Quantcast
Flawed numbers in Colorado gun law - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > General Gun Discussions

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 25, 2014, 08:50 AM   #1
Huskerguy
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 9, 2012
Location: Central Kansas
Posts: 161
Flawed numbers in Colorado gun law

Not sure if this has been posted here or not. The state of Colorado made some bold estimates that are not even close to reality and it is costing tax payers a bunch of coin. Of course, there is the usual spin. I don't understand why people can't just say if something works or doesn't work and be honest about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-gu...070030733.html
Huskerguy is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 09:02 AM   #2
gunnutery
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 30, 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,674
Yes, the usual spin. Those that passed the law and allocated the money can claim it's working while those that oppose the law will claim the law was too hasty and ambitious based on flawed info.

Meanwhile thugs haven't changed their habits or stealing/buying practices since they didn't care about the law before or after it changed.
gunnutery is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 09:11 AM   #3
MErl
Contributing Member
 
 
Join Date: May 18, 2006
Posts: 1,043
My experience with a local board says private sales are way down. Guns sit for sale, especially lower priced ones like cheap shotguns and .22LR. A deal is much less of a deal when you have to add in $20+ in fees and a couple hours of your time.

There have been a couple reports in the Denver paper about the number of BG checks and the number denied. The counts are low to the point of the # denied after appeal was in double digits for last year (sorry I cannot find that source it has been a few months). Those that know they are not going to pass a BG check will not try to pass one and will find other sources. Nobody can think a black market does not exist. This is catching the people with unpaid parking tickets and the like. (I have not seen a breakdown on why people were denied, only CBI has that data and it is not released. That last statement on who is being caught is my opinion)

A more cynical way to look at it is the laws are working; sales are down. If you look at the laws as an attack on legal gun ownership and not as a safety measure they make more sense. The unenforceable magazine law means you cannot buy them in state or mail order, even if you'll never get caught for violating it. The fee to pay for CBI means that even with the BG checks being a complete waste of time and money the gun owners are paying for it so lawmakers can just laugh. The mandatory BG check cannot be enforced either but nobody is willing to trust a stranger so it gets honored. The laws are working in their true intent, just not in the theme of public safety.
MErl is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 09:54 AM   #4
longknife12
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 24, 2010
Location: colorado
Posts: 395
That's what we tried to tell them. The general arrogant mind set of the lib legislature was totally beyond belief! They would listen to nothing that wasn't on their agenda.
Dan
__________________
"I wish to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle".....Chief Sitting Bull
longknife12 is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 01:25 PM   #5
X-Rap
Member
 
 
Join Date: September 23, 2006
Posts: 4,495
The skewing of numbers regarding gun laws is no different than the way they are doing the numbers on the pot laws.
They either ignore or refute data counter to their agenda or repeat the lies supporting it until it becomes the truth in media and social interactions.
__________________
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king
X-Rap is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 06:04 PM   #6
almostfree
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 642
I was recently at a Denver gun store with someone doing a background check for a handgun. I was appalled at how long it took. It was at least 20 minutes, if not more. It was significantly longer than the longest NICS check I've seen (which ended in a delay).
almostfree is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 06:49 PM   #7
Vern Humphrey
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 30, 2002
Location: Deep in the Ozarks
Posts: 16,050
One of the worst problems with our system is that there are virtually NO metrics associated with a new law, and no review process to determine its effectiveness.

A law should state up front what it is intended to accomplish, how that accomplishment will be measured, and should automatically expire in a reasonable time. Supporters of the law should be required to show it accomplished it's goals when trying to extend it.
Vern Humphrey is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.