billeisele

Jerry - In my reply to Phil is some data to consider, Post #3106. In short, Australia dealt with ~700,000 guns 25 years ago. We have ~100 million, that's 142X more. I didn't say it wasn't possible just improbable. I hope M114 is adopted, bit IMO it's too soft. My reply to Wendy in Post #3073 gave a list of ideas that go much further than M114.

Great and thanks. We agree 100% on your last paragraph. Where we differ is on the cost type stuff. It's impossible to put a value on each life that is lost, yet that is done all the time in civil trials. That makes it easy to say that it's worth it. But there are real costs. I don't know what that total cost is but it's above 100 billion. There would have to be some way to manage that. The buy-out cost would be simple to estimate. The Australia effort was in 1997 and involved approximately 700,000 guns. It banned semi-auto rifles and shotguns and they paid market value for them. Using that model, in the US: ~400 million guns in private ownership. From various sources, and the data differs: 30 million semi-auto rifles, 50 million semi-auto handguns, 20 million semi-auto shotguns. The number of semi-auto is hard to pin down but the exact number doesn't matter. I'm taking general numbers, the actual number of semi-auto could easily be 150 million. Let's use 100 million semi-auto weapons in private hands. AUS only went after long guns, in the US that's ~50 million. Using that estimate and an average fair market value of $500, we're talking about $25 billion. Raise the FMV to $1,000 it's $50 billion. That supposedly solves the mass murder issue. But it doesn't. Handguns are used in 65% of gun murders so it's also important to address those. That puts us in the $50 - $75 billion range for buy backs. Handguns are used in 65% of murders, rifles in 3%, shotguns 1%. If handguns are not addressed then not much will change. The next most common weapons are knives. The estimated annual economic impact of the industry is $81 billion, guns and ammo. That puts us somewhere north of $100 billion the first year in easily identifible costs. Add in the small businesses that close, lost jobs, tracking and destruction costs, government oversight costs, etc., and the figure jumps again. A US collect and crush effort would be 143X bigger than what Australia did. The sheer volume is mangeble by recyclers but it's huge. And no, for me it's not just about dollars, but I recognize that it's a real issue that would be raised to stop any progress towards that remedy. Yes, no doubt something needs to be done. I just don't think that will ever happen.

Agree, not all are bad. You are the one saying that all GOP politicians do not support any changes. Why do you continue to lump them all together? It's just not true. Oregon's 114 passed with a vote of 50.7%. In Oregon, D is 34%, R is 25%, I is 5% and non-affiliated is 35%. The allegation that this is an R problem isn't supported by the vote in OR. Even if all the Ds voted for it (which is just a silly assumption) they needed some Rs and Is to get to 51%. Peel back the onion on 114. It's interesting that the Oregon State Sheriffs' Assoc opposed it. “We recognize that we must address firearm violence,” said Shane Nelson, president of Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association. “But measure 114 is just not the answer." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Oregon#:~:text=Democrat >%3D 50%,Republican >%3D 30% Look at OR Measure 5 in 2000 on requiring background checks on gun transfers. It passed with 61.8% vote. Clearly there were Rs supporting that. The party leaders and extremes are using it as a hammer to beat on each other. There are moderates on both sides that agree that something should be done. Until the D and R argument stops, nothing will get done.

No you did not answer. Again, here it is: Explain exactly how this would work. Use real numbers, costs, loss of jobs, economic impacts, what happens to otherwise law-abiding folks that don't comply, what happens when criminals keep them, and the anticipated impact on crime. Use real info, quote sources, show that you have an actual plan How can your plan be accomplished?

Jerry - I get it, the elected officials are bad. If the elected official continue to lump together and vote rather than representing what is best for their voters that's a problem. What I was talking about is the general population, their political label and their position on these issues. There are plenty of Ds and Rs that want reform. Just like there are people in both parties that oppose some or all of it. Again, as long as it's used as a political hammer, nothing will get done.

Phil - you don't want a conversation, you just want to argue, label and diminish others opinions. And you continue to LIE and misrepresent my position on firearms. You want me to answer your questions but yet you can't answer the legitimate question that was posed to you?

That's a lot to unbundle and unfortunately there's more. IMO there is no easy big solution that will work. That's why I advocate for a series of small changes that can pass the legal test and can make some difference. Hopefully Oregon 114 will pass and we'll see if it makes a difference. If so, roll it out but add more. Clearly the gun laws in Chicago don't work, no need to repeat that experiment. One other item I keep seeing is accusations that this is a R or D thing. There are plenty, millions, of D's that own guns, hunt and conceal carry. Just like there are millions of R's that do the same. There are also millions on both sides that do neither. It's silly to keep using one term or the other on this topic. R this or D that, the generalizations are not accurate. I hold out hope that the politicians can make some decisions that will pass the legal test and that will be effective. You may be right, not in our lifetime.

Again, you just want to argue and make false accusations, and still offer no intelligent answers to a simple legitimate question. Not productive. You've stated a flat out LIE. What I have written directly conflicts with what you wrote. To some extend we do agree. Yes, the number of people that have access to guns must be restricted. I've made plenty of suggestions, just wrote a small list in reply to Wendy (above). I've made other suggestions earlier in this post that I don't remember.

Hey Wendy - I've posted on this before. And just discussed a couple things in responding to Jerry. Don't remember the full list of suggestions I've previously made (guessing, way earlier in this thread) and don't know how to find the post, some are: Guns must be removed from vehicles when the vehicle is at their residence or overnight location. Require a background check for all gun sales. No limitation on the time it takes to do the check. Mandatory recurrency training for permit holders. Maximum un/concealed carry allowed caliber is what was used to qualify for the permit. Mandatory reporting of stolen or missing guns. Make, model, serial #, caliber, etc. 21 years or older to purchase ammo. Illegal to transfer ammo to someone under 18. New one - Background check when purchasing more than a certain number of rounds (50?) larger than ?? (32-caliber?), especially for rounds typically used in "assault" weapons. New one - All hunting guns must have a part removed making the gun inoperable (rifle bolt, shotgun forearm removed or separated), if possible, outside of hunting season unless the gun is locked in a safe or has a trigger lock, with the removed part stored in locked case. No bump stocks or binary triggers or other devices that increase the rate of fire. Eliminate access to tracers, armor piercing and similar munitions except those specifically designed for hunting. As for gun locks - trigger, cables, biometric, etc. My thought is that those are primarily intended for in-home safety. Having them would stop the accidental kid deaths, sudden rage domestic violence (maybe), and maybe some of the suicides. An argument that may be legitimate is that it restricts the owners access in an emergency. Not sure that is a legitimate argument but it would be used, loudly. I'm undecided on this one. Gun safes can prevent theft but that would be a difficult one to pass. They are big, heavy and expensive. But yes, effective.

I've been watching 114. Once the legal battles stop, if 114 survives, we'll have a model to watch, see if it's effective and how it works. I read it when you first posted it and found parts to be too lenient. I support what the legislation says but have advocated for periodic retesting and recurrency training. Here in SC one can have never handled a gun, take an 8-hour class, use a 22-caliber to qualify and they have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. That weapon could be a 45 with a 12-round magazine, or an FN 57 with a 20-round magazine. IMO That makes no sense. I think the permit holder should be restricted to the maximum caliber that they used to qualify. As for smoking and drugs. we'll have to disagree. No doubt there are differences between gun deaths and death from smoking and drugs. Excluding suicide, gun deaths are violence by one against another, where smoking and drugs are generally self-inflicted. Using that description they are different. The similarity, that I see, is that smoking and drug deaths could be stopped or significantly reduced by restrictive legislation, just as gun deaths could be reduced by restrictive legislation. Regardless of laws all require enforcement.

Thanks for the reply, certainly a much safer society. I've asked before and just a minute ago ... how could the current situation in America transition to that model? There would be plenty of issues to tackle. My feeling is that as long as it continues to be used as a political hammer, nothing will get done. Some states and local jurisdictions are trying. Not sure there has been one that has worked. Once the court battles stop in Oregon, if the legislation survives, we'll have one to watch.

Joe - you know my position is not close to what you just stated. I've made clear statements about options that could have an impact. I asked a legitimate question. The fact that no one wants to exchange thoughts doesn't get anyone anywhere.

OK, fine. In your infinite wisdom, explain exactly how this would work. Use real numbers, costs, loss of jobs, economic impacts, what happens to otherwise law-abiding folks that don't comply, what happens when criminals keep them, and the anticipated impact on crime. Use real info, quote sources, show that you have an actual plan and not some fantasy world Kallend Merry Go Round with pink unicorns. Demonstrate that you actually have a brain and not just some political concept.

Yet still no intelligent answers or adult conversation. No surprise.

Jerry - Completely agree. There are some people that would be denied a gun but you are right, many others would not. No easy answers.

Joe - No. We've been all over this subject, many times. You and everyone else know that there are multiple reasons for gun violence. The one some like to grab on to is the access to guns. It's convenient for them to ignore the other reasons. IMO, that's unfortunate. It's as if there's no solution to those problems. Read an interesting article this weekend. It said that if the government really cared about citizen safety they would ban cigarettes and do something serious about stopping drugs. CDC says 480,000 smoking deaths annually with 41,000 from second hand smoke. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/diseases-and-death.html#:~:text=Cigarette smoking is responsible for,resulting from secondhand smoke exposure. NIH says in 2021 there were 106,000 drug overdose deaths https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates#:~:text=Overall%2C drug overdose deaths rose,overdose deaths reported in 2021. Those two account for 12 times more deaths than guns. If you remove suicide (54% of gun deaths) then drugs and smoking are 28 times more deaths. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ Round and round we go, nothing changes. If certain guns, magazines and other gun accessories were outlawed do you think that criminals would stop having them and using them against others?

No that is not what I said. What I said was comparing these two incidents isn't valid. Big difference. I further said that the experts agree that there is no reliable data on defensive gun uses where no one is shot. The Trace article clearly describes two data sets that use different criteria and, no surprise, have different summaries. Your final analysis is incorrect.

I was commenting on, and the article addresses, the fact that there are little to no credible stats on self-defense gun use. Yes, when the gun is fired and someone is shot the data is there. The experts agree that when no one is shot the data is not available. We agree on the rest of the comments. That raises the same ole questions. What legal and effective measures can be used to limit access to guns for people that should not have them while allowing the other 98+% of law-abiding people to have them? A number of suggestions have been made. One problem remains, criminals don't follow laws.

Good morning Wendy. I know you are much smarter than this statement. First, yes they will. Those two won't rob again. My statement was merely to point out that if those two were the ones doing that specific crime then there would be a drop in that crime ... until someone else starts doing it. Comparing two incidents, 10 vs. 2, has no validity. The media is not the place to find accurate stats/info on the various ways that guns are misused or used as intended. It's impossible to find good data on the correct use of firearms. This is one article that makes many statements about the lack of clarity on gun data. https://injepijournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40621-022-00384-8 This one discusses the phrase,“a good guy with a gun” is the only thing that can stop “a bad guy with a gun.” There is little clarity on the issue of legitimate gun use. https://www.thetrace.org/2022/06/defensive-gun-use-data-good-guys-with-guns/#:~:text=According to the survey%2C firearms,average of 36%2C660 per year. None of that matters. What is important is that the mass shootings are terrible. Some think that guns are the problem, others think not. We agree on so much.

Two robbers that won't do that again. I would be interesting to see if the 1/week jugging incidents stop. https://www.kbtx.com/2023/07/08/man-shoots-kills-2-men-trying-rob-him-atm-police-say/ In Alamo City: Jan - May 2022 - 704 robberies, Jan - May 2023 - 710 robberies

Another wrong assumption. He wasn't promoted. He was hired from the outside. He had a successful track record in marketing, specifically in a new area the company was wanting to move in to. Long story ... short version is there were 3 VPs, not that it matters, but because you will ask, all were white, 2 males and 1 female. The VP that hired him was a hands-off guy, except with the ladies, and he let the manager get too far out of bounds of the culture of the company and outside of spending guidelines. The VP let it continue and he covered it up because the guy was successful. The VP was fired for sexual harassment. Again, not relevant but because you'll ask. Apparently it's not OK for a married VP to have a pool party with his employees, that was on the expense account, drink too much, have a younger married woman sit in your lap and pull down one side of her bikini top. He had also done the lap sitting thing in the office. The girl didn't complain but others, male and female, in the department did. He had other infractions but that one stuck, too many witnesses. That was around 1995 when things were different than they are now. The next VP took awhile to learn how far out of bounds the guy was without permission. He tried to reel him in but got caught up in rope-a-dope stuff. He just couldn't keep up with how fast this guy moved and where he was hiding his actions. He was fired and the Exec VP told the guy to "stop it." The next VP, the female, had a much different idea of how things should be done. Those two had heated arguments in the office. Loud enough that anyone could hear it through the walls. The problem for all the VPs was that he was quite successful and he made them look good. She eventually fired him, it was loud. It was bad enough that Corp Security escorted him out then brought him back in after hours to clean out his office.

You just continue to bury yourself. Not one thing in your reply is accurate. It's all assumptions, that are wrong.

Interesting turn of events. One of the articles stated that Harvard admitted 34% of the legacy applicants. So 66% didn't get in. One-third is an unusually high acceptance rate. It would be interesting to know how many of these, and of the general student body, either don't graduate or flunk out. No doubt that money is the or one of the drivers. Their trust/endowment fund is $53 billion. The sum of the endowments of the top ten schools is approximately $2.5 trillion. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/10-universities-with-the-biggest-endowments One quote, "... from 2014, a men’s tennis coach thanked the admissions dean for meeting with a possible recruit whose family had given $1.1 million, noting that officials “rolled out the red carpet” for the family. He added that “it would mean a great deal” to see the student at Harvard." Translated that could mean that it would mean a great deal of money.

Interesting article providing more points on the topic. In the 4th paragraph it says: "The end of affirmative action really started in 1978, with Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.,’s opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke—the first Supreme Court case on the matter—which tried to split the difference between a divided Court by arguing that the race of a candidate could be considered, but not as part of a reparative, quota-based program that tried to reduce the harms of slavery and injustice. Rather, race could only be considered by an admissions office that wanted, for the benefit of itself and its students, to produce a “diverse” student body." https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-champions-of-affirmative-action-had-to-leave-asian-americans-behind?mbid=social_twitter&utm_brand=tny&utm_medium=social&utm_social-type=owned&utm_source=twitter

That's an interesting thought. My gosh, so many examples. The worst ones I've had were white, both male and female. At lunch on Friday with the retiree group one name in particular came up. a Marketing manager. He was a white guy from NY, been in the south for 15+ years. He wore expensive suits, unusual for our type business in SC. Did some borderline crazy things, and often had out-there ideas. One idea was using front row tickets to a premier boxing match in NY as a prize. We were in a 20 story bldg with cubicles. He had an oriental type rug in his office and would shuffle his feet like a boxer when he got excited about some wild scheme. He eventually got fired for a combination of negative behaviors. He got things done but they just didn't like how he did it. They hung him due to an unauthorized expense outside of his spending authority, the last one of many. Then there was the middle age white guy manager. on our floor, in another dept, that got caught with child porno on a jump drive in the office. This is when jump drives were fairly new and having one was unusual. His group, GIS, used them to give large files to each other. Corporate Security and the feds took him out of the bldg. Nice guy, no one had a clue. People do dumb stuff.