Hey Greenies! An Honest Question

[ProfessorGAC]

The guy running for Gov of Illinois on the Green ticket is a proponent of concealed carry laws and thinks the solution to security is for everyone to be armed.

Are there other Green candidates around the country who have taken such a position? This seems contrary to the basic platform of the Green party as i understand it. (I'm no expert on it, of course.) I can't remember ever hearing from other Green candidates (Nader, Camejo, et al) that they were a "law & order" or "security first" type of party.

Is this guy consistent with the Greens or he just a nutjob running on the wrong ticket?
The Professor

[whalerider55]

1. my take as a genetic dem and recently separated Green...

I was a member of the Green party for five years, elected twice to public office as a green (school committee).

The structure of the green party is very decentralized; the national party sees its role as supporting any idiot who registers to run for national office (a la PA Senate); the local greens are still spending a lot of effort shooting for governorships et al, and have vitually no organization or resources targeting the local seats, building a base in the community and an experienced group of electorally savvy politicians who combine progressive ideas with a winning track record.

s a result, particularly on the national level, you'll find that a lot of the green candidates are really libertarians with a shade of progressive thinking around their gills. One need look only as far as Maryland, where my own college roommate, Kevin Zeese, is running for senate. I like Kevin a lot, and I like most of his stands; but he is a genuine libertarian- he ran the NORML for years before getting hooked up with Soros and Nader.

And my problem with libertarians is that the philosophy doesn't really account for holding environmental polluters accountable, it believes the market will correct that kind of stuff.

on the other hand, many greens are civil libertarians; to be philosophically consistent with the free speech belief, you almost have to believe that the government should not be regulating guns.

in the end, based on my experience, i think people give the greens a lot more credit for being organized and coherent than they deserve at this point.

i stepped out of the party when they gave me a bunch of Thomas Paine shit about now is the time not to abandon the cause when I complained about how difficult it was locally to make greens viable when that puckhead romanelli was cashing republican checks to get on the ballot.

whalerider

[mitchleary]

2. Being pro concealed carry

makes him a nutjob?

IL is one of the only states that is not.

Do you think Howard Dean was a nutjob as VT has the the most pro gun laws in the country?

You anti-gun people need to really get off of it. If people are bad, they will kill each other regardless if they have guns or not.

Geez, what does it take? I guess that issue is worth losing everything else, yes?

[MadHound]

4. Yeah, but it is a hell of lot easier, and less riskier for the perp

To kill with a gun rather than some other weapon, or bare hands.

Sorry, I'm not for CC, and one of the things I will be pushing Missouri legislature to do once it is back in Democratic hands is to listen to the people of this state and repeal the CC bill. That was the most blatant piece of political BS I've ever seen. Back in the late ninties, NRA tried to shove CC through the legislature, but Govenor Carnahan vetoed it. Then the NRA took the unprecedented step of actually putting the issue before the people via initiative petition. Missourians voted it down. But back in the early '00s, when a Republican legilature had a veto proof majority, the NRA rammed it through the legislature again, going directly against the will of the people.

Frankly I think CC is abhorent and should be outlawed. If you want to "deter crime" then by God, strap that 9mm to your thigh and go on down the street with it. I seriously doubt that anybody would mess with you. But frankly I find CC to be a chicken shit way for insecure people to think that they're rough and tough. It also impinges upon the rights of businesses to determine what can and can't be in their store.

So flame away, I've got to go now anyway.

[benEzra]

7. A "perp" couldn't get a CCW license even if he cared enough about the law

to want one. "Perps" carry anyway, because they don't CARE about the law that says you can't carry without a license. If they cared about the law, they wouldn't be murdering people, now, would they?

Concealed carry IS illegal without a license. To obtain a license, you have to be an bona fide, certified, verified Good Guy. Here in NC, that entails a visit in person to your local law enforcement office, an FBI fingerprint check, state and Federal criminal records check, a mental health records check, state-mandated training using a state-approved curriculum, and demonstrated familiarity with NC use-of-force laws.

I have jumped through all the hoops in order to be licensed to carry a firearm, and when I do so, I do so safely, responsibly, and lawfully. I am *NOT* a "perp," and have never even had so much as a speeding ticket.

BTW, do you consider Vermont a "right wing nutjob" state? Vermont doesn't even require a license to carry a weapon for lawful purposes. Since Illinois is one of only two states that DOESN'T allow CCW licensure, I think it is the no-CCW-licensure-even-for-the-law-abiding that is the oddball position.

[MadHound]

13. Way to duck my main points

IE subversion of Missourians' clearly stated will by the NRA. And frankly, judging from the law here in Missouri, one doesn't have to necessarily be a "bona fide, certified, verified Good Guy". You can even have a record to some extent, and still get a CCW.

Like I also said earlier, it you are feeling threatened, strap that gun on your hip rather than carrying it on the sly. It used to be that people who carried concealed weapons were considered chickenshits and had something to hide. Tells you have much times have changed over the past few decades.

One country, under the NRA, yipee:eyes: Way to prop up one of the most conservative organizations in this country.

[-..__...]

3. Compare that to the extreme anti-gun attitude....

of Gov. Rod Blagojevich

http://www.gunbanrod.com/index_after.cfm

Problem is that Mayor Daily of Chicago constantly seeks to enact/force Chicago style anti-gun legislation upon the remainder of the state. Blagojevich pretty much acquiesced to Dailys demands
in order to gain his blessing/endorsement (not that Blagojevich wasn't anti-gun to begin with).
However, what might seem acceptable in the Northern part of the state, doesn't sit very well
with the more rural Southern part of Illinois.

In that respect, the Green Party candidate running for Gov. of Illinois is offering an alternative to
rural voters who are sick and tired of the current anti-gun legislative efforts as dictated by Daley and Blagojevich. Add in the city dwellers who are the victims of crime in an area where law abiding citizens are prohibited from carrying a handgun and I can further understand why the GP candidates position
would have a certain appeal to voters.

Personally, I don't see why being against CCW laws and/or being anti RKBA would be consistent with the Green Party platform.

[ProfessorGAC]

5. Sorry To Get Back So Late.

Got tied up yesterday. My problem with concealed carry is very straightforward. It's a two dimensional solution to a multidimensional problem. That's what conservatives tend to do, not progressives or philosophical moderates.

Anytime i see a "solution" that is offered as a simple answer to a complex issue, i have SERIOUS doubts about the intellectual gravity of the person offering it.
The Professor

[benEzra]

8. I would submit that treating law-abiding individuals

with squeaky clean records, who are fully competent with the safe and lawful use of firearms, as if they are convicted felons or are just itching to blow somebody away, is the two-dimensional solution to the multidimensional problem.

CCW licensure is practiced in 46 of the 50 states, with 2 additional states not requiring licensure at all. CCW permit revocation data demonstrates that permit holders are far more lawful than the population at large, and in many cases are even less likely to be subsequently convicted of a felony than police officers.

CCW licensure is not a "fix" for the problem of criminal predation. It IS a moral and just policy that allows responsible people the option of self-defense, while at the same time offering safeguards against misuse.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. I Don't Think You Read My Post Correctly

I didn't say i had any solutions at all, so i CANNOT be proposing a two dimensional solution. I'm not proposing a solution at all.

And, that response has NOTHING to do with my original question.

I asked the Green supporters if this was typical of Green candidates. I'm inferring from the replies that it is not.

Now, i have a squeaky clean record. I have an advanced degree in chemistry. I have training from the Army Corps of Engineers on the manufacture of explosives and handling of explosive devices. I know more about this stuff than most guys in EOD.

Should i be allowed to have such munitions in my house? How about carrying them in my car, just in case?

See what i mean by two-dimensionality? You can't have it both ways. One can either provide a reasonable allowance for self-defense or not. When one starts gradating (adding dimensions) the solution gets more difficult. And your solution wouldn't apply to me, squeaky clean record and all. I'm not advocating the carrying of explosives, but NOW we're not talking two dimensionally. You were, before this.

One more note: Nice throw-in of your 46 state statistic. Now go to the FBI website and look at the per capita violent crime rate in those 46 states, vs. the other 4. You'll be most disappointed.

Lastly, has there ever been, or not, an accidental shooting in this country? A gun i'm not carrying in public CANNOT go off in the direction of the wrong person! If it's locked in a safe in my closet, i can't use it at the wrong time at the wrong person. IMPOSSIBLE!

The Professor

[benEzra]

10. You haven't looked at the FBI UCR data, I see...

One more note: Nice throw-in of your 46 state statistic. Now go to the FBI website and look at the per capita violent crime rate in those 46 states, vs. the other 4. You'll be most disappointed.

Actually, the FBI UCR data doesn't say what you seem to think it does.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_04.html

Illinois (one of only 2 states that prohibits carry, not 4 as you state) has a homicide rate of 6.0 per 100K. That's not only higher than that of many CCW states (New Hampshire and Maine are tied for the lowest homicide rate, at 1.4/100K), it's even higher than that of Florida (5.0). The only other state that prohibits CCW licensure/carry is Wisconsin, whose homicide rate of 3.5/100K is considerably higher than the rate in its next-door neighbor, Minnesota, which allows CCW.

Note that I am NOT saying that CCW policies are the cause of the lower crime rates in these states, merely pointing out that the data don't say what you seem to think they say. States that have instituted CCW licensure (and that includes nearly all of them) have generally had no problems at all.

Now, i have a squeaky clean record. I have an advanced degree in chemistry. I have training from the Army Corps of Engineers on the manufacture of explosives and handling of explosive devices. I know more about this stuff than most guys in EOD.

Should i be allowed to have such munitions in my house? How about carrying them in my car, just in case?

Think about your analogy for a minute. A 9mm pistol, when discharged, projects 0.5 kJ of kinetic energy in a very specific direction, and the cone of dispersion is measurable in arcminutes. A hand grenade--or a 500-lb bomb--projects a heck of a lot more energy when discharged, and the discharge is omnidirectional.

Which is why 9mm's, and other non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed small arms under .51 caliber, are regulated under the Title 1 provisions of the National Firearms Act; explosives and ordnance such as you describe are regulated under the much more stringent Title 2/Class III provisions (same as automatic weapons and artillery) precisely because they are much more dangerous than small arms.

We don't allow police officers to carry blocks of C4 on their hips in public, but we DO authorize them to carry intermediate-caliber handguns. The comparison is so hyperbolic as to be nonsensical.

Your analogy, and the reasoning behind it, are actually a very good illustration of what bothers me about most opposition to CCW. It's not based upon rational risk analysis, or best-practice observations from other states, but tends to make heavy use of irrational projection and hyperbole. "Blood in the streets" rhetoric, allusions ad nauseaum to Dodge City, characterization of permit holders/seekers as wannabe criminals or Don Quixotes, or conflation of violent criminals with permit holders. That, IMHO, is irrational.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. You're Wrong

A statistical analysis shows that homicide rate can be correlated to economic and income conditions, climactic conditions, and specific other sociological conditions such as racial and ethinic proportions, (which may be autocorrelated to the economic strata), educational opportunity, and regional cultural biases. So, the data doesn't say what YOU think it says. There is no correlation at all between the laws and the outcomes.

That being said, i don't necessarily favor ultra-strict gun control. That's because there is no correlation the other way, either. So, you are arguing with me about something without having any idea where i stand. I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist. When the data can't support doing something, i think it best to do nothing. Nothing is almost always better than the wrong thing.

And, my example is not hyperbolic. You're wrong about that too. When thought processes are limited to two dimensions, the only way to extend the logic is linearly. When that happens, one must take the logic to its breaking point. When something is either "right or wrong", there's no room to be creative. And, since you're now attributing things to my "position" that i never suggested, who's being hyperbolic?

Last point: I didn't ask you if people should walk around with sticks of C4. I asked you if i should! I'm trained. I'm an expert. I'm even on file with the FBI for this. If someone with my background, training, and experience can't have this stuff: 1) Why not? 2) Why is it different than someone carrying a concealed weapon? If i can be trusted with a gun because i'm no criminal, and i've a clean record, and i can be trusted even to conceal-carry, then why wouldn't i be trustworthy with HMX?

You're trapped in your two dimensional thought process and have resorted to implication to avoid addressing the real logic lapses.
The Professor

[benEzra]

12. If you can't be licensed to walk around with HMX,

Last point: I didn't ask you if people should walk around with sticks of C4. I asked you if i should! I'm trained. I'm an expert. I'm even on file with the FBI for this. If someone with my background, training, and experience can't have this stuff: 1) Why not? 2) Why is it different than someone carrying a concealed weapon? If i can be trusted with a gun because i'm no criminal, and i've a clean record, and i can be trusted even to conceal-carry, then why wouldn't i be trustworthy with HMX?

If you can't be licensed to walk around with HMX, then why should you be able to get a license to operate a car? Or conversely, if you can be trusted to operate a car in public, why can't you be trusted to carry HMX around in public?

You are attempting to turn a continuous spectrum into a boolean either/or dichotomy, and that is where your logic breaks down. The fact is, as a society, we license some things, allow some things without licenses, and absolutely prohibit some things. There is a spectrum of degrees of restriction, based on multiple criteria, and firearms fall in between cars and explosives on that spectrum; restrictions on firearm possession and use are somewhat more stringent than for motor vehicles, but less stringent than for explosives. This is not a binary question.

A statistical analysis shows that homicide rate can be correlated to economic and income conditions, climactic conditions, and specific other sociological conditions such as racial and ethinic proportions, (which may be autocorrelated to the economic strata), educational opportunity, and regional cultural biases. So, the data doesn't say what YOU think it says. There is no correlation at all between the laws and the outcomes.

EXACTLY. Which was the point I was trying to get across; I thought you were making the assertion that Illinois and Wisconsin have lower violent crime rates than CCW states, and that the delta arises from the fact that Illinois and Wisconsin don't issue CCW licenses to ordinary citizens. The FBI data would have falsified the first part of such an assertion, and the second part would be unknowable for precisely the reasons you describe.

My point was that Illinois doesn't have a lower crime rate because it prohibits CCW (which I thought was what you were trying to say), as CCW is not correlated with crime rates at all. Though the number of data points for states prohibiting CCW (2) is so small, and the factors leading to violence are so complex, that simplistic comparisons of that sort are naive anyway.

That being said, i don't necessarily favor ultra-strict gun control. That's because there is no correlation the other way, either. So, you are arguing with me about something without having any idea where i stand. I'm a pragmatist, not an idealist. When the data can't support doing something, i think it best to do nothing. Nothing is almost always better than the wrong thing.

I think we're on the same page here. (I am not an opponent of all gun control, though I do tend to oppose nonsensical approaches like bans on rifle handgrips that stick out.) I agree with you on the idea that doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.

My only point would be that an absolute prohibition on carrying a firearm for self-defense is not, in fact, doing nothing; it is taking aggressive action against something that most of the nation considers acceptable for licensed individuals. Whether it is the right thing or the wrong thing may depend on one's point of view, but a blanket prohibition isn't neutral.

I think a balanced approach--prohibiting unlicensed concealed carry, but providing for licensure based on statuatory, non-subjective requirements--is a good middle-of-the-road approach, and is the approach that the majority of states have chosen.

(And sorry about the thread hijack--I realize this was not your main point.)


To try to bring things back to your original post--I think there are two widely disparate facets--or factions, if you will--of the Democratic party and the broader progressive movement. One is very individualist, with its philosophical roots planted firmly in the Enlightenment, and takes a high view of individual choice and liberty. The other facet is more collectivist/technocratic, with its philosophical roots in the public health movement, and seeks to shape/control the personal choices of individuals in order to create a subjectively better society.

In my (limited) observation, some prominent Greens (thinking of Nader here) fall into the latter category, but many rank-and-file Greens fall into the former, hence pro-gun Greens aren't all that surprising to me.

[Snotcicles]

6. I think it's environmental friendly for the right wingers to pick each other off. n/t