Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/14/09 04:40 PM, JoS wrote: No, I am saying using the death tolls from incidents is a bad way to formulate your policy on guns.

"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." - Josef Stalin

That's what we're talking here, statistics. And statistically speaking, more people are killed with handguns and semi-automatic weapons than are killed with fully automatic or "assault weapons/rifles." If you make the focus of your judicial efforts to outlaw guns that have no effect on crime, then you are doing the voters you represent a false sense of safety because in the end, you've changed NOTHING.

Ban handguns cause they kill more people in shootings is a bad idea.

If the color blue was responsible for more people being sick than the color red, why would you make the color red illegal?

Banning handguns is quite logical, the problem with doing it is that the Supreme Court in my country has ruled in favor of the law abiding individual by saying that is our right to have them. That's why this topic has stopped dead in it's tracks; no one who supports gun control can come up with a decent argument as to why I can't have a gun if I'm a law abiding citizen. Oh sure, you can come up with a reason why criminals shouldn't have them, but gun legislation isn't aimed at doing that, it's aimed at alienating those of us who abide by the law.

Just like it would be a bad idea to encourage shooters to use AK-47s because in some situations they kill fewer people.

Civilian model Ak-47's are semi-automatic fire ONLY, no different than the the pistols in question in terms of function. The only difference is that you can't conceal an AK, and it fires a round that is less powerful than handgun ammo. So people would see you coming with an AK, and there would be less of a change of getting killed with one unless you hit vital organs. Plus, it's a rifle, meaning it's going to have a two part sight that must be lined up correctly in order to hit the mark, who's going to have time to line up each shot to make it count in a situation like that?

At 3/14/09 05:19 PM, Proteas wrote: If the color blue was responsible for more people being sick than the color red, why would you make the color red illegal?

Because the colour red is still making people sick. This is the same argument applied to tobacco vs pot, drunk driving vs street racing (punishment can be far worse sometimes for street racing than drinking) ete etc etc

Banning handguns is quite logical, the problem with doing it is that the Supreme Court in my country has ruled in favor of the law abiding individual by saying that is our right to have them. That's why this topic has stopped dead in it's tracks; no one who supports gun control can come up with a decent argument as to why I can't have a gun if I'm a law abiding citizen. Oh sure, you can come up with a reason why criminals shouldn't have them, but gun legislation isn't aimed at doing that, it's aimed at alienating those of us who abide by the law.

Just like it would be a bad idea to encourage shooters to use AK-47s because in some situations they kill fewer people.

Plus, it's a rifle, meaning it's going to have a two part sight that must be lined up correctly in order to hit the mark, who's going to have time to line up each shot to make it count in a situation like that?

Spray and pray in a target dense environment like a crowded hallway and it won't matter.

Look, I am not advocating banning firearms here. While I don't think people should be allowed to own military and law enforcement grade assault weapons (ie automatic or burst fire modes), you would be hard pressed to find many people who advocate this. I do not think we should ban handguns. Should there be some for of control, yes. Perhaps everyone who wants to have a gun should be licensed. Already you have to get a background check every time you buy a gun (except at gun shows), why not skip that step and just make people get a possession license and renew it every couple of years, just like a drivers license. Do the background check to get the license and renew it and make people take a safety course or something to that effect.

Will that make the streets safer, probably not, but it may cut down on the number of gun accidents in the home and make it more difficult for those who shouldn't have guns to acquire them. Will people who shouldn't have guns still be able to get them? Yes, but it makes it more difficult for them.

At 3/15/09 01:15 AM, JoS wrote:

Look, I am not advocating banning firearms here. While I don't think people should be allowed to own military and law enforcement grade assault weapons (ie automatic or burst fire modes), you would be hard pressed to find many people who advocate this. I do not think we should ban handguns. Should there be some for of control, yes. Perhaps everyone who wants to have a gun should be licensed. Already you have to get a background check every time you buy a gun (except at gun shows), why not skip that step and just make people get a possession license and renew it every couple of years, just like a drivers license. Do the background check to get the license and renew it and make people take a safety course or something to that effect.

"Military and law enforcement grade" weapons are already controlled. There have been 2 murders since 1934 with such legally owned firearms by private citizens.

You most certainly DO get a background check if you buy a gun at a gunshow. Exactly the same check you get if you go thru a gunstore. The so called "gunshow loophole" says you don't go thru a background check if you buy from a private individual. That is exactly the same as if you buy a gun thru the classified ads. The anti-gun folks portray it as somehow being different if a private transaction occurs in a convention center than in your living room. IOW, purchases thru individuals don't require background checks. Purchases thru people who "make a living" selling guns do. Disclaimer - Some states DO require private transactions go thru background checks (and would be required to also do said check at a gunshow). Sometime when bored, look up the number of felons trying to buy a gun, but caught by the NICS check, who actually get prosecuted. The number is abysmally low. What we have is a check that gets ignored if failed. Criminals overwhelmingly get their guns thru theft or street purchases, though, so even if NICS was effective, it'd still not have much result. NICS makes most sense to deny mentally unstable folks from getting guns. But there, the whole patient privacy issue renders it useless (meaning the necessary info isn't available to the check).

Oh, and the Germans have very strict registration laws, yet that kid still shot up his school.

Will that make the streets safer, probably not, but it may cut down on the number of gun accidents in the home and make it more difficult for those who shouldn't have guns to acquire them. Will people who shouldn't have guns still be able to get them? Yes, but it makes it more difficult for them.

This is the ongoing argument we keep hearing - "its probably not going to be effective, but...". Gun accidents are not very high, so odds of accidents decreasing is nill. It most likely won't make guns more difficult to get because criminals aren't getting guns in this manner anyway. So, rather than add gun law 20,001 to the books (and again getting no benefit), how about we throw criminals in jail, then keep them there? My city just had a repeat criminal - who tried killing someone by setting them on fire - commit yet another murder (for a total of 7). When you have people who shouldn't be in society - don't have them in society.

At 3/15/09 01:15 AM, JoS wrote: Because the colour red is still making people sick.

But it's still making fewer people sick than blue. Why focus all your efforts and make grandiose claims on how much more dangerous red is?

Spray and pray in a target dense environment like a crowded hallway and it won't matter.

Firing randomly at a group of targets doesn't increase the chance of fatalities, because you still have to aim the gun in order to hit something.

you would be hard pressed to find many people who advocate this.

Then you're arguing a non-issue.

Should there be some for of control, yes. Perhaps everyone who wants to have a gun should be licensed. Already you have to get a background check every time you buy a gun (except at gun shows), why not skip that step and just make people get a possession license and renew it every couple of years, just like a drivers license. Do the background check to get the license and renew it and make people take a safety course or something to that effect.

You see, now this is the first logical thing said in support of gun control this whole topic.

Except... we already do most of that shit, and even then it's still aimed at people who are trying to legally acquire a firearm, not against those of whom trying to illegally buy one.

probably not, but it may cut down on the number of gun accidents in the home

Firearms are involved in 0.6% of accidental deaths nationally. Most accidental deaths involve, or are due to,
motor vehicles (39%),
poisoning (18%),
falls (16%),
suffocation (5%),
drowning (2.9%),
fires (2.8%),
medical mistakes (2.2%),
environmental factors (1.2%),
and bicycles and tricycles (0.7%).

Among children:
motor vehicles (45%),
suffocation (18%),
drowning (14%),
fires (9%),
bicycles and tricycles (2.4%),
falls (2%),
poisoning (1.6%),
environmental factors (1.5%),
and medical mistakes (0.8%).
Source; National Center for Health Statistics by way of the NRA. That makes for the third non-issue you've tried to argue as being a bigger deal than it actually is.

So are you arguing there should be no background checks, no licensing, no nothing. If you can buy a pack of smokes you can buy a gun at your local corner store?

My suggestion is intended to replace the background checks conducted at POS. And likewise I think if you buy a gun from a private sale I still think there should be some control over that, hence the license.

At 3/15/09 11:55 AM, JoS wrote: So are you arguing there should be no background checks, no licensing, no nothing. If you can buy a pack of smokes you can buy a gun at your local corner store?

No, I'm arguing that people who argue for gun control have the wrong idea. If you want to argue for gun control, know what you're talking about and be able to back it up. If you want to help control gun crime, write legislation that actually penalizes criminals who perpetrate gun crimes instead of penalizing citizens who want to buy one legally.

At 3/15/09 12:07 PM, Proteas wrote: No, I'm arguing that people who argue for gun control have the wrong idea. If you want to argue for gun control, know what you're talking about and be able to back it up. If you want to help control gun crime, write legislation that actually penalizes criminals who perpetrate gun crimes instead of penalizing citizens who want to buy one legally.

I think both are important. Some method of control to prevent or at least make it more difficult for those who shouldn't be buying gun to do so while still being accessible to law abiding citizens. Additionally those who shouldn't have guns or use guns to commit crimes (legally owned or not) shoudl be punished accordingly.

The criminals are still going to get guns argument does not fly with me. Rapists are still going to commit rape so lets just remove any barriers to that.

Both are ridiculous statements. Just because people will circumvent the law to get weapons does not mean we should make it easier for them to do so. You have to get a license to drive, you have to register to vote, why shouldn't you get a permit to buy firearms? Besides saves you time from the waiting period and background checks on every purchase.

You say preventing accidental gun deaths is a moot point because there are so few of them. We already have dozens of laws to try and prevent motor vehicle deaths. The thing is, more people drive or get driven then people who have firearms (the number of cars and firearms are roughly the same, but most people own multiple firearms). Cars just get used more often so naturally they account for more deaths.

At 3/15/09 12:44 PM, JoS wrote: Additionally those who shouldn't have guns or use guns to commit crimes (legally owned or not) shoudl be punished accordingly.

But it's not the law abiding citizens you have to worry about crimes, so why put them in the same boat (judicially speaking) with those who do commit crimes? We've got 20,000 some odd Gun Laws on the books right now, and gun crimes are still being committed... why is that?

Perhaps, and this is just me thinking aloud, maybe the people who commit the gun crimes aren't afraid of the penalties.

The criminals are still going to get guns argument does not fly with me.

Again, who's making that argument? Not me, not Mason, not squibber.

You say preventing accidental gun deaths is a moot point because there are so few of them.

No, I'm saying you're using that argument -- just like preventing crimes perpetrated using "assault rifles" -- is so statistically insignificant as to be wasted effort.

At 3/15/09 01:20 PM, Proteas wrote: But it's not the law abiding citizens you have to worry about crimes, so why put them in the same boat (judicially speaking) with those who do commit crimes? We've got 20,000 some odd Gun Laws on the books right now, and gun crimes are still being committed... why is that?

If you legally own a gun and use it in the commission of the a crime I see no reason it should be treated differently then someone using an illegal gun to commit the same crime. If you hold up a 7-11 and you legal own the gun, how is it different then if you illegal own the gun?

Perhaps, and this is just me thinking aloud, maybe the people who commit the gun crimes aren't afraid of the penalties.

Because no one plan son getting caught. But no what, it may make some people think twice. Will ti stop everyone, nope, but some will. And if it saves one innocent bystander from becoming a cripple I think its worth it.

The criminals are still going to get guns argument does not fly with me.

Again, who's making that argument? Not me, not Mason, not squibber.

Did not say you did. I am saying some people though make the argument in general, and its hogwash.

You say preventing accidental gun deaths is a moot point because there are so few of them.

No, I'm saying you're using that argument -- just like preventing crimes perpetrated using "assault rifles" -- is so statistically insignificant as to be wasted effort.

Its not insignificant to 789 families. Look how much we spend on terrorism, yet the number of deaths in the US as a result of terrorism are even more statistically insignificant. Or the number of people killed by machine accidents is smaller than firearms accidents, yet we have a massive amount of laws and regulation revolving around their safety.

In short, the total number of deaths should have a very small bearing on the need to regulate something. One is too many.

At 3/15/09 05:40 PM, JoS wrote: If you legally own a gun and use it in the commission of the a crime I see no reason it should be treated differently then someone using an illegal gun to commit the same crime.

Then we are agreed on something, except... you're still focused on treating law abiding citizens like criminals for wanting to buy a gun instead of penalizing the criminals who actually commit the crimes.

Did not say you did. I am saying some people though make the argument in general, and its hogwash.

You brought up an argument no one was using so you could refute it. Straw Man.

Its not insignificant to 789 families.

As I said before; One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. If you let your emotions make the law, then you wind up using the law to carry out personal vendettas rather than benefit the greater good. Case in point; this focus on accidental deaths involving firearms. Statistically speaking, I'm 65 times more likely to die in an auto accident tomorrow on my way to work than I am to be shot accidentally by myself or by a member of my own family.

Look how much we spend on terrorism, yet the number of deaths in the US as a result of terrorism are even more statistically insignificant.

We spend that much money on anti-terrorism because of liberal wieners in this country who believed the Government should have had Miss Cleo on staff the day before 9/11 so it never would have happened. And it's those same liberal wieners who run around now crying about how our rights are being squashed because they got what they asked for, which is kind of funny in a weird way when you stop to think about it....

Or the number of people killed by machine accidents is smaller than firearms accidents

And... you're getting that statistic from where, exactly?

In short, the total number of deaths should have a very small bearing on the need to regulate something. One is too many.

So... how exactly do you intend to legislate against an accident, that, statistically speaking I am 65 times less likely to be involved with than an auto accident?

At 3/15/09 06:43 PM, Proteas wrote: Then we are agreed on something, except... you're still focused on treating law abiding citizens like criminals for wanting to buy a gun instead of penalizing the criminals who actually commit the crimes.

Does making someone get a drivers license or register to vote treat them like criminals?

As I said before; One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. If you let your emotions make the law, then you wind up using the law to carry out personal vendettas rather than benefit the greater good. Case in point; this focus on accidental deaths involving firearms. Statistically speaking, I'm 65 times more likely to die in an auto accident tomorrow on my way to work than I am to be shot accidentally by myself or by a member of my own family.

So we should do nothing to try and prevent them because fewer people die from them then from other causes? Should we not try and find a cure for certain types of cancer because fewer people die from that type then another type?

And... you're getting that statistic from where, exactly?

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortr ate10_sy.html

So... how exactly do you intend to legislate against an accident, that, statistically speaking I am 65 times less likely to be involved with than an auto accident?

Have a test or safety course to get your possession license that includes safe firearm storage and handling? Would it eliminate it, no, could it make a difference, maybe.

At 3/15/09 08:19 PM, JoS wrote: Does making someone get a drivers license or register to vote treat them like criminals?

You're focusing your efforts on making guns more difficult to get legally and making the assumption that all gun crimes are comitted with legally owned guns by the people who bought them.

So yeah, you're treating someone who gets a drivers license or register to vote like a criminal.

So we should do nothing to try and prevent them because fewer people die from them then from other causes? Should we not try and find a cure for certain types of cancer because fewer people die from that type then another type?

If you're concerned about people dying accidentally, why are you focusing all your legislative efforts on the one thing that kills the fewest people?

Your argument betrays your true motive; you have a vendetta against guns. You're not out to better the general public, you're out to get votes and cater to those individuals who have posted in this topic thus far who lack enough knowledge on the subject to know any better.

Congratulations, you're a politician.

Would it eliminate it, no, could it make a difference, maybe.

So by your own admission, you can't legislate against accidents. LOVELY.

At 3/15/09 08:53 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/15/09 08:19 PM, JoS wrote: Does making someone get a drivers license or register to vote treat them like criminals?

You're focusing your efforts on making guns more difficult to get legally and making the assumption that all gun crimes are comitted with legally owned guns by the people who bought them.

How is this making it more difficult to get them legally? If anything it makes it easier for those who are allowed to have them. Right now you have to wait what is it, 3 days? Plus every time you have to have a background check done? Under my idea you go, write a test on basic firearms safety and handling have your background check done then. In a couple days you get in the mail your license. Now if you want to buy a gun you just go into the store, show your idea, they swipe it to confirm its valid and you walk out with as many guns as you want. That seems easier to me, but hey whatever.

If you're concerned about people dying accidentally, why are you focusing all your legislative efforts on the one thing that kills the fewest people?

You do know its possible to deal with more than one issue at a time. Its not like to make a new law we have to take one off the books. You are somehow implying by passing legislation on gun safety that it would mean I am ignoring other issues. I don't quite see your logic.

Your argument betrays your true motive; you have a vendetta against guns. You're not out to better the general public, you're out to get votes and cater to those individuals who have posted in this topic thus far who lack enough knowledge on the subject to know any better.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, back the bus up. You have now taken one post I made and picked at it and picked at it to change it into something entirely different. If you look at my previous posts, I have supported the idea that an AK-47 can be used for hunting. I have not called for a ban on guns or anything. Mason made the point to someone that the Bank of America shooting was 3000 rounds from fully-automatic weapons and no one died but the gun men, but that Virgina Tech killed far more and with handguns, and therefore handguns are more deadly then assault weapons. I argued that is a bad argument because many factors changed between the two, not simply the weapons involved. Intent changed, environment changed, targets changed. At VT you had kids in the hallways and small rooms making for a target rich environment with little chance for escape. Like shooting fish in a barrel. Plus he intended to kill those people, the BoA guys were trying to get away.

I was simply pointing out a more comparable situation, which used variants of military style rifles not handguns. You are the one who took this one statement and stretched it out well beyond its original intent.

Congratulations, you're a politician.

After I graduate from the Academy I intend on getting my restricted firearms possession license (handguns) and getting a gun and practice shooting. But hey if that makes me a gun control freak who wants to ban guns then guilty.

Would it eliminate it, no, could it make a difference, maybe.

So by your own admission, you can't legislate against accidents. LOVELY.

You can put in place legislation to try and prevent accidents. Fuck I work as a lifeguard and there is legislation to minimize the risk of accidents like people getting sucked into a pool drain. How many people die every year from that, not many, even before the legislation changed the rules on pool filters and drains. Is it a good idea to have them though, yes. But under your logic we shouldn't bother with it.

At 3/15/09 09:20 PM, JoS wrote: How is this making it more difficult to get them legally?

You're placing another level of restriction on people who are trying to go about getting them legally, this does not in anyway serve as a deterrent against committing gun crime.

Under my idea you go, write a test on basic firearms safety and handling have your background check done then. In a couple days you get in the mail your license.

And the first time someone does commit a crime with said guns (like Cho did), you'll be on here wanting another restriction on who can or cannot buy a firearm and how.

You do know its possible to deal with more than one issue at a time.

That's just it; you're not.

If you look at my previous posts, I have supported the idea that an AK-47 can be used for hunting.

But you scoffed at the idea of having them being less lethal and less likely to be used in crime, when the simple fact of the matter is they are.

but that Virgina Tech killed far more and with handguns, and therefore handguns are more deadly then assault weapons.

Fully automatic weapons jump around, making them difficult to handle and aim. Semi-automatic weapons on the other hand do not jump around that much, making it easier to aim and hit your target. So yeah, semi-automatic weapons are more dangerous.

Plus he intended to kill those people, the BoA guys were trying to get away.

They were wearing bullet proof body armor, all they had to do was walk away. Why waste the ammo? Hell, why carry fully automatic weaponry at all if you can't be harmed by anything short of somebody mowing them down in a truck?

You are the one who took this one statement and stretched it out well beyond its original intent.

Your arguments thus far show an odd fascination with guns when the simple fact is, in the statistics presented, they kill fewer people than everything else. Why is that?

But under your logic we shouldn't bother with it.

The thing is, your pool drain laws only effect those who would be standing on the bottom of the pool as it drains (i.e.; the guys cleaning it). Gun control laws effect everybody and set legal precedents that can be felt for years.

May I offer a few facts pertaining to gun control? Switzerland has a high guns per capita ratio than most countries (if not the highest) and for 2006 the death toll by guns was 34 out of a population of about 7.5 million. There was also 68 bladed deaths as well. Mind you that all the guns primarily owned are military grade, including assault weapons. The general idea behind this, despite them having the training, is that no one will risk using a gun where everyone has one themselves. I doubt anyone reading this would think sticking up a NRA meeting would be a smart decision. Its comparable to the M.A.D. complex, being the law-abiding citizens versus the criminal. However, in the event that someone does misuse their weapon I remember (Don't take my word for it) that there are severe punishments including revoking the privilege of owning and carrying a gun. Just what I know to be true (Other than the punishment thing) that may help this conversation.

If you're concerned about people dying accidentally, why are you focusing all your legislative efforts on the one thing that kills the fewest people?

Agreed. http://www.come-over.to/FAS/alcdeath.htm shows alcohol is responsible for 100K deaths per year (including many gun homicides).

Its always interesting that people who want to "save lives" start way down around the 15th or so on the list of causes rather than the top.

At 3/15/09 10:01 PM, Proteas wrote: You're placing another level of restriction on people who are trying to go about getting them legally, this does not in anyway serve as a deterrent against committing gun crime.

So your saying I should be able to walk into a store and just walk out with guns like I was buying a pack of smokes?

And the first time someone does commit a crime with said guns (like Cho did), you'll be on here wanting another restriction on who can or cannot buy a firearm and how.

Under my idea he would not have gotten a gun legally. If your vision changes your doctor is required by law to report it to the DMV and they revoke your license. if your found not mentally fit, your doctor has to report it and your license is no longer valid, so when he goes to buy the guns, shows his license and they check its validity they see its been revoked.

That's just it; you're not.

Fine them, stop being an armchair quarterback and tell me what your proposed idea is, or if you feel there should be no laws at all have the balls to actually say it rather than just ripping on my idea.

But you scoffed at the idea of having them being less lethal and less likely to be used in crime, when the simple fact of the matter is they are.

Show me where I EVER said they are more likely to be used in a crime. And every gun is just as lethal as another one. It only takes one bullet, and each gun has the potential to kill you. What does differ is the potential the weapon carries. An automatic assault rifle carries more potential than a 9mm handgun. Likewise though its practicality is what hinders its use, due to its size. Size is the reason we see more handgun usage.

Fully automatic weapons jump around, making them difficult to handle and aim. Semi-automatic weapons on the other hand do not jump around that much, making it easier to aim and hit your target. So yeah, semi-automatic weapons are more dangerous.

When your firing into a crowded hallway, it does not matter if you aim or not. Additionally the illegal magazines used on some assault type weapons is x3 the number of rounds in a handgun magazine. Do you think a shooter in a school hallway aims for every shot, or just points in the general direction he wants to shoot in?

They were wearing bullet proof body armor, all they had to do was walk away. Why waste the ammo? Hell, why carry fully automatic weaponry at all if you can't be harmed by anything short of somebody mowing them down in a truck?

By the time the got out of the bank dozens of police officers had surrounded the bank, and they had been betting on 8 minute response time, not an ambush outside. Their vehicle was rendered inoperable due to the gunfire from police. They also added steel plates to their body armor making running difficult. Automatic weapons were for suppressive firearm and to discourage resistance.

The thing is, your pool drain laws only effect those who would be standing on the bottom of the pool as it drains (i.e.; the guys cleaning it). Gun control laws effect everybody and set legal precedents that can be felt for years.

No actually, the pool drain effects everyone in the pool. The drain is constantly running so that water circulates through the pumps and filters. Same goes for hot tubs. Someone got trapped by it and drowned. Then the laws changed. These laws effect not only commercial swimming pools, but backyard pools too.

So I will say this one more time, I think law abiding citizens should have the ability to own as many guns of what ever type they chose (with the obvious except of military or LE grade weapons). That being said there should a system in place to prevent those who should not have guns from legally obtaining them. There should also be harsher punishments if someone uses a gun in the commission of a crime, regardless of whether the gun is legal or not.

Now before you hit reply, I would appreciate it if you would state your position on how you feel the process for purchasing firearms should be. Unless you answer that I will not reply to any of your posts on this topic.

What the fuck are you hunting that you would you need an assualt rifle for?

Mexicans?

It would make more sense to outlaw schools to prevent school shootings than it would to outlaw guns in schools.

I mean if you want to talk statistics, imagine how many kids probably end up dead just by being involved in a school environment.

If those of you who are against automatic weapons because of the large amount of projectiles that can be launched (even if not accurately aimed) as an argument...then you must also be against shotguns.

After all there are SSG magnum's that send out 9 projectiles from each round, or 12 balls, plus there's copper jacketed lead filled pellets & there are steel balls & pellets. Using 12 ball rounds as an example my mag shotgun with the plug removed (removing the plug is illegal in Canada) will allow me 6 rounds in the mag & 1 in the chamber. I can pump them out in about 4 to 5 seconds. So thats 84 projectiles going in the direction the weapon is pointing 12 at a time spreading out as they go !

Sounds as lethal if not worse, than some auto's eh ?

I don't really see a need for fully automatic weapon's & I don't have a problem with banning them. I personally believe that there is more danger from handguns, as they are much easier to conceal, which allows people to get into areass with a couple of handguns much easier than with a rifle or 2 .

I don't really see a need for any of this shit but guess what bans are, EVEN MORE shit.

Like really, my brain should not have to worry about what my hands are doing. It should be in control of the situation on its own.

Oh yeah and the environment. Do you think that if we make enough tools eventually our hands will have their own brains?

At 3/15/09 10:06 PM, crazy-eye2 wrote: May I offer a few facts pertaining to gun control? Switzerland has a high guns per capita ratio than most countries (if not the highest) and for 2006 the death toll by guns was 34 out of a population of about 7.5 million.

They also have a mandatory military service policy for all males graduating highschool. 2 years in the military, plus you keep your army issued service weapon upon leaving with a case of government inventoried ammunition (both of which they check regularly).

At 3/15/09 10:50 PM, JoS wrote: So your saying I should be able to walk into a store and just walk out with guns like I was buying a pack of smokes?

Why not? Since when does wanting to buy a gun make you a criminal that should be monitored by the government?

Under my idea he would not have gotten a gun legally.

Under your idea, it wouldn't have mattered; Cho was never adjudicated mentally incomeptent or deemed a serious enough threat to society to be kept an eye on. In fact, I don't think any of the people who have been involved with such shootings have ever been deemed criminally psychotic or dangerous by a court appointed psychologist.

Fine them, stop being an armchair quarterback and tell me what your proposed idea is, or if you feel there should be no laws at all have the balls to actually say it rather than just ripping on my idea.

I think we could start cracking down on Liquor sales (as per Squiber's suggestion) and that would drastically cut down on crime of passion shootings, in addition to lowering the incidence of domestic abuse. And seeing as how most criminals start with small crimes and work their way up, you could also tie any convictions of DUI or Assault into the Gun Control database and put the person on a "firearm's probation" of sorts, i.e.; you can't buy a firearm for x number of days after conviction.

Or.... we could start making it mandatory that if you are pulled over while using your cellphone to talk, text, or performing any other activity that takes your eyes off the road, you get a point added to your license regardless of conviction, and that would help cut down on the leading cause of accidental death, namely, motor vehicles.

Show me where I EVER said they are more likely to be used in a crime.

I said you scoffed at the idea of them being less likely to be used in the course of a crime.

An automatic assault rifle carries more potential than a 9mm handgun.

Not if you can't aim it properly.

When your firing into a crowded hallway, it does not matter if you aim or not.

Uh... yeah it does. The heart is a small is a relatively small organ for what it does, and it's easy to miss considering most people think it lies behind the sternum instead of just off to the left. Unless you manage to shoot the lungs full of holes, hit a major artery, or just cause so much trauma as to send the person into shock, generally they'll live. A clean line of head-shots would be difficult to pull off because of muzzle jump.

It's more than likely you'd kill or severely injure the people in front, with the people behind getting any collateral damage from the left over or poorly aimed rounds you fired. And on top of that, you go through ammunition at a ridiculous rate, so unless you're this dude and have a bandoleer full of clips, it's doubtful the gun would have any tactical advantage over someone like Cho, or Harris and Kleibold.

Do you think a shooter in a school hallway aims for every shot, or just points in the general direction he wants to shoot in?

Cho fired handguns. Not shotguns, not fully automatic weapons, handguns. And he killed a hell of lot more people than virtually any other school shooting I can find right now. I'm going to bet even money that he knew how to aim a gun.

Automatic weapons were for suppressive firearm and to discourage resistance.

So... 3,000 rounds fired, and the only people killed were the two shooters. No collateral damage, nobody injured on the police squad.

Doesn't that kind of play against you're argument of them being inherently more dangerous?

There should also be harsher punishments if someone uses a gun in the commission of a crime, regardless of whether the gun is legal or not.

Agreed.

Now before you hit reply, I would appreciate it if you would state your position on how you feel the process for purchasing firearms should be. Unless you answer that I will not reply to any of your posts on this topic.

I think the way firearms are purchased now is fine, and we made the necessary change after Virginia Tech to tie in Court Medical decisions to the background database used for buying firearms. The only problem I see (as previously stated) is that there isn't enough fear or respect in our society for our Justice System, and of the consequences for committing the crime to keep people from doing it.

Japan has ZERO gun crimes,some of the most draconion gun laws on the planet, and is arguably one of the most densely populated on the planet next to India and China. But you know what sets them apart from say, Englad, and their gun laws? In Japan, it's still customary to feel shame about your actions and bringing dishonor to your family name.

Oh, and they hang people there as part of their death penalty. So I'm told.

I've been sitting here thinking about it, JoS, and the reason I didn't respond to your bit about the pool drains was because it was a cogent one. Laws can be put in place to protect people from accidents, but... can you legislate against all accidents?

I think not. And I think the reason you can't legislate against all of them can be summed up in the following quote; "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein.

Accidental shootings are just that, accidental. A kid finds his dad's gun, plays around with it and accidentally shoots himself or a loved one dead. How do you legislate against something like that without adversely effecting the rest of the law abiding population? I'm single with no kids, and if you wrote legislation to keep one kid from getting accidentally shot because his dad was dumb enough to leave a loaded gun where a kid would find, I would be legislated against along with every other responsible gun owner.

You could mandate that everybody who owns a gun buy and use a gun lock, but you'd have to fund something like that (government rebate, anyone?), and you would have to figure out some way to enforce such a law and punish accordingly anyone who was not found in accordance with the law.

Or.... you could use such accidents as the launching pad of a national education campaign about guns, urging responsible gun owners to keep their guns out of a child's reach and have the ammunition in a separate location from the gun itself. You could also urge such parents to actually be responsible parents (a novel concept these days) and have a clear and concise talk with their kids about the guns in the house, instead of acting like the kids don't know they are there or what they do.

At 3/15/09 10:50 PM, JoS wrote:

At 3/15/09 10:01 PM, Proteas wrote: You're placing another level of restriction on people who are trying to go about getting them legally, this does not in anyway serve as a deterrent against committing gun crime.

So your saying I should be able to walk into a store and just walk out with guns like I was buying a pack of smokes?

Anyone of any age could walk into pretty much any store and buy a gun prior to 1967 (ish). You could mail order WW2 surplus guns and have them delivered to your door. The crime rate in 2008 fell to about the same rate as the 1960's.

At 3/16/09 12:30 AM, Strategize wrote: What the fuck are you hunting that you would you need an assualt rifle for?

Mexicans?

What if your purpose for owning a "assault weapon" isn't for hunting? Or, what if you only own one gun that you want to use for multiple purposes. "Assault weapons" are pretty much the one gun that can fill all purposes.

Why do you think they are not applicable to hunting? The 5.56 round the AR-15 shoots is the same round used by varmint hunters. Replace the upper with a 6.5mm barrel and you now have a deer gun.

At 3/16/09 07:44 PM, Proteas wrote: nobody injured on the police squad.

I stand corrected, 17 were injured and no one was killed except the shooters.

At 3/16/09 10:00 PM, LiquidSperber wrote: Anyone of any age could walk into pretty much any store and buy a gun prior to 1967 (ish). You could mail order WW2 surplus guns and have them delivered to your door. The crime rate in 2008 fell to about the same rate as the 1960's.

You could also buy military surplus Dynamite after World War 2 for a while, according to my dad.

At 3/15/09 10:50 PM, JoS wrote:

Under my idea he would not have gotten a gun legally. If your vision changes your doctor is required by law to report it to the DMV and they revoke your license. if your found not mentally fit, your doctor has to report it and your license is no longer valid, so when he goes to buy the guns, shows his license and they check its validity they see its been revoked.

Pure fantasy. Patient's medical history is private. That is why the current NICS system is useless. So, there is a system that prevents people who don't buy guns from buying guns (felons) and a system that prevents mentally ill people from buying guns except that there is no information in the database concerning mental health.

At 3/16/09 10:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote: If those of you who are against automatic weapons because of the large amount of projectiles that can be launched (even if not accurately aimed) as an argument...then you must also be against shotguns.

You realize of course that this topic isn't about automatic weapons, its about "assault weapons" - semi-automatic lookalikes to the real automatic weapons. The AWB is analogous to banning cars with NASCAR paint jobs for fear that the driver will drive 200mph on the highway - never mind that the street car isn't capable of NASCAR speeds.

Having touched up slightly on gun control laws and gun safety slightly since I last wet my mouth in a debate like this, I think I that JoS's proposed idea of a card is an excellent idea.

Yes, the vast majority of gun owners are responsible.

However, I think that the Card idea is less of a hassle than a 3-day waiting period, and even if it weren't, having people participate in the simple and routine procedure of applying for the gun membership all across the country is worth it to stop, say, 10 deaths.

We can't wait to punish only criminals, as discerned by their crimes, because by that point, they've already shot a man. You can punish drunk drivers, or robbers that way, because stolen objects can be returned and if you are able to arrest a drunk driver, it's unlikely they did any harm.

With a shooting though, it's over. Done. Unless police in the area are extraordinarily fast or psychic, it is unlikely that they will be able to stop a man with a gun before the man has either achieved his goal or done damage.

As far as I'm concerned, guns are the most unnecessary of things on the list of items that are and can be used as weapons. Here's my list.

Knives- Do I really need to explain why we need these?

Blunt, heavy objects- Again, not much explanation necessary.

Guns- NEEDED only by those who hunt for food or those who are ABSOLUTELY in need of protection, used for sport, fun, or display by most, and used as a response to the unlikely event that you will be in a situation where you need a gun to protect yourself, and can use it properly.

I don't want to BAN guns, but I think that gun owners should be scrutinized more than others, because guns have absolutely one purpose- to kill. Every other item on my very short list has less sinister applications, but not guns.

Gun owners can keep their guns, and aspiring gun owners can bear the harsh injustice that is taking a gun safety test and waiting for a card in the mail.

At 3/16/09 10:46 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

I don't want to BAN guns, but I think that gun owners should be scrutinized more than others, because guns have absolutely one purpose- to kill. Every other item on my very short list has less sinister applications, but not guns.

Then mine are either defective or misused, because not a one of them has been used to kill ANYTHING.

I hope I can get my money back.