More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[billvon 3,058]

5 hours ago, billeisele said:

That implies that there are no laws on guns and that the proposed laws would be effective. I'm sure he didn't mean to imply that there were no laws. CA has many laws and the deaths continue. 

No.  It implied that adding gun laws to existing law would reduce deaths.  (And yes, that assumes that they are well written laws, that they address the issue, that they can be enforced etc.)

Yes, California has a lot of gun laws - the most in the country..  As a result, their gun death rate is 37% below the national average.  New Jersey has the second strongest gun laws, and their gun death rate is 63% below average.  Hawaii has the fourth strongest gun laws; their gun death rate is 75% below national average.

Let's compare that to states with the most lax gun laws.  Arkansas has the most lax laws; their gun death rate is 75% above national average.  Wyoming comes in second in lax laws.  Their rate is 90% above national average.

So there is some evidence that those gun laws can reduce gun deaths.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/comparing-gun-laws-and-gun-related-deaths-across-america/

Quote

IMO unbiased research needs to be done to determine what methods would be practical that would also effectively reduce gun deaths. The results would provide valuable information from which laws could be crafted.

I agree.  This is difficult since republicans explicitly banned that research.  They feared the discovery that gun laws work.

[billeisele 130]

10 hours ago, billvon said:

No.  It implied that adding gun laws to existing law would reduce deaths.  (And yes, that assumes that they are well written laws, that they address the issue, that they can be enforced etc.)

Yes, California has a lot of gun laws - the most in the country..  As a result, their gun death rate is 37% below the national average.  New Jersey has the second strongest gun laws, and their gun death rate is 63% below average.  Hawaii has the fourth strongest gun laws; their gun death rate is 75% below national average.

Let's compare that to states with the most lax gun laws.  Arkansas has the most lax laws; their gun death rate is 75% above national average.  Wyoming comes in second in lax laws.  Their rate is 90% above national average.

So there is some evidence that those gun laws can reduce gun deaths.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/comparing-gun-laws-and-gun-related-deaths-across-america/

I agree.  This is difficult since republicans explicitly banned that research.  They feared the discovery that gun laws work.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The data is interesting for sure and thanks for the link. I'll dive into this and read the original data at Giffords.

I'm not questioning your "R's banned the research" statement but would like to read up on that. Is this a reference to the Dickey Amendment?

It's way past time for Congress to do their job on immigration policy and action on firearms.

[JerryBaumchen 1,422]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The data is interesting for sure and thanks for the link. I'll dive into this and read the original data at Giffords.

I'm not questioning your "R's banned the research" statement but would like to read up on that. Is this a reference to the Dickey Amendment?

It's way past time for Congress to do their job on immigration policy and action on firearms.

Hi Bill,

Do you think that they will?  Do you think they will even make an effort?

Jerry Baumchen

[wmw999 2,514]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

It's way past time for Congress to do their job on immigration policy and action on firearms.

I agree. And that takes either them ignoring the "power at all costs" methodology that's been the norm for the last 30 years or so (compromising is how things get done in groups, not "my way or the highway.")

Wendy P.

[billeisele 130]

8 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Do you think that they will?  Do you think they will even make an effort?

Jerry Baumchen

Good morning, Happy NY and all that stuff. 
I think that nothing will change until there is a motivating event. Not sure what that would be. Maybe a few with personal tragedies, term limits, voters replace a bunch of them, removal of the incentive/reward for inaction. and who knows what else. I'd like to see a few moderates of both parties join together and demonstrate that not everything is strictly D or R. That there can be consensus and that representing the best interests of the country is a good thing.

As Wendy said, compromise is needed. That also requires negotiating in good faith. Honesty and integrity are needed. People like Santos need to be hammered as hard as possible to send a clear message. Political office should not be haven for the inept, dishonest and immoral.

Edited January 3, 2023 by billeisele

[BIGUN 1,393]

23 minutes ago, billeisele said:

representing the best interests of the country is a good thing.

Unfortunately, Congress critters seem to think the best interest of the country is based on who gives them the most money. That's what needs to change. 

[JoeWeber 2,807]

29 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Good morning, Happy NY and all that stuff. 
I think that nothing will change until there is a motivating event. Not sure what that would be. Maybe a few with personal tragedies, term limits, voters replace a bunch of them, removal of the incentive/reward for inaction. and who knows what else. I'd like to see a few moderates of both parties join together and demonstrate that not everything is strictly D or R. That there can be consensus and that representing the best interests of the country is a good thing.

As Wendy said, compromise is needed. That also requires negotiating in good faith. Honesty and integrity are needed. People like Santos need to be hammered as hard as possible to send a clear message. Political office should not be haven for the inept, dishonest and immoral.

You’re joking, right? How many dead per school shooting do you think might constitute a motivating event. Instead vote Liberal and know you’ve done your, still useless, best.

[kallend 2,099]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Unfortunately, Congress critters seem to think the best interest of the country is based on who gives them the most money. That's what needs to change. 

Thanks to Citizens United that is not likely to change,

[olofscience 489]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

I think that nothing will change until there is a motivating event. Not sure what that would be.

And Sandy Hook didn't even qualify...

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

You’re joking, right? How many dead per school shooting do you think might constitute a motivating event. Instead vote Liberal and know you’ve done your, still useless, best.

Every once in a while the hard core throw in a post to fool the uninitiated. Everyone here knows he has never, ever, really suggested compromise in any fashion. And never will.

"As Wendy said, compromise is needed. That also requires negotiating in good faith." ha ,ha, LOL, gag, gag. The only sentence that wasn't pure b.s. was the one he omitted. I.E.that "more studies" are needed.

[gowlerk 2,241]

50 minutes ago, olofscience said:

And Sandy Hook didn't even qualify...

Sandy hook or any number of dead school children will never be enough to motivate change. Serious change will only come when there is a serious attempt at a revolution and the people who have power feel threatened. When that happens there will be a real attempt to get weapons out of the hands of the people. In other words the true believers are kind of correct.

Edited January 3, 2023 by gowlerk

[JerryBaumchen 1,422]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

Thanks to Citizens United that is not likely to change,

Hi John,

I think you mean:  Thanks to the Supreme Court

Jerry Baumchen

Edited January 3, 2023 by JerryBaumchen

[jakee 1,556]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

"As Wendy said, compromise is needed. That also requires negotiating in good faith." ha ,ha, LOL, gag, gag. The only sentence that wasn't pure b.s. was the one he omitted. I.E.that "more studies" are needed.

Well he already covered that with 'we need more non partisan studies'. Though of course any study that concludes action is needed immediately becomes partisan...

[billvon 3,058]

7 hours ago, billeisele said:

Good morning, Happy NY and all that stuff. 
I think that nothing will change until there is a motivating event. Not sure what that would be.

Agreed!  Once there is a big enough incident, things will change.

Perhaps a mass shooting where a indebted alcoholic takes 24 weapons, many modified to be automatic, to a hotel room in Las Vegas and kills 60 people/wounds 800 in a concert over a block away - and also shoots up a 2.7 million gallon airport fuel tank.  If that ever happened, people might start to wonder why a heavy drinker with a serious gambling problem, very in debt, was able to legally buy over 50 weapons, thousands of rounds of ammunition and kilograms of explosives with no question asked.  THEN we'd see changes!

Or maybe a mass shooting where an angry anti-gay extremist took a semiauto rifle and a handgun to a gay bar to kill 60 patrons would shake people up enough to realize that such weapons make it easy for extremists to commit mass murder based on their passions.  Then we'd see changes for sure. 

But maybe people don't really care unless their children are killed.  In that case, a shooting where 20 first-graders were slaughtered by a man with diagnosed mental problems who had easy access to automatic weapons would really drive change.  You surely would see people demand that access to weapons were restricted for the mentally ill.

And we often see the explanation that only good guys with guns can stop bad guy with guns; this is used as an explanation as to why you can't make it harder to get guns because then those kids would be less safe.  If we ever had an incident where a former student of a school who killed cats for fun and threatened violence online went to that school and killed 21 kids while heavily armed police sat around for an hour doing nothing, waiting for him to finish, people would realize that the "good guys with guns" argument simply doesn't fly.

So if any of those things ever happen, I am sure we will see some real change.

[kallend 2,099]

9 minutes ago, billvon said:

Agreed!  Once there is a big enough incident, things will change.

Perhaps a mass shooting where a indebted alcoholic takes 24 weapons, many modified to be automatic, to a hotel room in Las Vegas and kills 60 people/wounds 800 in a concert over a block away - and also shoots up a 2.7 million gallon airport fuel tank.  If that ever happened, people might start to wonder why a heavy drinker with a serious gambling problem, very in debt, was able to legally buy over 50 weapons, thousands of rounds of ammunition and kilograms of explosives with no question asked.  THEN we'd see changes!

Or maybe a mass shooting where an angry anti-gay extremist took a semiauto rifle and a handgun to a gay bar to kill 60 patrons would shake people up enough to realize that such weapons make it easy for extremists to commit mass murder based on their passions.  Then we'd see changes for sure. 

But maybe people don't really care unless their children are killed.  In that case, a shooting where 20 first-graders were slaughtered by a man with diagnosed mental problems who had easy access to automatic weapons would really drive change.  You surely would see people demand that access to weapons were restricted for the mentally ill.

And we often see the explanation that only good guys with guns can stop bad guy with guns; this is used as an explanation as to why you can't make it harder to get guns because then those kids would be less safe.  If we ever had an incident where a former student of a school who killed cats for fun and threatened violence online went to that school and killed 21 kids while heavily armed police sat around for an hour doing nothing, waiting for him to finish, people would realize that the "good guys with guns" argument simply doesn't fly.

So if any of those things ever happen, I am sure we will see some real change.

Ummm. . . . .

[SkyDekker 1,465]

47 minutes ago, Slim King said:

also had special classes

Probably the least surprising part.

[lippy 918]

50 minutes ago, Slim King said:

We are celebrating as my sons school distributed a Constitution to every student and teacher and also had special classes on the Bill of Rights. It is totally working here in Florida. Each class was divided into 10 groups, each group looking at a separate Right. As fate would have it my son was in the 2A group .. I was proud of his knowledge in this area. Florida will soon be Constitutional carry. The American system is certainly not failing in Florida.

Just out of curiosity, how many students/group?

[kallend 2,099]

2 hours ago, lippy said:

Just out of curiosity, how many students/group?

Of course, the kids killed at Parkland, FL, in the deadliest high school shooting in US history won't have an opportunity to exercise their constitutional rights.

[billeisele 130]

14 hours ago, billvon said:

Agreed!  Once there is a big enough incident, things will change.

Perhaps a mass shooting where a indebted alcoholic takes 24 weapons, many modified to be automatic, to a hotel room in Las Vegas and kills 60 people/wounds 800 in a concert over a block away - and also shoots up a 2.7 million gallon airport fuel tank.  If that ever happened, people might start to wonder why a heavy drinker with a serious gambling problem, very in debt, was able to legally buy over 50 weapons, thousands of rounds of ammunition and kilograms of explosives with no question asked.  THEN we'd see changes!

Or maybe a mass shooting where an angry anti-gay extremist took a semiauto rifle and a handgun to a gay bar to kill 60 patrons would shake people up enough to realize that such weapons make it easy for extremists to commit mass murder based on their passions.  Then we'd see changes for sure. 

But maybe people don't really care unless their children are killed.  In that case, a shooting where 20 first-graders were slaughtered by a man with diagnosed mental problems who had easy access to automatic weapons would really drive change.  You surely would see people demand that access to weapons were restricted for the mentally ill.

And we often see the explanation that only good guys with guns can stop bad guy with guns; this is used as an explanation as to why you can't make it harder to get guns because then those kids would be less safe.  If we ever had an incident where a former student of a school who killed cats for fun and threatened violence online went to that school and killed 21 kids while heavily armed police sat around for an hour doing nothing, waiting for him to finish, people would realize that the "good guys with guns" argument simply doesn't fly.

So if any of those things ever happen, I am sure we will see some real change.

All tragedies for sure. Unfortunately these mass shootings are a small fraction of the deaths that occur from handguns. The "motivating event" may be when it directly effects one or more of them. 

This article arrived today. Some of this is what I'm concerned about. Passing laws that are ineffective and passing laws that will not stand up to court challenges. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/after-the-supreme-court-s-major-gun-decision-these-states-passed-restrictive-new-laws-in-2022/ar-AA15VCyQ?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=d87ef16379d040119024cfdad6807aac

[wmw999 2,514]

20 minutes ago, billeisele said:

This article arrived today. Some of this is what I'm concerned about. Passing laws that are ineffective and passing laws that will not stand up to court challenges

But the “fuck You!, Libs” laws allowing concealed carry without any qualifications whatsoever are OK?

Wendy P. 

[billeisele 130]

4 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

But the “fuck You!, Libs” laws allowing concealed carry without any qualifications whatsoever are OK?

Wendy P. 

Good morning Ms Wendy. Hope you're enjoying the mild winter weather. It's 65 degrees here and we were jumping of Monday. Crazy weather.

Absolutely not. IMO that's a big mistake. Strap on a gun and go, is crazy. IMO the permit thing is worse. It can give permit holders the misperception that they are now somehow a weapons expert. I'm surprised that there are not more shootings.

Specifically on this topic I've stated that the requirements to get a permit are too lax. There should be retraining and/or proof of competency for renewal, and more.

Here in SC the permit process is much too easy. Looking are some states that we have reciprocity with, it's even easier. Anyone can go to a class having never touched a gun. They can use a .22 pistol to quality on the shooting range and pass the written exam just by listening to a few hours of instruction. There are many, what I consider, basic things that the training doesn't cover. That gets them a concealed weapon permit. They can strap on a 45-caliber handgun and walk the street. That's crazy.

 

[riggerrob 643]

4 hours ago, billeisele said:

Good morning Ms Wendy. Hope you're enjoying the mild winter weather. It's 65 degrees here and we were jumping of Monday. Crazy weather.

Absolutely not. IMO that's a big mistake. Strap on a gun and go, is crazy. IMO the permit thing is worse. It can give permit holders the misperception that they are now somehow a weapons expert. I'm surprised that there are not more shootings.

Specifically on this topic I've stated that the requirements to get a permit are too lax. There should be retraining and/or proof of competency for renewal, and more.

Here in SC the permit process is much too easy. Looking are some states that we have reciprocity with, it's even easier. Anyone can go to a class having never touched a gun. They can use a .22 pistol to quality on the shooting range and pass the written exam just by listening to a few hours of instruction. There are many, what I consider, basic things that the training doesn't cover. That gets them a concealed weapon permit. They can strap on a 45-caliber handgun and walk the street. That's crazy.

 

What about a graduated licensing program for new gun owners?

 Start with a basic firearms safety course (see Canadian Firearms Possession and Acquisition License). Limit them to .22 rim-fire for the first year.

After a year, add in a review of the basics (to test how much they remember) then add in a basic accuracy requirement. That accuracy demonstration would require going to a registered gun range and hitting a standard target with 10 rounds fired from 10 meters/yards away. The target would need to be signed by the range officer and submitted with the application to upgrade the license.

It would take 2 or 3 years to qualify for a concealed carry permit. Concealed carry permits should require some formal training in situational awareness, risk management, adrenaline management, de-escalation, road-rage, etc. Pre-trained military or police officers might get some slack on timing (for example, the way that the FAA fast-tracks military riggers wanting to earn civilian parachute rigger ratings), but they would still need to demonstrate safety and accuracy.

Edited January 4, 2023 by riggerrob

[BIGUN 1,393]

18 hours ago, Slim King said:

Public Law 108-447, Section 111

This was an Act to add Citizenship day to Constitution Day. 

The law you're looking for is: 36 USC 106: Constitution Day and Citizenship Day

Note: "(b) Each educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution."

While I may not agree with your rants; I do applaud your community service. 

[kallend 2,099]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

 

While I may not agree with your rants; I do applaud your community service. 

Anonymous poster - could be George Santos (or GS wannabe).

Edited January 4, 2023 by kallend

[Coreece 190]

On 12/27/2022 at 7:33 PM, BIGUN said:

Still not worthy of writing your representatives to reinforce your position and desired direction?

 It appears that people like Phil are more interested in "ruining the day for republicans," so probably not.

 

On 12/27/2022 at 7:33 PM, BIGUN said:

Here. I'll make it easier: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

Our redrawn district just took effect, but at the time you posted this it was like 20 miles wide and stretched 150 miles north and south between mid and northern Michigan - two completely different worlds. In the south were cities like Flint and Saginaw which are notorious for their high level of poverty and violent crime.  In the north is Iosco County which has one of the highest suicide rates in the state, if not the highest.  This was a big military town with a lot a veterans still residing here, so that may be contributing factor.  Rural areas like this tend to have more household guns than urban areas like Flint, but the violent gun crime is virtually non-existent - maybe like 0-1 gun homicides per year. 

Our reps have been democrats that primarily focused on issues in Flint and Saginaw, which is fine since they've obviously needed it more over the last 10 years or so.  Doesn't really matter anymore anyway since we're now apart of a district that shares a more homogenous demographic.

Anyway, Flint and Saginaw have made some improvements with youth crime prevention programs which have shown promise in various areas around the country. The idea is that if we can better serve high risk youth between the ages of 15-24 when most crime is committed, it significantly reduces the odds of them not only committing crime now, but living a life of crime latter in life.

However, the Dem rep also introduced a violent crime bill that would give 25 million a year for local law enforcement to perform coordinated surge programs with the ATF to get criminals off the street.  But wait, didn't the Dems already try this with Biden's violent crime Bill back in the 90s?  Didn't they admit that it incarcerated blacks disproportionately?  Didn't they admit that it was an "unforeseen" consequence  even though Clinton warned them about it a week before he signed it into law anyway?  Who the hell do they think is gonna be arrested when you have this surge of local and federal law enforcement concentrated in densely populated black neighborhoods with the highest crime?  It's just the SSDD, and 20 years from now they're  gonna say it was just another unforeseen consequence and then blame it on republicans and racist cops.