Sloppiness, ignorance, or deliberate deceit?
Eugene Kane wrote a column this weekend that is so laughably lame that I really didn't even want to comment on it.In his column he comes out against a conceal and carry law recently passed in Wisconsin that would allow citizens to apply for a permit, and with specific training, carry a concealed weapon. His first argument against it is (to paraphrase): The only folks who support it are rednecks from small towns (where there is little street crime). All the leaders of the biggest urban area (where there is a lot of street crime) are against it. The urban leaders who oppose it must be correct because they see the results of gun violence and the hicks from the sticks do not.
One person he mentions by name and quotes is the Milwaukee DA, Mike McCann:
"I truly fear that the more guns that are around, the more dangerous it will be. My community, my family and I will be safer without a concealed-carry law," McCann said.
Don't know about you, but I'll take the word of the guy who prosecutes serious crimes in Milwaukee over the guy from Waterford.
Of course, the reason for this is that all the urban leaders, including Mike McCann, are flaming liberal Democrats. So, that's a pretty flimsy reason. Do I say that I think tax cuts must be worthwhile because most Republicans support them? It's kind of a circular argument, which is as close to a real argument as you will get from Kane.
Next, he talks about how there is talk of providing an amendment to exempt Milwaukee county from the conceal and carry law. He then suggests that some will say it is racist to exempt majority black areas from a privilege that majority white areas enjoy. He says:
That's the same sort of political double-speak that allows some Republican legislators to praise expanded school choice in the guise of looking out for poor black children in Milwaukee, when it's actually about sticking it to Milwaukee public schools and the teachers union.
If any of these folks were really concerned about the plight of poor minority children in Milwaukee, you'd see that concern reflected in more of their votes outside of the school choice issue.
Ahem ...public schools are failing an entire generation of children. Middle and upper income folks don't have to worry about it because they can just send their kids to a private school. Poor families do not have that option. He demonstrates with his snide remark that he cares more about the "public schools and the teachers union" than he does about the plight of the children forced to attend MPS.
Try the patented Frogurt Gate theory. It's a great way to determine if a system or place or idea is worthwhile. If you opened the gate to MPS and let all the people who wanted to leave to attend the school of their choice, how many would choose to stay at MPS?
Forget Republicans, forget WEAC, forget the Democrats. We're talking about real families attending real schools in real communities. What would happen to MPS if we did this? I think even Kane would admit that it would collapse from all the people running to escape. This should tell him something about how well the schools are serving their communities, but why should he care about that? Keeping the public school monopoly in Milwaukee keeps the liberal unions rich with dues, which they can then spend on electing liberal legislators, which will bring more liberalism to Milwaukee. I could suggest that this is all Kane cares about, but I can't see into his heart like he can see into Republican hearts.
Also, he suggests that if these folks from upstate really cared about the inner city, they would show it with their votes on different issues. What issues? Also, ...if someone doesn't vote the same way Kane does, that means they "don't care" about their fellow man? Gosh, it must be so nice to live on a higher moral level than everyone else. Ahhh, to be a liberal ....
He gets back to the issue at hand ...
Concealed guns for Milwaukee is such a stupid idea, it's no surprise the impetus for it comes not from any new trend toward violent crime in the state, but from a bunch of partisan hacks looking to make things dicey for a new Democratic governor.
Someone should inform Kane, since he's apparently been asleep for 50 years, that Republican actually believe a concealed carry law will either reduce crime and give citizens the ability to thwart crime. But of course, liberals only see conspiracy, payoffs, and dirty deeds as the motives for the barely human Republicans.
They are playing politics with people's lives, mostly people they don't represent.
What's he saying, ...that inner city people are more likely to kill one another than good, moral, white folk from the burbs? That seems to be the implication here. Sounds racist to me.
Furthermore, where has a concealed carry law caused more gun-related deaths? Where? Kane should be battering us with statistics from the 45 other states who have such a law. He should be filling us with stories about the carnage and horror and bloodlust all for the benefit of the gun lobby! But he can't, can he? These statistics don't exist because that hasn't happened, has it? Does reality count for anything to this boob? Not when it disagrees with his views, I guess.
He then goes on to list a few violent crimes and suggests:
It's impossible to see how any of these deaths could have been prevented by the victim carrying a handgun; in most cases, it's not even feasible.
Well, he's wrong yet again. In fact, there have been many cases where crimes have been thwarted by law-abiding, heat packing citizens. Often, the media covers up this fact, as in the Appalachian law school shootings where the fact that an armed citizen prevented further bloodshed was completely covered up by all the majority media outlets and wire services.
Sure, sometimes you cannot use a weapon to prevent an attack. But sometimes you can. Furthermore, most of the crime reducing effect of the law is to put it in the criminals mind that the person they are planning to rob, rape, or attack might have a weapon. Most criminals don't have a death wish, so they deliberately prey on the weak.
Now, writes this piece of garbage:
Sure, there might be 45 other states that allow concealed weapons, but I'll bet none of them can claim a drastic drop in gun violence since passing the laws.
First, he seems to admit that he really doesn't know if the laws reduced crime (I'm assuming he's been too busy to actually research his column), otherwise he would definitively say that these laws do NOT reduce crime. Also, he couches his assertion with the term "drastic" to protect against likely evidence that crime has actually been reduced in these communities.
He should just google the issue and inform himself of the evidence, but we don't call them knee-jerk liberals for nothing.
Here are some actual facts that he could easily find:
Since 1991, the number of privately owned firearms in the U.S. has increased by about 50 million, the number of right-to-carry states has increased from 15 to 33, and violent crime has decreased every year. - NRA
States that adopted nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws saw murders decreased by at least 8%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robberies by 3%. The murder rates of women permit-holders fell by as much as five times the drop of their male counterparts. - (More Guns, Less Crime, John R. Lott, Jr., University of Chicago Press, 1998)
Also, a very popular book was written on this very topic called More Guns, Less Crime.
Kane may want to read it, or at least be aware that it exists. He might not look like such a fool so consistently.
<< Home