February 27, 2007 7:55 AM
Legislature doesn't 'Make My Day Better'
Fearing that irrational business owners could open fire on customers, a Senate committee killed a bill that would have extended "Make My Day" protection to shop owners, reports April M. Washington.
The one example that comes to mind is that of a group of kids who go into a store being loud and disruptive," said Sen. Peter Groff, D-Denver, who opposed the bill. "The storekeeper asks them to leave, they get into exchange of words. The storekeeper . . . may pull a gun out and start firing. Under this bill, the storekeeper would be protected."I think we're beyond the Wild, Wild West, street-imposed death penalty . . . we may be passing here," he said.
But the sponsor of the House Bill 1011 shot back, contending that the measure wouldn't give business owners license to kill anyone.
The 1985 "Make My Day" law allows people to use deadly force to defend themselves in their homes. Sen. Ted Harvey, R-Highlands Ranch, said that his proposal would extend protection to a place of business, allowing the owner to defend against a criminal intruder during and after normal business hours.
February 27, 2007
9:59 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Another case of fearing what might happen vs fearing what is actually happening. The only way to evaluate this law would be to see what it did with the number of victims of violent crime. I would bet that it would reduce it, but the press would only highlight the occasional whacko, instead of the steady stream of existing violent crime.
February 27, 2007
10:11 AM
benn writes:
It has been proven time and again Hogar, more guns does not equal less crime.
Despite what people believe, strict gun laws would reduce gun deaths and crimes.
Now the real question is this. Is our 'freedom' (arguable) to bear arms worth the increased gun death rate? Many people say yes, and there is an argument to be made there.
February 27, 2007
10:14 AM
Sam writes:
I had a business in Colorado and wore a weapon in the open. Video cameras covered the business. These Politicians can pass all the laws they want, the criminals will not follow the law, and they stop the honest citizen from protecting themselves. Check statistics in AZ. you can legally shoot a burglar in the back on his way out of the business...bet the numbers of crimes went down after that law was passed!
February 27, 2007
10:19 AM
John Melton writes:
Once again, the Stupid-ocrats are trying to blame an in-animate object for the society which they have helped to create! To defend yourself is a basic right, whether in your house, at you own business, or in your car. The 'Wild, wild west' was wild only because the criminals were not afraid to use their firearms where as most of the law abiding citizenry who had firearms chose not to. Thank you Stupid-ocrats for disarming the law abiding citizens of this Republic!
I an not sure where 'benn' gets their information, but FBI crime statistics show unequivocally that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens equal less crime.
Our freedom to keep and bear arms is only arguable if you believe that the Bill of Rights is only for groups of people and not individual citizens. If you really believe that, benn, then 'Seig Heil!'
February 27, 2007
10:25 AM
Sam writes:
7% of murders are commited with baseball bats, restrict sale of them and knives while you're at it. Strangulation, how do you stop that? The Police cannot protect, all they do is respond to a crime, why do you think they are taking that off the Police cars?
February 27, 2007
10:34 AM
Anonymous writes:
Legislature doesn't 'Make My Day Better'
When has it made ANY day better?
February 27, 2007
10:38 AM
Anonymous writes:
They don't want to reduce crimes or death.
You have to read the subtext here to understand what the Democraps are saying.
This law would have given the law abiding the ability to protect themselves (less government) and forced criminals to consider the ultimate consequence (social injustice).
When you see Democraps siding with criminals, raising taxes (gifting entitlements), befriending illegals, and creating legislation to regulate the law abiding public, you have to ask who in Colorado would be stupid enough to vote for these people?
And the answer is the majority of Coloradans.
February 27, 2007
10:47 AM
jay writes:
"They don't want to reduce crimes or death."
wow
February 27, 2007
10:47 AM
benn writes:
Frankly, I don't think guns should be made illegal because I agree that you can't blame an inanimate object for people's behavior. If a gun, just by being around me, were to cause me harm, then I would support its illegality. But, since there must be an action associated with a gun crime, then I think that you can only make the action (shooting someone) illegal.
John, you are full of crap. Unequivocally? Not quite, here is one Texas study:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ltk4cont.htm
Here is a very good site with citations:
http://www.guninformation.org/
Again, I do not think guns should be made illegal. But I also don't think that more guns = less gun crimes.
February 27, 2007
10:58 AM
Anonymous writes:
This isn't about guns being legal or illegal Benn, this is about a citizen's right to protect himself.
Democrats see crime as tool for social justice. This is why they always take the criminal's side!
They want a world where you have to beg them for anything and everything you need. And once we depend upon them for everything they will seize all wealth to fund it.
I just wish my fellow Coloradans were a little more intelligent and could see through their lies and tricks.
February 27, 2007
11:00 AM
JW writes:
"I just wish my fellow Coloradans were a little more intelligent and could see through their lies and tricks."
And I wish my fellow Coloradans would do that REGARDLESS of what party they are emotionally tied to. Youre right about Dems, they have flaws. Youre just wrong about Repubs being better. They have the same amount of flaws, they are just different.
As for the gun thing, Canadians have as many as we do. They dont have nearly the gun related crime though. This is our society at work, not guns.
February 27, 2007
11:10 AM
jay writes:
"Democrats see crime as tool for social justice. This is why they always take the criminal's side! "
Seriously...where do the nutters come up with this crap.
February 27, 2007
11:11 AM
benn writes:
Blah blah blah,
I agree with JW that some of this is societal, but to say that societal problems PLUS more guns = less crime is ludicrous. I mean, obviously there wouldn't be any talk of restrictions on guns if there weren't so many problems with gun crime in America.
Again, 10:58. I don't agree that this is 'about people being able to defend themselves'. My personal belief is that people should be allowed to own and operate objects that don't inherently cause harm to others. I support the smoking ban because your smoking hurts me. I don't support a ban on guns because your using guns doesn't not directly hurt me, unless you choose to actively use the object in a manner that hurts me.
Unfortunately people choose to actively use their guns to harm others That is the unfortunate side effect of living in a fairly free society, but it seems that in this case, you have to value your freedom to use an object or a tool over the potential negative effects.
February 27, 2007
11:36 AM
JW writes:
With all the crap comming down the pipe from years of stupid people electing stupid government....Ill be DAMNED if youre getting my guns.
10 more years of this ignorant crap, and you WILL need them.
February 27, 2007
11:57 AM
Nick Danger writes:
JW
Canada does not have as many guns as we do. Canada only has 1/10 of the population of the US. Handguns are illegal in Canada. No one but cops can have them. Canada is going the route of England and Australia - total ban on guns.
Except for criminals that is.
Repubs have their problems but they aren't gun grabbers like the dems are.
February 27, 2007
12:22 PM
JW writes:
Nick,
"There are an estimated 7.4 million firearms in Canada, about 1.2 million of which are restricted firearms (mostly handguns). In the U.S., there are approximately 222 million firearms; 76 million of the firearms in circulation are handguns."
"Before you decide remember that 31 million people live in all of Canada ....The current population of United States is just over 274.3 million. "
Yep, the USA has more guns per capita.
Handguns are NOT illegal in Canada.
"Repubs have their problems but they aren't gun grabbers like the dems are."
True enough.
February 27, 2007
12:27 PM
JW writes:
"Handguns are NOT illegal in Canada. "
Short barrel handguns are though.
The barrel must be 106 mm or longer, which is 4.17 inches (pretty much anything that ISNT a compact or snubnose has barrels in this length, or they can be ordered).
So, you could own a sig 229 which is a compact, but you would have to get the extended barrel, which is perfect for....adding a silencer.
February 27, 2007
12:33 PM
Ben writes:
Mexico virutally outlaws any and all guns. Notice how they don't have any gun violence going on down there.
February 27, 2007
12:41 PM
Nick Danger writes:
Canada will let you have long-barreled handguns, larger than 32 caliber. But all with licensing and registration of the owner and all with low capacity magazines only.
They also regulate or restrict crossbows, airguns, bb-guns, etc.
And be careful with flare guns, signal guns, starter pistols, etc.
Mexico will jail you for having ammunition - a single bullet will bring prison to you.
February 27, 2007
1:16 PM
Anonymous writes:
Republican blame street crime for our problems hoping that the public will overlook their crimes of looting the government, etc.
February 27, 2007
1:29 PM
Peace Through Superior Firepower writes:
Hey Benn,
I'd like to see the basis for your belief that "strict gun laws reduce . . . crimes." Then explain why the Eurpoean nations with strict guns laws are experiencing astronomical increases in property, assault and rape crimes?
There is no such thing as too many guns.
February 27, 2007
1:32 PM
Ben writes:
Add Australia to knee-jerk draconian gun laws after a lunatic gun rampage. Crime skyrocketed after gun prohibition.
February 27, 2007
1:55 PM
JW writes:
I gona have to get me an AR 15 as soon as possible, before they ban assault rifles again.
February 27, 2007
2:01 PM
Michael writes:
"Mexico virutally outlaws any and all guns. Notice how they don't have any gun violence going on down there."
Ben - You are right....the ONLY gun violence in mexico is driven by the druglords and the policia - the only people who have guns. The mexican people cannot defend themselves against this violence and I would guess that helps drive them north to a country where they can. Nice point.
February 27, 2007
2:21 PM
Ben writes:
Michael,
My hope is that we don't lose our rights, starting with the 2nd, via peoples of other countries that don't respect our borders and immigration laws, much less our gun laws. Members of the NRA are you listening?
February 27, 2007
2:33 PM
JW writes:
Mexicans are going to take our second amendment rights?
Dude. That sux.
February 27, 2007
2:59 PM
Ben writes:
Jw, race baiting and grasping at straws. See last weeks Bosnian episode at the mall in Utah? Case in point. Add Mexicans and Latin Americans at will. Do many shots get fired up in the air on New Year's Eve in your neighborhood? They didn't in my little town close to the border until the early 90's to present. Now it is half an hour to an hour before shots en masse, cease. I wonder if there are any correllations to be made here. By the way, the same illegal alien enablers were the ones that started crying about more gun control and laws after every New Years Eve. Go figure. NRA members are you listening?
February 27, 2007
3:12 PM
JW writes:
"See last weeks Bosnian episode at the mall in Utah?"
Untill I saw that episode, I thought Id get a conceal carry permit just to have one.
Now Im getting it so I can carry a gun incase any Bosnian's need killin....
Guess Ill add mexico's...Can you shoot someone for shooting up in the air? Should be able to if you cant. Those damn talibaners do it all the time, and they ALL need shootin.
February 27, 2007
3:27 PM
jay writes:
"Crime skyrocketed after gun prohibition."
I am not saying you're wrong, but provide a link please
February 27, 2007
4:03 PM
Ben writes:
Find your own link. Do you need me to tell you what to use as search words?
February 27, 2007
4:54 PM
jay writes:
There you have it...thanks for conceding.
February 27, 2007
5:40 PM
Buster writes:
Score another one for the bad guy. Thanks Dems thanks for looking out for the criminal instead of good citizens.
February 27, 2007
5:47 PM
Anonymous writes:
I'll say it again...
Democrats see crime as tool for social justice. This is why they always take the criminal's side!
February 27, 2007
6:59 PM
Libertarian writes:
The liberal Democraps are back in power here in Colorado, what do you expect. We have to make things safe for these low lifes to commit crimes. It would not be suprising to see a bill proposed, making it a crime to resist or intefere with a criminal who is in the act of commiting a crime.
Have you ever noticed that the Democraps always follow a script? Buckle your seat belts, put on your helmets and give up your guns and your suv's and pickup trucks. The Democraps have no new message, just the same liberal crap that they have been pushing for decades. They take away our liberties and give them to the criminals and our enemys, not to mention our money.
February 27, 2007
7:10 PM
Ben writes:
Add give up your country and embrace unmitigated, illegal immigration to the Dems tired rhetoric.
February 27, 2007
8:15 PM
JW writes:
Don't worry, GW is going to start the new war in your name!
Jay, Gr8tful, Tree, David H., AM 760, you guys gota listen to this interview,
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7618708
For all you wingnuts...don't bother. You wouldn't be interested in GW being in bed with Al Qaeda. That wouldn't be treason. Treason is talking bad about GW.
February 28, 2007
9:58 AM
jay writes:
"Democrats see crime as tool for social justice. This is why they always take the criminal's side! "
Were you molested by a Democratic senator as a child or something? Damn, you people need to stop letting Rove, Rush and O'Reilly think for you.
JW,
I assume the interview is about the Republicans funding Al Qaeda...not that this makes any difference to the diehard footsoldiers. Blindly following incompetent leadership isn't the sign of a true patriot. Quite the opposite. What would have happened to the future of the US had people like you wingnuts quitely strained under the yolk of British rule in the name of unwavering allegiance?
February 28, 2007
10:52 AM
JW writes:
Nope. Its about the Bush admin knowing about three different terrorist cells who are either Al Qaeda, or linked to Al Qaeda in Lebanon, and leaving them alone, allowing saudi funding. They are doing this because the saudi's (Prince Bandar specifically) are telling them that these guys will work against Hezbolla, and try to kill the leader of Hezbolla in lebanon (Nezralla sp?).
They are doing this because they are convinced (even though they have intelligence to the contrary) that Hezbolla has cells in the US, and Iran is going to develop a nuke and give it to them for use in the US.
It also talks about the planning happening right now for strikes on Iran.
This administration is screwed up. Two years. I thought "man, they cant cause too much more damage" Now Im thinking Im wrong.
Also, the guy talks about how they Bush admin hired one of the key players from Iran/Contra. This guy held a meeting about that event, and it was to figure out where they went wrong, and how they got caught, and the lessons learned. IE How to get around congress when you want to do illegal shit.
I simply could not believe the crap this guy was saying. But, hes a reputable journalist, and he was droping names from high level people who are telling him this shit.
February 28, 2007
11:02 AM
Anonymous writes:
They don't receive the basic condition less protection of "make my day" but if they have a gun pointed at them they can still claim self-defense. They invite the general public by running a business so the invasion threat standard could not apply for a business. I guess that is why some of you are better served in a blog where you don’t have to think about what would happen in a trial and how the entire law could be lost by including businesses.
February 28, 2007
11:25 AM
Libertarian writes:
What makes you liberal goofs think that just because we do not like all the Democratic nanny state agenda, that somehow we are in lockstep with the Republican neocons and all their nonsense. We are not. We are for individual liberty and rights, what this nation was founded upon.Anyone who tries to seperate us from those basic principals is not acting in our best interest, be they Democrat or Republican.
Actually there is not that much difference between the two parties, as they are both controlled by big business and money. It you had to differentiate between the two the Democrats want to take your guns away from you and the Republicans want to take your job away from you.
February 28, 2007
11:29 AM
Anonymous writes:
“The liberal Democraps are back in power here in Colorado, what do you expect. We have to make things safe for these low lifes to commit crimes. It would not be suprising to see a bill proposed, making it a crime to resist or intefere with a criminal who is in the act of commiting a crime.”
“What makes you liberal goofs think that just because we do not like all the Democratic nanny state agenda, that somehow we are in lockstep with the Republican neocons and all their nonsense. We are not.”
HOLY BIPOLAR DISORDER BATMAN!
February 28, 2007
11:47 AM
Dirk Gently writes:
How this became a discussion primarily about gun control is beyond me, but:
1. Certain gun control measures are sensible, like background checks, closing the old gun show loopholes, and not allowing the average citizen to have, say, a stinger missile. But across the board gun control will not effetively prevent crime-related gun violence, only reduce accidental deaths and "second degree" murder (crimes of passion). If THAT's what we're after, then that's where the tenor of the discussion should go.
2. The "make my day" extension to shop owners is a bad idea. I think most of the time they would use discretion. However, a good way for a shop owner to get killed is miscalculate in a hold up. The smartest, safest thing is to just let them take stuff, then call the cops, then wait for the insurance paperwork to roll through. And frankly, using a gun for any purpose other than direct assualt/robbery is inappropriate. If this law protected a shopkeeper from prosecution if s/he shot someone who looked at him/her funny, then that would be tragic.
3. I would support a "make my day" extension to shopkeepers IF they were required to undergo a basic police training and gun safety course. That means they are well prepare to assess threats and use force appropriately when necessary. And in fact, in my ideal little world, a basic gun safety course, akin to what is required in order to obtain a Hunter's Safety Card, would be required of all gun owners (I am a multiple gun owner myself, so you can leave your "gun grabber" rhetoric at the door). I think anyone who purchases a gun who doesn't know how to use it, or who keeps it dangerously, is a complete idiot. Getting shot by a criminal is one thing, getting shot by an idiot is something else, not least because idiots are far more common than criminals.
February 28, 2007
12:09 PM
jay writes:
"We are for individual liberty and rights, what this nation was founded upon.Anyone who tries to seperate us from those basic principals is not acting in our best interest, be they Democrat or Republican."
And yet I'll bet you voted for George twice didn't you.
By the way....I have yet to see a bill introduced by the new Congress that would attempt to "take away your guns".
JW,
I don't think we're far enough down the path to war with Iran that we can't reverse course....but the drums are getting steadily louder. I saw Bill Kristol of Fox News talking as if an invasion of Iran was inevitable...he even put an early 2008 timeline on action. The trick to curbing this is remembering the lessons we learned from Iraq. The republican war machine started the military build up in Qatar months before the vote in Congress authorizing the use of force...it was going down either way. The linchpin of the plan to stop Bush from engaging in another quagmire will be Congress's ability or inability to require the Administration to get its approval before taking action against Iran. Let's hope this time they have the nuts to stand up and demand ALL the information for and against the invasion, instead of just rubber stamping approval based on the equivalent of a time share sales meeting.
And we thought they couldn't do THAT much damage in the two years they had left...
February 28, 2007
12:27 PM
JW writes:
"The republican war machine started the military build up in Qatar months before the vote in Congress authorizing the use of force...it was going down either way."
We are putting carrier groups over there NOW. This plan isnt for boots on the ground. This plan is about an air and sea based attack using planes and missles to "hit them hard, and then tell them to stop their nuke program, or we will hit them harder."
"The linchpin of the plan to stop Bush from engaging in another quagmire will be Congress's ability or inability to require the Administration to get its approval before taking action against Iran."
The original legislation granting him power to go into Iraq wasnt limited to Iraq. It gives him the power to engage in "pre-emptive strikes where ever he sees a threat". Unless they do some legislation to curtail those powers, he could do it TOMORROW. I believe they have been talking about this kind of thing, but I don't recall what the end result was. Anyone know if the congress got legislation through that makes him ask for permission before they hit Iran?
February 28, 2007
2:10 PM
jay writes:
They're working on that legislation right now...we'll see how it goes.
March 1, 2007
12:54 PM
Libertarian writes:
"HOLY IGNORANCE BATMAN!'
To the parrot who quoted verbatum and then added their own snide remarks, it is obvious that you know nothing of the Libertarian Party and what they stand for. I guess you are stuck in the old Democrat and Republican dichotomy. There are other parties that exist out there you know, try thinking outside of the box, you might find something you agree with. By the way, I did not vote for George W in either 2000 or 2004.
March 17, 2008
12:55 PM
Advocate4Good writes:
March 17, 2008
Legislature doesn’t ‘Make My Day Better’, but then again, when have they ever?
By now, we ought to be fed up with the irrational ideology of Colorado and all U.S. legislators who seldom ever have their hand on the pulse of reality and are usually 180 degrees out of phase of rational thinking. In states where guns are approved to carry, legal scholar John R. Lott’s analysis repeatedly shows the considerable drop in crime!
With fewer jobs, crime invariably raises and criminals will always take advantage of any situation that favors their illegal intent. And yet, our pathetic egoistically lawmakers are unaware of this escalating issue. The public is left venerable and without means to defend against gun carrying criminals.
The public’s obligation is to replace all city and state officials that disagree with a God given right to defend one’s self. Naturally there should be a qualifier, registering with the C.B.I. and qualifying at a shooting range before issuing your protection of choice. Anything less is to not give a damn!
Sincerely,
Advocate4Good
April 7, 2008
8:42 PM
Marc Lusardi writes:
Anyone have any comments about the 19 year old boy in Pueblo who ,after being invited to a party ,was later that evening declared by the 24 year old homeowner ( party sponsor) to be an intruder and was fatally shot 5 times at point blank range in the upper torso inside said home by same homeowner...