I wish the Colorado Second Amendment Caucus well. Misleading stats on gun violence. Progress on a CPW appointment, stalling on wolves.
I wish the Colorado Second Amendment Caucus well. Misleading stats on gun violence. Progress on a CPW appointment, stalling on wolves.
I wish the Colorado Second Amendment Caucus well. I support the idea.
I just don't think it's going to matter.
The article below details the formation of a new caucus among Colorado State House Republicans. It's not quite clear who all is in it (Bottoms and Armagost are mentioned but that's it).
The purpose, according to a quote by Rep Bottoms is "...to ensure that all Coloradoans are knowledgeable and safe when it comes to firearm ownership. The Colorado Second Amendment Caucus will serve as a platform for collaboration and understanding, transcending party lines to achieve this."
This is a worthy goal and I'm in support of it. To the extent that it gets media attention I'm a fan.
It will not, in any way, affect policy unfortunately. I don't even think it will get much more media attention than this article.
Right now, politically, the Republicans in this state are irrelevant and, unless they behave like idiots in such a way as to get page clicks, their actions aren't really newsworthy.
Perhaps the best way to view this is as a foundation, a start.
I wish them well and will continue to post about gun rights here and there, but if this issue is a passion for you, I'd recommend what I have for some time now: find a group that matches your values and that fights for your rights in court. Direct your time, attention, and money there.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/legislature/colorado-legislators-launch-second-amendment-caucus/article_4a67340e-59b7-11ef-ba6b-1b0f83b65a04.html
Misleading stats on gun violence.
I wanted to share Mr. Rosen’s op ed on gun violence (linked first below) because you need to know (if you don’t already) how the definitions around gun violence are manipulated so as to reinforce and bolster claims by gun control advocates.
To wit, the following quotes from the op ed:
“In a July speech advocating for more stringent gun control, President Biden claimed that ‘More children are killed by a bullet than any other cause of death.’ That’s surely an alarming and tragic statistic but a very misleading one. The use of the word ‘children’ is deceptive, emotionally bringing to mind infants, toddlers and kindergartners. Legally, a ‘child’ can be as old as 17, or even 20 in some states, including those with felony convictions and gangbangers in inner cities, like Chicago.”
“Recently, Vivek Murthy, the Surgeon General of the United States, issued a public declaration that our country is experiencing a ‘gun violence crisis.’ … That apparent discrepancy [a difference in public perception of an increase in violence compared to a drop, depending on definitions] can be explained by terminology, definitions and spin, especially skewing the impact of suicide, which the Surgeon General conveniently includes in his definition of gun violence. Suicides with the use of a gun account for 56% of all gun deaths. But an act of violence is something you inflict on someone else, not on yourself.”
I do not highlight the former quote to try and somehow draw a distinction between one individual’s death and another’s. Everyone has a mother, a father, a family and their life (or the end of their life) is a loss.
No, I highlight the former quote because you need to understand what you’re told so you can weigh it appropriately. Children in your mind brings up images of innocence and little ones; this is why that language is used.
It is a far different thing, however, to have someone hurt by actions for which they bear at least some culpability. If you participate in violence, can you not expect the risk of it happening to you? Again, it’s no less a tragedy, but it changes the dynamics and it points to a different solution to the problem—something other than “we have to keep kids safe from guns by taking them away from everyone”.
The same happens for suicide. Putting firearm suicides in with acts of violence is intentionally muddying the waters and for the same reason as above. Yes, suicide can reasonably be viewed as violence against oneself, but the solution—the policy prescription—for suicide is different than the solution for other problems.
I write a lot about the intersection of guns and public health because it’s an interest, and also because it’s a concern and the above helps illustrate why I have concerns.
If the public health infrastructure in this country wants to participate in helping reduce gun violence, okay. I’m not outright opposed. They would be wise, however, to be honest and forthright in their efforts if they want to be seen as helping and not as using their power and position as a ramrod or justification for policy.
What we’ve seen from Biden, from the Surgeon General, and, unfortunately also from some policymakers in this state has not been that kind of forthright and I expect there to be continued mistrust.
I know there will be on my part.
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2024/08/19/rosen-surgeon-general-misleads-on-gun-violence/
Progress on a CPW Commissioner appointment, with stalling on wolves.
When I first saw the article on Polis recent appointment to the CPW Commissioners Board and read the part at the top, my eyes rolled--yet another appointee who has little to no ties to the community they represent.
That doesn't seem to be the case here. In a rare display of appointing people from a community to represent that community, Polis appointed Murphy Robinson who describes himself as an avid hunter.**
Quoting the article, "He [Robinson] initially hunted pheasants and quail, but has been going after big game in recent years. Meat from the hunt is now his preferred food for his family, he said. 'I'm really excited to one day take my first elk,' he said."
Perhaps equally important to note is what Robinson says later in that same article.
"Robinson said Colorado voters have spoken about bringing wolves back to the state. But it's just as important to listen to the communities affected by policies approved by the people or by political leaders, he said. 'It’s our duty to hear from the people that our polices are affecting,' he said. 'While it was the will of the people to make sure wolves are reintroduced, we have to make sure that the ag community is heard.'"
Those are the right things to say. They're heartening. But will they amount to any new action? Here I'm a little more skeptical.
Turn now to the the KDVR article linked second below.
It's yet another article about yet another official letter (a joint one from the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, the North Park Stockgrowers Association, the Middle Park Stockgrowers Association and the Routt County Cattlemen’s Association) asking yet again for CPW to get off its rear and do something about the wolves chronically taking cattle in the area.
Quoting the KDVR article:
"The letter particularly highlighted that the Middle Park Stockgrowers applied for a Chronic Depredation Permit to lethally remove two wolves in Middle Park that were identified as responsible for multiple depredations at nearby ranches. The groups said CPW 'waited' to deny the permit until July 31. The group said the denial 'highlights a troubling trend of prioritizing wolves over the legitimate needs and rights of livestock producers. The protections of depredating apex predators should not come at the expense of livestock producers who have demonstrated a clear and ongoing threat to their livestock and livelihood,' the groups wrote."
Now, I want you to read CPW Director Davis' words in the official CPW response and put them next to the words of Robinson above. Doing so, you'll quickly see my skepticism.
"I will again stress CPW’s full commitment to working collaboratively with all agricultural stakeholders in Colorado through all phases of the voter-approved wolf restoration effort. This is a top priority for CPW, and we continue to work with ranchers to provide funding, resources, range riders and staff. We’re working hard to resolve wolf-livestock conflicts and focusing even more on education and non-lethal management techniques to support ranchers. We’ve created the ad hoc wolf working group. The group provides an invaluable forum for diverse stakeholders to come together in a cooperative, face-to-face manner to help us achieve positive outcomes for all in Colorado’s wolf restoration. CPW is working on all fronts and taking a necessary and adaptive approach to implementing the state’s Wolf Restoration and Management Plan and to implement state statute."
So, yeah. Let's get out there, roll up our sleeves and get right down to rapping. Kicking out the jams. Having those stakeholder conversations. Face-to-face.
Let's really "hear" people.
That, those words, that tone, that mimicking of Polis' "say nothing by saying it all" is worth an eye roll.
I'm glad for the progress on one front. As I tell my students, what they've got is a good start.
Now it's time to turn that start into something worth a damn.
**Murphy was appointed to represent the hunting and fishing communities.