BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: kendall
Date: 22 May 03 - 03:02 PM

Actually Lurker, some places in the USA have very strict gun laws. NYC has its Sullivan Law, Massachusettes and Connecticut also have such laws, but, when you live in a high crime area, you are more concerned about being murdered than being caught with a gun.
The only way to get rid of gun violence, is a major change in mind set. Do away with the "need" for guns, but, it is not realistic. As long as we have a criminal element, a gutless congress and a strong gun lobby, we will have guns. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST,Midchuck downstairs
Date: 21 May 03 - 02:47 PM

Following up on Forum Lurker's last post, I'm reminded of what Edward Abbey said somewhere. He pointed out that the bumper sticker, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is not quite correct.

The fact is that, if guns are outlawed, only outlaws and the government will have guns.

Which defines the two groups least to be trusted with guns, IMO.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 21 May 03 - 02:27 PM

The only effective way to limit guns is to ban ownership, sale, or possession of all guns and ammunition. Only if the mere ownership of the item is enough to confiscate it can legislation adequately reduce gun crime. Of course, that would be far too drastic to get past Congress, and the loss of jobs in the munitions industry would hurt the economy. It would also be very difficult to enforce, and would definitely exceed all but the most restrictive interpretations of the second amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Dave Wynn
Date: 21 May 03 - 12:06 PM

Speaking from a position of limited knowledge of guns , I would think that if stringent gun laws were installed (as here in the UK)they would only be honoured by the decent majority. The criminal fraternity would ignore them (as in the UK)and so still carry guns and hope for not being caught.

Thus there would be fewer "decent law abiding citizens" carrying guns and more criminals. A little simplistic but it seem to have happened in the UK although I have no "damned lies" to prove it.

Spot

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: kendall
Date: 20 May 03 - 08:50 PM

I don't trust anyone to carry a gun, with one exception...ME

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Peg
Date: 19 May 03 - 11:52 PM

Ironmule: I'm a writer by trade, so I try hard to do a bit more than just "grab for an adjective." You may disagree over whether it's an appropriate one, but it's not a thoughtless one...your assumption that I was using language carelessly is another example I would point to...of course you may think mentioning my professional qualifications as a writer to be "arrogant" but then, you have accused me of using language carelessly, so...(shrug) I can't win this one.

I agree with Wesley; human behavior is difficult to legislate. You yourslef admit it's difficult to change such a variable. Better to legislate the weapon, which is made for killing, and keep it out of hands too eager, or unskilled, to use it responsibly.

Yes, knives and rocks and broken bottles kill. But much more slowly...and only one person at a time usually...

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Ironmule
Date: 19 May 03 - 05:33 PM

Laws are easy to change, but an ineffective law is a bad idea. How much contempt is there on this forum for stupid polititians, the dumb laws they've passed, messes they can make of our lives with poorly thought out laws.

I try to stay out of political threads but I've been in the mood for them the last few days. I did a very rare thing and originated one on the woodenboat forum. I hope the blue clicky works. both the right and left chimed in, and my long political discusion is down at the bottom of the page.
Wooden Boat Forum

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Ironmule
Date: 19 May 03 - 05:00 PM

I wish we could just edit a post. I wasn't bothered by the arrogant comment, and as part of my posting policy on all the forums where you might find me, if I do feel a comment is insulting I ignore it completely. Too many internet threads devolve into childish "are too, am not" name calling. On the few occasions when I've had truly insulting comments aimed my way, I regard them as compliments in disguise, coming from the source that they do.

I expect Peg's accusation of arrogance is just a case of grabbing for an adjective and picking the first one that comes to mind. I do try to come off as cool and emotionless as possible when discussing a hot button topic. "Arrogant- making, or disposed to make. exhorbitent claims of rank, estimation, or importance; haughty" In trying to be precise and clearly understood, I probably do come off as haughty. And if the truth is to be told, I probably am a little arrogant, but I try to be catlike about it and cover it up when I make a mess. (BG)

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 May 03 - 04:46 PM

But Jeff - The argument can be made that laws are easier to change than people. There will always be some violent yahoos out there. I just hope that if I run into one that he has a club or knife than a gun. I can outrun a baseball bat. I can't outrun a .22, .38 or .44.

Feets don't fail me now..

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Ironmule
Date: 19 May 03 - 04:35 PM

Peg, I guess the issue that I object to is the attempt to allay your fears by legislating the tool and not the tool weilder. I can show you several studies where criminals were asked why they chose the weapon they commonly used: fists, clubs, knives or guns. Basicly, they like taking from the weak. I can point to the current experience of Brittain, Australia, and Canada, who's gun control laws are stringent, and failing badly. They have sharp increases in violent crime, not the expected reductions.

Real safety comes from inside the person, and I have no idea how to change the criminally minded. They seem impervious to anything but fear. The penal system as currently arranged makes too many of them worse.

If, instead of teaching kids to use good sense when they handle a dangerous item,( barbecue lighter fluid, cars, guns) we try to take the danger out of the tools, we'll just have more of the creativity we see on Jackass TV. There's an estimated 250 million firearms in the US, and like the contents of Pandora's Box, it's too late to make them go away. What I fear is the waste that comes from letting the underlying problem keep getting worse while trying to treat unfixable symptoms. The problems arise inside people and can only be fixed there.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 May 03 - 03:54 PM

Peg - My brother doesn't need me to defend him but I can assure you he's one of the least arrogant people I know. I feel very sure this is one of those instances where the written word comes off colder sounding that a face to face conversation over a pint somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Peg
Date: 19 May 03 - 01:25 PM

Ironmule; you sound pretty arrogant, but what the hell, it's a free country. You at least attempt to be articulate in your arguments and I respect that.


As to "kneejerk reactions," how is it possible for you to acknowledge that I have considered the issue but still react in an emotional and unthinking (and thus illogical and ill-considered) way?

Yes, this issue makes me emotional; there are a lot of needlessly dead people involved...and a lot of people blinded by their bloodlust and badly-repressed anger who want a weapon to hand just to make them "feel safer." This scares me. It should scare you to. Not every gun owner is responsible and emotionally stable. I should that would be obvious by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Ironmule
Date: 19 May 03 - 12:13 PM

I'm afraid that BlueJay's post is more supportive of my position than his own. None of the guns did anything wrong. It was the young gunners.

I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that Bluejay and his friends drove cars just as badly when they got drivers licenses, as they played with guns. They showed awful judgment in what and how to "play". There are many times more guns and people in the US than a century ago, but the accident rate is lower, because of the better training now in firearms safety. If you join a gun club, most make sure you've got a good understanding of firearms safety rules before they'll let you near their range. Every one I've had anything to do with preached safety and good judgement all the time.

Wesley lives in town where a 911 call gets a quick response. In the rural areas I prefer, my two 911 calls got 38minute and 41 minute waits before a Deputy arrived. So far I've been able to out-talk or run away from any trouble that sought me out, but I refuse to be a meek victim if I've got nowhere to run.

A related thought, about using inanimate tools with good or bad judgment; up until the huge increase in drug use in the sixties, more people were slashed with kitchen knives every year than got shot. Most of the fear of guns is fueled by dealer wars. FBI statistics label a dealer and his customer as "knowing" each other.   

Jeff Smith

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 May 03 - 11:06 AM

I'm reminded of a Robert Heinlin book called "Tunnel In The Sky" { if I'm not mistaken the book belonged to my older brother Jeff aka Ironmule }. The protagonist is a teenager about to take a final exam to become some kind of Green Beret space cadet. He will be dumped on an unknown planet with the rest of his class to see if they are able to survive. He's allowed to take any kind of a weapon he wants to - anything. His sister - already a legendary Green Beret space cadet - suggests that he only take an extra knife.

When he asks why he shouldn't take some ultra powerful automatic weapon she tells him that the object of the test is only to survive. And if he takes a bigger weapon that he will be tempted to use it - and there is always something out there that is bigger, badder or faster than whatever weapon he could take with him. And it will make him overconfident.

Her point is that the "rabbit" that runs and hides will survive and the person that stands and fights is libel to be brave and dead.

For myself - I don't really remember a situation that I've been in where the most important piece of survival gear I could have owned wouldn't have been a good pair of running shoes.   

I try to stay out of bad parts of town, stay away from bad people, and have an effective alarm system in our house with a panic button. If someone should ever break in I plan to grab the baby and my wife and run like hell. And call 911. I'd rather be a live rabbit than a brave dead space cadet.

This is a personal viewpoint only and I respect other { esp my brothers } viewpoints other than my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: BlueJay
Date: 19 May 03 - 05:40 AM

Ironmule- Your arguments are thoughtful, but I still say we have too many guns in this country for our own good. I have been an avid shooter, and in the past I have owned quite a few guns. If someone gave me a gun now, I'd probably really enjoy a little target shooting.

But I don't think you can deny the fact that the more firearms available, the more accidents there will be. When I was about 10 or 12, I blew part of the top off of my dresser. I was trying to shoot a .22 into a phone book, (use a thick one), in my bedroom. Unfortunately I didn't understand that the scope I was aiming through was sighted for fifty yards rather than ten feet, hence the chunk out of my dresser. I shouldn't have even had my dad's gun, and I got the bullets on my own. Kids are very clever.

My friends and I, (about the same time), managed to get ahold of a few .22 pistols. We understood that shooting each other with standard .22 ammo was not an option, but we quickly realized you can pry the lead projectile off with a pair of pliers, dump all or most of the powder out, stick the shell into a bar of soap and have a stinging but not deadly projectile.

Boy we had fun, shooting each other with abandon. We quit after a potent charge landed a wad of soap through my shirt and into my right deltoid muscle. It healed, without my parents ever knowing. I still have the scar, looks just like a smallpox vaccine of old. Good thing no one got one in the eye.

I think it is undeniable that with more guns, there will be more gun accidents. More kids will get ahold of them and do stupid shit like I did.

In Denver, in the last month, two kids are dead and one in critical condition because they got ahold of their dad's firearms. That's the only real statistic I have. Is that a fair trade off for your right to own and carry as many weopons as you see fit? Or is it just "collateral damage"?

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 03 - 12:04 AM

Peg: Your position appears to be i'm right you are all wrong and have no right to an opinion unless it agrees with mine?

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Ironmule
Date: 18 May 03 - 11:49 PM

Hi Peg

I never did take Latin, and although I looked up a bunch of words in the dictionary I keep next to my PC, I didn't look up that one (ad hominem).

I'm glad you see the point of my post, that honorable people can study a difficult question and differ on the best answer. I hope you also realize that I use you as an example of kneejerk reactions, rather than saying you're a kneejerk thinker. It's quicker to use an example than to double the size of an already long post to set up a teaching example (parable?).

As I see it, we have too many distractions from the "improving life" questions, because it suits politicians to keep creating "Us and Them" fights instead of really addressing serious problems. A problem wouldn't be serious if it was easy to solve.

The "Arming to the Teeth" side of things is not my experience with Carry Permit people. I mean real people, not the writers of idiot media on both side of this question. Some of the "Gun Nut Magazines" are every bit as objectionable to me as to you. All we carry permit people want is not to be victims. Our difference in thinking is our willingness to take concrete steps to prepare for the things we fear.   

I'll repeat what I regard as the most important part of my rant, that differences of opinion may be the result of ignorance, or the result of gullibility, but very few of the opinions we see on our forum are the result of evil intent. So, polite discussion of our differences is important to the growth of our cyber society. I always try to persuade, because I know that insults turn me off, and I don't expect to cause growth in others by insulting them.

Jeff Smith

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Peg
Date: 18 May 03 - 10:58 PM

Hey Jeff; it's "ad hominem."

And when someone posts a bunch of drivel calling upon citizens to arm themselves to the teeth rather than find ways to actually improve life in this country, then I think an attack is called for; particularly when he/she infers that anyone who thinks gun control is a good idea is some sort of bleeding heart...

Goody for you for "reconsidering your position" after ten years of careful study. Some of us "loud anti-gunners" (as you put it) have thought long and hard about it too, longer than you, even, and still think gun laws should be stricter.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Ironmule
Date: 18 May 03 - 09:39 PM

These threads annoy me, because they're so predictable. I suppose the biggest part of the annoyance is that I once would have been one of those posting from an arrogant ignorance. Peg annoyed me with her "Ad Hominum" attack on "Guest" telling him to go to Idaho with the rest of his "White Supremecist Friends". When "Guest" mildly said she'd misread his posting of alternative statistical evidence, she repeated her attack, saying he ought to go find other's who want to "take America back". I understand "Guest's" reasons for desiring anonimity, because he might well have his e-mail clogged by flaming attacks.   

I once was pro-guncontrol. I'd have voted for any proposed law to reduce or ban guns for other than the mildest of hunting and target shooting. I thought my brother's interest in "survivalism" was over the edge. I spent ten years rethinking that position, and reading the evidence offered by both sides; reading the NRA books, and the anti-NRA books. After careful, thoughtful consideration I now have a carry permit, and for ten years now, have carried all the time. I deliberately avoid possible places of trouble, avoiding bars and gatherings of the beligerant. The motivation underlying my decision to carry is a refusal to be a helpless victim. Lately I've decided I ought to go beyond personal self protection, and "Give Back" something, by getting certified as a Firearms Safety Instructor and teaching beginners.

If you want, I can list the news events from central Florida that were part of the decision process, and the books I own that have the statistical data that supports my belief that Carry Permit Holders are from the most honest, law abiding, safe segment of society. I could explain why I feel that the evidence offered by the "Loud" anti-gunners is biased by their fears.   

I didn't even begin examining the idea of carrying until I spent five years shoulder to shoulder with parolee's on the job. I've been foreman to ex-cons who were going straight, who'm I'd trust with anything I own, and others like the guy (proud of his success at "Thug Life") who still owes me the $80 I gave him to bail out his "Lady" from her DUI arrest. Talking morality in the lunch room with guy's who were comfortable with the idea of taking anything they were strong enough to steal, lead me to reconsider some of my "sanctity of life" issues. I've got several years of bible reading and theological agonizing invested in the idea that someone might attack me, and cause me to use deadly force in self defense; either with my bare hands or using a utensil of some kind.      

The matter I find most disturbing in these "Hot Button" threads is the immediate assumption by so many people that the only reason why someone might hold a differing view, is because of evil intent. Why should the decision to own a gun forever brand one as a "Red Neck Bubba" who hates minorities. About 1/3 of my class mates in my Carry Permit classes were people of color; who, like me, didn't want to be victims.

I've been trying to play peacemaker over on the Woodenboat Boatbuilder's Forum, between the "Loud Liberals" and the "Loud Conservatives" who both seem to find it difficult to believe that honorable men might differ on a "hot button" subject. Like here, there's a tendancy to assume ignoble or evil intent whenever a party line isn't followed.   I prefer to assume that anyone who disagree's with me hasn't done the research I have.

Several of those I disagree with, clearly have done even MORE research that I have, and as honorable men, have reached different conclusions from mine. I regard them as friends, and we have long exchanges of e-mails on the subject of a moral person's approach to life.

I remain open to the possibility I may be wrong about any subject I have opinions about. After all, I've been wrong before ;^)

Jeff Smith

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 18 May 03 - 08:04 PM

Ho Hum. No stats except suspect ones from Nicole (basis not stated) and the usual fiddled stats from the NRA.
Yep, just opinions without support coming from both sides. We'd all rather try to make our points without having to consider stats which might prove us wrong.
OK, why don't I post some? I would have to spend days on analysis and verification before I would be happy with the figures. Much easier just to soapbox it.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 03 - 06:09 PM

Forum Lurker. The stats are not *Mine* they are compiled and put on a site for people to research. I made no derogatory statements about or too anyone on this forum. You people are hypocritical, and very unpleasant towards strangers. No wonder people post annonymously on this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 May 03 - 05:56 PM

Gun ownership is strictly regulated in Sweden. An experienced hunter is allowed to own a maximum of six guns; less experienced hunters may own only 4 guns. All gun owners must be registered and every gun purchase requires a new license from the local police authority (which costs about $20). Pistols and revolvers are very difficult to obtain a license for, and active membership in a registered shooting club is required.

Being convicted of a crime that results in a prison sentence always revokes all gun licenses. Even lesser crimes, for instance threats, can result in gun licenses being revoked. Most Swedes accept that it is the government's and law enforcement's business to make sure that criminals are unarmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: The O'Meara
Date: 18 May 03 - 05:50 PM

GuestQ; (1) Accidental deaths involving firearms have not gone up in any of the states that have concealed carry "shall-issue" laws, some of which have been in place for quite a few years, such as in Texas and Vermont. (2) Part of the rationale behind requiring concealed carry is the bad guys will never be sure who is armed and who isn't, thereby extending some protection to those who do not carry guns.

Forum Lurker: (1) Your statement that gun ownership increases death rates from accidents and suicides is based on what? (2) The 43:1 ratio is blather, and there are no true statistics that back it up. Saying "Everyone knows" doesn't prove anything except a lack of facts. (3) For many, many years the worlds highest suicide rate was in Sweden, hardly a bastion of gun ownership.

Mr. Hammond: Your statement of your opinion is one of the most honest ones I've seen. Your statement "Guns are fucking stupid" is absoultely correct. In fact, guns are inanimate tools, like hammers, no better and no worse than the people who use them.

O'Meara

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 18 May 03 - 01:52 PM

Thread drift- I remember a commercial flight out of Belgium about 40 years ago. Several passengers carried rifles and shotguns on board, and some compared their purchases (I presume Brownings, they were all new) in flight. Times have changed.

Where I grew up (New Mexico-Colorado) young people were taught how to handle firearms by their parents. The object was to prevent hunting accidents and to kill game cleanly; there was almost no worry about needing firearms to ward off felons. Handguns were not visible except in the hands of law officers, although paw's old pistol was carefully preserved, and demonstrated to show how far off target one would be without a great deal of practice. Times have changed.

I don't like the concealed carry laws. It seems to me that you are giving the criminal element the same right to carry, and in spite of clauses against convicted felons carrying, I can see loopholes. Moreover, unless training and mental checks (not perfunctory) go along with granting the license, accidental deaths are bound to go up.

The old way, the gun in sight, in some ways seems preferable.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry'
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 18 May 03 - 01:11 PM

"Oh you homo sapiens, and your guns..."

"Guns are fucking stupid"

Kinda sums up my opinion of 'em...

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 18 May 03 - 12:39 PM

GUEST-Your statistics do, in fact, suggest that conceal-and-carry reduces violent crime. However, gun ownership in general greatly INCREASES death rates from firearm accidents and suicide. I'm not Internet-literate enough to find the information, but in general the U.S.'s high rate of gun ownership has been linked to our high rates of successful suicide attempts. The 43:1 ratio might only compare deaths, but unless 50 criminals are scared off without any injuries for every criminal who is injured or killed, a gun in the home is still more likely to injure or kill a member of the household than to be used successfully in home defense.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: The O'Meara
Date: 18 May 03 - 12:29 PM

Ok kids, lets play nice...

Lepus Rex; Your last post demonstrates a real problem, and a root cause of the really vehement arguments, sometimes with very little logic behind them, on both sides of the "gun control" fight. There is a "rural" point of view, in which total self-reliance is the ideal, and an "urban" point of view in which the ideal is reliance on a collective system, such as government. Each side sees the other as a direct threat to its survival. It all comes together in the "gun-control" debates, which usually start as reasoned discussion but in a very few minutes turn into illogical name-calling and irrational argument.

A few years ago, I listened to a "debate" between an NRA president and the chairman of Handgun Control Inc. The HCI guy's oldest son had been murdered with a handgun by the "Zodiac" killer, and the NRA guy had been charged with murder at age 14 for shooting a burglar who broke into his home. (Acquitted.) They were supposed to argue calmly and rationally about something that was a gut-level emotional survival issue for both of them. The rational part of the debate lasted nearly 5 minutes.

As near as I can tell, none of the arguments promoting "Gun-control" hold water. For example the argument that Japan has a lower gun-crime rate than the U.S. because of the strict gun laws. Japanese-Americans have access to all the firearms available to any American citizen, yet their gun-crime rate is lower than the rate in Japan.

And that business about a gun in the home is more likely used on an innocent friend or family member than an intruder. IT's hard to measure a negative quantity, so there is no statistic for how many intrusions don't happen because of armed homeowners.

I guess that's enough for now.

O'Meara

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Joe Offer
Date: 18 May 03 - 12:15 PM

Hi, Lepus - you put a line break <br> when you meant to mark the words bold <b>. I fixed it.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Peg
Date: 18 May 03 - 11:07 AM

GUEST;
you know nothing about me. But your cut-and-dried assessment of me is very telling. Nothing in my statements so far in this thread have been the least bit illogical or uninformed. I am far from emotional about this issue. Been around guns too much since childhood to fear them. As for hating guests posting, where would you get that idea? I made no mention of your anonymity. BUT SINCE YOU MENTIONED IT, yeah, I do tend to believe anonymous posters getting involved in threads like this one are trolls with little to no interest in music or our community.

Go find some other mercenaries on the 'Net who agree with your plans to "take America back." You'll find plenty, I;m sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry'
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 18 May 03 - 10:10 AM

Yeah, so, not a big fan of the new law. Even former Gov. Arne Carlson is against it. ("How does anyone with an IQ that approaches double digits pass that kind of legislation?") Man, I never thought I'd miss him.

A few years back, a guy I knew, from semi-rural East Bethel, MN, moved with his girlfriend to Camden, in North Mpls. Camden isn't a "bad" part of town. I've gone for 1AM walks there, and never had a problem. But this guy, this moron from East Bethel, would sit in bed each night, clutching his hunting rifle, trembling and almost in tears, waiting for "them" to come barging through the door. And he wasn't even mentally ill; that's just how frightened he was.

And he wasn't unique. Every other person I meet from outstate Minnesota is like this. "Ooh, you're from the Cities?! You ever been shot?" I know a guy who doesn't even like to venture into the "inner-ring" suburbs. Despite the fact that "random violence" is pretty rare in Minnesota, there are many people out there who truly believe that there are bands of young, black gangsters prowling rural Minnesota, ready to kill for Dala horses and rosmaled mailboxes.

These are the people who pushed for this law, or rather the permed-up lefse-monkeys they elected did. We have these nutty-ass outstate jackasses forcing this paranoid bullshit on the denizens of the Metro Area, who make up, by the way, the majority of the state's population. And I don't know a single sane person from "the Cities" who thinks this law will reduce crime. Aarrghh, just...pisses me off. Fuckers.

My wish: We could deport 90% of outstate Minnesotans to Wisconsin, and burn their goddamned Dala horses. OK, unrealistic... New wish: That one of the legislators who forced this bill on us is shot to death in a "road rage" incident... by a newly liscensed "concealed carry" psycho. >:)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 May 03 - 09:53 AM

*Yawn*

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 03 - 02:44 AM

You like poetry Kat, this should interest you.
http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem1634.html

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 May 03 - 02:15 AM

Tongue in cheek, O Pompous Anonymous, sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Hrothgar
Date: 18 May 03 - 02:13 AM

Without getting into the gum ownership thing - how do you know to ban somebody with a concealed weapon from your premises if the weapon is concealed? Do they walk in saying "Hey, I've got a concealed weapon!"?

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 03 - 02:06 AM

Kat. We have had several incidents involving guard dogs that have maimed and killed children. In fact if studies were done i'm sure death and injury by dog attack is as bad as firearm stats. My dog barks, wakes me up, and if its a criminal intent on harming my family, NEVER MIND THE DOG, BUT BEWARE THE OWNER.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 May 03 - 01:56 AM

I feel much safer packing around my killer dog and I don't even have to keep him concealed, plus, he never goes off half-cocked.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 03 - 01:47 AM

Peg. I dont understand your post. I published some websites that refute some of your position on guns. Included are statistics on crime, missuse of firearms, and you label me a White Supremacist, survivalist? They are intended to promote debate and discussion but it would seem that a: you hate guests posting b: you are unable to debate in a logical and informed manner c: Emotion clouds every side on this issue. d: Time to calm down and review facts.
Incidently Peg I am a firearms owner who is heavily restricted by my nations gun laws; and live in a country where violent crime is increasing. I have stringent rules about my recreational shooting matches, but the drug dealers and other lowlife just pack guns and carry on as normal.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Peg
Date: 18 May 03 - 01:16 AM

gee, GUEST; why don't you move to Idaho and hook up with the white supremacists and survivalists? They need fearless intelligent leaders like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 03 - 01:00 AM

http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=18&EID=4476-512003

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 03 - 12:21 AM

http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog/cowards.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 03 - 12:19 AM

Cooper VS. Terrorism
by Jeff Cooper
So here we are in the "Age of Extortion." Our local friendly felons have finally discovered what has long been taken for granted in what we used to call "more backward countries"—that crime does pay—in millions. All you need to do is threaten to do something terrible and people will throw money at you. You don't need any particular talent or skill to get rich this way, and you don't need education or training. The only requisite is nastiness, and that is no rare quality.

We can speculate at length upon why this foulness has come upon us so strikingly at this point in our history, but I doubt that any incontrovertible conclusion will result. My own suggestion is simply overpopulation. Like rats, we get testier as we get crowded. By simple arithmetic, if the proportion of goblins to people in our society remains constant, doubling our population doubles the number of goblins. And they reinforce each other as their numbers rise.

But such speculation is academic. We have the problem; never mind why. What shall we do about it? In a socialist atmosphere, the immediate response is to hand the problem to the state. Pass a law! Any law. Just so you can say that something has been done. And above all, spend money. We have come to assume that the more money we spend on a problem, the quicker it will go away.

Now it is quite true that the state can indeed abolish extortion, terrorism, and crime. History offers many examples of nations in which none of these things existed. We can start with Senacherib of Assyria and browse on up to Porfirio Diaz of Mexico. An iron fist will do it. That's the state's simple and effective answer to disorderly conduct. If you want it arranged so that the state will protect you, you can do so. What you give up in return is your liberty.

No deal.

The man to protect you is you. Not the state, not the agent of the state, and not your hired hand—YOU!

How often is our intelligence insulted by the fatuous claim that we should rely on the police for our physical security! I cannot believe that the people who advance this idea believe it themselves. The police do indeed abort a certain amount of violent crime by their coincidental presence on the scene, and that's fine. But to tell us that all we have to do is call a cop when confronted by a troll is to talk like a fool—and those who tell us this know it.

The "in" crime today is kidnapping. The police have never prevented a kidnapping. Not once. On the other hand, the intended victim often has. You don't hear much about these latter episodes, because a crime that does not take place is not newsworthy, but it is my business to know about such things and I keep track of them as best I may, and there have been at least a dozen instances brought to my attention in the last two years.

Hiring other people, public or private, to protect yourself, is perhaps not totally futile, but it must never be considered more than marginally effective. Both policemen and bodyguards can be suborned, and skill levels are problematical.

Pistol skill is not something to count on in a hired hand. Two recent examples stand out because they were caught by television cameras. These were the attempts on Governor Wallace and Imelda Marcos. In each case, guards were plentiful, and armed, but not sufficiently skilled. In each case, there was plenty of time to hit the attacker before he acted, but those responsible reacted only afterward.

On the other hand, the intended victim can seek his own skill level, and he can put it to use more quickly than any other person when he suddenly finds that he himself is a target.

Your best protector is you!

Apart from the skill factor, there is the matter of reliability. A man you hire to protect you can be hired by somebody else not to. It is nerve-wracking to be dogged about by armed men on your daily rounds, and it is also both conspicuous and un-private.

Some years ago, I undertook to train the personal guard of a certain chief of state in pistolcraft. When the course was completed, I was able to address my client thus:

"Your excellency, 24 of your 28 men are now distinctly more efficient with their sidearms than the generality of those who guard the President of the United States. They are very good, but I don't know who they are—I hope you do."

He knew what I meant. One of his predecessors in office had been murdered by one of his own guards. Of my students who previously employed bodyguards, most now do not, except as car watchers.

Your best protector is you!

Still we hear, over and over again, that we should not be armed, that we should not resist, that we should rely on the police for our personal safety—that our best answer to violence is to give up. Such drivel demands a stronger stomach than mine.

One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that "violence begets violence." I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.

Your best protector is you! The obvious way to eradicate crime is to eradicate criminals, but neither the lawgivers nor the constabulary seem inclined to do this. The man who elects to prey upon society deserves no consideration from society. If he survives his act of violence, he rates a fair trial—but only to be sure that there has been no mistake about his identity. If he is killed in the act, there can be little doubt about whose act it was.

But we don't want a "Porfiriato," in which the police simply shoot all suspects out of hand. Such a regime may indeed have a certain austere appeal in today's climate of urban chaos, but to trade one's liberty for security is to sell one's soul to the devil, as Ben Franklin noted. And, to quote James Burnham, it is both our lives and our liberties that are at stake.

Laws are not the answer. We have laws against murder. We have laws against kidnapping. We have laws against extortion. And murder, kidnapping, and extortion are on the rise. The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. Let the thug take his chances with an alert, prepared, and angry citizenry. It may very well spoil his whole career.

This is not a call for vigilantism: It is a call for self-reliance. For those who feel short on self-reliance, I have a suggestion. Take up practical pistol shooting as a recreation. It is a good game. It is fun. It is "relevant." And it does wonders for your self-reliance.

Your best protector is—as it always has been—you!

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry'
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 17 May 03 - 10:20 PM

Tme for the thrilling non-adventure story.

A long time ago I had a pistol on my belt and a light wool shirt worn over it like a jacket. It was chilly weather. I and another person ran across a man who had 'issues,' as they say now, with that other person.

I'm being vague; don't want anyone recognized, unlikely though it is.

I was just standing there quietly, hadn't said a word, and the man with issues said "You!" and reached for my neck with his left hand while he drew the other hand, the one with the hatchet, back over his shoulder, preparing for a strike at my head, near as I could tell.

Now this was a rather violent man. He once took a dislike to Gene Autry on the cover of some sheet music at a dance and shot him through the head and through the piano.

I did an amazingly quick draw; I didn't know I was going to do it until I felt the gun butt in my hand, and that scared me. I recall thinking "You can't point a gun at another person--that's dangerous." but I did anyway, and he looked down and saw it and put his hatchet down.

There's a sort of paradox for you. If I'd had a less deadly weapon, a club or a knife, he might not have backed down and I'd have had to use it. Or try to. But nobody got hurt. It's hard for me to believe I shouldn't have had the pistol. It possibly saved two lives.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 17 May 03 - 11:44 AM

I have a friend who owns a handgun. I once went on a long camping trip with him and his wife. (We slept in separate tents.) I learned, halfway through the trip, from the wife, that J had brought his gun along and slept with it beside him in the tent. It made him feel more secure, because we were camping in bear country. (Black bears, not grizzlies.) After that, it made me think twice about going out into the woods at night to pee. The bears didn't scare me, but the gun did!

J's wife also told me that, even at home, J sometimes has a hard time sleeping at night. Even watching a horror movie on TV affects him. When that happens, he gets out his gun and lays it on the nightstand next to the bed. Then he feels more secure and he can sleep better. (He lives in a very safe neighborhood.)

I never would have known any of this if J's wife hadn't told me. J is a mild-mannered sensible kind of guy who would have no trouble getting a concealed-carry permit if he wanted one. (For all I know, maybe he has one by now.)

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: BlueJay
Date: 17 May 03 - 04:48 AM

Here in "colorful Colorado", a similar "must issue" law has just passed. The local sherrif no longer has any discretion in the matter, it is a matter of state law. So much for the Republicans professed interest in local control.
At the same time, here in /colorado we have two kids dead, and one in the hospital from "firearm accidents", in the last few weeks. Parents stupid enough to keep loaded weapons accessible to children.
But our idiotic Colorado legislature wants to make it even easier for any idiot to carry loaded weapons. At the same time, any effort to require pistol locks or other safe storage requirements is somehow an infringement on these once a year deer killers of their God Given rights.
When Nixon died, I said, "once Reagan goes, my life will be complete". Reagan fucked me out of that joy by slipping into total dementia. My next best hope is to see them pry a gun out of Heston's cold dead hands. Thanks, BlueJay

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 17 May 03 - 02:31 AM

"... rate is nearly 16 times higher ... in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined."

Mathematicians comment: when you combine 25 other countries to calculate the rate of something, you will of course get the average of all 25. ONE country in that group of 25 with a very low rate, for whatever reason, can skew the "statistic" so far as to make the entire statement meaningless.

Isn't it easy to lie with statistics.

Not meaning to pick on you Nicole, but the quote is meaningless and to quote such stuff doesn't really help with the argument.

The "proliferation" of concealed carry laws in the states is a direct result of the well meant attempt to ban all gun ownership.

Gun banners were quite proud of their new Federal law a few years ago that prohibits anyone from purchasing a gun in any state except the state in which (s)he resides. To create a pretense that they were not violating the principle that interstate commerce may not be restricted by Federal or State laws, the "loophole" was included that permits persons with a "license to carry" in their own state to purchase in an adjacent state; but only if both states have passed "enabling" legislation to recognise the permits of the other adjacent state.

This law has, in effect, created the need and demand for states to come up with more-or-less uniform "permits to carry" in order that legitimate gun owners can purchase in the adjacent states.

Since the "gun ban law" created a need for the states to "invent" a permit to carry, it also created a need for them to specifically define the limits on carrying or using a gun without a permit; so those who previously did not need a permit for their legitimate gun use now have to go get a permit.

There is little reliable evidence to indicate whether or not the "proliferation" of "carry permits" has significantly affected the number of persons who may have a gun in their possession at any given time or place; but there is also very little credible evidence to indicate that the permits have actually increased the number of guns carried in most places in the US by any significant amount.

States vary on whether the "permit to carry" is a "concealed weapon" permit; but I will note that 40-some years ago when I participated on the Faculty Pistol Team, I was required to get a Massachusetts State Firearms License. Massachusetts at that time had one of the most restrictive sets of laws anywhere in the US. If you had a permit, the law required that the weapon be carried concealed, on grounds that the visible display of a gun was likely to cause trouble - because you can't predict the behaviour of the unlicensed nuts who might be around.

A more worrisome result of the new Federal law, to me, relates to real "machine guns." In the 1960 era, the FBI reported that there were fewer than 2,000 full-automatic weapons legally held by private citizens. It could be done, but it was very difficult, and very expensive. Since the new law forced the detailed specification of the requirements for owning such a weapon, in effect the "gun banners" provided a blue print for how to do it, with the result that 4 or 5 years ago the number of "machine guns" privately owned legally in the United States was reported by the ATF at something over 28,000.

(Note that I'm relying on my recollection of fairly old information, so the numbers should not be taken as "certified;" although I believe they are close enough.)

There are no "easy answers" here, but I personally do not believe that the "carry permits" have or will signicantly affect the presence or absence of guns in most circumstances. Those responsible enough to obtain the license will generally still carry, or not carry, pretty much the same as before. Those who carry without a license, of course, are unlikely to change that habit either.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 May 03 - 05:32 PM

I don't buy it, Mark. The US has some of the highest crime rates in the industrialized world -- and also some of the highest gun ownership rates.

I'm not in favor of banning guns in general, but it seems pretty obvious that more guns are unlikely to reduce gun violence. It might, in some cases, reduce overall crime, but it also dramatically increases the chance the guns will be misused or involved in accidental shooting, particularly by children who find them and decide to play with them. Not to mention teen impulse suicides and increased use of guns during domestic violence.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of firearm death of children 0-14 years old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. The firearm-related homicide rate is nearly 16 times higher for children in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The suicide rate of children 0-14 years old is twice as high in the U.S.as it is in those same 25 other industrialized countries combined. Interestingly, there is no difference in the non-firearm suicide rate between the U.S. and these other countries. Virtually all the difference is attributable to suicides committed with guns in the U.S.

More guns save lives?

It seems, to me, reckless irresponsible to broadly and indiscriminately license a deadly object without taking any safety precautions whatsoever. If that MN law had also required mandatory safety training along with a must-issue law, it would be far more responsible.

So while the NRA fights basic safety programs like child safety locks and laws that place liability for accidental shootings on the owner who irresponsibly doesn't lock up their gun safely on one hand -- and yet lobbies for increased gun sales on the other in the name of "safety," I think the disparity requires us to question the motives and rationale of that school of thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: MarkS
Date: 16 May 03 - 05:07 PM

Hi Nicole

The gun in your purse might be of limited value in protecting you from a mugger, but the knowledge in the mind of the mugger that you MIGHT have a gun in your purse should, to some extent, deter the mugger from selecting you as their vicitim in the first place.
I suspect that concealed carry laws reduce the risk of crime for all citizens, including those who make the choice to be unarmed, because of the added doubt it puts in the mind of the criminals.
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Giac
Date: 16 May 03 - 04:45 PM

Yeah, Kim, and in most of those places, in my experience, the signs were and are ignored. Granted, my bar-going days are long past, but I can't remember ever seeing anyone check their guns or knives at the door. But I've seen a fair number being toted in pockets, handbags and even holsters. My friends and I always made for the door if anyone started discussing guns, or knives. What followed was usually a display of said weapons, sometimes followed by demonstrations of their utility.

I can still shoot the eye out of a gnat, and I can stick a knife in a wall to match most folks, but I don't think a crowded room full of drunks is the place for it. **Grin**

Uh, no, I don't carry a gun.

~;o) Mary

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Kim C
Date: 16 May 03 - 04:04 PM

Heck, we've had signs in Tennessee bars for YEARS about knives and guns being prohibited in liquor-serving establishments - even before you could get a carry permit.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 May 03 - 03:49 PM

I agree Peg, but something can be stupid or unhelpful or downright dangerous, and people can consciously acknowledge that, but that doesn't mean they can accept it. Alcoholics KNOW that alcohol doesn't solve their problems, but they drink anyway.

Anytime one discusses gun laws, people creep out of the woodwork in hysterics about how their guns can protect them from the government, despite the preposterous nature of the arguement. (.38 special in hands of shakey, frightened and unprepared civilian vs. Apache attack helicopter. Your bets goes where?)

"I have a gun in my purse and it will protect me from muggers" is the subconscious equivalent of an earlier era when people placed the same kind of faith in the cross as a means of physical protection. Angels aren't likely to jump out of a cross and beat up a mugger for you any more than the gun is going to protect you by itself. But that doesn't mean people don't cling to the idea.

If the gun is as symbolicaly powerful as you're suggesting, it would be nice if those who feel "reassured" by its image could get used to carrying around sculpture of a gun, rather than a real one.

There may be a business opportunity in there somewhere... :D

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: alanabit
Date: 16 May 03 - 03:27 PM

I am not sure if should really join in a debate which is about a type of culture I have never lived in - a gun culture. However, reading Peg's comment about incidents involving nervous people reminded me of an incident a few years ago.
I was drinking in a dimly lit bar in Köln when a man lurched into the bar. Something glinted in his right hand and his face appeared to be bleeding. In the time that it took him to reach the bar next to me I was concerned only with my own safety. It looked like a crazed nutcase who had been in a knife fight was coming for me. Without even thinking, I was off my stool and in a position to fight. (I have had unarmed combat training). To my astonishment, he jumped back in terror. I then saw that he was carrying nothing more offensive than keys in his hand and the scars on his face were old ones. I had simply jumped to the wrong conclusions because of a trick of the poor light. Of course, I apologised and bought him a beer. In retrospect, I can even see the funny side of it. At the moment it happened I was terrified. Thank goodness that neither of us had a weapon and that neither one of two perfectly harmless people injured each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Peg
Date: 16 May 03 - 03:27 PM

Nicole;

Carrying talismans may be a human urge; but a gun that can rip someone's intestines out and a chunk of rose quartz are two very different objects...

If the gun is as symbolicaly powerful as you're suggesting, it would be nice if those who feel "reassured" by its image could get used to carrying around sculpture of a gun, rather than a real one.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 16 May 03 - 02:49 PM

I think I remember something about guns being prohibited in places serving liquor in Texas. Signs don't always work. I never saw a woman's purse being checked. This was about 20 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 03 - 02:40 PM

In Juneau, several years back there was a proposal to allow concealed gun carry- including into the schools. It was defeated.

About a year later, a deer hunter's boat landed at the waterfront and, carrying his rifle, the hunter went home, in plain sight cutting across the far edge of a middle school. He was spotted and in great alarm the school went into immediate lockdown.

What would have happened if the concealed law had been passed and a concealed weapon had been spotted?

I can't imagine anyone outside the police and perhaps a school administration needing guns on school property.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: harpgirl
Date: 16 May 03 - 02:37 PM

!!!!!!!   harpy (you know the rest)!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: fox4zero
Date: 16 May 03 - 02:28 PM

Guest,Q

The last time I was in a bar/restaurant in San Antonio TX, there were several large signs prohibiting firearms in establishments that served liquor. That was about 15 years ago.

Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Kim C
Date: 16 May 03 - 01:44 PM

Weeeeeeelllllll....... this is all very interesting.

I don't think it's the people who follow the law that we have to be concerned about. It's the people who break the law. People who have to obtain a firearm by illegal means usually have a nefarious purpose in mind.

I don't have a problem with the concept of a concealed carry permit, on the whole. However, I do believe that not everyone who wants such a permit should be given one. Here in Tennessee you have to take a gun safety class WITH the weapon you intend to carry, then you have to post a bond. And I think they can still say No.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: NicoleC
Date: 16 May 03 - 01:44 PM

You are probably right, Peg. But I think it's human nature to hang on to talismans to protect us. The gun is a virtual icon in America by which some groups think everything can be solved.   

I hate planes, airports and everything to do with flying. But I feel better if I can sit up front near the pilot. I think I have some sort of feeling of safety there, as if I could take over the controls and safely land the plane if the pilot died. Sheer rubbish; I'd probably kill us all.

But it still makes me feel better.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Peg
Date: 16 May 03 - 01:37 PM

I find the thought that anyone would feel a "distinct need" to CARRY A GUN on one's person in public to be perplexing.

What precisely would make you fire that gun? Trying to shoot someone before they shoot you? You'd have to be making some quick decisions and very fast assessments of situations. What if what you think is a gun is actually someone's phone, wallet or comb?

Trained law enforcement officers have shot and killed people they stated were believed armed (or reaching for weapons), who later turned out to be unarmed and in no way ever involved in criminal activity. Such incidents are sometimes cases of mistaken identity but more often it's the adrenalin rush of the fearful situation and needing to feel "in control" and, of course, holding a weapon, that makes one shoot first and ask questions later. Being a cop is dangerous work for this reason. We don't need average citizens taking it on themselves to become freaking vigilantes. If your neighborhood is dangerous, do something about it. If you have to visit a place you think is dangerous, reconsider your "need" to go there. Too many people think it's appropriate to beat up on parents from their kids' rival soccer teams, or punch someone who nabs their parking space. Adding GUNS to this miasma of rage and aggression makes things better HOW, exactly?

I am not against firearms for pragmatic purposes. But I don't think they should be kept around with the intention of intimidating, maiming or killing other human beings. The potential and ensuing problems far outweigh any sense of security derived. Use appropriate weapons for hunting or target shooting, after having mastered safety precautions. All other use should be highly regulated and, in the case of assault weapons, banned.

It is my understanding that handguns kept in homes for "protection" are far more likely to cause injury to members of the household or others in the community (as when these weapons are stolen, or handled by children, or brought to school) than they are to "protect" from intruders.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 16 May 03 - 12:53 PM

A friend of mine, raised in a no-carrying state, and I were in Houston (Texas has a similar law) having a drink at the hotel bar. A pretty li'l gal was on the seat next to my friend and he (of course) started a conversation. She was a little tight and dumped her purse looking for her cigarette lighter. Out dropped a pretty little handgun.
My friend's face quickly changed color. When he recovered, he suggested that we leave.

I was always surprised at how few accidents there were, especially at places like Mickey Gilley's (sp?) where the liquor flowed freely.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Midchuck
Date: 16 May 03 - 12:37 PM

Well, in Vermont, we have no concealed carry permits, and we have a very low per capita homicide rate, which indicates concealed carry permits are a bad idea.

The thing is, we have no handgun carrying restrictions at all. If you want to carry, you just do it.

Of course, I've never carried a handgun except when I was on my way to go shooting. In Vermont, I don't feel there's any need. Down country, in the major cities, I feel there's a very distinct need, but they won't let me.

Go figure.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 16 May 03 - 12:28 PM

Joe O, in agreeing with you more than you realize, I still remember the old police saying that "You can get more with a smile and a gun, than you can with just a smile..." ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 May 03 - 11:59 AM

Hey, yeah, it could make a lot of money for those of us who know how to do background investigations....

But I'm scared of guns, and I'm especially scared of people who aren't peace officers who carry guns. I certainly don't believe anybody should be able to get a concealed weapons permit easily.

In the 25 years I worked as an investigator, I was armed only with a ball point pen and a smile.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: The O'Meara
Date: 16 May 03 - 11:50 AM

35 or 40 states have concealed carry laws like the one in Minnesota. None of them have experienced any problems with those who have carry permits - not in schools or bars or churches or shopping malls or anywhere else, and in fact violent crime decreased in all of them. Thats generally attributed to the fact that those with permits are law-abiding citizens, not alcoholics or junkies or criminals. Concealed carry laws do not result in a "Dodge City" atmosphere. So what are you really worried about?

O'Meara

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 16 May 03 - 11:49 AM

Actually Minnesota is well behind the times. Virginia did the same thing about ten years ago. As an investigator for a Sheriffs Dept, I had the additional duty of doing those investigations with the onus on the person requesting the permit to prove his need to carry the weapon (such as habitualy carrying large sums of money as a course of business). And frankly I turned down way more than I approved. (It was one of these background investigations which became the beginning of the Lyndon LaRouche case, resulting in numerous convictions for loan fraud, tax evasion, and other white collar crimes of he and many of his followers.)

But the case that brought it up was Oliver North, who applied for a permit in another County and was turned down by the local Democrat Sheriff. Not only did the State pass emergency legislation for him to get one, but they then went ahead to liberalize the laws to put the onus on the Sheriff's Dept to prove why the requester shouldn't get a permit.

But even though I was not happy with the numbers of people who were requesting and getting concealed weapons permits, I have to admit that there has been no outbreak of shooting in Virginia, and according to an article I read several month ago, there have been a few cases of misuse, but a greater number of times where the weapon was used to stop a crime. Go figure...

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Sorcha
Date: 16 May 03 - 11:28 AM

Good grief. How utterly stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 16 May 03 - 11:17 AM

Well, at least the minimum age has been raised to 21, and the U of M campus proper will stay gun-free. They're playing the old "We were here before the state, so we don't have to listen to it's laws" card, and I think it'll work in this case.

Subject: BS: Minnesota's idiotic new 'concealed carry' law
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 16 May 03 - 09:11 AM

There is a new law in Minnesota that goes into effect May 28. It used to be that if you wanted a permit to carry a concealed handgun, you had to apply to your county sheriff, and the sheriff could use his discretion about whether to issue the permit or not. (The sheriff is an elected official.) A sheriff could hand out permits to anyone who wanted one, or he could issue NO permits. The Republicans didn't like this, and passed a new law that is supposed to remove all discretion. Now the sheriff MUST issue the permit except in certain limited circumstances.

But that's not the worst of it. The bill also contains provisions that make it practically impossible for businesses and institutions (churches, schools, hospitals, shopping malls, stadiums, etc.), to keep people from bringing concealed handguns onto their property.

To ban handguns from any private property, you've got to (1) post a sign at every entrance saying handguns are banned (with letters at least 1.5 inches tall) AND (2) "personally inform" each visitor of the policy (whatever that means). If a person carrying a concealed handgun knowingly defies your policy and refuses to leave when asked, he is guilty of a "petty misdemeanor" and is subject to no more than a $25 fine, and is NOT subject to forfeiting either his handgun or his permit to carry it.

There is a question of whether public, tax-supported institutions can ban handguns at all.

If that isn't idiotic...well, I'm speechless.

Some links:

Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal. (An interview with a reporter from the Business Journal on Minnesota Public Radio this morning was what drew my attention to the problem.)

Here's an organization that lobbied for the bill: Minnesota Concealed Carry Reform, NOW!
and an organization that lobbied against it: Citizens for a Safer Minnesota

The text of the bill.