CO Concealed Weapons Permits Soar, Recall Election Set for 2 Dems

As Democrats in Colorado pushed through three new gun control laws in March, 2013, with virtually no support from Republicans, applications for concealed weapons permits were soaring.

In the first half of 2013, the Denver Post reports the numbers rose dramatically, from 16, 886 to 31, 518:

From January to June, 31,518 background checks were processed for concealed-carry permits by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, according to bureau data. For the same period last year, there were only 16,886 processed

Here's a chart showing the first six months of both years. [More...]

For January and February, the 2012 and 2013 don't show much difference. In March, they skyrocketed, from 3,500 in 2012 to 7,600 for 2013. April showed a more modest increase, but in May the numbers jumped from 2,600 in 2012 to 6,800 in 2013, and in June, they more than tripled, from 2,000 in 2012 to 6,700 in 2013.

Those consulted by the Post as to causes of the increase don't see a connection to the passage of gun control laws. I think it's pretty obvious.

The Colorado legislature passed, and Gov. Hickenlooper signed into law, three new gun control measures in March 20, 2013. A number of Colorado sheriffs banded together and announced they were feel-good measures and they wouldn't enforce them. Since then, 55 state sheriffs have sued to overturn the laws.

The most ardent gun rights supporters probably had concealed weapons permits before the legislation passed. It may have just taken a month for the message behind the new legislation to sink in among the general public. When it did, it May, the surge in permit applications grew by leaps and bounds and continued through June.

To get an idea of how angry gun rights advocates became after the new legislation passed, consider that for the first time in the 137 year history of Colorado's legislature, a grass roots state-wide recall effort succeeded. On September 10, two Senate Democrats, Senate President John Morse and Angela Giron from Pueblo, a strong Democratic county, face recall elections.

What's astonishing about the success of the recall, it that it was spearheaded by three Republican plumbers in Pueblo with no political connections. What they did have, was an iPhone, tablets and access to the state website, GovoteColorado, where they could instantly check that those signing the petitions were registered voters.

“It’s unbelievable. How do these guys get 13,000 people to sign the petition, and [roughly] 12,000 of them are good?” Denver pollster Floyd Ciruli asked. “It’s a miracle. And it shows the passion here in Colorado behind this issue.”

..A tattooed 28-year-old “backflow specialist” who works in the family plumbing business, Victor Head helped launch Pueblo Freedom and Rights in March, shortly after the Democrat-dominated state legislature approved three bills restricting access to firearms and ammunition.

The petition signing plan went flawlessly. They created an organization, Pueblo Freedom and Rights, and submitted only 13,466 signatures. More than 11,000 were vailid due to their cross-checking with ColoradoGoVote. None of the signatures has been challenged.

Morse made his own bed, as far as i can tell, when he went on the Rachel Maddow and gave advice to other legislators getting tons of e-mails: Ignore them. Don't even bother to read them. I wonder if those organizing his recall responded by saying, "Fine, we'll move to Twitter, where the whole world can see our messages to you."

As to for Angie Giron, check out her record on her website. Except for the gun control issues, her votes have been pretty progressive on social issues, so I don't think she should be recalled. She's hardly the only Dem to go nuts on guns this year.

The New York Times has more on the plumbers and the recall.

< The Enormous Cost of Battling Kim Dotcom | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I Feel Safer Already (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 09:19:35 AM EST
    Help me out here:
    Those consulted by the Post as to causes of the increase don't see a connection to the passage of gun control laws. I think it's pretty obvious.

    Seems like a odd thing to argue.  The people of Colorado are so ridiculous that if you increase background checks and limit the number of bullets they can have in a magazine, they will show their dissatisfaction by getting a permit to carry a concealed gun.

    Holding a recall election makes sense when laws are enacted that people dislike, getting a concealed license is off the charts crazy reaction to laws you dislike.

    I get that you are trying to connect the two events, but you failed because it simply doesn't make sense.  The Post agrees, maybe not with the reason, but that there isn't a connection.

    It's funny how you slam law enforcement pretty much all day long, and mostly I agree, but when when you start discussing guns, black is white, up is down, and sheriffs are men of wisdom and used to make a point.

    Works in Florida (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 09:39:07 AM EST
    Saturday night in South Florida a law abiding man and his concealed carry permit gunned down 6. Guess he was just having a bad day. Glad he was legally armed and able to take out his frustration in a clear and concise way.

    Victims ages: 17-33-51-64-69-79


    Working great throughout the land (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:23:33 PM EST
    Just your basic, routine week of 40+ accidental shootings and other gun mishaps. Three Responsible Gun OwnersTM exercised their right not to take the bullets out of guns they were cleaning. One gent "forgot" he was carrying a loaded firearm as he entered a county courthouse, but he was in good company, as 33 more just like him apparently "forgot" they were carrying as they tried to board commercial aircraft.

    One would-be hero brought his gun with him to the movies on the one-year anniversary of the Aurora movie theater shooting, but accidentally fired it during the show, thereby demonstrating how quick and easy it is to go from "I'll save everyone in case there's a shooter in the theater" to "Oh my God, I'm the shooter in the theater. (But I love the Constitution so much that it really shouldn't count.)" Meanwhile, another would-be hero found himself in trouble in Milwaukee County, for firing at suspect the police were pursuing through his neighborhood. He wasn't trying to break into our hero's property or anything. The guy just thought he'd help out. With bullets.
    BATTLE CREEK, NE, 7/20/13: Authorities have confirmed that a Northeast Nebraska boy is dead, killed in an accidental shooting. Madison County county attorney Joe Smith said the six-year-old died around noon Saturday. The shooting happened at the boy's home in rural Battle Creek, Nebraska. Smith said he is not releasing the name of the victim or the circumstances surrounding his death, saying it's a sad tragedy for all involved. "This was an accidental shooting. No foul play is suspected. There will be no autopsy and the investigation is essentially closed," said Smith.
    CARTERSVILLE, GA, 7/20/13: An "accidental shooting" in the early morning hours Saturday left a woman in critical condition. Cartersville Police Department Capt. Mark Camp said late Saturday afternoon the 24-year-old woman, who was shot once in the face, remained in critical but stable condition at Grady Memorial Hospital. At least three people were inside the room at Courtesy Inn, 2235 Highway 411, Cartersville, about 5:30 a.m. when a male suspect fired the shot, striking the victim near her mouth, police said. "From what they can gather, the victim and the suspect were just friends and they were just hanging out at her room," Camp said. A witness told police the shooting was accidental.

    42 successes listed in all


    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 10:22:21 AM EST
    Jeralyn has a very weird relationship to the rhetoric and politics of firearms. Maybe it's Hunter S. Thompson's influence, I don't know. But, like I've said before, I've had guns pointed at me in anger twice in my life, and my reaction was to dislike and distance myself from the idea of owning even further. People are strange, all of us.

    distance myself from owning a gun, that is (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 10:36:08 AM EST
    I am the proofreading KING!!

    The same thinking (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:07:01 PM EST
    that gave us "Joe the Plumber," "Governor Jesse Ventura," V.P Candidate, Sarah Palin, and The Tea Party.

    I just can't wrap my head around the idea that mass displays of willful ignorance is a good thing, or a Progressive one.

    Looks to me like the 1%'s goal of Dumbing down America has just about come full circle.


    Orson Welles broadcast (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 05:19:02 PM EST
    paniced lemming behavior..

    What should be of REAL concern is the degree of paranoia and hysteria seems to be lurking just below the surface of the American consciousness..

    "They're comin' fer our guns!"


    Agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:01:43 PM EST
    I saw someone get shot (accidentally) when I was in high school. (He survived.) I respect other people's Second Amendment rights -- I have a lot of gun-owning relations -- but personally, I've developed a general aversion to firearms.

    just saying I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 11:10:36 AM EST
    it's coincidental, based on the monthly charts. I didn't praise law enforcement for their view in this post, just pointed it out it might be a factor that might sway people. You are right, I don't take cues from law enforcement.

    Also, I don't think I expressed a view at all in this post. The more interesting part to me was the ability of three plumbers without connections to get enough signatures for a recall, which multiple articles attribute to their figuring out how to avoid bad signatures by using their iPhone to connect to the state voter's website.

    If you read what I wrote, I didn't support the recall for either candidate on the gun issue. I criticized the Senate President for suggesting he and others ignore emails from constituents and said the other Senators views on other issues warrant keeping her.


    narrow criticism/technicality (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by DataShade on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 11:37:18 AM EST
    You just said "I don't think I expressed a view at all in this post."

    But in the original post you wrote "She's hardly the only Dem to go nuts on guns this year."

    Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your description of Senator Giron's recent voting record?  The phrase "to go nuts," is perhaps ambiguous - it might mean "to behave enthusiastically" or might mean "to behave in a manner similar to a crazy person," and without vocal inflection it's hard to tell which you mean.

    It's how you ended the post and certainly struck a sour chord for me as I read it.


    Yeah, There's No Tone in Your Post (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 12:36:11 PM EST
    No view expressed at all.  Neutral as they get.
    Including links to the Colorado Republican Committee and the Washington Times.

    Democrats in Colorado pushed through three new gun control laws.

    In March, they skyrocketed...

    ...they were feel-good measures..

    ...grew by leaps and bounds...

    What's astonishing about the success of the recall

    ...plan went flawlessly...

    She's hardly the only Dem to go nuts on guns this year.

    You don't have to defend any of it to me, but don't act like it was an information piece, when it's tone is clearly favoring one side of the debate.

    You don't have to actually praise law enforcement, using them to defend the policy you clearly agree with is endorsement enough.

    It's a shame you are forced to go to conservative websites to make your 'progressive' points about gun control.


    I'm new to this site (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Visteo1 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:16:53 PM EST
    I have respect for someone that does not feel bound by the stereotypical lines of right and left.

    I live in Detroit.  I own guns out of necessity.  There are people here that will do me harm.  Before you infringe on my rights to determine what firearms I choose or how many rounds I can carry, two things need to happen:

    1. Firearms need to be taken from those who possess them illegally...

    2. And more importantly, adequate police protection needs to be provided to this city's residents.  I can't wait over an hour using my baseball bat to defend myself and loved ones.

    I have no problem with federal and state laws that keep guns out of criminals hands, but don't handcuff me.

    Not Sure What That has to Do With Anything... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:28:54 PM EST
    ...but I own guns as well and for similar reasons.

    I think everyone here, and most progressives don't have issues with guns being bought and used for defensive purposes.  It's the fetishizing, which leads to guns ending up in the wrongs hands, that most of us object to.

    I don't know of anyone here who has ever suggested a ban on guns, just smart regulation of them.

    But I don't speak for anyone here, just my observations.

    I agree with what you wrote.


    When people say "smart regulation" (none / 0) (#23)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:52:02 PM EST
    they're usually talking about confiscation.  At least from the plebs.

    You'd find that out if you dug deeply into what they propose.


    I Don't and I Don't Know of Anyone That Does... (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:59:14 PM EST
    ...seems like a straw-man if I ever saw one.

    Please provide some examples.


    Nobody's talking about confiscation. (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:53:01 PM EST
    And nowhere in any of this legislation is confiscation mentioned. That's long been a conservative red herring in this argument.

    Nobody? (none / 0) (#73)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 08:44:19 PM EST

    Is governor Cuomo a nobody?

    Is senator Feinstein a nobody?



    They have merely proposed ... (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 08:54:32 PM EST
    ... prohibition of the public sale and possession of certain specific classes of military-style assault weapons. That's a far cry from confiscation of all guns and the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. So, untwist your undershorts, and stop being so hysterical.

    That and more (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:24:02 AM EST


    Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.



    "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren'there


    You may have a point if they only want to confiscate one class of firearms at a time.


    "At a time" - heh (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 06:49:29 AM EST
    Love the (delusional) implication that they would be confiscating all firearms, just one class at a time - as opposed to what they actually were talking about, which was assault weapons.

    Baseless, delusional and paranoid ... but as the NRA and the gun manufacturers know, it brings in the $$$!


    But the point remains (none / 0) (#82)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 11:55:09 AM EST

    The idea that nobody is talking about confiscation is clearly delusional.

    BTW, the definition of "assault weapons" is fairly elastic and depending on which bill you read covers covers many firearms not in common military use.  

    For some, any firearm that can accept a detachable magazine of greater than 7 rounds is an "assault weapon."



    The "point" is a fairy tale (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:07:02 PM EST
    No one is talking about "confiscating guns" - as in all guns, which is precisely what you were suggesting ("You may have a point if they only want to confiscate one class of firearms at a time.").

    What they're talking about is confiscation of one class of firearms - assault weapons.  Everything else is simply more NRA/gun manufacturer paranoia.  Whatever it takes to bring in the $$$ ...

    BTW - No idea what "some" people consider an assault weapon - or who you're talking about - but "some" people think they should be able to own any type of weapon they want (machine guns, armor piercing ammunition, grenades, missiles, nuclear weapons, etc.).

    Frankly, "some" people are nuts.


    Because you say so doesn't make it so. (2.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Prime on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 07:09:37 PM EST
    Anyone who was paying attention knows that in 1993 gun control advocates went all in, led by the President and the Attorney General saying that incremental gun control legislation would eventually outlaw all guns.  Diane Feinstein spelled it right out, but Chuck Schumer was a little more metaphorical, going on about relentlessly hammering guns and whatnot.  The current vice president said "banning guns is an idea whose time has come".  So...yeah.  

    Give it twenty years and ask an abortion rights advocate whether they trust a social conservative to not secretly plot to ban abortion.  Or you could just take my word for it- it wouldn't matter if no one at all were talking about confiscation.  The fact that there are people talking about confiscation makes the patronizing claim all the more ridiculous, no matter how many times it's repeated.  


    So ... no (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 08:47:46 PM EST
    I absolutely agree - just because you say it doesn't make it so.

    I was paying attention in 1993, which is precisely how I know your claims are complete BS.  The President and AG absolutely did not say that "incremental gun control legislation would eventually outlaw all guns."  Diane Feinstein did not "spell it right out" - nor did Schumer.  As for your claim about Biden, it's a one sentence quote that's only posted on wingnut blogs.  There's no way to know if he actually said it or what he was referring to when he did, although the quote allegedly came at a time that the Federal AWB was being proposed.

    Links - to actual sources/news stories - or these claims are utter BS.


    Just found your "quotes" (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 09:08:52 PM EST
    Surprise, surprise ... they're bogus.

    The quote you claim is from Biden ("The current vice president said "banning guns is an idea whose time has come") is only found on wingnut/gun sites and attributes it to remarks he gave on Nov. 18th, 1993.  What Biden actually said on Nov. 18th, 1993 were remarks about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban being debated at that time:

    But Senate supporters of the measure said they would apply whatever pressures they can muster on the House and called on constituents to write and call their representatives. "The House better understand the power of an idea whose time has come," said Senator Joseph R. Biden, the Delaware Democrat who heads the Judiciary Committee. "It still will be an uphill fight in the House, but I think the wave is moving."


    The Reno non-quote is also bogus.  An oft-repeated claim on the gun sites, the quote falsely attributed to Janet Reno is:

    "The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace."

    As always, just another wingnut myth.



    LOL!! (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by shoephone on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 09:25:29 PM EST
    Name one conservative politician who would feel the need to secretly ban abortion. They've been trying to ban it blatantly for 40 years. They're trying as we speak.

    That was good for a laugh.


    I suggested no such thing (none / 0) (#87)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 01:38:00 PM EST

    The definition of an "assault weapon" in Feinstein's latest bill covers more firearms than were so defined in the expired assault weapons ban.  Ditto goes for Dem introduced in state legislatures. It is just silly to talk about limiting confiscation only to assault weapons when the definition of an assault weapon can change at political whim.  



    Yes, you did (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Yman on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:04:02 PM EST
    You claimed Cuomo and Feinstein were speaking of confiscating guns, then suggested they were attempting to confiscate one class of firearm at a time.

    You may have a point if they only want to confiscate one class of firearms at a time.

    It's complete BS.  Cuomo and Feinstein were contemplating the confiscation/buy-back of assault weapons, as defined by the bills they were discussing.  The definition of the terms of any statute can be changed.  By your logic, it's "just silly" to have any laws, because the definitions in those laws can be changed "at political whim".

    Of course, in reality, no one is talking about confiscating all firearms, and there aren't even any bills to confiscate assault weapons.


    Right (none / 0) (#97)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 01:06:05 AM EST
    They and others at the state level have been talking about confiscation.  

    Here is an "assault weapon" that would have been subject to confiscation in a bill submitted to the Minnesota legislature this year by a Dem.

    It is dishonest to claim these bills/plans apply only to "assault weapons" when that term has no commonly understood meaning, and has no common meaning among the various bills and laws.. The only common meaning is stuff we want to ban/confiscate.



    You'll need to try again (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:10:44 AM EST
    Your link goes to Google images page of "Broom handle Mausers".

    But back to the larger point - it's entirely fair to claim these bills apply only to assault weapons, because that's a fact.  The definition of "assault weapon" varies by jurisdiction (as do most laws), but it doesn't change that fact, nor does it change the fact that these politicians were not proposing a ban/confiscation of all guns - just assault weapons.  In fact, seven states and 17 local jurisdictions have their own assault weapons bans - none have banned or confiscated all firearms.

    Guess they're just smart enough to distinguish between assault weapons and "stuff we want to ban/confiscate".


    Oh, I see (none / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 07:25:08 AM EST
    You posting a picture of a specific gun intentionally.  Not really sure why ...

    What would have been helpful is a copy of the bill itself, particularly since you often make claims that are hyperbole or just flat-out false.


    What is common (none / 0) (#100)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 01:21:28 PM EST

    Your point seems to be that the second amendment does not protect any particular firearm when that firearm is legislatively classified as a ab assault weapon.

    The HF241 bill in Minnesota classed the 1896 boomhandle Mauser as an assault weapon with this clause.

    (2) semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a  fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than seven rounds of ammunition;

    The Mauser has a 10 round fixed internal magazine.  It would also be banned because the protruding magazine can be gripped with the non-trigger hand.

    HF243 effectively  bans virtually every modern semiautomatic weapon by banning magazines of greater than seven rounds, as for most autoloaders there are no mags smaller than 10 available.



    The Horror... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 03:14:30 PM EST
    ...of only having 10 million guns you can purchase legally...  Will someone please get AA a fating couch.

    It must take in infinite amount of time to find these scraps of non-sense to make the absurd points you try to make.  But I guess a zillion gun stroking idiots don't have anything better to do.

    This particular gun, a collectors item, does not fall anywhere into your normal nonsensical BS as to why people need guns.  IOW it's not used for personal safety.

    Wanting to collect something is not reason enough to make it legal, or even argue that is why it should be legal, which of course is the only purpose of the gun you used as your shinning example.

    If you clowns spent 1/100th of the energy you spend on completely ridiculous examples and what if's, trying to find some common and sensible ground, there would be a hell of a lot more people not dead from guns.


    Is that what it "appears" to be? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    No - my point is the paranoid fantasies of gun confiscation fed by the NRA and gun manufacturers and stoked by those who completely mischaracterize and/or misstate what gun control advocates are actually proposing are just fairy tales.

    As for your interpretation of what guns are "effectively" banned by a dead bill, which includes "virtually every modern semiautomatic weapon" - I'll pass ... particularly given your mischaracterization of Feinstein and Cuomo's proposals.

    Not to mention it wouldn't apply to any of my modern, semiautomatic weapons.


    There is no doubt. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 04:57:32 PM EST

    There is no doubt that legislation has been initiated to confiscate a large fraction of firearms.

    So the idea that nobody is talking confiscation is nonsense.  

    The fact that particular piece of legislation is stalled does nothing to disguise the confiscatory intent of the Democrat that authored it.


    There is also no doubt (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Wed Jul 31, 2013 at 09:34:02 PM EST
    ... that, when the best someone can do is point to their own interpretation of what they think a proposed piece of legislation as evidence of gun confiscation, they're just pushing more NRA/gun manufacturer myths.

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 09:31:40 PM EST
    Then again, they're not advocating gun confiscation.

    It had to do with the conservative comment. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Visteo1 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:57:54 PM EST
    I have broad definition for the term liberal.  To me it means a belief that the government has a duty to improve society.

    The gun debate, whether for something or against, is a liberal debate.  It has everything to do with the government deciding what is best for society.



    "Government" isn't deciding anything. (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 08:47:28 PM EST
    If government is ostensibly "We, the people," then why is the interest of protecting people from the mayhem of irresponsible gunplay considered a bad thing?

    Again, nobody's talking about confiscation of anyone's guns. But in the face of 30,000-plus deaths annually in this country due to firearms violence, both accidental and on purpose, we have every right to demand that gun owners assume some sense of personal responsibility for maintaining control of their firearms at all times.

    In my opinion, leaving a firearm in an unsecured place where a minor child can easily obtain access to it, and failing to report that a firearm has been either lost or stolen, should be considered felony violations of the law. The notion that no adult should be held legally responsible and / or liable if a five-year-old picks up an unsecured weapon and shoots a sibling or playmate is absurd on its face.



    Visteo1, surely you're exaggerating; (none / 0) (#65)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 07:12:47 PM EST
    Everybody knows the average Detroit P.D. response time, for serious crime, is only 58 minutes.

    You can run away for 58 minutes, right?  Can't everyone?  Maybe some of the local gun haters can run interference for you.  Any volunteers?

    FWIW, I live just north of ann arbor.  There's not much to be afraid of here.  But for whatever reason, the CCW permits approved by our township police department have jumped through the roof.


    You are correct (3.50 / 2) (#17)
    by txantimedia on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    It's a shame you are forced to go to conservative websites to make your 'progressive' points about gun control.
    It is a shame, because progressives claim to be for individual rights, yet in the most important one of all, they are completely opposed to it.

    I wonder if any progressive has ever thought through what it means to restrict the ownership of firearms to official government personnel only?

    In Colorado they passed a law that restricts the number of cartridges that a magazine can hold.  Government research shows that this is an ineffective measure, hence Jeralyn's use of the term "feel good measures".

    They also banned "assault weapons", another measure that research has shown will do very little to stop crime.  More people die annually from hammers than from "assault weapons".  Yet there's no effort underway to ban hammers, and most people would consider that to be a ridiculous suggestion.


    More false "facts" (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:59:02 PM EST
    In Colorado they passed a law that restricts the number of cartridges that a magazine can hold.  Government research shows that this is an ineffective measure, hence Jeralyn's use of the term "feel good measures".

    Your link is to a flyer put out by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.  It cites a study by the CDC - "First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws".   The flyer not support this claim, and the study certainly doesn't.  What the study actually says is that there isn't enough good data on the subject to make a conclusion one way or the other:

    The Task Force's review of firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine whether the laws reviewed reduce (or increase) specific violent outcomes (Table). Much existing research suffers from problems with data, analytic methods, or both. Further high-quality research is required to establish the relationship between firearms laws and violent outcomes. Potential areas for further investigation will be discussed in detail in an upcoming article in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

    Here's a big reason why there's not enough research on such an important issue - NRA, Congress stymied CDC gun research budget.

    The "hammers" claim is also bogus.  The figures you cite compare all blunt objects (not "hammers") to rifles, ignoring the 1,700+ deaths from unknown firearm types.  It also ignores the fact that hammers have far more utility and economic value than assault weapons.  Not to mention the fact that assault weapon bans are aimed not at murders in general, but at mass shootings - where assault weapons/high capacity magazines are weapons of choice.


    So where, on this site, is anyone (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:00:27 PM EST
    advocating for a ban on gun ownership?  Where has it been suggested that gun ownership should be restricted to official government personnel?

    Answer: nowhere.  Not here.  So you might try reading what it is people are actually saying here before you go labeling them as being in favor of the things you cited.

    As has been pointed out more times than I care to count, having a constitutional right to something does not obviate regulation.  

    I'm well aware that there are plenty of responsible gun-owners; I know more than a few of them myself, so this isn't an abstract concept for me.  But it's like anything else, in that we don't hear about the responsible ones, just the irresponsible.  We're never going to hear a report on the nightly news that, "today, millions of people carried or operated their guns safely, without incident."

    No, we're going to hear about the loony-toons who let their guns talk for them, who "forget" they were loaded, who leave them within reach of children, who commit crimes with them, who have mental problems.  Guns are never going to make anyone smarter, and the illusion that they do is what gets a lot of people killed or injured.

    This country is awash in guns.  I read somewhere - can't remember where I saw it - that there are something like 88 guns for every 100 people in this country, which works out to over 250 million guns.  Right to own notwithstanding, that's just crazy.  

    I respect the right to own a gun, but I sure wish my right to conduct my daily business, reasonably free of fear of being shot by some hot-headed doofus who carries a gun in lieu of walking around with his junk out for everyone to see, garnered the same respect.


    ... non-military firearms currently registered in this country, or nearly one for every man, woman and child in these United States.

    Further, less than one-third of all U.S. households are gun-owning, which indicates that the numbers of firearms in this country are being increasingly consolidated in the hands of about 30% of the population.

    Thank you for your post. Aloha.


    And the money/$$$$ from the gun sales (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by christinep on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 04:12:14 PM EST
    What never ceases to amaze me is who is pulling the strings, as it were.  So often, it seems to me, that those most strongly opposed to any sort of government intervention or regulation in any area of civilian life & those who fear Big Anything forget about the Big-ness of the Gun Manufacturers.  Big Gun Manufacturers & the Big $$$$ that inevitably accompany the suppliers ... all leading to the Big $$$$ slick ads and appealing-to-our-beginnings (and what-not) history in NRA and other publications ... and, finally, leading to the Big Big $$$$$ in the Gun Manufacturers worldwide pockets. The Koch Bros. look small in comparison. Yep, sure looks like rugged individualism to me. <sn>

    I'm still waiting for the day that the manufacturers can see themselves clear to not set up full opposition to any form of gun regulation?


    What progressive is arguing that gun (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:22:14 PM EST
    ownership should be restricted to official government personnel?

    That is just B.S.  Progressives don't like all the weapons that law enforcement and our military feel they must have either.

    Every year the weaponry gets crazier and crazier.  Progressives would just like the crazy to take a damn break.

    It is all designed to do nothing but kill people.  A rechanneling of some energies into people getting to be alive...you know, healthcare for everyone instead of a cap in the a$$ for everyone, would be nice.


    Been to the Big Orange lately? (none / 0) (#79)
    by AmericanPsycho on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 01:05:24 AM EST
    Plently of people there think gun ownership should be restricted to government 'officials'... and that's not an exaggeration.

    Go ahead (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 02:23:48 PM EST
    Put their online name up here so that we can go look at their comments stating that nobody should own firearms other than official government personnel.  Because I read there all the time and I know of no one making that argument.  I hope you can find more than one person given the size of the place.

    "The most important one of all"? (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:15:32 PM EST
    Sorry, I think there are more amendments that ran much higher in importance than the 2nd.

    The First Amendment.

    The Fourth Amendment.

    The Fourteenth Amendment.

    The Fifth Amendment.

    The Sixth Amendment.

    The Eighth Amendment.

    The Seventh Amendment.

    The Nineteenth Amendment.

    And that's just for starters.


    And that Business... (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 04:01:38 PM EST
    ...in the Declaration of Independence:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    Not sure how one decides what rights are more important, but I gotta say a right endowed by our creator probably trumps most of them.  It certainly should trump fools from flooding the market with machines designed to kill human beings, aka depriving them of their inalienable right to life.

    Of all those people in 3rd world countries, if given the choice of all our American rights, according to txantimedia they would choice to own guns before any of them, because that is our most important right.

    txantimedia is not a serious person, because a serious person would never call the 2A the most important right, a numbskull group bought and paid for by the gun industry would.  Along with it's legions of groupies.


    The 2nd Amendment does, however, rank ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 08:12:29 PM EST
    ... slightly ahead of the 18th Amendment, which instituted the Era of Prohibition.

    But the 21st (none / 0) (#71)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    is way ahead of the 2nd

    the Second Amendment (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    is only one away from the Fourth (the Third being obsolete.0

    And it still includes the words (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:05:48 PM EST
    "well regulated" in the 2nd..

    The sheriffs are a county vs city issue. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by redwolf on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    One of the areas progressives poorly govern on is the fundamental differences between the county side and the urban areas. To the average big city person gun control seems like a good idea.  To the average person living in the country side it's worst idea possible(20-40min police response time in the country side). Not being well armed when you live in a sparse area is asking for gang bangers to drive up and spend the weekend robbing, raping, and murdering your family(I'll post multiple news accounts if you think this doesn't happen).

    Thanks to the greater population of the cities and the supreme courts eliminate the point of state senate seats in the 1960s, the cities have been able to force tyrannical gun control measures on the country side that didn't vote for them, that doesn't want them, and they don't have real representation.

    The failure to respect the differences between big cities and the country side continues to be one most short sighted and tyrannical things progressives do.


    I Would Say... (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:25:02 PM EST
    The failure to respect the differences between big cities and the country side continues to be one most short sighted and tyrannical things conservatives do in regards to gun control.

    It's conservatives who step in when big cities like DC, Milwaukee, and LA decide to restrict guns more than the rural America.

    I agree at some level, their are major difference in the logistics of guns between rural and urban America, if only conservatives(aka the NRA) would stop interfering there wouldn't be an issue with cities enacting stricter gun control where guns are a problem.

    For the record, the odds of being a victim of a violent crime are infinity lower in rural areas, yet they are the ones who seem to believe they need more guns.  Fine with me so long as they stop caring what we do in the city where guns need to be controlled.

    It's rather funny that people who are least likely to be a victim of gun violence want more of them to supposedly protect themselves, while the people most likely to be victims of gun violence, want less of them because they aren't idiots.  They realize the basic principle of less guns = less gun violence no matter what the, bought and paid for by the gun industry, NRA says.

    My parents in rural Wisconsin have never locked their door, even when they go on vacation.  I lock my door here in Houston even when I am home.  Anecdotal, but the point is the same, there are major differences between rural and urban America the should be addressed with different laws, but the gun lobby is not down with it.


    Maybe if women could designate (5.00 / 14) (#3)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 10:21:34 AM EST
    their lady parts as "concealed weapons," we would have a better chance of retaining dominion over them, with the side benefit of being able to get rid of legislators who want to put more and more restrictions on what we can and can't do with them.

    Perhaps a National Reproductive Association - "the other NRA?"

    Yeah, I know this isn't about women, and it isn't about any other rights - I just don't understand the objection to sane and sensible regulation when it comes to guns and gun ownership.  It's clear to me that not everyone is suited for the responsibility of gun ownership.

    If this is going to be the approach - that all attempts to regulate will be met with recall elections and possible secession from the union - then it's time we stopped being surprised and saddened and shocked when people with guns shoot and sometimes kill other human beings, and sometimes they do it 4 or 5 or 20 people at a time.  In Baltimore the other day, a man was shot and killed over laundry, specifically, because he objected to his girlfriend's daughter's friend, who was staying with him and the girlfriend, bringing over all his dirty laundry to wash.

    We may have the right to bear arms, but I think I have the right to go about my daily routine without fear of being shot and killed by some idiot who thinks guns are the best way to communicate with people, and I'm getting pretty damn sick and tired of that right being marginalized out of existence.

    women make up the largest group (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 11:03:11 AM EST
    of those seeking training at the gun range featured in the article. ""Our women's-only classes fill up the fastest," he said."

    How is that relevant to my comment? (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Anne on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    I truly have no idea why you chose to respond to my comment with that little factoid, since it has absolutely nothing to do with the points I was making.

    I mean, it doesn't inspire me to say, "oh, well then, never mind.  Guns good.  The more the better.  Where do I sign up?"


    I agree Anne (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Visteo1 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    on both your comments.  More guns means more deaths by guns.  It means more guns in the hands of people that should not possess and use them, and more guns in the hands of children who play with a gun not properly secured.

    If you have no clear reason for a gun, I applaud you not making a purchase.


    Without further information (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 12:20:25 PM EST
    "women's-only classes fill up the fastest"...
    has no bearing on what makes up the largest group.

    That's a leap before you look conclusion.


    Lady guns may be bad for your man parts (none / 0) (#62)
    by jjr on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 05:59:54 PM EST
    You bet it did !!! And how cute with a pink gun! (none / 0) (#77)
    by gbrbsb on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 10:52:23 PM EST
    It's not clear if the wound will cause him any permanent damage.

    Ouch!!! I reckon the gentleman in question must be at least half way to becoming a transvestite.


    ummm... (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by sj on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 10:43:32 AM EST
    As to for Angie Giron, ...[e]xcept for the gun control issues, her votes have been pretty progressive on social issues
    Pro gun control is the progressive position. She is being consistent.

    to most people (2.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 10:56:29 AM EST
    that is the progressive view, you are correct. Seems backwards to me though. My point was on balance, her other views matter more.

    Your view seems backwards to me (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by giantslor on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    Gun rights is the libertarian view. The progressive view is freedom FROM guns. I want the freedom to go to a bar and know drunk people aren't packing heat. I want the freedom to get into an argument with someone and know he's not going to end the argument with a bullet. I want the freedom from suicides, accidental shootings, and homicides that guns in the household greatly increase. I want to be free from the fear and violence that guns bring, and the only way to do that is to emulate the gun control laws of more progressive nations who have seen gun violence decrease as a result.

    Be careful, as well, at your local Starbucks (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:56:46 PM EST
    Howard Schultz made the decision that he's A-OK with people packing heat -- openly -- inside his coffee stores. And for those of us that don't want to be anywhere near a bunch of nutcase yahoos openly carrying inside a coffee house, well, we will vote with our pocketbooks and go elsewhere. Luckily, in Seattle (headquarters of Starbucks) we have thousands of other choices, and almost all of them are better than Starbucks, which serves a charred product, served by snarly baristas with no skills.

    On the other hand, you'll need to smoke your cigarette at least 25 feet from the doors of Starbucks, or Schultz and the police will be on your butt.

    I personally hate second hand smoke, but I hate second hand bullets even more.


    Exactamente (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Leopold on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:37:43 PM EST
    Gun rights is the libertarian view. The progressive view is freedom FROM guns.

    There is often the failure to distinguish between liberal/progressive and libertarian views here, especially wrt to constitutional rights.


    "The" progressive view? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Mr Natural on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 07:24:38 PM EST
    You figure it out.

    What about Morse's? (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by magster on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 07:53:18 PM EST
    This post reads as an endorsement of the Morse recall, which considering the "totality" argument, requires a statement by you as to where you stand. The Koch brothers are involved in both of these recalls. Considering the Koch brothers' history, ho are you standing with?

    Wrong, I am not (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:51:32 PM EST
    required to respond to anything. Your comments or anyone else's. This is a hobby and I write about what interests me.

    ... arguably the strictest gun laws in the country, which are roughly comparable to those on the books in Switzerland. The sizable majority of guns registered out here in the islands are long guns, i.e., hunting rifles.

    Honestly, I don't feel like any of my rights have been infringed because I:

    • Can't purchase a semi-automatic assault weapon like the Bushmaster SR-15 that was used to deadly effect in Connecticut;
    • Have to undergo a mandatory background check before I can purchase a firearm;
    • Have to make a separate application registration to the City & County of Honolulu for each firearm purchased;
    • Am limited to a finite number of bullets per magazine; or
    • Am precluded from applying for a conceal-carry permit, because the only people out here who can obtain one are those who are either in law enforcement or have a security related job.

    And do you know why I and 90% of my fellow Hawaii residents don't feel put upon?

    Because even though the City & County of Honolulu's population is 976,372 (and over one million, if we include the number of tourists who are on the island of Oahu at any given moment), which makes us the 12th largest municipality in the United States according to the U.S. Census and easily one of its most densely populated, Honolulu has on average 18 homicides per year -- and of that number, I can annually count on one hand the number which are firearms-related, and still have several fingers left over.

    There is a U.S. federal agent with the State Dept.'s Diplomatic Security Service, Christopher Deedy, who's presently on trial in Hawaii Circuit Court for felony second-degree murder with a firearm, which makes it an aggravating circumstance subject to enhanced penalties. I would further note that this was the only firearms-related homicide committed in the entire State of Hawaii for all of 2011.

    Compare that to nationwide statistics (per the U.S. Center for Disease Control) for that same year, in which there were 12,664 murders in the United States, of which 8,583 were caused by firearms. Hawaii's firearms murder rate for 2011 was 0.07 per 100,000 population, whereas the rate for the country as a whole was 2.75 per 100,000 -- or some 39 times greater.

    (This is why I don't like the CBS police drama Hawaii Five-O, with its gratuitous misrepresentation of gunplay out here. And FYI, Colorado's murder by firearms rate is 1.51 per 100,000. In neighboring Kansas, it's 2.78. The deadliest state per capita is Louisiana, with a horrific murder by firearms rate of 10.16 per 100,000.)

    I see absolutely nothing at all admirable about what's going on in Colorado in reaction to the recent amendments to that state's gun laws. Given what happened last year in Aurora, I believe that these are common sense and actually quite modest measures.

    Further, given the statistics on firearms violence from the CDC which I've often cited here during these discussions, I find it patently insane from a sociological standpoint that Colorado and other states would continue to support firearms policies which allow emotionally or mentally unstable people to purchase or otherwise obtain advanced personal weaponry, and which enable others to shoot acquaintances or family members in the heat of an angry moment.

    A primary responsibility of government is to provide for the public safety, and frankly, such policies do anything but, save for the gross indulgence of a minority's fantasy about public safety and gunplay, offered up at the majority's ultimate expense.

    Hawaii has shown that it really doesn't have to be this way, that one can indeed respect people's basic Second Amendment rights and still meet one's public safety responsibilities. I'd like to believe that we as a nation deserve far, far better than this perpetual kabuki from local, state and federal public officials, dancing in virtual lockstep with the NRA's chorus line in a theatre for the absurd.


    I'm movin to Hawaii (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Visteo1 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:18:25 PM EST
    I'm guessing it is not too easy to smuggle illegal guns into Hawaii.  Here on the mainland, all you have to do is drive across the state line.  I envy you.

    Admittedly, geography is our friend. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:37:17 PM EST
    But also, we have strict firearms laws on the books, and we're not at all shy about enforcing them against miscreants and yahoos who think they know better.

    It's ironic that the people who generally run afoul of those laws tend to be those outsiders like unfortunate Chris Deedy, who swallow hook, line and sinker the right-wing tripe about locals' hatred for white people. (See scribe's comment above).

    I'd have to research the subject further, but I'd bet that historically, most murders by firearms in Hawaii have been committed by transients or temporary residents who are not from here.



    "Locals hatred of white people" (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 04:51:11 PM EST
    That is a bunch of.....I have never had more people turn down tips than in Hawaii....

    Bravo! (none / 0) (#24)
    by Angel on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:55:43 PM EST
    Yes, and there are also lots of areas (none / 0) (#26)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    in Hawaii - Honolulu in particular - which are no-go for tourists and non-residents because of the high street crime and violence against outsiders perpetrated there.

    I'm not suggesting anything other than the idea that the Islands are some halcyon realm of peace and kumbayah because of the relative lack of guns, is a fantasy.  In Hawaii, you might not get killed with a gun, but you might get your skull caved with a ball bat, pipe, or stick and wind up just as dead.

    Sadly, violence is a part of the human condition.


    Uh, no. We do not have ... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:05:47 PM EST
    ... "high street crime and violence against outsiders perpetrated [here]."

    I don't know where you got your information, but with regards to violent crime (murders, assaults, etc.), Honolulu is the safest big city (pop. more than 500,000) in the United States.



    Donald... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:39:43 PM EST
    ...not to detract from your point, but come on, it's a tourist designation and it's isolated, making the transportation of firearms a task not easily done and control of them much easier.  They can get their by boat or maybe the mail, so they have never been an issue even before regulation.

    That isolation from not only smugglers, but criminals in general is a huge bonus, and combined with the tourism factor and it's really hard to equate Hawaii with any other state.

    I wish we could all be like Hawaii in terms of gun regulation (and weather) but you guys have a real luxury that no other state has, isolation and until air travel was available it was a 2500 mile boat ride, which is completely different than riding a horse across an abstract line (state and country borders).  Comparing it to everyone else in some aspects is a little misleading.

    You simply don't have the issues the rest of the states have that lead up to this ridiculous amounts of guns and the violence they bring.


    Like I said earlier, geography is our friend. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:11:42 PM EST
    Further, we do not have the overt racial and ethnic hostility that often beleaguers the rest of the country, and I think that plays a big part of it, too.

    But that said, Honolulu is still a big city that's part of the country, we have many of the same urban problems as other cities of comparable size, and we're not necessarily immune to what happens elsewhere. There have been persistent attempts by the NRA to weaken Hawaii's gun laws, and their attorneys have not been shy about using the federal government to do an end run around them. Fortunately, most of those laws remain intact.

    We actually have a lot to offer the country out here besides the weather (the presently approaching Tropical Storm Flossie excepted) in terms of progressive laws and legislation. And I think it's very unfortunate that people seem to think that Hawaii is either an exception, or shouldn't be taken seriously or doesn't count, because we're a so-called "tourist's paradise."

    As an example, I've always found it ironic that so many people would tout Massachusetts health care law as the model legislation for the rest of the country, when in fact that commonwealth's 2006 reform effort was based primarily upon the Hawaii Pre-Paid Health Care Act of 1975. And frankly, we're still doing it better out here, given that our Medicaid rates per capita are less than half those in the Bay State.

    I'm certainly not going to contend that we are perfect or have all the answers, but from a sociological perspective, there's an awful lot that people across the U.S.A. can learn from Hawaii about empathy and cooperation and getting along with others, if only they'd pull their heads out of the sand. (Pun intended.)



    The State of Hawaii (none / 0) (#43)
    by txantimedia on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    according to 2011 FBI crime statistics is not the safest state in the US.  The violent crime rate per 100,000 people is higher than Puerto Rico, Mississippi, Virginia and Kentucky, for example (and there are several others as well.)

    Donald said Honolulu is the safest city (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:13:43 PM EST
    not that Hawaii is the safest state.

    We're still well below the national average. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:31:05 PM EST
    And all four of those entities you cited have murder rates which are anywhere from three to more than 20 times in excess of that in Hawaii. Our major problem out here is property crime, not violence committed against persons.

    But, Donald, when all is said and done, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    wouldn't you really rather live in Kentucky???

    Kentucky is a beautiful place. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    I don't want to offend any TLers with ties to the Bluegrass State. Suffice to say that there's a good reason why I choose to live where I do.

    ... which compelled the aforementioned Christopher Deedy to pack heat while out on the town drinking with friends, after he heard his boss repeat the same exact nonsense.

    Like other major urban communities, we are certainly not without our problems in Honolulu. But violent crime -- whether against non-residents or otherwise -- is not one of them. Yes, it does happen occasionally, but such instances are thankfully rare.



    Murder rate - Hawaii 2011 (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:23:56 PM EST
    Including all murders, Hawaii had the lowest rate of all 50 states (1.2).  Just over 1/10th that of the highest state - Louisiana (11.2).

    And your chance of (1.50 / 2) (#44)
    by txantimedia on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:05:35 PM EST
    being robbed or raped is much higher than some other states.  Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:26:15 PM EST
    The post I was responding to claimed:

    In Hawaii, you might not get killed with a gun, but you might get your skull caved with a ball bat, pipe, or stick and wind up just as dead.

    Of course, you might get killed anywhere by any number of means, but Hawaii (with its strict gun control laws) has the lowest murder rate of any state.

    Not to mention that most people would prefer to be robbed rather than murdered.


    I would prefer to be (none / 0) (#52)
    by txantimedia on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 03:47:46 PM EST

    Me, too (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    But comparing murder rates to robbery/assault/etc. belies your "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" argument.

    I'd also prefer not to be one of the 11,000+ victims of firearm homicide or 70,000+ injured every year, but we usually don't get to choose.


    There's no country with zero crime (none / 0) (#55)
    by shoephone on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 04:02:40 PM EST
    Singapore comes closest, but you still might get pick-pocketed at the airport.

    Nope. Not 6 to one, and half a dozen to the (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by gbrbsb on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 08:37:09 PM EST
    other in my books at least

    I'd rather be raped 6 or half a dozen times than shot dead.
    I'd rather be robbed 6 or half a dozen times than shot dead.

    Dead is dead, you don't get over that. With all the counselling in the the world you can't put dead behind you because you are behind it. You know, "Bang bang, he shot me down..."  etc.

    Just my opinion!


    guns vs. clubs (none / 0) (#34)
    by giantslor on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 02:15:38 PM EST
    Your chance of surviving a club attack is much greater than your chance of surviving a gun attack. Also, a gun allows anyone to kill someone from distance easily, whereas killing someone with a club requires effort and dexterity at close range.

    Just to be clear, are you supporting the recall... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by magster on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 06:58:10 PM EST
    ... of Morse, Jeralyn?

    Because it sure sounds like it.... (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by magster on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 07:42:45 PM EST
    and Koch Brothers that have spread so much joy in so many other states are investing in these recalls.

    This recall may have started about guns, but now it's about power. It may have started as grassroots, but it's got tea party written all over it now.

    I can understand that this site does not agree with gun control, but the balance of power in Colorado is being placed in jeopardy by these recalls, which Democratic control in CO has produced renewable energy reform, expansion of voting rights, and has been the opposite of the crap we've seen in NC, WI, OH, PA and elsewhere. Why else would the Koch brothers be involved? If this site is truly a liberal site, then pretending that Morse recall is OK requires a redefinition of what this site's mission is.


    I clearly said I don't like his response (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:40:45 AM EST
    in which he recommended ignoring and not reading emails from constituents. That kind of attitude is  unacceptable to me and I could see voting for his recall just for that. I would not recall him for his views on guns, even though I oppose his views. I would not support a recall of Giron because she's good on other issues that are more important to me.

    As for the Sheriff's, I can only speak to knowing two, who I have praised many times on this site and supported their re-election and election (one succeeded the other.) They are the Sheriffs for the Aspen (Pitkin County.) I saw both last month. I asked the current Sheriff, Joe DiSalvo what the thought of the Sheriffs opposing the gun laws and suing, and he thought it was ridiculous. He supports gun control. It hasn't changed my opinion of him in the least. He and his  predecessor, Bob Braudis, are the two most enlightened law enforcement officers around. Just go here for  Braudis or here forDiSalvo and you'll see why I like them so much. Braudis I've know for 20 years or more and DiSalvo I first met in the early 90's when he was one of the deputy sherriffs in a case against my client. He was honorable then and I have talked to him a lot since his decision to to run for  Sheriff when Bob retired, and since he's been elected.  He just gets better and better. Aspen, you may recall, is the county that won't let DEA use undercover agents in town and insists they be notified if DEA is coming to do a bust. DEA hates that because they don't like Broadis' or DiSalvo's views on drugs. Anyway, my point was I can like someone with a different point of view, on guns, but i don't respect those whose views are nothing more than Hoplophobia (look it up.)


    No, there is little if any chance of coincidence (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 01:48:15 PM EST
    You may or may not believe gun control is necessary.  That doesn't matter for the purposes of the discussion.

    Please accept in advance my apologies for a lengthy comment.

    The fact of the matter is, when gun control is proposed (over the last year, starting with the man in Aurora whose name I currently forget and the shootings in Connecticut), or even feared by gun owners (beginning with the election of Obama in 2008), a couple things happen.

    1.  The shelves empty.  Guns and ammunition sell out and stay sold out.  The prices for what remains goes up and stays up.  
    For example, for about 6 months beginning the day after the Connecticut shootings, 5.56 mm/.223 Remington ammunition - the kind used in AR-15 type guns was essentially unobtainable at retail and, when it could be bought, sales were limited.  Beginning about the same time and continuing through the present, 9mm ammunition - one of the most popular pistol cartridges - and .22 LR rimfire ammunition (yes, .22) have been effectively unobtainable and not on the shelf.  What little comes in sells out the same day.
    The same obtained for several months regarding pistols and semi-automatic rifles built along the lines of the AR-15.  Or just about anything else.  The shortages seem to have abated, but some manufacturers have multi-year backlogs of orders.
    This also happened in 2008 starting when it became clear Obama would be elected.  By way of reference, the box of shotgun shells that might have sold  for $4.99 in 2008 now sells for $7.99 or $8.99, when available.  New guns that sold for $300 now sell for twice that.


    2.  People do rush to get the permits before the law changes.  This is for several reasons.
    First, some people are going to (want to) get the permits anyway.  To the extent they haven't already gotten on it, they decide "no time like the present".
    Second, some people figure having the permit will help them in the event of the legal changes going through.  For example, holders of concealed-carry permits generally (it varies from state to state) have broader rights when it comes to having a gun with them - in the car, while hunting or shooting, whatever.  There are lots and lots of technicalities and twists in the law (designed to snare the unwary, don't kid yourself) that holding a concealed-carry permit allows the holder to elide.  These folks want to capture and hold these rights before the perceived changes in law make it harder to get the permit.
    For example, in my state, which has vast rural areas where no one lives within miles, one is not allowed to have a loaded firearm in a vehicle while hunting in one of those rural areas.  Holding a concealed-carry permit allows one to have the loaded firearm in the vehicle.  (It does not, BTW, allow one to hunt from the vehicle.  You still have to get out before shooting.)  Similarly, many hunters will carry a .22 handgun while hunting big game, on the chance they encounter some suitable small game (that would be wrecked by shooting with the deer rifle) or choose to dispatch a wounded big game animal with the lighter gun that won't ruin as much meat.  Of course, if it's cold out and you're wearing a hip holster, your coat might cover (i.e., conceal) some or all of the .22 handgun, such that a quota-hungry warden or cop would feel justified in running you in on the relatively-serious charge of carrying a concealed handgun w/o a permit.  Having a concealed-carry permit eliminates that problem, too.
    This has nothing to do with taking a gun into a bar.  For the most part, concealed-carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding people you'll meet and very conscientious.  They understand what they're doing and have taken training.

    Third, there are the people who fear for their safety and figure getting a permit now, rather than after the law changes, is the better idea.  In my state, one of the biggest demographics for people seeking handgun training and concealed-carry permits has been "pharmacists and their families".  The reason - a long-running rash of pharmacy and pharmacist robberies (some violent) by people seeking oxycontin and similar dope.
    Fourth, there are people making a statement to politicians.

    3.  Gun owners get active, too.  That's what appears to have happened with these three plumbers.
    FWIW, I think a "backflow specialist" is either the guy who puts a toilet in your basement where a "backflow preventer" keeps things going up and out, when they'd rather be coming back down.  That, or he cleans out clogs and has adopted a fancy name.

    Finally, I think the best synopsis of Jeralyn's position is that any policies which increase the liberties of individuals and limit the powers of government are the ones she favors.  She has, in the past, repeatedly stated that she favors less gun control - even though she does not own (or even want) one - because giving up individual liberties to the government is never a good idea.  (In so many words - she'll correct me if I'm wrong)  She has also repeatedly stated that she is against the anger, fear and rage which, too often, feed or facilitate someone resorting to a firearm (or other modality of inflicting violence) to settle the dispute.  

    Frankly, seeking to take away guns from individuals (and thereby leave the government with the only acess to them) is contrary to the ordinary progressive position that more liberties for individuals and less power to government is the way to go.

    Of course, Colorado Senate President Morse invited this recall - he was more than arrogant and rammed the bills through, his way or the highway.  The other recall target must have chapped enough people over something.  I hope both of them lose their recalls - it's as much a message being sent as anything else.

    I thought the progressive position (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 05:08:13 PM EST
    was to work toward and promote truly representative democracy, and not to dogmatically adhere to the never-the-twain-shall-meet right-wing dogma that labels any regulatory attempts to bring some order to chaos an oppressive attack on "indivual liberty".  

    You thought wrong, (none / 0) (#64)
    by scribe on Mon Jul 29, 2013 at 07:00:54 PM EST
    No (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by giantslor on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    jondee thought right.

    I forgot to add: (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 03:28:43 PM EST
    we're working toward establishing representative democracy AND toward marginalizing unbalanced types who think the sane regulation of firearms is the first step toward North Korean totalitarian dictatorship.

    Hawaii is a tourist island full of military bases (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Jul 30, 2013 at 04:28:36 PM EST
    How can you seriously compare it to a mainland city?

    I'm not convinced any politician wants to do anything effective about any good wedge issue, not when symbolic gestures work so well at getting them reelected.

    I live in Calif, so nobody normal can get a concealed permit. End result lots of illegally carried weapons, where people decide they would rather deal with the legal aftermath of having a weapon and using it if needed than not to have one.

    Maybe I am wrong but I think the training that goes along with getting a permit and making these people legal would be a net gain in safety.