Just the idea that a weapon may be carried has a certain effect to prohibit an attack. A woman has a perfect place for money and a pistol, it's called a purse and she would have no problem putting a big hole in the idiot who is trying to rob her, rape her... whatever. And don't think it hasn't happened. I hate to say this but Wisconsin and Illinois are birds of a feather as far as CCW laws are concerned! It looks like the only difference between us is the state name and the amount of money FIBs leave, in WI, to Cheddarheads. By the way, a pistol carried properly, is easier to pull, aim and fire than digging out that wallet. MHO, WI needs a "Castle Doctrine" law like TX.

RetiredArmySFC: Ever heard of a wallet holster? Then when the bad guy asks for your money you simply reach for your “wallet” and you have your firearm. In a following post you brought up not all citizens being responsible. That is true however I would like to point out that many states with concealed carry require training and psychological examinations prior to being approved. Also thank you for your service to our fine country where we can have discussions regarding these types of laws.

Carrying a firearm on your side in the open is not brandishing, the writer is ignorant of the law, if a citizen was brandishing his firearm in public, the citizen could be arrested, we as open carriers of firearms don’t brandish are firearms. As far as getting together peacefully while carrying a firearm to protest an unconstitutional law, I see nothing wrong with it. Before you write an article, you need to get educated on the law and research your material before you sit down and write an article. This piece is despicable and a disgrace to your profession.

BunBun: I was Active Army for 3 years having served in Vietnam for a year during 1971-1972. I then joined the Army Reserve after retrurning from Active Duty and served in many areas including Eygpt and the Persian Gulf War with my Reserve Unit. I served a total of 33 years. My MOS was 91S, Preventive Medicine, Environmental Health. Thank you. RAF: I agree criminals should not walk around with concealed weapons either, but my point is not to add to what we already have. Not all citizens are responsible and may become vigilantes. My eyesight is not as good as it used to be and therefore my hunting activity is more getting out in the outdoors.

Well, the phalic comments are certainly not needed for sure. I don't own guns (other than a couple old bb) I like guns, had them before i had kids, I am afraid the wrong ones will get ahold of them...I do however, do not believe that anyone who wishes to own a gun (of any kind) should be denied their right to bear arms. look whether you like it or not, it is your choice to either own, or don't own a gun...who are we to tell others that it is wrong. I get it many are sportsman...I dont kill animals either (wild ones anyway) but I am not going to sit here and argue you are wrong for doing it. I just choose not to. Thats all. As a former Marine, I love guns they are alot of fun when used properly and trained to do so. I got to tell you I had a blast at the ranges..it rocked, but today I choose to leave that up to others, at least until my kids are old enogh to understand how and when to use them. Why do we always have to infringe on anothers rights because we are paranoid, misinformed or just plain afraid. I just don't get it....our founding fathers are rolling in their graves right now.

Yes BunBun, because only criminals should be allowed to walk around with concealed guns when not at home, you should know this.

so when you hunt or shoot skeet you are more likely to break the law? that is an interesting point. Using your logic, having a gun in the home wouldn't help you either as in a home invasion you don't have time to get your over under out of the gun cabinet and load it.
.
as an aside SFC, thanks for your service what was your MOS and where did you serve?

Ezoner: I am confused here. I thought the majority of members of the tea party were from the right, NOT the left. Plus, I want to know how a carrying a concealed weapon will help you when the element of surprise overtakes you. Will you actually have time to obtain your "concealed" weapon before the other guy opens fire? When you sit in your car with your family and the idiot with the gun comes up to your window and says to give him your money,etc, will you say: "Excuse me while I get my conceled weapon out of the glove box or from underneath the seat" Hardly enough time I think. We don't need everyone walking around with weapons. It is bad enough that the criminals do. Having one in your home is different because you have time to obtain it from your dresser drawer, under the bed, or where ever. By the way, I own guns and I hunt and I shoot skeet. I just don't think it is good for a concealed weapon law. JMO

Spark--I was thinking the same thing! Especially when you consider the fact that the only contribution to the thread is two posts which revolve around an apparent fixation with "petite sized condoms" You have to wonder if a certain someone is a "little" inadequate:)

Josh Sugarmann - Your article went from talking about "the open display of firearms" to immediately stating skewed facts about gun ownership in general. There are many firearm owners that hunt, etc. Where are your statistics about those that don't have permits that have killed? That's what I thought. The amount would be alarming compared to your B.S. statistics. Typical.

futurerichguy - Funny, I thought only lefties had small ones. That's why they cry so much.

I've been sitting on the fence for a while about buying a handgun,I'm buying one tomorrow. Wacko nuts like this guy are out to destroy the constitution.

BunBun, Church & Dwight is not claiming that condom use is good for you, they're only promoting their petite sized condoms to NRA members as that's their target demographic.

"Violence Policy Center research project available on the web at (vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm) reveals that since May 2007, concealed handgun permit holders have killed at least 157 private citizens in addition to nine law enforcement officers."
.
citing a Brady bunch study to make their point is the same as saying I have a study by Phillip Morris that says that tobaco use is good for you- in other words - not worth the electrons used to print them.

Thats cause the small size fits tighter over the muzzle to keep h2o out in the field.
.
This is usualy the only topic where lefties give any creedence to Freuds drivel.

The Church & Dwight Company (the maker of Trojan condoms) has released a survey showing that members of the NRA are more likely to require petite sized condoms.

NvGRF-What do you "see daily"

People "brandishing" weapons"?

"armed mobs"?

"white supremists openly carrying guns"?

Or maybe you just see law abiding citizen's openly carrying firearm?

My guess is the last one.

As I see the increased rhetoric from the far left and the tactics they emplaoy in public settings, I have been thinking that as I walk and move about with my family, I may need more than a fist and my mouth to prtect and defend them. The mere presents of the weapon should keep them away from my children.

MooShoo - Like many of our rights that have been eroding, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is one. Open carrying in populated areas provides an important and not so subtle reminder to those bystanders that citizens have the right to bear arms and it shall not be infringed. These law abiding folks exercising their right are helping to preserve all of our rights, and remind all of us it's the criminals with guns that we should concerned about, not your law abiding neighbor carrying openly OR concealed.

I think if people were "brandishing" their weapons at rally's they should be arrested. I highly doubt they are doing that. Quietly carrying a gun in a holster is not brandishing.

The author is correct in his statements. I see it daily on the streets in Arizona.

Well said MooShoo!!

Mr Sugarman - Figures do not lie, liars figure! You are the epitome of a liar!

Don't forget that the anti-gun people usually lump in firearm suicides as victims in with their gun violence "statistics". Some people who have lost loved ones to suicide-by-gun believe if we had taken away everyone's self-defense guns away, suicidal people wouldn't endanger others by jumping off rooftops, blowing out the pilot light to let natural gas get the job done, or grabbing a knife and hostage to commit suicide-by-cop, etc, and would still be alive. The anti-gun people prey upon the guilt of these folks to swell their numbers at protests and rallies.

If every state offered legal means to commit suicide for those determined to end their lives, even after repeated counseling and medical attention, firearm suicides would reduce dramatially, as would a lot of the anti-gun lobby support.

This article is good example of how one can pick and choose statistics to prove any side of an argument. Sugarmann writes, for example, that gun deaths are higher in states having a high rate of gun ownership. Even if we assume for a moment that his information is correct, the burglary and robbery rates may conversely be lower in those states because criminals are reluctant to victimize a citizen who might be armed. One could then make the case that gun ownership helps reduce burglaries and robberies, and the people dying from guns are the criminals stopped in the midst of perpetuating a violent crime.
.
The author also twice equates the mere wearing of a firearm with "brandishing" it. "Brandishing" has a specific legal meaning, and I don't believe that calmly carrying a holstered firearm in public meets the criterion. Sugarmann misuses the term for inflammatory purposes, further degrading his argument.

wipsi, it is obvious you didn't read anything other the numbers you provided from the website you listed. Opening just one of the linked docs on your site show many of the "numbers" are from suspected shootings with pending investigations. Of these pending investigations many are from the CC person being the victim of a crime and defending themselves. Some of the "numbers" listed are for people found NOT GUILTY in a court of law for any wrong doing.

Numbers tell many tales, facts show the truth.

Mr. Sugarman is not maginalizing gun owners, he marginalizes gun nutz. There are millions of legal gun owners in this country, including me. I fail to see how an "open display" at the post office rally proves anything but bearer of said weapon is an idiot.
*
There are 57,000 square miles in Wisconsin. Most of it is unicorporated areas where you can strap on your dog leg to hunt, target shoot, exercise your right to bear arms, and defend yourself against any looming threat such you might find out there. Put a gun on your hip in an urban setting and you are looking for trouble or asking for trouble.

"Despite promises that those who carry guns in public are uniquely law-abiding citizens who protect public safety and aid police, a Violence Policy Center research project available on the web at (vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm) reveals that since May 2007, concealed handgun permit holders have killed at least 157 private citizens in addition to nine law enforcement officers."

And how does this compare to those who do not have permits? Funny how they leave that out...

bla bla bla.

Mr. Sugarman was able to bring every smear, fear mongering talking point, and attempt at marginalizing gun owners into one article. Wild west, racism, tea partiers... Well done !