# Are there alternatives to Right to Carry laws to drop crime



## gonehuntin' (Jul 27, 2006)

DUMP DOYLE says it all!! He is the most rabid anti-gun governor in the History  of wi. He vetoed and killed the right to carry bill when it had passed house and senate. He wanted to tax ammunition. He cut back the monetary allotments to the DNR making them cut back on their programs. DUMP DOYLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dgyer (Sep 10, 2004)

OK my response was answered just curious. But he did not veto the right to carry law it missed by one vote in the state legislature but he said he was going to veto it if it was passed. Thanks for the responses.


----------



## Mac (Jul 9, 2006)

No, you are incorrect...the bill did pass. Governor Doyle did veto the bill. The vote to overturn the veto missed by one vote.


----------



## dgyer (Sep 10, 2004)

Well then Mac I stand corrected and I will be just as honest as you and state I don't want a right to carry law in Wisconsin. I know I will get criticized for saying that in a Hunting website and I know many states already have it but I do not believe having more guns is the solution to problem. Just my two cents!! And for the record I don't think Green is the solution. I like him as a person and have met him personally but do not support his platform.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

every single state with a CC law in effect has seen a drop in violent crime, and crime in general.

every single one.

So your opinion no matter how honestly stated, is based on emotion not facts, just so you know.

Guns allowed in the hands of people willing to go through the process of getting the permitting make us all safer.

And because you are honest you will admit that criminals by very definition will carry them concealed and to do wrong with.

http://www.wisconsinconcealedcarry.com/ ... reduction'


----------



## dgyer (Sep 10, 2004)

Your reasoned explaination is factual and I do not disagree with your statement but I do believe there are other ways to lower the violent crime rate than by arming ourselves. I am sure we both agree that lowering violent crime in any state should be a goal of our society but there have been other successful initiatives that have been successful and if you want I can quote them as well with statistics. I like you feel strongly and respect your opinion and do not see you as being wrong solely because we have a difference of opinion. I just believe in a philosophy of "less is more" and as I stated before posting this in a hunting website makes me fair game for those on the other side of the spectrum.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Hi Dgyer

Yes can you please post those initiatives and stats, and please post a reference link with them?

Thanks!

Regards,

Ryan


----------



## ryanps18 (Jun 23, 2006)

Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 3:22 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an interesting study that was done back in 1997 If I remember correctly. It pretty much backs what Bob said. And the primary reason why Minnesota adopted the "shall issue" law along with other states.

Sorry dgyer there may be other ways to skin a cat but this one has proved to be the most effective against muder,rape,and other serious crimes.

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/concarry.pdf

Ryan


----------



## dgyer (Sep 10, 2004)

> Ryan I posted the websites sites in the other forum and my time is up - time to go scout!
> 
> --I cut and pasted them into here for you...i'll go remove them from that thread.
> 
> --Regards, Ryan


Here is the first and I agree completely there is always more then one way to skin a cat and that is why I made my statement in the first place. I just have a difference of opinion that is all.

http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/exile/

Here is the other.

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile38.html
_________________

Good Luck

Dgyer


----------



## ryanps18 (Jun 23, 2006)

thanks, I will take a look.

good luck on your scouting trip


----------



## dgyer (Sep 10, 2004)

Ryan,

The obvious answer to the title of the new topic is yes but that is not how the topic was started. By posting that way you are going to get an overwhelming response of YES. I never disagreed with the statement made - My point was there are other alternatives to the right to carry laws. An interesting topic would be a comparision of some of the federal law enforcement programs like "project exile Vs. right to carry laws" and see them side by side to compare drops in crime rates. So after reading how it was posted I can already hear my ears ringing with responses on this one. Though I am willing to stand behind my statements.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

kumbaya :lol: ( how the heck is that word really spelled)

Even if there is a better way and I don't think so, we still should be free to take the responsibility of self defense into our own hands if we choose, without some pointyheaded know it all telling us they know whats good for us.

If you take all the firearms away there will still be human predators and they will be after the weak among us.

Murder predates firearms by a million years give or take a million.

So far the only thing that stops predators is the weak armed with weapons. Bigger rocks, spears, bows, muzzle loaders, hanguns, and who know whats next on the technological list but one thing is constant, human nature.

Neither one of those programs on the links relates to legal carry its about taking guns from felons so hows that going to help protect you or I.

Anticipating that the only logical answer would be it will keep the guns out of the predators hands (which it won't) whats that leave you with???

Hand to hand combat with a couple big gang bangers hopped up on meth and bent on taking your wallet and having some fun with your daughter while they are at it.

Don't laugh thats a real possiblilty around Atlanta and lots of other metropolitan areas.

I'll prefer using my gun


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

dgyer said:


> Ryan,
> 
> The obvious answer to the title of the new topic is yes but that is not how the topic was started. By posting that way you are going to get an overwhelming response of YES. I never disagreed with the statement made - My point was there are other alternatives to the right to carry laws. An interesting topic would be a comparision of some of the federal law enforcement programs like "project exile Vs. right to carry laws" and see them side by side to compare drops in crime rates. So after reading how it was posted I can already hear my ears ringing with responses on this one. Though I am willing to stand behind my statements.


I'll switch it to something more along the lines of what you are looking for...

Ryan


----------



## ryanps18 (Jun 23, 2006)

Dgyer,

This is a touchy subject and I am sure their are plenty of differing views and though we may not agree it does not mean we are not going to learn from the debate. That is why I love this site it gives every one a platfrom to opine, right wrong or indifferent.

Ryan


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

Once again it's the law-abiding citizen who gets the shaft.

You can have all the gun control in the world, but the only ones who are going to play by the rules are those that follow the law in the first place.

I want protection against the criminals and killers that have no respect for the law or their fellow humans. The best deterrent in my opinion is for those criminals to have to think twice that perhaps the person they are after is packing some heat!!! :sniper:


----------



## dgyer (Sep 10, 2004)

Bobm,

I completely disagree with your statement that my decision is based on emotion. You are claiming your reasoning is on some higher intellectual plane because it is based on statistics and suggesting my decision is based solely on raw emotion is wrong. Unless you have some insight into my decision making process that I am not aware of myself. I too used statistics to make my decision and posted them as well whether you want to acknowledge them or not. We both are using raw emotion in our decision making process - that is what makes this a spirited debate throughout the country. Obviously after reading the post something struck a nerve to make you want to comment on it. I don't disagree criminals will always have access to guns in our society but that was not how this discussion began it was regarding the right to carry law in Wisconsin and alternatives. It simply comes down to MY belief that I would prefer not having a society in which I have to put a gun on my hip when I walk out the front door of my house with my wife and children to feel safe. Now maybe that is a Utopian belief in this day and age but it is what I would prefer. As I stated previously I prefer the philosophy of less is more. Now saying that within a hunting website might put me in the minority and that is fine with me.


----------



## Mac (Jul 9, 2006)

What happened to the title of the thread and the original post? You change it because the subject went off topic?????

If you remove the cover story, please remove all my posts from this thread.
How idiotic.


----------



## dgyer (Sep 10, 2004)

I did not do it Mac.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Mac said:


> What happened to the title of the thread and the original post? You change it because the subject went off topic?????
> 
> If you remove the cover story, please remove all my posts from this thread.
> How idiotic.


Hi Mac

I split the topic when this side topic came up. I left in all the posts (2) that led up to the topic change of direction, so that anyone new walking into to look at this thread would understand where the question was coming from. Your other posts still remain on that original Pheasant forum topic. If you would have read that post you would have seen me discussing that fact.

I named the topic based off of what Dgyer was trying to point out.

If you want to remove your post on this topic, you can click the "x" next to the "quote" button on that reply.

NOTE: Your reply displayed also had nothing to do with the original cover story either.

Regards,

Ryan


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Bobm,
> 
> I completely disagree with your statement that my decision is based on emotion. You are claiming your reasoning is on some higher intellectual plane because it is based on statistics and suggesting my decision is based solely on raw emotion is wrong.





> It simply comes down to MY belief that I would prefer not having a society in which I have to put a gun on my hip when I walk out the front door of my house with my wife and children to feel safe. Now maybe that is a Utopian belief in this day and age but it is what I would prefer.


maybe??
:lol: :lol: :lol:

OK!
Give me a puff on that before you put it out


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I know that I will not change your mind, But here is a website for you to look at. http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html More good information can be found in the books written by Dr. John Lott, "More Guns, Less Crime" and "The Bias Against Guns"

My personal view, I have been a cop for 27 years and I truly believe that an armed society is a respectful society. I am not worried about Joe Citizen who wants to carry a firearm for his own protection. But when you disarm your citizenry you create a society of victims, as what is occurring in England. Don't believe me, have a look at this article: http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/Inte ... meMyth.htm

You are entitled to your beliefs, I respect that, even though statistics show that they are flawed.

I'll carry my gun, and I'll fight for your right to carry, or not, as you see fit.

huntin1


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

dgyer.....I'm a little confused with your stance, I mean as far as if you are actually debating an alternative or just wishing there could be while fully acknowledging there is not (I am referring to your quote..."I would prefer not having a society in which I have to put a gun on my hip when I walk out the front door of my house with my wife and children to feel safe.")

That tells me that you are of the opinion it IS necessary to be armed to be safe. Please let me know if I'm missing something.

I'm butting in here, so I'll be very brief, but perhaps you should look at this a different way if you are not in favor of cc.

As far as I'm concerned, and for sake of argument, public safety is only used to justify cc, much the same as our govt. uses public safety to justify new infringements on our rights. To me cc is much more of a PERSONAL issue.

Let me put it this way. Argue all you want about whether or not the public benefits from cc. As far as I'm concerned it's not debatable, but some others don't agree. But one thing I have never heard successfully debated from the liberal side is whether or not I (or YOU and YOUR family) am/are safer with a gun on my/your hip. More simply stated...screw society, I'M BETTER OFF WITH IT. Even my most liberal acquaintances become unusually quiet when asked to explain why THEY would be LESS safe with a gun in THEIR pocket.

Another thing that absolutely escapes me is how otherwise intelligent people are perfectly content leaving their personal safety in the hands of the local law enforcement personnel, but waste good money on a fire extinguisher. Maybe firemen just aren't as fast and/or trustworthy as policeman.....I don't know!


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Huntin 1,

As a law enforcement how to you interpd ND''s concealed weapon permit?
My wife works in the GF Co. SA office and when she tell me her version I get all confused. I do not have the CW permit so how should I carry my pistol in a vechile and still be legal. I would not attempt to expain her version.
Maybe I should just get the permit.

Thanks


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

zogman,

In a vehicle, without a CCW, your handgun should be in plain sight, unloaded of course, and can be cased or not. DO NOT put it under your seat, in the glove box or concealed in any way.

From the ND Century Code:



> 62.1-03-01. Carrying handgun - Restrictions - Exceptions.
> 
> 1. A handgun may be carried by a person not prohibited from possessing one by
> section 62.1-02-01 or any other state statute, in a manner not prohibited by section
> ...


Clear as mud right.  Get the permit, your life will be sooooo much easier.

Link to ND Century Code on Weapons: Weapons Laws

:beer:

huntin1


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Thanks,

Oh buy the way I love your little processor as your tag line.

One of the prosecutors where the wife works says regularlly when listening to the sob stories most of the crims give is: " Frankly I don't give a damn and I don't give a damn that I don't give a damn."

Thanks Again.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Dgyer

By all means lets look for other alternatives, but when we have one that works lets also keep it. Leave it to the individual if he or she wants to carry. If people are carrying concealed it doesn't stop us from perusing other solutions. As a matter of fact I would surmise that a comprehensive approach requiring many different pieces to the puzzle to reduced crime would be much better than any single narrowly focused attempt. Currently concealed carry is the most successful, but it shouldn't be the only approach.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Their are a lot of good alternatives to the carry laws.
Allow religion in school, [/*]
Make kids Pledge Allegiance every morning and sing God Bless America and the National Anthem.[/*]
Take the power away from the state and kids and give it back to the parents where it belongs.[/*]
allow the teachers to disipline the unruly.[/*]
limit the crap your kids what on TV and pay attention to what they watch.[/*]
Hold criminals accountable for their crims[/*]
If it's a minor, hold parents accountable also.[/*]
Hold parents accountable for their kids action period.[/*]
Spend time with your kids and not just worry about yourself.[/*]

Just some of the list of things that come to mind. Given time, it would create the longest list on the thread.

I went to a catholic school for my first 6 years of school. Something I swore I would never do with my kids. My oldest went to public school. My youngest is going to a Catholic school for much of the reasons listed above.

As a MN Permit to Carry instructor, after the SCOTUS ruling that the police are not their for your protection, it sealed the fact I was to get my permit and if others want it, to make it as easy as possible to get it. Including putting my neck on the line and holding the Sheriff and County accountable when they violate the laws the swore to uphold.

Knowing what I know about ND conceal carry, You would be better off to open carry than CC carry without a permit. They have written too many restrictions into it to limit your carry options.


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

I am appalled - I am completely appalled.

"Is there alternatives...."

I agree with FarmerJ about catholic school - the OP would have been smacked by the nuns for that - if the subject (alternatives) is plural then the verb (is) must agree ... three words in and it is all messed up...

Can some one change it? It has been making me wince for a week.

M.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

MRN said:


> I am appalled - I am completely appalled.
> 
> "Is there alternatives...."
> 
> ...


M

I wrote that title. I also understand English and rarely misspell or place a sentence in the wrong tense or use improper verb structure. In this case I tried using the word "Are" in the title, but I ran out of # of allowed letters in a subject line. I could not think of how to rearrange the words to pose the question while keeping the tense correct.

I finally figured out a way by switching the words "reduce" to "drop".

Hope your upset stomach feels better now.

Ryan


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

I'm better. Thanks.

M.


----------



## dgyer (Sep 10, 2004)

OK guys I understand there was contradiction in my statements. I included both statistics to my claim and also my personal belief like everyone else. There is no contradiction that programs like "Project Exile" lowered violent crime rates in Richmond (whether anyone looked at the the sites posted) My statement that there are alternatives to cc laws is correct. The program simply used federal laws and federal courts to prosecute firearm offenders. In combining mandatory sentencing and strict enforcement the murder rate in Richmond dropped 40% the first year. Now you have to admit that is a substantial decrease and the average sentence for those carrying a weapon was 55 months. I completely agree that as a society we need to be more responsible and involved with our kids. Thanks for the responses as I said I might be in the minority but atleast we can :beer: still have a drink together.


----------



## dgyer (Sep 10, 2004)

Plainsmen,

Well stated I agree completely! I disagree with those that claim cc laws are the only effective means to lower crime rates and are unwilling to discuss alternatives. Let me buy you a beer!


----------

