I wonder why so many people in this country love having guns. I wonder if the conceal law will have the effect of actually leading to the complete banning of guns. If there are shoot out between people, whether they have registered guns or not, people not involved will be hurt or killed. If that should happen enough times, there could be a reversal of these laws. For myself I am terrified of guns and don't want to be around them. I am not sure everyone who has a gun legally is also an even-tempered person who won't be quick to pull the gun when he/she would see anything believed to be suspicious. I think this is more dangerous.

Wisconsin is the 49th state to pass a concealed carry law. Just like all the other states before us, we are not going to turn into a 'shootout society' because we passed a concealed carry law.

I am not a gun owner myself, but I welcome the concealed carry law. I like the idea that anyone contemplating a crime will now take into consideration the potential for a seemingly easy crime target to turn difficult should one of the bystanders be armed...

Now this SHOULD be a breaking news alert:

Van Hollen, Walker and the Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature are BLEEDING HEART LIBERALS.

Huh?

KTinWi
Its funny you should say that. These politicians campaign on the premise of being a supporter of our 2nd amendment rights yet when push comes to shove or they are worried about re-election they turn coat. Im for it but wait we need all these rules and stipulations attached

Then I'd hope you'd understand why so many people rose up to cry "foul" when Walker introduced the BRB. He never said he'd do that in his campaign, either.

But you can't in all seriousness blame the concealed carry requirements on liberals. They've had no say.

No I dont totally blame the Liberals. I blame VanHollen and Walker for retreating on their so called 2nd Amendment support. But like all politicians its about getting the vote. Although I did and do agree with Walkers recent passage of the Collective Bargaining Bill!!! As a tax payer I should have a say. I have no issue with private sector unions what so ever. Because I have a choice to purchase or use the service provided by the Union companies or not.

Dave-you do have a choice in government. At the polls. But since we are a democracy, you don't always get your way. You still have the right to be heard at public meetings

MS ur absolutely right. Then explain to me why the Fab 14 left the State when they did not agree? Where is the democracy in that? I am fully aware of how Democracy is supposed to work.

Leaving was the only way they could be heard. And since the phone message system was turned off, and public hearings were kept too short to hear even 1% of those who wanted to be heard, it was the only way to attempt to get our democracy function .

Pretty sad state of affairs if you ask me...

Personally, I do NOT EVER want to think that anyone around me might be carrying a gun - I am adamantly opposed to this law that definitely infringes on MY individual and personal rights to my general safety. But we are, so unfortunately, stuck with this law.
How do you think that a class interferes with your 2nd Amendment right? No one is taking away a person's right 'to keep and bear arms.' This proposed 4-hr class seems to me to be a MINIMAL requirement for those 'few' ppl carrying guns to allow safe use of firearms to protect the common good and safety of the 'many.'

@Sasha well if your are an American then you would know that we live by the Constitution!! When Law Enforcement is sworn in the swear the the Constitution as does law makers, military and so on. With that said it is my Constitutional Right To Keep and Bear Arms without any infringement from The government. The one exception to that rule is a convicted felon.
So if you can show me where in the Constitution I am infringing on your personal right to be safe then please do so. It is your choice not to carry or even own a gun, but it is def not your place to tell me that I can not.
3 States with Constitutional Carry one of which has been for quite some time, Vermont!! Last time I checked there citizens are pretty safe along with Airizona and Alaska with Wyoming soon to follow.

geeez Dave, you don't have to go ballistic here (forgive the pun, hehe).
duh, yes, I'm an American, duh, yes, we live by the Constitution.
IF you really read my words, you would see I never said what you said I said. "it is def not your place to tell me that I can not" - I never said that so don't twist the words. In fact, I stated and re-affirmed the 2nd Amendment right.
AND - I said this affected "...MY individual and personal rights to my general safety." Again, that is how I personally feel - I feel LESS safe now knowing that anyone around me might be carrying a gun. Only you & God knows why anyone thinks they even need to carry a gun.

@Sasha-Well if you would actually take the time and research you would find that its proven in areas with conceal carry violent crimes are down as compared to not having conceal carry. So you should feel safer. You are talking about law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves. There is absolutely no reason to feel unsafe. That is just crazy thinking period!! But again that is the typical Liberal left thinking.

It's our right to bear arms in the first place -- not necessarily to bear them CONCEALED. Of course, if you walk around in public with a holster on your hip or carrying a shotgun, they will most likely arrest you for disorderly conduct.

This whole issue puzzles me. It has always seemed to me to be making laws against otherwise lawful behavior on the grounds that anyone carrying a weapon concealed is up to no good. Carrying a weapon hurts no one. Using that weapon does. Despite the law, people carried weapons and used them. All the law accomplished was to give authorities an excuse to detain people they happened to find with weapons on them. How much safer did that make us?

How much safer will a four hour class make the rest of us? Will it ensure an individual's proficiency with firearms or that individual's benign intent? Not really.

Are you fighting the voter ID law as hard as this one? because voting is another of you natural born rights, and requiring an ID for this, should be as objectionalbele!

Well obviously you lack common sense!!!! The voter ID bill is an excellent decision considering all the illegals plus all the illegal votes that take place. So as a voter I am all for it. It protects me the voter and prevents someone using my info to vote in my place. Voter ID all the way!!
So this is def not the same thing here. Voter ID is long overdue. Nobodys right to vote is being denied nor is there a cost to those who can't afford an ID.

Try again

Please document the wide spread illegal voting you speak of.

MS you and I both know it takes place. Double voting, votes being counted for those who have passed on due to identity theft ect. Come on we all know it takes place on both sides. So with voter ID its a way to help ensure or at least reduce the amount of voter fraud

"come on we all know it takes place"?
Really? That's your proof?
Really?

I don't know of any illegal voting beyond the handful or less that have been charged and convicted in the last decade plus.

And I know many Latinos and Laotians-friends, neighbors, churchgoers, colleagues, democrats, republicans, apathetic non-voters. Quite a diverse group.

So again, any real proof?

omg why are ppl so uninformed. It's been shown that any sort lf so-called 'voting fraud' of which you speak is so minimial, soooo minimal that it is ridiculous to even address this misconception and waste the time and money of the legislature and us citizens.

@Sasha Then whats the big deal? Im sorry you cant tell me that the hundreds of Illegals in this Country with SS #'s, ID's ect are not voting illegally. It happens believe it or not and this is just a way to maybe prevent or at least cut down on that. Its really no big deal

It takes us varying amounts of time to learn to drive. To do it legally, we have to pass both a written and a road test. You say you already know how to use firearms safely and resent the extra imposition of the class? Now you know how i feel about having to obtain extra documentation for something I've been doing for years -- voting.

Maybe comments like Dirk's above at 9:40 give people reason to believe we may be going back to the days of the Wild West.

Wild West indeed! The great heroes of the Wild West were town marshals, like Bill Hickock, Wyatt Earp, Bill Tilghman, Bat Masterson, etc., and the first thing they did was ban all firearms within city limits.

Im sorry Dirk is absolutely right!!! I also want to know if and of those involved with the attacks were charged with hate crimes? My guess is not. Considering our extreme Liberal Police Cheif refused to call it what it was!!! A HATE crime!!!

48 states that should say

Jon that is your opinion. But you do realize what made this Country so GREAT and FREE is our second amendment right. Had we not had the right to keep and bear arms, I am not so sure we would have the freedoms we currently enjoy,

So just throw the Constitution out the door? Ya ok!! Sorry buddy there are those that believe in the Constitution and considering our Country runs off those very principles I dont think so. Our Military, law enforcement and elected officials all swear to uphold that amazing document.

Thank You GearHead

How many rounds would one be required to fire in a the course of a hunter's safety class?

Jim Bob, a marksmanship trophy should not be a requirement to excercise your inalienable right. It is said, and I agree with this, that guns don't kill people, people kill people. A firing proficiency exam is not part of hunter's safety class. Hunter's safety is all about teaching respect of the firearm and your fellow man's presence, teaching proper handling and storage, and teaching the foundations of a good or bad decision to shoot.

MS well then you are preaching to the wrong person. I can openly carry right now and yet your still very safe, The ones you need to worry about are those that have zero regards for the law or human life for that matter. So your post should be directed to the criminal asking them to Please take a class on firearm saftey and responsibilty!!! Again lets punish the law abiding citizen who follows the law.
So its not those of us with a permit you have to worry about!!

Why did this become an issue of race? I for one will not choose to obtain my permit to attack all those of a different race. That is a typical Liberal answer or comment. Lets get serious here!! Common sense. Maybe you as a driver should have to attend a class and have a mental evaluation to ensure you wont kill someone with your car over road rage.
Again do you see any of this taking place in any of the 48 States that have conceal carry legislation? Or the 3 States that have Constitutional Carry. No you do not

Ah, my race reference was actually inspired by angry white dude. It's not about you.
And I'm proud to label myself as a Progressive. Nothing wrong with liberal ideals you know!

Dave:

I've taken a handgun training class. I covered three nights of three weeks and included two nights with range shooting. This would seem to be a sensible type of class to require. I'm not saying that CAC holders are violent. I just posted a couple links for people to think about. Pretty much anyone can got to Fleet Farm and buy a pistol...whether or not you've ever shot one in your life.

I challenge you to point out whether it was bashing law abiding citizens. Apparently, bringing legitimate points into a discussion that might bring some counter thought to your views is considered bashing.

Denise
Yes you are absolutely correct. That is my reason for someone taking a 4hr class. I dont believe the class needs to be ab.out anything except the liabilitys of carrying a weapon. Just because an individual is permitted to carry, that in no way gives that individual the right to take another's life. If it is found totally justifiable that deadly force was needed to save your life now you have the law suits from the family of said individual. A chance that I am willing to take.
It is said that self defense in the form of self defense is fully justifiable at a distance of 3 ft and less.

That should say in the form of deadly force. Sorry

Who said it was limited to hand guns. The discussion about the 2nd amendment is concerning to conceal carry legislation that is due to take effect Nov 1. Not sure about you but its pretty tough to conceal a long rifle. But if Im not mistaking the second amendment blankets all guns pistols to rifles.

And billie clubs, no less!

And cigarettes! oh that's some other limitation on freedom. LOL

With open carry, you could see the gun and make a decision on whether or not to be near the person carrying. With concealed, that option is taken away from others because we won't know.

And with open carry comes the chaos and panic. How about the thug running around with the gun tucked in his pocket? The guy who has no regard for your life over 5 bucks? I personally am more fearful of that individual than someone who has gone thru the process of obtaining a permit.

I'm not aware of any "chaos and panic" with open carry. I am aware that I knew when someone was present with a gun and could make a choice on whether I wanted my children to be in the vicinity.

As for criminals running around with guns in their pocket, I'd rather rely on law enforcement, who've had scads more than four hours of training to deal with any situation that develops.

Well, obviously you never put yourself in a situation where you were around those that choose to open carry. I can tell you it def creates a bit of panic!! Open Carry of Wisconsin would have get togethers for the supporters of open carry and trust me it made those anti gun gurus a little paranoid.
So CCW is def a much better choice. Again I honestly dont think you need to worry. You should worry more about the thug who will try to break in your house, pull you from your car, rape your spouse or harm your children. I choose to carry a weapon to protect myself and my family if the situation were to arise.
But wait, if the situation were to arise maybe all I would have to do is ask the criminal to hold on while I dial 911!!! Ya thats it, in the mean time he has shot my wife and kids

And by the time Law Enforcement shows up, its now an investigation!! But seriously what are the odds I would ever have to use my weapon? Very, very slim! Although I would rather have that chance as opposed to not having the chance to defend myself. You dont have to like guns and if that is your choice dont carry. But DO NOT infringe upon my right to carry!!! America we have choices

Dave, who will you be protecting yourself from? The Judges, Sheriff? Tax collectors? They say only 30% of those with a license to carry do all the time. What percent to the whole population is that? It has to be miniscule. Why are you folks making an issue of this. You know it has nothing to do with safety. This is Tea Party politics.

John, the anti-gun crowd doesn't hear the facts of lowered violent crime stats from the other states where one's protections against infringement of the inalienable right to keep and bear arms covered under the 2nd Amendment are resolved. They simply will not listen. You can cite story after story about citizens defending themselves and stopping crime, like you may read only in a freedom-advocating media source, like America's First Freedom, but they will not hear you. There are an increasing percentage of Americans who have no idea what freedom is, and when it is explained to them, they reject it.

That is really a lame example. Im sure if you were in the middle of that shootout as an innocent bystander you would be extremely greatful for your fellow citizen who is legal to carry ending the threat and possibly saving your life and the lives of others.

"Im sure if you were in the middle of that shootout as an innocent bystander you would be extremely greatful for your fellow citizen."

Gee I"ve heard this statement before. Obviously one of the Conceal and Carry Fan Club talking points!
And again how do you identify the bad guys? Are they always the ones without the lapel pins?

Thurston
You really are an idiot!!! Im done with this conversation. You are the A typical Lib who feels its your way or no way. A Pelosi clone!!

And usually the BAD GUYS are the ones with the neon signs above their heads

I expect a more brilliant argument from the Wizard of Wall Street. The problem for you may be that you do not know any facts of citizens defending themselves or their neighbors with their firearm, because the MSM will not report these facts. I challange you to read America's First Freedom magazine. Every issue there are stories reprinted from local papers around the country of average citizens saving lives and stopping mayhem by excercising their inalienable rights protected under the 2nd Amendment.

You have the responsibility of choosing to draw your weapon and use it. I have to disagree with many of the previous posts. As it is not my intention to travel the areas known to be violent once I receive my Wisconsin Permit.
I myself am currently a permit holder out of Utah. Again the odds of me ever using my gun is slim to none. With that said my gripe is all the stipulations that are being put on this bill. To repeat what Ive said there are 3 States with Constitutional Carry, no training, no permit, nothing required other than no felonys.
Last I heard there have been no shoot outs in the parking lots, grocery stores, taverns, ect. Those who will obtain a permit to carry will do so with responsibility.

Can u say a fellow Tea Party Supporter. A Common sense individual who is tired of having his rights trampled. Special Interest? OK!!! Just as the flag that flies in front of my house says........Don't Tread on Me

Oh Boo Hoo Dave. Your "Rights" are so trampled upon. Give me a break. You Tea Partiers are a bunch of social misfits who have to find some issue to whine about so you can thumb you noses at any civil or other authority.

Sounds like your the one doing the Whining!!! Well seems your Liberal policies have done alot for this nation. The same policies and beliefs that have left Greece where they are. Hmmmmmmmm Also seems to me it was the Fab 14 who ran away whining.

Well being a current Utah Permit Holder, I haven't found myself flaunting anything. It has nothing to do with flaunting!! Again it is my right to carry if I so choose!! Nothing more nothing less.
JBW so its your thought proper computer training would prevent infections? Hmmm then why havent I seen your infomercial selling your advice? If you have the answer to prevent my PC from contracting a virus you could be a wealthy man!!!
Now thats some funny stuff. Not sure how that compares to CCW

I am not opposed to a 4hr class. I attended an 8hr class to obtain my Utah Permit. I would rather leave that up to the individual rather than our legitslators making it law. Again its more about our inalienable rights under the 2nd Amendment. And as a previous commenter stated join the NRA and get your freedom first magazine and read the many stories about those citizens who have had encounters with those who have zero respect for their fellow mankind.

This seems to be the point made on both sides, to serve each agenda. Obviously, if someone is law-abiding, he abides in the law and has proper certification for most things requiring it, driver's license, building permits, etc. etc. The criminal is not law-abiding and he/she does not abide in the law. After all, it is illegal to steal, threaten, injure or murder with a firearm, but those non law-abiders do it every day. How many gangs spend time on the range? A few, probably. The one's who want to practice or try out their weaponry. But how many times do they get certified in a safety course? Um, never, I'm willing to bet. It's always a good idea to learn firearm safety and I agree that a hunter's safety certificate should suffice and fulfill any safety education requirement. If you have a hunter's safety card, you need not take redundant education.

RRJ, what is the purpose of CAC? I believe it is for the person carrying to protect themselves. If a citizen feels the need for that that should be their right. Non-carrying citizens should have a comfort zone where they understand that those carrying have at least a minimal amount of training to carry a weapon. It's like a driver's license. There are minimum training standards that need to be met. If hunter's safety requires some range shooting along with class time, that works for me. If a non-gun person goes and buys a gun at Fleet Farm and get a CAC permit without training, that doesn't work for me.

JBN, is that an existential question? I knew a man who lived in an uppity Waukesha County subdivision where the bylaws prevented him from working on his own car in the driveway. He violated those bylaws by working on his own car in his driveway. He was fined by the homeowner's association. When he complained he was told that he knew about the restrictions on his freedom when he bought the place and that he had no right to expect such freedom. You are arguing a correlating argument. You embrace bylaws that infringe on my freedom, the specific freedom which is protected. The purpose of CAC is so that the free man may excercise his inalienable rights. What is the purpose of you not being mandated to house federal troops in your home? What is the purpose of you not being forced to testify against yourself? What is the purpose of you not being able to peaceably assemble? What is the purpose of you not being allowed to own slaves? If feeling safe is what you seek, I offer that Earth is not the place for you. Cosmic rays and gravity relentlessly beating down on you, bugs and ticks and mites crawling on you as a food source, people of all different types frightening you with their strange and different ways...it's not safe out there. The illusion of safety doesn't make it any safer. Singing 'Cumbaya' 'Can't we all just get along' doesn't make it any safer. Earth: you will not get off of it alive, but I may choose to give myself a fighting chance should random mayhem find me.

JBN...my point being that I came into this country free, with a constitution in place and agreed to by all that protects my freedom. I understand that many are lining up to lay down their neighbor's freedom under the banner of 'Peace and Safety' but that doesn't work for me.

This, is not a nasty world. This is Wisconsin, made nastier because the immature among us insist they be allowed to play cowboy.

The NRA Monthly magazine has a whole section of letters from people telling their tales of self defense. Not exactly a link, but it's not hard to imagine that there have been incidents where a gun owner has used his/her weapon in self defense or in defense of others against an armed 'bad guy'...

@Dan BV-Well I would suggest you start by becoming a member of the NRA. You will receive the magazine 1st Freedom. Within that magazine you will find articles about real people who have turned to situation around when a threatened. So thats to start. It happens all the time. If you recall not to long ago in Florida a thug broke in there was a scuffle, the young womens boyfriend was able to distract the bad guy she was the able to break away to her bedroom where she had her pink 38 and proceeded to put a few rounds into the thug. The alternative most likely would have been both of them killed.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/22/armed-beauty-queen-fatally-shoots-intruder-florida-home-invasion/

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14664/statistics-show-concealed-carry-saves-many-lives-takes-few

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Do a google it's everywhere. We just had one here in Milwaukee with the black state fair mob. Man in his car with family, thugs jump on car, man pulls a gun out of the glove compartment and points at one of their heads, thugs run away.

Keith Schmitz-Dude you are entiled to your beliefs as you are not to carry. But why do u insist on constantly putting those of us down who choose to carry? U are the A typical left liberal peace loving dope smoking everything will ok individual. And thats ok just not for me!!!!

Fair enough. Some of us have a hard time putting together the sequence of events that makes concealed carry a rational law for "self-defense."
The flip side is just more well-published, as in the stories of kids playing with guns and shooting their friends.
But I will give a nod to some actual evidence.

@Dan BV-One does not have to be permitted for his children to play with his/her guns and accidentally shoot his/her buddies. Thats just plain irresponsibility

@Keith-I've come to the conclusion you just like to hear yourself talk because you have
yet back anything up with any facts. But rather your opinion and your opinion only!!

That's ridiculous.

Dan asked for examples, Dave provided some. What's so ridiculous about that?

@Keith-U have no way to back your claims!! If so then put up or shut up!!

@Keith-Thousands of gun deaths/violent crimes committed by those that fill our prison system. Its pointless talking to you so Im done. Maybe God Forbid you may find yourself in a situation where fellow citizen just happens to be carrying and prevents a bad scene from being very bad.
Keith I will def pray for you.

Keith:

What is idiotic is the idea that the concealed carry law is going to suddenly make everyone unsafe because someone we encounter *might* be carrying a concealed weapon. You are blissfully ignorant if you think that you have never encountered a person that was carrying a concealed weapon.

If you don't feel the need to carry a weapon, then don't carry a weapon. I don't own a gun and don't plan to ever own one--I don't see the need to have one. Others have a different opinion and different needs. I can respect that and support their right to own and carry a gun.

I must admit that I actually am more concerned for my safety now--my work is going to be posting a sign advertising the fact that everyone in our building (including our security guards) are unarmed. Not exactly the wisest move considering the neighborhood in which I work...

I did not know that the CC law makes it lawful for me to shoot my gun into the sky on New Years Eve. I don't think that's safe handling of a firearm; I wonder what Texas migrant yahoo legislator snuck that one in there?

Dave, my point was sarcasm. I was replying to what Mrs. R. said. Go back to bed and get further away from model glue.

@Ray-Alright your forgiven. How did you know I was building models again. Its funny how ignorant some people really are!! Did you hear that the area Malls are also banning firearms from their properties? But, Johnson Creek and the Pleasant Prairie Outlets refused to be part of that story on wtmj. So sounds like I will not be shopping at area malls this Holiday season.

I see everyone's point on this topic, and I don't judge anyone. You might want to withhold the sarcasm and try being a bit more tolerant of people's opinions. My sister was killed in the mall she was working in by a teenager with a gun. I understand and respect your right to carry concealed weapons. I would appreciate it if you would try to understand and respect my wanting guns banned from certain areas where young kids hang out.

@Shannon-And I am sorry for your loss and most def can respect your comments. But my question to you would be.........Was the person who committed such a violent act a law abiding valid permit holder? Since you reference the shooter as being a teenager my guess is NO!!! Once again we will make rules to punish those who are responsible, law abiding citizens who have and or will choose to protect themselves and their family members from such a crime!!! Thus the whole reason to be a permit holder. Shannon nobody here is disrespecting you or what happened to your sister.

What is a news "cycle"?

Well Dave, I had hope for a great exchange of opinions with you after reading your first response to me. However, in your second response you call me "blind" and exclaim "GIVE ME A BREAK" without giving me further opportunity to explain my beliefs. Why the aggression? I think you and I probably have more in common than not. I should know better than to get involved in this particular topic since I don't want to revisit the past and dredge up why I have certain opinions, so I will take responsibility for starting up the exchange. I respect your opinion Dave. You are right on many points. Let's just leave it at that.

@Shannon-And I can respect your as well!! I am sorry if I have offended you in any way!! Shannon I am just tired of some of the people on this site that honestly have no clue. Yes, it appears we may share some common ground with this subject and I would enjoy a debate with you.

@Shannon-I can only try and imagine where you are at with all of this. I just try approach the whole thing with common sense and an open mind. Violent crimes committed by permit holders is extremely low and u can verify that thru FBI stats. I will see if I can find you a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
The violent crimes committed by permit holders in less than 1% so once again just because places of Business whether it be malls, grocery stores, ect does not ensure the publics safety because we all know the criminals have no regard for the law

A police Sgt. recently negligently discharged his OFF DUTY firearm. He chose to carry his gun in his pocket. He has had more than 12 hours of firearms training and still chose to carry his gun in a foolish and unsafe manner.

The person that shot your loved one would honor any signage to not carry weapons.

What I've been through I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy - even you Hudson Resident. I cannot believe you have the gall to say, "And a life was probably saved by a conceal permit holder in Minnesota this week, so what's your point . . .?" Here's my point. A teenager who had his father's gun (and the father was a convicted felon) walked into the store where my 17-year-old sister worked and he shot and killed her. My family and I had to endure a week of trial testimony where my dead sister was put on trial ("What could she have done to make this kid mad?" was what everyone wanted to know.) Her murderer made faces at us and laughed at us during the trial. I have seen the face of pure evil. In the end, his confession was deemed to be coerced, and he walked away a free man. My parents' marriage fell apart. My father died years before he should have and my mother has never been the same. The teenager pulled a knife on a police officer some years later and he was shot and killed.

Here's what you should take away from this story Hudson Resident: (1) People may believe differently than you do for a reason. (2) "Statistics" and "collateral damage" are people. So far, it probably wasn't someone you know or loved, but I haven't been so lucky. (3) Intelligent people can discuss their differences rather than verbally attack others. There are many areas where I agree with conceal and carry fans. You are a jerk. And to Dave - thanks for the links. I will read them.

Dave, I read all the links you provided. My take on the information provided is that some studies showed an increase in crime in states with concealed carry and some studies showed a decline in the murder rate and other crimes. The main gist, as I read it, is that the data is too ambiguous to establish a positive or negative effect on concealed carry on crime.

Here are the areas where I agree with you (and others who have posted above): People should be able to exercise their right to carry weapons. I think that signs advertising that guns are not allowed in certain buildings is definitely asking for trouble in certain areas.

As I understand it, you are not opposed to taking classes in gun safety, but you are opposed to the law requiring such courses. Here is why I think such courses being required may be a good idea: Imagine a scenario where a 19-year-old college student is worried for her safety and buys a gun. She doesn't see the need to take a safety course since all she needs to do is point and shoot. She knows none of the basic rules of gun safety. What are the odds that if she shoots that gun, she won't look past what she is shooting at and she could injure an innocent bystander? A safety course may prevent that from happening.

The other fear I have is that the more people who own guns means there is a greater chance for irresponsible people letting their kids get hold of the guns. Maybe that fear is irrational, but surely you can understand it.

@Shannon- Well in response to your response the individual you refer to in your post can not buy a gun. She must be 21 to legally purchase a hand gun and to apply for a ccw permit. So we wont have any imature 19 year old kids running around with guns in their pockets legally!!! Again she is not old enough at 19.

Ah, my bad. Well, say she's 21 in the scenario. My point is that some people would benefit from training even if they don't believe it. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but from the comments above, you feel it should be their choice whether or not to get training. I think that's where you and I disagree.

Murder is caused by people with guns. Guns don't kill people - but people with guns can kill people. If you don't get the three points I set out for you, you have bigger problems than picking fights on an anonymous news forum. I was putting forth my point of view as someone who has suffered the death of a family member from gun violence. You callously and maliciously remarked that (while my sister died) someone's life was probably saved in Minnesota and asked me "so what's your point?" Yes, I have a thin skin on this issue but not with those who would debate intelligently on the matter of conceal and carry. I have a thin skin with those who make disgusting and unfeeling comments about my circumstances. I will not answer your comments in the future. Have a nice life.

Murder is also caused by people with hammers, knives, saw blades, sitcks, bare hands, cars, or any other noun fashioned into weapon by the human mind. The mind is the culprit, the noun is the weapon. List the noun, and I'll explain how it could be fashioned into a murder weapon. Shannon's loss is tragic. But it was the kid who killed her beloved family member, and that kid used a gun. My thought to this is that if there were responsible, courageous, armed citizens there, maybe the kid wouldn't have got a shot off. I don't know how it played out, but I will bet my life that the kid was the only one bringing a gun to his crime scene. No one else had any defense, no one else had any way to stop him other than make some calls and wait for help. Shannon's relative could not wait, and was killed. Not knowing the details of the scene, I wonder if an armed member of the militia, meaning any able-bodied citizen, drawing a gun in defense would have caused this kid to not fire in offense. Shannon, I am sorry that your family was a victim of crime. We all need to be looking out for one another. There are people other than the paid local army (the cops) that are as well-equipped, physically and spiritually, to protect and defend their realm. This is our freedom, and this is our right.

You are probably right Ray Ray, and I used to play that scenario in my head over and over for years - what if someone had been there to shoot my sister's killer. Had it played out that way, no doubt I would be firmly sitting on your side of the fence. Many things came into play in my sister's killing. The teenager was on drugs at the time. His father - a convicted felon - should not have been able to obtain a gun. The teenager should not have had access to his father's gun. There should have been a manager present in the store at closing time. I could go on forever. Had other people with guns have been present, maybe more people would have been killed. Maybe not. How safe can we feel if training is not required with handguns? I guess everyone has a different answer. But surely you can see why I would be afraid if guns were allowed in or near schools or other places where children are present. Am I paranoid? Perhaps. Are my kids in close proximity to people with guns right now and I just don't know it? Probably. There are so many conflicting thoughts that I have on this subject, but one thing is certain - I would never wish what my family went through on anybody.

Shannon, I don't think you are paranoid, and I'm sure you've gone over every scenario imaginable to try and make sense of what happened and how it could not have happened. I would never try to change your perspective. My thought on what you said was that any amount of training or any CC law would not have changed the fact that the culprits in your horror were not following any laws anyway. Education would not have stopped a felon with a gun or his evil seed from taking it and using it. In fact, I'll bet that thee felon was educated on his loss of any right to posess a firearm; it didn't do any good because their minds were those of murderers. Back on point of education, Hunter's Safety class is all about safe and responsible handling of a firearm. The class has really nothing to do with hunting. It doesn't teach woodsmanship, animal recognition, tactics and techniques, biology, or animal behavior; it's all about firearm safety. Once passed, a child of 12 may, with adult supervision, carry a legal firearm, with appropriate legal ammunition, and he/she may do so unsupervised at age 14. This is the type of training that should suffice. It is not a safe world, and nothing can stop an opportunistic or motivated criminal, not even the outright banning of firearms. But as far as an education requirement, passing a hunter's safety course should be good enough and I am fine with that. Military training and a DD214 are not good enough because safety is not the focus in BRM.

@Shannon- Yes what RayRay said was very right on. As you stated are there people around your children with guns now YES Im sure there is.
As for the training- I currently hold a Utah Non Resident CCW Permit. I had to sit thru 8hrs of training. The training consisted of mostly the responsibility's of carrying a weapon. It had no gun safety or gun handling attached to it. I am not totally against some training in some fashion. Because I can tell you the 8hrs I received was actually excellent!! It was extremely informative as far as the when is deadly force required/allowed and when is it not. It also brought to light the consequences of making that decision to use my firearm. I just dont like the Government telling me what,where,when and how I can do something that is naturally a god given right per the Constitution. So yes some form of training is not a bad thing and I would think that as a law abiding responsible citizen we will make the right decisions.

Thanks guys for the information and insight into your opinions. A lot for me to think about. Thanks also for the very civil exchange while giving me your perspectives on the issue.

@Shannon-Also out of the now 49 States with conceal carry legislation on their books 3 of those States are true Constitutional Carry States. Vermont, Alaska and now Airzona with soon to me Wyoming and more to follow. Those 3 States mentioned do not have issues of shootouts in the parking lots, shopping malls or anyplace else for that matter. responsible citizens excerisisng their right to keep and bear arms as the Constitution was written and intended.

@Dave...What difference does it make that Arizona, Vermont and Alaska have decided on the concept of constitutional carry, with Wyoming following? That is the right of those states as is the right of Wisconsin to demand 4 hours of training before issuing a CC permit. This is the purview of each state as guaranteed by the constitution of the United States as well as the State of Wisconsin. It would still be constitutional if Wisconsin prohibited certain caliber firearms. It would be consistent that the State of Wisconsin could prohibit any caliber handgun bigger than a .25 caliber. They could also prohibit smokeless powder weapons since they would not be prohibiting the owning and bearing of weapons. You are mistaken to believe that you have an unfettered right to any type of weapon you want.

(continued)...The restrictions or permissions are long and intricate. To begin with the states have reserved the right to determine who and under what conditions granted for the privilege of carrying arms and types of arms. Given the states oversight rights, it may determine if citizens can open carry, conceal carry, carry loaded or unloaded, etc. It all comes down to the following:

Whether states decides that a person doesn't need firearms training or does is not a violation of the constitution right to own and bears arms and does not infringe on the basic rights. It is the state's right to determine what training is required for the issuance of a permit to legally bear arms. therefore, all the points back and forth have no meaning as it relates to the right of owning and bearing arms.

Now if I wanted to restrict firearms usage, I would regulate ammunition. It is not covered under the constitution and it doesn't matter how many firearms one owns, it you can't get ammunition they only represent expensive paperweights. This is where those opposing firearms could have a significant impact. But discussion of that is for a later time.

@Jeff Anderson...Jeff rest assured that if you are not convicted of a felony or determined to be mentally deficient, the State of Wisconsin cannot take away your legally owned firearms. All the state can do is regulate under what conditions, provisions and/or restrictions that can bear arms.

I wouldn't be too sure, Lyle. Didn't the village of Shorewood try to ban firearms a few years ago?

...only a violation of the law until the balance of the Supreme Court changes to favor the anti-gun crowd.

@CowDung...So, what's your point? This is how it has been and probably will continue. We have to deal with the law as it is now.

My point is that the right to own firearms isn't necessarily as secure as it was being made out to be...

@CowDung...As far as the right goes, it is not an inalienable right or rights "bestowed by G-d". Just as alcohol prohibition was enacted through constitutional amendment and then using the same process repealed, any alienable right is subject to change. To believe otherwise is quite foolish. Anyone who believes that if 2/3 majority wants to change a constitutional right, is surely deluded.

@Dave....Sorry, but you are incorrect. The body of the Constitution was drawn up but would not pass ratification without the 10 amendments or Bill of Rights. As such, any and all amendments become a part of the constitution after ratification by two thirds of the states legislative branches. Quite simply, the right to own and bear arms is not an inalienable right and is subject to change through the amendment process.

@Dave...You don't understand the difference between alienable and inalienable rights. Alienable rights are given or agreed to by or between men. Inalienable rights are given by G-d. Man is not to attempt to change inalienable rights, alienable rights are subject to change.

@Dave...I don't see the twisting around that you're citing. I agree the constitution was drafted to protect the individual and minority from the excesses of the majority. However, the constitution is a flexible document and it isn't written in stone. Changing the constitution has increased the individuals alienable rights, such as women's suffrage and outlawing slavery. I don't think you have anything to worry about with changing 2nd amendment rights.

Rising up against government tyranny is a nice thought but a tough reality. Look at what happened at Waco and Randy Weaver. All I can visualize is someone standing in the middle of the street defiantly facing down an M1 Abrams tank with a .44 Magnum. Kind of ridiculous image isn't it? Kind of romantic thought.

@Lyle-Yes I have to agree with the Abrams but you understand what Im saying.

@Dave...Yes, I understand you.

@randy1949...Well said!

Glad to see you don't take offense to being called 'the odd Jew'. ;-)