Settled dust reveals concealed carry stalemate

A good article, I think. But a few quibbles. Many advocates -- including me -- predicted that, when controlling for other factors, there'd be a small but real drop in violent crime in response to the carry law, just as there has been in other states. And I think we'll be shown to be right, in the long run.

But it takes time to see that, and any number of other factors can disguise that; a troubled economy, in the short run, is going to have a lot more violent crime downside than any carry law can compensate for. I wish it were otherwise, but as we're seeing just today, it's tough to fix a troubled economy; the carry permit program makes a profit for the state, in permit fees alone.

And, no, nobody promised that all permit holders would be angels, merely that, on balance, we'd be far more law-abiding than typical Minnesotans -- which is demonstrably true, as the article shows.

And, right now, more than 55,000 Minnesotans -- about 1% of the population -- can and often do routinely carry handguns for their own protection, going about their lives, and staying out of trouble. You pass them on the street every day, whether you're out for a walk, biking, or driving your car . . .

. . . and the odds are you don't worry about them. Nor should you. Heck, even Heather doesn't worry about them anymore. Demonstrably.

A couple of years back, Andrew Rothman, one of the local activists and trainers, debated Heather at the U. The subject of the debate was whether or not the University should change its policy that forbids students and employees with carry permits from carrying on campus. (Interestingly, the U neither can nor does prohibit visitors with permits from carrying there; the law doesn't allow them to.)

Now, Heather — as devoted an antigun activist as the other side has left — knew that she was going to a public debate, at which there would be quite a few permit holders attending, many of them routinely carrying.

But she went anyway. I guess it could be argued — save for one thing -- that she felt that her activism was important enough to take the risk of being in a room with dozens of people carrying, as they say, "loaded, concealed handguns", which the panicky folks have assured us is a very dangerous thing to do.

I guess she could congratulate herself on that courage, taking those risks. Except for the one thing that makes it clear that even Heather doesn't think there really were any risks in arguing with and among dozens of armed permit holders . . . one thing that makes it clear that even Heather knows that being around armed permit holders isn't risky at all:

. . . she brought not only her husband, but her three-year-old daughter.

Cute kid.

I'm certainly critical of Heather, but she's not an irresponsible mother — if she really believed that there was any danger from the permit holders, she would, of course, have left her child at home.

We've come a long way, when even Heather gets it. And we'll come just a little farther, when she and the rest of the small coterie of hysterics, admits it.

Others have. Former State Senator Dean Johnson, -- who you noted, correctly, opposed the bill in 2003, voted for its repassage in 2005. And he wasn't the only DFL politician to do just that.

Ease up on Treptow. There was no "misunderstanding," and there was certainly nothing even remotely resembling a "traffic stop." The undercover cop apparently had a bad case of road rage and decided that he could use his authority to take it out on Treptow.

An Open Letter to Those Who Wonder Why Citizens Would Want to Carry Guns in Public

http://hubpages.com/hub/An-Open-Letter-to-Those-Who-Wonder-Why-Citizens-Would-Want-to-Carry-Gun-in-Public

Are you certain no robbers have been stopped by permit-holders in Minnesota? Are you sure the rate at which middle-aged middle-class citizens get mugged has not gone down? The rate of violent crime in general -- which includes gang warfare -- is hardly the relevant statistic.

To be fair, Rubrecht didn't say that there have been no assaults stopped by permit holders. "...there have been no reported instances of permit holders stopping an assault with gunshots." (My emphasis.)

Which is, as far as I know, the Treptow case aside (and that's going to trial in January) is true.

The vast majority of defensive gun uses don't involve gunshots; see Gary Kleck's work. The first well-documented defensive gun use by a permit holder after the carry law passes took place in Eden Prairie, in April of 2004, and it was pretty typical, as such things go -- the young man who was being choked by his attacker pulled out his handgun, and the attacker backed off. (The victim then did the right things -- he drove off as quickly as possible, so his attacker couldn't resume the attack, then called 911 on his cell phone, to report the attack. But I digress.)

Much better -- for literally everybody involved -- than if he'd shot his attacker.

Stepping back, I think that was part of the confusion on the part of folks like Nora and Wesley and Heather; for whatever reason, they failed to understand that the tens of thousands of decent, law-abiding Minnesotans with carry permits, even if they have to take out a gun in self-defense, don't want to act as "judge, jury, and executioner." (Look at the Reporter's Notes; Wesley's still fixating on the fictional Matt Dillon.)

And they -- we: 56,000 or so of us now, and more by the end of the year -- still don't, for all the obvious reasons, and maybe some others.

This comment is in letter to the editor form, if I could only find a way to send it in to City Pages...“To the Editor”

Your recent article about the Minnesota Personal Protection Act (MPPA) was surprisingly even-handed considering where it was published. A number of things jumped out at me in the reading of the article.

First, I noted the hilarious irony of how prominent legislative opponents of the law were introduced as “former-state Senator So-and-so”. Perhaps their silly fear-mongering had fallen victim to an experiment with liberty, the result of which was finding that we really never had anything to fear, as your article’s tagline said. In addition to that, should we have listened to the pragmatists on the side of MPPA who spoke nothing of liberty and emphasized pragmatic reasons for its passage that, as your tagline so deftly implied, was just as invalid as the silly fear-mongering?

The point I’d like to drive home is both sides were always wrong and the correct position opposes both. How often do we (erroneously) believe that government reigning in our clearly-defined liberties will make us safer? Is safe slavery preferable to “dangerous” liberty? How often do we support something not out of principle but because its proponents tell us that it “just makes good sense”?

Truth is we shouldn’t even need special permission from the state to carry a firearm; the U.S. Constitution already permits it…no “ifs”, “ands”, or “buts”. Besides, if we did away with the silly laws altogether, 13 counties wouldn’t be running the deficits referenced in the story.

My last point deals with the Martin Treptow incident. Treptow shot an undercover Robbinsdale police officer who, while acting alone in Coon Rapids, threatened with a firearm Treptow and his family who were with him. It would have been nice to see the story’s author call it like it was: not a “misunderstanding during a traffic stop”, but a rogue, out-of-control cop who got in WAY over his head.

Anyway, the current law is sufficient for Minnesota given its current culture. In the future, perhaps when the minds of Minnesotans are well-girded for the duties of liberty and citizenship, the permit requirements may be swept off the books forever.

In trying to make his case for having the right to carry a concealed weapon, Mr. Rosenberg insinuates that it’s just something people have to get used to. He uses the example of a “gay couple that moves in down the block” and while people might get upset about it at first, it’s just something they get used to. I’m sorry, but how does a same-sex couple moving into the neighborhood pose the same risk as someone carrying a loaded, concealed deadly weapon?

I’m sorry, but how does a same-sex couple moving into the neighborhood pose the same risk as someone carrying a loaded, concealed deadly weapon?
Comment by Janna from Minneapolis on Oct 17th, 2008, 12:31 pm

The fact is, neither situation poses any risk at all to you or anyone else on the block. The point being made was that both fears, one of the gay couple, the other of the gun, are irrational fears, neither one based on any factual evidence to the contrary at all.

Ed from DC has it right.

Actually, Janna, both permit holders and gay neighbors pose very little risk to their neighbors. (And, by the way, some of those gay neighbors are permit holders. While I don't discriminate, I did end up doing a lesbians-only permit class, some years ago; the women were the only ones to sign up that weekend.)

But the permit holder poses less risk, statistically; he or she has passed a criminal background check, after all, and has managed to stay out of trouble for upwards of 21 years. That's not required for Bob and Ted or Carol and Alice to buy the house next door (although they probably have, too).

Which isn't to suggest that folks should start worrying about their gay neighbors; they shouldn't.

Whether or not it's something that people should have to get used to, it's something that they have gotten used to; there's been no movement to repeal the carry law, and that's because, by and large, very few people worry about their lawfully-armed neighbors.

We've more than 56,000 permit holders in the state at the moment, which means that when you drive or bus to and from work, or go to the mall or store to shop, the odds are pretty huge that you'll be passing by somebody lawfully carrying a "loaded, concealed deadly weapon" . . .

. . . and nothing bad will happen next time, just like it didn't happen yesterday.

Honest.

This thread seems to have died a long time ago but I'll still add my 2 cents. The article and these comments seem to validate that carrying a gun hasn't had much impact one way or another. However what surprises me is the main reason most people carry a gun is because it makes them FEEL safer. Its a false sense of security and expensive to boot. There's not much evidence that a gun is going to protect you except in the most unlikely and imaginary circumstances. I suppose if you always walked around with your gun drawn most folks would avoid you.

The Question: "I’m sorry, but how does a same-sex couple moving into the neighborhood pose the same risk as someone carrying a loaded, concealed deadly weapon?"

The Answer: In both cases, you risk appearing foolish and bigoted if you fail to confront your own inaccurate prejudices. Worse, you may deprive yourself of the acquaintance of some good people. Finally, my grandma probably wouldn't have let any of those three people into her home. Ever.

Her loss.

The facts you have on the Treptow case are completely wrong and seem like an attempt to spin the story. You should do the real story behind Treptow, a man who was trying to protect his family from a cop on a power-trip.

It seems as if you let your personal views get in the way of the facts, great journalism!

HK doesn't make a 10mm pistol.

If 55,000 Minnesota citizens were not armed the crime rate would be much higher, Marauders and criminal minded felons now have to consider if the victim is armed or not and just might give the criminal some of his own medicine,

Absoutely no reports of CC citizens abusing the right or breaking the law.. Good job citizens, Maybe the Government can start to trust the citizens with even more constitutional freedoms

A couple thoughts here. First, in regards to the "gay couple moving in down the street" comment. Maybe some of you don't remember the fear that uneducated citizens had of gays when AIDS started hitting the scene. There was a lot of irrational fear back then, just like people had/have about the permit to carry issue. Although it wasn't the best analogy to use.

Second: StevenMN, by your logic cops should stop carrying firearms. Most cops don't use their guns in the line of duty, so let's just get rid of em huh? I haven't been in a car accident, why should I wear my seatbelt? That logic makes no sense. As far as guns imparting a false sense of security, I strongly disagree. I would agree with you that the probability of needing to use it is low. But, like the good boy scout I wasn't, this come to mind "be prepared."

Third: Crime statistics: Since they lump in gang violence in with everything else, the stats are skewed and shouldn't be used for analysis in this situation. And on a common sense vein....I fully support people carrying. I'd bet that if 20% of the metro population carried the crime rate would plummet. After all, criminals are chumps and want easy targets. The more people carrying, the less easy targets.