DENVER — Colorado’s governor signed four gun control bills Friday, following the lead of other states struggling to confront a nationwide surge in violent crime and mass shootings, despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that expanded Second Amendment rights.

 

Before the ink was even dry on Gov. Jared Polis’ signature, gun rights groups sued to reverse two of the measures: raising the buying age for any gun from 18 to 21, and establishing a three-day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun.

 

The courts are already weighing lawsuits over such restrictions in other states.

 

READ MORE

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/colorado-governor-signs-gun-control-bills-massacre-rcna82014

 

Well I for one will be watching how effective removing legally held guns from law abiding citizens is in reducing violent crime by gun toting criminals. I am sure somebody can make sense of liberal logic like this, but not me.

24 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Well I for one will be watching how effective removing legally held guns from law abiding citizens is in reducing violent crime by gun toting criminals. I am sure somebody can make sense of liberal logic like this, but not me.

Then again you could read the article and see just how wrong you are. Aside from the red flag law, the bill is not taking away any firearms, it is tightening firearm regulations. 

Good another small step in the right direction 

Seven-day waiting period, and 21 years, do not seem like "infringements"?

 

I can live (or possibly die) with that, along with a national registration data base, mandatory licensing requiring renewal, assault rifle ban, PLCAA repeal, 20 % federal tax on firearms, ammunition and any ancillary equipment (funds would go to health care for shooting victims who survive with a death benefit for those who do not).

 

 

 

 

A troll post has been removed.

4 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Then again you could read the article and see just how wrong you are. Aside from the red flag law, the bill is not taking away any firearms, it is tightening firearm regulations. 

...and that will stop gun toting criminals intent on mayhem how, exactly?

24 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

...and that will stop gun toting criminals intent on mayhem how, exactly?

You'll need to refer me to where exactly I claimed that first?

 

Small steps in the right direction of firearm controls, raising the age to 21, red flag laws for identifying those who should not have a permit due to mental health of other issues. A 3 day waiting period to collect your firearm.

 

All reasonable measures.

26 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

...and that will stop gun toting criminals intent on mayhem how, exactly?

Never mind..................

8 hours ago, Tug said:

Good another small step in the right direction 

I think you mean in the left direction.

10 minutes ago, BangkokHank said:

I think you mean in the left direction.

Left or right what does it matter?it is a step in the direction of saving

innocent lives!

That has to be a good thing!

This whole left/right thing is destroying the USA,can't you see that?

4 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

...and that will stop gun toting criminals intent on mayhem how, exactly?

You do realize that the laws are intended to help reduce mass killings, not crime, right? 

16 minutes ago, mikebike said:

You do realize that the laws are intended to help reduce mass killings, not crime, right? 

You do realize the certain people believe the answer is more guns right?

No matter what (new)argument you come up with they will dig up an

old argument somewhere and try if it will stick this time.

It never does.

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

You do realize that the laws are intended to help reduce mass killings, not crime, right? 

Mass killings aren't crimes? News to me...   I always thought they WERE crimes. Thankfully, very rare crimes, but crimes nonetheless.  From what I have read, they only account for less than 1% of gun deaths every year.  

 

Perhaps focusing on reducing crime would be a better use of limited government resources and time.

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Mass killings aren't crimes? News to me...   I always thought they WERE crimes. Thankfully, very rare crimes, but crimes nonetheless.  From what I have read, they only account for less than 1% of gun deaths every year.  

 

Perhaps focusing on reducing crime would be a better use of limited government resources and time.

Mass shootings are "Very rare crimes", are you sure about that...? 

 

You will never reduce crime, but you can reduce the guns out there, if you have the will, and dismiss something written over 200 years back which was valid at the time.....

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Mass shootings are "Very rare crimes", are you sure about that...? 

 

You will never reduce crime, but you can reduce the guns out there, if you have the will, and dismiss something written over 200 years back which was valid at the time.....

I would call less than 1% of all firearms deaths very rare, yes. 

 

Reducing crime is indeed possible.  Just takes more effort than a throwaway virtue signal.

25 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I would call less than 1% of all firearms deaths very rare, yes. 

 

Reducing crime is indeed possible.  Just takes more effort than a throwaway virtue signal.

Since when is a red flag law, or the other measure in the bill virtue signaling? 

 

Yes there could be a lot more but as has been stated multiple times its a step in the right direction.

Have a read here,very scary.

Gun deaths is now the leading cause of death in US children.

That should be a wake up call.

Don't look at % look at the numbers.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

46 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Mass killings aren't crimes?

You said, "stop gun toting criminals intent on mayhem". That does not bore down on the point of the legislation. "Stop gun toting criminals intent on mayhem" implies you thought it would be a magic panacia for all crime. Words have meaning. 

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Mass killings aren't crimes? News to me...   I always thought they WERE crimes. Thankfully, very rare crimes, but crimes nonetheless.  From what I have read, they only account for less than 1% of gun deaths every year.  

 

Perhaps focusing on reducing crime would be a better use of limited government resources and time.

Once again you stray into the territory of obfuscation.

 

Calls for gun controls are not arising from *crime related mass shootings.

 

* Mass shootings related to criminal activity around gang culture, the illegal drug trade and organized crime.

 

Calls for gun controls are arising out of **non-crime relayed mass shootings.
 

** not related to gang culture the illegal drug trade and organized crime.

 

Quit with your strawman arguments already.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Once again you stray into the territory of obfuscation.

 

Calls for gun controls are not arising from *crime related mass shootings.

 

* Mass shootings related to criminal activity around gang culture, the illegal drug trade and organized crime.

 

Calls for gun controls are arising out of **non-crime relayed mass shootings.
 

** not related to gang culture the illegal drug trade and organized crime.

 

Quit with your strawman arguments already.

 

 

No straw man, just being practical.  If you want to actually save lives, then work on crime in general and gun crime in particular. Not on what happens to be trending in the media. 

 

How about these proposals...

 

a/ 10 year mandatory sentence for illegal firearm possession.

b/ 10 extra years if it is used in a crime

c/ death sentence for murderers and drug dealers

d/ mandatory treatment for addicts and mentally incompetent people

This is great news.

 

There is no way a criminal would own/buy an illegal gun. So this will solve everything.????

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

No straw man, just being practical.  If you want to actually save lives, then work on crime in general and gun crime in particular. Not on what happens to be trending in the media. 

 

How about these proposals...

 

a/ 10 year mandatory sentence for illegal firearm possession.

b/ 10 extra years if it is used in a crime

c/ death sentence for murderers and drug dealers

d/ mandatory treatment for addicts and mentally incompetent people

I agree with all but your ‘c’, they are however some of the things that can be done, not all the things that can be done.

Once again, I refer you to the issue that is driving calls for gun controls ‘*non crime related mass shoutings’.

 

* refer above for definition already given.

 

 

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

This is great news.

 

There is no way a criminal would own/buy an illegal gun. So this will solve everything.????

Name a person who walked into a school or college and murdered multiple children who had a prior criminal conviction?

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I agree with all but your ‘c’, they are however some of the things that can be done, not all the things that can be done.

Once again, I refer you to the issue that is driving calls for gun controls ‘*non crime related mass shoutings’.

 

* refer above for definition already given.

 

 

I agree the issue driving the calls is that of, for want of a better term, spontaneous mass shootings.  But they are rare in the big picture. Even if they were to be eliminated completely (an impossible task), there would be no appreciable difference in the overall crime or murder rate.   That is why I say that proposals like the ones in Colorado are a waste of time. All they may accomplish is perhaps help the governor get re-elected, or kicked upstairs to Washington.

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I agree the issue driving the calls is that of, for want of a better term, spontaneous mass shootings.  But they are rare in the big picture. Even if they were to be eliminated completely (an impossible task), there would be no appreciable difference in the overall crime or murder rate.   That is why I say that proposals like the ones in Colorado are a waste of time. All they may accomplish is perhaps help the governor get re-elected, or kicked upstairs to Washington.

If they save one innocent life in Colorado they are more than worth it. 

41 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Name a person who walked into a school or college and murdered multiple children who had a prior criminal conviction?

Anthony McRae.

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

If they save one innocent life in Colorado they are more than worth it. 

The "if it saves one life..." argument is a fallacy.  You could save tens of thousands of lives by outlawing tobacco.  You could save thousands of lives by reducing the maximum speed limit on all roads to 30 miles per hour.  Or mandating that all occupants of all vehicles (cars, busses, vans) wear helmets as well as seat belts. 

 

But we don't. Because all of life involves trade offs between competing factors.  This "one live" argument is simply a form of emotional blackmail.

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The "if it saves one life..." argument is a fallacy.  You could save tens of thousands of lives by outlawing tobacco.  You could save thousands of lives by reducing the maximum speed limit on all roads to 30 miles per hour.  Or mandating that all occupants of all vehicles (cars, busses, vans) wear helmets as well as seat belts. 

 

But we don't. Because all of life involves trade offs between competing factors.  This "one live" argument is simply a form of emotional blackmail.

Yet they are doing that for the chance to save a few lives. Respect.

 

I doubt they talked about the tobacco industry or driving laws, they were there for the firearm bill.

20 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I agree the issue driving the calls is that of, for want of a better term, spontaneous mass shootings.  But they are rare in the big picture. Even if they were to be eliminated completely (an impossible task), there would be no appreciable difference in the overall crime or murder rate.   That is why I say that proposals like the ones in Colorado are a waste of time. All they may accomplish is perhaps help the governor get re-elected, or kicked upstairs to Washington.

Politics works on the basis of what captures the public’s attention.

 

I really do not understand why you ignore this fact.