President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 16, 2019 03:51 PM UTC
39 Comments
who has standing to violate his carry permit?
I thought one of the black letter rules was that a permit holder would lose the permit if the violate the law about carrying.
I mean, not an elected office holder at the airport or driving dwi, but you know, other people.
That’s what’s wrong with this country . . .
. . . too very little illegal about being a dickish asshole! (. . . and for every “good guy with a gun” there’s about 17,354 of these.)
It’d need to be filed as trespass, and the property owner would have to file a complaint and press charges (and find a prosecutor willing to take the case). Someone named Anschutz or Mizel might have a chance of making it stick; lower life forms, not so much. The defendant, if convicted, would probably get somewhere between a judge’s sternly wagging finger and a wink, up to life; depending on extenuating circumstances — complexion, musical tastes, hairstyle, bank account balances, etc.
Oh, puhleaze
Are you really saying that now, in addition to driving, standing with hands up, walking home from 7/11 with candy and sugar water, that it's somehow a problem to posses a gun while not white?
sounds about right
thoughts and prayers. thoughts and prayers. Excelsior now!
…and in a Wal-Matt full of Texans not a single good guy with a gun slowed that madman down.
You may want to blame Walmart for that…
So they’re upset that Wal-Mart wants them to confirm they have a license? (you’ll notice I mentioned “good guy with a gun” which implies he’s a law-abiding citizen. The bad guys with a gun can go shop at the Dollar Store after they’ve grabbed a bucket of chicken at KFC).
Walmart is not required by law to check licenses and has proactively decided to add this restriction on their own behalf. I'm speculating that a Texan gun nut would find this "infringement" and frequent other locations less likely to restrict further than law requires.
Again, deflection. "good guys with a gun" upset that someone that's accommodating them in their retail establishment, effectively-public-setting actually prove they show they are in compliance with the law? I'm guessing most Americans could care less about hurting their infringement fefes. As you know I'm not anti gun. I'm anti-gun nutter, pro-background checks, pro-red flag and pro-'we don't need military-like assault weapons in the general populace" – just like the overwhelming majority of Americans.
Where do you stand on warm puppies, Michael?
We need more warm puppies in the world!
If bullets costs as much as insulin we'd solve this problem. Somewhere in the middle of that statement is a warm puppy analogy.
Good. The fewer Texas gun nuts hanging sround Wal Marts hating on immigrant families, the better.
The data* is pretty straightforward. The more strict gun laws are, the fewer firearm deaths occur.
Spin til you puke, won’t change the stats.
*The data comes from multiple sources, over multiple years, citing various studies, as anyone who read the Guardian article would know: New Zealand, Australia, several other countries, the Center for Disease Control, five different universities. Data. Plural.
Dept. Of lost causes. The data "is" not straightforward, MJ. The datum is straightforward. Those plural data “are” straightforward.
Sadly, not enough people study Latin anymore.
The data* is pretty straight forward:
Everything else aside, having a "good guy with a gun" in a dark theater means more casualties. In a very tense situation where things are happening very quickly and you are unclear on who is doing what – it'll mean more random deaths.
People have this fantasy that they'll clearly know what to do and they'll be calm enough to fire cleanly and accurately. Wrong on both counts.
This idiot is not only breaking the law, he's endangering himself and all those around him – including his family.
One could argue that a large percentage of mass shootings occur in gun free zones, effectively making these areas attractive to active shooter scenarios. Eliminating the gun free zone would reasonably reduce the shooters incentive to gravitate towards a location that offers such a target rich environment, regardless of whether there was an armed person able to defend from such an attack or not.
Fail.
Mass shooters look for a crowd.
They don't really care about other guns. Most are looking for an SBC anyway.
That's odd you say that when recent events show, in the actual words of the shooter, the exact opposite:
Oh, . . .
. . . so, you’re saying that these not-exactly-good guys-with-guns mass murderers aren’t predominantly the mentally ill? They’re cold, calculating, rational, methodical, and reasonable????
Just angry little self-important and self-deluded men with ridiculously easy access to way too much deadly firepower, kinda’ like maybe, oh I dunno’, Brauchler? You? . . .
Well of course I don't believe anyone willing to kill innocent people is rational or reasonable, but cold, calculating and methodical? Absolutely. The facts support this. Mental illness does not preclude a person from having these traits.
Uh-huh.
It’s so rarely that we ever see you here celebrating in advance of any mass shooting rampage . . .
. . . got some insiders information on this weekend, or just playing the odds and feeling lucky?
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Not if its a military 2400 clock!
Meh. Be patient. There’s no doubt that if LaPieres and Dudleys aren’t stopped and continue to hold sway, we’ll easily get to your twice-a-day and maybe even more, very soon . . .
. . . I mean, of course, that’s if we both happen to be among the lucky ones who live to see it.
Dayton shooter: cops right there. Gilmore: cops right there. And in El Paso, despite your note about Walmart's policy, anyone in that store who wasn't a visiting Mexican national could have been carrying.
David's right – the main considerations are target density and appropriateness to "the cause". Sure, if you're planning something and have choices, a soft target is better, but if you're determined you'll shoot the school resource officer standing guard at the door before he knows you're armed and to Hell with the world.
One must consider which mass shooter wasn't planning or didn't have choices before suggesting soft targets are not the preferred location.
Keep burying your head in the sand until Dudley come to rescue you.
Nonsense.
The shooter in El Paso was planning his murders along with the one in Las Vegas. They can only carry out their crimes if they have accomplices like Negev to front for them. I thought all lives were precious to the Neg but apparently he is cool with more human sacrifices and the shedding of innocent blood so that he can masturbate with his favorite toys and worship his phallic symbol like any other cultist. What a dipshit enabler.
I suspect only a handful of schools are free-fire zones to begin with. If just 1 percent are free fire zones and 3.8 percent of shootings occur there, then free fire zones are 3.8 times as dangerous as gun-free ones.
You have a chronic bad habit of posting up some exceptionally craptacular excerpts, but almost never providing any of the citation sourcing? . . .
(. . . perhaps because on those few occasions where you have, you had your bilge water statistics and conclusions flushed right back at you?)
See also the list of deadliest mass shootings in the US here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States. Let’s see how you get to 96% with these?
(PS: Given the testimony of ijut Brauchler, and assuming he’s not the one and only Lone Ijut, how can you even claim to know that anyplace is a “gun free” area?)
My link to the source was in my post above, which you most likely did not take the effort to review, so I'll put it here again and post the picture in there to make it a bit more simple for you. If Wikipedia is the source you would like to run with I'm happy to oblige.
Now, I count 15 out of 19 of your list, assuming that gun free zones started in 1990 so your old ones are before the phenomenon, so that's about 79%. Is that a difference from 96%? Yeah it is. Is it the vast majority? Yea, I am going to say so strictly because I have seen the 67% number thrown around here as the "vast majority of Americans want to ban assault weapons", so I think if you can use that, so can I.
Your source also indicates
If you are so up in arms so to speak on this issue of mass shooting knowing that a 100% elimination of it will reduce gun deaths by .2%, it should only take another 5-7 generations before your success is achieved.
But keep up the effort. I will post your progress on Wiki
Edit to add: your source also indicates 48% of the mass shootings were completed with semi automatic assault rifles. Is that a vast majority to you as well?
Firearm-Americans speak out
Hmm. Seems like the Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel should have a little chat with George.
Amen. With everyone's favorite murder-enabling prevaricator dropping one massive, steaming, extraordinarily malodorous turd after another in this thread, it's easy to lose track of primary point, namely that George Brauchler is a disgrace.
Hey, more murderers, the more people Georgie can put on death row, or try to put on death row.
“Try to”, 🙄 . . .
“Put on,” not so much.