Poll: Gun Legislation

Maybe the answers you seek STDS are in the results of your poll.
Many just find it a waste of time to argue.
(as a matter of fact, I will join that group)

"Common Sense" reasons against mandatory background checks?

1) Expense of doing it.
2) And very little crime prevention versus a lot of hoops for people to deal with.

Dog,
You showed the mandatory background check bill and it is so full of holes I am surprised you want it passed. And it doesn't look like it would have prevented any of the more newsworthy shootings.

There is a big difference between wanting to pass something "for the children" and actually creating good, effective laws that will be enforced.

"Common Sense" reasons against mandatory background checks?

etc...



IMO these bills are nothing more than 'feel good' legislation to make it appear that they have 'done something' 'for the children', while actually doing nothing except creating more hassles for the law abiding citizen.

It is like the whole TSA circus. Millions of people having to go through crap daily at the airport and who knows if it had actually done anygood. Billions spent.

Canada about a decade ago started a unpopular gun registration scheme that costed hundreds of millions more than initially estimated and found little evidence it reduced crime and eventually they just ended the program.

jf1acai wrote:

"Common Sense" reasons against mandatory background checks?

etc...



IMO these bills are nothing more than 'feel good' legislation to make it appear that they have 'done something' 'for the children', while actually doing nothing except creating more hassles for the law abiding citizen.

Yet we read stories like this in today's Denver news feed.....

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/ca ... fety-plans

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/lo ... -lawmakers

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/lo ... abuse-case

Now.....who is protecting the children?

frogger wrote: Maybe the answers you seek STDS are in the results of your poll.
Many just find it a waste of time to argue.
(as a matter of fact, I will join that group)

I am not asking for argument, merely asking that you articulate your opposition to the proposed legislation. If you are unable to do so, then fine, I will take it that you have no factual basis for your opposition. As to the poll, I think it is highly helpful to understand why individuals take their position on issues. It helps both sides to understand the issues and come to a resolution. It also helps to correct any mistakes in assumptions on either side.

If you choose not to participate, then that is your right. I would ask that you take your off topic remarks to Bob's World or start your own thread on your off-topic issues as they add nothing to the dialogue here.

Laws have NEVER been about "preventing" or "stopping" something from happening. Criminals are criminals, and those that will break the law will break the law. (Otherwise, why would law enforcement keep handing out speeding tickets...)

The laws are about giving Law Enforcement the power to nail you in court, make the fines stiffer, the prison-time longer, the penalties more severe if you break them... There is NO law that would have prevented Sandy Hook, or any number of other massacres. (The background checks, WOULD, as a matter of fact, stopped Jared Lee Loughner from getting the arsenal he got and used to shoot Gabby Giffords.) Would he have just turned to another source and gotten his guns illegally? Maybe...But we don't know that.

But you knew that.

I totally don't give a flying fig if some think they are a waste of time, that they don't "do anything"... I want to see laws that say if you use a magazine with more than 10 rounds in it to commit a crime, we're going to add 20 years to your sentence...MANDATORY. You use a weapon that you've acquired illegally to commit a crime, we're going to add 20 years to your sentence...MANDATORY. You sell a weapon to someone else who shouldn't have one, (i.e., gun-trafficking, or sales to someone who is trying to get around the background checks), we're going to add 20 years to your sentence...MANDATORY.

Simple... You don't think it will make a difference?.........I don't care.

frogger wrote: (as a matter of fact, I will join that group)

Since you've joined that group, why don't you scamper back to Bob's Echo Chamber where you don't have to think.

LadyJazzer wrote: Laws have NEVER been about "preventing" or "stopping" something from happening. Criminals are criminals, and those that will break the law will break the law. (Otherwise, why would law enforcement keep handing out speeding tickets...)

The laws are about giving Law Enforcement the power to nail you in court, make the fines stiffer, the prison-time longer, the penalties more severe if you break them... There is NO law that would have prevented Sandy Hook, or any number of other massacres. (The background checks, WOULD, as a matter of fact, stopped Jared Lee Loughner from getting the arsenal he got and used to shoot Gabby Giffords.) Would he have just turned to another source and gotten his guns illegally? Maybe...But we don't know that.

But you knew that.

I totally don't give a flying fig if some think they are a waste of time, that they don't "do anything"... I want to see laws that say if you use a magazine with more than 10 rounds in it to commit a crime, we're going to add 20 years to your sentence...MANDATORY. You use a weapon that you've acquired illegally to commit a crime, we're going to add 20 years to your sentence...MANDATORY. You sell a weapon to someone else who shouldn't have one, (i.e., gun-trafficking, or sales to someone who is trying to get around the background checks), we're going to add 20 years to your sentence...MANDATORY.

Simple... You don't think it will make a difference?.........I don't care.

Big Brother & LJ together again.

All these extra years are really going to deter suicidal people like that leftist Dormer.

FredHayek wrote: "Common Sense" reasons against mandatory background checks?

1) Expense of doing it.
2) And very little crime prevention versus a lot of hoops for people to deal with.

Dog,
You showed the mandatory background check bill and it is so full of holes I am surprised you want it passed. And it doesn't look like it would have prevented any of the more newsworthy shootings.

There is a big difference between wanting to pass something "for the children" and actually creating good, effective laws that will be enforced.

Actually I disagree on both reasons. The cost would be about $10 for the background check which is currently being subsidized by the taxpayer and no more than $10 for the services of the licensed firearm dealer to do the check. $20 is not that great of expense compared to the expense of the firearm and ammunition. That is, what less than a box of ammo in most cases. For the occasional purchaser, that is no exorbitant. For the bulk buyer, then that is a cost of doing business. In regard to the crime prevention, I again disagree. Presently, most of those who can not purchase firearms from a licensed dealer in regard to background checks can simply go to private sales, such as frequently offered here and on Pinecam. Drying up the source will go a great deal towards preventing them acquiring firearms. Of course, some will claim that it is easy to go to to the black market. However, this legislation also creates obstacles for that avenue as well. The liability issue will make black marketeers think twice about that. Then there is the "stolen" gun market. Gun owners will have a great incentive to monitor their firearms and quickly report their loss to authorities to cut off that liability. That will reduce that avenue as well.


This legislation along with additional mechanisms for getting mental health issues of those who might pose a danger to others may have likely prevented James Holmes from acquiring this weapons that murdered those innocents in Aurora.

I appreciate your articulating actual reasons, but respectfully disagree with them for the above reasons.

Here's your NEW reality....Deal with it....

Concealed Weapons Ban On College Campuses Bill Passes Colorado House Committee

Universal Background Checks For Private Gun Sales Bill Passes Colorado House Committee

HP-1224: CONCERNING PROHIBITING LARGE-CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES.

Oh, and NM is getting in on the act:

New Mexico House Votes To Close Gun Show Loophole


Hopefully, Colorado will add the Gun-Show Loophole to it's arsenal as well...(Although the "Universal Background Checks" probably deals with that sufficiently.