CMJeepster 2,766 Posted July 25, 2014 "Gun law based on flawed estimate" http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-gun-law-based-flawed-estimate-070030733.html - By Ivan Moreno ------ "DENVER (AP) — A law expanding background check requirements on Colorado gun sales has been in effect for about a year, and an Associated Press analysis of state data compiled during that span shows the projected impact was vastly overstated in a key budget report. The discovery has prompted a prominent Democratic lawmaker to question whether the Legislature misallocated millions of taxpayer dollars based on the flawed estimate, which has provided an opportunity for Republicans to resume attacks over regulation that already has come at great political cost to Colorado liberals. Democrats pushed the proposal into law last year as part of a package of gun restrictions meant to improve safety after devastating mass shootings. Lawmakers drafting the background check requirement, aimed at keeping firearms away from those with a criminal history, relied on information from a non-partisan research arm of the Legislature that predicted about 420,000 new reviews over the first two years. Accordingly, they budgeted about $3 million to the agency that conducts the checks to handle the anticipated surge of work. But after a year of operating under the new system, Colorado Bureau of Investigations officials have performed only about 13,600 reviews considered a result of the new law — about 7 percent of the estimated first year total. "I'm not discouraged by the lower number," said Democratic Rep. Rhonda Fields, who sponsored the legislation in response to the Aurora movie theater rampage that killed 12 and wounded dozens of others in her district and the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, that left 28 people dead, including 20 first-graders. "I think that it's a good number, because it shows me that people are complying with the law," she said. Still, Fields acknowledged, "I'm going to be asking some questions because I want to be a good steward of our tax dollars." For Republicans, it provides evidence that a plan they opposed from the start was an unnecessary attack on the rights of gun owners and bolsters the conservative efforts that recalled two Democratic state senators and prompted a third to resign. "Nothing good came of the passage of the law, except we found out just how anti-gun Democrats in Colorado are," said GOP state Sen. Greg Brophy. The funding increase, CBI officials say, has gone to hiring and operating expenses. Spokeswoman Susan Medina told the AP that about a dozen full-time employee positions have been filled since the increase, but that "the full authorized staff was not implemented." Medina says the agency has funding for about 14 more full-time employee positions that have gone unfilled. It wasn't clear how much of the $3 million allocation has gone unspent. The funding increase, CBI officials say, has gone to hiring and operating expenses. Spokeswoman Susan Medina told the AP that about a dozen full-time employee positions have been filled since the increase, but that "the full authorized staff was not implemented." The 420,000 estimate was provided by a standard Colorado Legislative Council review. The council regularly assesses costs or other impacts of legislation. Officials with the panel aren't allowed to speak publicly but provided AP with an explanation of how they reached the figure. Gun-control advocates have long asserted that 40 percent of gun sales nationwide are made by private sellers and thus not subject to background checks. President Barack Obama cited the number last year, unsuccessfully urging Congress to pass a law mandating "universal background checks." But that figure, which Colorado legislative analysts and CBI officials say was the best available for the basis of their estimation calculus, comes from a 1997 National Institute of Justice report that gun-right's activists criticize as inaccurate. Catherine Mortensen, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, said that using the 40 percent figure as a basis for Colorado's projection "calls into question lawmakers' access to accurate information on not only this, but all firearms-related legislation." In total, there were about 311,000 background checks done during the first year of the expansion in Colorado, meaning the 13,600 checks between private sellers made up about 4 percent of the state total. Further, the private review figure includes the number of checks done at gun shows, which have been required for years in Colorado. The law also requires checks for online sales, which is new for transactions within Colorado. But such vetting was already required on interstate sales. Still, interstate activity is tallied in the private background check total. Taken together, this indicates that the number of newly mandated background checks that have been performed is even lower than 13,600. Of the 13,600, there were 260 denials the first year under the expanded system. But because of how state data is compiled, however, it's unclear how many of those denials are tied to the new law, and how many happened under existing rules such as the gun-show requirement. Still, Brian Malte, senior national policy director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said his group applauds Colorado for passing the law. "The bottom line," he said, "is even if one, or five, or 10, or 10,000 or 20,000 people are being blocked, that's less dangerous people walking around with guns." ------ 7%. That's right, 7% of the estimated amount. If this doesn't show you the inflated figures used to get knee-jerk crap legislation passed, then nothing will. This just goes into the bucket along with comments from our own legislators like, "I don't know anything about it, but I'm going to vote for it anyway." Unreal. All of these people need to me removed from office immediately and replaced with true representatives of the people that will think things through and use real data to pass real legislation, not crap like this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oleg 8 Posted July 25, 2014 It is not "gun law based on wrong estimates". It is budget money are allocated on wrong estimates. But yeah, that does not make a good article title. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted July 25, 2014 If I performed my work and was 93% wrong, don't you think I would get fired? My point was that the legistators inflated this, so shouldn't we think they're inflating other "facts" to push their crap through? Would you be OK with your doctor being 93% wrong about your health? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Bill 649 Posted July 25, 2014 If the long guns in Colorado where changing hands before the law without paperwork, and that was legal, what is stopping it now. Because the state says so? "I will not comply" seems to be working in Colorado also. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oleg 8 Posted July 25, 2014 Estimates are wrong all the time. That's why they are estimates. For example one CC economist was grossly wrong on his estimates of state income for four years before he got fired. Anyway from article it is clear that problem is not law, but estimate how much it will cost to implement it. Title should be "Good news everyone, implementing new law did not cost as much as expected." P.S. I am not talking about whether law was good or bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted July 25, 2014 Estimates are wrong all the time. That's why they are estimates. But 93%??? That's way too much. "I will not comply" seems to be working in Colorado also. I think that's part of the gap, but not the entire thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted July 25, 2014 But 93%??? That's way too much. I think that's part of the gap, but not the entire thing. Hell, a wild ass guess usually gets you 50%. This is plain falsification of numbers to justify a point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted July 25, 2014 I'm in construction. If one of my contractors was off by 93%, that would be the last job they did for me if my boss didn't fire me first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted July 25, 2014 Funny.... I notice it's disappeared from the Yahoo! "Trending" timeline... about 2-3hrs after it was trending a the top! But the one advocating safety training for kids (spun as: NRA to students: Want to move up to the next grade? Learn how to shoot a gun ) is still trending after a day or so... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
illy 1 Posted July 25, 2014 It's not just a bad estimate, it was an estimate arrived at by using a long discredited lie of the antis http://washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlDente67 563 Posted July 25, 2014 It's not just a bad estimate, it was an estimate arrived at by using a long discredited lie of the antis http://washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html And also, even a licensed dealer is only going to push the form over to me to check off the boxes that I'm not crazy, a drunk, or a felon. Pointless for any long gun purchase. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted July 25, 2014 Estimates are wrong all the time. That's why they are estimates. For example one CC economist was grossly wrong on his estimates of state income for four years before he got fired. Anyway from article it is clear that problem is not law, but estimate how much it will cost to implement it. Title should be "Good news everyone, implementing new law did not cost as much as expected." P.S. I am not talking about whether law was good or bad. Sorry, but no. The law was put in place to eliminate sales without background checks under the assumption that there were a lot of them. something in the neighborhood of 40%. IT turns out that there weren't. The law was based on the premise that it would limit gun violence by limiting sales to "bad" people. It did not change much because not only were the numbers of person to person direct transfers not particularly high, they overwhelmingly passed the background checks anyway. The legislation was an expensive no-op, teh fact that it cost less than they estimated is not the issue. Not even remotely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PeteF 1,044 Posted July 26, 2014 Update: Here is the full AP story. Notice they're now emphasizing that the perp was "complaining" about the "hospital gun ban" before shooting. Wherefore the Dr. pulls out his own concealed weapon and shoots the perp. And, of course, the very last paragraph discusses the "hospital ban on anyone other than LEOs" carrying on their property, but that the hospital spokesperson would not comment any further... Neither would the Dr., who is resting at home. Another fine example of the MSM trying to stir up stuff! At least the DA is calling it "self-defense." Wrong Thread? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted July 26, 2014 Wrong Thread? Yeah... Sorry.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted August 4, 2014 Related article: "Cell phone study explains why gun control laws fail" http://www.examiner.com/article/cell-phone-study-explains-why-gun-control-laws-fail ------ For a while now, I've been trying to figure out how to link the ignoring of the cell phone use while driving ban with gun control and this article gets ppretty close to my thoughts & feelings on the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted August 4, 2014 It's hard to make any conclusions from this data. Maybe some individuals, faced with a tougher standard, simply went outside the system or didn't try to purchase a gun. What I would like stats on are how these stupid laws, including mag limits and increased scrutiny, have improved public safety in the three main states where they passed, Connecticut, New York, and Colorado. I'd love to see those numbers. The laws have been in force for 18 months at least. Let's see the numbers, folks, compared with nation-wide figures. Let's see 'em. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted August 5, 2014 I can't give you numbers for that, but for any location you can find one with similar population density. You can have higher crime with harsh gun control, or higher crime without, and just the opposite. Violent crime or property crime, it doesn't matter. Strict gun control laws don't really matter, and neither do lax ones. It's not the primary motivator or de motivator for crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites