Concealed carry permit holders shoot it out on a Milwaukee freeway

[mokawanis]

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/writers/steven_elbow/concealed-carry-permit-holders-shoot-it-out-on-a-milwaukee/article_2ffe8fb2-400e-511d-bf5e-c88994f4b4be.html

"When the Legislature passed Wisconsin's concealed carry law nearly two years ago, the main argument for it was that good guys needed to carry guns to stop the bad guys.

So what to make of a road-rage incident where two concealed carry permit holders engage in a wild west-style shootout as they sped down a Milwaukee freeway? There has to be a bad guy, right?"

-snip-


"The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that Adamany told the cops that Scott "mean mugged" him and flashed a black handgun, prompting him to flash his own.

The driver sped away, with Admany in pursuit firing away while Scott squeezed off rounds toward the pursuing vehicle from the car window, holding the gun over his shoulder with his right hand while steering with his left. The chase ended when Adamany shot out all four tires of the fleeing car and both shooters contacted a couple of the many officers who had saturated the area."

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Two outstanding citizens. Armed and ready to shoot anyone who gives me them a dirty look. One of the shooters told the Sentinel that "Sheriff Clarke said to stand up for ourselves, we're a team," he told TMJ4. "I was trying to be a team player and provide the information and get law enforcement on scene."

[rdharma]

1. "mean mugged"

It's the "stand your stink-eye" defense!

[Tigress DEM]

4. bwaaaa ha ha ha! ""stand your stink-eye" defense!"

YOU called it, man. That is EXACTLY it.

[Ed Suspicious]

2. What idiocy. Thanks Walker and company for keeping our streets safe. We invest

billions against the specter of terrorism, meanwhile we enact laws that allow our own neighbors to wreak actual havoc on our lives.

[Old Codger]

3. For me

It shows that Wisconsin law is pretty lame on who qualifies and what training is needed... But seeing it is Wisconsin I am not too surprised considering the rest of the laws they have passed lately.

I actually think Wisconsin as a whole is a great place and have spent many many good times there... But if I lived there now I would move pretty quickly

[rurallib]

5. When they get their permit, they should also get a sign designating

"good guy" or "bad guy"
It is sure hard to tell them apart.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Why don't we give them someplace

like, maybe, Ozaukee County, to just have it out with each other?

You could relocate all 9 sane people from the county so there would be no innocent bystanders.

[southernyankeebelle]

7. Thank god all that rage didn't kill any innocent people driving by. Crazy. It's just like

the wild, wild west except they are using cars instead of horses. Both should lose their right to carry guns.

[Booster]

11. They both should lose their right to drive, THEN people would start paying attention.

[southernyankeebelle]

16. Good point

[Thor_MN]

17. My $0.02: They would pay more attention to their guns being taken...

If they lost their current weapons and their ability to legally purchase more, they would pay more attention.

[Half-Century Man]

8. Yayyyy My state.

How about this to slow down the carnage? You get fined a thousand dollars for every round fired. If you are defending you life actually, the cost won't matter.

[liberal N proud]

9. Who would have ever thought this could happen?

Not the gun nuts, that's for sure, they will insist that more guns are the answer and that just owning and carrying a gun make you instantly become a law abiding, level headed person.

I have heard that mantra over and over from the gun nuts, still this happens and they will just repeat.

[mokawanis]

10. Taking their cues from guys like Walker and Sheriff Clarke

When legislators and law officers tell people it's perfectly fine to carry a weapon and be prepared the shoot the "bad guys" there's a lot of morons and gun nuts out there who are happy to oblige.

[krispos42]

12. Looks like you only hear what you want to hear then.

Nobody says owning and carrying a gun makes you instantly (or otherwise) become law abiding or level-headed.

It has been said that in order to get a permit you need a squeaky-clean criminal record.

If you think this is a problem, you need to do some research. How often do CCW permittees shoot it out, anyway?

There are dozens of murders committed every day, and the people doing those are not carrying permits.

[liberal N proud]

15. If only I had the time to find the comments in the Gun Nut group

The times that I have had responses from gun nuts claiming such things.

And any number of shoot outs above 0 is too many! And do you think that just because someone has a CCW, they are immune from murder? Human nature says otherwise!

[Thor_MN]

18. "There are dozens of murders committed every day, and the people doing those are not carrying permi"

Interesting. You believe permit holders never commit murder...

[krispos42]

22. Very few are

let's take an honest look at the circumstances in which CCW would allow a gun-related murder to occur that otherwise would not.

It would have to occur a) in public space and b) be a spontaneous, unplanned murder. Not self defense; murder.

If a CCW permittee kills his or her spouse or child at home, then CCW was not a factor. Likewise, if he/she plans and executes a murder, then CCW is also not a factor.

So looking for cases where CCW was instrumental in a murder will be a long and hard one.

[Thor_MN]

23. Let be honest instead.

You said that murders are not committed by permit holders. Period.

Now you want all sorts of qualifications, including excluding most types of murders.

Murder is murder. A permit holder is a permit holder, regardless of where they are, and who they might shoot.

All permit holders are on your side of the discussion, You do not get to disown them when they murder someone.

[krispos42]

24. The issue was permit holders in the public sphere

That was what I was addressing.

I don't think the two idiots in Wisconsin were driving on their private indoor track, do you?

If you're going to throw nitpicking at me because you don't want to admit that I'm right, go right ahead.




"Now you want all sorts of qualifications, including excluding most types of murders."

What does this mean, exactly? That if a CCW permittee gets into an argument with his wife and kills her with a shotgun, that should somehow be blamed on his CCW permit and concealed pistol?


The core argument of the OP is that allowing concealed-carry increases murders and attempted murders to an alarming degree that requires it be repealed. Since CCW permits have nothing to do with either a) keeping guns at home, or b) people that premeditate murder, those must be eliminated.

If you think that murders done at home are related to CCW permits, then please elaborate.



And I'm waiting for you to take responsibility for all the murders that aren't permit holders.

[Thor_MN]

27. Your direct quote was that permit holders do not commit murder

"There are dozens of murders committed every day, and the people doing those are not carrying permits."

You gave no qualifications, nothing was implied by context as the two idiots, who had permits, were lucky enough to have not hit anybody.

I'm not the one nitpicking, you wanted to throw out every type of gun violence except the narrow sliver of a permit holder randomly shooting a person in a public space. I'm saying that you need to be inclusive, that all permit holders are in your camp, like it or not. There's undoubtedly a huge number of good people in that crowd, but you own the idiots too.
If a permit holder commits murder in any way, shape, or form it is a failure of the permitting system as they should have never been given a permit in the first place. Granted, it is not possible to catch every nut, but what is your acceptable number of murders?

You have to defend your fellow permit holders. If you want to defend the privilege of concealed carry, you need come up with a way to make it safe. If it can't be made safe, then maybe it needs insurance to cover the liability. If that is not possible, maybe it needs to go away.

There is no core argument of the OP, it is a news story. The comment that you replied to said nothing about murder.
"Not the gun nuts, that's for sure, they will insist that more guns are the answer and that just owning and carrying a gun make you instantly become a law abiding, level headed person." You were the person that introduced murder to the discussion, and you pulled the "core argument" out of thin air.

And sorry, there is absolutely no need for me to defend murderers. Since you claim the need to carry a lethal weapon with in order to feel safe, you need to defend that need, and all others who want the same privilege.

[krispos42]

29. Permit holders rarely commit murder

Feel better now that it's all amended and accurate?

Here's even more accuracy: permit holders very rarely commit spontaneous murders in public areas.

Can I trust you'll go after the anti-gun side's accuracy with equal fevor?


I mean, I could argue that on any given day, none of the murders committed on that particular day were done by a CCW permittee, but that would simply get us nowhere.

I was TRYING to give context to the news report, which has been posted here in other OPs that were showing this as feeding into the prejudiced view that many gun-control advocates have of the mentality of people that get CCW permits, that particular Rambo/Wild West view that is a great talking-point, but is fundamentally as accurate and truthful as most other talking points. Have you married your dog yet, now that Minnesota has passed marriage equality?


The reason (again) that I call bullshit on the theory that more CCW permittees will result in more murders is that the only time that CCW permits would, indeed COULD, be a factor is in the circumstances of a public-area, spontaneous murder. CCW permits are not, and cannot be, a factor in murders committed in the permittee's house (because you don't need a CCW permit to have a gun in your house); nor can they be a factor in a premeditated murder (because a person intent on driving someplace to kill a specific person for a specific reason will not be stopped by permit requirements).

And since public-area, spontaneous murders are almost always committed by career criminals with an extensive arrest and incarceration record, this means that having a moral panic over CCW permittees is the least effective way I can imagine to in any way, shape, or form affect the murder rate.


And, by the way, since you claim the need to deprive people of their CCW permits in order to feel safe, you need to defend that need. Because if you're really worried about CCW permittees killing you, and not the career criminal with the illegally-acquired, illegally-carried gun, then you need to do some research.

[Thor_MN]

30. Took you long enough to correct your errors, but you made new ones.

" Have you married your dog yet, now that Minnesota has passed marriage equality?"
Really? Buying into a rabid right wing totally fucking insane talking point? Are you sure you are in the right place?

Still wrong on the permits. The permitting process should exclude those apt to commit murder regardless of where it happens. What is your acceptable rate of failure of the permitting process and how are you going to deal with the liability of permit holders misusing their firearms?

I have no fear of anyone in the public places I choose to inhabit, so FAIL again. Your fear drove you into getting a CC permit, you bear the burden of either making that whole process safer, or losing the privileges you so desperately cling to,

[krispos42]

31. I expanded my points days ago, but thanks for ignoring that.

"Buying in"? Try sarcasm.

I know it's hip and cool and popular on DU to attribute Rambo/John McClane/Dirty Harry/KKK attributes to anybody that wants to carry a concealed gun in public. I know it's hip and cool and popular on DU to state that concealed-carry permittees are just cop wanna-bees looking for a chance to legally kill a non-white or two.

And if you really believe it's an accurate representation of CCW permittees, then you also probably believe that marriage equality is a slippery slope to being able to marry kitchen appliances. Both are equally ridiculous.

Still wrong on the permits. The permitting process should exclude those apt to commit murder regardless of where it happens. What is your acceptable rate of failure of the permitting process and how are you going to deal with the liability of permit holders misusing their firearms?

People that are apt to commit murder are those with criminal records. Since permit holders have to have clean criminal records to get a permit, they are already excluded.

If a permit holder "misuses" his or her firearm, there is already a process of accountability in criminal and civil court. An arrest for assault, attempted murder, or murder, and civil charges for injuries and medical expenses and such. If this was really common problem (like car accidents) then I'm sure there would be some kind of requirement for the permit mandated by one state or another.



I don't have a CCW permit, although thanks to the laws your side supported and that recently passed in Connecticut, I may have to get one of the damn things.

I had one in South Dakota so that I could purchase a handgun without the 48-hour waiting period. It saved me 4 hours of driving, and only cost $10 at the local sheriff's office with a 24-hour waiting period.

I honestly think the South Dakota process should have been more stringent. I did not have to show any kind of proficiency with a gun at all, nor I did not have to demonstrate any sort of knowledge of self-defense or concealed-carry law.

Hell, they didn't even ask if I could see. I could have been blind, and still gotten a pistol permit!

[Thor_MN]

32. I didn't ignore. I rejected the fallacy that that only random shootings in public places are in play

If you are going to use sarcasm, try using the smilie. With the arguments you have been putting up, it's not too hard to imagine you would believe in the right wing animal sex meme/idiocy you posted.

You conveniently are ignoring those that have yet to notch that criminal record, by pulling an absolute out of thin air. (Hint, try to avoid absolute statements like "People that are apt to commit murder are those with criminal records." They tend to make you look bad. Impossible that every last person apt to commit murder already has a criminal record.) Again, what is your acceptable failure rate in screening? You would be in favor of requiring insurance, if the gun lobby wasn't quashing the concept?

I don't have a side, I'm just asking you to be honest and stop making absolute statements that have no basis in reality. You retracted the first ones that got me to respond to you in the first place.

Can we agree that MOST people apt to commit murder MIGHT already have a criminal record and so be screened out? OK? Great. Now what do you propose to do about those that don't? Remember, you have to come up with a way for it to be acceptably safe, or the privilege for people who fear might have to go away. Personally I don't want to see it go away, there are those who have a legitimate reason to carry.

I want to see reasonable control, but the gun lobby is deadly afraid of allowing any regulation. That damn ol' slippery slope. They must have some sort of fetish for slippery things because they sure talk about them a lot.

[krispos42]

33. Oh, for fuck's sake.

How am I not being clear on this issue?


IF A CCW PERMITTEE COMMITS MURDER IN HIS OWN HOUSE, HIS PERMIT TO CARRY CONCEALED IN PUBLIC HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS ABILITY TO COMMIT THE MURDER IN THE PRIVACY OF HIS OWN HOUSE. Because a CCW permit is not required to keep a gun in the house.



IF A CCW PERMITTEE PLANS A MURDER AT A SPECIFIC LOCATION AND TRAVELS TO THAT LOCATION SPECIFICALLY TO COMMIT MURDER, HIS PERMIT TO CARRY CONCEALED IN PUBLIC HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS ABILITY TO COMMIT THE MURDER. Because there is nothing stopping him from illegally carrying the gun on his person to commit the premeditated murder.

You might as well also make note of the fact that he has a driver's license, or a fishing license, or a fucking library card.

So, yeah, when discussing CCW permits, we are only discussing spontaneous murders committed in public by people legally carrying a concealed pistol, because those are the only kinds of murders that would be in any way affected by a PERMIT to carry CONCEALED in PUBLIC.

(Hint, try to avoid absolute statements like "People that are apt to commit murder are those with criminal records." They tend to make you look bad. Impossible that every last person apt to commit murder already has a criminal record.)

"apt to" is not an absolute statement. That's item #1.

And of course, not every murderer has a previous criminal record. But they tend to. They're APT to, one might say. A history of violence... assaults, domestic assaults, robbery, mugging, etc.

Now what do you propose to do about those that don't? Remember, you have to come up with a way for it to be acceptably safe, or the privilege for people who fear might have to go away.

I hear that DC has a pre-crime division. Lemme call up Tom Cruise, see if he knows anything about it...

Since the public-area spontaneous murder rate by CCW permittees is extremely low (which, AGAIN, is the only type of murder that could be increased by CCW permits) I dispute there is in fact a problem, or that it is not acceptably safe.

[Thor_MN]

34. Again, you are clear, clearly wrong. Saying it repeatedly and in all caps doesn't change anything.

You do not get to exclude everything other than your narrowly defined, small occurrence cases. We are talking about a process to allow a person to carry a concealed weapon in public places. That process should weed out, as well as possible, those prone to gun violence. Do you really want to give the people you just shouted about permission to travel around with a lethal weapon? Sure, they could do it illegally, but why the fuck would you blindly give them the ability to lawfully do it? Lets just give out driver's licenses to anyone who asks, because there is nothing stopping them from illegally driving without one. There's only a exceedingly small percentage of people who plan to plow their vehicle into a crowded sidewalk and there's nothing stopping them from doing that without a license, so let's give them one anyway.

I keep asking, and you keep ignoring, what you believe is an acceptable failure rate of that process. Obviously, there is no way to screen out every person who would discharge their weapon in an unsafe, unlawful manner. What rate of failure should we accept? The OP was about the very clear failure of that process for two people, who fortunately were lucky enough not to have killed anyone. I'll take your silence on the topic of insurance that you agree that a permit holder should be required to obtain liability insurance, just like auto liability insurance.

You really believe that two people shooting up a highway is acceptably safe? You believe giving out permits like cotton candy wouldn't increase the number of public shootouts?

Apt to is not absolute, no, but you somehow totally missed the part that is absolute. Hate to keep quoting you but

"People that are apt to commit murder are those with criminal records."

That is an absolute statement, like it or not. You said that each and every person that is apt to commit murder (you have now defined a group of people) has a criminal record (and now made an absolute comment about that group). Your words, not mine, and obviously false.

"And of course, not every murderer has a previous criminal record. But they tend to."

And now you back away from the obviously false, absolute statement, as I requested Thank you.


The real world is not black and white, positive and negative. It's messy and all shades of gray. Sorry that it doesn't fit into the nice, neat binary world that you seem to want it to be.

[krispos42]

35. I really can't believe I'm making myself unclear.

I really don't know how to make myself clearer. You are both simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with me.

You do not get to exclude everything other than your narrowly defined, small occurrence cases. We are talking about a process to allow a person to carry a concealed weapon in public places.

So by your own words, we are NOT talking about people who are NOT carrying in public places. We're NOT talking about people that keep guns in their home, or about people that premeditate murder. Yet when I exclude that, you say I cannot exclude them.

This is not an arbitrary choice I am making. This is a logical, mandatory exclusion that is completely independent of partisan politics or political sides.


The question is... what is the public safety risk of issuing CCW permits? The consideration MUST BE restricted to the risk of non-premeditated murder in a public area. The consideration MUST BE restricted to consideration of how a person who is just going about his routine business in public will affect public safety, because that is what a CCW permit DOES.

Apt to is not absolute, no, but you somehow totally missed the part that is absolute. Hate to keep quoting you but

"People that are apt to commit murder are those with criminal records."

Yes. And people with no criminal records are NOT apt to commit murder. These are both absolute statements that are absolutely true.

Your concern with my statement before was that is was both absolute and wrong, refusing to accept that it's a broad statement. 40 people a day are murdered in the US, on average. About 25 of them are with guns. And I'm pretty sure that on any given day, none of them are by CCW permittees. But there must be a CCW permittee on some days, just like there must be Democrats and Jews and gays and left-handed orthodontists and dyslexic vegans and color-blind traffic engineers.

Since "people that are apt to commit murder are those with criminal records" is true, then the fact that it's absolute should not bother anybody.

I did not say that all murders are those with criminal records. In fact, I said the opposite.


Now that that is cleared up, let's progress.


Talking of "failure rates". How would you define failure, first of all? What are the criteria? You seem to be angling for a concealed-carry system where, if there is a certain failure rate, the system simply shuts down. All permits get pulled simultaneously and no new ones are issued. Is that reasonable?

How is failure defined? People in the wake of the Zimmerman verdict seem to want to define an increase in self-defense shootings as a failure of the law. Is that reasonable? How about defining this as a "success rate" for CCW? Nobody on here seems to want to discuss that.

The other problem is media. Hype by the corporate media can make things disproportionally important, distort facts, and even make their own reality. Consider this: people think the crime rate is soaring, that it is out of control, that it is increasing, because of the way the corporate media covers crime.

Obviously this is not so; crime rates have plummeted the past 20 years or so, as a quick Google search will confirm. Yet this myth, like so many others (remember, Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11) is perpetuated.

Governmental policy based on a predefined failure rate (whatever that is) is not going to happen, and it cannot be counted on to happen.

The issue with the two highway shooters would seem to be that it was a case of clear personality conflict given extra focus by the media because Wisconsin just recently became the 49th state to issue permits. Again, this is not a common occurrence, so a data point of one should not be used to extrapolate anything.

It may point to a need for improvement or refinement of the system. But it sounds like it was a meeting of two idiots.


Now, has the local paper there pointed out any instances of people with permits STOPPING a crime? I don't know. But does a dozen or a hundred or a thousand crimes stopped for every incident of idiocy have any weight in our argument?



Regarding insurance for CCW permittees, I am leery of leaving this in the hands of the private, for-profit insurance agencies because I honestly don't know they will react. They are subject to public and shareholder pressure and may refuse to issue insurance based on politics or public relations.

It should be cheap. The insurance would only have to pay if a CCW permittee shot somebody in self-defense but was then found in a court of law to NOT be self-defense. But the way the insurance companies fuck with people...


I am uncertain. On the one hand, I don't want to be part of the "every little thing needs to be licensed, bonded, and insured" party. Like when health inspectors shut down a lemonade stand.

And I also don't trust the insurance companies to do rate things fairly. I trust them to rate things PROFITABLY, but not fairly. Like that dongle that Progressive advertises to plug into your car's computer, and they analyze your driving habits. Well, who defines "safe" driving? I'm suppose to be punished financially because I believe in merging with the highway traffic at 60 mph instead of 40? Because I actually use the gas pedal to slip into traffic instead of become a rolling roadblock?

Or because I keep up with the flow of traffic rather than force dozens of cars an hour to change lanes (twice) to get around my 55mph ass? I drive fast, but not close. I follow the flow of traffic with a 2-second gap, which is generally far larger than the idiots that I'm surrounded with drive.


On the other hand, I see where you are coming from. I just don't think that CCW permittees are causing so much unjustified carnage that it's an issue, but I could be wrong.

[Thor_MN]

36. OK I give up. Let's give every fricking one a permit and a gun and let it sort itself out.

Really, why not? They can always do it illegaly, so it doesn't matter what we do. Let's all get guns and the last people standing can turn the lights off for everyone else.

[hue]

19. "Not the gun nuts, that's for sure"-->Indeed gun nutters don't "think" at all. They just HATE!

[krispos42]

25. And, of course, you love everybody, including "gun nuts".

[Walk away]

13. If only they would all just shoot each other....

when they were finally done...we would be living in a much more civilized, safe and peaceful world.

[vinny9698]

14. Carrying a gun gives you a sense of false bravado

This will lead to people not taking imaginary insults and reaching for their gun to be the next GZ.

[hue]

20. Perfect example of how Re/Teapukes legislation is leading us to hell/into the downward spiral.

[midnight]

21. The predictable results from Clarke's irresponsibility happened with Wild West shoot outs and people

using the Sheriff as an excuse for shooting someone.


http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2013/07/sheriff-clark-and-gang-that-couldnt.html

[exboyfil]

26. I am impressed by Admany's shooting

ability. On the other hand both idiots should be in jail (Admany more so since he was chasing) for endangering the public.

[mojowork_n]

28. Why did it take 2 weeks for the news to come out?

I saw that story on the news stand, next to the ATM I was using, on Saturday.

What totally threw me was why it took so long to release the report. None of
the radio, TV, or print news outlets had anything about it. The JS story said it
happened June 26th, or 28th (can't remember for sure) and last Saturday was
the 13th.

I mean, I know that the Journal Sentinel exists today mostly as a public relations
outlet for "news" that the Big Money guys want us commoners to swallow and
accept, but that's just a terrible delay.