Monday, May 21, 2012

Shooting Near University of Wisconsin

Local news reports

Three people were shot outside bars near the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus, but their injuries are not life threatening.
According to Madison police, a gunman fired into a crowd of approximately 100 people and then fled around 1:15 a.m. Saturday.
The victims were a 26-year-old woman, an 18-year-old man and a 23-year-old man, all from Madison. None were UW-Madison students. All were expected to be treated and released from a hospital.

What's your opinion? Are the gun-rights advocates right in wanting guns in bars and on college campuses? Would those "rights" make situations like this any better?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.


  1. You should be embarrassed, Mikeb. None of the victims were college students, and the bars weren't on the campus. Nevertheless, you conflate. And I haven't heard anyone argue in favor of carrying a gun while drunk. What we advocate is that anyone with a concealed carry license should be able to carry on campus. Since the minimum age in most states to get a license is twenty-one, we're talking about older students and faculty and staff.

    Of course, license holders could go to bars--illegally, in many cases--off campuses right now. We know that your side doesn't support concealed carry at all. But there's no magical line at the campus border, despite the magical thinking of gun control advocates.

  2. Mike - no gun in this story was in a bar or on a college campus. How does this story argue against carrying in those places?

  3. Did you read the part about the shooter getting away. Well, I think he was a student who just left his professor's office after an argument about his grades.

    1. Huh? None of that is to be found in the news article. You're just making shit up and spreading it, and we're on to you.

    2. That was a funny joke Mike. Nice.

    3. Yeah, but I couldn't fool super-sleuth Greg.

    4. I'm on to your sly ways, Mikeb.

  4. Things that make you go "hmm?". I thought firearms were death rays and every time you shoot someone, they instantly die 100% of the time. That is why gun grabbers fear that an armed citizen will spray bullets during a violent criminal attack ... because every bullet that leaves the barrel is going to kill someone and all of those someones will be innocent bystanders. [end sarcasm]

    This story illustrates reality. A criminal whack-job sprays bullets into a crowd and no one died; instead those bullets injured three people. The reality is that randomly aimed and fired bullets rarely cause permanent injuries or death. This is why I'll take my chances with armed citizenry if a spree killer opens up. If everyone cowers, the spree killer will kill and injure dozens of people. If armed citizens shoot at the criminal, the odds of a the citizen missing and mortally wounding a bystander -- which includes myself -- is very low ... much lower than the odds of the spree-killer running out of ammunition before running out of targets.

    It's simple. What is more dangerous? A bullet fired in a random direction? Or a bullet fired from a gun that a criminal aimed at a victim? The answer is obvious.