More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[billeisele 122]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:11 PM, kallend said:

When it comes to taking away resources from some and giving them to others, the map of giver vs taker states says it all.  The takers correlate pretty well with political leaning.

You conveniently left out a link and the context of the article. It's a good read. It says much more than what you are trying to portray, "That’s true at the state level and at the individual level.   “Takers” include farmers receiving agricultural subsidies, so called “corporate welfare,” and individuals for a variety of reasons.     The class warfare rhetoric of ‘givers vs. takers’ breaks down when you actually look at where money goes.  Do they really want to demonize the retired WWII vet who receives VA health care in his waning years?", and, "But we have a debt to GDP ratio of 100%, created by both parties working together.   We have problems moving forward in developing a sustainable budget.   We have big issues concerning energy, global warming, security, and the environment.   In that we’re not givers vs. takers, we’re Americans who get something from being part of this country and give something back with our work and actions."

Givers vs. Takers | World in Motion (wordpress.com)

Edited April 1 by billeisele

[billeisele 122]

On 3/29/2024 at 6:17 AM, kallend said:

Great argument.    Why have laws against rape when rapists ignore them?  Why have laws against fraud when con-men don't obey them?  Why have laws concerning taking classified documents when ex-presidents don't obey them?

 

We could eliminate all laws using that argument.

If guns laws work then why were there over 3,000 gun deaths? Maybe criminals don't obey laws. 

Another silly reply. Should have included the word "effective" so that you could follow.

The point is clear, "criminals with guns don't follow the law." Passing ineffective laws is done to make people think something was accomplished. Effective and enforceable laws are required.

 

The comment about classified documents is selective. Did you mean a Senator that has no privilege with classified documents keeping them in a garage in a house where a known criminal has regular access with foreign nationals?

[kallend 1,631]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

I 

The point is clear, "criminals  don't follow the law."  

FIFY.  

Suggesting that the concept only applies to gun laws is both silly and disingenuous.

[kallend 1,631]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

You conveniently left out a link and the context of the article. It's a good read. It says much more than what you are trying to portray, "That’s true at the state level and at the individual level.   “Takers” include farmers receiving agricultural subsidies, so called “corporate welfare,” and individuals for a variety of reasons.     The class warfare rhetoric of ‘givers vs. takers’ breaks down when you actually look at where money goes.  Do they really want to demonize the retired WWII vet who receives VA health care in his waning years?", and, "But we have a debt to GDP ratio of 100%, created by both parties working together.   We have problems moving forward in developing a sustainable budget.   We have big issues concerning energy, global warming, security, and the environment.   In that we’re not givers vs. takers, we’re Americans who get something from being part of this country and give something back with our work and actions."

Givers vs. Takers | World in Motion (wordpress.com)

A taker is a taker, and a giver is a giver.  The takers are predominantly in Trump country.

[gowlerk 1,914]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

If guns laws work then why were there over 3,000 gun deaths? Maybe criminals don't obey laws. 

Another silly reply. Should have included the word "effective" so that you could follow.

The point is clear, "criminals with guns don't follow the law." Passing ineffective laws is done to make people think something was accomplished. Effective and enforceable laws are required.

 

You must be kidding. Or deluded. Or both. The USA is special in that it does not have gun laws. At least not in the context of the rest of the world. You don't have laws, you have guns instead.

[kallend 1,631]

As usual, the gun enthusiasts completely ignore the experience of the rest of the western world with respect to gun laws.

Even in the USA, murder rates are lower in states with stricter gun laws.  In Chicago, after the handgun ban was in place, murder rates declined through the '90s and '00s.  After Heller and Macdonald the murder rate went right back up again to pre-ban levels.

 

So claiming that gun laws don't work is just another falsehood perpetuated by the right.

[billeisele 122]

On 4/1/2024 at 9:51 AM, gowlerk said:

You must be kidding. Or deluded. Or both. The USA is special in that it does not have gun laws. At least not in the context of the rest of the world. You don't have laws, you have guns instead.

No doubt that the US is much laxer than many other countries. There are laws and restrictions. How well they are enforced is a good question.

The question remains. What is a legal and effective method to remove the estimated 325+ million guns in private ownership.

Estimates: 44% are handguns, 56% are long guns. 

Of the long guns, 63% are rifles and 37% are shotguns. Drilling down further on rifles, 40% are semi-auto with half of that, 23 million, being scary black guns. To make this issue even easier, what is a legal and effective method to remove those 23 million? Keep in mind that only 3%, 630, of gun murders are from that type gun. Even if the removal was successful and none of the criminals shifted to other firearms or knives, the effect on gun murders would be minimal. Not to say that those deaths don't matter but to say that solely focusing on that type gun is foolhardy.

To make a meaningful impact, the 145 million handguns must be involved in any effort. They are used in 59%, 12, 400, of gun murders. 

Two concerning facts are: 1) 54% of gun deaths, 26,300, were suicide, and 2) in 36%, 7,500, of the murders are listed as gun type is unknown.

[wmw999 2,123]

3 minutes ago, billeisele said:

The question remains. What is a legal and effective method to remove the estimated 325+ million guns in private ownership

Sounds like the NRA's slippery slope has worked brilliantly

Wendy P.

[billeisele 122]

Just now, wmw999 said:

Sounds like the NRA's slippery slope has worked brilliantly

Wendy P.

Hey Ms Wendy. I'm not getting the intent of your comment.

My comments point to the issue of confiscation. I'm no lawyer but don't think that's legal. That means buy back or something similar would be needed. If just the scary guns were included at 50 - 75% of their value (if that's legal) that's in the range of $6 -- $13 billion. If the handguns were included that adds another $3.5 - $6 billion. Total of $9.5 - $19 billion. 

2023 fed spend was $6.2 trillion. In that sense it's only 0.3% or less of the annual spend. Regardless, crazy high numbers.

Interestingly, current info points out that, "stressed out and disturbed" individuals are doing the mass shootings. The handgun stuff hasn't changed much over the years. Some is crime, most of it is between peeps that know or have familiarity with each other. Gang violence, drug crimes, neighbors shooting each other, etc.

This doesn't begin to address the billions in annual commerce, lost manufacturing, employment, lost wages, etc. that's engaged in firearms. There's a firearm manufacturing plant in my area and I've been in the plant a few times. It's a n international multibillion $ business, 24/7 operation with a couple hundred employees. Primary production is military weapons but they also produce civilian products. Don't know the % of military vs civilian. 

[JoeWeber 2,303]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

No doubt that the US is much laxer than many other countries. There are laws and restrictions. How well they are enforced is a good question.

The question remains. What is a legal and effective method to remove the estimated 325+ million guns in private ownership

Quote

No doubt that the US is much laxer than many other countries. There are laws and restrictions. How well they are enforced is a good question.

It is not a good question. Good questions have answers yet to be known. Here, the answer is obvious: seriously enforce the ones we have and make more.

Quote

The question remains. What is a legal and effective method to remove the estimated 325+ million guns in private ownership.

Well, an A#1 place to start is to stop selling so many new and used ones to any one who wants one and on the thinnest pretext. Tax the living crap out of ammo, make registration laws with real teeth, and quit freakin' extolling the virtue of gun ownership and all of the stupid open and hidden carry laws and, finally, convince people like you that there is a way that does not include throwing your hands in the air or clinging sadly to an old and moribund constitutional amendment. 

Edited April 3 by JoeWeber

[billvon 2,402]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Hey Ms Wendy. I'm not getting the intent of your comment.

My comments point to the issue of confiscation. I'm no lawyer but don't think that's legal. That means buy back or something similar would be needed. If just the scary guns were included at 50 - 75% of their value (if that's legal) that's in the range of $6 -- $13 billion. If the handguns were included that adds another $3.5 - $6 billion. Total of $9.5 - $19 billion. 

2023 fed spend was $6.2 trillion. In that sense it's only 0.3% or less of the annual spend. Regardless, crazy high numbers.

The cost of gun violence in lost wages, lawsuits, healthcare, enforcement etc is currently over $500 billion.  That is an even crazier number.

So let's say that gun buyback isn't that effective.  It costs $19 billion and it only reduces gun violence by 10%.  That is still a big win - we save $31 billion.   (And of course a huge amount of misery, grief and loss.)

 https://time.com/6217348/gun-violence-economic-costs-us/

[billvon 2,402]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

This doesn't begin to address the billions in annual commerce, lost manufacturing, employment, lost wages, etc. that's engaged in firearms. 

Yep.

[gowlerk 1,914]

5 hours ago, billeisele said:

The question remains. What is a legal and effective method to remove the estimated 325+ million guns in private ownership.

That is indeed the heart of the matter. And there is no good answer except a change to the constitution. And that can't happen at the current time because the huge amount of political will needed does not exist. 

[JoeWeber 2,303]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

If just the scary guns were included

I am so sorry Mrs. Smith that your 5 year old daughter was torn apart by gunfire at last weeks school massacre. I just hope you can take solace in knowing that the  NRA deluded maniac who killed her was using a simple firearm, not a "scary" gun as the left wing media wants you to believe. So in that sense it's somehow less bad, I think. Anyway, God Bless you and yours. Well, the yours you still have left, that is.

[billeisele 122]

11 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Here, the answer is obvious: seriously enforce the ones we have and make more.

make registration laws with real teeth

convince people like you that there is a way that does not include throwing your hands in the air or clinging sadly to an old and moribund constitutional amendment. 

Two points we definitely agree on, the others, not so much. To the "real teeth" one, that requires real punishment from judges that don't practice catch and release. Threats of punishment aren't effective when the criminals know the risk is low.

The last line is inaccurate. In past posts I've listed plenty of ideas that, IMO, would be legal to implement and effective. I don't think it's likely that the 2nd will be altered or dumped. IMO it's smarter to do things that can be implemented instead of wasting time on things that have a high likelihood of not being successful.

 

The newly proposed law in IL, House Bill 3239, will be interesting to follow. The bill requires one to obtain a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) card. That requires a background check. To purchase a gun one must obtain permission from local law enforcement, and attend an 8-hour training class.  New Gun Law Requires Triple Background Checks and Mandatory Training (msn.com)

The FOID is done by the State police. If it's the same background check that the buyer must pass when they buy a gun I don't see the benefit. But, hey, maybe 2 checks are better than one. To get a gun in IL it would require 3 checks.

Getting permission from local LEO could be a problem and it's certainly a burden for the police force. Trying to understand why it's needed, I'll speculate that one could pass a background check but the local LEO would know about other issues that won't show up in the check. If that's the case then it would be effective. Upon approval one receives a paper permission slip to buy one gun.

I'm all for required training. But if it's the same quality as what's done in SC and other states it's not effective. Anyone can show up with a .22 pistol, having never touched a firearm, sit thru some training, pass the written, then hit a target that's super close and be certified to conceal carry. The next day they can legally strap on a .45 and wander in public. NO, not good. The training must be more extensive. Two ideas are that they must show proof of xx hours of range time firing xx number of rounds. And they can only carry a weapon as large as what they qualified with. :Luckily, in IL to carry concealed the training requirement is 16 hours.

The FBI says that IL conducts more background checks than any other state. 4 million were done in 2023. They already have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Clearly they aren't working. 2,000 murders in 2021, and in the middle of the deaths per 100,000 rankings at 16. Stats of the States - Firearm Mortality (cdc.gov)

Unfortunately, increased laws lead to more peeps obtaining and carrying guns illegally. This is a good read on the topic in IL and Chicago. ICJIA | Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority

[JoeWeber 2,303]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

The last line is inaccurate. In past posts I've listed plenty of ideas that, IMO, would be legal to implement and effective. I don't think it's likely that the 2nd will be altered or dumped.

I didn't say alter or dump it, that's not on offer. I suggested that folks like yourself need to stop clinging to it. Honestly, when you write "Scary Black" I consider you and others unserious. Bad enough that it has racist undertones, but it also denies a simple truth: some guns could be banned without overturning the 2nd but even that won't happen until folks like you get on board with the idea we have a problem with guns in America and are personally willing to sacrifice military style weapons as a first measure. That includes giving yours up before it's a law.

[kallend 1,631]

Coming up to the 1 year anniversary of a mass murder in Louisville KY.  The perp was one Connor Sturgeon.

Sturgeon legally purchased his AR-15 from a Louisville dealer six days before the shooting. Law enforcement sources said that Sturgeon left notes, one at his home and one on him, saying that part of his plan was to show how easily a person with mental illness could legally acquire a firearm in the United States. Sturgeon noted targeting "upper class white people" for its potential impactfulness on the issue was a motive for his actions.

Nothing, however, changed.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

17 hours ago, billeisele said:

Hey Ms Wendy. I'm not getting the intent of your comment.

My comments point to the issue of confiscation. I'm no lawyer but don't think that's legal. That means buy back or something similar would be needed. If just the scary guns were included at 50 - 75% of their value (if that's legal) that's in the range of $6 -- $13 billion. If the handguns were included that adds another $3.5 - $6 billion. Total of $9.5 - $19 billion. 

2023 fed spend was $6.2 trillion. In that sense it's only 0.3% or less of the annual spend. Regardless, crazy high numbers.

Interestingly, current info points out that, "stressed out and disturbed" individuals are doing the mass shootings. The handgun stuff hasn't changed much over the years. Some is crime, most of it is between peeps that know or have familiarity with each other. Gang violence, drug crimes, neighbors shooting each other, etc.

This doesn't begin to address the billions in annual commerce, lost manufacturing, employment, lost wages, etc. that's engaged in firearms. There's a firearm manufacturing plant in my area and I've been in the plant a few times. It's a n international multibillion $ business, 24/7 operation with a couple hundred employees. Primary production is military weapons but they also produce civilian products. Don't know the % of military vs civilian. 

This study states that gun violence has an economic impact of $557 billion annually. So if the Federal spend of $19B leads to only a 10% reduction in that impact it would save $55.7B. Seems like a wise investment.

 

Edited to add: scrolling back I notice BillV already made this argument.

Edited April 3 by SkyDekker

[GeorgiaDon 340]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

...

The newly proposed law in IL, House Bill 3239, will be interesting to follow. The bill requires one to obtain a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) card. That requires a background check. To purchase a gun one must obtain permission from local law enforcement, and attend an 8-hour training class.  New Gun Law Requires Triple Background Checks and Mandatory Training (msn.com)

The FOID is done by the State police. ...

Good ideas I think, but I'm pretty sure they weren't doing all that in 1776 so it won't take long for Thomas and Alito to take a big stinky dump all over the idea. 

[normiss 622]

[gowlerk 1,914]

14 minutes ago, normiss said:

Books are dangerous. They are full of ideas.

[billvon 2,402]

10 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Books are dangerous. They are full of ideas.

Yep.  And when conservative groups ban (and burn) books because of what they might make kids think, then it's clear that they are not afraid of books.  They are afraid of those kids thinking.

[JoeWeber 2,303]

13 minutes ago, billvon said:

Yep.  And when conservative groups ban (and burn) books because of what they might make kids think, then it's clear that they are not afraid of books.  They are afraid of those kids thinking.

To be fair, they really think that being gay or trans or Mexican is a choice you made after being exposed to woke librarians.

[gowlerk 1,914]

19 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

To be fair, they really think that being gay or trans or Mexican is a choice you made after being exposed to woke librarians.

Taking those nice white little boys and girls and convincing them to they want to darken.

[lippy 773]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

To be fair, they really think that being gay or trans or Mexican is a choice you made after being exposed to woke librarians.

As the husband of a Texan librarian, I can say you're closer to the truth here than any of us would like.