If the assault weapons ban passes, should we confiscate all AWs in American homes?

[Nasty Jack]

This question will set off a firestorm from the NRA all the way down to the gun bubbas around the country. But I'll bet you would get at least some agreement from many gun owners, even NRA members. In 1994 there was an estimated 1.5 million assault weapons in the U.S. and approximately 50% of American households having guns.

In December of 2012, Justin Peters in Slate takes a different approach. He suggests the government could buy back the assault weapons and wonders what the cost would be. Through a series of calculations using NRA research, a review of background checks, and known increases in sales (you can see all in link below), Peters comes up with around 3,750,000 total AWs in American households, or around 1% of the country's total private arsenal.

Australia did it in 1996, when they bought back 643,726 AWs and shotguns at a cost of an estimated $400 million American. Actually, the legitimate gun owners shouldn't be out the money they spent on their AWs but it could come down to a show of force to settle the assault weapons problem.

Read more here: [link:http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html|

[gejohnston]

1. low estimate

3,750,000 times current fair market value, which is something like $2K each. That comes out to $7,500,000,000. Of course that depends on the actual number and the "assault weapon" definition of the week happens to be.

[JoePhilly]

2. No, just regulate how those who now own them can legally transfer them to others.

The 2nd Amendment says you can "keep and bear" arms.

But it says nothing about their sale or purchase. The sale and purchase of goods is governed by the Commerce clause, which gives Congress rather broad authority.

So if you have them, fine, you can keep them. You want to transfer them to others, the transfer should have to meet certain requirements, including a background check of the person to whom the transfer is to be made.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Read the Commerce Clause.

Here it is. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

The word "among" in the phrase "among the several States" is what is tripping you up. Congress can regulate interstate commerce but not intra-state commerce. So as long as I sell my private guns to another person here in Texas I can escape Congressional oversight.

[JoePhilly]

78. I think you misread that.

Because guns are sold across state lines, Congress can regulate their sale, even if an individual sale occurs within a single state's border.

Take cigarettes.

Those are sold across state lines and are covered by federal regulations. And the federal regulations persist, even if one goes to say Winston Salem North Carolina (well known for manufacturing cigarettes), and makes a purchase in that state. The manufacture and the sale occurs in NC, so within a single state, but its still regulated by the federal government because the cigarette MARKET crosses state lines.

The market for "arms" crosses state lines. As such, All sales of arms can be included under the Commerce clause.

What Congress should also do is use the Commerce clause to regulate the transfer of guns from the manufacturers to the dealers.

[gejohnston]

79. are you sure there isn't state regulation within the state?

since each state has a tax stamp. The federal law comes in because of the federal sales tax, just like there is on booze and guns. That is why the Misc Tax Unit of the IRS enforced gun laws until it became its own agency in 1972.
BTW, what federal laws are those?

[LibertyFox]

116. Unless I'm mistaken

Wickard v Filburn ruled that congress can regulate any kind of commerce, under the argument that intra-state commerce can affect interstate commerce. While this was over wheat and wheat prices, it set a precedent that the commerce clause has very weak limits.

[GreenStormCloud]

3. Not worth the social disruption. N/T

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. Oh definitely.

I can't seem to spend my money and I desperately need the government to raise taxes.

[slackmaster]

5. So, the last ban resulted in the number of "AWs" more than doubling?

What would be the purpose of banning them again?

What would be the expected results?

[ileus]

6. Glad I don't own any assault weapons, only defensive firearms.

and target firearms, and collector firearms, and hunting firearms.

[spin]

11. First they come for the assault weapons, then they come for the handguns .... (n/t)

[Thinkingabout]

56. Some do not deserve the privilege of possessing weapons of any kind.

It might be a need to get weapons out of the hands of those who are not sensible in storage and improper use. License the owners and require insurance.

[spin]

69. The discussion was about confiscating all assault weapons. ...

What you suggest is confiscating firearms from irresponsible people. There's a big difference.

I see no major problem with licensing gun owners. I am a licensed gun owner as I have a concealed weapons permit which required proof of firearm safety training, fingerprinting and a background check. The cost of the license was very reasonable considering that the license is valid for seven years.

Before I agree with the insurance idea, I would have to know the expense of such insurance. If the cost was reasonable, I would support the idea. If the cost was so high that only wealthy people could afford it I would not not. The rights granted by the Second Amendment should not be limited to the rich. All too often gun control is directed toward the lower classes and minorities who might have far more reason to own a firearm for self defense than some rich individual who lives in a gated community with guards and police that quickly respond when called.

[GreenStormCloud]

85. It isn't a privilege, it is a right.

Rights can only be denied by due process.

[Thinkingabout]

111. A right unless it has been revoked such as being a felon or listed as unstable mentally. As I have

stated some people does not deserve to own a gun. A person has the right to go freely in the US until they are incarcerated so rights is not always the answer.

[oneshooter]

117. Insurance. Would that be insurance on the weapon, or the owner?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. who is we? I am the eggman.

[jmg257]

9. Yes. IF a new AWB passed, it seems silly to not do anything about the

4 million out there already (same with hi-cap mags). IF the notion is reduce the gun violence associated with these arms, the best way to accomplish that is to severally reduce the numbers in circulation. Without further controls they will continue to be available for misuse. Even NRA dupes agree leaving current ones alone reduces the law's effectiveness.

If some stipulation is included to limit tranfers and require registration, the 'fair market value' would likely decrease to more reasonable levels, allowing cheaper buy-backs if necessary. Of course this notion of limited grandfathering may also be a deterent against the next run on similiar items subject to increased controls.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. hint...

...you off by a factor of 10.

[jmg257]

14. FORTY million assault weapons?!? Shit - what are we waiting for!? nt

[Glaug-Eldare]

15. So, if there are ten times more than you expected,

which means the per owner incidence of violence is ten times lower than you expected, the need to take them away becomes more urgent?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

17. Sure!

It's that new math.

[jmg257]

18. Sure...more guns in circulation means more gun related deaths...simple logic.

Gun related deaths are wayy more then I expect, every year - year after year.

Figure most people would get sick of it after a while.

[holdencaufield]

20. They are probably too busy worrying about ...

... much more common forms of accidental death such as automobile related deaths, bathtub and swimming pool related deaths, and falling down stairs.

[jmg257]

23. Maybe...those seem to get their share of attention often enough.

Air bags, fences around pools, lifeguards on beaches, etc. etc.

Nothing wrong with a bit o regulation when warranted.

[holdencaufield]

29. Agreed

Ban ladders and create a mandatory 3-day waiting period to take a bath.

[jmg257]

31. 3 days?? But I'm dirty now!

[hack89]

36. Yet deaths due to rifles keep falling

453 in 2007, 323 in 2011.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Is 323 really way more than you expect considering the millions of rifles in America?

For some context, cigarettes kill 400,000 every year.

[jmg257]

37. Rifle related deaths are comparatively pretty low. Unfortunately

AW are being used often for mass killings. Might as well try to get ahead of the curve on these if bothering to pass an AWB, while hoping the mag limits offer a small start in helping with handgun related deaths.

[hack89]

38. Handguns are just as dangerous

have you forgotten Va Tech? The Sandy Hook shooter would have had no problem killing all those kids with a couple of handguns.

BTW - just how many mass shootings besides Sandy Hook and Aurora used semi-automatic rifles?

[jmg257]

41. You did see that part about mag limits vs handguns right?

As i said its a small start.

[Jenoch]

59. How many victims were there

in Aurora from the S&W M&P 15? I thought it jammed after just a few rounds. It is my understanding that most of rhe victims were hit with the fire from shotguns.

[jmg257]

64. Not sure...or how much it matters.

70 people weren't so lucky.

[Jenoch]

68. It matters

if Aurora is being used as a reason to outlaw 'assault weapons'. Using Aurora in such a manner is disingenuous if most of the victims were hit with shotgun fire and not from the 'assault weapon'.

[jmg257]

70. Yeah..because an AR with a 100 round mag is just a plaything.

Nothing to fear here...they could jam don't ya know!

He ONLY shot 70 people after all. Really...what's another 70 or so victims, in the overall scheme of things?


Sheesh.

[Jenoch]

72. What's your point?

When did I minimize the carnage and the seriousness of the crime the asshat in Aurora caused? I simply pointed out the facts of the case and not just emotional hyperbole.

Only 70? That's 70 too many. I'm surprised you have a different view on the situation. Most do not agree with you.

[jmg257]

76. You can't tell my point yet?? Yes, I know you are not emotional about it.

Just happy to point out that a mass killer brought an AR with a 100 round magazine into a movie theater but it jammed after only shooting a few people with it, just so you can try justifying how the incident is a bad example for limiting said arms.

Because you ARE emotional about your guns...but guns being used to shoot 70 people plus a whole lot more? Not so much...cause 'hey - the AR jammed!'.

Here's MY point...a killer brought an AR with a 100 round mag into a movie theater to use it to murder a bunch of people.
Get it now?

Sheesh.

[Jenoch]

88. Of course it was a bad thing to

kill ANYONE. But you are using a bad example of the AR with the drum BECAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK. Why aren't you attempting to outlaw shotguns since that is the weapon that was used to kill and injure dozens of people in Aurora and NOT the semi-auto rifle.

[jmg257]

89. Actually, *I'M* not attempting to outlaw anything. We're talking AWs cause this thread is about AWs.

and based on the OP - whether they should be confiscated if banned.

Once again, I think they should be. And IF certain shotguns are banned, it makes sense to confiscate those too. And if certain mags are banned, makes sense for those too. Otherwise the laws will be less effective then they could be...maybe MUCH less effective because of the numbers alreadyin circulation and readily available.

ETA: A mass murderer who legally aquired an M&P AR and a 100 rnd mag so he coudl shoot up a theater is a GREAT example for why they should be banned/confiscated. It REALLY doesn't matter that while actually involved in using the assault weapon and hi-cap mag the gun (luckily) jammed or not. A lot of people got lucky - many didn't.

[Jenoch]

90. You have used the word 'banned' several times.

You are also saying the banned items should be confiscated. Does your version of this new gun control included compensation for the owners of such items? If such laws were passed and signed into law by President Obama, I believe we would be handing over the White House and both houses of congress over to the Republicans for at least a generation.

[jmg257]

92. Of course I used the word 'banned' and 'confiscate'. That is the subject of this thread.

ETA: not that I would be against such a bill, but personally trying to outlaw anything? Not me.

Hmmm...If I HAD to come up with a bill?

I would suggest a 1 time tax credit for a limited period of amnesty as compensation. Turn in your arm/accoutrement, get a voucher or similiar.

[Jenoch]

96. Do you have an opinion

on my point about the what I believe would be the political damage to Democrat office holders?

[jmg257]

97. Not really. I'll give it some thought...

[gejohnston]

100. I don't think a tax credit would pass 5A

definition of just compensation.

[jmg257]

103. Noted. And an AWB might meet 2A definition of an infringement.

[gejohnston]

104. it just may

I think someone could use Miller for such an argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

[jmg257]

107. Certainly could. If he had only been carrying a BAR, the NFA would been found to be unconstitutional

Ah well.

[slackmaster]

40. Real mass killings are NEVER done with firearms

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_city_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

[jmg257]

42. Yep..and plenty of regulations were passed to deal with those types of massacres too.

Why limit ourselves to addressing only the incidents with such huge body counts?

All those 'small' massacres and incidents with 1 or 2 bodies are just as real, and add up after a while...a pretty short while too.

[slackmaster]

44. An "AW" ban would not be effective at stopping mass killings, or even mass shootings.

Or even double or one-off murders.

[jmg257]

45. So we are told. And especially if it doesn't deal with those already

In circulation, which is the whole point of this thread.

All that 'only effects law abiding gun owner' BS. Of course if we limit the numbers available to lawful gun owners, we limit the numbers available to unlawful owners as well. Stop mass murders? Of course not. Reduce AW gun related deaths? Surely.

[hack89]

81. "AW gun related deaths" Care to put a number on that?

how many deaths are we talking about?

[jmg257]

82. Not really. No sure way to predict what the future may bring as the numbers in circ climb. nt

[hack89]

83. History tells us that it is more likely that the numbers will decline

unless America undergoes a significant social change that reverses decades of declining rates of violence over night.

[jmg257]

84. Not so sure in this case, as the numbers of AWs have really only been increasing substantially

for a bit over a decade or so. Yes they are big and bulky compared to handguns for 'more traditional' criminal use, they are also easier to get in many states, and it does seem they have gotten to be more popular in mass shootings.

[hack89]

87. The big surge in sales came in the mid-1990s

one of the unintended consequences of the original AWB. We have 20 years of increased rifle sales - we also have 20 years of decreasing gun violence.

[jmg257]

91. Only 800,000 produced in 1994? People here were saying there may be as many as 40mil in

circulation now. Seems a surge in '94 for sure, but nothing compared to the gradual increase in popularity in the last decade or so.

I wonder how many were sold just in the last 2 months?

ETA: history shows us that most cycles repeat themselves. While the current downward trend in (gun) violence is a good thing, there is really nothing to guarantee it won't once again rise.

[hack89]

94. The point being is that we have seen a steady drop in deaths

even as the number of semi-auto rifles steadily increased.

There are about 3.5 million AR-15s in America. However there are many other brands of "assault weapons" like all the AK clones or Mini-14s so the total number is a lot higher. There are about 110 million rifles of all kinds in America.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

[jmg257]

106. Thanks for the info. Not sure if you have seen this...

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Failry inclusive summary. Some of the more telling points:

But the rate of gun murder is at its lowest point since at least 1981: 3.6 per 100,000 people in 2010. The high point was 7 in 1993. However, non-fatal gun injuries from assaults increased last year for the third straight year, and that rate is the highest since 2008.

By either measure {FBI vs CDC}, the number of gun murders is going down.

The 2011 and 2006 FBI crime reports show that firearm murders have declined each year since 2006. There were 10,177 such murders in 2006 and 8,583 in 2011 — a drop of 1,594 or nearly 16 percent in five years, even as the nation’s population continued to rise.

The Department of Justice, which commissions the Census Bureau’s victimization surveys, reports that there were more than 1 million firearm incidents and more than 1.2 million firearm victims in 1993 and again in 1994. But by 2009, the number of firearm incidents (326,090) and firearm victims (352,810) dropped by more than two-thirds.

[Glaug-Eldare]

47. I think there are more effective, less destructive ways to accomplish that.

1. I say gun and magazine control is ineffective because it doesn't prevent killers from killing, rapists from raping, or robbers from robbing. Prohibited items like guns and drugs are routinely smuggled, and are typically more capable of destroying lives than anything you can legally purchase anyway. Guns (including actual machineguns) are routinely smuggled along the same routes as drugs, magazines are relatively easy to obtain or manufacture, and even homemade zip guns are no joke. Prohibition has never succeeded as hoped, and always comes with drastic consequences. Alcohol prohibition led to the reign of the mobs. Abortion prohibition led to back alley botch jobs that killed women. Drug prohibition is currently bankrolling the Zetas and Sinaloas, and helping crime gangs flourish in our cities. Firearms prohibition is not going to break the cycle

2. I don't want to link mental illness and violence any more than necessary, BUT it seems that most mass shooters have in common a history of psychiatric problems that were not adequately addressed. The state of mental health care in this country is a bad joke. If we really invested the resources to creating affordable, accessible, and confidential (even anonymous) care, I think the benefits would go far beyond preventing mass killings. Homelessness, drug abuse, violence, unemployment, and suicide are all affected by mental health, and addressing the failings of the for-profit system would go a long way toward that.

3. Handgun crime is just one flavor of violent crime, which will continue with or without legal access to firearms or magazines. The causes for handgun crime are too complex and stubborn to be solved by a simple ban on magazines that hold far more rounds than an attacker typically uses anyway. Gun crime flourishes where poverty, drug abuse, and ignorance do. The absurd wealth disparity and failure to properly support young students in this country leads to desperate circumstances where legitimate success is a pipe dream. Drug abuse becomes widespread, property crimes become widespread to support drug addiction, violent crime becomes commonplace, and life is cheaper than a bullet. This has to stop. We need to raise the floor, and improve the quality of life for the worst off among us. End the drug war, and use those resources to combat addiction instead. Improve failing school systems that don't prepare children for productive lives.

These are progressive solutions that will really make a difference in more than violent crime stats.

[jmg257]

49. There are indeed other partial solutions to the problems being addressed.

Some will be more effective then others. A combination, as you suggest, and as is present in many crime bills, should certainly help in reducing gun crime and violent crime.

Cheers.

[Glaug-Eldare]

73. Gun control shouldn't be a part of it at all.

My point is that prohibition is not just neutral, or slightly effective -- it is destructive. Let me give you some examples.

A handgun ban directly benefits cartels, because they will make more money supplying arms that are not available in the USA, as they already do with machineguns. This is very similar to the consequence of drug prohibition which does not reduce demand, but only shifts the supply to ultraviolent criminals.

A modern rifle ban directly harms the disabled who require the use of so-called "military-style" features, and families who wish to save money by having a versatile, adjustable firearm. Criminals do not want these firearms, and have been known to completely ignore them during burglaries where other firearms are stolen.

A magazine ban directly benefits attackers, because they will have access to them through illegal means while law-abiding defenders will be restricted. As always, laws abridging the capability for self-defense affect the innocent far more harshly than the guilty.

Additional licensing, registration, training, and fingerprinting requirements directly harm low-income families, because they will struggle to afford to take days off from work and pay for new fees. This particularly impacts minorities, who are the traditional targets of gun control. As an example, O'Malley's prohibition bill in Maryland would create an estimated $400 cost just for the "privilege" of purchasing a handgun. Who will be least able to exercise their civil rights with a price tag like that?

Overly broad mental health restrictions directly harm the mentally ill by intimidating people who might otherwise enter treatment voluntarily with the threat of being denied a civil right. This would notably affect potential suicides, who will correctly fear being tracked, registered, and disenfranchised regardless of their case specifics.



What really worries me is that our party is talking about civil rights as though they're privileges dispensed out of the goodness of their hearts. If our party blazes this trail of licensing and restricting civil rights, I worry what will happen if Republicans follow it to their own ends.

[gejohnston]

50. simplistic logic

murders have been dropping for ten years, and there are more guns.

[jmg257]

53. Gun murders remain fairly steady*. If there were substantially less guns, there would

Be substantially less gun related deaths.

*Last few years actually slightly higher then 10 years ago.

[gejohnston]

60. depends on who has the guns

and the rate, not the raw number.
While there would be fewer gun related suicides, the number of suicides would remain the same. The only number that would be affected would be the number of accidents.

[hack89]

95. The rate goes down because the population is also going up.

we have cut our murder and manslaughter rate in half over the past 20 years.

[Eleanors38]

109. I've heard of this "more guns in circulation means more gun related deaths." Have any studies?

[jmg257]

110. Not on me. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. IIRC....

- 3.6 million ARs
- I read somewhere that there were millions of SKSs
- Probably a million or more AK style rilfes
...and millions of others depending on which adaptation of the mindless "assault weapon" definition you chose. The newer definitions cover more guns.

But...

...What do you mean we?

[jmg257]

19. We... As in "We the people". All that 'citizens of the US of A' stuff.

Ya know...A society formed for the common good.
Republic form of govt., establish laws to promote the happiness of the community, carry those laws into effect, &c.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Well don't on my account.

No thanks.

[jmg257]

22. Ha..no problem...we get to go along for the ride - either way.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. You keep saying we.

[jmg257]

25. Why not - you planning on leaving the US anytime soon?

Or otherwise not being subject to any laws that might get passed?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. Well...

...I am going to California in a week.

[jmg257]

27. Ahhh..close enough!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. About 20 years ago I read that...

...if California seceded from the US its GNP would place it 4th in world.

[jmg257]

39. BTW..most bans I read the SKS is not an AW..atleast not those with a fixed mag. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. Some standards incorporate...

...the phrase "...can accept a detachable...".

[jmg257]

51. Hmmm..interesting take on it. Will look closer. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. I could be entirely wrong but...

...I think I also remember reading language like "...could easily be modified to accept...".

Understand that my memory is far from perfect. Now and then I watch TV with my wife. She's kind of addicted to those Teen Mom shows. She remembers everyone's name, the names of their kids and the useless poor excuses they shacked up with/divorced/married/are getting back together with. I'm lucky I remember it's on channel 35.

Useful stuff I can remember a bit better. Well...usually.

[jmg257]

58. I always look for the 'detachable' magazine part. Particularly surprised with

S150 because early on Feinstein called out the SKS specifically. Someone convinced her otherwise (or so it seems).


Ha..thats the trouble with getting old! I have to red everything like 10 times and still have to look back too often!

[holdencaufield]

32. 40,000,002

I just took delivery of two new AR's and a buttload of 5.56.

[jmg257]

34. Sweet...did you get all hot over that buttload?

Oh, That's nice.

[rrneck]

10. Oh please, please, please do

so I can buy stock in any rifle manufacturer that will build replacements for what the government buys.

[Glaug-Eldare]

12. Good luck.

Prohibition is still the least effective, most destructive, and least progressive way to address social problems. The grabber wing of the party will fight real solutions every step of the way, but we've got to move forward. Addiction, gangs, and untreated mental illness are the dragons we really need to slay. The answers will only come from progressives, and they've got to come now.

[spin]

30. There are far better ways to spend money to reduce gun violence than a gun buy back program. ...

for assault style rifles which are not commonly used to murder.

Gun violence in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gun violence is a regularly debated political issue in the United States. Gun-related violence is most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males.[1][2] High-profile mass shootings have fueled debate over gun policies, even though these events are relatively rare.[3] In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of handguns in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported.[4] High-profile assassinations such as those of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and the Beltway sniper attacks involved the use of rifles, usually with telescopic sights, from concealed locations.

Hand guns figured in the Virginia Tech shootings, Binghamton massacre, Fort Hood massacre, Oikos University shooting, and 2011 Tucson shooting. Assailants with multiple weapons committed the Aurora theater shooting, and the Columbine High School massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

The suggested buy back idea would cost billions and there is no guarantee that the effort would be successful. Chances are that most honest citizens would turn in their assault style rifles but a significant percentage would simply refuse to do so. Criminal drug gangs who have assault style rifles would simply not turn them in and much of the gun violence in our nation is due to such gangs fighting over turf.

Rather than spend an enormous amount of money on a plan which may or may not reduce gun violence, why not just spend more money on better policing and work to improve our current gun laws by passing legislation that will actually accomplish something?

Chicago is a very violent city largely due to gang warfare. An effort is being made to improve the effectiveness of the Chicago police department and early indications are that this approach is paying off.

Chicago Homicides Drop In February: Murders Plummet To 14 For Lowest Monthly Total Since 1957
Posted: 03/01/2013 2:37 pm EST | Updated: 03/01/2013 2:42 pm EST

Fourteen homicides in a month may be staggering for some cities, but in Chicago, the number is actually a sign — however grim — of progress.

Following a bloody January that saw more than 40 murders, homicides plummeted in February, reports WGN.

The 14 murders tallied show progress over 2012 numbers, as well; ABC Chicago reports February's homicide rate last year was 28.

"These numbers represent progress thanks to the hard work of our dedicated police officers and community partners including ministers, parents, principals and citizens who are working alongside us to ensure the broader public safety throughout the city," Superintendent Garry McCarthy said Friday, according to ABC.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/chicago-homicides-drop-in_n_2790452.html?utm_hp_ref=chicago

Chicago's Top Cop Wants To Expand 'Hot Zone' Crimefighting Strategy

Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy hopes to expand a strategy he says is responsible for reducing murders in high-crime areas after the city tallied a record low 14 murders in February.

The strategy is a saturation tactic that relies on police officers working overtime in targeted “hot zones,” and McCarthy says it resulted in no homicides in the 10 areas where the strategy was implemented. McCarthy said the total murders last month was the lowest number of any month since January 1957. McCarthy had more good news and said homicides — despite a bloody January — decreased from October 2012 through last month. The city recorded 156 murders during that span versus 186 for the same time frame from October 2011 to February 2012.

Two hundred police officers worked overtime in the 10 hot zones, and McCarthy says he would like to add another 200 to 10 more hot zones, determined by studying crime data across the city for a 3-year period. The practice frees up district commanders to deploy beat officers to other areas in their districts that require attention. These hot zones, according to McCarthy, cross district boundaries and only account for less than 2 percent of the city’s total area, but 10 percent of Chicago’s violent crime is located in these zones.

Despite the good numbers, McCarthy admitted it isn’t the ideal solution to what remains a major problem. Fraternal Order of Police spokesman Pat Camden agreed, saying the strategy was no different from those McCarthy ended, like the Mobile Strike Force. Camden said the best strategy would be to hire more police officers and questioned how long the city could afford the overtime to pay officers currently working in the hot zones.

By Chuck Sudo in News on March 4, 2013 4:40 PM 3

http://chicagoist.com/2013/03/04/chicagos_top_cop_wants_to_expand_ho.php

[Warpy]

33. Just how is that going to be accomplished without totalitarianism?

A better idea is to offer a buy back program coupled with high fines for anyone caught with one of them after the initial buyback period of six months or even a year plus a reward for anyone reporting their presence in a home.

It wouldn't be much fun to keep one if you had to keep it hidden away from the neighbors and could never take it outside for fear it might be seen.

You'd still be left with the madmen assembling arsenals for the eventual war they're going to try to start, but even at that, you'd reduce the numbers available to angry teenagers considerably.

No program is likely to get them all. Getting 95% of them over a period of a few years is probably the best we can expect and it will likely be enough.

[Android3.14]

35. Two things

Just watching the way this debate is petering out, I will bet money that nothing, and I mean less than nothing and even a loosening of rules, will be the outcome of all this.

[Straw Man]

43. What's an "assault weapon"?

How about a Mini-14 with a flash hider? Does that count?

I love the fact that they call "modern sporting rifle" a euphemism, but they use the term "assault-style rifles."

The "assault weapons" problem. Oh yes. Responsible for fewer overall murders than fists and feet.

[rdharma]

57. How about a Mini-14 with a flash hider? Does that count?

You mean like this one ........ used by Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik?

[Straw Man]

61. I don't see a flash hider on that one.

I see a flashlight and a bayonet. And a fairly elaborate sighting system.

No, like this:



As opposed to this:

[tularetom]

66. The "tactical" version of the Mini-14

has no flash suppressor.

[Straw Man]

67. But it has several other ...

... evil features, namely pistol grip and adjustable stock. One wonders why they didn't go for the full boat.

[rdharma]

71. No flash suppressor.

You're right! Maybe Breivik just wanted to keep it simple and uncluttered!

[Walk away]

46. 50% of American households had guns in 1977. That number has declined steadly since then...

and depending on the survey it is now between 32% and 38%. The reason there are so many more guns is partly because of gun collectors arsenals.
Apparently, some folks are evolving and others are arming themselves for the "revolution".

[gejohnston]

52. actually no

there was an increase of "casual gun owners" in the 1960s and 1970s because of fear of crime. Now it is simply returning to 1950s levels, if you go by that poll. Other polls show an increase especially among Dems and women. There is no "evolution" and no "preparing for the revolution".

[holdencaufield]

65. I would never prepare for "Revolution" ...

... that show sucks! Seriously -- they have no electricity after the Armageddon but apparently they have Conditioning Rinse and makeup?

I do, however, prepare every Sunday for "The Walking Dead" -- that show rocks.

[Purveyor]

54. It won't pass so why banter on about it. Way it sounds, scant little is going to pass out of the

house of reps.

Just the facts with no sprinkling of fairydust.

[Gold_from_lead]

62. Yeah...Good luck with that

LOL. No way it could be done. I know my weapons cost at least 10K in gold each and that just to start. I think the main flaw is that gun-owners would have to walk them in to where ever they are supposed to be turned in, and there is absolutely no way in the world a majority of them will do that.

[tularetom]

63. It won't and we shouldn't

Banning anything never works. Witness prohibition and the "war on drugs".

Wanna drive up demand for something and create a black market? Ban it.

[Glaug-Eldare]

75. Yep.

Last edited Tue Mar 5, 2013, 02:56 AM - Edit history (1)

I can't find a current figure for the percentage of firearms transactions that are never checked against NICS, but prohibition will only increase that number. If there's no legal way to buy a gun, then 100% of all sellers do no background check.

If there's no legal way to get morphine, 100% of the doses are not prescribed.

If there's no legal way to get an abortion, 100% of them have no oversight.

If there's no legal way to have a same-sex relationship, 100% of homosexual partners will go underground.

If there's no legal way to get pornography, 100% of the material will be illegal.

[guardian]

74. NO!

nt

[iiibbb]

77. There is no political will or capital to pay for this.

There is no way the government has the will or political support to risk what this kind of thing would cost.

[lastlib]

80. no, don't confiscate 'em......

Year 1: buy back
Year 2: turn 'em in, no $$$
Year 3 on: if you're caught with one, you hang at noon in the town square.

I'm sure even bullet-heads like Nugent would get the message. (I bet he'd shit his pants (again) if this was enacted....not that he needs much reason to shit his pants....)

[slackmaster]

86. As my Chinese former co-worker once quipped, a left jack-boot up your ass feels no better...

...than a right jack-boot up your ass.

The far right and the far left are sometimes indistinguishable from one another.

[lastlib]

98. I'm sorry........

...your relevance to this discussion seems to have expired..............

[slackmaster]

99. says a self-described "lib" who advocates public execution for a victimless malum prohibitum crime

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. Not a bit surprising; gun Prohibitionists have been letting their crypto-fascist flag fly lately:

There's the Bloomberg obsessive who wants to set up metal detectors on the streets, , and there's these two other examples from just the past few days:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=113151

"states have rights too, not just gunnuts"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022450790#post80

Put up sign at checkpoint that says "Assault Weapons" and search the yahoos that get excited.

Can also look for evidence of bigotry, TParty/Republican Affiliation, etc.

[Clames]

112. And yours never existed.

Such is the way of those who advocate for extreme use of the death penalty like you do. Maybe you forgot where you were posting...

[lastlib]

114. Well, since you're so squeamish, we'll settle for public castration.......

[Clames]

115. Another obvious answer from you.

You get to settle for wishful thinking and nothing more. I get to settle with going to the range this weekend...

[FamilyMan]

93. Gun ownership = Lower crime

Australia's crime rate skyrocketed by 40% after their ban...for the simple fact that criminals will always have guns since they don't buy them at retail stores or gun shows...FBI stats prove this. Only 1.8% of gun related crimes were committed with sporting rifles, most of that 1.8% was gang-on-gang, and according to stats virtually none of those rifles were bought from retail stores (unless stolen from private owners who should of used a safe).

Funny how some people are under the false pretense that criminals walk into a gun store, pay $1,000+ for a rifle (that they can get on the blackmarket for ~$150), subject themselves to a background check and recorded sale. Every gun store already is forced by law to keep logs of all purchases that are checked by ATF...something they don't tell you in order to push their over-reaching registration (can't confiscate what is not registered).

Buy back???... every buyback that has happened in the past 2 months has been a complete failure...only the TV crews showed up and each time they left after a couple of hours of waiting around with no takers. No fool is going to sell a firearm for $200 when they paid $900-$1,500 for it.

These politicians are learning the hard way that gun owners are not 'southerners' or 'Republicans'...same way Clinton learned it when he lost both the House and Senate over Gun Control. Problem is that now there are over 40 Million Democratic gun owners who are standing united on this with Republicans. Another problem is that Dems are up for re-election in mostly red states next year.

[yourout]

102. Nice try but the question is ban "Assault weapon" not.....

shotguns, pistols, and hunting rifles.

Nice try on the spin though.

[jmg257]

108. Not so sure so many people are under that false pretense at all.

More likely there are under the impression that:

1) if we have unfettered access to certain arms, so do most other people
2) if no one could buy them for $1000 in store, there wouldn't be as many available for $150 on the street
3) ATF logs are great at point of sale, but pretty much useless for tracking private sales - often AKA straw purchases
4) 100% background checks and registration will help keep track of most sales, and should help deter illegal tranfers
5) confiscation - see #2, less in circulation mean less on the streets

[yourout]

101. Should we?....yes. Will we?....not a chance.

[Skip Intro]

113. I think we should take them from the criminals, and leave law abiding

Americans alone.