PDA

View Full Version : Antis: Wisconsin too drunk for Concealed Carry


Purple K
08-23-2011, 11:10 PM
Dire predictions were once again flowing from Americas Dairyland as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker prepared to sign a bill providing for some state-approved citizens to carry concealed firearms. An Associated Press story in last Sunday’s Chicago Tribune breathlessly warned that “city officials and business owners around the state will only have four months to figure out how to comply with the law while also keeping citizens and customers safe.” And, using language straight from the Brady/Violence Policy playbook, that “law enforcement agencies will need to prepare for the possibility of more people carrying hidden guns in public.”

Read the rest here: http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=573:drunk-wisconsins&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144

wjc
08-23-2011, 11:31 PM
...and what they don't realize is most of the drunk people are from Illinois making a run to The Brat Stop.

...from personal experience. :D

Paladin
08-23-2011, 11:57 PM
The NRA-ILA linked two articles re. VA allowing LTCers in bars for the past year and gun crimes in bars . . . went DOWN!

Of course, the MSM will NOT cover this story and will NOT refer to it when other states are debating LTCing in bars/restaurants that serve alcohol.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110820/OPINION01/708199979

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/22/no-gunfights-at-the-saloon/

Mulay El Raisuli
08-24-2011, 6:58 AM
Dire predictions were once again flowing from Americas Dairyland as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker prepared to sign a bill providing for some state-approved citizens to carry concealed firearms. An Associated Press story in last Sunday’s Chicago Tribune breathlessly warned that “city officials and business owners around the state will only have four months to figure out how to comply with the law while also keeping citizens and customers safe.” And, using language straight from the Brady/Violence Policy playbook, that “law enforcement agencies will need to prepare for the possibility of more people carrying hidden guns in public.”

Read the rest here: http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=573:drunk-wisconsins&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144


From the article:

“Some critics have suggested that Wisconsin's situation is different because of its prominent alcohol culture.”


I'd be willing to bet that the "some critics" is the author of the article & no one else.


The Raisuli

Andy Taylor
08-24-2011, 7:21 AM
From the article:




I'd be willing to bet that the "some critics" is the author of the article & no one else.


The Raisuli

If I was a resident of WI, I would find that statement insulting.

sfpcservice
08-24-2011, 7:32 AM
“Some critics have suggested that Wisconsin's situation is different because of its prominent alcohol culture.”

Almost as truthful as saying "studies show". Whenever I hear that I know someone is about to start spewing.

Stonewalker
08-24-2011, 7:47 AM
"Some Crititcs" and "Studies show" are what's called weasle words. They attempt to assign credibility without citing a source. What critics? Is it the jack-off who lives down the street or a nobel laureate?
What studies? Who paid for the studies, are they peer reviewed?

Such on and so forth. Bad journalism that is.

Wherryj
08-24-2011, 8:50 AM
Dire predictions were once again flowing from Americas Dairyland as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker prepared to sign a bill providing for some state-approved citizens to carry concealed firearms. An Associated Press story in last Sunday’s Chicago Tribune breathlessly warned that “city officials and business owners around the state will only have four months to figure out how to comply with the law while also keeping citizens and customers safe.” And, using language straight from the Brady/Violence Policy playbook, that “law enforcement agencies will need to prepare for the possibility of more people carrying hidden guns in public.”

Read the rest here: http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=573:drunk-wisconsins&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144

It is interesting that the Bradys never point out the fact that law enforcement agencies mostly need to worry about the firearms that are ALREADY currently carried in an illegal concealed fashion. Those that will be carried after the law passes are most likely the law-abiding sort who obeyed the laws previously prohibiting them from carrying.

Somehow, I don't see it as much of a threat. The only people who will start carrying after the law passes are those who cared about the laws in the first place. These are also the people who probably realize that there are laws against shooting other people.

G60
08-24-2011, 8:52 AM
Blood in the streets, shootouts over parking spaces and whatnot.

Wherryj
08-24-2011, 9:00 AM
"Some Crititcs" and "Studies show" are what's called weasle words. They attempt to assign credibility without citing a source. What critics? Is it the jack-off who lives down the street or a nobel laureate?
What studies? Who paid for the studies, are they peer reviewed?

Such on and so forth. Bad journalism that is.

Here is an article that was considered "must read" at my residency. It discusses such techniques.

http://www.neonatology.org/pearls/pimping.html

"Bluffs fall into three readily discernible categories:

1. Hand waving. These bluffs are stock phrases that refer to hot topics in biomedicine without supplying detail or explanation. For example, "It's a membrane transport phenomenon" or "The effect is mediated by prostaglandins." In many institutions, they may evolve directly from the replies of Grand Rounds speakers to questions from the audience.

2. Feigned erudition. The intern's answer, though without substance, suggests an intimate understanding of the literature and a cautiousness born of experience. "Hmmm . . . to my knowledge, that question has not been examined in a prospective controlled fashion" is a common form. Frequently, the bluff is accompanied by three automatisms: clearing of the throat, rapid fluttering of the eyelids and tongue, and chewing on the temples of the eyeglasses. This triad, when full-blown, will make the intern bear a sudden resemblance to William Buckley and is virtually pathognomonic.

3. Higher authority. The intern attributes his answer to the teaching of a particular superior. When the answer is refuted, the blame of ignorance comes to rest on the higher authority, not on the obedient, accepting intern. The strength of the bluff depends on just whom is quoted. An intern quoting a junior resident about pathophysiology is every bit as cogent as Colonel Qaddafi quoting Ayatollah Khomeini about international law. An intern from an Ivy League medical school quoting the "training" he received on his medical clerkship goes over like Dan Quayle explaining the Bill of Rights at an ACLU convention. The shrewd intern, however, will quote his Chairman of Medicine or at least a division chief, pushing the nontenured attending to the brink of political calamity. Did the chairman actually say that? The attending is powerless to refute the statement until he is certain. "

This would fall under the "higher authority" technique. By not giving out the precise study and methodology, the author gives NO added credibility by quoting a "study". Any study can be constructed to give pretty much ANY finding depending upon how it is designed. Bad study design will lead to bad study outcome.

Even worse is the "some critics". That is precisely what "The Art of Pimping" addresses in "higher authority". One must always be on guard when a certain opinion/outcome is purported to have come from a certain "authority". Information from named authorities can at least be traced. Information from "some critics" is almost certainly a bluff, or misleading at the very least.