Previous Post
Next Post

Dave Zweifel of the Madison WI Cap Times doesn’t like Wisconsin’s new shall-issue permit to carry law, and doesn’t mind telling the world about his feelings. And neither does the house cartoonist. In Zweifel’s piece, the scribe tries to make the case that there’s no way to know if concealed carry is safer or not. Despite all the evidence staring him in the face. If he cares to look. Unfortunately, he also doesn’t seem to mind lying through his teeth about the law, its passage and its proponents…

Oh sure, he starts out well enough:

Now that Wisconsin’s learned Legislature has seen fit to allow the citizenry to carry concealed weapons everywhere but where they are specifically banned, we surely must be on the threshold of a safer future for us all.

It probably won’t surprise you that he was actually indulging in sarcasm there, for in his very next paragraph he states:

At least, that’s what the majority of our legislators assured us last fall as they quickly moved to pass a concealed carry law, which the state’s new Republican governor eagerly signed. Forty-eight other states, after all, have passed concealed carry laws and, according to the guns-for-all proponents, they’ve experienced absolutely no problems.

Wow; I can see one misleading statement and two outright lies just in those two sentences. The legislature did not “quickly” move to pass the permit law, this was something which, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, had been being debated for more than a decade. Indeed shall-issue bills passed the legislature in 2003 and again in 2005, only to be vetoed by then Governor Doyle.

As for Dave’s contention that there exist “guns-for-all proponents,” that’s just a flat out lie. I do not know of a single civil rights activist (of the firearms flavor) who suggests that people in prison or locked mental facilities should be allowed access to firearms. Nor do I know any who advocate that young children have unrestricted access. If Dave (or anyone else, for that matter) has access to such a statement I’d love to see it and will happily apologize to him. But I’m not holding my breath.

Then there’s Dave’s real whopper, claiming that civil rights activists have stated that permit holders have never caused any problems in any other states. As Rep. Cliff Stearns said in 2009 regarding the law-abiding nature of permit holders:

Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued 1.36 million permits, but revoked only 165 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.

Again, it’s hard to prove a negative, but I have never, ever heard even the most rabid pro-carry advocate (who could well be me, for that matter) say that no permit holder will ever cause a problem. What we can say is that study after study has shown that permit-holders are more law-abiding than the general populace.

Did you catch that? Hard data on concealed carry permit holders’ criminal interactions (or lack thereof)? Apparently, Dave doesn’t understand that the relevant stats can be/have been/will be compiled without compromising privacy. And that’s a big (if non-existent) problem for the journalist and his friends in the police force:

The shielding of concealed carry permits from public inspection has been a major reason why the gun lobby has been able to claim that concealed carry laws have not caused any problems. The trouble is, because of the secrecy, it’s virtually impossible to prove whether they do or they don’t.

“I would think that the sponsors of this law would want to show proof to the public that the sky isn’t falling because of concealed carry,” said Oregon Police Chief Doug Pettit, the legislative representative of the Wisconsin Association of Police Chiefs. “But if no one can access records, how will we know?”

Apparently, what you don’t know can hurt you. So know this: Zweifel’s entire argument is based on a piece from the New York Times about the criminality of concealed carry permit holders in North Carolina. A piece whose erroneous conclusions have been thoroughly debunked by TTAG and others. A state of affairs that could have been established with a simple Google search. If Zweifel could have been bothered.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. He’s still upset over the failure of the sit ins to bring down Scott Walker. He’ll be OK, at least until Obama loses in November.

  2. This method of honest reporting has been largely abandoned by the mass media. And they don’t even try to hide the fact. Take the CBS Early Show yesterday morning had the Republican candidates on the show for 1:1 interviews. Every single candidate was met by leading questions that were than flipped on them to make them look ridiculous. It was very obvious the political positions of the anchors and they openly laughed at Newt Gringrich after they baited him with “Do you think Mitt Romney is a liar?” Newt: “Yes” Anchors: “If he wins the election, will you support him?” Newt: “Yes, because Obama is ruining this country (paraphrasing here)” Them: “So you support a liar? (Old man in purple socks laughs so hard that he starts to cry)”.Not saying that I support Newt, but this doesn’t really sound like honest unbiased reporting to me. Being as they are a talk show I guess they can spin it however they like, but this same trend is shown on REAL news shows. And it makes me sick, especially because the majority of people watching are so eager not to think for themselves that they eat up whatever the show feeds them.

    • I am not impressed by the current state of the press, but the question asked of Newt was simply a follow up to his saying something to this effect: A person who will lie to become president will lie when serving as president. The question was to ask if the reference was to Romney. The follow-up questions seem pretty stupid.

  3. He said, “The trouble is, because of the secrecy, it’s virtually impossible to prove whether they do or they don’t.”

    That’s not based on the NYT article. That’s based on simple common sense and a bit of thinking, somehting you guys refuse to do. You ask for proof. If none can be provided, a thing is false.

    Your “study after study” idea is worthless. You wouldn’t mention them if they didn’t support your pre-conceived agenda. But when someone uses his head and points out that those studies may not be based on complete or accurate information, after all how could they be, you either ignore it or call the guy a liar.

    • “You ask for proof. If none can be provided, a thing is false.”
      Doesn’t the Brady Campaign keep track of those “concealed carry killers”?

      “But when someone uses his head and points out that those studies may not be based on complete or accurate information”
      Oh, you mean like the Kellerman study?

    • So you are telling us that :
      1. Police do not find out information about CCW permits when they arrest a person.
      2. Nobody can compile information about the incidence of CCW permit holders who have been arrested and convicted of crimes, based upon number 1 above, and this complaint coming from a Chief Of Police?

      Right. Uh huh, okay, sure.

    • “You ask for proof. If none can be provided, a thing is false.”

      I shot coffee out of my nose when i read this! How many times do we ask you to back up your arguments with facts Mike?

    • “You ask for proof. If none can be provided, a thing is false.”

      The logic police would like to have a word, Mike. Ignoring the specifics of this discussion, if no proof of something is provided, that thing is unproven, not false. For example, subatomic particles existed before mankind found proof of their existence.

      Also, I get the impression that you have an arrangement with our hosts here at TTAG to show up and work up the crowd through a combination of anti-gun talking points and inflammatory rhetoric. Of course I can’t prove it, but that doesn’t mean its not true…

        • The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

          I kid, I kid. I’m a big fan of your work, Mr. Farago. Someday when they’re writing history books about the formation of online communities TTAC & TTAG will deserve special mention.

          Keep it up.

        • Yeah, Mike cant resist inserting foot in mouth on a daily basis. Does the Italian government know he brought hoof & mouth disease to Italy?

  4. Pretty ironic that, in truth, every right on that sign is worthless without the protection afforded by the guy holding the gun. But, hey, we’re asking a liberal to understand basic morality and responsibility, good luck there.

  5. “Unfortunately, he also doesn’t seem to mind lying through his teeth about the law, its passage and its proponents…”

    Hey, the guy’s a leftist “journalist”. Of course he lies through his teeth – that’s what they do all the time. Lies by omission, direct lies, lies by editing ….

  6. Mike B wants proof. Accoring to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, since the 70’s violent crime has been on a downward trend across the country. If we compare that to a graph of gun ownership we will see the inverse, that as ownership rises crime falls. I would be the last person to say this is definitive, however it is compelling.

    • At the very least, it falsifies the claim that increased gun ownership leads to increased crime. The strongest response an anti could have to that is that the crime increasing effect of gun ownership is more than countered by other crime decreasing factors, but considering the huge increase in gun ownership, that’s pretty damn weak.

      • Wrong, Carlos. Those trends do not disprove anything. More guns equals more crime could still be true. Here’s how.

        In 1975, let’s say you had a specific set of factors which contributed to the crime rate. One of those was gun availability. The others would have been things like the economy, unemployment, poor education, street drugs like crack, prescription medications that are available to the public, etc.

        In 2010, although the gun availability has increased, the other contributing factors have changed in such a way that we have an overall decrease. Such things as police and emergency response time, improved ER facilities, etc.

        But, and here’s the kicker, if gun availability had become less instead of more, that decrease in the violent crime rate would have gone down even more.

        • Then how do you explain Australia, Canada, England eh mike?

          1997 Australia, Canada, England

          Australia 1997 629 VCR per 100k 2007 1,024 VCR per 100k, a 32 person reduction in murders by firearms, exactly replaced by murders with knives. Funny how that trend was mirrored in England (ref AIC.GOV)

          Canada 1997 980 VCR per 100k people 2009 1,324 VCR per 100k people, murder rose from 560 to 610 (Ref Statcan)

          Canada $2 billion dollar plus registry, that hasn’t solved one crime, such a common trend.

          England 1997 820 VCR per 100k people 2009 1,667 VCR per 100k people, murders have reduced to 1997 levels after a 25% increase. (ref Home Office UK)

          So much for less gun equals less violence, a trend found in every single gun ban country, prove otherwise. Oh, use government data to try if you want, the above references ARE their government databases.

          We see from US Census, and an average of NSSF & PEW surveys, that in 2009 40% of households have a firearm. That is an increase since 1997 of 9 million households to 80 million law abiding gun owners as recognized by the BATF.

          We see that since 1997 per FBI UCR, that violent crime has gone from 611 VCR (Violent Crime Reported) per 100k people to 429 VCR per 100k people in 2009.

          That is a 30% reduction in violent crime. Did we forget to mention that the same data shows a 20% reduction in murders?

          All while at the same time we see 13-16 more states implementing concealed carry to 49 states total, and 35 states implementing concealed carry in eateries that serve alcohol. 4 states and 72 universities implemented concealed carry.

          All without the predicted and much cried about blood baths predicted by such pundits as Mikeb suggests for oh what, something like the millionth time, yep. Those anti gun soothsayers really suck at predicting violence and mayhem from the law-abiding citizen, every single time.

          So much for more guns equals more crimes BS people like Mikeb like to have you believe.

          So much for your could be true ka ka getting beeetch slapped again.

        • Jarhead, you can really baffle ’em with bullshit when you set your mind to it. And you can cherry pick stats and reports with the best of ’em.

          But the fact is the United States is the laughing stock of the civilized world when it comes to gun violence.

          And we’re not just talking about stuff that happens in the bad side of town, every city has that. We’re talking about Bubba blowing his whole family away, and Junior taking the gun to school, shit like that.

          You guys who want to have the least possible restrictions on guns are partly to blame for that. No wonder you deny it exists.

        • Absolutely no data to reply with mikeb to prove your causality ka ka. You are so pathetic, we almost feel sorry for you dancing on the end of the marionette strings like the brain dead meat puppet your masters desire.

          We do not deny it happens, as unfortunately were not all gods and perfect.

          But such absolutist moronity you promote just does not work in the real world, and we know that uncle Adolf.

          So get back to us when you have some real data to prove the more guns in law abiding gun owners hands creates more violence, or the even funnier less guns prevents violence as using your own ka ka causality sure proves your belief wrong, poor widdle boy!

  7. [sigh] Always the same predictions, always the same results.

    Every time they act like it’s the first shall issue law ever passed, when in other places have had shall issue concealed carry for decades without the predicted blood baths. If they were right, Seattle should be a war zone, and Compton should be a land of milk and honey.

    I highly value rationality and evidence, and that’s what drove me towards the pro Second Amendment side of the gun control debate. Once you take a look at who’s saying what, and what actually happens, you see that one side is making the same failed predictions over and over, and one side is responding with concrete evidence.

  8. There’s another dimension to that cartoon. Its design was chosen to echo the famous Eddie Adams photo of South Vietnamese national police chief Nguyễn Ngọc Loan executing a Viet Cong murderer on a Saigon street — see:

    The similarity of pose in the design is completely intentional, I’m certain. And given the People’s Republic of Madison political views, Loan was a terrible person, the VC was an innocent victim or at worst, a righteous People’s Fighter. So those associations pop to mind for the typical Madisonian seeing the cartoon.

    Never forget that everything in the mainstream media is democrat party agit-prop. Everything.

  9. Hey, being a Wisconsinite, I was really happy when CCW finally passed but then everyone slammed the doors by posting these “No Firearms Allowed” posters at the entrances which is really pissing me off since they are freaking everywhere. While I don’t have my license yet (still saving up for the gun, not exactly happening with college sucking up all the funds), I have a few questions for everyone at TTAG, doesn’t state law supersede any private property laws? While it is understandable for campuses, can’t I technically still carry into any building (expect for federal buildings) as it isn’t like I am going to carry a neon sign saying I have a gun and how would they know? Unless I slipped up and accidentally printed or they have RFID scanners, they wouldn’t know I’m packing. On a separate note, how do I get people to stop giving “the look”, I talk about firearms with a few friends (mainly experience on latest range trip, latest news, etc) and I get this look like I want to start trouble because I like guns. To make matters worse, since I’m Asian, the first thing people remark is that I plan on doing a V-Tech and that I’m some psycho nut-job. Any ways to gets these people to back off? Guess it also doesn’t help that I live in Milwaukee. Thanks and sorry for the really long post.

    • I’d suggest maintaining your level-headedness. Play by the rules but see a shop/restaurant/location displaying such signage, ask for the owner/manager and tell them why you are unable to patronise their business ( i.e. spend your dollars). Thank those businesses who allow you your constitutional or state rights and assure them you will come again. Even better do it in writing. The local Chamber of Commerce will get the message.
      Don’t hammer on at your friends, let the conversation take its course and if the gun subject comes up maintain your composure and continue to make your points clearly. Don’t get shrill as you know the facts, even when they refuse to see the elephant in the room. It is exremely difficult to argue a point rationally against the emotionally entrenched, you have to dig them out one shovel-full at a time. Enjoy your new freedoms, freedoms I will never enjoy myself, and remember the battle is never over. Be a good diplomat for common sense.

    • Don’t worry about the signs, the same thing happened in Texas when CCW was first legalized. Signs popped up everywhere, but over the years, they mostly all come down.

    • I am not a lawyer, but from my understanding, owners can assert their property rights to control how their property is used, so in most cases those kinds of signs are legal. Usually where they’re not it’s a matter of wording. In any case, as JuanCudz says, your best of dealing with them is to calmly ask to speak to a manager or supervisor and explain that while you’d like to give them business, you can’t due to their stance on citizens protecting themselves. You might also want to consider printing and handing out cards explaining your stand. Google the phrase “no guns equals no money” for examples.

      As for your friends, nothing beats range time. If someone is open to it, take them out for a session. I’ve never seen someone who’s gone into a range with an open mind who hasn’t come out grinning ear to ear.

  10. There seems to be something missing off that placard in the cartoon. Doesn’t scan so well when you insert ‘keep and bear arms’ at line 2.

  11. Theres a reason Florida was forced to close its concealed carry records. When our liberal media was unable to stop the shall issue law with lies , they decided to go scorched earth. The names of permit holders were being printed in newspapers all over Florida. The legislature stepped in when the papers threatened to print addresses with the names. The cat was out of the bag when the St Pete Times admitted that they hoped to “shame” permit holders by alerting their bosses, family members, neighbors, and potential employers to the fact that they carried a gun.

  12. Soooooooo, just curious. Are there a lot of CCW licensees taking ‘direct action’ against the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments or is this just another uber-lib fantasy?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here