IMHO deaf ears. The 'dems have their marching orders.
O2
IMHO deaf ears. The 'dems have their marching orders.
O2
It's not deaf ears - it's fingers in ears, shaking their heads screaming "no, no, no". Tom Mauser, father of a Columbine victim, brought his emotional testimony to the committee, but he should be testifying for our side. His son's killer used a carbine with 10 round magazines, changing magazines at least 9 times. Hypocrite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Lest we not forget that there was an AWB at the time his son was killed... oh what a difference that made! [Sarcasm2] Tom Mauser is an idiot. Anyone who thinks like him is an idiot. And anyone who stands on the graves of the dead to promote some political agenda is just pure evil, especially when this guy is standing on his own son's grave! The day someone dictates to me what freedom I may and may not enjoy, that is the day I no longer have freedom, that is the day I'm ruled by tyrants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Our voices are falling on deaf ears. The only way we will be heard is voing majority a majority of 2nd amendment representatives and 2nd amendment supporting governor. If that happens a loud message will be sent that will be heard for decades, that is progressives down the road will be less likely to monkey with the laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Everyone has got to unite.
I was going to go to this today, until they changed the date. There was already a ban on >10 round mags at the time. Plus we live in a state that borders states where you can buy larger magazines. If you're the kind of person who already decided you want to kill a lot of people, you'll probably just make a quick visit to Wyoming and get some standard capacity mags anyway. I mean if someone decided they're going to commit felonies anyway, They aren't going to let laws "inconvenience" them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Really poor argument. Putting my anti-gun hat on: ...and that's exactly why we need to make this a FEDERAL ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by osok-308
Argue the principle, argue emotionally, ANYTHING but "...you can buy them over there". To the antis what you gave is not a reason to lift our ban, it's a reason to make the ban wider.
O2
That might be true. But I would counter that with the fact that columbine occurred in the height of a federal ban. Or make note that it is illegal to own one sixteen- round magazine (xdm) yet it is legal to own fifteen round mags (glock). and ask them what makes that extra round so morally wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2
Their is no point in arguing anything logical with them, they have already made that crystal clear. All they care about is their position.
Which is why we need to get rid of them. As long as you have politicians getting into the game based on their own personal vendettas against an unalienable right, you're going to have issues like this. Rhonda Fields doesn't care about logic, she doesn't care about the constitution, she only cares about seeking revenge on an inanimate object that she feels has wronged her (and others). Stupid as that sounds, that's liberal logic for you. It's much akin to me losing a good friend sophomore year of high school to a drunk driver, and instead of saying we need stricter drunk-driving penalties, I go after the car manufacturers.Quote:
Originally Posted by newracer
The best response there is to point out that the federal ban was a failure, and there's no data supporting the efficacy of any of the arbitrary state bans.Quote:
Really poor argument. Putting my anti-gun hat on: ...and that's exactly why we need to make this a FEDERAL ban.
The TL;DR version is that there's no use in doubling down on failed policies.
I agree. It's all on deaf ears. Proponents brought facts and sources for those facts. Opposition brought emotional distress and "think of the children", "even if it might save one life", and a bunch of "might".
What really upset me was they let every columbine, Aurora, and Newtown family member speak. When it. Came time for the lady who got threatened by bikers they rushed her.
Let's vote these deaf politicians out.
"Think of the children".
I was just thinking about the smile on my nephew's face when I let him blast through a 25 round magazine. I think he was 11 at the time.
^^^this. If people won't listen to reason, there is only one thing to do... kick them out!Quote:
Originally Posted by mcjhr
If they wanted to save childrens' lives, they'd outlaw bicycles and swimming pools.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyDrama
Todays audio http://coloradoga.granicus.com/Media...p?publish_id=5
Sorry first link was old one.
Mr. Burris sounded great.
Oooh, the race card.
Where the hell did that all come from ? Caught me by surprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
This sounds like a replay of Monday's testimony.
A lot of the same people but I heard a few references to them testifying on MondayQuote:
Originally Posted by newracer
It's obvious that no anti-gun control legislation will ever pass out of committee in the Senate, for the Democrats know full well that their slim majority counts for naught in these types of legislation, as Sen. Tochtrop, D-Thornton, will vote on the side of the 2nd Amendment, as she has in the past.
That is exactly why they sent these to the kill committee this year, so there was no chance of them being heard by the full chambers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
I'm surprised at how often that term "kill committee" is used by our pro-gun speakers and no one has raised an objection to the term.
Voted down 3-2 and the bill sponsor pulled the bill from consideration.
Did I hear that right "the bill is postponed" ?
The phrase "postponed indefinitely" translates to "it is impossible for the bill to appear on the Calendar again."Quote:
Originally Posted by StagLefty
In the Colorado General Assembly, every matter of official business that comes before the House, Senate, or a committee in either chamber must be scheduled and appear on the Calendar of the appropriate chamber (House or Senate). When a motion is passed to postpone indefinitely a certain bill, then that bill cannot be brought up again. There is no motion to "kill the bill," that action simply doesn't exist. Likewise, during the committee process in each chamber, the proper motion to "pass" a bill out of one committee and to the next committee or to the floor (Committee of the Whole) is "I move (Bill Number) as amended (if applicable) to the (Committee Name) with a favorable recommendation." At that point, there is no motion to "pass" the bill. When a bill reaches the final, Third Reading, vote in either chamber, the motion by the Majority Leader or Assistant Majority Leader is "I move (Bill Number) on Third Reading and final passage" - so, at that point, we use the word "pass[age]."
It's a common question and/or non-starter point of discussion whether "postponed indefinitely" could mean some sneaky trick to bring the bill up at some later point, but that is not the case. The 2014 General Session must end at or before midnight, Wednesday, May 7, 2014. Any/all bills that have not completed 100% of the process by that second cannot be advanced in any future session of the General Assembly (General or Special). Thus, with Senate Bill 100, it cannot be on the Senate Calendar again during the 2014 General Session and, once the 2014 General Session ends at or before midnight, May 7, 2014, any/all unfinished business that was brought up during that session must be re-introduced at the staring point - as a new bill - with a new bill number - potentially with new a sponsor(s) - in a future session.
Take for example House Bill 11-1205, which was my first run at "Constitutional Carry" during my first session in the House (2011). That bill passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on an 8-3 vote. Representatives Kagan and Lee, both Democrats, joined the six Republicans in voting "Yes" on the bill. It then passed out of the House on a vote of 40-25 with all 33 Republicans, plus seven Democrats voting in favor of the bill. HB 11-1205 then went to the Senate where… yep… the five-member "kill committee" voted 3-2 to "postpone indefinitely HB 11-1205." That bill was dead. In 2012, the exact wording of House Bill 11-1205 was introduced by Representative Kevin Priola as a House Bill 12-1092 (I ran "Make My Day Better" in 2012). So, HB 12-1092 was the exact same wording as HB 11-1205, but 12-1092 had to start at the very beginning of the process. The 2012 bill didn't get any "head start" due to what had passed in 2011. Different bill, different session. This is one example of how the Colorado General Assembly works differently than Congress in Washington, DC. A bill can hang around for two years in Congress. In the Colorado General Assembly, a bill has a maximum life of 120 days during the annual General Assembly. It either passes completely into law (signed by the Governor) or it must start over again as a new bill in a future session.
RepHolbert, thank you for your explanation. Very glad to have you keeping us informed here!
Thanks for the response Chris. If there is anything you think we should be doing to win these battles, please tell us!
More fodder for thought: The Democrats claim that reducing magazine capacity will save lives. How many lives? Let’s find out. First, I think we can agree that the only time magazine capacity limitations could ever affect the outcome of a crime is during an active shooter mass casualty event with 16 or more shots fired. The FBI has a nice collection of data on active shooter mass casualty events, henceforth ASMC, at http://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/acti...m-2000-to-2012. Using this data, we can estimate the number of active shooter events in the US per year to be 15, trending upwards, so let’s use 20. Looking at the history of ASMC events, we can estimate some number of shots fired based on number of people killed. Let’s say 15 shots kills ten people. Of all ASMC events, only 17% exceed ten people killed. Likewise, we should discount the events where pistols or shotguns were the primary weapon, as 15 round magazine limitations likely don’t apply, so only 26% of ASMC had any kind of rifle as the primary weapon. Let’s take a conservative position and saw that all of these were MSRs.
We have two other factors to estimate: the probability that an ASMC takes place in Colorado, as HB 13-1224 only applies there, and the probability that the shooter is totally unable to get any magazines greater than 15 rounds and is thus limited by law. Colorado is only one of fifty states, but the Denver metro area does seem to have more than the normal complement of crazies, so instead of 2% lets go with 10%. Let’s go with the same number for the chance that a shooter can’t get 30 round magazines, even though that number is closer to zero. You can play around with those probabilities for sensitivity analysis, but that’s left as an exercise for the reader.
Given these numbers, let’s calculate the odds. Number of events = 20. Percent using > 15 shots, 17%. Percent using an “assault weapon” = 26%. Happens in Colorado = 10%. Can’t get 30 round magazines = 10%. Multiplying these out we get 20 x .17 x .26 x .1 x .1 = 0.0087. Now, according to the FBI charts from the ASMC webpage, we’re trending towards 60 people killed each year in ASMC events. 60 x .0087 = .52. That’s a half person that is likely to be saved each year by a 15 round magazine capacity limit, given the constraints above. In ten years that can be extended to 5 lives saved.
According to the CDC’s WISQARs injury/fatality database, in the ten year period from 2001 to 2010, for the population of children 17 and under, 563 drowned in bathtubs, 2,825 drowned in pools and 1,434 died in bicycle accidents. If we use the ratio Colorado’s population to the US population to estimate Colorado’s share of those deaths, we see that over a ten year period we can estimate that 9 children will drown in the bathtub, 47 will drown in a swimming pool and 24 will be killed riding while riding their bicycles. If we passed legislation prohibiting any of these activities, more children would be saved many times over the amount that the feel good HB 13-1224 could be expected to save. Of course, the Democrats will argue that bicycles, tubs and pools have legitimate uses and 30 magazines are only useful to kill large amounts of people in a short time, but given that the FBI shows that large capacity magazines are indeed only used to kill large amounts of people in a short time about 0.86 times a year while the other tens of millions of 30 round magazines owned by the public and law enforcement are evidently used for purposes that don’t kill large amounts of people in a short time, that argument is easily countered.
Their response would be "It is worth it if it only saves one life."Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
You seem to forget that factual, verifiable data, logic and common sense mean absolutely nothing to a liberal.
Find a way to integrate you facts into an emotional and irrational argument and you may just get somewhere.
Mr Holbert, thank you for taking the time out of a busy schedule to keep us lowly serfs accurately informed.[Beer]
We need to take you to breakfast and out shooting some day.
To which I'd respond, let's make kids on bikes illegal and save 24 kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by newracer
The flaw in your math here is that you're assuming that an ASMC will end when the shooter empties the magazine and/or that stopping to reload will reduce the death toll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Keep in mind that when the Aurora shooter's AR jammed (because he had a cheap ass 100 rd drum) the amount of time for him to realize the AR was jammed and to transition to his shotgun would be significantly longer then the amount of time it would take the average, semi-to-untrained person to drop the mag, slap a new one in and hit the bolt release.
So I figure the number of lives saved by the magazine ban would be much closer to zero. Furthermore how many self defensive shootings have involved more than 15 rounds? If you have even one that was successful, you could make the claim that the magazine ban could have caused that SD shooting to go the other way, so I think the case can be made that not only will the mag ban save ZERO lives, its more likely to COST lives than save any.
All that said, as has been pointed out before, the antis aren't motivated by facts, logic, reason or even saving lives. They are desperate little r-selective creatures suffering from NPD and trying to keep their amygdalas from being hijacked by thoughts that make them feel bad.
That' snot my claim, it's what the Democrats who supported the legislation claim, that any delay in the magazine reloading transition will allow some amount of folks to either escape or subdue the shooter. It's not at all guaranteed likely to happen during any magazine change, but that's what they are basing their argument upon. It's an unlikely, best case scenario for their claim, and even in this best case it's not effective. The great flaw in their argument is that they're seemingly willing to allow or unable to prevent the shooter from acquiring his weapons, accessing a gun-free zone so equipped and shooting up at least one magazine of ammunition at deliberately unarmed targets. I don't know why no one in chambers ever called them on their willingness to allow the first set of deaths in an ASMC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
It's obvious to us that of course, but as a quantitative kind of guy I like to have realistic numbers to back my arguments. Interesting that they base this entire law on the fact that some kids were lucky enough to escape during a magazine change at Sandy Hook, where the shooter had the opportunity to change his magazine outside of the classroom where he entered and ran out of ammo after shooting just two victims. They also ignore that some magazines did have up to 15 rounds still in them, meaning he did change after shooting only 15 or so rounds.Quote:
So I figure the number of lives saved by the magazine ban would be much closer to zero. Furthermore how many self defensive shootings have involved more than 15 rounds? If you have even one that was successful, you could make the claim that the magazine ban could have caused that SD shooting to go the other way, so I think the case can be made that not only will the mag ban save ZERO lives, its more likely to COST lives than save any.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newracer
Not if it puts the people at risk of not being able to fight tyranny.