More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[tkhayes 126]

9 hours ago, billeisele said:

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)

Comparing any gun law to 'the rest of the country' is meaningless given that the rest of the country has ineffective guns laws as well.

If the country wants to reduce gun violence, then we need to model gun laws on the countries that have less gun violence and stop pretending that the causes are judges, or mental health, or open carry, or good-guy-bad-guy, or suicides or whatever.

The reason we have so much gun violence is that guns are readily accessible to pretty much anyone in the country and there are no laws worth talking about.  Look at what it took to get two parents convicted of manslaughter when they bought their mentally ill kid a semi-auto rifle and then he shot up his school.  In any other civilized country, that original purchase would never have happened.

[wmw999 2,123]

24 minutes ago, tkhayes said:

The reason we have so much gun violence is that guns are readily accessible to pretty much anyone in the country

If they're illegal, but close, the same people who feel free to speed on the freeway are going to feel free to buy a gun out of state. It's not like there are any sort of controls at interstate borders.

Wendy P.

[tkhayes 126]

24 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

If they're illegal, but close, the same people who feel free to speed on the freeway are going to feel free to buy a gun out of state. It's not like there are any sort of controls at interstate borders.

Wendy P.

I always have an issue with the idea of 'illegal guns'.  There is no such thing as an illegal gun.  That's like saying there is an illegal car.  It is another gun lobby/NRA talking point distraction.

Remington, Winchester, S&W do not have an assembly line that creates illegal guns for criminals to use.  We have guns that are obtained, trafficked, or owned illegally BECAUSE we do not have any laws to track guns.

If we tracked every gun from its manufacture until its disposal, we would go a long way to finding out how guns get into the hands of criminals.  But we don't do that, nor do we even try to.

[kallend 1,628]

10 hours ago, billeisele said:

 

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

Unfortunately you can WALK from Chicago to a gun store in Indiana in 15 minutes,  buy a gun in a state with weak gun laws (ranked 30/50),   then 15 minutes later be back in Chicago with a gun that you couldn't legally buy in Illinois.  With a car you can do it even faster.

Which is why a national solution is the only one that will work.

[JoeWeber 2,302]

10 minutes ago, kallend said:

Unfortunately you can WALK from Chicago to a gun store in Indiana in 15 minutes,  buy a gun in a state with weak gun laws (ranked 30/50),   then 15 minutes later be back in Chicago with a gun that you couldn't legally buy in Illinois.  With a car you can do it even faster.

Which is why a national solution is the only one that will work.

Until the “law abiding citizen “ trope is finally understood by the gun nuts that use it we will never have a solution. Why? Well if serious gun laws were exacted those law abiding citizens like BillE would hide their guns in opposition.

[wolfriverjoe 1,342]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Unfortunately you can WALK from Chicago to a gun store in Indiana in 15 minutes,  buy a gun in a state with weak gun laws (ranked 30/50),   then 15 minutes later be back in Chicago with a gun that you couldn't legally buy in Illinois.  With a car you can do it even faster.

Which is why a national solution is the only one that will work.

Not really, Professor.

A gun dealer in Indiana is NOT allowed to sell to a resident from another state.

That doesn't mean an Illinois resident couldn't find an Indiana resident to do a 'straw purchase' for him, but it's not legal.

[kallend 1,628]

About six in ten "crime guns" seized by Chicago Police originated from gun shops outside of Illinois, according to a 2017 report issued by the department. Crime guns are defined by law enforcement as those that are "illegally possessed, used, or suspected to be used in furtherance of a crime."

In about 95 percent of cases, the person found in possession of a crime gun is not the original purchaser of the weapon, the report said.

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence ranks Illinois' gun laws as the eighth toughest in the country. The state requires citizens to have a permit to buy firearms and to report stolen or lost guns. Residents who want to sell their guns privately are also required to solicit a background check from state officials and to submit documentation of the sale.

No such laws exist in neighboring states such as Indiana, making them a target for traffickers seeking to sell weapons on the black market in Chicago.

About 21 percent of guns confiscated by police in Chicago are traced back to gun shops across the border in Indiana, a short drive from the city.

After conducting gun offender surveys and crime analysis, the CPD concluded that "states with lax gun laws like Indiana and Mississippi are a primary target for gang members and their gun trafficker source buyers."

[BIGUN 1,055]

7 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

A gun dealer in Indiana is NOT allowed to sell to a resident from another state.

Truth: [18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3)]

 

atf-ruling-2010-1_0.pdf

[billeisele 122]

19 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

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.

I'm not following your logic. What do you mean "clinging to it?" If you mean that folks should stop using it to support their argument on guns, IMO that make no sense. The law is what it is and lawyers will use the law as it's written. The racial undertone thing is laughable - look at where the description came from - the anti-gun nuts.

As for the scary black gun phrase, as soon as the typical anti-gun nuts take 10 minutes to learn about guns I'll stop using the phrase. It's amazing to me how many stand up publicly to denounce those guns. Even Joe did it. They are clueless about caliber, operation, or anything else. They regularly use the term "automatic" as if all the black military looking guns operate in that manner. All they know is that it looks like a military gun therefore it's dangerous. That's ignorant and stupid. They either don't know or don't care that those type guns are about 3% of the problem. They don't know that the vast majority of semi-auto guns are sporting rifles and if they did ban those that look like a military weapon it still leaves a few million other semi-auto rifles that are just as dangerous. Are they so clueless as to think that if the AR platform disappeared that the criminals wouldn't simply switch to the other firearms?

My point has been, and is, that banning that type gun will be almost meaningless. There are too many similar type firearms. The ban would have to include all semi-auto long guns that have the ability to accept a large capacity magazines. How long do you think it would take for the private sector to create high capacity magazines for the ones that don't currently have them?

Case in point. Are you aware of a company called Infinite, located in (wait for it) CA!?!? They produce products that act like suppressors but aren't regulated and they're much cheaper than a suppressor. I just learned about these 2 weeks ago at a booth at an outdoor recreation trade show in SC. These peeps are going around the country selling this stuff. I stood by and listened while the Dept of Natural Resources guys questioned the vendor and examined the products. They confirmed that they were legal. As stated before, IMO, bump stocks, binary triggers, these products and others that have a similar effect should be banned.

You seem to keep wanting to demonize me. At this point you should realize that I'm middle of the road on all this stuff. You state, ",,,, until folks like you get on board with the idea we have a problem with guns...." I've been clear and my position doesn't support your statement.  Regardless of how many times you try to shove me into that corner it's just not true. You continue to make false accusations about my beliefs, gun ownership and other things. I'm not in the NRA, don't own an AR type firearm, or any type of semi-auto rifle or shotgun. Therefore, I have nothing to "give up." as you've stated. 

 

Kallend said, "Unfortunately you can WALK from Chicago to a gun store in Indiana in 15 minutes, buy a gun in a state with weak gun laws (ranked 30/50),   then 15 minutes later be back in Chicago with a gun that you couldn't legally buy in Illinois." 

This points directly to a concern of gun owners. Disarming the law-abiding public won't be effective since criminals don't follow the law. It's also an example of a real smart guy that is clueless on the subject (or maybe he just spoke without thinking). It's basic knowledge that a non-resident can't buy a gun from a dealer.

 

Your reply to his statement was, "... if serious gun laws were exacted those law abiding citizens like BillE would hide their guns in opposition." 

More unproductive and false demonizing. Is it possible to stick to the topic instead of using personal attacks?

[gowlerk 1,914]

23 minutes ago, billeisele said:

the anti-gun nuts.

As for the scary black gun phrase, as soon as the typical anti-gun nuts take 10 minutes to learn about guns I'll stop using the phrase.

As long as the USA is filled with people like you who think that wanting gun control laws makes someone a nut the problem is only going to get worse. You seem to believe that not have a good working knowledge of weapons somehow means you should have no right to want them controlled. The fact is they are simply machines that spit bullets designed to kill things. Mostly to kill people. You don't need to know anything more than that to understand guns.

[kallend 1,628]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Truth: [18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3)]

 

atf-ruling-2010-1_0.pdf 17.81 kB · 1 download

About 21 percent of guns confiscated by police in Chicago are traced back to gun shops across the border in Indiana.

[winsor 186]

Just now, gowlerk said:

As long as the USA is filled with people like you who think that wanting gun control laws makes someone a nut the problem is only going to get worse. You seem to believe that not have a good working knowledge of weapons somehow means you should have no right to want them controlled. The fact is they are simply machines that spit bullets designed to kill things. Mostly to kill people. You don't need to know anything more than that to understand guns.

Given the purpose to kill people, that makes me a terrible shot.  I've fired hundreds of thousands of rounds and haven't hit anyone. Heck, I've never seen fit to shoot at anyone.

[wolfriverjoe 1,342]

Just now, kallend said:

About 21 percent of guns confiscated by police in Chicago are traced back to gun shops across the border in Indiana.

True. Many are stolen. Many are straw purchases.

I'd love to see the authorities crack down hard on straw purchases.

But, of course, they don't.

The guy who bought Kyle Rittenhouse the rifle he used to murder people in Kenosha was facing significant fines and prison time.
He got a 'slap on the wrist', basically telling the White Supremacist crowd that they could buy guns for minors with impunity.

[kallend 1,628]

32 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Disarming the law-abiding public won't be effective since criminals don't follow the law.

Laws against sexual assault aren't effective because sexual predators don't follow the law.  Donald Trump being a perfect example.

[BIGUN 1,055]

42 minutes ago, kallend said:

Laws against sexual assault aren't effective because sexual predators don't follow the law. 

Ummmm... you're kinda making one of the main pro-gun points. 

[gowlerk 1,914]

48 minutes ago, winsor said:

Given the purpose to kill people, that makes me a terrible shot.  I've fired hundreds of thousands of rounds and haven't hit anyone. Heck, I've never seen fit to shoot at anyone.

I'll bet many of those practice shots were at a range with human shaped targets.

[JoeWeber 2,302]

15 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

I'll bet many of those practice shots were at a range with human shaped targets.

Interesting observation. I've been assuming silhouette targets weren't being used. It'll be interesting to learn if the gun range folks really do use them.

[gowlerk 1,914]

9 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Interesting observation. I've been assuming silhouette targets weren't being used. It'll be interesting to learn if the gun range folks really do use them.

I only know what comes across on various feeds and youtube videos. I have no real knowledge of gun range practices. A simple search for gun range targets turns up a mix of paper targets with about 40% being silhouettes.

Edited April 4 by gowlerk

[wmw999 2,123]

At the gun range i was at with my son last month silhouette targets were the default.  And that’s the most progressive one in Houston (according to my son, who lives there).

Wendy P. 

[gowlerk 1,914]

Just now, wmw999 said:

At the gun range i was at with my son last month silhouette targets were the default.  And that’s the most progressive one in Houston (according to my son, who lives there).

Wendy P. 

There is something just a little strange about ranges being compared for progressiveness. What makes a range progressive?

[wmw999 2,123]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

There is something just a little strange about ranges being compared for progressiveness. What makes a range progressive?

In Houston, it’s probably the fact that people feel comfortable wearing T-shirts that proclaim liberal values, or don’t wear MAGA hats. There was a guy with a man bun, and my son said it was the least Bubba-like one

Wendy P. 

[JoeWeber 2,302]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

I'm not following your logic. What do you mean "clinging to it?" If you mean that folks should stop using it to support their argument on guns, IMO that make no sense. The law is what it is and lawyers will use the law as it's written. The racial undertone thing is laughable - look at where the description came from - the anti-gun nuts.

As for the scary black gun phrase, as soon as the typical anti-gun nuts take 10 minutes to learn about guns I'll stop using the phrase. It's amazing to me how many stand up publicly to denounce those guns. Even Joe did it. They are clueless about caliber, operation, or anything else. They regularly use the term "automatic" as if all the black military looking guns operate in that manner. All they know is that it looks like a military gun therefore it's dangerous. That's ignorant and stupid. They either don't know or don't care that those type guns are about 3% of the problem. They don't know that the vast majority of semi-auto guns are sporting rifles and if they did ban those that look like a military weapon it still leaves a few million other semi-auto rifles that are just as dangerous. Are they so clueless as to think that if the AR platform disappeared that the criminals wouldn't simply switch to the other firearms?

My point has been, and is, that banning that type gun will be almost meaningless. There are too many similar type firearms. The ban would have to include all semi-auto long guns that have the ability to accept a large capacity magazines. How long do you think it would take for the private sector to create high capacity magazines for the ones that don't currently have them?

Case in point. Are you aware of a company called Infinite, located in (wait for it) CA!?!? They produce products that act like suppressors but aren't regulated and they're much cheaper than a suppressor. I just learned about these 2 weeks ago at a booth at an outdoor recreation trade show in SC. These peeps are going around the country selling this stuff. I stood by and listened while the Dept of Natural Resources guys questioned the vendor and examined the products. They confirmed that they were legal. As stated before, IMO, bump stocks, binary triggers, these products and others that have a similar effect should be banned.

You seem to keep wanting to demonize me. At this point you should realize that I'm middle of the road on all this stuff. You state, ",,,, until folks like you get on board with the idea we have a problem with guns...." I've been clear and my position doesn't support your statement.  Regardless of how many times you try to shove me into that corner it's just not true. You continue to make false accusations about my beliefs, gun ownership and other things. I'm not in the NRA, don't own an AR type firearm, or any type of semi-auto rifle or shotgun. Therefore, I have nothing to "give up." as you've stated. 

 

Kallend said, "Unfortunately you can WALK from Chicago to a gun store in Indiana in 15 minutes, buy a gun in a state with weak gun laws (ranked 30/50),   then 15 minutes later be back in Chicago with a gun that you couldn't legally buy in Illinois." 

This points directly to a concern of gun owners. Disarming the law-abiding public won't be effective since criminals don't follow the law. It's also an example of a real smart guy that is clueless on the subject (or maybe he just spoke without thinking). It's basic knowledge that a non-resident can't buy a gun from a dealer.

 

Your reply to his statement was, "... if serious gun laws were exacted those law abiding citizens like BillE would hide their guns in opposition." 

More unproductive and false demonizing. Is it possible to stick to the topic instead of using personal attacks?

I'm not following your logic. What do you mean "clinging to it?

I mean clinging to it as a justification for what they consider to be an irreparable situation; for the creation of more guns for sale to anyone tall enough to put money on the counter or a pocket big enough to put it in; for the inability to deprive anyone of their made out of whole cloth constitutional right. I could go on for pages. 

 

They regularly use the term "automatic" as if all the black military looking guns operate in that manner. All they know is that it looks like a military gun therefore it's desirable.

 

FIFY.  That is the point in a nutshell and that is why that dumb turd Kyle Rittenhouse was out at night playing vigilante.

 

You seem to keep wanting to demonize me. At this point you should realize that I'm middle of the road on all this stuff. You state, ",,,, until folks like you get on board with the idea we have a problem with guns...." 

 

Middle of the road? Maybe on the road you live on but not on my road. All positions that include arguing nothing can be done owing to the immutability of the second  amendment, the cost of collection and smelting, the happiness of law abiding citizens, or the thrills of a local culture that deludes itself into believing that shooting wild pigs from a "rotary platform" with "scary black" semi-automatic guns as if they were "mercs" was a sport for citizens not a job for government. And let's not kid ourselves, were fully automatic scary black guns legal to buy and use for that or any other purpose more than a few of your friends would own them. 

 

I'd argue that my position is much more middle of most folks road. I own guns and did a lot of different sorts hunting over the years. I quit because slob hunters who couldn't shoot were wounding and killing animals they mis-identified, or were too lazy to find, not the guns. Now that I don't hunt I am giving my guns to responsible hunters not selling them to anyone. All will go except an HMR-17, a Beretta semi-auto 12 gauge my dad gave me (the only semi auto I've even owned for hunting)  and a Beretta 1301 tactical I have for home defense. I think at one time here, I offered some nice ones in trade for an AR-15  that I would turn in and got no takers.  So I do know my guns and calibers and the difference between semi and full auto. I am comfortable with regulation that might result in overreach, the absolute banning of concealed carry without hard to achieve reasons, and open carry. As I see zero need for hunting North American game with a semi-automatic rifle I see no need for that as a justification for owning AR-15 style weapons. To me those are middle of the road positions that aren't going to materially harm society or individuals.

 

[SkyDekker 1,123]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Ummmm... you're kinda making one of the main pro-gun points. 

That the party of law and order is calling for the abolishing of laws?

[JoeWeber 2,302]

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Truth: [18 U.S.C. 922(b)(3)]

 

atf-ruling-2010-1_0.pdf 17.81 kB · 1 download

If Kallend is right, and I'm always on the fence wanting that, just who are the decent law abiding Indianans who sold them the guns? In fairness, you have pointed out that scofflaws don't care about laws. 

[normiss 622]

I think personal transfers of weapons should take place at an FFL or the local Cop Shop.

Background checks on every weapon movement of ownership.

Well regulated should actually mean something, and be enforced.