Mr. Kurtz puts me on the track of some interesting data from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety questioning the value of the Minnesota Personal Protection Act. Minnesota passed this law in 2003 to allow any person over age 21 to carry a handgun. Persons seeking a handgun permit must complete a training course and must not be felons, gang members, mentally ill (dangerous or otherwise), or chemically dependent.
After chatting with one propagandizing gun instructor (no, a good guy with a gun is not the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun), the Winona Daily News lays out some facts that show Minnesotans are using this law to do more harm than personal protection:
In 2011, Minnesota permit holders were reported to have committed 231 serious crimes, including 23 instances involving the handgun they held a permit to carry.
The Department of Public Safety also records the “number of lawful and justifiable uses of firearms by permit holders” for the protection of themselves or others or the prevention of a crime.
That number in 2011, according to the Department of Public Safety, was zero [Jerome Christenson, "To Carry a Weapon: Permit-to-Carry Class Offers Basics for Beginners and Experts," Winona Daily News, 2013.02.16].
Now maybe these malcontents would have committed those crimes whether the state had permitted their pistols or not. But Minnesota can't find one instance of any of these guys stopping any bad guys with their guns. So much for the benefit side of that equation.
Not sure what exactly the point is here. The Second Amendment is as much a part of the Bill of Rights as is the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment provides for individual rights, as opposed to simply collective rights.
So, is your point that Minnesota shouldn't have any regulation of handguns? Shouldn't require training? Shouldn't do screening for unfitness? Or is your point that you should be able to decide that nobody should have pistols because you just don't like them?
The point is that permitted gun owners are self-deluded nimrods, too.
The industry gleaning profits from gun violence want to end public oversight completely. Even Justice Scalia conceded in Heller that the rights conferred by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.
Minnesota has regulated, as the 2nd Amendment contemplates that government may do. Seems reasonable to me. What's the problem with Minnesota's regulation? Should they not regulate? Or should they just get to banning?
And Larry, you see a nimrod every time you stand before your bathroom sink.
Someone obviously failed the test of the same name.
A very interesting article, Cory.
So, of the 20,772 active Minnesota CCW permit holders in 2011, just 1.1% committed serious crimes...
Reading the Minnesota Crime Report for 2011, there were about 146,000 "serious crimes", for a population of 5.2 million, that's about 2.8% of the population committing crimes. So, back of the envelope, it looks as though CCW permit holders commit crime at a lower rate.
And of course, the 231 serious crimes committed by CCW holders accounts for 0.16% of all serious crimes in Minnesota.
I think that's pretty reasonable.
When it comes to no recorded instances of justifiable uses of firearms, it looks as though Minnesota is
falling down on the job reporting incidents.
This story has been developing in another frozen red state wasteland to the north.
Can't imagine it passes federal muster.
"Rorschach," as Vincent notes, you of all people should recognize the usefulness of offering some ink and letting the viewers suggest the meaning therein.
Interesting follow-up article, Wayne! It appears that the reporting burden falls first on local police/sheriffs. If we are lacking data, it appears to come from that local level, not the state agency.
And if a gun does good in the forest, but no one there reports it, did it really happen? More specifically, can we make policy based on events for which we don't have evidence?
Interesting also that the head of the Minnesota Sheriffs' Assoc. says at the end of that Trib article that part of the hope behind the MPPA was that the required training would result in people using firearms less, which that exec says has happened.
The point is not to indict gun carriers as troublemakers. Indeed, folks holding gun permits do appear to commit less crime than a random sample of the general population. The point is to challenge the argument that handguns do more good (self-defense) than ill (crime, accidents, fear), which is what we hear in support of every pro-gun bill that comes before our Legislature.
I agree it seems the localities of Minnesota aren't doing a good job helping convey the positive side of the equation. Perhaps we ought to have a national drive to get everyone who used a firearm to prevent a crime or protect themselves to volunteer their information... but I'm hesitant to invade people's privacy.
The news fixates on the damaged wrought by people using guns to do bad things. The NRA keeps & publishes a log of instances of self defense uses. I'm not a super fan of the NRA, but their anecdotal record keeping creates a body of evidence that firearms can and do serve a positive force.
But again, it's how you use the tool. We should fear not the handgun, but the person wielding it who intends to do harm. And I would contend, Cory, that fear is not a legitimate reason to limit a fundamental right. I would encourage you to get over your fear of firearms the same way I encourage anyone not to fear homosexuals, people of color, or people of different religions.
I'll stand beside you in saying South Dakota doesn't need a school sentinel bill not because I fear accidental shootings or think having firearms will paralyze the teaching process. I just don't think the risk of a mass shooting event in a South Dakota school is high enough to warrant a change in policy.