Recently,
a 21-year-old female college student in Madison, Wisconsin was murdered.
Reportedly, when she called 911 to report the imminent attack, the operator
hung up on her. Madison Police Chief Noble Wray had this to say about
the incident:
“It
would be accurate to state that there is evidence contained in the call,
which should have resulted in a Madison police officer being dispatched,”
Wray said at a news conference. “The 911 center did not call back
to the telephone number, Madison police were not notified and no officer
was sent.”[1]
Dane
County Public Safety Communications Director Joseph Norwick said “he
was investigating the incident and reviewing whether policies should
be changed and employees should be disciplined.” Norwick also
stated: “I don’t think there’s anything to apologize
for at this time.”[2]
Perhaps
Mr. Norwick doesn’t feel apologetic because he knows that government
agencies were under no obligation to provide protection to this particular
victim? The most recent proof of this was from a Supreme Court case
in 2005, when the Court heard a case where Jessica Gonzales had obtained
a restraining order against her estranged husband. Nevertheless, he
kidnapped her three children and murdered them.[3]
The Supreme Court concluded that a restraining order “imposed
no duty on police” to protect her children.[4]
This was the latest in a series of higher court rulings on the subject,
all of which reached the same conclusion.
Wisconsin’s
Bias Against Self-Defense
When
Wisconsin Governor Doyle vetoed the second recent legislative attempt
to pass shall issue, right-to-carry (RTC) in Wisconsin, he stated:
“I
am proud to stand with the overwhelming majority of law enforcement
throughout Wisconsin who oppose this legislation…”[5]
Other
organizations which purportedly care about safety were quick to praise
Governor Doyle’s veto. After Doyle’s first veto, the Wisconsin
Council on Children and Families issued this statement:
Anne
Arnesen, executive director of the Wisconsin Council on Children and
Families (WCCF), praised Governor Doyle’s veto today of Senate
Bill 214, which would have eliminated Wisconsin’s 130-year-old
law prohibiting carrying of concealed weapons.[6]
After
the latest RTC veto, the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault
issued this press release:
For
the second time in as many years, the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual
Assault, Inc. (WCASA) was relieved to learn that carrying a concealed
weapon will remain illegal in Wisconsin.[7]
These
statements highlight the belief that firearms only add to violence,
and that women and children in particular are the most at risk as a
result.
What the Numbers Show
During
the 1995-1996 time period, 10 states enacted RTC. Through 2006, these
states averaged a 23.0% drop in their violent crime rates: decreases
of 31.0% in murder, 12.6% in rape, 23.2% in robbery, and a 23.8% drop
in aggravated assault. During this same time period, Wisconsin experienced
an increase in overall violent crime of 1.0%: 30.2% drop in
murder, 12.4% in rape, 4.7% less robbery, and 8.2% more aggravated
assault. Wisconsin trailed in all indices compared to the RTC states,
especially in robbery (by 18.5%) and aggravated assault (by 32.0%).
While
it is difficult to draw too extensive a conclusion from these data,
it is nevertheless reasonable to conclude that concealed carry has not
contributed to violence in RTC states, and that promoting anti-self-defense
laws in Wisconsin has not enhanced public safety. It is also reasonable
to avoid jumping to a “guilty until proven innocent” conclusion
about new self-defense laws, counter to what was done by organizations
claiming to have the best interest of families, women and children at
heart.
Conclusion
On
the one hand, the governor and “the overwhelming majority of law
enforcement throughout Wisconsin” want to limit what you may do
to protect yourself from violent criminals in public; on the other hand,
Wisconsin bureaucrats accept no responsibility for picking up the slack
between what they allow you to do and what the criminal––who
doesn’t care about laws––is willing to do.
Write
your legislative representatives and ask them: The Supreme Court ruled
that the police are not obligated to protect me. Calling 911 is no guarantee
that police will respond. What would you have me do to protect myself
and my loved ones?
Howard
Nemerov is a “recovering” gun control supporter. He began
to research the issue of gun control on his own, and what he found transformed
his perspective. Now he writes to help gun owners become better emissaries
when talking about gun rights, and to help undecided people understand
the underlying principles of the right to self-defense.
Howard
is a contributor for the Texas State Rifle Association’s “TSRA
Sportsman” and appears frequently on NRA News as an Analyst At Large,
talking about gun control and its threat to our way of life and liberty.
His new book is “Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why
Isn’t It Working?” Where the emphasis has been on
rhetoric and legislation, this book includes extensive data analysis from
neutral and even pro-gun-control sources to determine if the rhetoric
is true, and if the laws have worked...after Four Hundred Years.
While it is difficult
to draw too extensive a conclusion from these data, it is nevertheless
reasonable to conclude that concealed carry has not contributed to violence
in RTC states, and that promoting anti-self-defense laws in Wisconsin
has not enhanced public safety.