Skip to content

Why Everyone Should Be Armed With A Gun In Madison

April 30, 2009

If everyone carried a gun on their body, once the first shot was fired  in the story below, other bar patrons could have drawn their weapons, and then started shooting at the original gunman.  Since we are told that no one goes to Madison bars anymore since cigarettes can not be smoked, there would have been no chance of anyone else being shot by drunks. 

Seriously, can anyone tell me that concealed weapon laws would make sense?

Madison police reported that they are looking for a man who fired several shots from a handgun inside a popular north-side tavern early Thursday morning, but didn’t injure anyone.

The gunplay happened at Wiggy’s Bar, 1901 Aberg Ave., at about 1:35 a.m.

Witnesses told Madison police it didn’t appear the gunman was aiming at any patrons of the bar.

“He extended his arm toward the entryway of the tavern and shot out a window,” said police spokesman Joel DeSpain.

When police arrived, several people were running from the area. One was detained but it turned out he wasn’t the shooter.

Employees of the tavern told police the gunman had been with several other men, but hadn’t been involved in any disturbance priort to brandishing the weapon.

12 Comments
  1. Darren permalink
    May 3, 2009 10:09 PM

    From some official State of Wisconsin websites, such as the Department of Regulation & Licensing:

    “Permit required for a person to perform as private security persons and private detectives working as private security persons, who carry a firearm while on duty issued by the Department. An agency shall apply to the Department for a permit to authorize any of its owners or employees to carry a firearm, and all persons so authorized must first have a certificate of proficiency.”

    And:

    “Private security persons and private detectives working as private security persons, who carry a firearm while on duty, must have a permit to carry a firearm, issued by the Department.

    An agency shall apply to the Department for a permit to authorize any of its owners or employees to carry a firearm, and all persons so authorized must first have a certificate of proficiency.”

    And:

    “Wisconsin law does not allow a person, who is not a peace officer, to carry a concealed weapon. This includes licensed private detectives.”

    However, Wisconsin Attorney General JB Van Hollen has begun to issue conceal carry permits to retired law enforcement personnel (Google “Wisconsin” & “HR 218”), who technically are civilians. Right now, however, the general public is out of luck.

    I hope that clears things up a little.

  2. May 2, 2009 8:44 AM

    To repeat…there is NO..repeat….NO… concealed carry law in Wisconsin. Our Govenor had the balls to veto that puppy once, and perhaps even twice…though I would need to check on that second veto.

    It is not 2008..as you write…but now 2009.

    You are mistaken about the difference between concealed carry and open carry. I have to assume what is what you meant as you write in both directions at the same time, and in the end it is confusing and illogical. (You notice that, right?) If you will read my post carefully you will note I have been talking about concealed weapons.

  3. kcebnelg permalink
    May 2, 2009 12:39 AM

    Learn the law. Concealed carry is legal (but limited) in Wisconsin:

    It is now 2008, and Wisconsin is one of only two states that completely prohibits anyone but police officers and sheriffs’ deputies from carrying concealed weapons for self defense.

    Your turn.

  4. May 2, 2009 12:06 AM

    No, you are wrong.

    Wisconsin has no provision for legal concealed-carry.

    It is not legal in Wisconsin.

    But you are correct, it does not meet my smell test.

    Your turn.

  5. kcebnelg permalink
    May 1, 2009 11:09 PM

    Hey. What’s the big deal? Concealed carry and gun ownership is legal. It meets your sniff test. Isn’t that what you told me about the other topic we recently discussed?

    Why is something being “legal” good enough for something you agree with, but for something you don’t agree with, it doesn’t seem to cut the mustard?

    Seriously, I’m not trying to be a troll here… I’m just completely confused by this.

  6. Ninja permalink
    May 1, 2009 10:03 AM

    Oh wait, the government will be licensing people? Well then that should be no problem. After all, we never have any trouble with government licensed drivers acting like drunken, violently confrontational idiots. Thanks for setting my mind at ease.

    Seriously though, I don’t care. I’m not crazy about it, because I don’t understand why one individual’s fear should allow that person to put me at increased risk, however slight. But the last 20 years have shown us that the gun companies are going to get the laws that the gun companies want. And the increase in risk to me really is slight.

    So go ahead and carry a gun. But on principle, I would say that if you’re that scared, rather than imposing on me, you should just stay home. I know you won’t though.

  7. April 30, 2009 11:34 PM

    After George Bush used the Constitution as toilet paper, undermining the rule of law, and destroying civil rights……and you say the left…..

  8. kcebnelg permalink
    April 30, 2009 11:21 PM

    Darren, Darren, Darren…

    Please don’t try to confuse things with facts and data. The constitution is just a piece of scratch paper to the left. It’s like trying to explain the difference between an assault style rifle and an assault rifle. It just becomes an exercise in futility.

  9. anon permalink
    April 30, 2009 10:50 PM

    So there would be a gun check with the coat check so the guns don’t enter the bar. The bar could pass out bullets with a number on them to be turned back in at time of pickup of the gun. Might be a way for bars to make some extra money.

  10. Darren permalink
    April 30, 2009 10:17 PM

    States that allow concealed carry generally do not allow them to be carried into establishments that serve alcohol. Remember that to get a carry permit in other states you would have to undergo firearms and legality issues training and a criminal background check. Also, the the trainer has the option to turn down anyone he feels is not safe to carry a weapon. In other words, depending on the structure of the conceal carry law, the liklihood is that an individual with a permit is far more likely to be a rational, law-abiding citizen than the law-breaking moron in this news article. Of course, in this case, he wouldn’t be carrying it into the bar to begin with.

    People who for whatever reason are against CC have it in their heads that allowing concealed carry will suddenly turn their community into the Wild West, and that’s simply not true. I’m originally from a CC state and I never heard of even a single incident. In fact, I received firearms training from a county sheriff instructor. While I was there, a couple of yahoos tried to take the CC course, but kept saying, “We don’t need any training, heck, we’ve been shootin’ all our lives! Just give us the permit!” The deputy removed them from the class and denied their application on the spot.

    The others in the CC class were rational, attentive and competent, and received their permits. I remember one said he was getting it because he had to carry the night deposit every night in what was becoming a risky part of town.

    Even though after completion of the training I had the option to pay the additional fee and receive my carry permit, I chose not to. I didn’t feel I had the personal need, but I would never deny the night worker I mentioned above the right to carry to protect himself. The class was extremely informative and very sobering. Personally, I think that every gun owner should take a similar class.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: