Yesterday's Mass Shooting.

[Fogdog]

This reminds me of a factoid I came across years ago & never really knew what to do with it: apparently, 20% of the population owns 80% of the guns. It gets weirder when you think about it.

For one thing, that’s PRIVATE gun ownership: military & LEO weaponry *not* counted.

It’s not an average, either: if those 80% were distributed roughly evenly among the 20%, the numbers dictate each individual of those 20% would have hundreds of weapons. Does this imply organized private stockpiling against an expected need for a shit-ton of guns, fast? Sure does…most gun guys I’ve known (me included (sorta)) have had fewer than a dozen at a time.

I’ve also wondered: is that 20% ALSO stockpiling 80% of the ammunition? I’ve heard a ton of paranoid whimpering about “the ammo shortage”, but between bulk orders for defense and LE, the remaining 80% of the population couldn’t possibly account for the millions of rounds made & sold every year in all calibers that *aren’t* on the shelves, so…until I have a decent reason to think otherwise, I’m of the opinion that the 80%-owning 20% is also copping ~80% of the ammo.

it is worrying when you consider HOW MANY (or how few) INDIVIDUALS must make up the number that controls all those guns. It boosts the likelihood of a hot overthrow attempt, more than just theoretically

From a study in 2016:

Nearly Half Of Guns In U.S. Owned By 3 Percent Of Population, Study Finds

https://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds

There are something like 393 million guns in private hands. 332 million adults in the US. 3% of the population is about 10 million people who own something like 200 million guns. This still does not paint the picture because the simple average would make it out to be 20 per person in that group. Somebody owns a whopping large number of guns while most own 10 or fewer. I agree, the mega owners might present a problem to our government.

 

[cannabineer]

Aw, fuck…why don’t those guys go get themselves raptured

By the sound of it, they … worshipped like minks.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

I agree that banning large capacity magazines would be an immediate life saver. I agree that some sort of restrictions on semi-automatic weapons of all kinds should be studied, not sure if its a short term answer to our problems with US's high rates of gun homicides.

Is there any study or information from a reliable source that indicate a $100 registration fee and annual tax would save lives? That's the objective. Save lives. Chart a path toward the US being in line with other similar nations in gun homicide rate. It matters not if a person owns a gun. It only matters when it's pointed at people for no good reason.

Not that I'm aware of, most jurisdictions simply ban handguns, and all register them, if it is legal to own one in the first place. It is simply a pragmatic step to reduce the numbers of guns in America and not the first one I would take, but it would be a stage along with banning the retail and private sale of handguns. Increase the burden by requiring registration and if the gun is not registered it can be taken and a fine imposed on the owner after a grace period where they would be allowed some leeway. Safe storage laws could also be imposed, but you have constitutional issues, and any solutions must be well inside the constitutional boundaries. Taxation by the federal government and registration for taxation purposes is one possible route among very few that can be taken. Hence it is not a war on poor people, but one of the very few solutions that are possible, if anything it is a war on the rich, since guns are used to kill their owners more than others.

It is a math problem as much as it's a social problem there are an estimated 400 million guns in America and about 10 to 20% of the population own the vast majority of them, about 3% of the population own 50% of the guns in America. More guns, means more expense and bother for those who want to own them. Making reloading illegal (bomb making materials) and tax the shit out of ammo too. However, before any of that shit you need to get and keep power, so background checks and the other things that are being discussed first, but I don't expect that to slow the murders down at all.

 

[cannabineer]

Not that I'm aware of, most jurisdictions simply ban handguns, and all register them, if it is legal to own one in the first place. It is simply a pragmatic step to reduce the numbers of guns in America and not the first one I would take, but it would be a stage along with banning the retail and private sale of handguns. Increase the burden by requiring registration and if the gun is not registered it can be taken and a fine imposed on the owner after a grace period where they would be allowed some leeway. Safe storage laws could also be imposed, but you have constitutional issues, and any solutions must be well inside the constitutional boundaries. Taxation by the federal government and registration for taxation purposes is one possible route among very few that can be taken. Hence it is not a war on poor people, but one of the very few solutions that are possible, if anything it is a war on the rich, since guns are used to kill their owners more than others.

It is a math problem as much as it's a social problem there are an estimated 400 million guns in America and about 10 to 20% of the population own the vast majority of them, about 3% of the population own 50% of the guns in America. More guns, means more expense and bother for those who want to own them. Making reloading illegal (bomb making materials) and tax the shit out of ammo too. However, before any of that shit you need to get and keep power, so background checks and the other things that are being discussed first, but I don't expect that to slow the murders down at all.

Ixnay on reloading. Every rifle marksman knows that each gun has a peculiar favorite load.

Military competitive target shooters and sniper teams have loads made for their guns, which are bolt-action rifles.

I had a coupla specialist benchrest rifles. I tried dozens of permutations of bullet/powder/charge in each one before settling on a well-performing spec.

There was real pleasure in putting ten rounds through one ragged hole at 100 yards. Without handloads and home-prepared brass, the guns are not operable.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Just banning person to person sales would help with several problems.
Require everyone to go through a licensed dealer and fill out the background check,
It would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, help stop guns being smuggled into Mexico and Canada.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Ixnay on reloading. Every rifle marksman knows that each gun has a peculiar favorite load.

Military competitive target shooters and sniper teams have loads made for their guns, which are bolt-action rifles.

I had a coupla specialist benchrest rifles. I tried dozens of permutations of bullet/powder/charge in each one before settling on a well-performing spec.

There was real pleasure in putting ten rounds through one ragged hole at 100 yards. Without handloads and home-prepared brass, the guns are not operable.

that's an issue...all of it at least has to be restricted.
Selling reloading materials is the same as selling ammo, and they both ought to be restricted.
Not outlawed, but definite limits on where it can be sold, and how much at one time.
Otherwise, just keep it right out on the counter at walmart, unlimited, no questions asked.

 

[cannabineer]

Just banning person to person sales would help with several problems.
Require everyone to go through a licensed dealer and fill out the background check,
It would help keep guns out of the hands of criminals, help stop guns being smuggled into Mexico and Canada.

That’s a big one.

 

[Fogdog]

Not that I'm aware of, most jurisdictions simply ban handguns, and all register them, if it is legal to own one in the first place. It is simply a pragmatic step to reduce the numbers of guns in America and not the first one I would take, but it would be a stage along with banning the retail and private sale of handguns. Increase the burden by requiring registration and if the gun is not registered it can be taken and a fine imposed on the owner after a grace period where they would be allowed some leeway. Safe storage laws could also be imposed, but you have constitutional issues, and any solutions must be well inside the constitutional boundaries. Taxation by the federal government and registration for taxation purposes is one possible route among very few that can be taken. Hence it is not a war on poor people, but one of the very few solutions that are possible, if anything it is a war on the rich, since guns are used to kill their owners more than others.

It is a math problem as much as it's a social problem there are an estimated 400 million guns in America and about 10 to 20% of the population own the vast majority of them, about 3% of the population own 50% of the guns in America. More guns, means more expense and bother for those who want to own them. Making reloading illegal (bomb making materials) and tax the shit out of ammo too. However, before any of that shit you need to get and keep power, so background checks and the other things that are being discussed first, but I don't expect that to slow the murders down at all.

right, so you just pulled it out your ass. That's OK, just not my thing. I'm interested in our government being more disciplined and taking shots when there is good reason for doing so.

I'm not a fan of your idea about taxing guns.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Ixnay on reloading. Every rifle marksman knows that each gun has a peculiar favorite load.

Military competitive target shooters and sniper teams have loads made for their guns, which are bolt-action rifles.

I had a coupla specialist benchrest rifles. I tried dozens of permutations of bullet/powder/charge in each one before settling on a well-performing spec.

There was real pleasure in putting ten rounds through one ragged hole at 100 yards. Without handloads and home-prepared brass, the guns are not operable.

Yeah, there is a whole illegal culture around smoking and growing pot too. Have you seen the drone and RC plane restrictions, requirements and regulations? BTW nobody has been killed by a RC plane or drone, outside of war that I'm aware of. You need to have a drone pilot's license for recreational use and pass an FAA exam, then have your craft registered and it must be in your unaided sight at all times and if you fly FPV, you must have a spotter and it must be in his unaided sight too. There are plenty of places you can't fly too like around airports and restricted airspace, and you must know about these things too. As a republican said about gays and transpeople, "some cultures just need to die". Ask cigarette smokers about it, since they became a minority, many tobacconists around these days?

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

right, so you just pulled it out your ass. That's OK, just not my thing. I'm interested in our government being more disciplined and taking shots when there is good reason for doing so.

I'm not a fan of your idea about taxing guns.

As I said, come up with a better idea to reduce the number of guns constitutionally, because those are the parameters you must work with in.

 

[cannabineer]

As I said, come up with a better idea to reduce the number of guns constitutionally, because those are the parameters you must work with in.

The linchpin is not the Constitution. It is the NRA. They are the political arm of the nations makers and importers of firearms. Their mission is unadorned Sell More Guns. They specifically are behind toxic gun culture, something not found elsewhere in the developed world.

Restricting military-pattern rifles and carbines will go a long way toward solving both the many-guns problem and the associated many warrior-hero fantasies. The best way to proceed is to find a way to break the political power of the NRA, and perhaps have an advocacy group for the actual and much more levelheaded sportspersons and not the industry.

 

[Fogdog]

As I said, come up with a better idea to reduce the number of guns constitutionally, because those are the parameters you must work with in.

We seem to have different objectives. Yours is to reduce the number of guns in the US. My objective is to reduce gun homicide rates to those of similar nations. My objective does not necessarily require taking guns away from people who will never hurt others.

Amending our constitution is probably going to be necessary. Gunfighter nation is hiding behind legalities to avoid anybody taking action regardless of reason or need.

BTW, your unjustified tax "solution" wouldn't pass a constitutional challenge under the current 2A. I dislike it because it makes guns a privilege for the wealthy. fuck that.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

The linchpin is not the Constitution. It is the NRA. They are the political arm of the nations makers and importers of firearms. Their mission is unadorned Sell More Guns. They specifically are behind toxic gun culture, something not found elsewhere in the developed world.

Restricting military-pattern rifles and carbines will go a long way toward solving both the many-guns problem and the associated many warrior-hero fantasies. The best way to proceed is to find a way to break the political power of the NRA, and perhaps have an advocacy group for the actual and much more levelheaded sportspersons and not the industry.

https://graphics.wsj.com/nra-ads-video-history/?mod=article_inline

they start to get politically motivated in 1970, and by 1983 they were backing Reagan for president, the first time they had endorsed a presidential candidate. They also started running a lot more graphic ads...

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/national-rifle-association-ads-history/

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/nra-koch-brothers-karl-rove/

 

[BudmanTX]

I'll start with better background cks.......

Sutherland Springs shooting victims reach tentative $144.5 million settlement with U.S. government

The U.S. Department of Justice also agreed to drop its appeal of a lawsuit in which a judge found the military mostly at fault for the 2017 mass shooting at a church.

www.texastribune.org

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

The linchpin is not the Constitution. It is the NRA. They are the political arm of the nations makers and importers of firearms. Their mission is unadorned Sell More Guns. They specifically are behind toxic gun culture, something not found elsewhere in the developed world.

Restricting military-pattern rifles and carbines will go a long way toward solving both the many-guns problem and the associated many warrior-hero fantasies. The best way to proceed is to find a way to break the political power of the NRA, and perhaps have an advocacy group for the actual and much more levelheaded sportspersons and not the industry.

The SCOTUS regularly strikes down gun laws and over interprets the 2nd to give it far more social impact than was ever the intention of the framers, it was one of the reasons along with abortion that the republicans packed the court with radicals. The federal government can regulate arms this is an established fact, they can ban or regulate the sale of all semi-automatic weapons and they can tax them too.

These things are not up to me or even you, but up to a disgusted public who will support these measures at the polls who will elect politicians responsive to their wishes. The way I see it, federal restrictions and regulations will be the most effective, followed by states, but the SCOTUS has limited the scope of action that can be taken by the federal government, since background checks and safe storage laws could be ruled unconstitutional for the federal government. The feds could regulate guns down to muskets constitutionally and they can tax guns too, to do that they must be registered, but only for the purposes of taxation.

The states might be able to implement safe storage laws and background checks according to the way the current clown show interprets the constitution and as far as I can see, he who owns the justices can write the laws or have laws thrown out. They can even deny the basic human rights of half the population and win citizens united in corruption by providing luxury vacations and other perks to SCOTUS justices. Their rulings on guns and abortion have been way out of line with precedent, so I have them figured as corrupt, at least the fascist ones, since there are no conservatives anymore. So far almost every so-called conservative justices appear to be dirty in some way, financially or ideologically, even Robert's wife made $10 million and she only made it because she was the chief justice's wife. Just like Clarence Thomas, Crow wouldn't have given him the time of day, if he wasn't a justice. Alito appears to be a religious fanatic with deeply unpopular views who overturned precedent.

 

[cannabineer]

The SCOTUS regularly strikes down gun laws and over interprets the 2nd to give it far more social impact than was ever the intention of the framers, it was one of the reasons along with abortion that the republicans packed the court with radicals. The federal government can regulate arms this is an established fact, they can ban or regulate the sale of all semi-automatic weapons and they can tax them too.

These things are not up to me or even you, but up to a disgusted public who will support these measures at the polls who will elect politicians responsive to their wishes. The way I see it, federal restrictions and regulations will be the most effective, followed by states, but the SCOTUS has limited the scope of action that can be taken by the federal government, since background checks and safe storage laws could be ruled unconstitutional for the federal government. The feds could regulate guns down to muskets constitutionally and they can tax guns too, to do that they must be registered, but only for the purposes of taxation.

The states might be able to implement safe storage laws and background checks according to the way the current clown show interprets the constitution and as far as I can see, he who owns the justices can write the laws or have laws thrown out. They can even deny the basic human rights of half the population and win citizens united in corruption by providing luxury vacations and other perks to SCOTUS justices. Their rulings on guns and abortion have been way out of line with precedent, so I have them figured as corrupt, at least the fascist ones, since there are no conservatives anymore. So far almost every so-called conservative justices appear to be dirty in some way, financially or ideologically, even Robert's wife made $10 million and she only made it because he was chief justice's wife. Just like Clarence Thomas, crow wouldn't have given him the time of day, if he wasn't a justice. Alito appears to be a religious fanatic with deeply unpopular views who overturned precedent.

Point taken; two linchpins: Federalist Society-engineered appellate courts. Before the Tea Party/maga nonsense, the Supreme Court held a fairly restrictive interpretation of 2A. I predict that many of the retrograde rulings of the last few years will be undone once the appellate court system is brought back into balance.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

The SCOTUS regularly strikes down gun laws and over interprets the 2nd to give it far more social impact than was ever the intention of the framers, it was one of the reasons along with abortion that the republicans packed the court with radicals. The federal government can regulate arms this is an established fact, they can ban or regulate the sale of all semi-automatic weapons and they can tax them too.

These things are not up to me or even you, but up to a disgusted public who will support these measures at the polls who will elect politicians responsive to their wishes. The way I see it, federal restrictions and regulations will be the most effective, followed by states, but the SCOTUS has limited the scope of action that can be taken by the federal government, since background checks and safe storage laws could be ruled unconstitutional for the federal government. The feds could regulate guns down to muskets constitutionally and they can tax guns too, to do that they must be registered, but only for the purposes of taxation.

The states might be able to implement safe storage laws and background checks according to the way the current clown show interprets the constitution and as far as I can see, he who owns the justices can write the laws or have laws thrown out. They can even deny the basic human rights of half the population and win citizens united in corruption by providing luxury vacations and other perks to SCOTUS justices. Their rulings on guns and abortion have been way out of line with precedent, so I have them figured as corrupt, at least the fascist ones, since there are no conservatives anymore. So far almost every so-called conservative justices appear to be dirty in some way, financially or ideologically, even Robert's wife made $10 million and she only made it because she was the chief justice's wife. Just like Clarence Thomas, Crow wouldn't have given him the time of day, if he wasn't a justice. Alito appears to be a religious fanatic with deeply unpopular views who overturned precedent.

They're still the supreme court, whether we like it or not.
What you're suggesting is flatly fucking impossible without violent uprising.
When the Democratic party starts to flout the will of the supreme court because it isn't popular, it will cause the civil war some jackasses have been braying about for years now. There are some Governors who would jump at the chance to try to claim independence, to have a chance to wipe out the "libs".
There is no way to do this quickly that doesn't include death. Period....
Taxing won't do fuck all, people don't report the fucking things, why would they pay taxes on them? they can sell them person to person...when the tax man comes, tell him you sold it, here's your $20 tax on the deal. There are so many guns already in the country that banning gun stores wouldn't solve the problem, it would take decades to make any kind of dent.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

once the appellate court system is brought back into balance.

When is this wondrous event scheduled to occur? I would like to make celebratory preparations...

 

[cannabineer]

When is this wondrous event scheduled to occur? I would like to make celebratory preparations...

I think that depends on what can/will be done about Justice Thomas and her husband.

 

[Budley Doright]

Guns are a luxury item and I mentioned it along with not caring about the economic statues of gun owners, we are not concerned about it when it comes to owning a car or even a cellphone, why should guns be an exception? Seriously, lots of things are taxed and guns are not sacred or required to insure freedom, votes do that.

In America, putting a $100 registration fee and a $100 annual tax on handguns is not excessive, neither is banning semiautomatic long guns with a mag capacity of over 5 rounds. Most people who can afford a gun and ammo, can afford to register it and pay the tax. Gun owners should bear the financial costs of their hobby, or fear. Call it a tax of fear, if you wish, but increasing the burden, expense and liability of gun ownership is a sensible way to reduce the numbers of guns. It makes even more sense when you look at the demographics of gun ownership and the high concentration of hundreds of millions of guns in about 10% of the population. If you want to own 20 handguns, I'm not going to worry about you paying $2 grand a year in taxes to keep them. The government either gives you $100 for the gun or they tax you $100 per year to keep it.

It will never happen but you can keep hoping. Canadians pay $65 for 5 years (PAL) and it seems to be working here so yes if you proposed a $11 per year to federally allow for ownership of all the guns owned, that would probably work. And not sure what your talking about re auto’s, that’s a provincial thing and registration is free in Ontario now . But you keep droning on with the tax thing over and over, when they can’t even limit mag capacity without a huge outcry, it’s kind of becoming a tad annoying knowing that it won’t work, for me anyways lol. But again, you do you lol.