billeisele

Thanks for catching me up on the details. I've not been following this one. Let's get some air time today. On a side note the amount of smoke that has made it to SC is crazy. It makes some great sun and moon photos.

Received this info in the news feed this morning. It will be interesting to see the test results. When battery energy storage becomes economical for general use that is the game changer for the electric utility industry. It changes or eliminates the conventional transmission and distribution systems, removes point source generator issues, and alters the economics of one of the largest and most critical industries.

I'm all for a open and fair investigation. It seems illogical to not allow pro-Trumpers on the panel if there are anti-Trumpers on the panel. One is just as bad as the other. Is it even possible to find a politician that can fairly examine the facts?

Heard an interesting discussion yesterday by a black Chicago (i think) alderman. I was driving and didn't get all the details. He had plenty to say about Mayor Lightfoot, none of it was good. A clip from a recent press conference was played where Lightfoot was complaining that the feds weren't doing anything to curb gun violence. He asked why Lightfoot was waiting for the feds, and why wasn't she doing anything. He asked why if one policeman makes a mistake there are riots in the street with dozens of protestors but when a kid is killed no one says anything. He stated that there should be protests for more enforcement. He stated, "this is mostly a black problem and it's up to us to stop it." He stated that only 9-12% of gun crimes were solved and again stated that more law enforcement was needed. An interesting listen and shows that someone is trying.

Jerry - good morning. BillVon has tempered my view on "new" laws, as discussed somewhere above. They should (IMO) be reasonable and legal. And there is the 2nd A conflict. I do want something done and have said previously: - make certain items like bump stocks, and binary triggers Class 3 items - require that new "firearm enhancement" products be reviewed prior to public release to determine if a Class 3 designation is needed - require background checks or evidence of a permit on private transactions - require gun owners to maintain a record of the brand, model and serial number of firearms - require that gun thefts be reported - require that cars be locked if a gun is inside - provide adequate mental health resources - Use existing and new laws to hammer criminals. I believe that aggressive enforcement sends a clear signal of consequences for actions. Certainly there are additional reasonable laws that could be enacted. However, regardless of what laws are passed I don't believe that much will improve until the root cause of gun violence is addressed. That means research/studies and folks willing to face up to what is identified. What I'm not convinced of is the ability of laws to materially temper criminal activity, and am concerned that the creation of laws that are too aggressive will make gun ownership by lawful citizens too difficult. Hope you have a great Independence Day and weekend celebration.

Seems that the FACTS say otherwise. The Giffords Law Center states, "Illinois has some of the strongest gun laws in the country." Are you saying that the state no longer requires an FOID to possess a gun or ammo? That to have a concealed carried handgun one must be 21 or older, to have had 16 hours of training, and that licenses from other states aren't accepted is not correct? That open carry is allowed? That private sales require the seller to verify the FOID and keep records for 10 years, and lost or stolen guns must be reported - none of that is correct? When transporting a firearm by someone without a concealed carry permit it must be unloaded and in a case, or broken down or not immediately accessible is not accurate? Illinois IL Concealed Carry Gun Laws: CCL & Reciprocity Map | USCCA(Last Updated 05/17/2021) (usconcealedcarry.com) In fact, these laws are in place in IL. That makes IL one of the most restrictive states in the country. By any measure that would be defined as "strict." But yes, the laws used to be stricter until the US Supreme court ruled that some were unconstitutional. And yes, it is clear that guns are coming into IL from adjacent states. That gets to my point that criminals do not follow the law. If they did they would have an FOID, register the guns, and not carry them loaded in the car or on the street. But yet that is exactly what is happening.

Let's focus on these two items. Peeing in the pool - what I'm describing is that criminals don't care about laws. IL requires a permit and guns are hard to buy there. So they go elsewhere to get a gun and ignore the permit law. With 430 million guns around I don't see how a national permit law will change criminal behavior. Yes, I'm sure there would be a reduction. The question I would have is would it be significant? An interesting note about the IL permit law is it doesn't require fingerprints. That is a current and ongoing argument in IL. In SC no permit is required to own a gun. If one wants to carry it concealed a CWP is required . Pictures, ID, and finger prints are taken, and a full background check is done. About 8% of residents have a CWP. That's probably 10 -15% of the adult population. In 2021 the number of background checks done were: SC 531,000, CA 1,600,000, and IL 7,455,000. These are done when a gun is purchased or permit issued. Plenty of gun stuff going on. As to Australia - Fact - In 1996 they had gun buybacks and voluntary surrenders. They collected 1 million guns which was estimated at one-third of the guns. A license is required, a need must be proved and all guns are registered by serial number to the owner. No one knows what percentage of guns are owned without a license. A 2017 study showed that many Australian states had significantly weakened gun laws with no state fully compliant with the 1996 National Firearms Agreement. There have been four amnesty periods that allowed folks that weren't in compliance with the law to come forward. Those resulted in 118,000 guns being turned in and 22,000 registrations. Current estimates are that there are 3.2 million guns in private hands of which 414,000 are unregistered. Compare that to the US where there are an estimated 430 million guns privately owned. If one-third were collected that would be 143 million. The cost would be astronomical. Then with amnesty periods over 21 years an additional 17 million would be collected. That leaves 270 million in private hands assuming that no more guns were produced or sold in the US. That's 84X more guns than Australia is dealing with. Note that in Australia the total number of guns grew back to the original number they had before the NFA. If that occurred in the US we would have 134X more guns than Australia with 56 million being unregistered. IMO - Regardless of how these numbers are evaluated the US would have a tremendous number of guns, and criminals would have plenty of them. I just don't see how a ban, collection or confiscation program could work or be effective. I agree that something or combination of things needs to be done, just don't know what that is. Note: there have been a number of gun buyback efforts in SC. One was done a couple months ago at a rural church. Many of the guns they paid $100 for were old revolvers, some inoperable, some rusty, a few shotguns and a few long guns. There weren't any semi auto rifles or pistols. Ones done in the past had similar results. These are voluntary and show that no one is giving up any of the good stuff.

Wow, amazing how much we agree. Thanks. To paragraphs two and four - (IMO - for Jerry) if existing laws have loop holes or are poorly written then absolutely, let's have a new law that fixes those issues. If having press conferences and officials talking about enforcement, and new laws to address criminal activity - OK fine. I still contend that in many cases there are sufficient laws to address the problem. Paragraphs 5 and 6 - yes, agree Where we seem to differ is with "assault weapons" and "specific guns." FACT - there are many types of guns that are not typically identified as assault weapons that operate the same way and have similar lethality. The typical semi-auto Remington Model 4, 8 and the most common 7400 series were produced from 1906 - 2014, Ruger carbine rifles, Winchester 1907 and Model 100, Browning BAR, and many others have been around a long time. No one knows how many semi-autos are privately owned in the US. One estimate is 30-40 million. The scary looking black guns, that are typically called assault weapons, have, relatively speaking, not been in production very long. Most believe that they are approximately 40% of rifle purchases today. The original AR came along in 1959 and was produced through 1964. They were banned for 10 years ending in 2004. Sales surged about 500% in 2008 when Obama was elected. No doubt that was due to actions by the NRA and advertising by the manufacturers. My point to that info (fact) is that there are millions of semi auto long guns that are, for whatever reason, not considered dangerous and have never been mentioned as assault weapons or mentioned as needing to be somehow controlled. Yet they operate the exact same way. One primary difference is that they generally have smaller magazine capacities. Instead of 30ish rounds they may have 5-10. But there are larger after-market mags. So they could be considered less lethal due to small mag capacity but any skilled person can quickly change a magazine. Then there are (fact) the semi auto pistols made by almost every manufacturer. They have been in production since 1880. Typical mag capacities are 8 - 21 rounds. Many have after market products that extend the capacity. There are an estimated 430 million guns privately owned. Regardless of the accuracy of that data there are a ton of guns out there. So, if the so-called assault weapons are somehow controlled, and gun violence isn't substantially reduced, what is next? Federal stats are clear, long guns are rarely used, it's handguns. How would any type of ban be done? The sheer volume, and the cost would be huge.

Jerry - good evening. I did go back and review 522. It seems to me that it's fairly clear what is opinion and what is fact. I try and be thoughtful and not post BS stuff. Not saying that you have done this but it's unreasonable for anyone to state that facts they disagree with are not facts while willingly accepting other statements as fact because they agree with them. I'll try and be more clear in the future.

OK, let's assume that is true. Isn't also true that some of those countries have fairly high violence levels with other weapons like knives? I doubt that our citizens are just naturally more nasty, at least I hope not. Seems that there is a long list of reasons for the violence. Many of which I suspect are related to our free and open society that allows folks to prosper. Then there are drugs, gangs, and all the other well-known social issues. And possibly the folks that never had parental discipline, be it from a broken home or a revolving front door. And the list goes on.... If our gun laws have been deliberately made ineffective by deliberate action I'd have to have specific examples to make sense of the premise. Seems that the IL laws are clear and they are simply not able to enforce them. It would be interesting to know how many of the gun violent folks actually have the required State permit. One of my points is if one looks at a state like IL and an area like Chicago that has strict laws that have been in existence for many years, it's clear that it's not working.

Oh yeah. We had a good day of jumping today until the wind and gusts got higher than our comfort level. We have a great group of 60+ year old folks that jump during the week.

John - seems that were almost always in opposition. Maybe it's your continuous insulting generalizations that have little basis in fact. This one clearly states that it's only the GOP that is in opposition. That is ridiculous. Your determination of "weak and ineffective" is just that, your opinion. A quick check of the gun laws in your violence filled city shows that IL requires a Firearms Owner ID card (FOID) card to be able to possess a gun or ammo. The City of Chicago and Cook County have a law that bans assault weapons. The city outlawed the sale or possession of handguns in 1982, it lasted 28 years before being deemed unconstitutional in 2010. These gun laws are some of the strictest in the nation. Please explain how well this is working. Seems to be a good location for an experiment, clearly one that isn't working. Why is it difficult to understand that criminals ignore laws and that more laws isn't going to change that. It only impacts law abiding folks. Thought this was an interesting quote from the Chicago Tribune, June 10,2021. Maybe it's not just the GOP. More than two years later, however, Pritzker and the Democratic-controlled legislature haven’t enacted those policies or any other major gun safety measures, even as they successfully pushed progressive measures that range from legalizing marijuana to abolishing cash bail. “These are complicated issues,” Pritzker said of gun control last week in an interview with the Chicago Tribune.

Good morning Wendy. That is a head full of stuff. I do believe that lack of consequences empowers folks. Many would not riot, loot and steal if they knew they would be punished. In Columbia SC the County and City joined forces to allow peaceful protests and clamp down on rioting. Two goals: make the streets safe for the peaceful protesters and stop illegal activity. They used common crowd control techniques to route the protesters along areas where they could be managed, and used video to catch and prosecute the law breakers. Rioting was controlled and never became a significant issue. Contrast that to Charleston SC where the mayor prevented the police from acting. There was significant rioting, property damage and personal injury....until....a group of citizens stepped in and acted. There is a social media group of mostly outdoor people - hikers, birders, hunters, fisherman, gun owners, construction workers, business owners, blue collar workers, white collar workers, black, white, and every other color, all like minded folks that believe in the law and law enforcement. The word was sent out and these folks headed into the city. They were armed to defend themselves and offered their services to any shop owner. The violence quickly left the main business district and those folks were herded out of the area. Before daylight the word was put out to bring building materials into the city. Those good ole boys brought plywood and whatever else was needed to board up businesses that had been damaged and those owners that were fearful. I have first hand knowledge of some of this and recall a conversation with a SWAT member that described a call into dispatch about a big black pickup at the corner of King and XX with two guys inside with guns. The distraught caller was told that the police were aware of the truck and they were not a problem. Federal stats clearly show that the majority of gun violence is white on white, and black on black. Much is related to domestic violence and suicide. Suicide is a large part of the stats. Not to minimize that problem but if a gun wasn't available they may or may not have done it another way. I don't think that self-inflicted injury or death should be in these stats. Yes, some of the violence is what you've stated but it's not the main problem. What we're seeing in SC is drive by shootings, guns drawn in bars (where they are illegal to possess), road rage, gang violence, and guns fired at and between acquaintances to settle an argument. One County enacted a law that allows the Sheriff to shut down a business once they are deemed a "public nuisance." Fights, gun fire, hookers, and drug dealing are the main problems. That has worked quite well and the neighbors fully support those actions. After a couple businesses were shut down that problem was greatly reduced. Sheriff Lott was recently named national sheriff of the year.

I have never claimed that laws don't work. My point has been simple and clear yet others want to twist my words and propose that ridiculous interpretation. Making more laws when the current laws aren't enforced or are ignored by criminals makes no sense. Making it more difficult for a legal owner to have self protection enables the criminals. Folks want to impose restrictions on guns when the gun isn't the problem. Yes, those dangerous AR14's (crazy Joe - 2020), pure ignorance. Reasonable restrictions already exist. And in the past I've clearly stated that there is room for more restrictions but they must be reasonable. Background checks at gun shows is needed. Control of items that increase the lethality of certain types of guns is needed. Things like bump stocks and binary triggers are a problem. No need to ban them just make them Class 3 items. The standard semi auto hunting rifle that has been round for over 100 years is equally lethal to a scary looking black gun. Hundreds of thousands are around and yet one is almost never used for gun violence. Federal crime stats are clear - most gun violence is with pistols. The problem is the people misusing firearms not the firearm. On your examples of drunk driving and rape. Drunk driving laws weren't enacted on the alcohol, they were enacted on those that knowingly kept serving the drinker and on the drinker. Rape laws weren't enacted on the offending body part, they were enacted on the person.

So predictable. Laws on murder, rape, drunk driving and gun use already exist yet it continues. Making more laws will have little to no impact. If strong enforcement and consequences were used, if judges didn't simply drop charges, like they have done with the rioters, and if sentences were upheld, then maybe the number lawbreakers would decrease. Seems that there is little to no attention to the root cause of the violence. Until that is addressed there will be little change. This is not a blue or red problem it's an all citizens problem.

Prepare for the onslaught of those that think laws will somehow fix things, you know, just like drug laws have fixed that problem.

Are you talking about the child care and mental health systems?

For anyone that has risk factors for the vaccine the stats are much more scary. It now seems that some of those that were willing to be experimented on are also willing to shame those that haven't taken the risk. Not good. The US risk of dying from COVID, if one gets COVID, is 1.79%, or 1 in 56. Of course that includes those with high risk factors like old age, diabetes, morbidly obese, heart conditions, breathing issues, Gov Cuomo victims, etc. The death total also includes many that were assigned a COVID label when they weren't COVID. If it was possible to weed out those factors the risk would be much lower. United States COVID: 34,143,965 Cases and 610,825 Deaths - Worldometer (worldometers.info) The 2019 US population was 328 million. That means that approximately 10% of the population has been diagnosed with COVID. And that number, unfortunately, includes the folks that were incorrectly diagnosed with COVID due to misuse of the test. I also wonder how many of those are now refusing to get the vaccine because they believe that they are "safe" since they had COVID. So, 1 in 10 (or less) chance of getting COVID, and 1 in 50 (or less) chance of dying. And an unknown risk from the vaccine if one has risk factors. But there are also anti-vaxers that have the right to not take it. Most would say that that group is a little nutty but it is still their choice.

Cost effective battery storage is the game-changer in the electric utility industry.

If labels and generalizations are appropriate and accurate. Let's see the definition and list for blue states and liberals.

Joe - not sure that red is less resistant or that being slower to change is bad. I'm in a red state and see plenty of changes. Maybe red states just evaluate things more carefully before changing. I'm certain that "change is unnecessary" isn't true. We are addressing climate change, not at the same rate as other states but not sure that is wrong, or other states are right. There are incentives for renewable power. Unfortunately some of the policies are poorly written and penalize non-renewable users. We have plenty of rules protecting the environment, they are strongly enforced and there are organizations that are quite active, and law firms that make sure it's done. So, from the perspective of the red state of SC, the generalization isn't correct. Agree that political influence and subsidies exist in the fossil industry, and those influences make it difficult to accurately evaluate the economics.

I was enjoying reading and learning until the "red state" comment. Is that because red states have lower taxes and lower gas prices? What is the CA tax on a $35K vehicle and the current fuel price? In my county in SC the tax is $994 and gas is $1.70. The taxes are highly dependent on what county you live in. For me, 76% of the tax is for schools. The other 24% is emergency services, trash, library, zoo, tech schools, and indigent and elderly care. Getting away from politics. It will be interesting to see how the night time charging impacts the generation curve for electric utilities, and if it impacts pricing. It's a good thing that night time generation is typically less expensive but that's also the time that minor maintenance can be done. There are multiple coal mills, fans, pumps, motors and control systems supporting the generator. When the generator load is reduced they can take them out of service and do maintenance. Another item is the cooling system. It usually has 2 to 4 sections. When load is reduced they take them out of service to fix tube leaks. All these are standard maintenance requirements to keep the units operating at full capacity the next day. Our energy charge is 5.1 cents / kWh. It will be interesting to see if EV charging has a noticeable impact on that.

They have made it real easy. The guy that runs the DMV knows how to cut through red tape and get it done. You can schedule an appointment or just go there. You can look online and see the wait times. They have facilities all over the State.

SC does that. A program was started a few years ago when folks complained about needing an ID to vote. They complained about having to pay for a DL and not being able to get to the DMV. One can get a free ID and free transportation to the DMV. Guess what - very few did it. Proving that, for the most part, the complaints were baseless.

The pipeline incident is interesting. Not the hack or the recovery but how the media and public behaved. It seems that there wasn't too much of a problem for the first few days. When the media called it a "shortage" and other descriptive words, the panic started. In my area we saw most stations run dry and price increases of about 20 cents. The rural stations that would normally have 1-2 customers suddenly had 1-2 cars at each pump. It's a rural area and every mom and pop with a pickup truck, beater car, motorhome and boat were filling up. And these folks all have extra containers for lawnmowers, generators, pressure washers and garden tillers. Two stations, next to each other, shut off the pumps at 9:30 last night. One told me that they wanted to have gas in the morning because that's when they have a lot of customers filling up and buying stuff in the store. They make much more profit on breakfast, snacks, ice, smokes and drinks than they make on gas. About the suppliers - the pipeline supplies tank farms. Two of these farms were my customers when I was working for the power company. The tank farms have numerous above ground tanks containing the different fuel grades, ethanol, and other additives. When a truck arrives the driver puts a series of codes in the computer and the terminal fills the truck with the prescribed mix. That is where the ethanol is added (talk about a scam). Many of the brands have different additives and that is where that "magic stuff" is added. I talked to one trucker yesterday and he said that the farm had another 2-3 days of fuel. Apparently that farm can store 4-5 days of fuel. The trucker said that the problem was the panic buying. The truckers have a regular schedule they follow to service the various stations. Many of the stations wanted to accelerate the delivery schedule but there just aren't extra trucks and truck drivers available. They were working a couple extra hours a day to speed things up, and that they would work extra days to catch up. He said that once the pipeline restarted the panic would stop and most drivers would have full tanks. Most people won't need gas for a few days or a week+. He speculated that the stations would get refueled before most people needed gas and things would be back to normal. Those impacted the most are travelers, fisherman filling boats (common in my area), people heading out for a motorhome trip, delivery drivers that use commercial stations, and folks that drive a lot for work like lawn care, contractors and similar folks. There is a huge Poker Run boat event in Charleston this weekend and those boats hold 200-400 gallons. People were complaining about them filling up, while they waited in line in their F350's, with their cans and plastic bags. (5) Charleston Harbor Poker Run | Facebook Apparently everyone has their "need" and anyone else's need is less important.