Minneapolis’s New Push on Guns

So far this year there have been 29 homicides in Minneapolis. Unlike Chicago when the murder rate starts exceeding 20 in a Minnesota city we start asking what the fuck? Well apparently the answer to lower the homicide rate in Minneapolis is to get tougher on “illegal possession” of guns.

If you’ve been reading this blog for a while you know my stance on “illegal possession.” In my book you can not be stripped of your rights. Once you’re out of prison your rights should be fully restored regardless of the crimes you’ve committed and that includes your second amendment rights.

With that said I’m also for a system where dangerous criminals are not returned to the streets so long as they’re still a possible danger. If you’ve committed a violent crime I believe part of the sentencing should include a psychological review by a jury of medical professionals (who are selected with jury-like care and randomness). This jury would have to give a criminal the OK before he’s released back into society. I must stipulate that this is only for violent crimes because if you haven’t caused harm to another person or their property I don’t feel any crime has been committed.

So I don’t find legitimacy in Minneapolis’s new policy of enforcing “illegal possession.” But I do like the idea of being tougher on repeat offenders and criminals with violent histories. Alas I find it stupid that they police are targeting guns instead of actual crimes. If I had been the person writing out the plan I’d have said the city is going to get tougher on repeat offenders and violent criminals. Gun have nothing to do with crime rate, criminals do. Target the.

Oh and if we really want to fix the homicide rate in Minneapolis all we need to do is carpet bomb North Minneapolis with napalm. Lots and lots of fiery napalm.

3 thoughts on “Minneapolis’s New Push on Guns”

  1. I do not want the government to get the right to hold people indefinitely.

    I also think that felons should regain their rights slowly–a violent felon on parole should not be allowed to posses guns. I have a distant in-law who is evidence for felon in possession laws–he used to get arrested enough that he couldn’t afford to carry a gun regularly–in part because he had a stupidly violent temper. I’m sure he would have carried a gun regularly if he could, I am almost as certain that he would have shot someone over something trivial. He may have matured lately, have not heard of him in trouble for a while.

    1. Parole can be considered part of a sentence as well in my opinion. So it would be viable at the time of sentencing (but not after) to make part of the punishment several years of parole at what point certain conditions can be made.

      The main problem is right now the government can ruin your life through the use of felony convictions, most of which aren’t even for violent offenses. If you have a felony (which crime you serve more than one year for) you are no longer allowed to vote, own a firearm, and getting a good job is practically impossible.

      I’m a big believer in the idea that if you do the crime you do the time. Once you’ve done the time you’re free and clear and able to start life again with a clean slate.

      But you’re also right in that the idea I present does open the door of indefinite incarceration. That’s part of the reason I’m so stringent on there being a board of people to make the decision and that they be randomly selected (to the point where they have the necessary background for psychiatric evaluations) as opposed to any state appointed employee. Still it’s dangerous as are all the options.

      I just hate knowing people who have felony records who are barred from doing many things including owning a gun even through they never did anything violent. Likewise even if somebody did commit a violent crime they can reform later in life and become a productive member of society again, at which point they should no longer be punished.

  2. There is absolutely a problem with the definition of felony-but that is really a different issue. I would go with actual time served rather than max possible, and I would require harm or significant risk of harm to non-consenting others.

    …and most of this is irrelevant, because we are wasting prison space on consensual criminals, and don’t have enough room to keep the violent criminals in as long as they should be.

Comments are closed.