Steven Mace
02-22-2002, 05:26 AM
Posted on Wed, Feb. 20, 2002
Despite guns, Minnesota's 'wild west' looks pretty safe and peaceful
An intriguing story in this newspaper Sunday explored what might be called Minnesota's "wild west," or anyway its wild "west central."
Reporter Lisa Donovan spun the tale about Otter Tail County, a windswept region of grasslands and woodlands, prairie lakes, Republicans — and guns. It seems recently released data on the issuing of permits for concealed weapons shows Otter Tail's 57,000 people to be unusually well-armed. That's thanks to a local sheriff who believes people have a right and a need to defend themselves.
This image of a latter-day frontier crowded with gun-toting conservatives is enough to send your average gun-shy progressive diving for cover behind the nearest water trough (or maybe the nearest hot tub). It emerges from statistics compiled as part of a continuing legislative shootout over a proposal to liberalize Minnesota's gun permit law. The plan to allow any Minnesotan who isn't criminal or crazy to legally carry a concealed pistol is within one Senate vote of final passage, and Gov. Jesse Ventura supports it. Similar laws exist in more than 30 states.
Currently a Minnesotan seeking a carry permit must persuade the local sheriff or police chief that he or she has a special, personal need for security. This month, law enforcement authorities reported, for the first time, details on how many permits were sought and granted last year and where. The hope is to shed light on whether the existing process is fair.
To advocates of looser rules, the fairness of the current process is largely beside the point. They don't believe a citizen should need any special reason to be allowed to carry protection. They think it's authorities who should need a special reason to deny a person's right to self defense.
What's more, the new data has limitations. It is incomplete, and it cannot reveal how many people do not even bother to apply for permits, having been turned down in the past.
All the same, the permit data shows a definite pattern:
• The slightly less than half of all Minnesotans who live outside the seven-county metropolitan area applied for and received more than seven times as many concealed carry permits as did Twin Cities residents.
• Three-fourths of Twin Cities applicants claimed an occupational need for a permit. Less than one-third of outstate applicants claimed a job-related risk.
• Even among the small group of Twin Citians who sought permits, overwhelmingly because of perceived job risks, 15 percent were denied. Outstate, only 5.5 percent of permits were denied.
It seems clear different standards are at work, reflecting different cultural attitudes about guns. In the countryside, guns are considered normal and comforting. In the cities, they are feared.
No doubt, one way to describe the current permitting pattern is to say permits are often issued, or not, in accordance with local sentiment on the subject of guns — that a kind of "community-standard" is involved. The question is whether personal protection is the kind of basic right community standards shouldn't be able to trump.
The metro/outstate gun gap also raises another question. Opponents of liberalized carry laws insist that more legal concealed weapons would produce more violence in society — that an armed population would settle disputes with gunplay, and so on. Gun rights advocates say an armed populace deters crimes.
So, how do levels of violence compare between permit-rich and permit-poor parts of Minnesota?
Obviously crime is worse in the metropolitan area than in outstate Minnesota. Whatever the reasons for that, a higher prevalence of gun permits is definitely not one of them. The new figures suggest that in the seven-county metro, roughly one person in 1,900 received a carry permit last year. In Otter Tail County, roughly one person in every 57 was issued a permit.
Yet according to figures from the Minnesota Planning Agency, the average annual murder rate in the seven-county metro was three times the rate in Otter Tail County, as was the aggravated assault rate. Minneapolis and St. Paul rates were higher still, of course.
It's hard to meaningfully compare urban and rural crime rates. But Otter Tail County stands out even in outstate Minnesota for being liberal with gun permits. An Otter Tail resident was about four times more likely to be issued a permit last year than the average outstate Minnesota resident.
Surprisingly, there are a few survivors. But surely, if a heavily armed populace produces carnage, Otter Tail County should be more violent than the rest of Greater Minnesota.
In fact, the county's average murder rate is comparable to the overall outstate rate, and its aggravated assault rate is lower than the general outstate rate.
It's natural, at least for city folk, to recoil at the thought of more guns in our midst. But I continue to look for solid evidence that more liberal carry laws produce bloody results.
Minnesota's wild west is one more place such evidence is not readily found.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/editorial/2704577.htm
Steve Mace
Despite guns, Minnesota's 'wild west' looks pretty safe and peaceful
An intriguing story in this newspaper Sunday explored what might be called Minnesota's "wild west," or anyway its wild "west central."
Reporter Lisa Donovan spun the tale about Otter Tail County, a windswept region of grasslands and woodlands, prairie lakes, Republicans — and guns. It seems recently released data on the issuing of permits for concealed weapons shows Otter Tail's 57,000 people to be unusually well-armed. That's thanks to a local sheriff who believes people have a right and a need to defend themselves.
This image of a latter-day frontier crowded with gun-toting conservatives is enough to send your average gun-shy progressive diving for cover behind the nearest water trough (or maybe the nearest hot tub). It emerges from statistics compiled as part of a continuing legislative shootout over a proposal to liberalize Minnesota's gun permit law. The plan to allow any Minnesotan who isn't criminal or crazy to legally carry a concealed pistol is within one Senate vote of final passage, and Gov. Jesse Ventura supports it. Similar laws exist in more than 30 states.
Currently a Minnesotan seeking a carry permit must persuade the local sheriff or police chief that he or she has a special, personal need for security. This month, law enforcement authorities reported, for the first time, details on how many permits were sought and granted last year and where. The hope is to shed light on whether the existing process is fair.
To advocates of looser rules, the fairness of the current process is largely beside the point. They don't believe a citizen should need any special reason to be allowed to carry protection. They think it's authorities who should need a special reason to deny a person's right to self defense.
What's more, the new data has limitations. It is incomplete, and it cannot reveal how many people do not even bother to apply for permits, having been turned down in the past.
All the same, the permit data shows a definite pattern:
• The slightly less than half of all Minnesotans who live outside the seven-county metropolitan area applied for and received more than seven times as many concealed carry permits as did Twin Cities residents.
• Three-fourths of Twin Cities applicants claimed an occupational need for a permit. Less than one-third of outstate applicants claimed a job-related risk.
• Even among the small group of Twin Citians who sought permits, overwhelmingly because of perceived job risks, 15 percent were denied. Outstate, only 5.5 percent of permits were denied.
It seems clear different standards are at work, reflecting different cultural attitudes about guns. In the countryside, guns are considered normal and comforting. In the cities, they are feared.
No doubt, one way to describe the current permitting pattern is to say permits are often issued, or not, in accordance with local sentiment on the subject of guns — that a kind of "community-standard" is involved. The question is whether personal protection is the kind of basic right community standards shouldn't be able to trump.
The metro/outstate gun gap also raises another question. Opponents of liberalized carry laws insist that more legal concealed weapons would produce more violence in society — that an armed population would settle disputes with gunplay, and so on. Gun rights advocates say an armed populace deters crimes.
So, how do levels of violence compare between permit-rich and permit-poor parts of Minnesota?
Obviously crime is worse in the metropolitan area than in outstate Minnesota. Whatever the reasons for that, a higher prevalence of gun permits is definitely not one of them. The new figures suggest that in the seven-county metro, roughly one person in 1,900 received a carry permit last year. In Otter Tail County, roughly one person in every 57 was issued a permit.
Yet according to figures from the Minnesota Planning Agency, the average annual murder rate in the seven-county metro was three times the rate in Otter Tail County, as was the aggravated assault rate. Minneapolis and St. Paul rates were higher still, of course.
It's hard to meaningfully compare urban and rural crime rates. But Otter Tail County stands out even in outstate Minnesota for being liberal with gun permits. An Otter Tail resident was about four times more likely to be issued a permit last year than the average outstate Minnesota resident.
Surprisingly, there are a few survivors. But surely, if a heavily armed populace produces carnage, Otter Tail County should be more violent than the rest of Greater Minnesota.
In fact, the county's average murder rate is comparable to the overall outstate rate, and its aggravated assault rate is lower than the general outstate rate.
It's natural, at least for city folk, to recoil at the thought of more guns in our midst. But I continue to look for solid evidence that more liberal carry laws produce bloody results.
Minnesota's wild west is one more place such evidence is not readily found.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/editorial/2704577.htm
Steve Mace