CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
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*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 05, 2009 03:51 AM UTC
54 Comments
Nerf guns
We will not be safe from zombies on campus any more.
So I’ll make it simple. Gunman on campus starts shooting.
On campus with no guns: mass murder
On campus with guns: self defense, gunman gets DROPPED. fewer kids die
Bullshit, nobody believes CO Pols supports gun rights.
But I’ve never seen it happen. Do you have an example?
Just not on the scale of VA Tech. Every time a punk robs a convenience store and is met with a shopkeeper with a gun. Every time a burglar enters an armed household.
In Virginia they respect their guns, and some of those Southern kids would have known what to do if they had one. But they didn’t, and you had the biggest mass killing by one person in American history.
Is open carry prohibited on campus?
I am a gun owner. Don’t have a CCP because I feel no need for it. Besides, it would be a pain to go around strapped all the time. But, if what we are really after is prevention then it seems plain that open carry is more preventative.
Don’t confuse the GOP Warrior with logic and common sense.
Ok, sorry as a history student I’m going to have to dispute that as a purely rhetorical statement. If you have data to back that up, I’d like to see it, but please do not make hyperbolic claims like that in seriousness. It was a tragedy yes, it was terrible, but not the largest killing by a single person. Unless you want to qualify that to narrow the field.
Plus, I’m curious, do you have any statistics on robberies that have been foiled by people with concealed weapons?
No surprise there! I’ll educate you.
The Virginia Tech massacre was “the deadliest mass shooting of any kind by a single gunman in U.S. history.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V…
I’ll be happy to find you more FACTS about self defense, as soon as you admit that what I’ve already said is not hyperbolic. And that you were wrong.
just as soon as you admit I’m right.
That’s a neat trick.
Has any such mass killing ever been foiled by a person with a concealed weapon? Yes or no?
Mass shootings aren’t the only crimes.
There were 55.56% fewer forcible sex offenses at CSU from 2006-2008 (3 years after concealed carry was allowed) than in 1998-2000 (3 years before concealed carry was allowed)
For the same periods, in 2006-2008:
Robbery – down 50%
Aggravated Assault – Down 50%
Arson – down 56.52%
Burglary – down 67.16%
Hate Crimes – down 69.23%
Did you really just divide 9 by 13 and decide four digits were significant? And I can’t imagine how you got 67.16%; that looks made up. (This is compounded by the fact that you cite no sources whatsoever and have never been here before, so I have no idea if you’re making things up or not.) Your selection of years seems a little suspicious too, like you’ve struggled mightily to find the time periods that support your case.
As for the original argument that concealed carry would prevent mass shootings, well that was the point we were discussing, wasn’t it?
torturing data until it tells you whatever you want to hear….
As you know, sxp, it’s a “statitician’s” trick: Take a data set, ignore such trivialities like probability that the findings are an artifact of chance (in a data set this small, well over 20%), look for window’s that exploit that probability in a way that seems to tell the story you want to tell, and, voila! you’ve “proven” whatever you want to prove!
that there are a multitude of other intervening variables in play between 1998 and 2008 which have in no way been controlled for in this “analysis”. One could have used the same artificial data set to “prove” that the 9/11 attack and our responses to it had caused the perceived effect; it, too, occured between the two measurements.
I missed the American history part, I admit that I reacted a bit too quickly on that one without reading your comment thoroughly.
With a carry permit and a number of weapons. Come over to my house some night at 2 am and I’ll show you how they work under the “make my day” law.
As a law abiding citizen, why would I ever come to your house uninvited at 2AM? I’m glad your well defended, I just wish our college kids could be too.
must be a ‘pussy’ as you so dickly put it, in my book.
Gunman is a medically certified nutcase, but nobody asked when he bought his guns.
You gotta wonder about anyone who wishes for a campus shooting just to make their point.
Someone gets really mad over something, pulls out gun, starts shooting.
Someone pulls out a gun and is threatening but is not firing. Three people pull out their guns, fire wildly, gunman and 12 innocent bystanders are killed.
Someone goes to the bathroom, gun falls out, hits the floor, fires, and kills person in the next stall.
Someone sees someone with a gun and takes him out. Turns out to be Nerf gun.
Life is statistics. Using a gun properly in a confused quickly changing case like a shooter takes a ton of training. Cops with their training get it wrong.
Having random people with guns on campus have hundreds of scenarios where the gun makes it worse for each where they might have been able to do something.
I used to play paintball every weekend (and was pretty good). Anytime someone new suddenly had people shooting at them they would be firing everywhere and yet were incapable of hitting the person they were aiming at. Hitting a moving target in a stress situation, especially if they are shooting at you – is hard.
A- not having a student nearby with a gun to play John McClain; or
B- about letting a clearly f’d up kid buy a gun and play a real-life shooter video game all over the joint; or
C- both?
Why is there never some reasonable approach from gunfan? I’ve got an arsenal myself, hunted big game 20 days this year between bow and rifle seasons, and absolutely support having my CCP, but at some point you have to agree that:
a- a very sizable chuck of people in this country should not have access to firearms,
b- there is a limit to what is a reasonable weapon for a civilian to own,
c- there are probably a bunch of unintended consequences to having a fully armed (that is, concealed arms) society.
Sorry for the lettered lists, not sure what got into me.
This fantasy that some 18-yr-old kid packing a keltec could have saved a few lives is bullshit. Much more likely is said 18-yr-old whom you empowered with the ability to carry on campus shoots himself in the pecker in the frat house john on his first night at college getting wasted on vodka.
Let me just say: please stop. You are not helping. Thank you.
Attacking opponents of gun possession as “pussys” doesn’t do a single damn thing to promote your argument. There are many reasonable people who dislike firearms. My mother is not comfortable with both my and my stepfather owning guns. She is a retired nurse who has seen what firearms can do, and so has my sister-in-law, an OB/GYN who worked in a Cleveland emergency room during her training. I disagree with both of them on this but I would not use that sort of language to describe them or anyone else with concerns.
I think that the CSU ban is wrong and it won’t do a single thing to prevent gun violence on campus. As far as I know there hasn’t been a problem with firearms at CSU up till now so this appears to be a politically correct feel good measure.
You are exactly right, RSB.
As noted, the “warrior” tag, the “pussy” tag and his simplistic solutions tell me he is a walkin’ talkin’ (carryin’? He doesn’t say.) case of Machismo.
I hope that if he has a CCP, they take it away. Of if he doesn’t, he can’t get one. This is NOT the kind of citizen I want walking around packing heat, just lookin’ for the bad guy.
that they have CCP and still destroy his ‘arguments.’
Myself, although I do think the ‘well-regulated’ clause means something, I tend to think the BORs give power to individuals (even the 10th, which gives them first to states then to the people, respectively). Thus, to say I am ‘anti-gun’ is false, a red herring, and a fictitious two-dimensional strawman “librul,” which I take to be the only type that the ‘warrior’ can argue against with the little capgun that is his mental powers.
Anti in the sense that I believe that we have WAY too many handguns floating around. Also anti-gun in the sense that shooting people to “correct” some perceived problem or slight is deeply embedded in our culture.
Although Canada has the same rate of gun ownership, Michael Moore (Boo!, Warrior) showed in Bowling for Columbine how Canadian “kids” chose talking over shooting to correct a problem.
I have zero problems with hunting and target rifles and their uses.
I was disappointed in the latest Supreme Court ruling; I do believe the FF meant the right is tied to the militia. But it is the law of the land and I must respect it, even if differing.
First, you take the Virginia Tech example and assume that if someone else, a student had a gun, he/she could have dropped the guy who started the shooting and you’re right that is one possible outcome but not even close to the only outcome.
What if one student had a gun and pulled his revolver and began shooting at the psycho who started the shooting at Virginia Tech but then a second student came along, pulled his gun, but mistook the student who was defending against the psycho as the bad guy and began shooting at him/her. That’s why we don’t need guns on campus. Your assuming in every case the good guys will recognize the bad guys and everyone will be shooting at the bad guy. Not necessarily the case.
On top of that, I’m not interested in having a bunch of 18 and 19 year olds who may be binge drinking firing off their revolvers in a drunken stupor. We should be using common sense on this issue which it appears CSU is doing.
that, according to the Post article, “an international study by law enforcement” came to the opposite conclusion of GOPWarrior. But why rely on actual information, when baseless conjecture is so much more convenient?
Anyone who has to argue the point by resorting to 6th grade playground insults can’t argue the point at all. You are badly outclassed by many – most – of the other posters in this thread.
Second, you’re trying to equate the female anatomy – crudely at that – with weakness generally, which makes you a misogynist pig.
….that like all misogynists he uses “pussy” in a condescending manner, yet unless he is gay, he wants access to “pussy” so very badly.
Which is it? Something horrible or something of great ecstasy? I know where my vote is…..
Non-mass murder in VA
Gunman buys hunting rifle – goes to shot prof, jams rifle. Would self-styled heero shot gunman after he jams his rifle and is no longer a threat? Self-styled heero would not have had time to find gun, cock/charge, aim and shoot before gunman was no longer a threat.
I am sure Tommy Tancredo and Brophy are ready to use this to prove how everyday on every school campus the instructors and students are at risk because the self-styled heeroes are not legally armed.
True, there are three campus presidents, but one is CSU Global, which is 100 percent online; students NEVER interact with faculty in a classroom or with each other, except online. So the chances that a gun ban, or permitting concealed carry, at CSU Global is non-existent.
CSU Global allows guns, the other campuses don’t.
The carry law permits businesses or organizations to ban weapons, including those permitted under the carry law, on their property if properly noticed.
One would think a “lawmaker” would know the law, but I guess that’s asking too much.
I have a carry permit and weapons, and I have an obligation to know the law, and to know where and where not it is permitted for me to carry a concealed weapon.
the law permits property owners to choose if they want to allow concealed weapons on their property, or not. I thought Republicans were all for the rights of property owners?
He doesn’t think there should be publicly funded education anyway.
And I’m pretty sure the private colleges in Colorado don’t allow concealed carry.
BTW- I’m pretty sure the service academies, including our own Air Force- don’t allow private carry either. pussy liberals all of em
invoking national tragedies to score political points? They wave the bloody flag more than Rudy Giuliani.
WTF? Doesn’t anyone remember Columbine and Bailey High Schools?
If you don’t support letting high school kids carry, you’re a goddamned liberal pussy.
In fact, it’s only a matter of time before some middle school kid snaps. I say let’s be proactive about this: gun rights for six graders. Now!
Using the logic of Kent Lambert here, wouldn’t it also make equal sense to arm high school seniors? They can legally own guns, wouldn’t it be in our best interest to make sure they all have firearms?
Reading these many diaries, posts, replies and scribblings from the John Wayne “heeero” wannabee’s is disgusting. Can’t have your gun in your pocket on campus – by GOD there will be a “masacree” (Arlo Guthree Alice’s Restaurant Masacree) because some Republican (I have not seen many Democrats post about being a HEERO) is not allowed to legally carry a sidearm or elephant gun or who knows what else to class. Reading the scribblings it sounds like there is a masacree happening daily on school campus’ around the country.
It all sounds the same whether it is from high level adults, Rove and Cheney come to mind, or anonymously posted on blogs. It’s all the same “I have to carry my gun because no one else can save the world when that evil gunman busts through the door shooting at all the womin an’ chillen.” This heero complex is a problem for them because there are just not enough daily mass killings and holdups for them to stop.
When I was a young Airman sitting in my first class on the basics of being a soldier in basic training my TI asked the big question, “How many of you wanna be a heero?” Lots “E” in “heero”. There was a lecture on how no one from his class will be a “heero”. He was to teach us how to survive and how to do it without getting killed – and as importantly – not get anyone else killed.
Reading what the heero wannabes write is scary. It sounds like they believe they are the only ones who can kill the bad guy in a classroom shooting. Or a church shooting. Or a shooting on a military installation. What they apparently have not read is that the people who stopped the shooters were trained to do that. They were not carrying a gun to show how big and tough they are, but because they are there for a reason.
My solution is for the heero wannabee’s to enlist. But, pick which branch you want to be a heero in carefully. Some like the Coast Guard or Navy will not have you in the middle of the fight all the time. Choose the Marines or Army, and don’t let any of those liberals talk you into whimpy occupations. Demand you get combat duty so you can carry a weapon and have a pistol strapped to your leg every day. You can also carry things that go boom and are not allowed in civilian life too. Things like grenades.
Something to keep in mind though when you are out on patrol. Somebody may not appreciate your efforts to be a heero, especially if it will cause them to be killed. They may also not care for your rantings about the slippery slope of keeping guns off of college campuses destroys your ability to be a heero.
…one thing that always cracks me up about the uber-Gundamentalists is they think they are all some sort of crack-shootin’ commandos. That ownership of a firearm makes you Delta-Force qualified.
I have news for all you idiots – you’d die within 10 seconds of being in a real firefight. Plinking at a paper target in a quiet, dimly-lit firing range is about as far removed from real combat that you’ll ever get.
But let’s carry this moronic point a bit further…let’s say you get your gun-fantasy fufilled, and you’re in a classroom when someone starts shooting. People will be running around and screaming, your pulse will shoot up to somewhere near 200 bpm, and your vision will tunnel.
Now, the idea of identifying and engaging a target starts to really crap out. You may or may not hear what’s going on around you. You’ll probably start to tremble from the adrenaline in your system, so now that “easy shot” turns into trying to hit a target while jumping up and down on a trampoline.
Even if you manage to ID and engage the shooter, are you sure you’ll be able to hit him with all the people running around and your weapon skewing about wildly? And for all your testosterone-fueled boasting, when the moment comes, will you pull the trigger? Before the shooter does.
We can play Constitutional Trivial Pursuit all we want on this point…but please SHUT THE F*CK UP about how you’d calmly whip out your firearm and blow away anyone that threatens you.
Because unless you’ve been in an actual firefight, you don’t know SHIT.
when I was in, decades ago, we had our own personal discussions of what being a “hero” meant. We all seemed to think that there were far too many ready to bestow the term on anyone who died whether or not there was anything above and beyond involved.
By and large, agreeing with Pam, all of my training was about doing a job, protecting each other, and coming back alive.
Houston McCoy, a trained Austin police officer, was diagnosed and awarded benefits because of his role in killing Charles Whitman with a shotgun so many years before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H…
look how many people a gun-toting Bruce Willis saved in all the Die Hard movies, and he never suffered PTSD. And didn’t Bruce use explosives, too? Maybe we should legalize the concealed carry of explosives so the heeroes can really take out the bad guys in grand form.
he helped guide a rocket-propelled nuke into an asteroid on a collision course with Earth (or was going to, or trying to, or something like that…). Sooooo, maybe we should legalize possession of ICBMs with nuclear warheads, in case someone with a telescope notices an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, and has to act fast….
You know, between Bruce Willis and Kiefer Sutherland, I think we pretty much have all our hollywood-lessons-on-domestic-international-and-interstellar-security covered. How could we go wrong following such tried-and-true archetypes?
….and you might be starting to lose the Redemptive Violence believers.
I remember that movie; surprisingly, it wasn’t terrible.
I lost them a long time ago!
He and his crew had to drill a hole in the asteroid, drop a nuke down the hole, and blow up the asteroid. Thank goodness that Bill Ritter’s regulations weren’t in effect back then, or else Bruce would have been prohibited from drilling on the asteroid and Earth would have been destroyed!
just fracc’ed it to death, and saved the nuke…. No, that wouldn’t have worked: It would only have poisoned the drinking water of the people living on the asteroid, not kept it from colliding with Earth….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
University presidents and students both said that allowing concealed weapons in the classroom would inhibit academic debate. Since the statewide CCP preempted local ordinances across the board, the exemption for businesses and organizations was put in. It seemed reasonable to trade whatever security an individual’s protective firearm would provide for the piece of mind that a heated argument might escalate into gunplay in a crowded institutional setting. That’s not to mention the problem with emotionally unstable adolescents in communal dorm living arrangements having access to firearms to settle problems.
At least with a gun ban, those students that feel it necessary to carry will have to do so responsibly enough to avoid getting caught.