By Keith R. Schmitz
Did you happen to notice that the still unnamed bicyclist who shot the two city of Milwaukee police officers was concealing and carrying?
Kind of blows holes in the argument that if you carry a gun you are safer.
Here were not one, but two, well armed and trained gentlemen who have to spend some time in the hospital. If someone gets the drop on you, a gun isn't going to provide the protection you imagine and most who fancy themselves as the shoot-em up types would have no where the training these two officers have.
Bet you that if we had conceal and carry in Wisconsin, the bicyclist would have gotten a permit, so what we had here was a case of C and C de facto. Sure he did it, but why encourage more people to carry who might go off when confronted by the police, or get into an argument in traffic.
I think about an incident in Madison following Badger football, going down Wilson and not noticing a bicyclist dressed in black at dusk. The guy thought I had brushed him too close and pedaled like a madman to do god knows what if he caught up with me for many blocks. A gun would have not been a happy part of this crazy equation.
To the best of knowledge no conceal and carry permit comes with a psychological exam, and that is one part of the conceal that I fear the most.
Sure if you look hard enough there are cases here and there where people have defended themselves successfully. But the cost benefit of having so many guns flooding our society has not worked out in terms of situations like this one, or kids finding guns, suicides, settling arguments, etc. The stats aren't on your side, sketchy as they are. If the NRA didn't stand in the way of working up more stats the argument would surely be even harder.
Curing a disease by inflicting the disease only works with small pox.