy to believe that a person who is so terrified they cannot leave the house without a loaded gun is capable of distinguishing a real threat from their own fearful worldview.
A person not willing to carry must be delusional to the point of being unable to function in the real world. A world that, while basically good, unfortunately, includes a variety of evil people with evil motives – tyrants, terrorists, rapists, cartels, murderers, etc. It would be foolhardy to believe that a person who is so delusional that they are not willing to leave the house with a loaded gun is capable of contributing anything of value to the real world.
Here is a good description of where the world ends up if we follow Mr. Wiedenhoeft:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-victim-factory-occupy-wall-street-and-the-lefts-culture-of-crime/
How dare you use their faulty logic against them!
For a guy that is basically admitting he is unarmed, he sure does leave a huge internet signature with all sorts of info that makes him vulnerable to a criminal.
https://www.facebook.com/people/Nicholas-Wiedenhoeft/100000053642505
49 years old. Married to Jennifer McDonald. Nice story about they met etc: http://weddings.theknot.com/pwp/view/co_main.aspx?legacct=1&coupleid=3232072304120081&guestpassword=
Works at DR Studios. http://www.madisonfinewoodworking.com/faqs.html
Found home addy as well, but I won’t post .
“A person not willing to carry must be delusional to the point of being unable to function in the real world. A world that, while basically good, unfortunately, includes a variety of evil people with evil motives – tyrants, terrorists, rapists, cartels, murderers, etc. It would be foolhardy to believe that a person who is so delusional that they are not willing to leave the house with a loaded gun is capable of contributing anything of value to the real world.”
+1
Man who leave house without umbrella has no complaint when he gets soaked.
Of course there’s no comment section.
Police.
e.g., they live in a gang infested neighborhood.
And the government supports the gangs with prohibition laws.
“The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It’s possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government.” – William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995
I am not opposed to ccw in Wisconsin, but I am a bit disturbed by a couple of things. I truly feel that the castle doctrain has gone too far in liberalizing the use of force. I have concerns that the definitions are awfully broad–it seems to me that a person who has jumped the fence of a auto-salvage yard could be shot, even from a great distance, since the presumption of innocence goes to the shooter. Also, the definition of “dwelling” in Wisconsin law seem to include areas outside the house, including pools, driveways, patios, and more. And as “Marquette University Law Professor Gregory O’Meara, former Criminal Law Section Board chair, (states) no Wisconsin homeowner has ever been charged with a crime for defending him or herself against a home intruder.”
It also bothers me that the state legislature, which seems almost infinitely deferential of the second amendment now allows weapons to be brought into the Gallery and the floor of Capitol, but one can be arrested for holding up any form of sign. First amendment sucks, but the second is great. Honest, I am not kidding, but a bunch of people were arrested last week while sitting silently but holding up signs written on 8 1/2 X 11 notebook paper.
Oddly enough, you can bring signs onto the sidewalk by a public school, but you’ll get in big trouble if you bring a gun.
Frankly I wish that both amendments received more consistent protection.
The idea of “Castle doctrine” and “Stand your ground doctrine” are similar; Generally CD applies only when you are on your property (home, business, perhaps vehicle), whilst SYGD applies wherever you have a legal right to be.
Neither are carte blanche to commit murder — in general, they restore the eight-century old traditions of English common law (upon which our entire legal system is based) related to presumptions of guilt, as well as giving civil immunity.
What this means in practice is that, if a rather specific set of conditions are met, AND the shooting is deemed to fall within that set of conditions (and thus deemed to be a valid self-defense shooting), then you are granted civil immunity for the results of the incident.
Basically, SYGD exists to grant civil immunity from things like the below link, assuming that the event is actually judged by the legal system to be an applicable shooting.
http://www.gazette.com/articles/jury-123946-burglar-lot.html
I agree with nicholas (not) you should wait until you are being raped and murdered to arm yourself.
What planet is Wiedenhoeft from? Yes, might makes right. That’s why the federal government is armed to the teeth, and why the alphabet organizations want citizens unarmed. That’s why gangs are armed to the teeth, and want citizens unarmed. That’s why the dictators of the world keep their subjects impoverished so they cannot afford arms. That’s why people who have the willingness to defend themselves also want to have the means. Here on Earth, might does make right, and all we want is to balance the scales.
I think we make a mistake by having calm, rational discussions with people who would strip us of our rights as this person and his ilk clearly want to do. Curses are what they deserve, finishing with the phrase “come and take it”. He may have the right to speak, but he doesn’t have the right to be heard. People like this need to be shouted down and sent home with curses flying around their ears. They don’t deserve any better than that. We owe them neither courtesy nor our attention, except the attention one pays to a mortal enemy.
No, he needs to be heard, and then better arguments need to be made to show why he is wrong. Shouting down is not what democratic principles are based upon. He might be dead wrong, but your suggestions seem counter-productive and un-civil. Democracies and Republics need to be based on enlightened thought and rational choices. Again, though wrong, he is not a mortal enemy. A mortal enemy, by definition wants you dead. This person does not; indeed, for delusional reasons he would see his position as benefiting you.Just a note, RF. the official count from Van Hollen’s office puts applications for CCW at 20,476 for the week.
Of course it is foolhardy to believe that an armed person is rational. All you have to do to disprove the armed persons is tell them the following statement. That the times that they can be victimized and have been victimized and the people who will be victimized in the future are delusional and the odds of crime happening to them is next to zero and arming yourself for something so astronomical is preposterous. Do that, stick your fingers in your ears and go “lalalala” as loud as you can. Then you are on the winning team!
A person driving a car must be able to drive the car safely. It would be foolhardy to believe that a person who is so unconfident in their driving abilities that they would wear a seatbelt is capable of driving a car safely.
😉
Well if they decide that is true – I will gladly take that 617 off their hands.