home

Colorado House Passes Four Gun Control Bills

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 01:27:20 PM EST
Tags: gun control (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

After hours of debate yesterday, the Democrat- controlled House in Colorado passed four gun control bills on a voice vote:

  • House Bill 1224: Limits ammunition magazines to 15 rounds.
  • House Bill 1229: Requires universal background checks for gun sales or transfers.
  • House Bill 1228: Requires gun customers to pay the costs of their criminal background checks by the Bureau of Investigation.
  • House Bill 1226: Outlaws concealed-carry permit holders to pack heat in campus buildings.

The official vote will be Monday. The bills then move to the Senate. [More...]

A year ago, Republicans held a 33-32 majority in the House, but after the November election Democrats are back in charge, 37-28.

The Dems have a 20-15 majority in the Senate, and Gov. Hickenlooper has said he'll sign at least 3 of the bills. He is still studying the issue of concealed carry on campuses.

< Miami Fugitive Shot and Killed by Police | AL Appeals Court Vacates Death Penalty Conviction : Pre-Trial Publicity >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Colorado House Passes Four Gun Control Bills | 56 comments (56 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Good. (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 07:36:19 PM EST
    Yesterday was a productive day at the Capital with the passage of this package of bills despite the death treats and fear mongering by the NRA and a couple of gun/clip manufacturers.

    Now, the leadership (are you listening Mark?) needs to set an example and enforce the laws that prevent our representatives from CC'ing in the Capital and show that they are not above the law.    

    Where do you (none / 0) (#8)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 05:26:58 AM EST
    Think Magpul and the ancillary suppliers will pull and go to?  My bet is Montana.

    Parent
    Oh, well ... hope the door ... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Yman on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    ... doesn't hit them ... etc., etc.

    Parent
    Good point (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 02:18:28 PM EST

    Colorado does not really need those jobs or the tax revenue.

    Parent
    You don't make public policy ... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:45:19 AM EST
    ... by kowtowing to a company or industry that decides to throw a tantrum and threaten to leave the state just because it doesn't like the law.

    Like I said ... don't let the door hit ya ...

    Parent

    Wingers are always suddenly (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 07:55:57 AM EST
    'very concerned' about job losses when they can tie them to one of their wacky pet causes - like more guns or more logging or more fracking. Jobs are suddenly paramount if one tries to do something about these issues for societal good. Other than that, they couldn't give a crap about actual jobs or adequate wages for working people. It's such transparent duplicity...

    Parent
    You mean (1.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:12:04 AM EST
    .

    Do you really mean that lefties care not a fig about the loss of blue collar jobs or tax revenue as long as their policy preferences are enacted?

    Perhaps you can point to an economic impact statement done by nonpartisan economists that shows those gun control bills are at least economically neutral.

    .

    Parent

    Reading comprehension (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:21:47 AM EST
    When someone responds to a very clear statement with "Do you really mean ...", it's not a reading comprehension issue.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 05:28:54 PM EST
     since more people are killed in Colorado by guns than in auto accidents maybe the answer would be to issue driver's licenses to all the youngsters. First, it would eliminate the embarrassing statistic I just mentioned, and second, think of all the jobs created by the inevitable increase in car crashes.

    How's that Abdul, a Market based solution.  


    Parent

    embarrassing statistic (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 06:34:48 PM EST

    What is embarrassing about people choosing to commit suicide using a firearm rather than risk others by such means as running out into freeway traffic, jumping off a tall building, etc.

    If Colorado is like the rest of the country the vast majority of those killed with guns are suicides.  A magazine capacity limitation is unlikely to prevent many suicides.  "Killed with guns" also includes justified homicide bt police officers and would be victims of crime that fought back.

    Using stats that include those kinds of fatalities to champion a magazine size restriction shows a disconnect with reality.

    Parent

    You want "reality?" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 09:25:13 PM EST
    Here's some reality:

    I believe, and I think most professionals would agree, that people who commit suicide are either mentally unstable, or temporarily, emotionally distraught. And, it's just my opinion as a sentient human being that having such easy, and convenient access to a lethal weapon (such as a handgun) would lead to many more suicides than some other form of self-induced death.

    Just like that knucklehead on the plane that hit that baby in a moment of unrestrained anger, I wonder if he would have done that had he taken 5 minutes to think it over, and calm down, if he would still have done that?


    Parent

    Reality or faith (none / 0) (#17)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:00:56 AM EST
    .

    Here's some reality:

    I believe, and I think most professionals would agree, that people who commit suicide are either mentally unstable, or temporarily, emotionally distraught. And, it's just my opinion as a sentient human being that having such easy, and convenient access to a lethal weapon (such as a handgun) would lead to many more suicides than some other form of self-induced death.

    The phrase "i believe" is more and indicator of faith than of reality.  

    Here are some facts about Japan:

    In 2009, (latest year) 26 suicides per 100,000 people.
    The US rate around 11 per 100,000,

    Note that Japan has very strict gun control and a suicide rate more than twice as high as the US.  

    In any case, what do suicide rates have to do with magazine capacity?  Are suicides shooting themselves 17 or more times with the same gun?

    .

    Parent

    It's not about suicides (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:19:20 AM EST
    It's about gun deaths - you were the one who objected to the inclusion of suicides in that statistic.  Funny how the gun-rights crowd cries "apples to oranges" when discussing gun violence in other countries, but has no issue comparing suicide rates in one country.  We could take a look at Australia, where recent gun control/buyback programs caused a drop in gun violence and suicides with no increase in non-gun suicides, but that wouldn't match the NRA talking points, now, would it?  OTOH, if you want to compare the U.S. to Japan, let's talk about the gun death/violence rates in both countries.

    Heh.

    BTW - I believe the point of the original statistic was that gun deaths exceed vehicular deaths in 10 states.  Those states (Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Washington) are states with high levels of gun ownership and easy access to guns.

    Parent

    Since gun deaths (2.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 11:48:43 AM EST

    Since "gun deaths" are mostly suicides, using "gun deaths" as a reason to limit magazine size seems bizarre.  Perhaps you could provide the logic for that?

    Parent
    No need (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 01:40:36 PM EST
    The suicide herring was your own red creation.  Not likely that a ban would have much of an affect on the 19,000+ suicides in the US, but then again - might help with the other 11,000+ homicides.  What would really help with suicides is a national database and extended waiting periods, as we found out with the Brady Act.

    But the NRA nuts don't really care about what's effective ...

    ... they just want them some guns ...

    Parent

    Those 11,000 other homicides (none / 0) (#33)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:05:54 AM EST
    Those 11,000 other homicides also include justifiable homicide committed by law enforcement officers and crime victims.

    There are those that believe this woman should have risked death and been raped a second time rather than shooting and killing her attacker.  Can you explain why you use homicides like this as a justification for gun control?

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#35)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:35:27 AM EST
    Because the CDC data is the most accurate measure of firearm homicides, and the CDC doesn't segregate that relatively small number of justifiable homicides.  But if it makes you feel better to omit that tiny percentage of homicides (@ 2%), knock yourself out.

    That was easy.

    BTW - "There are those that believe" ... a new red herring ...  

    Really?  How many people (and who are "those that believe"?) believe that a woman has no right to defend herself from her rapist breaking into her house a second time?

    Please ...

    ... so ridiculous.

    Parent

    Fact based (none / 0) (#37)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    So your guestimate of 2% is faith based rather than reality based.  The CDC stats at this link make no breakout of justified versus unjustified homicides, or even accidents.  In any case the CDC compiles stats mostly from coroners, the compilation is no better or worse than the data provided by a wide variety if individuals making classification judgments.  

    BTW, the FBI has the number of criminal homicides below 9,000 for the most recent two years of reporting, so your 11,000 figure significantly overstates the criminal misuse of firearms.

    How many people (and who are "those that believe"?) believe that a woman has no right to defend herself from her rapist breaking into her house a second time?

    Probably no one would deny her a right to defend herself.  That is not the issue.  There those believe that she should be denied effective means to do so.  There are folk that believe that all civilians should be prohibited from owning any firearm at all.  There is a larger group that would deny non-governmentally employed civilians ownership of firearms best suited to defending against multiple assailants.

    Parent

    No, my statements are FACT-based (none / 0) (#40)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:09:11 PM EST
    Unlike you, I don't just make things up as I go along.  You'd think you would have managed to figure that out by now.  But alas, I guess not.  Oh, well, ... here you go:

    1.  There were 260 justifiable homicides in 2011 (201 using firearms).  That would be @ 1.8% of firearm homicides.  If you want to include police shooting, that would be an additional 390 incidents (3.5%).  Even using both of these figures, you're talking about 5.3% of homicides, leaving the hee-YOOOOOGE majority (over 94%) of homicides unaddressed.

    Probably why you made vague accusations of distorted statistics without actually stating how small those numbers really were in relation to the number of gun murders.

    2.  The CDC numbers are used because they are the most accurate number, particularly compared to the FBI stats which are only voluntarily reported homicides.  Your claim that they are merely the same as the estimate of any other group is simply ridiculous.

    The FBI collects murder data, too, but academic researchers we consulted said the CDC data is the more accurate measure of gun murders. CDC gets its data from the National Vital Statistics System, which collects death certificates that are required to be filed in every state. But the FBI relies on the voluntary reporting of law enforcement agencies that results in under-reporting. (For the record, the FBI's 2011 Uniform Crime Report says there were 8,583 murders committed with firearms last year -- that's about 24 per day.)  

    IOW - The crime reporting stats used by the FBI are voluntarily reported by local law enforcement.  Consequently, they do not include all homicides, a Scripps found out during there recent serial killer study.  They reviewed computer records to include an additional 15,000+ murders that were unreported from 1980-2008 to the FBI, although even this number was not comprehensive.  

    3.  

    Probably no one would deny her a right to defend herself.  That is not the issue.  There those believe that she should be denied effective means to do so.  There are folk that believe that all civilians should be prohibited from owning any firearm at all.  There is a larger group that would deny non-governmentally employed civilians ownership of firearms best suited to defending against multiple assailants.

    Ahhh, ... well those would be entirely new - and different claims than that which you originally made.  You claimed that "there are those" (don'tcha love those weasel words?) who believe the woman in this particular instance shouldn't have been permitted to shoot her attacker, but should have been subjected to a second rape and possible murder instead:

    There are those that believe this woman should have risked death and been raped a second time rather than shooting and killing her attacker.

    Yet you can't even cite a single person making this claim.

    Classic Abdul ...

    Parent

    BTW - Here's the link (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:10:57 PM EST
    ... for the justified homicide numbers.

    Parent
    Women and self defense (none / 0) (#38)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 11:05:01 AM EST

    Here is a bozo in Colorado explaining why some women should be denied effective means of self defense.  Sickening.  Maybe he is related to Todd Aiken.

    Parent

    Heh ... nice try (none / 0) (#39)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 11:31:58 AM EST
    The state rep in that clip was talking about a law prohibiting concealed carry of firearms on college campuses.  He raises a hypothetical in which someone mistakenly believes they are being followed or in danger of being raped and shoots someone by mistake, a very real possibility given the number of unjustified/"accidental" shootings that occur every year by someone who feels threatened.  You're pointing to him as an example of someone who think a woman shouldn't be permitted to use a gun to defend herself when an actual rapist returns to her home and has broken in.  I bet if you think real hard about it, ...

    ... you can tell the difference.

    "Sickening" is right ...

    Parent

    Its pretty clear (none / 0) (#42)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:27:23 PM EST
    Its pretty clear that that man thinks he is far better to judge what those women need that the women themselves.  After all, Colorado has carry on campus now without his imagined disasters.  This jerk has to make up a hypothetical scare story about "Nervous Nellies" shooting at imagined fears.  The guy must be trying to win the Nobel prize for sexism.

    One wonders if he thinks these supposed scatter brained females should be allowed like other officers access to full automatic submachine guns in police or military service.  

    Parent

    It's "pretty clear" ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:35:39 PM EST
    ... that you were (and are) simply trying to contort his words into something they're not, in order to provide evidence for your earlier claim.

    It's also funny, your crocodile tears for "sexism" notwithstanding.

    BTW -

    After all, Colorado has carry on campus now without his imagined disasters.

    You mean there hasn't been an accidental/mistaken shooting on a Colorado campus in almost a whole year since the Colorado SC ruled on it?!?!?

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    In case (none / 0) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 12:38:34 PM EST
    In case you don't think that there people that want to prohibit effective means of self defense, here you go.

    How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

    Parent

    In case you don't know ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 02:40:36 PM EST
    ... what a "straw man" argument is, here you go.  

    Parent
    Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 02:33:01 PM EST
    Some scholars even credit the 1996 [Australian] gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point.

    A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted.

    On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform.

    Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.

    So there's no consensus about whether the [Australian gun law] changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect.



    Parent
    Did someone say there was a "consensus"? (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    BTW - You may want to actually look at those studies, rather than just performing a quick Google search.  Factcheck was merely debunking some winger email claiming that murders increased since Australia enacted its reforms, so they don't really need to dig deeper to put that myth to bed.  OTOH - all studies are not created equal.  They cite one study (2003) pointing out that some of the decline in firearms deaths occurred prior to the enactment of the laws (yep), but reaching no conclusions about the increase in this decline after enactment.  You have one study (although there are several) which unequivocally concludes that the measures caused a sharp decline in suicides, a decline which occurred faster in Australian states with "fast" buyback programs and slower in states with slower buyback programs.  You also have one study which said there was no significant effect, but the authors of that study were using an ARIMA model looking for structural breaks in the data.  The problem with structural break models is that due to the large number of factors that affect gun violence, if the breaks are not sudden and sharp, they will often miss any effects.  

    "When policies have even modest lags, the structural breaktest can easily miss the effect," Hemenway explains. "It can also miss the effect of the policy that occurs over several years."

    As the article points out, there are also several studies right here in the US which find a pattern of strong correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates (i.e. more guns, more suicides).

    But I understand why some people would prefer to pretend otherwise ...

    Parent

    Cool, there is no consensus (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 04:33:13 PM EST
    about whether the [Australian gun law] changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect.

    We agree on something.

    Here's another tidbit for you:

    The gun ownership rates in Australia are essentially the same now as before the 1996 buyback. I guess, people being people, they kept on buying new guns after selling their old ones to the gvt.

    Professor Philip Alpers says despite Australia's success story on gun ownership, levels have returned to those before the Port Arthur massacre.
    Golly, if gun ownership levels are back to what they were before, but gun deaths are not back what they were before, then there's gotta be something else going on since there can't be a "strong pattern of correlation" between the two.

    But I understand why some people would prefer to pretend otherwise ...


    Parent

    I'll stick with a preponderance ... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 07:54:45 PM EST
    ... of the evidence, as opposed to a single study using a methodology with inherent limitations.

    As far as your claim that "The gun ownership rates in Australia are essentially the same now as before the 1996 buyback," (don'tcha love those qualifiers? ... "essentially"), perhaps you should learn to read beyond the subtitle in the headline:

    1.  A little math problem for ya.  While the professor doesn't specify how many guns were removed from all of the buyback programs (the federal and 38 state-based programs) in your article, he does in another.  He puts the figure at 1 million.  He also says that (based on customs numbers), those million guns have now been replaced.  There were 18.4 million people in Australia in 1996.  There are 23 million now.  That's an (approximate) increase of 25%.Of course, for the gun ownership rate to be the same (i.e. keep pace with population growth), that number would have to be 25% higher.

    2.  
      Golly, if gun ownership levels are back to what they were before, but gun deaths are not back what they were before, then there's gotta be something else going on since there can't be a "strong pattern of correlation" between the two.

    You're absolutely right.  The "something else" is two things: 1)  The replacement of those guns was not instantaneous.  It happened over the course of the past 10 years, which means it's taken 17 years for Australia to replace those raw numbers guns - albeit at lower ownership rates.  So for the past 17 years, Australia has had lower gun ownership rates (and continues to do so).  2)  The buyback wasn't the only measure enacted in 1996.  Since then, semi-automatic guns were banned, strict licensing and national registration requirements were put in place, as well as universal/strict background checks on all gun purchasers.  So despite the fact that those million guns have been replaced, the purchasers they're going to is a much more regulated group.

    Golly, ... use a little basic math and some logic, and even those people pretending to be puzzled can figure out why those scientists didn't miss those "obvious" issues.

    Parent

    Golly, here are a couple scientists (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    from the U of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research whom you seem to want to ignore. Wonder why that is?
    6. Conclusion

    This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement on gun deaths.

    Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.



    Parent
    No need to wonder, since ... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    ... I didn't "ignore" them (see my prior comment in this thread specifically discussing them).

    Golly, ... that was easy.

    Parent

    BTW - I noticed you didn't even ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    ... address 1 or 2.

    Golly, ... I wonder why that is ...

    Parent

    Because I'd just be showing you (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    what's already perfectly clear.
       6. Conclusion

        This paper takes a closer look at the effects of the National Firearms Agreement on gun deaths.

        Using a battery of structural break tests, there is little evidence to suggest that it had any significant effects on firearm homicides and suicides.



    Parent
    "Perfectly clear" - heh (none / 0) (#50)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    1.  Repeating the same, single study (while ignoring multiple other studies) which you think supports your argument despite its limiting methodology is supposed to be convincing?

    Heh.

    1.  You claimed that gun ownership rates were now "essentially the same now as before the 1996 buyback", yet you fail to back it up.  The population is 25% higher, and based on your link the number of guns is now (17 years later) the same.  Is that some kind of "new math"?

    2.  You claimed that the gun buyback couldn't have caused the drop in gun deaths, since the number of guns destroyed in the buyback has been replaced:

    Golly, if gun ownership levels are back to what they were before, but gun deaths are not back what they were before, then there's gotta be something else going on since there can't be a "strong pattern of correlation" between the two.

    Apart from the fact that population growth makes clear your premise is false (i.e. gun ownership rates are @ 25% lower given the same number of guns with 25% population growth), you ignore the fact that it took 17 years for those guns to be replaced - meaning that even if the population hadn't grown, the rate would have been lower for the past 17 years.

    Oops!

    Parent

    The stats problem is a before/after problem (none / 0) (#34)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:13:34 AM EST

    Like US seat belt laws that saw fatalities drop after their enactment, Australia saw fatalities drop after its gun law change.

    However, like US seat belt laws that had fatalities dropping before the laws were enacted, Australia had fatalities dropping before its gun law change.

    It is hard to argue that a trend ongoing for years and continued after some law or other is a consequence of that law, either before or after enactment.

    Parent

    Not really (none / 0) (#36)
    by Yman on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:38:32 AM EST
    It is hard to argue that a trend ongoing for years and continued after some law or other is a consequence of that law, either before or after enactment.

    When that trend is accounted for and the data shows an acceleration in that trend, it's really not.  Do you really believe you managed to figure that out, but the researchers couldn't?

    Because that's funny.

    Parent

    Acceleration? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 09:10:26 AM EST

    The Australian government stats don't appear to show your supposed acceleration.

    Parent
    "Doesn't appear" ... heh (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 10:31:08 AM EST
    Gotta love those qualifiers.

    In fact, several studies have noted an acceleration in the downward trend of gun deaths, both homicides and suicides, but a more pronounced acceleration on suicides:

    Declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

    Here's another (more recent) study noting the same acceleration, and also noting that the correlation between the speed of the individual state buyback programs and the speed of the acceleration of the decline (i.e. faster buybacks=faster decline).

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#53)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:22:09 PM EST

    What is the point of looking only at gun homicides and suicides versus total homicides and suicides?  

    If gun control measures merely shift the means of homicides and suicides to other tools they are a pointless waste or resources without a total reduction.  If there are more homicides of innocents due to inadequate defense, or more suicides due to a feeling of defenselessness, then they are counterproductive.

    Parent

    Uhhhmmmm, they didn't (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    ... just look at gun homicides and suicides.  You really should read before making up additional strawmen:

    We also examine all‐cause homicides and all‐method suicides in order to assess the possibility that substitution effects may have occurred: that reduced access to firearms may have caused those with homicidal or suicidal intent to use substitute methods. ...

    ...Accelerating the reduction in overall firearm deaths--as occurred--is a bonus, particularly as the data show that

    there is no evidence of method substitution for either suicide or homicide
    .

    Keep swinging, Donnie Q.!

    Parent

    Any measure that (none / 0) (#55)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 02:08:25 PM EST

    Any measure that does not reduce overall homicides and/or suicides is quite useless.  

    Parent
    Probably true, ... then again ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Yman on Thu Feb 21, 2013 at 02:23:39 PM EST
    ... the studies established that the gun control measures reduced both.

    Parent
    For a long time Japan has (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by sj on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 10:22:34 AM EST
    has had a very high suicide rate.  And they have a very high juvenile suicide rate which is largely attributed to Shiken Jigoku or "Examination Hell".  I once hosted a Japanese exchange student.  Her father had taken a position abroad and arranged for exchange student status for his daughters specifically to save them from Shiken Jigoku.

    The pressures of Japanese society are quite different from the pressures of Western society here, but good job of making your false argument.

    Parent

    attributed (2.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 11:54:16 AM EST

    Anyone can attribute any result for any imagined cause.  However, the the availability of firearms among different countries is not closely related to suicide rates.  

    As you correctly note, "The pressures of Japanese society are quite different from the pressures of Western society here..." societal pressures have much more to do with suicide rates than gun laws.

    Parent

    oy (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sj on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 12:17:19 PM EST
    If your eyesight and your reflexes are as bad as your reasoning, one of these days you are really going to hurt yourself with that gun you love so much.  

    Parent
    Speaking of "imagined causes" (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Yman on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 01:45:27 PM EST
    Anyone can attribute any result for any imagined cause.  However, the the availability of firearms among different countries is not closely related to suicide rates.

    Link?  Absent the slightest bit of evidence, maybe you should learn to use the qualifiers ("I believe ...") that you were mocking earlier.

    BTW - There is evidence that a reduction in availability of guns reduces suicides within a single country (i.e. Australia), a much better metric given the elimination of many cultural variables.

    Parent

    I meant to include (none / 0) (#22)
    by sj on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 10:34:36 AM EST
    this link about shiken jigoku

    Parent
    All four bills cleared the House... (none / 0) (#31)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:45:56 PM EST
    today and are on to the Senate after more emotional testimony and the official vote. Link  

    Wonder if even a tenth of the nutters who are threatening to move out of the State will do so.  

    Parent

    Well, it looks like (1.00 / 4) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 06:48:56 PM EST
    they still want schools to be killing fields.

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Yman on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 10:59:59 PM EST
    Because they didn't pass a bill handing out guns to the kids ...

    Heh.

    Parent

    If only (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 08:03:28 AM EST
    EVERYONE had at least one gun, we'd all be so much safer...

    Parent
    The Gov could be right (none / 0) (#1)
    by fishcamp on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 02:15:22 PM EST
    on all those bills.  The first three are an improvement and I assume universal background checks mean gun shows and private sales.  It costs $39.50 for the digital fingerprint test for a concealed permit in Florida.  About six cops passed by me and gave the face recognition stare while the lady was rolling my fingers on the weird light box.  Not sure how I feel about the on campus bill.  If you were the Dean's chauffeur where would you keep your piece?

    Why would a college dean need (none / 0) (#3)
    by the capstan on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 07:19:07 PM EST
    a chauffeur or an armed guard? Or did you mean James Dean or Dean Martin?  At the rate of faculty pay, I do not think he'd be kidnapped for ransom.  i do hope the conspiracy theorists have self-deported before my grandkids are old enough for college.

    Parent
    But, but, but... (none / 0) (#4)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 07:27:40 PM EST
    the background check bill puts the requirement to pay for it on the seller.  Why, that's like just like making people pay for the right to vote!!!111!  That calls for recall petitions, calls for civil war and of course, death threats (which at least 3 reps have received) from the mentally unbalanced.

    I'd be willing to bet that Bruce Benson, if he does have a chauffeur (and I hope he doesn't) gets driven around by either a CHP officer or at least a UCPD officer.  Interesting fact, CU has special dorms set up for people who want to keep guns--guess how many have signed up to live there.

    Parent

    Imagine... (none / 0) (#6)
    by unitron on Sat Feb 16, 2013 at 09:10:06 PM EST
    ...having an entire dorm to yourself.

    Parent
    Colorado House Passes Four Gun Control Bills | 56 comments (56 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment