Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:44 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
 I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL. 
Author Message
 Post subject: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:46 pm 
Prolix Pontificator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:46 am
Posts: 26
Greetings from the mid-southwestern suburbs (Richfield, Bloomington, Edina).

Profile: MN born and bred. Please see http://www.myspace.com/uncleharley50 for more detail.

Like many of you, I've owned several different guns on and off over the years. I'm a moderate 2nd Amend. supporter who favors extending federally-enforced, "guaranteed" 2nd Amend. rights to the states through the 14th Amend. That said, however, I view the 2nd Amend., generally, and concealed-carry, specifically, as rights that are and must be qualified by myriad factors, most of which reflect the environment and the circumstances in which guns are both found and used.

Policy Positions (generally): Consistent with the above, firearms possession and carrying policy must be analyzed, interpreted and applied at the local city and county level. This should be done within the strictures and rubric of state law and public policy, generally. Policy development should be guided by using a balancing of interests approach (for example see http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=142586513&blogId=488267878). Moreover, the formulation of local policy should be informed by both federal and state grant-funded, scientifically-designed, data collection and analysis methods; i.e., sound empirical evidence.

Examples: A "college town" should be allowed to prohibit the possession of guns in bars. A densely populated urban city should be allowed to prohibit the possession of semi-automatic, high-capacity, high-power assault rifles in multi-unit housing.

Current Research Interests: The despicably brutal robbery of one of my next-door neighbors in December 2008 reawakened my background and interest in both theoretical and applied criminology. Of specific interest is integrating crime analysis, police intelligence, and environmental criminology into the design and implementation of various crime prevention programs. Both the field and the professional literature have changed so much since I was in graduate school that, undoubtedly, it will take at least a year or two to get back up to speed.

Presently, I'm researching both the relative efficacy of, and the political machinations and considerations behind, implementing the MN Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program, locally. Somehow, encouraging if not incentivizing concealed-carry seems like it should fit into the scheme of local crime prevention strategy, resources and techniques.

Theoretical Propositions: My reasoning is thus: Guns (inanimate as they are) take on the characteristics of the circumstances in which they are found (please see blog post cited above). Hence, gun control policy should be oriented toward reducing the ratio of "bad guns" to "good guns", realizing, of course, that determined, resourceful criminals will always find ways to get guns. Therefore, in addition to either ridding the streets of "bad guns" (as best we can), or in attempting to make the conditions in which they are found more safe, public encouragement and incentives should actively spur the recruitment, qualification, training, testing, certification and retention of concealed-carry permit holders.

On the macro-sociological level, one way to introduce more risk and uncertainty (both of which are simultaneously indeterminable and yet foreseeable) into the rational criminal's calculus of risk v. reward, is by reaching a publicly known and palpable critical mass of "good guns" on the street. Hopefully then, when combined with the effects of other crime prevention initiatives, enough "good guns" will provide sufficient crime deterrence (indeed, a lofty goal). The goal, of course, is that the side effect of crime displacement is tempered by the diffusion of benefits derived from both general and specific deterrence actualization.

Hopefully, by achieving this confluence of forces, we can then breach the threshold beyond which the efficacy of law enforcement operations necessarily reaches diminishing marginal returns.

Testing and Validation: Will it work? Please see, Armed and Considered Dangerous, by James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi (2nd Ed. 2008) (Aldine Transaction: New Brunswick, NJ; ISBN 9780202362427 0202362426)
Quote:
Out of a study of over 2000 convicted felons, two-thirds admitted to having been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim," and two-fifths of them had decided not to commit a crime because they new or believed that their intended victim was armed. (I think I got this cite from Joel's book, but I don't have it presently handy so that I can confirm the source.)

How much credence and emphasis should be placed on this method can best be accurately determined by refining and expanding our crime prevention program evaluations, and crime econometrics. In this way, competing crime prevention programs can be effectively compared to a requisite degree of sufficient certainty in order to adequately support policy formulation (please see the overview to, "Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising: A Report to the United States Congress" by Lawrence W. Sherman, et al. http://www.ncjrs.gov/works/overview.htm)
Quote:
o Stronger Evaluations. The number and strength of available evaluations is insufficient for providing adequate guidance to the national effort to reduce serious crime. This knowledge gap can only be filled by Congressional restructuring of the DOJ programs to provide adequate scientific controls for careful testing of program effectiveness. DOJ officials currently lack the authority and funding for strong evaluations of efforts to reduce serious violence.

o Statutory Evaluation Plan. In order to provide the Department of Justice with the necessary scientific tools for program evaluations, the statutory plan for evaluating crime prevention requires substantial revision. Scientifically recognized standards for program evaluations require strong controls over the allocation of program funding, in close coordination with the collection of relevant data on the content and outcomes of the programs. The current statutory plan does not permit the necessary level of either scientific controls on program operations or coordination with data collection. Funds available for data collection have also been grossly inadequate in relation to scientific standards for measurement of program impact.

Personal Assessment: Frankly, until such a critical mass of "good guns" on the street is reached, I don't put much credence in the literature favoring either side of the concealed-carry debate insofar as:
Quote:
While one might expect Concealed-Carry Weapons laws to lead to significant changes in overall crime levels, there are at least two compelling reasons why any effect of CCW laws on any measure of crime is likely to be negligible. First, only a tiny percentage of the population obtains carry permits. And second, these permit holders are typically from groups who are at relatively low risk for either crime perpetration OR victimization — permit holders are usually non-young, non-poor, non-urban, and non-minority. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:21 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:51 pm
Posts: 172
First, welcome!

Second, I disagree with your concept that cities and counties should be able to make their own gun control provisions. It's confusing enough that I can't carry a firearm into Wisconsin when I live six miles from the border -- can you imagine if going from Point A to Point B in this state that I had to be concerned about the carry laws in each county & muncipality as I drove around the state?

No thanks.

Not only that, but it will be the major cities where I would most want to carry in which I wouldn't be able to carry -- because they would be the ones with the more restrictive laws.

In any event, welcome to the forum. ;) I'm sure this will be one of the more popular welcome threads here.

B

_________________
NRA Life Member | NRA & MADFI Instructor | NRA Chief Range Safety Officer | Blog | Twitter | Facebook
My views are my own - they may or may not reflect those of my employer.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:55 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
Welcome...quite the way to make an entrance. :wink:

I'm sure this will be a VERY popular thread.

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:05 am 
Prolix Pontificator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:46 am
Posts: 26
bstrawse wrote:
First, welcome!

Second, I disagree with your concept that cities and counties should be able to make their own gun control provisions.


Thanks for the welcome!

Can you imagine how popular I'll be with the local police chiefs and city councils? :mrgreen:

My proposal isn't as liberal as it may appear. It really doesn't change anything for the concealed carrier. In fact, it's completely transparent. As it stands, any property owner who isn't leasing space can post their premises as off limits for CC. The only difference under my proposal is that the property owner doesn't have the discretion. Just read the signs like you do now, and you'll be fine.

We won't have any local "judicial activists" interpreting the law as they see fit. For instance, no municipality or county could arbitrarily abrogate the basic right to carry for permit holders. It would simply allow for very narrow and limited revisions like banning guns in college town bars, or in inner city hospitals were gang members are likely to run into each other. And bans would only apply where there is a compelling public health/safety interest that is supported by equally compelling data, e.g., inordinately high incidence of Emergency Room trauma admissions from fights and sports-related riots, and police statistics regarding arrests for assaults, disorderly conduct, drug trafficking, calls for service and various nuisance crimes like urinating in public.

This strategy merely augments ongoing nuisance abatement efforts. And if such an environment is more than likely going to be aggravated by the presence of concealed weapons, the municipality or county can then usurp the discretion of individual bar owners and E.R./urgent care facilities, and simply blanket ban guns in all of them.

However, if it means that much to them, and if they're willing to pay the costs of data collection, at the government's discretion, individual establishments could apply for an exception. The distinguishing characteristic would be that their statistics fall at the low end of the range, say, outside of the first standard deviation from the mean. I doubt you'd find a single hospital or urgent care facility pushing the issue. Banned, i.e., nondiscretionary establishments, of course, would be required to exhibit proper signage (at the government's expense, of course).

Believe me, if it means a few nights in jail and a fine, you'll get the hang of it real quick. When Ft. McClellan, AL was open, we army grunts knew exactly which bars in Anniston and the surrounding county were posted off limits, and we knew better than to try to sneak in dressed in our civilian clothes.

P.S. What's so confusing about not carrying concealed weapons in the entire state of Wisconsin? Me thinks that thou dost protest too much. :wink:


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:27 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:55 pm
Posts: 598
Location: Dundas, Minnesota
Them's some pretty fancy, long paragraphs. I'll opt for an economy of words:

Less government.

That work?

_________________
I say I'm cleaning guns... My wife says I'm petting them.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:42 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 6:51 pm
Posts: 172
Uncle Harley wrote:
bstrawse wrote:
P.S. What's so confusing about not carrying concealed weapons in the entire state of Wisconsin? Me thinks that thou dost protest too much. :wink:


Not confusing so much as inconsistent with the "full faith and credit clause"... but that's me ;)
B

_________________
NRA Life Member | NRA & MADFI Instructor | NRA Chief Range Safety Officer | Blog | Twitter | Facebook
My views are my own - they may or may not reflect those of my employer.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:08 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
The only problem with "middle ground" on weapons policy is that you wind up with an enormous amout of laws.
Local goverment? Laws times 50 times all the counties times all the cities. So many laws nobody would live long enough to read them all.

And these are all GUN CONTROL laws.

Now, I'm called a liberal too. (Ask around hereabouts) I'd bet, I'd be considered more liberal than most folks. I'm not opposed to laws generally, and I'd even change lots of stuff.

The PROBLEM is, that there is no evidence that gun control laws work to reduce unlawful violence. Crooks and nuts who would ignore the laws against murder ignore gun regulations as well. College students, pe se, are not a violent group, why single out a college town, along with everyone else who lives there? The college students are arguably the least violent subset of young adults.

Do you really think that a local city council is likely to be able to craft effective guns law? As opposed to knee jerk feel good stuff?

There seems to be a common prejudice that a person carrying a gun will suddenly lose his temper and act out with the gun. But people who "lose their temper" don't really do that. They don't for example, suddenly stab someone, or run them over with their car, they usually insult the other person or pick a fight they think they can win. Permited gun carriers are many times more law abiding, even with their guns, than the rest of the population. Do we really want these "local folks" second guessing the founders of the United States?

The people who founded our country were used to interacting with folks who were armed and other folks who were disarmed. The smartest minds all over the world had considered and debated these issues for generations. Disarming someone doesn't make them less dangerous, it only makes them unable to defend themselves against anyone who is a little bigger or less law abiding.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:15 am 
The Man
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am
Posts: 7970
Location: Minneapolis MN
I moved this here because I think while it's a great introduction, and I want to thank our new member for signing up and raising an interesting issue, it's not one that I think is quite appropriate for the invariable gentleness of Newbie Corner.

Carry on, all. I will, shortly, m'self.

_________________
Just a guy.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:22 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
First of all, I like gun-toting liberals. They confound hoplophobes and right-wingers alike: they're force multipliers. With sensible beliefs on guns, they are worth ten conservatives in the fight to protect our rights.

Unfortunately, I think your policy positions are ridiculous and anti-freedom. Essential human rights are not up for local votes.

Just for fun, I've rewritten your policy statement, substituting another human right. Tell me how you like it.

Andrew's imagination wrote:
Policy Positions (generally): Consistent with the above, voting rights and racial policy must be analyzed, interpreted and applied at the local city and county level. This should be done within the strictures and rubric of state law and public policy, generally. Policy development should be guided by using a balancing of interests approach. Moreover, the formulation of local policy should be informed by both federal and state grant-funded, scientifically-designed, data collection and analysis methods; i.e., sound empirical evidence.

Examples: A "ghetto" should be allowed to prohibit voting by negroes. A densely populated urban city should be allowed to prohibit the concentration of young black men in multi-unit housing.


"Sound empirical evidence" would show that it is far cheaper to euthanize the weak, the sick, and the old. They take up useless space and precious resources, while contributing little or nothing to society.

I'm not suggesting this be national policy -- such a policy must be analyzed, interpreted and applied at the local city and county level.




What? Empirically, it's correct! Morally, of course, it's abhorrent.

Should a Los Angeles single mom be less able to protect herself and her family than a Bemidji single mom? If so, why? Is a Northfield college student's life worth less than a Minneapolis student's? And should the city council of the respective cities decide?

Utter nonsense.

Your positions sound like those of the Brady Center in a weak disguise.

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:31 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
joelr wrote:
I moved this here because I think while it's a great introduction, and I want to thank our new member for signing up and raising an interesting issue, it's not one that I think is quite appropriate for the invariable gentleness of Newbie Corner.

Carry on, all. I will, shortly, m'self.


You just wanted to give Andrew a shot at it... :lol:

Uncle Harley, I'm digesting and will post in a bit. Don't take offense to the strong responses you're getting. Direct and blunt debate is a staple (and IMO, a major benefit) of this forum. Just be ready to defend your positions (I'm not saying "yourself", because it's not personal).

-Mark


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:09 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:48 am
Posts: 517
Location: Coon Rapids
I find your logic and arguments flawed. The laws in this country are designed to treat everyone equally. The 2nd Amendment applies to everyone. Minnesota PPA applies to everyone. There is no designation in the law to do what you seek. Segregation, as I understand it, ended a few years back. Let's not start talk of re-introducing it.

_________________
MADFI Certified Instructor
NRA Certified Instructor

That is all....


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:29 am 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
Re the original post. Conceptually ridiculous to the absurd. Arguably Anti-freedom and eliteist sounding.

On the other hand, welcome! All opinions valid. Some are even validated! :)

_________________
Paul Horvick
http://shootingsafely.com
---
Contact us to schedule a class for you and your friends, and check our website for more information http://shootingsafely.com


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:20 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:37 pm
Posts: 1757
Location: Whittier
Lets not forget the logic flaw - College kids while drunk and gangsters generally speaking always follow the law and pay attention to signs, neither subculture is prone to disobeying social conventions especially where jail might be the end result, therefore:
Quote:
It would simply allow for very narrow and limited revisions like banning guns in college town bars, or in inner city hospitals were gang members are likely to run into each other. And bans would only apply where there is a compelling public health/safety interest that is supported by equally compelling data, e.g., inordinately high incidence of Emergency Room trauma admissions from fights and sports-related riots, and police statistics regarding arrests for assaults, disorderly conduct, drug trafficking, calls for service and various nuisance crimes like urinating in public.

nakes sense.

The flip side of that is that it limits the ability of law abiding people to protect themselves. The best burgers in MN are sold at a joint that happens to be a bar http://www.crnook.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=92 while I am more prone to eating there on a Sunday afternoon than a Friday night, why should I be unable to defend my family while we peaceably munch deep fried green beans? Now say my kid gets sick and we have to go to the ER. You've already said there are violent gangsters at the hospital ER, we know they aren't going to respect the ban (because they are gangsters) so obviosly that would be someplace I would need the ability to defend my family. As a family man, your proposals Uncle Harley seem to be aimed at making my children defenseless in the higher risk locations. Innocent people should not have to choose between having good food and medical care or human rights.

The law as it stands is good- 624.714 Subd. 23.Exclusivity.This section sets forth the complete and exclusive criteria and procedures for the issuance of permits to carry and establishes their nature and scope. No sheriff, police chief, governmental unit, government official, government employee, or other person or body acting under color of law or governmental authority may change, modify, or supplement these criteria or procedures, or limit the exercise of a permit to carry.


This on the otherhand makes sense (given your qualifying statement):
Quote:
Hence, gun control policy should be oriented toward reducing the ratio of "bad guns" to "good guns", realizing, of course, that determined, resourceful criminals will always find ways to get guns.
adopting a community policing model (including a cops must be residents in their precinct dictate) and citizen contact quotas (along with the Terry Searches that would be neccessary for officer safety) would gain actual ground in reducing the ratio of "bad guns" to "good guns". A metro gang strikeforce that has integrity would also go a long way . . . . actually if MPD could scrape a little integrity together it might make it a little more realistic to implemement something like the MN Crime-Free Multi-Housing Program. I'd suggest Uncle Harley, that your activism might be better placed in law enforcement reform and real community oversight; that you'd get a higher yield for your effort there than by trying to do what sounds like hobbling a good law with onerous additions that will only curtail the freedoms of the law abiding citizen and do nothing to slow crime.

_________________
Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a
lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become
a law unto himself; it invites anarchy .” Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:53 am 
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:19 pm
Posts: 38
Location: Mankato
Uncle Harley wrote:
Examples: A "college town" should be allowed to prohibit the possession of guns in bars. A densely populated urban city should be allowed to prohibit the possession of semi-automatic, high-capacity, high-power assault rifles in multi-unit housing.


I'm a 22 year old college student living in a college town and I occasionally act as a designated driver for my friends who like to frequent bars. Do I no longer have a right to self defense?

Who defines what "densely populated" is? Sounds like more metro county exception bullshit. What does being a semi-auto, high-cap, "high-power" (what does that even mean?) "assault rifle" have to do with anything? A gun is a gun, and a pistol caliber weapon will go through drywall just like a rifle will. (http://www.theboxotruth.com/)

Surprisingly, noone has pointed this out yet, but, MN doesn't have a "concealed carry permit", merely a permit to carry.

I'm quite happy with MN's law as it stands, it was well written by some of the best minds in the state--if it isn't broken, why fix it? (unless of course, we go Vermont-style)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I know, just what you wanted... another CC'ing LIBERAL.
PostPosted: Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:28 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Uncle Harley wrote:
A densely populated urban city should be allowed to prohibit the possession of semi-automatic, high-capacity, high-power assault rifles in multi-unit housing.


Could you please tell me which is more powerful: a "semi-automatic, high-capacity, high-power" AR-15 "assault rifle," or a humble Ruger Model 77 bolt action hunting rifle? Which one should be banned, again?

Here's a hint:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/30-06.htm
Quote:
Current factory loads drive a 55 grain bullet at 3,240 fps at the muzzle. Muzzle energy is 1,282 ft. lbs.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/223rem.htm
Quote:
The regular .30-06 factory load for the 165 grain spitzer, regarded by many as the best general purpose bullet weight for the .30-06, gives a MV of 2,800 fps and ME of 2,872 ft. lbs.


Oh, I noticed that your views on firearms are missing from your MySpace page. Are you only a gun owner when you visit gun boards?

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group