How do you think Minnesota's gun laws should be reformed?
Posted at 5:00 AM on February 8, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(59 Comments)
Filed under: Health, Politics/Government, Security
A proposal working its way through the Legislature would eliminate the state's system of permits and background checks for gun purchases. Today's Question: How do you think Minnesota's gun laws should be reformed?
Comments (59)
I agree with the World Experts, remove all guns from America! History has proven, along with these Leading Experts that Gun Control will, & can work. One question to our wonderful elected Officials. Why not give an automatic 30 year sentence to anyone who commits a serious crime using a firearm? Oh, if your wondering who my Leading Experts are, it starts with Stalin, Castro, Idi Amin, Kim Jong-il, Mao Tse-Tung, Hitler, & Hillary Clinton. .
Not that I know of.
Well said, Sue de Nim. ( Are you one of the Brainerd de Nims?)
Humor and subtlety are not languages that are widely understood on mpr comment pages.
I don't know if it's the overly intellectual tendency of public radio listeners in general, or a genetic flaw in oh so stoic Minnesotans in specific.
Perhaps that's why God invented emoticons. :-)
"In Standard English communication the word Cheers, I have used is way to close a letter of communication… it is not a name. "
Thank you soooooooooo much for pointing that out, Steve (cheery or otherwise). I really had noooo idea that was the case. Obviously, I'm a just a poor, uneducated country girl who needs wise, discerning men like you to point out such things. It was so kind of you to enlighten me on this. I keep needing to be reminded that subtle notes of humor and irony tend to be lost on knee-jerk ideologues.
I'm not persuaded by the NRA's logic. I don't oppose the right to keep and bear arms, but I'm not convinced that it's necessarily such a good idea actually to exercise that right in every circumstance.
Consider this: How might the current uprising in Egypt be playing out if the protesters had taken the NRA's advice and shown up at the demonstrations "locked and loaded"? Do you think the army would be showing such restraint if they were facing an armed mob? The crowds are counting on the army's unwillingness to fire on unarmed citizens. Two decades ago, the Soviet bloc collapsed, not because of an armed uprising, but precisely because the crowds were unarmed, making it unconscionable for the state's jackbooted thugs to use the violence that would have been necessary to suppress the revolt. Gandhi's nonviolent movement successfully ended British rule in India, in contrast with previous attempts at violent revolution. How would the civil rights movement in this country half a century ago have played out if Blacks had heeded the violent rhetoric of some activists, instead of Dr. King's message of noniolence? Don't you think Whites would have been more willing to support the violent suppression of the movement, had the protesters been armed?
Sometimes it really is necessary to use or threaten violence (Hitler probably could not have been defeated nonviolently), but often there is more power in taking the moral high ground than in resorting to the tools and tactics of the oppressors. Why do we ignore these lessons of history?
To Matthew
I like Steve am puzzled by your disbelief of Nazi Germany disarming and then killing millions of citizens in Germany and several other countries in Europe. I am going to add a few more countries that used civilian disarmament as a prelude to mass murder or genocide. The Soviet Union 70 to 90 million killed by Lenin and Stalin, Nationalist China 25 million, Communist China under Mao 35 to 70 million, Cambodia 2 million, Rwanda 800,000 Uganda 300,000, Darfur 2 million and counting. Everyone of these countries said to their people you have no need to be armed as we will protect you. Everyone of these countries left guns in the hands of the police and military. Every one of these countries used famine as a tool to kill people and used guns to ensure the right people starved or were executed.
To Sahar and a couple others
The people in the above countries had little chance to disprove your notion that arms would do civilians no good. The people of Afghanistan and Iraq seem to be doing a fair job of resisting the might of the US military and our military and civilian leadership allow the people of those countries to keep and bear arms (I find it passing strange that an Iraqi or Afghan civilian can own a select fire AK and I can't but life sucks sometimes).
Personally I think we would have fewer dead in the world if we banned governments from having weapons and let the civilians carry what they would.
To Clark you stated to Steve that you could always run away from anything but a gun, I'm curious what do you suggest the elderly do when confronted by a mugger? What do you suggest a woman does when attacked by a man? Should she just spread her legs and think of England? Why would you deny the weak and infirm the right to defend themselves with the most effective self defense tool?
In state after state over the past twenty years when gun laws are relaxed violent crime drops. The anti gun people like the Brady Campaign predict doom every time and every time it turns out they are wrong. There is no blood in the street. Rational people would re examine their argument and adjust to an empirical data set that says more guns DO NOT equal more violence.
Rational people would note that the vast majority of our mass murders happen in gun free zones places where guns and one presumes murder are banned. People intent on violence are not stopped by laws. People intent on murder will use the most effective weapon they can find and if it isn't a gun it will be ANFO or boxcutters or a car.
I think the purchase permit needs to be dropped like the discriminatory remnant it is. The purchase permit is redundant, discriminatory and regularly abused by both Hennepin and Ramsey counties.
Hennepin and Ramsey also whined about the permit law being changed to shall issue from may issue and none of the violence predicted has come true no blood in the streets as those crazy permit holders get in running gun battles, no road rage shootouts, no gunfights over the last can of Newman's Own Marinara sauce. In fact violent crime as dropped since the carry permit law was created.
The purchase permit is just another way authoritarians can deny you your civil rights if they don't like the color of your skin or sex or class, it's one of the reasons you need to appear at the sheriffs office. It's a holdover from when blacks and Indians were routinely denied legal ownership of handguns.
M Berg nailed it--so I'm reposting his comment:
"Minnesota's Permit to Purchase system is less-than-adequate, and subject to abuse by local law-enforcement (as we reportedly found out in Ramsey County with former Sheriff Fletcher). The federal system is better.
"The real issue is the frankly repulsive bigotry against the law-abiding gun owner in this thread. Research in Texas and Florida show that legal carry permit holders are about one percent as likely to commit ANY kind of crime as the population in general. They are, statistically, more trustworthy and less "Crazy" than, say, the typical MPR listener.
"Free your mind, people. Your preconceptions aren't serving you well."
To this, I can only add that, for those who remember it about seven years ago: at the time the MN shall-issue carry law was heading to a successful passage, the antigun people pulled out all the organ stops and shouted "BLOOD IN THE STREETS! BLOOD IN THE STREETS." Their cohorts in the legislator, the flakjacket jackasses, even staged a choreographed mini-demonstration.
The problems didn't happen then and having shall-issue carry permitting has worked about the way gunnies expected. Most "no weapons" signs have come down (at least in my part of the Metro), and people do not think much about the fact that perhaps 75,000 MN residents are carrying firearms around.
Drop the bigotry, antigunners, and we will all be more civil.
So, IMO--eliminate the purchase permit law and add more and better firearms education in elementary schools and above.
Jim H.
there is a ridiculous amount of knee jerk reaction to this question,most here don't have a clue what is being asked for and i bet about 3 of the 49 people that commented actually have read more than a paragraph of the bill,if that much,stop the insanity people,learn some background and use that gray matter between your ears to actually research an issue,then voice your opinion.
I don't care if your left or right of this issue,the fact is the State and the Federal background check are redundant,the costs associated with that could be better used by the State for a better purpose.The protection is still there with the Federal background check.Remember,those that are willing to trade Freedoms for security,shall get neither.
Scoff at Wikipedia if you like, other Steve, but confirmation bias is a real phenomenon. It's amply demonstrated by psychological research, though it should be blatantly obvious to the casual observer of what passes for political discourse in this country. In fact, your comment appears to be a case in point. Unwilling to admit that your position might be the slightest bit less than completely rational, you impugn Wikipedia as "not fact based." The article I cited is more than adequately footnoted.
I don't know why we can't at least agree that no one but law enforcement or the military should be allowed to carry any kind of automatic weapon. Period! The overthrowing of a tyrannical government militia argument could never work anyway. Only the government carries so many other much more powerful weapons that thankfully most sane people agree should not be in the hands of your average citizen.
Dear Sue de Nim,
In Standard English communication the word Cheers, I have used is way to close a letter of communication… it is not a name.
So your Cheery Steve is not correct. Please have the decorum to use and understand proper English.
Sue, you are wrong a car, truck, bomb, chemical would easily do more damage than any firearm.
Sue, if you look at the UK’s stats, they are far greater (higher) per person than the US.
The issue is so great that you have to be licensed chief in GB (England) to have a knife with a point on it… really I’m not making this up! Do your research. Are you going to demand that we give up kitchen knives too?
Cheers,
Steve
P.S. To the person quoting Wikipedia....it is not fact based information source.
Sue de Nim, Cheery Steve, Matthew, et al.,
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias. The truth is, no one is going to be persuaded in any discussion of this topic. Whatever statistics are asserted, regardless of their validity, are going to be interpreted by each and every reader as supporting his or her own bias. We have the same problem with abortion rights, health care reform, banking regulation, the (il)legitimacy of our war efforts, etc., etc., etc. Sad to say, truth is irrelevant in American politics. The only thing that matters is how many people you can get worked up to support your cause.
Dear Matthew,
Thanks for your reply, as far as citing that the authorities for my claims… I didn’t know that footnoting was a necessary feature of this comment site…. if it was… I would love to see everyone else’s footnotes also.
Let me say I go to the countries government collection sites…such as the FBI in the US and if you dig you find the reports. From what I find people are more happy to give links to reduction in crime than rises in crime…. So you have to look harder. LOL…
Matthew, as you state “ I think your cause and effect analysis is off a bit. I think unemployment and poverty is to blame for a spike in crime, and currently Japan and Australia are among most if not all countries whose citizens are suffering the effects of the worldwide recession.”
Matthew you’re right it is you opinion as you state “I think” I toss back to you what facts are you basing this on.
You go on to state - "Occam's Razor" provides that the more plausible theory is the right theory, absent evidence establishing the contrary. Your correlation is ridiculous. Also, I think your comparison to Nazi Germany is absurd and is probably the product of editorials in Guns & Ammo Magazine and NRA propaganda. It scares me knowing you own guns.”
First…I never said I own a gun…so your assumption…. . Hmmmm when a person assumes they make an a** …well you know the rest. Really your statement is very much below the belt…
The definition shows…. As far as Occam’s Razor…The principle is often incorrectly summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one". Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle which generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2] For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place. In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (general guiding rule) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[7][8] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.[9][10][11][12]
The one point I do need your clarification on is this statement you make…. “I think your comparison to Nazi Germany is absurd”, Matthew…. are you saying that Germany did not exterminate Jews in the extermination camps of WWII that are documented?
If so… you now scare me as it seems that you don’t or won’t believe facts... documented and published in history.
Cheers,
Steve
Quick facts, 111 gun deaths in MN, 87% are by someone the victim knew, suicide, family member, or "friend" who was very angry as in "you are having sex with my wife?". Many robberies do not result in death, only theft. No wallet is worth dying for.
Car deaths in MN, 550 to 650 a year, always killed by a stranger. Cars kill five times as many people, always a senseless tragedy. Cars pollute, cause wars for gasoline in Iraq, injure two million people a year, bankrupt us with financing, repairs, and fuel costs and we "love" our cars.
Why all the fear and paranoia about guns and no one thinks twice of giving their 16 year old the car keys while they chat on the cell phone, text, and eat while driving. We don't have a gun problem. We have a car problem.
I don't have a problem with people owning guns, permit to carry or not. I do have a problem with people driving cars and killing and injuring so many people.
One correction, Matthew,
The criterion of Occam's Razor states that a simpler explanation is more likely to be correct than a more complicated one. It has nothing to do with plausibility. When Copernicus suggested that the earth revolved around the sun, not vice versa, it was implausible to most folks, but was clearly a simpler explanation than the epicycles then being used to explain the motions of the other planets.
Dear Cheery Steve,
I agree that the problem is violence in general, and not merely gun violence. However, guns enable a person to do greater violence than would otherwise be possible. You state that Britain's violent crime rate is at an all time high, but is it higher than ours? I think you're the one twisting the facts.
The gun issue is divisive like the abortion issue. There are 30,000 gun deaths in America, 15,000 of them are suicides. The biggest threat to gun deaths is being left alone, especially if you are a male.
To me the purpose of guns covers many issues, mainly self defense or hunting. Education is the biggest issue. I grew up with guns, hunted, and thought of guns as a dangerous tool, like a hammer or a car.
Cars kill 40,000 people a year, all innocent victims. I fear cars much more than guns. Television demonizes guns as the tool criminals use to hurt innocent good people. From the statistics, this is misleading. Most gun deaths kill exactly the intended victim. Why aren't we afraid of cars that have killed 400,000 Americans since September 11th, 2001? Cars, not guns, are the biggest threat to Americans. Cars kill more Israelis every year than terrorists with guns and bombs.
It's a contentious subject because of television and so many people who can't light a match, shoot a gun, or have any other self sufficiency skills. So many people are misinformed. I support the freedom of good people to possess guns used in a responsible way. Tough to decide who those people are. Until a wide spread problem exists gun ownership should be easy and cheap to obtain if a citizen is not a criminal.
I would like to see gun education added to sex education in school as the foremost reform. There are too few people who actually understand gun safety out there with access to guns.
I'm not sure why MN has its own check, other than bureaucratic inertia. What's the purpose, if the Federal databases are better? Other than to pay some people's salaries and give people an illusion of power.
My dream would be to go to a Vermont-style carry permit. I've had carry permits in 3 states, from Florida where I needed one, to Vermont where nobody needs a permit, to here. I believe that the class to carry is actually a good idea (they didn't have that in Vermont), but other than that there's no value add in MN's regulations other than unnecessary paperwork and expense.
There is no reason to loosen our current hand gun laws. Our state laws have never been that strong to begin with, I see no logic or reason to change them. However, this is consistent with the strong social conservative bent of the Republican legislature which seems more interested in dealing with guns, non-existent voter fraud, right to work and abortion than with closing a $6.2 billion dollar deficit.
People lose a great level objective thinking when it comes to this topic on both sides. That leads to loss of respect for your point of view. To add value back to the question, avoid cheap shots at those who disagree with you or a whole general group (I'm an avid MPR supporter and want people to lawfully own guns).
There is little reason to repeal this law. It falls within our state's right to maintain the current state background check. While I respect other differing opinions, that's mine.
I moved to MN from TN 20 years ago. I appreciated being in a state with a more progressive way of thinking about and addressing public issues.
I have mourned the changes in MN over the years. The addition of the Conceal and Carry option in our state has NOT made me feel safer. As a prevalence of signs saying "Guns are not allowed on these premises" has declined, I feel even less safe.
I do not carry the same sense of trust that some of you express for those who carry guns. Yesterday, I was turning out of a side street onto a main street. Because of the high snowbanks on each side, I had to creep out a bit to see if the traffic was clear to turn. There was plenty of room for cars to travel down the street. A large truck (with driver seated high enough to see over such snowbanks) turned onto the street where I was. He lowered his window and raged at me for creeping out into the traffic.
Statistics may say that those with guns are careful, but I did not feel safe with that man.
Minnesota's Permit to Purchase system is less-than-adequate, and subject to abuse by local law-enforcement (as we reportedly found out in Ramsey County with former Sheriff Fletcher). The federal system is better.
The real issue is the frankly repulsive bigotry against the law-abiding gun owner in this thread. Research in Texas and Florida show that legal carry permit holders are about one percent as likely to commit ANY kind of crime as the population in general. They are, statistically, more trustworthy and less "Crazy" than, say, the typical MPR listener.
Free your mind, people. Your preconceptions aren't serving you well.
Minnesota's Permit to Purchase system is less-than-adequate, and subject to abuse by local law-enforcement (as we reportedly found out in Ramsey County with former Sheriff Fletcher). The federal system is better.
The real issue is the frankly repulsive bigotry against the law-abiding gun owner in this thread. Research in Texas and Florida show that legal carry permit holders are about one percent as likely to commit ANY kind of crime as the population in general. They are, statistically, more trustworthy and less "Crazy" than, say, the typical MPR listener.
Free your mind, people. Your preconceptions aren't serving you well.
The question is misleading, it assumes that gun law reform is needed. Aside from that, if anything, our gun laws need to be more, not less restrictive. That anyone would consider relaxing the restrictions on the heels of the tragedy in Tuscon is, to me, beyond belief. For proof against the fallacy that having more guns makes us safer, last year Detroit had upwards of 350 homicides; on the other hand, Windsor, Canada, just across the river, had none. Any weapons that are not typically needed for hunting ought to be outlawed, if not severely restricted, and background checks and waiting periods are absolutely vital.
It should be just as hard to get a gun as it is to get a driver's license. It should require schooling, classes, practical exams, etc. The punishments for recklessness while using said licensed item should be fines, attending classes, and revokation of one's right to use the licensed item. Persons who are given restraining orders, etc. should be reviewed and perhaps their rights to have a gun should be suspended pending review.
You will never prevent crazy criminals intent upon murder from getting guns, but making it hard for anyone to commit serious harm or murder with a weapon should be a priority.
Steve,
You neglect to cite authority for your claims that crime in the various gun control countries is at an all-time high. But even assuming for the sake of argument that crime is higher than usual in those countries, I think your cause and effect analysis is off a bit. I think unemployment and poverty is to blame for a spike in crime, and currently Japan and Australia are among most if not all countries whose citizens are suffering the effects of the worldwide recession. "Occam's Razor" provides that the more plausible theory is the right theory, absent evidence establishing the contrary. Your correlation is ridiculous. Also, I think your comparison to Nazi Germany is absurd and is probably the product of editorials in Guns & Ammo Magazine and NRA propaganda. It scares me knowing you own guns.
Cheers,
Matthew
Do the gun laws need to be changed? The question is poorly worded. That being said, we don't need to be the next AZ with everyone packing and handgun with clips holding 30 bullets or more.
Dear Sue de Nim,
I respectfully have to counter your statements. Please separate violence from guns. Violence is done with more things than firearms. More domestic violence is done with fists, kitchen knives and objects found in the home than is ever done with firearms.
You state “the argument is absurd on its face” and then follow by making a miss-statement about Britain, (and possibly about) Japan and then Somolia….
What I do know is that the banning of guns and knives in England has not lowered crime as if you go to official British websites you will see violent crime is at a all time high. At one time the “Bobbies” didn’t carry guns….now they carry machine guns. (America is not at that point).
I have not done the research on Japan or Somolia so I can’t confirm or refute your statements.
What I do know about Japan is that a very high number of suicides are committed by stepping in front of trains….. should they/we ban trains?
What I can say is that Australia banned guns just a few years back and violence is now at an all time high. Australia is not unique to this fact. Germany banned guns and hundreds of thousands of Jews died. We could also talk about Rwanda and Cambodia…to also prove that genocide happens to disarmed populations.
What I can say is a firearm with a MN permit to carry, kept my girlfriend from being raped. I can’t believe that anyone would want take away the tool that kept her from being raped…and maybe more… is that what you want?
It will be a sad day when criminals can rape and kill and we can’t stop them….
Not the America I want to live in.
Cheers,
Steve
As a liberal Democrat, I'm afraid I disagree with most other liberals and Democrats on the issue of gun legislation. Gun ownership is a civil right specifically protected by our constitution, just like speech and religion. As such, I would agree with very limited restrictions on guns to the same extent that we all live with very limited restrictions on speech and religion.
In practical terms, based on studies promoted by each side, I have concluded that gun laws have NO statistically significant impact on crime rates.
Unfortunately, there is no "easy fix" to the problem of gun violence in this country. The only solution is to improve our education system, ensure class mobility and economic opportunities for all, and strengthen the social safety net. (All reasons I'm a Democrat.)
Totally agree with the Cynic. America is overflowing with superhero wanna-be weekend warriors. They set down their gameboy, pick up a weapon....and they go searching for a lady in distress.
If this country wasn't drowning in handguns the crimminals would have far less guns to thieve.
How many gun owners have actually defended themelves with a gun on the street?
Guns are cool toys for boys. Guns become a crutch. Or a sense of power that is sorely lacking within a life of servitude.
Admittedly, possessing a weapon is a natural phenomena. Hopefully humans will someday evolve beyond violence, fear, and power mongering....things the NRA promotes.
I just have to correct the person that did not understand my statements. To be honest his statements scare me. As I don’t promote anything he states in the following first paragraph of his statement.
He (Bob) stated;
“I'll go Steve one better. I think every Minnesotan over the age of 12 should be issued a permit to carry, and be provided, by the state, with a handgun. I bet we'd see even fewer crimes committed, and less bullying as well. God bless the Minnesota Legislature for introducing this 2nd Amendment-boosting bill, and God bless the NRA. ; )”
He (Bob the writer of the above) states that firearms should be in the hands of people that don’t qualify to have them and I find his statements very concerning.
He (Bob) goes on to state:
“Steve, when people start routinely driving cars trucks and planes with the intent to kill or injure other people, your analogies will be apt. As is, your analogies are irrelevant.
Posted by bob”
Bob, do you really not know that on 9-11-2001 that two airplanes were used to bring down the Twin Towers in NYC? Also don’t you know that in Oklahoma City, OK a truck was used to bring down a Federal building with fertilizer and diesel fuel bomb?
Bob, you are “the person” I’m concerned about. You make up things and don’t seem to care about facts. You don’t use facts to make a point, as it seems you don’t have point. You just make statements that are not fact checked and want the un-aware to believe what you say.
Bob…or as you type it “bob” please don’t spread miss-information. If you have a point, please make it and back it up with facts not verbose miss-information.
Cheers,
Steve
Good thing this bill is making progress early in the session. This must be an example of Republicans in the legislature keeping their pledge to make this session all about jobs and the economy first, and divisive social issues only if there's time at the end.
Sorry, NRA folks. I am not persuaded that the problem of gun violence will be solved by making guns more readily available. The argument is absurd on its face. If it were true, Britain and Japan would be awash in blood, and Somalia would be a haven of peaceful civility. Your argument is only persuasive to people who have decided what they want to believe and go looking for evidence to support their biases.
I would like to add something very important
Most of you guys are TERRIBLE shots!
I go to the range, and in nice conditions I can hit a 3 inch target at 50 yards with iron sights.
I see people shooting all over the target at distances of 10 feet. If you have been to the range then you have seen it too and you know its true.
The idea that under severe pressure as a civilian you will be an effective shot is unlikely unless you have had military training, indeed even police shooting can be, forgive the pun, hit and miss.
Remember in the recent shooting in Arizona, a carry permit citizen rushed to the scene and drew his gun on the guy who had taken the gun away from the actual shooter. All he could say was he was very very very lucky he did not shoot that guy. This is not child play.
I love my guns but I respect them and know how to use them. That is not often true.
Checking twice is not a bad thing. It works well for pilots, surgeons and carpenters.
Change the background checks by strengthening them.
To eliminate the state's system of permits and background checks for gun purchases?
I would say let it be. It is far from perfect.
I do have a current Minnesota State Permit To Carry A Pistol, have had one since 1995.
I carry a locked and loaded 45ACP 1911. (it has 911 built in)
I shoot competitively at least 20 times per year (IDPA).
Have I EVER needed to draw my gun on a person—No.
If a criminal tried to hurt my family or me, they better have 6 friends to plant the criminal.
“When seconds count a cop is only minutes away.”
Steve, speaks the truth.
∑
DTOM
I have a carry permit.
I wonder how many people the state system denied that would have been accepted by the national system. I would think it would be a very small percentage.
The problem is that both the state and national databases don't get updated often enough for mental illness.
What gets me is that it took the full 30 days for me to get my permit to purchase. I know my county waited until the very last day to legally process it. The gun shop verified me in about 15 minutes.
Why duplicate the process? Why must I wait 30 days from the county first?
Once again, gun laws are for law abiding people. Gangsta and street thugs don't get permits, don't get background checks, don't practice shooting or get training, and don't lock up their guns.
If someone wants to commit a crime with a handgun, no law will stop them.
We have to look a ways to reduce the redundancy in state and federal government or we will become a California, New York, or New Jersey. Duplicate gun checks is a start.
There is a FEDERAL law that requires background check, so the state law is redundant.
Nathan:
I believe I can always outrun someone with a knife, bat or chain. I can't out run a bullet.
If handguns were outlawed, why would we require handguns to protect us?
I do like the islam idea of stoning. Would like to throw rocks at the head of the perp and make the others perps watch.
I believe conceal carry laws are for insecure men who likely carried around Soldier of Fortune Magazine throughout high school. Let them buy a rotweiller or pit bull named "Diablo" or "Diesel" instead. A civilized society doesn't need guys like this carrying weapons on their person. Limit gun ownership to hunting and home defense only.
I have many guns and a Minnesota carry permit. I am a life time member of the NRA.
I strongly support as many checks a possible prior to getting a gun.
All sensible gun owners want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. Why the NRA wont back strengthened checks and closing the gun show loop hole is beyond me.
If you have not got any problems in your background then why worry? Leave the checks in place, and ask the police for their opinion rather than assume you know their position.
I'll go Steve one better. I think every Minnesotan over the age of 12 should be issued a permit to carry, and be provided, by the state, with a handgun. I bet we'd see even fewer crimes committed, and less bullying as well. God bless the Minnesota Legislature for introducing this 2nd Amendment-boosting bill, and God bless the NRA. ; )
Steve, when people start routinely driving cars trucks and planes with the intent to kill or injure other people, your analogies will be apt. As is, your analogies are irrelevant.
From my research with police, what I'm told is the info to get a permit to purchase from your police chief is not as complete as the Federal check done at the time of purchase.
All studies show (just check with the FBI Studies for one) that States with Carry Permits see the crime rate go down. States without Carry Permits (WI) that border a state (MN) that does enact Carry Permits; do see their crime rate go up as the criminals move to areas where they will not encounter armed citizens.
The following things are used by people to kill;
30,000 people die each year in car accidents but we don’t ban cars.
Thousands have died in plane attacks, we don’t ban Airplanes.
Fertilizer and diesel fuel destroyed a building in Oklahoma City, we don’t ban fertilizer (heaven forbid that a lawn is not green), or diesel fuel.
Plastic bags from shopping each year suffocate and kill more children than any firearm…..but we don’t ban plastic bags.
Violent people will always find a way to hurt people. Until we address how society handles violent people these things will continue.
The AZ. killer had run-ins with the college security force. Did they let other departments know they had an issue with this person and that others should be concerned. NO they did a CTB (cover their butt) to make sure legally they were not going to be sued….. Did the lawyers and the college worry about the general population NO… “it was not their problem once they covered their butts legally”.
I hate that any one was hurt in AZ. But I’m glad he did not use a more deadly force such as driving a class 8 truck (semi) or car through the crowd, or detonate a bomb, or release chemicals and the list could go on and on.
The pen in mightier than the sword…. Political rhetoric and the lack of civility in debate of political topics teach more about not respecting people and devalue opinions and life more than a firearm ever can. A firearm can’t talk a person into a frenzy of violence. But political parties and media can and do…. (is the Tea Party really a party or a deviant treasonous group?) Ask any High School debate coach if they or any political party are following any of the rules about honest fare debate.
Should gun laws change? Yes, Gun laws should be rolled back to pre 1968 levels – when we did not have mass shooting. We never had High school shootings before 1968. WE should also roll back our media coverage to pre 1968 levels when we had reporting with fact checking. If we had ethics in the news media today, news stories would not have different viewpoints. Do people remember when all the news channels gave honest statements? They would have facts and the people (viewers) would have to actually think and understand what it meant. DANG….having to think….won’t that cut in to updating a Face book Status…. heaven forbid……
What does it say about the level of honest unbiased reporting today when some people won’t believe it, if it is not on FOX or NBC or whatever their “favorite” channel is…
Cheers,
Steve
A handgun is actually a bundle of energy . We can and do regulate all kinds of energy, and 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with whether such a potent source of harm should be allowed. We can't treat all anger and/or mental illness, nor stop political diatribe; the focus should be to redefine what we can regulate, namely, handguns . We don't allow hand grenades, or bazookas, or rocket launchers, for good reason. I have been assaulted by people with handguns; it doesn't happen like you might see it on television. If I had been armed, I would have been shot right away. In crowds, even police get it wrong as to who is doing what. The armed citizen in Arizona who lamented that he hadn't been able to shoot the shooter, almost shot one of the(unarmed) people who was subduing the assailant. That info is available, but wasn't in the NYTimes reporting early on . Ban handguns, says this former Marine,hunter, middle aged, middle class, Registered Nurse.
I think this proposal is insane. Is this what we get with Republican control of the house? It make me wonder how much money the NRA and gun manufacturers contributed to the campaigns of the committee members that passed this. Last time I checked our representatives are elected to protect the people that elected them, not sell them out to the highest bidder. Who would this help? Not the people, that's for sure. It would just make us more vulnerable to violence. Where is their common sense?
I don't know if you've ever been on the other side of a person holding a gun to you, with the intent of holding you up. but several of my friends have. It's a traumatic experience, not knowing if you'll be alive in the next minute.
There is absolutely too much access to guns at this time. If I wanted to get a gun, I could have one within an hour....no problem. We need to get control of these weapons in order to stop the needless killing. How many times do we want to hear of some innocent child or bystander, killed or seriously hurt by guns?
Stop this madness....now.
Don't eliminate the state level checks as the federal system hasn't all the information relevant to permitting. Both checks are necessary.
Guns don't shoot people, hold them up, or rob banks... .>>>>>>>>>>>>> I disagree. People with Guns do. I have yet to see someone killed with an imaginary finger gun. It seems to me that if your solution involves either fixinghte people problem or fixing the gun availability problem ... the latter seems more do-able.
Gun law advocates are convinced that more legislation will make things safer (e.g. Minnesota Nice). How naive this is since the reality is that the worldwide and "illegal" gun trade exceeds the legal gun trade. Wake up people, there are sinister people in our society and int the world. Besides the rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, every human being has a right to protect themselves (e.g., the first law of the jungle).
The murder rate for 2009 is at it's lowest rate since 1983. Minnesota is ranked at 13th lowest in the country for crime. I would recommend just leaving everything alone.
Just leave them be. The current level of gun legislation is working just fine.
Guns don't shoot people, hold them up, or rob banks...Criminals do. If you think that banning guns will ban crime you are lost with no hope of every understanding your surroundings.
Criminals also steal most of the weapons they use...doing background checks on any and all that wish to buy a gun should be continued and the freedom to bare arms is the right of all Americans...
End of story...
@Clark,
As somebody whose been held up before, why would you want to make other people vulnerable as well? It seems like after your experiences, you'd have a bit of sympathy for other victims and potential victims.
Do you really believe the only alternatives are to either make people defenseless or else have "bullets flying everywhere"? Your scenario sounds like it's based in some kind of Hollywood reality.
The US should stop acting like Europe's retarted younger brother. Very strict gun control does work, and yet no one's hunting rights are taken away.
More people carrying guns does not reduce crime rates. Most people do not have the instincts to know when to shoot if confronted. And "stopping" a crime is rare if not nonexistent by those who conceal and carry.
We need a culture of less glorified violence. People should be able to own guns without issue. But the background system in place here in Minnesota does not need to be reduced. It's an important filter in reducing guns carried by those who shouldn't have them.
Lax gun laws don't make people violent; a violent people demands lax gun laws.
There's a strong inverse correlation around the world betweeen the strictness of a country's gun laws and the rate of violent crime. Gun control advocates misinterpret this as evidence that tighter controls will make people safer, but the causation actually goes the other way. Our problem is not with our gun laws, but with our culture. Consider what the word football means here and elsewhere in the world. Consider the popularity of movies that glorify the tough guy who shoots rampantly and never feels remorse. Consider the popularity of first-person-shooter video games. Consider the fact that we view everything, from politics to business to our legal system to religion, through the metaphor of a fight. We think aggressiveness is a positive attribute. The blame for gun violence does not lie with our gun laws but with ourselves. If we want to have a safer society, we need to start by raising our kids with a different set of values than we've been instilling for the last century or so.
To paraphrase some ancient wisdom: Those who live by the gun die by the gun.
Gun laws should stay as they are now. Individuals have the right to carry if they are licensed, and it should stay that way. Everyone should contine to have their background cleared before being allowed to purchase. It's really quite fruitless for this discussion to carry on. At this point, we have reached a sort of equilibrium that should not be disturbed. I am a hunter. I am also an advocate for gun control as it stands now.
Passage of a bill like the one being proposed would destroy the progress we've made. We're in a good place. Let's put our efforts into something more necessary.
@Clark,
Your statements make you sound like one of the crazies you mention.
If you would have had a conceal and carry permit and pistol, you could have defended yourself against the criminal.
The only reform for MN gun laws is to actually start enforcing the current laws and stop wasting taxpayer time and money by trying to pass more.
"If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns"........Think about that for a few minutes. Obviously bad guys don't care about laws and will break a gun ban law just as quickly as they will any other law. We need to maintain a level playing field and have the right to defend ourselves.
Personally, I hate guns and wish they would all be outlawed. I have been held up twice in my life with a handgun pointed at my brain.
Minnesota seems to be sending a sign to all the crazies that you came come to MN, buy a gun and kill as many people as you would like, of course, unless everyone else has a gun then it will be just like the wild west with bullets flying everywhere.
Outlaw handguns and if you are caught with a handgun, 10 years in prison.
| February 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | |||||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock