More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[billeisele 122]

11 minutes ago, kallend said:

No, they don't.  The current set of gun laws is piecemeal and ineffective because at every turn the gun lobby and its lackeys in the GOP have worked hard to ensure that the laws are indeed weak and  ineffective, even to the point of banning government funded research on gun crime.

 

Every other developed country manages to reduce gun crime far more effectively than the USA. Every one.  

John - seems that were almost always in opposition. Maybe it's your continuous insulting generalizations that have little basis in fact. This one clearly states that it's only the GOP that is in opposition. That is ridiculous. Your determination of "weak and ineffective" is just that, your opinion. 

A quick check of the gun laws in your violence filled city shows that IL requires a Firearms Owner ID card (FOID) card to be able to possess a gun or ammo. The City of Chicago and Cook County have a law that bans assault weapons. The city outlawed the sale or possession of handguns in 1982, it lasted 28 years before being deemed unconstitutional in 2010. These gun laws are some of the strictest in the nation.

Please explain how well this is working.

Seems to be a good location for an experiment, clearly one that isn't working. Why is it difficult to understand that criminals ignore laws and that more laws isn't going to change that. It only impacts law abiding folks.
 

 

Thought this was an interesting quote from the Chicago Tribune, June 10,2021. Maybe it's not just the GOP.

More than two years later, however, Pritzker and the Democratic-controlled legislature haven’t enacted those policies or any other major gun safety measures, even as they successfully pushed progressive measures that range from legalizing marijuana to abolishing cash bail. “These are complicated issues,” Pritzker said of gun control last week in an interview with the Chicago Tribune.

[wmw999 2,116]

Thanks for the very thoughtful replies, Bill. Gotta get to them later, however. Gotta go jumping

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,380]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Making more laws when the current laws aren't enforced or are ignored by criminals makes no sense.

Law enforcement - agreed, we should do that.

New laws when current law is "ignored by criminals make no sense" - how does that work?  Rapists ignore laws against rape.  Murderers ignore laws against murder.  Drunk drivers ignore laws against drunk driving.  In fact "ignoring laws" is pretty much the definition of criminal.  Does that mean that laws against rape and murder make no sense because criminals ignore them, and passing a new law would then do absolutely nothing?

You got annoyed when I missed your "clear and simple point" but then you say things like that.

Criminals ignore laws.  Always have, always will.  That doesn't mean that laws make no sense, whether they prohibit drunk driving, ownership of assault weapons or murder.  And again, in fact, new laws passed against drunk driving (even though there were already laws on the books that drunk drivers were ignoring) did indeed reduce the incidence of drunk driving.

Quote

Making it more difficult for a legal owner to have self protection enables the criminals. Folks want to impose restrictions on guns when the gun isn't the problem. Yes, those dangerous AR14's (crazy Joe - 2020), pure ignorance.

The gun isn't the problem.  It is people using them as the problem.  They enable and empower criminals to murder, steal and commit mass shootings.  Alcohol isn't the problem either - it's the person who drinks it and then drives.  In both cases, laws against their misuse can (and has) reduced the problem with both those issues.

Quote

On your examples of drunk driving and rape. Drunk driving laws weren't enacted on the alcohol, they were enacted on those that knowingly kept serving the drinker and on the drinker. Rape laws weren't enacted on the offending body part, they were enacted on the person.

EXACTLY!  No one is going to pass a law against a gun.  No gun will ever go to jail.  They are going to pass laws against owning, modifying and/or using specific guns.  They are going to pass laws against gun sellers who sell weapons without a background check.  These will apply to people, not guns.  Again, just as we did with drunk driving.  And it worked.

[kallend 1,620]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

John - seems that were almost always in opposition.

Nothing you wrote in any way negates my statement.

EVERY other developed nation manages to have a gun violence level far below that of the USA.  Every one.  No exceptions.  FACT!

Are Americans just nastier than the citizens of other developed countries?  Or could it possibly be that our gun laws have been deliberately made ineffective by deliberate action? 

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Nothing you wrote in any way negates my statement.

EVERY other developed nation manages to have a gun violence level far below that of the USA.  Every one.  No exceptions.  FACT!

Are Americans just nastier than the citizens of other developed countries?  Or could it possibly be that our gun laws have been deliberately made ineffective by deliberate action? 

Hi John,

IMO most of what Bill posts regarding guns, is his opinion; not facts. *

You post facts.

Hmmmm,

Jerry Baumchen 

* Anyone who disagrees, should take the time to carefully read what he posts.

[wmw999 2,116]

22 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

IMO most of what Bill posts regarding guns, is his opinion; not facts. .

However he is honest about that; there are a number of “in my opinion” in his post. Which to me is owning his opinions and showing the thought process. 
Wendy P. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

4 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

However he is honest about that; there are a number of “in my opinion” in his post. Which to me is owning his opinions and showing the thought process. 
Wendy P. 

Hi Wendy,

Try to find 'in my opinion' in Post 522.

I think Bill in sincere in his comments.  However, they are comments and not facts.

Jerry Baumchen

[wmw999 2,116]

22 hours ago, billeisele said:

John - seems that were almost always in opposition. Maybe it's your continuous insulting generalizations that have little basis in fact. This one clearly states that it's only the GOP that is in opposition. That is ridiculous. Your determination of "weak and ineffective" is just that, your opinion. 

A quick check of the gun laws in your violence filled city shows that IL requires a Firearms Owner ID card (FOID) card to be able to possess a gun or ammo. The City of Chicago and Cook County have a law that bans assault weapons. The city outlawed the sale or possession of handguns in 1982, it lasted 28 years before being deemed unconstitutional in 2010. These gun laws are some of the strictest in the nation.

Please explain how well this is working.

Seems to be a good location for an experiment, clearly one that isn't working. Why is it difficult to understand that criminals ignore laws and that more laws isn't going to change that. It only impacts law abiding folks.
 

 

Thought this was an interesting quote from the Chicago Tribune, June 10,2021. Maybe it's not just the GOP.

More than two years later, however, Pritzker and the Democratic-controlled legislature haven’t enacted those policies or any other major gun safety measures, even as they successfully pushed progressive measures that range from legalizing marijuana to abolishing cash bail. “These are complicated issues,” Pritzker said of gun control last week in an interview with the Chicago Tribune.

One of the biggest problems with gun control in the US is the fact that it’s a large, contiguous, mobile, country with completely uncontrolled borders. And a city, especially, is like an island in the middle of an ocean of guns. 
You must have read references to guns bought legally elsewhere being used in the commission of crimes in places where those guns would not have been as easy to secure. 
It’s kind of like when people go to Massachusetts or Colorado to get pot, only pot isn’t as easy to weaponize. Yes, there are cases of DUI, but with pot they generally lead to less aggressiveness, not more. Unlike alcohol, which is regularly involved as an exacerbating factor. 
I understand to some degree the desire to be able to take care of one’s self and one’s family under dangerous circumstances. But when the overall numbers (I.e. damned statistics) indicate that a handgun is more likely either to be stolen or used against the owner or their family (including fights and threats within the family) than it is to be used against an outside intruder, I come down on putting it into the same category with other tools that I just don’t want to have; they’re more likely to hurt me or what I’m trying to accomplish than help. Those are jobs I contract to professionals. 
Ive owned guns; I’m not a bad shot, and I at least used to be pretty good at cleaning even the dreaded Ruger 22 pistol (though I like rifles better). But I don’t now; they’re neither a toy I’ll use regularly enough to maintain proficiency and enjoy (like the motorcycle I sold a couple of years ago), nor something I need. The main protections I have are being less interesting than most of the neighbors, and multiple escape paths from the house. Along, of course, with our fearsome attack cats Bubba and Felix. 
What I’m trying to say is that the politicization of the gun argument has added weight in places where it doesn’t belong. If you really consider a gun to be like a hammer, how many do you own if you’re not either in a construction business or a serious hobbyist? 
Wendy P. 

[piisfish 135]

42 minutes ago, wmw999 said:If you really consider a gun to be like a hammer, how many do you own if you’re not either in a construction business or a serious hobbyist? 
Wendy P. 

Would you compare a Concrete Rebound Hammer to an AR15 ?

[Stumpy 254]

56 minutes ago, piisfish said:

Would you compare a Concrete Rebound Hammer to an AR15 ?

If I remember the occasion correctly, I'm pretty sure nothing compares to a Concrete Rebound Hammer

[lurch 0]

Concrete Rebound Hammer will make you wonder why you haven't ever crushed a human skull, with your bare hands! Concrete Rebound hammer is the glitch in the Matrix you've been waiting for! Concrete Rebound hammer is never void, even where prohibited! Do not bend, spindle, fold or mutilate Concrete Rebound Hammer! With Concrete Rebound Hammer, you CAN touch this! Concrete Rebound Hammer should not be transported in any model year of Volkswagen Bug! (Shipping via stick insect is available in the US Virgin Islands, and all other islands that have had sex at least once in their lives.) Concrete Rebound Hammer is on a World Tour that's banned throughout the world! Concrete Rebound Hammer is compatible with neither Windows, nor Apples! (Do not use Concrete Rebound Hammer on doors or grapes. Pears and oranges are fine.) Also, Linux is right out. Concrete Rebound Hammer has NO cholesterol! Concrete Rebound Hammer is neither Vegan nor gluten free! Concrete Rebound Hammer is available in bottles, cans, and cute wicker baskets made by the hard working indigenous people of... someplace!

Concrete Rebound Hammer is back like a vertebrae!

Concrete Rebound Hammer will NEVER DIE!

FUCK, YEAH!!!!!

Wooooot!

-Lurch

[billvon 2,380]

3 hours ago, piisfish said:

Would you compare a Concrete Rebound Hammer to an AR15 ?

It's the Swiss Army Knife of hammers.

[kallend 1,620]

59 minutes ago, billvon said:

It's the Swiss Army Knife of hammers.

Meh.  48 years behind the Shore sceleroscope, whose idea it stole.

[billeisele 122]

On 6/30/2021 at 10:48 AM, wmw999 said:

Thanks for the very thoughtful replies, Bill. Gotta get to them later, however. Gotta go jumping

Wendy P.

Oh yeah. We had a good day of jumping today until the wind and gusts got higher than our comfort level. We have a great group of 60+ year old folks that jump during the week.

[billeisele 122]

On 6/30/2021 at 1:56 PM, kallend said:

Nothing you wrote in any way negates my statement.

EVERY other developed nation manages to have a gun violence level far below that of the USA.  Every one.  No exceptions.  FACT!

Are Americans just nastier than the citizens of other developed countries?  Or could it possibly be that our gun laws have been deliberately made ineffective by deliberate action? 

OK, let's assume that is true. Isn't also true that some of those countries have fairly high violence levels with other weapons like knives?

I doubt that our citizens are just naturally more nasty, at least I hope not. Seems that there is a long list of reasons for the violence. Many of which I suspect are related to our free and open society that allows folks to prosper. Then there are drugs, gangs, and all the other well-known social issues. And possibly the folks that never had parental discipline, be it from a broken home or a revolving front door. And the list goes on....

If our gun laws have been deliberately made ineffective by deliberate action I'd have to have specific examples to make sense of the premise. Seems that the IL laws are clear and they are simply not able to enforce them. It would be interesting to know how many of the gun violent folks actually have the required State permit.

One of my points is if one looks at a state like IL and an area like Chicago that has strict laws that have been in existence for many years, it's clear that it's not working. 

[billeisele 122]

On 6/30/2021 at 3:16 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi John,

IMO most of what Bill posts regarding guns, is his opinion; not facts. *

You post facts.

Hmmmm,

Jerry Baumchen 

* Anyone who disagrees, should take the time to carefully read what he posts.

Jerry - good evening. I did go back and review 522. It seems to me that it's fairly clear what is opinion and what is fact. I try and be thoughtful and not post BS stuff. 

Not saying that you have done this but it's unreasonable for anyone to state that facts they disagree with are not facts while willingly accepting other statements as fact because they agree with them.

I'll try and be more clear in the future.

[billvon 2,380]

29 minutes ago, billeisele said:

OK, let's assume that is true. Isn't also true that some of those countries have fairly high violence levels with other weapons like knives?

Of course.  But still the US has a murder rate that is close to the top, if not at the top, of other high income countries.  If you look at countries like Russia, Mexico and Colombia, they beat us.  That doesn't seem like much to be proud of, though.

If we solve our gun violence problem we solve most of our murder problem.

Quote

I doubt that our citizens are just naturally more nasty, at least I hope not. Seems that there is a long list of reasons for the violence. Many of which I suspect are related to our free and open society that allows folks to prosper. 

Lots of countries have free and open societies where people prosper.  But again, in free / high income countries we are near the top in terms of murder and gun violence.  Lower income countries (El Salvador, Guatemala) have a lot more violence.  So that's pretty clearly not the reason.

A huge factor is that we have a gun culture here.  Guns are touted as the solution to crime, to insecurity and to fear.  Afraid of being robbed?  Buy a gun.  Want to be a hero?  Buy a gun.  Have neighbors who scream at each other all the time?  Buy a gun.  See homeless people?  Buy a gun.  Don't like who won the election?  Buy a gun.

And then once you spent all that money, you want to get your money's worth, right?  It only makes sense (to them.)

Quote

One of my points is if one looks at a state like IL and an area like Chicago that has strict laws that have been in existence for many years, it's clear that it's not working.

But that's like saying there's a rule that there is no peeing allowed in the shallow end of the pool, but somehow pee ends up there, so rules don't work.  Yes, because pee (and guns) do not stop at pool (or state) borders.

For what happens when you pass strict gun laws for an entire country, look at Australia.

[billeisele 122]

On 6/30/2021 at 11:38 AM, billvon said:

Law enforcement - agreed, we should do that.

New laws when current law is "ignored by criminals make no sense" - how does that work?  Rapists ignore laws against rape.  Murderers ignore laws against murder.  Drunk drivers ignore laws against drunk driving.  In fact "ignoring laws" is pretty much the definition of criminal.  Does that mean that laws against rape and murder make no sense because criminals ignore them, and passing a new law would then do absolutely nothing?

You got annoyed when I missed your "clear and simple point" but then you say things like that.

Criminals ignore laws.  Always have, always will.  That doesn't mean that laws make no sense, whether they prohibit drunk driving, ownership of assault weapons or murder.  And again, in fact, new laws passed against drunk driving (even though there were already laws on the books that drunk drivers were ignoring) did indeed reduce the incidence of drunk driving.

The gun isn't the problem.  It is people using them as the problem.  They enable and empower criminals to murder, steal and commit mass shootings.  Alcohol isn't the problem either - it's the person who drinks it and then drives.  In both cases, laws against their misuse can (and has) reduced the problem with both those issues.

EXACTLY!  No one is going to pass a law against a gun.  No gun will ever go to jail.  They are going to pass laws against owning, modifying and/or using specific guns.  They are going to pass laws against gun sellers who sell weapons without a background check.  These will apply to people, not guns.  Again, just as we did with drunk driving.  And it worked.

Wow, amazing how much we agree. Thanks.

To paragraphs two and four - (IMO - for Jerry) if existing laws have loop holes or are poorly written then absolutely, let's have a new law that fixes those issues. If having press conferences and officials talking about enforcement, and new laws to address criminal activity - OK fine. I still contend that in many cases there are sufficient laws to address the problem.

Paragraphs 5 and 6 - yes, agree

Where we seem to differ is with "assault weapons" and "specific guns." FACT - there are many types of guns that are not typically identified as assault weapons that operate the same way and have similar lethality. The typical semi-auto Remington Model 4, 8 and the most common 7400 series were produced from 1906 - 2014, Ruger carbine rifles, Winchester 1907 and Model 100, Browning BAR, and many others have been around a long time. No one knows how many semi-autos are privately owned in the US. One estimate is 30-40 million. The scary looking black guns, that are typically called assault weapons, have, relatively speaking, not been in production very long. Most believe that they are approximately 40% of rifle purchases today. The original AR came along in 1959 and was produced through 1964. They were banned for 10 years ending in 2004. Sales surged about 500% in 2008 when Obama was elected. No doubt that was due to actions by the NRA and advertising by the manufacturers.

My point to that info (fact) is that there are millions of semi auto long guns that are, for whatever reason, not considered dangerous and have never been mentioned as assault weapons or mentioned as needing to be somehow controlled. Yet they operate the exact same way. One primary difference is that they generally have smaller magazine capacities. Instead of 30ish rounds they may have 5-10. But there are larger after-market mags. So they could be considered less lethal due to small mag capacity but any skilled person can quickly change a magazine.

Then there are (fact) the semi auto pistols made by almost every manufacturer. They have been in production since 1880. Typical mag capacities are 8 - 21 rounds. Many have after market products that extend the capacity.

There are an estimated 430 million guns privately owned. Regardless of the accuracy of that data there are a ton of guns out there.

So, if the so-called assault weapons are somehow controlled, and gun violence isn't substantially reduced, what is next? Federal stats are clear, long guns are rarely used, it's handguns.

How would any type of ban be done? The sheer volume, and the cost would be huge. 

[billeisele 122]

54 minutes ago, billvon said:

But that's like saying there's a rule that there is no peeing allowed in the shallow end of the pool, but somehow pee ends up there, so rules don't work.  Yes, because pee (and guns) do not stop at pool (or state) borders.

For what happens when you pass strict gun laws for an entire country, look at Australia.

Let's focus on these two items.

Peeing in the pool - what I'm describing is that criminals don't care about laws. IL requires a permit and guns are hard to buy there. So they go elsewhere to get a gun and ignore the permit law. With 430 million guns around I don't see how a national permit law will change criminal behavior. Yes, I'm sure there would be a reduction. The question I would have is would it be significant?

An interesting note about the IL permit law is it doesn't require fingerprints. That is a current and ongoing argument in IL. In SC no permit is required to own a gun. If one wants to carry it concealed a CWP is required . Pictures, ID, and finger prints are taken, and a full background check is done. About 8% of residents have a CWP. That's probably 10 -15% of the adult population. In 2021 the number of background checks done were: SC 531,000, CA 1,600,000, and IL 7,455,000. These are done when a gun is purchased or permit issued. Plenty of gun stuff going on.  

As to Australia - Fact - In 1996 they had gun buybacks and voluntary surrenders. They collected 1 million guns which was estimated at one-third of the guns. A license is required, a need must be proved and all guns are registered by serial number to the owner. No one knows what percentage of guns are owned without a license. A 2017 study showed that many Australian states had significantly weakened gun laws with no state fully compliant with the 1996 National Firearms Agreement. There have been four amnesty periods that allowed folks that weren't in compliance with the law to come forward. Those resulted in 118,000 guns being turned in and 22,000 registrations. Current estimates are that there are 3.2 million guns in private hands of which 414,000 are unregistered.

Compare that to the US where there are an estimated 430 million guns privately owned. If one-third were collected that would be 143 million. The cost would be astronomical. Then with amnesty periods over 21 years an additional 17 million would be collected. That leaves 270 million in private hands assuming that no more guns were produced or sold in the US. That's 84X more guns than Australia is dealing with. Note that in Australia the total number of guns grew back to the original number they had before the NFA. If that occurred in the US we would have 134X more guns than Australia with 56 million being unregistered.

IMO - Regardless of how these numbers are evaluated the US would have a tremendous number of guns, and criminals would have plenty of them. I just don't see how a ban, collection or confiscation program could work or be effective. I agree that something or combination of things needs to be done, just don't know what that is.

Note: there have been a number of gun buyback efforts in SC. One was done a couple months ago at a rural church. Many of the guns they paid $100 for were old revolvers, some inoperable, some rusty, a few shotguns and a few long guns. There weren't any semi auto rifles or pistols. Ones done in the past had similar results. These are voluntary and show that no one is giving up any of the good stuff.

[kallend 1,620]

10 hours ago, billeisele said:

One of my points is if one looks at a state like IL and an area like Chicago that has strict laws that have been in existence for many years, it's clear that it's not working. 

Simply untrue.  Chicago used to have strict laws BEFORE the Heller and McDonald decisions.  Since Chicago's laws were emasculated by Scalia and the Supremes the murder rate has in fact  increased after a long period of decline.

 

And, of course, a steady stream of guns comes across the state line from Indiana, a mere 10 minute drive from the south side.

[billeisele 122]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Simply untrue.  Chicago used to have strict laws BEFORE the Heller and McDonald decisions.  Since Chicago's laws were emasculated by Scalia and the Supremes the murder rate has in fact  increased after a long period of decline.

 

And, of course, a steady stream of guns comes across the state line from Indiana, a mere 10 minute drive from the south side.

Seems that the FACTS say otherwise. The Giffords Law Center states, "Illinois has some of the strongest gun laws in the country."   

Are you saying that the state no longer requires an FOID to possess a gun or ammo? That to have a concealed carried handgun one must be 21 or older, to have had 16 hours of training, and that licenses from other states aren't accepted is not correct? That open carry is allowed? That private sales require the seller to verify the FOID and keep records for 10 years, and lost or stolen guns must be reported - none of that is correct? When transporting a firearm by someone without a concealed carry permit it must be unloaded and in a case, or broken down or not immediately accessible is not accurate?  Illinois IL Concealed Carry Gun Laws: CCL & Reciprocity Map | USCCA(Last Updated 05/17/2021) (usconcealedcarry.com)

In fact, these laws are in place in IL. That makes IL one of the most restrictive states in the country. By any measure that would be defined as "strict."  But yes, the laws used to be stricter until the US Supreme court ruled that some were unconstitutional. 

And yes, it is clear that guns are coming into IL from adjacent states. That gets to my point that criminals do not follow the law. If they did they would have an FOID, register the guns, and not carry them loaded in the car or on the street. But yet that is exactly what is happening.

 

[kallend 1,620]

Indeed Indiana represents the peeing section of the swimming pool.

And since you have a hard on for Chicago, you might just look at the murder rates in, say, Memphis, St. Louis, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Birmingham AL, Kansas City MO, Charleston SC, Atlanta, Shreveport . . .   each of which have higher per-capita murder rates than Chicago  while being in gun friendly states.

 

 

[billvon 2,380]

13 hours ago, billeisele said:

Let's focus on these two items.

Peeing in the pool - what I'm describing is that criminals don't care about laws. IL requires a permit and guns are hard to buy there. So they go elsewhere to get a gun and ignore the permit law. With 430 million guns around I don't see how a national permit law will change criminal behavior. Yes, I'm sure there would be a reduction. The question I would have is would it be significant?

Right.  It will certainly work to some degree; how well is the question.  We know what DOESN'T work - letting people pee in the pool and hoping it doesn't end up near us.
 

Quote

IMO - Regardless of how these numbers are evaluated the US would have a tremendous number of guns, and criminals would have plenty of them. I just don't see how a ban, collection or confiscation program could work or be effective. I agree that something or combination of things needs to be done, just don't know what that is.

I don't think we need a ban on all weapons.  I do think that licensing some classes of weapons (semiautos of any stripe, handguns, large magazines) would help.  Also, ensuring that there's a background check on EVERYONE (i.e. there are no loopholes, like private sales) would help keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

[JerryBaumchen 1,046]

13 hours ago, billeisele said:

Let's focus on these two items.

Peeing in the pool - what I'm describing is that criminals don't care about laws. IL requires a permit and guns are hard to buy there. So they go elsewhere to get a gun and ignore the permit law. With 430 million guns around I don't see how a national permit law will change criminal behavior. Yes, I'm sure there would be a reduction. The question I would have is would it be significant?

An interesting note about the IL permit law is it doesn't require fingerprints. That is a current and ongoing argument in IL. In SC no permit is required to own a gun. If one wants to carry it concealed a CWP is required . Pictures, ID, and finger prints are taken, and a full background check is done. About 8% of residents have a CWP. That's probably 10 -15% of the adult population. In 2021 the number of background checks done were: SC 531,000, CA 1,600,000, and IL 7,455,000. These are done when a gun is purchased or permit issued. Plenty of gun stuff going on.  

As to Australia - Fact - In 1996 they had gun buybacks and voluntary surrenders. They collected 1 million guns which was estimated at one-third of the guns. A license is required, a need must be proved and all guns are registered by serial number to the owner. No one knows what percentage of guns are owned without a license. A 2017 study showed that many Australian states had significantly weakened gun laws with no state fully compliant with the 1996 National Firearms Agreement. There have been four amnesty periods that allowed folks that weren't in compliance with the law to come forward. Those resulted in 118,000 guns being turned in and 22,000 registrations. Current estimates are that there are 3.2 million guns in private hands of which 414,000 are unregistered.

Compare that to the US where there are an estimated 430 million guns privately owned. If one-third were collected that would be 143 million. The cost would be astronomical. Then with amnesty periods over 21 years an additional 17 million would be collected. That leaves 270 million in private hands assuming that no more guns were produced or sold in the US. That's 84X more guns than Australia is dealing with. Note that in Australia the total number of guns grew back to the original number they had before the NFA. If that occurred in the US we would have 134X more guns than Australia with 56 million being unregistered.

IMO - Regardless of how these numbers are evaluated the US would have a tremendous number of guns, and criminals would have plenty of them. I just don't see how a ban, collection or confiscation program could work or be effective. I agree that something or combination of things needs to be done, just don't know what that is.

Note: there have been a number of gun buyback efforts in SC. One was done a couple months ago at a rural church. Many of the guns they paid $100 for were old revolvers, some inoperable, some rusty, a few shotguns and a few long guns. There weren't any semi auto rifles or pistols. Ones done in the past had similar results. These are voluntary and show that no one is giving up any of the good stuff.

Hi Bill,

Re:  I agree that something or combination of things needs to be done, just don't know what that is.

Yet, you, IMO, continually respond to BillVon that new laws will not work.  If no new laws will work, then what do you suggest?

Based upon your writing here, I think you want something done also. I know I do.

The major hurdle is the 2nd amendment.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  I know no law that is 100% effective.

[kallend 1,620]

14 hours ago, billeisele said:

Let's focus on these two items.

Peeing in the pool - what I'm describing is that criminals don't care about laws. IL requires a permit and guns are hard to buy there.

Once again, completely untrue.  Despite requiring a permit  (oh dear, what a terrible burden), anyone who can pass the background check can buy a gun in IL.

And the fact remains that for 20 years the murder rate (per capita) decreased in Chicago, and after the Heller and McDonald decisions it has gone up again.

 

And you continue to ignore every other developed nation's experience with gun laws and murder rates.  None of them allow a peeing section. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by kallend