Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sadly, a large infestation of stupidity in the Colorado legislature has led to the passing of multiple gun control laws;

Universal Background Checks - and requiring money for those checks. (HB 1228, 1229)

(HB 1224) A ban on 'large capacity' (15+) magazines.

Both of these will be completely useless. They are knee jerk reactions to isolated, very rare, events that can be easily circumnavigated. Switching magazines takes a couple seconds. Criminals will get around checks like they get around laws against allergy medicine

However the gun control ()@*&$ are happy because it makes it much more difficult to buy and sell firearms from people, and because it begins the erosion of gun rights. These authoritarians will use the next publicized violent event as an excuse to ratchet down tighter - as New York state has now banned 7+ bullet magazines.

Furthermore, in Colorado's case the ban on 'large' capacity magazines is written so as to prevent the transfer (i.e. inheritance, gifts, etc.), sale, and purchase of nearly all magazines:
http://www.magpul.com/assets/docs/1224veto.pdf

NONE OF THIS WILL HELP. And these attacks on freedom are being pushed by authoritarians and statists like Bloomberg, mayor of NYC.

We are hardly a free country, and we're becoming less free as myopic masses of idiots will happily and readily give up their hard earned rights because some politician with an agenda says it will make them safer.

Some hick terrorist in the middle of a desert with an AK is no threat to America and American freedom. The real threat, looming like a glacier, is our authoritarian government and apathetic population.

CR

[Raz]

did you ever really think you were free to begin with?

[HoreTore]

Welcome, Colorado, to the civilized world.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Horetore, you mean well, but these types of efforts, in the context of the USA and its culture, are a little silly (albeit well-intentioned).

With more than 275 million firearms in private posession and with a full third of the US population in posession of guns, they are a nearly ubiquitous part of our culture. Firearms account for roughly 32,000 deaths a year (including accidents) in the USA.

As a side note, we have roughly 300 million motor vehicles in the USA, with over 90% of these in private possession (with 2/3+ of the households owning a vehicle) and roughly 35,000 deaths a year in motor vehicle accidents of one form or another.

Unlike a car, however, firearms only serve as weapons.

Magazine capacity size etc. isn't quite like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, but....

To make a real difference in gun violence you would have to either 1) start confiscating firearms (Good Luck with That), or 2) start to address the cultural issues/mores/etc that are the cause of the violence for which guns are only a tool of expression.

[Lemur]

I'm having a mixed reaction over here. The magazine capacity thing will be utterly, completely pointless.

However, universal background checks are a good thing, despite the apocalyptic hysteria coming from the NRA (which appears to exist in a state of permanent crisis—must be good for fundraising or something).

A statement such as this ...

Criminals will get around checks like they get around laws against allergy medicine

... is an argument against all laws. Period.

Why criminalize murder? Murderers will just find a way around it! Why criminalize jaywalking, when you will only punish honest walkers? Why require drivers licenses, when criminals will just go ahead and drive without them? Why have any laws at all? Bad people will continue to be bad!

Laws cannot eliminate or end any sort of criminal behavior. That's not what they do.

-edit-

Also note that unlike "assault" weapon bans and magazine-capacity gimmickry, universal background checks enjoy massive support. Among gun owners, no less. So the screaming emo teen known as the NRA is way, way out of line with the opinion of their own putative constituency.

Quinnipiac University’s poll, conducted March 7, found that 88 percent of those surveyed support such checks while 10 percent oppose them. Among gun owners, that number is 85-13 percent, respectively.

[Whacker]

We are hardly a free country, and we're becoming less free as myopic masses of idiots will happily and readily give up their hard earned rights because some politician with an agenda says it will make them safer.

Some hick terrorist in the middle of a desert with an AK is no threat to America and American freedom. The real threat, looming like a glacier, is our authoritarian government and apathetic population.

CR

The threat isn't all our government. The threat to gun rights is our friggin society and culture. We're watching generations of self-entitled, spoiled, idiotic brats being raised (or more precisely NOT raised) by an increasingly ignorant generation. We tried/are trying universal healthcare and ended up going about it all wrong. We're raising generations of bullies and narcissistic fools.

The change needs to happen in our homes. Kids need to learn responsibility, respect, humility, self control, and a slew of other things that have gone by the wayside. Legislating gun control isn't the answer. Forcing people to buy insurance from corrupt businesses isn't the answer. Religion is not the answer (I'd say it's the opposite of the answer in fact).

We've got some real problems.

[HoreTore]

Horetore, you mean well, but these types of efforts, in the context of the USA and its culture, are a little silly (albeit well-intentioned).

While I don't really care that the hillbillies, stoners and skinheads of the US leads the fight on world overpopulation by culling their own numbers, I will always applaud those among you who show a commitment to decency, humanity and justice.

[Strike For The South]

The threat isn't all our government. The threat to gun rights is our friggin society and culture. We're watching generations of self-entitled, spoiled, idiotic brats being raised (or more precisely NOT raised) by an increasingly ignorant generation. We tried/are trying universal healthcare and ended up going about it all wrong. We're raising generations of bullies and narcissistic fools.

The change needs to happen in our homes. Kids need to learn responsibility, respect, humility, self control, and a slew of other things that have gone by the wayside. Legislating gun control isn't the answer. Forcing people to buy insurance from corrupt businesses isn't the answer. Religion is not the answer (I'd say it's the opposite of the answer in fact).

We've got some real problems.

OMG have you seen this Socrates quote?

[Greyblades]

Why do you need more than 5?

[Montmorency]

Why do you need more than one?

[Major Robert Dump]

They can take my freedoms, but they will never take my potato guns. Or my sour cream bombs.

[johnhughthom]

Why do you need more than 5?

6 people might break into his house.

Clearly the people behind this law understand that 15 people is the optimum number for a burglary, any more and they get in each other's way.

[Catiline]

It's like sneezing 8 times in a row, only the gun nuts need 15 rounds to get to their orgasm.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Okay, let's turn this thing the other direction. Question to those of you who support such gun control measures:

What level of personal firearm ownership (size, capability, etc.) is acceptable for self protection?

[Catiline]

In a sane country, none.

I read an endlessly entertaining thread yesterday elsewhere about what is appropriate to take on a first date in order to be fully prepared. There seemed to be a lot more votes for a gun than for a condom...

Who takes a date somewhere they think they'll need a gun?

[johnhughthom]

Maybe the gun is for protection from the date, rather than to protect them.

[Major Robert Dump]

In a sane country, none.

I read an endlessly entertaining thread yesterday elsewhere about what is appropriate to take on a first date in order to be fully prepared. There seemed to be a lot more votes for a gun than for a condom...

Who takes a date somewhere they think they'll need a gun?

Taking a date to the hood to go Ghetto Watching or to the small town to go Redneck Watching can be quite romantic and informative

[Lemur]

What level of personal firearm ownership (size, capability, etc.) is acceptable for self protection?

Realistically, given that there are more firearms than citizens in the USA, all talk of bans and confiscation is wildly unrealistic. Not to mention unconstitutional. So: let's get off that rocking horse, please.

"Assault" weapon bans are doomed to failure, given that fully automatic weapons are already (mostly) banned, and so "assault" bans inevitably focus on cosmetic features such as color, grip, muzzle bits, and so forth.

Magazine capacity bans are also doomed to failure, in their current forms. Given that the most popular handgun in the USA (the Glock 17) takes 17 round magazines out of the box, trying to force everyone to accept 10-round magazines is intrusive, counter-intuitive, and bound to fail. If someone wants to try to limit magazine size to, say, 20 rounds, they might be more likely to find support and (more importantly) compliance.

So those are the measures that are going to fail, one way or another. As for what is "acceptable" or what "ought to be," meh. Reality is what it is, our situation is what it is. The law should deal in realistic outcomes; unenforceable laws breed contempt, and laws that will not be complied with breed disrespect. To be avoided.

Universal background checks enjoy overwhelming support in both the gun owning community and non-gun owning community. Effort should be put into making this quick and easy. Anybody with a web browser and the proper credentials should be able to clear a buyer in minutes. (The NRA screams that this is the gateway drug to gun-grabbing and tyranny, but they scream that about everything. Hysteria is their default position. So I think it's wisest to ignore them.)

For some tangled reason involving weird amendments passed by paid-for congresscritters, the ATF is unable to effectively pursue straw buyers. Whatever welter of ill-intentioned legislation made that happen should be undone.

All research into gun violence is currently prohibited from Federal funding by law. Should be undone.

Gun dealers are not required to keep or show current inventories. Should be undone.

There are probably a few more common-sense moves that could be made to clean up the gun trade, but it's a workday, and that's all I got off the top of my head.

[Veho Nex]

I think people need to take a step back and look at this. Banning guns, magazines, bullets are not going to stop anyone. Right now it is easier (cheaper) for me to obtain a pistol illegally than it is for me to obtain one legally. I think one of the few ways we could move towards solving a lot of this is to require that anyone purchasing a firearm are required to take a series of firearm safety classes. If you are a parent your kid should be required to go by the age of 5.

I know not all deaths by firearms are accidents but how often could that accident be prevented if everyone involved had proper safety training. I learned to shoot and shoot safely from a young age and now I teach kids firearm safety and shooting skills as an adult leader for 4-H shooting sports. In over the 50 years that our oldest adult leader has been there not one accident has ever occurred for any of our members either during or after their stay with us.

As well as a proper understanding of firearms I agree 100% with if you are purchasing, receiving, or obtaining a firearm for ownership you should undergo a background check and a free psych evaluation. Spending 2 hours in a room answering questions is nothing compared to the hold on purchasing firearms. It's ignorance of the people that causes guns to be looked at as solely "weapons" instead of as tools or recreation items, kinda like a baseball bat. Sure it can be used as a weapon but so can many things.

[Major Robert Dump]

We should not have any laws ever because someone will just find a way around them

There have been hundreds of thousands of failed background checks which resulted in denial of firearms. How can anyone rationally argue that background checks are a failure?

And if you get denied, you get flagged. I know this, because I was denied over a court mistake many years ago, and I tried again before the error was fixed so I was denied again, then got it on the third time when my record was fixed. When I applied for my Secret Clearance, they sent an investigator to interview me as to why I tried to purchase a second time when I knew it was already illegal for me to own a gun, to which I had to prove to them it was all a mistake and I should have been able to legally purchase all along.

[Major Robert Dump]

I think people need to take a step back and look at this. Banning guns, magazines, bullets are not going to stop anyone. Right now it is easier (cheaper) for me to obtain a pistol illegally than it is for me to obtain one legally. I think one of the few ways we could move towards solving a lot of this is to require that anyone purchasing a firearm are required to take a series of firearm safety classes. If you are a parent your kid should be required to go by the age of 5.

I know not all deaths by firearms are accidents but how often could that accident be prevented if everyone involved had proper safety training. I learned to shoot and shoot safely from a young age and now I teach kids firearm safety and shooting skills as an adult leader for 4-H shooting sports. In over the 50 years that our oldest adult leader has been there not one accident has ever occurred for any of our members either during or after their stay with us.

As well as a proper understanding of firearms I agree 100% with if you are purchasing, receiving, or obtaining a firearm for ownership you should undergo a background check and a free psych evaluation. Spending 2 hours in a room answering questions is nothing compared to the hold on purchasing firearms. It's ignorance of the people that causes guns to be looked at as solely "weapons" instead of as tools or recreation items, kinda like a baseball bat. Sure it can be used as a weapon but so can many things.

the reason mandatory training will not be accepted by the pro gunners (even if it deflects attention from the ban hammer) is because if you attach one new set of administrative and cost stipulations to gun ownership, then why not others? Saying "you have to take a class" is in the same spirit as saying "you cannot have one at all" , not to mention the nightmare of trying to enforce such a law as an after-thought. The only way something like that would have even a slither of chance of working is if the course completion was attached to the background check. But considering straw purchasers are very rarely caught or prosecuted, I don't see how we could possibly make sure everyone in the house was educated before guns were allowed, since we cant even stop a wife from buying one for her felon husband or something like fast and furious cough cough

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lemur:

Be careful with those considered and reasonable posts, chap. You'll end up with a reputation for thoughtfulness and that simply cannot help a legal career.... ;-)


I'd like some kind of law enforced to keep the crazies from getting guns. Not sure how to really do that.

Point of my post earlier today was that, if you START at the "guns are an evil and private citizens shouldn't have them" point, then you have trouble contributing to a discussion regarding restrictions on guns. Your "vote" is pretty much a given.

[HoreTore]

Okay, let's turn this thing the other direction. Question to those of you who support such gun control measures:

What level of personal firearm ownership (size, capability, etc.) is acceptable for self protection?

Easy: none.

Use of violence is the domain of the state, not the individual.

And, might I add, the police force should also be unarmed. Weapons should be accessible only when absolutely necessary.

[Ibrahim]

In a sane country, none.

so you admit that it's necessary then? after-all, we hardly live in a sane country (the US, west bank, etc) , or world, do we?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Realistically, given that there are more firearms than citizens in the USA, all talk of bans and confiscation is wildly unrealistic. Not to mention unconstitutional. So: let's get off that rocking horse, please.

"Assault" weapon bans are doomed to failure, given that fully automatic weapons are already (mostly) banned, and so "assault" bans inevitably focus on cosmetic features such as color, grip, muzzle bits, and so forth.

Magazine capacity bans are also doomed to failure, in their current forms. Given that the most popular handgun in the USA (the Glock 17) takes 17 round magazines out of the box, trying to force everyone to accept 10-round magazines is intrusive, counter-intuitive, and bound to fail. If someone wants to try to limit magazine size to, say, 20 rounds, they might be more likely to find support and (more importantly) compliance.

So those are the measures that are going to fail, one way or another. As for what is "acceptable" or what "ought to be," meh. Reality is what it is, our situation is what it is. The law should deal in realistic outcomes; unenforceable laws breed contempt, and laws that will not be complied with breed disrespect. To be avoided.

Universal background checks enjoy overwhelming support in both the gun owning community and non-gun owning community. Effort should be put into making this quick and easy. Anybody with a web browser and the proper credentials should be able to clear a buyer in minutes. (The NRA screams that this is the gateway drug to gun-grabbing and tyranny, but they scream that about everything. Hysteria is their default position. So I think it's wisest to ignore them.)

For some tangled reason involving weird amendments passed by paid-for congresscritters, the ATF is unable to effectively pursue straw buyers. Whatever welter of ill-intentioned legislation made that happen should be undone.

All research into gun violence is currently prohibited from Federal funding by law. Should be undone. [bit of an issue]

Gun dealers are not required to keep or show current inventories. Should be undone.

There are probably a few more common-sense moves that could be made to clean up the gun trade, but it's a workday, and that's all I got off the top of my head.

I just have a problem with the bolded part. Namely that with the current situation in the federal government, how can you guarantee they will fund honest researchers, instead of any quack who'll tow the government line (assuming one)? consider the kind of researchers they used in 1937 when considering the Marijuana tax act: they weren't exactly "impartial", or even "qualified", if you know what I mean (one guy "proved" marijuana was deadly to humans, by directly injecting TCP into Dog brains IIRC.)

Be careful with those considered and reasonable posts, chap. You'll end up with a reputation for thoughtfulness and that simply cannot help a legal career.... ;-)


I'd like some kind of law enforced to keep the crazies from getting guns. Not sure how to really do that.

Point of my post earlier today was that, if you START at the "guns are an evil and private citizens shouldn't have them" point, then you have trouble contributing to a discussion regarding restrictions on guns. Your "vote" is pretty much a given.

at the end of the day, there really isn't at this time. at least none to my knowledge. how could one tell if a person wants to shoot up a school, or snap in a movie theater? often times, there's little warning of that, and from what I have seen, little attempt by the people who should to figure that out. that's assuming they are even "crazy" in the conventional sense (as some are). They may simply be people who just snapped, in which case, no symptoms at all--at least none detectable.

now with criminals I can see it working: if a person has a background of violent crime (assault, murder, kidnapping, robbery, etc), it's easy enough to keep guns from them legally--though it will inevitably create it's own problems with illegal firearms sales.

Point is, any rules on gun ownership should make it easier (IMHO) for innocent civilians to obtain weapons, than any criminal. any check or means to do that I would support entirely--which is why I'm not entirely averse to background checks in concept.

Easy: none.

Use of violence is the domain of the state, not the individual.

And, might I add, the police force should also be unarmed. Weapons should be accessible only when absolutely necessary.

really? tell that to the Syrians. Or the Chinese. or to the "undesirables" in Nazi Germany (Jews being a major category). or even Stalin's victims, or maybe the people of the Dzin empire (Qin in modern Chinese). Supposed your government isn't a tyranny. well, what happens if your government turns on you? think it's not likely? tell that to Sulla's victims. or those of Caligula, Caracalla, or Decius (if you're Christian).

look, I don't like guns, I don't own any, and have little interest in ever doing so. I think such violent people should be kept from harming others, and punished for those who have harmed people already. but what you say..is problematic. fact is, violence is no one's domain. otherwise, why is aggressive war illegal?

[Lemur]

with the current situation in the federal government, how can you guarantee they will fund honest researchers, instead of any quack who'll tow the government line (assuming one)? consider the kind of researchers they used in 1937 when considering the Marijuana tax act: they weren't exactly "impartial", or even "qualified", if you know what I mean (one guy "proved" marijuana was deadly to humans, by directly injecting TCP into Dog brains IIRC.)

The answer to bad research is not no research. Under current law, people who look at large-scale epidemiology and mortality are not allowed to even tabulate gun deaths. It's nuts, and should be changed.

(And yes, the NRA will howl that this is the beginning of Hitler and Stalin and the end of freedom. But since the NRA appears to be trying to live out The Boy Who Cried Wolf, that's their problem, not ours.)

[Ibrahim]

The answer to bad research is not no research. Under current law, people who look at large-scale epidemiology and mortality are not allowed to even tabulate gun deaths. It's nuts, and should be changed.

(And yes, the NRA will howl that this is the beginning of Hitler and Stalin and the end of freedom. But since the NRA appears to be trying to live out The Boy Who Cried Wolf, that's their problem, not ours.)

don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of research on the topic, and agree with the sentiment. I'm more concerned with accountability in this area. I've seen enough trouble in that part with research into drugs, into 9/11 (not so much the idea of investigating it, but the way the findings were dealt with--the motivation parts, not the attack itself: I'm not a "truther") and so on, to last a lifetime and a half.

[HoreTore]

so you admit that it's necessary then? after-all, we hardly live in a sane country (the US, west bank, etc) , or world, do we?



I just have a problem with the bolded part. Namely that with the current situation in the federal government, how can you guarantee they will fund honest researchers, instead of any quack who'll tow the government line (assuming one)? consider the kind of researchers they used in 1937 when considering the Marijuana tax act: they weren't exactly "impartial", or even "qualified", if you know what I mean (one guy "proved" marijuana was deadly to humans, by directly injecting TCP into Dog brains IIRC.)



at the end of the day, there really isn't at this time. at least none to my knowledge. how could one tell if a person wants to shoot up a school, or snap in a movie theater? often times, there's little warning of that, and from what I have seen, little attempt by the people who should to figure that out. that's assuming they are even "crazy" in the conventional sense (as some are). They may simply be people who just snapped, in which case, no symptoms at all--at least none detectable.

now with criminals I can see it working: if a person has a background of violent crime (assault, murder, kidnapping, robbery, etc), it's easy enough to keep guns from them legally--though it will inevitably create it's own problems with illegal firearms sales.

Point is, any rules on gun ownership should make it easier (IMHO) for innocent civilians to obtain weapons, than any criminal. any check or means to do that I would support entirely--which is why I'm not entirely averse to background checks in concept.




really? tell that to the Syrians. Or the Chinese. or to the "undesirables" in Nazi Germany (Jews being a major category). or even Stalin's victims, or maybe the people of the Dzin empire (Qin in modern Chinese). Supposed your government isn't a tyranny. well, what happens if your government turns on you? think it's not likely? tell that to Sulla's victims. or those of Caligula, Caracalla, or Decius (if you're Christian).

look, I don't like guns, I don't own any, and have little interest in ever doing so. further, like any half-sane person, I don't like people hurting each other in general--especially when initiating violence. I think such people should be punished. but what you say..is problematic.

The question asked was on self-protection, not about forming militias. That's a separate question, but my answer is still a big, fat "NO". Small arms in the hands of the general population has exactly zero relevance when trying to topple a dictatorship. Plenty of dictatorships have no real restrictions on gun ownership, and that's because it poses no threath whatsoever.

Once a rebellion is ongoing, gaining access to weapons is easy as all hell. Access to advanced weaponry is what counts, and gun ownership does not affect that in the slightest. In a revolution, small arms can be seen as similar to things like bandages, food supplies and such.

The Russian people were properly armed under Stalin by the way, could you please inform me how that stopped Gulag...? If you really want to pursue the "citizen militia"-angle, I have a much better idea for you: conscription. A conscript army will ensure that every citizen has military training, which is worth a hell of a lot more than a simple gun(warfare isn't as easy as point-and-shoot, you know). It will also ensure that the nations standing army isn't drawn from a small demographic(like how the Syrian army is drawn from the Alawittes, for example) thus making it harder to employ against its own citizens(in theory). But even that is largely irrelevant, except possibly when fearing a military coup.

[Ibrahim]

The question asked was on self-protection, not about forming militias. That's a separate question, but my answer is still a big, fat "NO". Small arms in the hands of the general population has exactly zero relevance when trying to topple a dictatorship. Plenty of dictatorships have no real restrictions on gun ownership, and that's because it poses no threath whatsoever.

I actually agree with that. I do find it amusing you said all that, when my response to you was over this part:

Use of violence is the domain of the state, not the individual.

The point I was actually making towards you is that violence is not, and should not, be the "domain" of the state (or any one person, group, or institution really--including "the people"), if only because of the potential of such institutions turning dictatorial/violent, as often happened in history. the stuff I mentioned were examples of when it is that way in practice. My belief is that at most, government should be preventing or minimizing the initiation of violence, not having a monopoly or carte blanche over it as you seem to imply. same applies to the people. it doesn't even have a monopoly (and shouldn't) over the prevention or minimizing of the initiation of violence or force in general: not every situation can be solved by a government agency (such as police or the military), as often they may not be close enough or at hand. sometimes it may even be that representatives of these agencies are the ones initiating the violence (e.g. bad cops, corrupt militaries, etc.)

Note that preventing and minimizing need not involve actual violence.

you can tell accordingly that it is my opinion in either case (government or people), that violence is only acceptable as self defense or defense of others(i.e. halting or reacting the initiation of force), and only if no other immediate option exists: it doesn't however make doing so "moral" or "OK", as non-violent methods are much better, and therefore inherently more "moral" and definitely "OK". And prevention is always better than the cure--as violence is not an option (ideally) in preventing force in general.

besides, my attitude about gun control itself has less to do with toppling dictatorships or any protection against tyranny (or even self defense in and of itself), and more to do with expediency (enforcement, whether it actually solves the problems it is intended to solve, etc), at least in the US. that and the fact that many people here don't have guns to kill with, but more as collector's items, target practice, or other non-violent actions: it makes no sense to me punishing a guy who owns an M-14 (15 round magazine) but never shoots it at people, for other people's actions. accordingly, while I don't like it when people insist on packing heat for self defense or to "fight tyranny", as long as they aren't actually shooting anyone in cold blood (or initiating force in general), I don't see the problem.

[HoreTore]

Ah, sorry, I realize not everyone is familiar with Weber.

Here is a nice wiki article on the concept my sentence referred to. Then sparkle that concept with a bit of collectivist communism, and you have my basic position.

[Papewaio]

They can take my freedoms, but they will never take my potato guns. Or my sour cream bombs.

I think you've been cream pied enough...