More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[billeisele 122]

On 9/5/2022 at 11:34 AM, riggerrob said:

Trivia question: What do you call a North American who speaks English and French? What do you call a North American who speaks English and Spanish? What do you call a North American who only speaks English?

Would that be bilingual, and non-bilingual?

[billvon 2,400]

On 9/5/2022 at 8:42 AM, Slim King said:

 I use this when I'm in doubt .. Makes it much easier to really know what the words meant.   

Great!  I used the online version and here's the definition:

Definition of democracy
1a: government by the people
   especially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

So thanks for confirming that we are a democracy.

[winsor 186]

On 9/5/2022 at 11:34 AM, riggerrob said:

Trivia question: What do you call a North American who speaks English and French? What do you call a North American who speaks English and Spanish? What do you call a North American who only speaks English?

That would be bilingual and straight.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

Good news for all who believe assault style weapons are unfairly demonized.

"As many as six, but possibly as few as two people, have been shot in Uvalde's downtown Memorial Park, Sen. Roland Gutierrez confirms, an epicenter of grief after the May 24th shooting," Plohetski reported. "Police are looking for a shooter, who is not thought to have used an assault rifle."

[Phil1111 910]

31 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Good news for all who believe assault style weapons are unfairly demonized.

"As many as six, but possibly as few as two people, have been shot in Uvalde's downtown Memorial Park, Sen. Roland Gutierrez confirms, an epicenter of grief after the May 24th shooting," Plohetski reported. "Police are looking for a shooter, who is not thought to have used an assault rifle."

Well Texas is number one.

[billeisele 122]

An interesting read. It's an article about a survey done on firearms in 2021. The article claims that it's, "the most comprehensive survey of American gun owners." The lead researcher is William English, a Georgetown Univ professor. English plans to write more articles reporting the research findings.

"This report summarizes the findings of a national survey of firearms ownership and use conducted between February 17th and March 23rd, 2021 by the professional survey firm Centiment. This survey, which is part of a larger book project, aims to provide the most comprehensive assessment of firearms ownership and use patterns in America to date. This online survey was administered to a representative sample of approximately fifty-four thousand U.S. residents aged 18 and over, and it identified 16,708 gun owners who were, in turn, asked in-depth questions about their ownership and their use of firearms, including defensive uses of firearms."

Hopefully this work will provide some basis for effective laws rather than political whims.

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/?fbclid=IwAR0lRDy5bRnAO7J9i7zM5cHDlJPB9Sq1FN9Mlvq6wIuISsOWShSw3vUQsuc&amp

this is the survey report

https://www.armes-ufa.com/IMG/pdf/ssrn-id3887145.pdf

 

[JoeWeber 2,299]

5 hours ago, billeisele said:

An interesting read. It's an article about a survey done on firearms in 2021. The article claims that it's, "the most comprehensive survey of American gun owners." The lead researcher is William English, a Georgetown Univ professor. English plans to write more articles reporting the research findings.

"This report summarizes the findings of a national survey of firearms ownership and use conducted between February 17th and March 23rd, 2021 by the professional survey firm Centiment. This survey, which is part of a larger book project, aims to provide the most comprehensive assessment of firearms ownership and use patterns in America to date. This online survey was administered to a representative sample of approximately fifty-four thousand U.S. residents aged 18 and over, and it identified 16,708 gun owners who were, in turn, asked in-depth questions about their ownership and their use of firearms, including defensive uses of firearms."

Hopefully this work will provide some basis for effective laws rather than political whims.

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/?fbclid=IwAR0lRDy5bRnAO7J9i7zM5cHDlJPB9Sq1FN9Mlvq6wIuISsOWShSw3vUQsuc&amp

this is the survey report

https://www.armes-ufa.com/IMG/pdf/ssrn-id3887145.pdf

 

100% of Ice Cream Truck drivers do not holler "Melted Ice Cream!  Get your melted ice cream here!" 

Credulity is not a virtue, no matter your dedication to the proposition. Except in their personal fantasy lands, 1/3rd of gun owners have not needed a gun for genuine defensive purposes. No one, except the most deluded straw graspers, could ever believe that was true even if every third buddy in their duck blind swore to it on spitted palm.

 

[wmw999 2,121]

A couple of years after the concealed carry law passed in Texas, I heard a couple of acquaintances talk about how they’d had to use their guns to get out of situations. I’d never needed one, and I was far less fearful about driving in the higher crime neighborhoods. I don’t know if they put themselves into more dangerous situations, or if they just perceived differently now.

Id be interested in seeing how many non-gun-owners had had situations where they’d wished they had a gun, or even better, see if the crimes reported against gun owners differed either in type or severity of results (assault vs attempted assault, murder vs non-murder, even burglary). We have a large enough installed base of gun owners, non gun owners, and crime to make the numbers potentially meaningful.

Of course, people aren’t required to answer polls correctly, and the police aren’t supposed to ask people if they own guns to record the answer.

Wendy P. 

[kallend 1,623]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

A couple of years after the concealed carry law passed in Texas, I heard a couple of acquaintances talk about how they’d had to use their guns to get out of situations. I’d never needed one, and I was far less fearful about driving in the higher crime neighborhoods. I don’t know if they put themselves into more dangerous situations, or if they just perceived differently now.

Id be interested in seeing how many non-gun-owners had had situations where they’d wished they had a gun, or even better, see if the crimes reported against gun owners differed either in type or severity of results (assault vs attempted assault, murder vs non-murder, even burglary). We have a large enough installed base of gun owners, non gun owners, and crime to make the numbers potentially meaningful.

Of course, people aren’t required to answer polls correctly, and the police aren’t supposed to ask people if they own guns to record the answer.

Wendy P. 

Lived in Chicago and south burbs for 43 years.  Live inside city limits right now.  Never felt the need of a gun nor been in a situation where one would be useful.

[billeisele 122]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

A couple of years after the concealed carry law passed in Texas, I heard a couple of acquaintances talk about how they’d had to use their guns to get out of situations. I’d never needed one, and I was far less fearful about driving in the higher crime neighborhoods. I don’t know if they put themselves into more dangerous situations, or if they just perceived differently now.

Id be interested in seeing how many non-gun-owners had had situations where they’d wished they had a gun, or even better, see if the crimes reported against gun owners differed either in type or severity of results (assault vs attempted assault, murder vs non-murder, even burglary). We have a large enough installed base of gun owners, non gun owners, and crime to make the numbers potentially meaningful.

Of course, people aren’t required to answer polls correctly, and the police aren’t supposed to ask people if they own guns to record the answer.

Wendy P. 

Wendy - All good questions. It's interesting that with graduate school students needing research topics some of the current social issues aren't studied more. Or maybe they are being studied and the results aren't yet available. I prefer to avoid areas that are problematic but these crimes are occurring more often in common areas.

In my one example my size and level of aggression handled the situation. If I had had a gun and pulled it out, there's no telling what variables may have occurred. The two guys didn't pull guns or other weapons. Once a weapon is drawn there's no telling what may occur. The location was Atlanta near the convention center.

A close friend was accosted by 3 repeat offenders, with guns. In past incidents they had shot and beat people. He's trained, used his gun, killed one, wounded (paralyzed for life) one and one got away. The cops had been after this group for awhile. Their opinion was that his awareness and quick use of the gun most likely saved him. Location was downtown Charlotte.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

Wendy - All good questions. It's interesting that with graduate school students needing research topics some of the current social issues aren't studied more. Or maybe they are being studied and the results aren't yet available. I prefer to avoid areas that are problematic but these crimes are occurring more often in common areas.

In my one example my size and level of aggression handled the situation. If I had had a gun and pulled it out, there's no telling what variables may have occurred. The two guys didn't pull guns or other weapons. Once a weapon is drawn there's no telling what may occur. The location was Atlanta near the convention center.

A close friend was accosted by 3 repeat offenders, with guns. In past incidents they had shot and beat people. He's trained, used his gun, killed one, wounded (paralyzed for life) one and one got away. The cops had been after this group for awhile. Their opinion was that his awareness and quick use of the gun most likely saved him. Location was downtown Charlotte.

All good questions? You're bold, I'll give you that. 

How about answering the questions made in post #1559 that followed the undefined statements you made earlier where you were attempting to show, and failing, that you were on board with gun control. Sounding reasonable is nice and polite, but in a serious discussion putting meat on the bones of your positions such that your correspondents are clear is the standard.

For convenience:

Bill, indeed I have but maybe that's through a lack of clear understanding on my part. Let's look at your ideas and maybe you can add some clarity for me.

Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, 

Please give the proposed age. Please describe the non-hunting firearm.

tighten up the application process, 

How so? Two forms of ID? FBI background check? Firearms training certification?

hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase 

How so? Fines? Who does the hammering and what is the process?

(maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, 

What value is X? 10? 100? How frequent are the checks? How is that done? Are you suggesting that gun registration is necessary?

have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), 

Again, are you tacitly arguing that some form of gun registration is necessary?

mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, 

Again, are you supporting registration? After all, we're talking about someone's freedom here.

laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, 

Fine. Please describe the law. For sure you wouldn't hold me and my buddies in our Elk camp tent to the same standard of care as a parent with kids at home? What scale of detail are you thinking? 

confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, 

Great. Where would you invest that authority?

significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, 

Please detail "significantly higher".

liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, 

Like errors and omissions insurance? License suspension? Specifically what are the "errors" and who will decide?

strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year

requiring all current FFL holders to sell lots more dangerous guns really a good solution? Just which guns are they selling that makes selling many more a societal benefit?

special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, 

What is xx? 10? 30? How many of each should a user own?

shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, 

This one is a surprise. Not for the number 6 but because you apparently do have a definition of an assault weapon in mind. Please explain.

limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, 

Seems a reasonable number, I guess.

mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc.

Why 10 years? And would you distinguish between the types of guns?

 

[billeisele 122]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

All good questions? You're bold, I'll give you that. 

How about answering the questions made in post #1559 that followed the undefined statements you made earlier where you were attempting to show, and failing, that you were on board with gun control. Sounding reasonable is nice and polite, but in a serious discussion putting meat on the bones of your positions such that your correspondents are clear is the standard.

For convenience:

Bill, indeed I have but maybe that's through a lack of clear understanding on my part. Let's look at your ideas and maybe you can add some clarity for me.

Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, 

Please give the proposed age. Please describe the non-hunting firearm.

tighten up the application process, 

How so? Two forms of ID? FBI background check? Firearms training certification?

hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase 

How so? Fines? Who does the hammering and what is the process?

(maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, 

What value is X? 10? 100? How frequent are the checks? How is that done? Are you suggesting that gun registration is necessary?

have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), 

Again, are you tacitly arguing that some form of gun registration is necessary?

mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, 

Again, are you supporting registration? After all, we're talking about someone's freedom here.

laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, 

Fine. Please describe the law. For sure you wouldn't hold me and my buddies in our Elk camp tent to the same standard of care as a parent with kids at home? What scale of detail are you thinking? 

confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, 

Great. Where would you invest that authority?

significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, 

Please detail "significantly higher".

liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, 

Like errors and omissions insurance? License suspension? Specifically what are the "errors" and who will decide?

strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year

requiring all current FFL holders to sell lots more dangerous guns really a good solution? Just which guns are they selling that makes selling many more a societal benefit?

special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, 

What is xx? 10? 30? How many of each should a user own?

shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, 

This one is a surprise. Not for the number 6 but because you apparently do have a definition of an assault weapon in mind. Please explain.

limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, 

Seems a reasonable number, I guess.

mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc.

Why 10 years? And would you distinguish between the types of guns?

 

Joe - I've answered some of this and just in case you missed it .... the post was specifically left open so that those with more knowledge and expertise could use their collective knowledge to set the guidelines. They were intended to offer some tactics that might reduce gun deaths, IMO.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

8 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Joe - I've answered some of this and just in case you missed it .... the post was specifically left open so that those with more knowledge and expertise could use their collective knowledge to set the guidelines. They were intended to offer some tactics that might reduce gun deaths, IMO.

I missed nothing, thanks. Please direct my attention to where you answered any of the questions after post #1559. And, no, the one where you claimed it was a fill in the blanks statement for someone else somewhere, sometime, and not something you were offering as your own honest opinion, doesn't count.

[billeisele 122]

14 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I missed nothing, thanks. Please direct my attention to where you answered any of the questions after post #1559. And, no, the one where you claimed it was a fill in the blanks statement for someone else somewhere, sometime, and not something you were offering as your own honest opinion, doesn't count.

Lucky for all of us that you are not the one that gets to decide what does or doesn't count, define "the standard" or be the supreme decision maker of when the threshold of "sufficient detail" has been met. You've demonstrated that you don't follow the guidelines you demand of others.

You could offer your thoughts on any of the items you seem to be so concerned about. But no, it seems that you're intent on just arguing, belittling, and mis-stating others thoughts rather than offering and discussing potential solutions. 

My position has been clearly stated and I've offered some ideas that IMO might be beneficial. If you have thoughts on those then please provide input. If you have thresholds and numbers that you think would work then offer them. If you think a suggestions won't work, then fine, state why. I'm open to all intelligent input. My opinion has changed and will continue to change as credible information is collected.

It's a discussion not an interrogation.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

On 9/10/2022 at 9:45 PM, billeisele said:

An interesting read. It's an article about a survey done on firearms in 2021. The article claims that it's, "the most comprehensive survey of American gun owners." The lead researcher is William English, a Georgetown Univ professor. English plans to write more articles reporting the research findings.

"This report summarizes the findings of a national survey of firearms ownership and use conducted between February 17th and March 23rd, 2021 by the professional survey firm Centiment. This survey, which is part of a larger book project, aims to provide the most comprehensive assessment of firearms ownership and use patterns in America to date. This online survey was administered to a representative sample of approximately fifty-four thousand U.S. residents aged 18 and over, and it identified 16,708 gun owners who were, in turn, asked in-depth questions about their ownership and their use of firearms, including defensive uses of firearms."

Hopefully this work will provide some basis for effective laws rather than political whims.

https://reason.com/2022/09/09/the-largest-ever-survey-of-american-gun-owners-finds-that-defensive-use-of-firearms-is-common/?fbclid=IwAR0lRDy5bRnAO7J9i7zM5cHDlJPB9Sq1FN9Mlvq6wIuISsOWShSw3vUQsuc&amp

this is the survey report

https://www.armes-ufa.com/IMG/pdf/ssrn-id3887145.pdf

 

Problem with surveys like that is that it is completely self reported. Like asking fishermen how many fish they caught and how large the fish were, without having to provide any evidence.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

5 hours ago, billeisele said:

Lucky for all of us that you are not the one that gets to decide what does or doesn't count, define "the standard" or be the supreme decision maker of when the threshold of "sufficient detail" has been met. You've demonstrated that you don't follow the guidelines you demand of others.

You could offer your thoughts on any of the items you seem to be so concerned about. But no, it seems that you're intent on just arguing, belittling, and mis-stating others thoughts rather than offering and discussing potential solutions. 

My position has been clearly stated and I've offered some ideas that IMO might be beneficial. If you have thoughts on those then please provide input. If you have thresholds and numbers that you think would work then offer them. If you think a suggestions won't work, then fine, state why. I'm open to all intelligent input. My opinion has changed and will continue to change as credible information is collected.

It's a discussion not an interrogation.

You aren't being picked on for your opinions. I have been pointing out that just stating things without explanation isn't really an opinion. No matter, I accept your challenge. Your statements are in bold. My opinion on your statements is below your statements. My original questions to you for each of your statements are in Italics below for reference. These are my real opinions. If you have any I'm all eyes.

 

Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, 

We should raise the age of non-hunting firearms to 21. Also, the purchaser must have a specific, verifiable need ie.. a job where they carry cash, are law enforcement, are at risk of attack or kidnapping because of personal profile or some other provable need. Training and certification in the use of said weapon should be both initial and bi-annual. Verification/certification/training can be provided by a local State Police agency. Money for the services that can't be covered by the individual should be Federally funded.

Please give the proposed age. Please describe the non-hunting firearm.

21 years. Any non-revolver pistol, any pistol, rifle or shotgun that can fire or be made to fire in faster than semi-automatic mode. Any firearm capable internally or by clip of holding more than 5 rounds. This limitation would also make illegal for general hunting use so called "hi cap mags".

tighten up the application process, 

21 years age minimum to purchase. A record of no violent felonies and no mental health issues that were treated by a professional. Both waivable with State Police certification pursuant to a written national standard.

How so? Two forms of ID? FBI background check? Firearms training certification?

See above.

hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase 

Anyone caught buying or selling a "straw purchase" firearm could be denied the right to own firearms for a period of time commensurate with the crime.

How so? Fines? Who does the hammering and what is the process?

See above.

(maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, 

No limitation on the number of firearms purchased provided the above limitations and conditions were met.

What value is X? 10? 100? How frequent are the checks? How is that done? Are you suggesting that gun registration is necessary?

See above

have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), 

All new and used weapon sales should be registered at the point of sale.

Again, are you tacitly arguing that some form of gun registration is necessary?

see above.

mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, 

Without 100% firearms registration this would be both unfair and unenforceable.

Again, are you supporting registration? After all, we're talking about someone's freedom here.

See above.

laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, 

Current, locally promulgated laws are sufficient provided the above conditions and limitations are met.

Fine. Please describe the law. For sure you wouldn't hold me and my buddies in our Elk camp tent to the same standard of care as a parent with kids at home? What scale of detail are you thinking? 

See above.

confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, 

Yes. A State Police mental health authority until a better, fairer system is developed.

Great. Where would you invest that authority?

See above

significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, 

Yes, subject to the above listed conditions and limitations. To wit: No mandatory by local laws concealed weapon permits allowed. Any issued permits would be subject to the conditions and limitations listed above. 

Please detail "significantly higher".

See above.

liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, 

No. Errors by sellers should be forgivable. Frauds and laws ignored should be judicially punishable.

Like errors and omissions insurance? License suspension? Specifically what are the "errors" and who will decide?

See above.

strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year

Yes and no. The requirements for the issuance and possession of a license to sell non-hunting firearms should be so stringent as to be a surprising rarity. That should solve the numbers problem.

requiring all current FFL holders to sell lots more dangerous guns really a good solution? Just which guns are they selling that makes selling many more a societal benefit?

See above

special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, 

See above.

What is xx? 10? 30? How many of each should a user own?

See above for both answers.

shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, 

No. See above.

This one is a surprise. Not for the number 6 but because you apparently do have a definition of an assault weapon in mind. Please explain.

limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, 

Subject to the above.

Seems a reasonable number, I guess

Subject to the above

mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc.

No, because I generally oppose mandatory sentences. I absolutely agree that there should be a severity added at sentencing.

Why 10 years? And would you distinguish between the types of guns?

No. See above.

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by JoeWeber

[wmw999 2,121]

One issue I see with confiscating guns is the way it's done now -- they're generally "transferred" to someone close to the person who needs to give them up. Unfortunately, that often means they still have full access to the guns in real life. I honestly think that confiscation means being locked up in a police evidence locker or some equivalent place. Not with a family member of the accused/ill person.

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

1 minute ago, wmw999 said:

One issue I see with confiscating guns is the way it's done now -- they're generally "transferred" to someone close to the person who needs to give them up. Unfortunately, that often means they still have full access to the guns in real life. I honestly think that confiscation means being locked up in a police evidence locker or some equivalent place. Not with a family member of the accused/ill person.

Wendy P.

As I see it, it's not a problem of how guns need to be confiscated, it's that the minds of too many people have been confiscated by the merchants of firearms in America. Fix the latter and the former won't be a problem, seems to me.

[BIGUN 1,053]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

These are my real opinions. If you have any I'm all eyes.

So here we are 1.762 posts into a two year old thread. I can't help but wonder how many of the liberals on here have taken the time to pen their representatives as much as they've argued on here. Shouldn't be long before Kallend posts another headline that we all see in the news  - cause you know that takes less time than actually writing something and sending it to a representative.

The liberal party is so fucked up; they can't see the forest for the trees or solutions to the problem that's right in front of them - WHILE they hold a majority in the house!! And you're going to fuck this up; just like you fucked up Roe v. Wade. By sitting on your asses and doing nothing. You guys are beyond "disorganized."

 Posted below is a letter I wrote to my Senator a few days after the Natalie Building murders. What have you written to them? While I got crickets, there is a growing number of conservatives that are fed up with the shootings in the US. You know I sent "the proposal" to my tribe and was fucking ostracized. Did any of you send it to your reps? Probably not.    

In 1994, you signed the Assault Weapon ban; but then when the expiry date was on the horizon, you did nothing. Here's a thought - instead of debating this shit ad nauseum for another five years -  while you have the House consider this solution that currently exists . . .

Make the sale of ALL weapons and ammunition subject to the NFA: There's your solution and the good news is - it's already a law, Think you guys could pull yourselves away from your lattes and Tesla owners' club wine tasting for a few minutes to voice that opinion to your representatives? 

Gun Control.pdf

[SkyDekker 1,122]

20 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The liberal party is so fucked up; they can't see the forest for the trees or solutions to the problem that's right in front of them - WHILE they hold a majority in the house!! And you're going to fuck this up; just like you fucked up Roe v. Wade. By sitting on your asses and doing nothing. You guys are beyond "disorganized."

Yeah don't blame the religious right for taking away rights, blame Democrats for allowing it to happen....

Until republicans are willing to acknowledge there might be a gun problem and are willing to have meaningful discussions, nothing will happen. You can blame Democrats for that too I guess....

[JoeWeber 2,299]

31 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

So here we are 1.762 posts into a two year old thread. I can't help but wonder how many of the liberals on here have taken the time to pen their representatives as much as they've argued on here. Shouldn't be long before Kallend posts another headline that we all see in the news  - cause you know that takes less time than actually writing something and sending it to a representative.

The liberal party is so fucked up; they can't see the forest for the trees or solutions to the problem that's right in front of them - WHILE they hold a majority in the house!! And you're going to fuck this up; just like you fucked up Roe v. Wade. By sitting on your asses and doing nothing. You guys are beyond "disorganized."

 Posted below is a letter I wrote to my Senator a few days after the Natalie Building murders. What have you written to them? While I got crickets, there is a growing number of conservatives that are fed up with the shootings in the US. You know I sent "the proposal" to my tribe and was fucking ostracized. Did any of you send it to your reps? Probably not.    

In 1994, you signed the Assault Weapon ban; but then when the expiry date was on the horizon, you did nothing. Here's a thought - instead of debating this shit ad nauseum for another five years -  while you have the House consider this solution that currently exists . . .

Make the sale of ALL weapons and ammunition subject to the NFA: There's your solution and the good news is - it's already a law, Think you guys could pull yourselves away from your lattes and Tesla owners' club wine tasting for a few minutes to voice that opinion to your representatives? 

Gun Control.pdf 80.77 kB · 0 downloads

Do I get an extra cookie for pulling you out of retirement? No matter, thank you for your support. FYI, building consensus is also an effective democratic principle that brings change. Probably, and I'm guessing here, it is more effective than helping fill the trash can at some jackass republican state or federal representatives office. Of course, it takes a village.

[billeisele 122]

4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Problem with surveys like that is that it is completely self reported. Like asking fishermen how many fish they caught and how large the fish were, without having to provide any evidence.

Agree. It would be interesting to know if there is some method by which they determine a potential range of accuracy. I give them credit for asking the questions. All it may do is open the door for more discussion or argument. IMO - Until politics gets out of the way it won't be resolved.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

8 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Agree. It would be interesting to know if there is some method by which they determine a potential range of accuracy. I give them credit for asking the questions. All it may do is open the door for more discussion or argument. IMO - Until politics gets out of the way it won't be resolved.

Would also be interesting to know if any other conflict de-escalation techniques were used. I have no doubt that a firearm can be useful in obtaining a successful outcome of a challenging situation. Doesn't mean every challenging situation requires a firearm to obtain a successful outcome.

[billeisele 122]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Your statements are in bold. My opinion on your statements is below your statements. My original questions to you for each of your statements are in Italics below for reference. These are my real opinions. If you have any I'm all eyes.

Raise the age on purchases of non-hunting firearms, 

We should raise the age of non-hunting firearms to 21. Also, the purchaser must have a specific, verifiable need ie.. a job where they carry cash, are law enforcement, are at risk of attack or kidnapping because of personal profile or some other provable need. Training and certification in the use of said weapon should be both initial and bi-annual. Verification/certification/training can be provided by a local State Police agency. Money for the services that can't be covered by the individual should be Federally funded.

Please give the proposed age. Please describe the non-hunting firearm.

21 years. Any non-revolver pistol, any pistol, rifle or shotgun that can fire or be made to fire in faster than semi-automatic mode. Any firearm capable internally or by clip of holding more than 5 rounds. This limitation would also make illegal for general hunting use so called "hi cap mags".

Agree on age. Hmm, 5 rounds seems low but does allow, what you and I see as the, most standard hunting rifles. The hog hunters won't be happy but that's a small number. The problem will be the  huge number of recreational shooters. Just don't think the limitation will be passable.

tighten up the application process, 

21 years age minimum to purchase. A record of no violent felonies and no mental health issues that were treated by a professional. Both waivable with State Police certification pursuant to a written national standard.

How so? Two forms of ID? FBI background check? Firearms training certification?

See above.

Agree with more documentation from whatever source makes sense be it State or Federal.

hammer anyone caught making a straw purchase 

Anyone caught buying or selling a "straw purchase" firearm could be denied the right to own firearms for a period of time commensurate with the crime.

How so? Fines? Who does the hammering and what is the process?

See above.

My thoughts are more stern. Arrest creating a criminal record, make it a felony, fine for first offense, jail time on second, and denial of gun ownership and hunting license. The goal being to eliminate the problem.

(maybe some law that says after buying X? firearms a year one has to prove they still have them in their possession, 

No limitation on the number of firearms purchased provided the above limitations and conditions were met.

What value is X? 10? 100? How frequent are the checks? How is that done? Are you suggesting that gun registration is necessary?

See above

No clue what makes sense, let's say 6 on a rolling 12-month basis. If the person has a CWP then it could be eliminated or somehow reduced. Say 3 in a 6-month period. This assumes that the current approval process could be modified to retain dates and data on guns purchased. Unfortunately, this would be a temporary gun registration and would get a ton of pushback.

have paperwork documenting the transfer, or if lost or stolen a police report is required), 

All new and used weapon sales should be registered at the point of sale.

Again, are you tacitly arguing that some form of gun registration is necessary?

see above.

I'm not suggesting gun registration. Require private sales to be recorded by the seller and retained. This is intended to make straw purchases more difficult. Requiring it to be reported if stolen to prevent the problem of one claiming that it was stolen if it was tracked back to the original owner.

mandatory severe jail time if caught with a stolen firearm, 

Without 100% firearms registration this would be both unfair and unenforceable.

Again, are you supporting registration? After all, we're talking about someone's freedom here.

See above.

If stolen or lost firearms are required to be reported then when one is recovered the prosecution is easy.

laws requiring owners to be more responsible with managing/storing the weapon, 

Current, locally promulgated laws are sufficient provided the above conditions and limitations are met.

Fine. Please describe the law. For sure you wouldn't hold me and my buddies in our Elk camp tent to the same standard of care as a parent with kids at home? What scale of detail are you thinking? 

See above.

This could be up to the risk tolerance of the gun owner. The owner is exposed to punishment if the gun is misused. In some cases the owner will want a safe or gun lock. In other cases they could think that the risk is low and wouldn't do anything. Kids in the house, better lock them up.

confiscation if mental health becomes an issue, red flag laws, 

Yes. A State Police mental health authority until a better, fairer system is developed.

Great. Where would you invest that authority?

See above

It might end up with a law making the individual responsible. Like in the case of someone that has seizures their driving rights are restricted but no one comes and takes their license. It would fall on local law enforcement.

significantly higher training requirements to obtain a concealed weapons permit and ongoing training to keep it, 

Yes, subject to the above listed conditions and limitations. To wit: No mandatory by local laws concealed weapon permits allowed. Any issued permits would be subject to the conditions and limitations listed above. 

Please detail "significantly higher".

See above.

Private concealed carry should be allowed. The permitting knowledge and testing requirements should be increased. Require demonstrated firearms proficiency. Be able to handle and easily operate all aspects of the gun. Require the applicant to certify with a gun of at least the same caliber they intend to carry. Certify with a .45 and carry that caliber or anything smaller. Certify with a 9mm, don't carry anything larger. Certify with a revolver or semi-auto or both, and carry what one is certified for. Require recert every 2 years. That would be a written and practical test. These type retests could be administered at a local range that is certified for that.

In SC one can go to a class having never touched or fired a gun, take a few hours of classroom bookwork instruction, use a .22, fumble with the gun on the range, and obtain a CWP.  SC has reciprocal agreements with 34 states. That infers that they have equally lax requirements.

liability laws/exposure for dealers that make errors, 

No. Errors by sellers should be forgivable. Frauds and laws ignored should be judicially punishable.

Like errors and omissions insurance? License suspension? Specifically what are the "errors" and who will decide?

See above.

Agree, simple errors no problem. 

strengthen the requirements to obtain and retain an FFL license by requiring a minimum number of transactions per year

Yes and no. The requirements for the issuance and possession of a license to sell non-hunting firearms should be so stringent as to be a surprising rarity. That should solve the numbers problem.

requiring all current FFL holders to sell lots more dangerous guns really a good solution? Just which guns are they selling that makes selling many more a societal benefit?

See above

Obtaining an FFL is to easy. Have a business, permanent resident over 21, and be able to legally own a gun. That provides a buyer basically unlimited sources to get a gun. By requiring, let's say, 100 transactions a year it will eliminate many of the back yard sellers. Might require specific exemptions, like for pawn shops. 

special application process for any long gun that can hold more than xx rounds in a magazine, 

See above.

What is xx? 10? 30? How many of each should a user own?

See above for both answers.

This would be for long guns or pistols that will accept a shoulder mount device that can hold or accept a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.

shotguns that hold more than 6 rounds should be considered assault weapons, 

No. See above.

This one is a surprise. Not for the number 6 but because you apparently do have a definition of an assault weapon in mind. Please explain.

These typically are shotguns not used for hunting. The thought is that if AR type guns get outlawed the next logical choice will be a high-capacity shotgun.

limit mag capacity with pistols to 10-12 rounds, 

Subject to the above.

Seems a reasonable number, I guess

Subject to the above

mandatory prison sentence of 10 years for any crime committed with a gun, etc. etc.

No, because I generally oppose mandatory sentences. I absolutely agree that there should be a severity added at sentencing.

Why 10 years? And would you distinguish between the types of guns?

No. See above.

OK, but something severe to discourage the use of guns in criminal activity. Any type gun. 

My suggestions were and are predicated on the premises that they be acceptable/legal under current law and be passable in the political climate. Yes, I realize that is extremely limiting. I just don't think that the 2nd would be modified. The political climate may prevent anything from being done but I'm hopeful that at least some change based on facts and not emotion or politics could be agreed upon.

My input is in italics below yours above. 

[billeisele 122]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Would also be interesting to know if any other conflict de-escalation techniques were used. I have no doubt that a firearm can be useful in obtaining a successful outcome of a challenging situation. Doesn't mean every challenging situation requires a firearm to obtain a successful outcome.

Agree. No doubt that some will pull a gun because they can. Especially around the house. 

One challenge is that if the bad person is intent on harm those few seconds to access the gun may not be available. The other problem is once the gun is pulled one can't reverse that action. Things are escalated.

The self-defense classes that I'm aware of teach a few basic actions. There are many actions before and during but the specific actions are minimal. The point being that one shouldn't pull a gun unless they intend to use it.