Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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

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.

I'm sure you're aware that Ill has a card (as does CA IIRC). Neither seems to be working particularly well. Canada has a gun registration system. They are considering dismantling it due to its ineffectiveness.

Also, since a large part of this country's gun right is based on keeping the government honest, giving them the names of everyone possessing a gun doesn't seem wise. Several locations have already used registration as a prelude to gun bans (CA and NYC).

You folks need to realize these things have already been tried somewhere. None of them ever work.

Do you realize that violent crime INCREASED in the UK and Australia after they banned guns?

You folks need to realize these things have already been tried somewhere. None of them ever work.

Do you realize that violent crime INCREASED in the UK and Australia after they banned guns?

I. Do not. Want. Gun bans. Whatever other people do with their proposed bans is not my burden to answer for. Canada's gun registration is quite different from what I am proposing. I just want future gun owners to apply for a Godamned card. Furthermore, the canadian gun ban has not been managed well at all. I know violent crimes increase when guns are banned. Only stupids will argue that point.

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.

And tell me, what other use do they have? I suppose you could use them as hammers to nail things together, I suppose that would be non-lethal enough.

At 3/16/09 11:25 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

I. Do not. Want. Gun bans. Whatever other people do with their proposed bans is not my burden to answer for. Canada's gun registration is quite different from what I am proposing. I just want future gun owners to apply for a Godamned card. Furthermore, the canadian gun ban has not been managed well at all. I know violent crimes increase when guns are banned. Only stupids will argue that point.

And why would you expect our registration scheme would be implemented any better? Have you seen our government? Do you honestly think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to create an effective solution to ANYTHING?

And tell me, what other use do they have? I suppose you could use them as hammers to nail things together, I suppose that would be non-lethal enough.

Well, since over 50% of gun owners aren't hunters (and also aren't murderers) there are quite a few folks doing what I do: buy guns for sport. I shoot in matches. There are plenty of trap, skeet, and sporting clay shooters who only break clay pigeons. Plenty of people only compete. Quite a few folks go out on the weekends and plink tin cans.

And why would you expect our registration scheme would be implemented any better? Have you seen our government? Do you honestly think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to create an effective solution to ANYTHING?

You're right. We should never be able to hope for better laws or a brighter future or anything good because the evil, evil government will never let us be happy.

And tell me, what other use do they have? I suppose you could use them as hammers to nail things together, I suppose that would be non-lethal enough.

Well, since over 50% of gun owners aren't hunters (and also aren't murderers) there are quite a few folks doing what I do: buy guns for sport. I shoot in matches. There are plenty of trap, skeet, and sporting clay shooters who only break clay pigeons. Plenty of people only compete. Quite a few folks go out on the weekends and plink tin cans.

Right. I listed those things in my description of uses for guns, but their only purpose is still to kill. Trap, skeet, game, and targets are only lighter applications to killing somebody, but ultimately, its' their only purpose. A-Bombs are only used to kill, but they are still tested out in the desert with no casualties.

At 3/16/09 09:58 PM, Proteas wrote :

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.

;;;;
They made this a 'law' here years ago.
My rifles are trigger locked, except for my shotgun, its got a wire rope lock through the ejection port & around through the loading port & it locks. I also keep them in a steel locker...locked.
In a seperate part of my house I have a steel tool box with the ammo & it is also locked & is kept in a large tool chest that can be locked (& usually is)

If you are found with 'improperly stored' guns in this country its a criminal offense, you may as well have committed an offense of nonviolence away from home with a gun... you get treated the same & are in just as much trouble legally.

Hmmm...
I'm from a country where guns for personal use are not yet allowed.

I wouldn't say that because of this criminality is so high that I'm afraid that I might be killed, unable to defend myself, walking on the street.
I'm glad guns aren't available to the masses over here. I feel that if they would allow guns, this would send a signal that it is okay to kill someone, though out of self defence. But then, what is self defence? If some drunk guy threatens to punch your face in, can you pull out your gun and shoot him? It is clear that he formed a potential threat...
I also feel that if everyone starts carrying guns, robbers will more likely shoot you before robbing you, cause if he doesn't, you might shoot him first.

Of course, for sports and hunting guns are naturally allowed, but this may also have it's limitations, since it's not really healthy if 95% of the population is out there shooting killing animals just like that. (isn't there a restriction in the amount of people that can go hunting?) when it comes to sports, don't they use special guns, with less lethal bullets and such?

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

Since you listed all weapons. In other words you want this to be a country of pussies who can't defend themselves against anything and the government can force us into anything?.

In fact some lady in NYC just got shot with an ARROW yesterday. Guess the'll want bow and arrow control now.

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.

I'm about to shoot a big hole in this statement.

Pun intended

I don't know if you've been following my posts in the lounge as of late, but I fully intend to buy a shotgun for home defense. And while you may argue that use of a shotgun for home defense is a bit extreme for an instrument designed to kill people, you would be wearing your ignorance on your sleeve. I'm buying Rubber Slugs for mine, which are only lethal at close range (i.e.; less than 12 feet).

So yeah, guns do have a purpose beside killing people; defending your own life, and the lives of those around you.

At 3/16/09 11:25 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I just want future gun owners to apply for a Godamned card.

How is having a card an improvement on what we have now?

At 3/16/09 11:39 PM, LiquidSperber wrote: And why would you expect our registration scheme would be implemented any better? Have you seen our government? Do you honestly think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to create an effective solution to ANYTHING?

I think it's interesting that the same kind of people who complained about Bush's abuse of power with the Patriot Act would want to argue in favor of ANYTHING that gives the government more power to pry into people's private lives.

At 3/17/09 03:41 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Since you listed all weapons. In other words you want this to be a country of pussies who can't defend themselves against anything and the government can force us into anything?.

I don't think you can really argue that easily since GrammerNaziElite seems to think himself some kind of humanitarian for his efforts. But you could argue that he's in favor of increasing murder rates using more brutal methods.

I mean, I'd rather be shot than stabbed or beaten to death, but that's just me.

At 3/17/09 06:10 PM, Proteas wrote: So yeah, guns do have a purpose beside killing people; defending your own life, and the lives of those around you.

Oh, and before you respond, grammernazielite, bare in mind that I can put one MOTHER of an edge on a blade and I do keep a machete and serrated edge sword within arm's reach when I lay down to bed at night.

So... which is more humane? A shot in the gut from a beanbag or rubber round, or being brutally hacked to death?

At 3/17/09 06:10 PM, Proteas wrote: So yeah, guns do have a purpose beside killing people; defending your own life, and the lives of those around you.

A pity they are not as pratical as knives or sharp objects, which we use to cut food up.

We should find ways to prepare food using guns!

I'm about to shoot a big hole in this statement.

Pun intended

I don't know if you've been following my posts in the lounge as of late, but I fully intend to buy a shotgun for home defense. And while you may argue that use of a shotgun for home defense is a bit extreme for an instrument designed to kill people, you would be wearing your ignorance on your sleeve. I'm buying Rubber Slugs for mine, which are only lethal at close range (i.e.; less than 12 feet).

So yeah, guns do have a purpose beside killing people; defending your own life, and the lives of those around you.

Right. To defend yourself with a gun is to either kill, threaten to kill, or, I SUPPOSE, injure. Knives can do a wide variety of useful things, like opening the tape on packages. Guns are, by purpose, only designed to inflict harm on somebody or something.

Though I understand your point.

How is having a card an improvement on what we have now?

Because swiping a card at a cash register seems like less of a hassle than waiting three days. Maybe it's just me, I don't know, but I don't think the added weight of a .1 ounce card in your wallet or the effort of taking a test to obtain it is any worse than waiting three days. Current owners can keep their current system, it'd be too much of a hassle to hunt them all down.

I think it's interesting that the same kind of people who complained about Bush's abuse of power with the Patriot Act would want to argue in favor of ANYTHING that gives the government more power to pry into people's private lives.

The Patriot Act spied on us directly and served little purpose, and, as far as we know, achieved almost nothing. A gun registration card system is different, and if you don't see how, you're a fucking moron.

At 3/17/09 03:41 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Since you listed all weapons. In other words you want this to be a country of pussies who can't defend themselves against anything and the government can force us into anything?.

I don't think you can really argue that easily since GrammerNaziElite seems to think himself some kind of humanitarian for his efforts. But you could argue that he's in favor of increasing murder rates using more brutal methods.

I'm offended. And you both know when you're being asses. We can defend ourselves with a card system, easier in fact, because YOU'D GET IT THE SAME DAMNED DAY. Furthermore, I don't think of my self as a humanitarian, I think that it's entirely reasonable for there to be a test that you need to take ONCE to ensure that you are even REMOTELY responsible enough to own a gun and operate it safely. Furthermore, as I will once again repeat, I don't want to ban guns. The vast majority of people will still have guns, and therefore, knife deaths will stay the same. If you imply that I want to ban guns one more time, you're fucking stupid.

I mean, I'd rather be shot than stabbed or beaten to death, but that's just me.

At 3/17/09 06:33 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/17/09 06:10 PM, Proteas wrote: So yeah, guns do have a purpose beside killing people; defending your own life, and the lives of those around you.

Oh, and before you respond, grammernazielite, bare in mind that I can put one MOTHER of an edge on a blade and I do keep a machete and serrated edge sword within arm's reach when I lay down to bed at night.

So... which is more humane? A shot in the gut from a beanbag or rubber round, or being brutally hacked to death?

You will still have your fucking gun next to you, because as far as I can tell, you aren't stupid and can pass a simple goddamned registration test.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that I want to ban guns and keep them all in my tower so you all can get trampled by the evil, evil government. Which is incorrect. You can ALL have your guns, provided that you are of the legal age, have an IQ above 75, can operate a gun safely, and have good enough aim to hit a man-sized target from, say, 5 yards. If you do not meet all of the above criteria, no gun for you. Hell, with the way standards have been downsized in this country, a retarded paraplegic ACD-disordered person might still have a shot at passing.

Oh, and you can't be a criminal.

Sound fair? Seems pretty logical to me.

I mean, I don't really see much of a way to PREEMPTIVELY slow or stop the trade of illegal guns in this country without a police state. Which I don't want.

I looked through that link you posted and I think it's just brilliant. It adheres almost exactly to what I want.

Now we need to make it national. Not every state is Tennessee.

At 3/16/09 07:44 PM, Proteas wrote: 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.

Your still treating people who want to buy guns like criminals. Subjecting them to a background check to buy a gun. And what if you don't have a drivers license or another piece of photo ID? And they have to fill out forms every time. So its not as easy as buying a pack of smokes.

The difference between my plan and your plan is this. My plan is implemented before you buy the guns, your plan is implemented when you buy the gun. The only exception being is that I think it could be a wise opportunity to educate people about firearms when they go to get their license by making them take a test of some sort. Your plan inconveniences them every time they want to buy a firearm they are subjected to a background check. My plan they get the license and after that its a simple as swiping a credit card for them to get it.

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.

We are talking about guns here though, not motor vehicle deaths. You are using them as a diversion from the actual topic.

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

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.

My understanding is that a round from an AK-47 would cause more damage than a 9mm. IN the case of active shooters, medical response is severally delayed, meaning even a non-fatal would can still cause one to bleed out, or get shot as the shooter walks past while you lie on the ground. While I have not seen the actual stats, I would hazard to guess most school shooters are not getting a ton of head shots or bullets through the heart, or at least with the first hit.

Are you going to kill 30 people with 30 shots, no. Are you going to kill several people with random placed shots, probably. Spray and pray with an AK in a crowded hallway and your are probably going to fill up a couple of body bags.

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.

If you are just killing at random though, who cares if it is just the people in the front or the people in the back. All you care about is people die.

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.

I have conceded that handguns are easier to aim and to shoot. Columbine used the Tec-9 which qualifys as an assault weapon, and is just as easy to use as a handgun.

YOu feel the process you use in the US is fine. I feel the process we use in Canada is fine.

At 3/16/09 11:48 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

And why would you expect our registration scheme would be implemented any better? Have you seen our government? Do you honestly think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are going to create an effective solution to ANYTHING?

You're right. We should never be able to hope for better laws or a brighter future or anything good because the evil, evil government will never let us be happy.

Throwing in random laws that have been proven not to work doesn't result in a "brighter future". It reeks of desperation, nothing more. Knee jerk laws have been implemented to the tune of 20,000 gun laws. Don't you think one of them should have worked? Hell, California is highest rated on the Brady Campaign's "most gun unfriendly" list. They've tried them ALL. But, I sense you are really after something other than what you are saying. What exactly is it? Nobody cries that long and loud for registration schemes that haven't worked. What is your end goal?

And tell me, what other use do they have? I suppose you could use them as hammers to nail things together, I suppose that would be non-lethal enough.

Well, since over 50% of gun owners aren't hunters (and also aren't murderers) there are quite a few folks doing what I do: buy guns for sport. I shoot in matches. There are plenty of trap, skeet, and sporting clay shooters who only break clay pigeons. Plenty of people only compete. Quite a few folks go out on the weekends and plink tin cans.

Right. I listed those things in my description of uses for guns, but their only purpose is still to kill. Trap, skeet, game, and targets are only lighter applications to killing somebody, but ultimately, its' their only purpose. A-Bombs are only used to kill, but they are still tested out in the desert with no casualties.

Apparently you've convinced yourself of that and have no intention of being corrected, but hopefully the other readers will realize there are a bunch of people with a bunch of guns that never kill anything - by choice. Why buy a gun if you never intend to kill anything if that is their ONLY use? Do you fill your house with items for whose purpose you have no use? I sure don't.

Throwing in random laws that have been proven not to work doesn't result in a "brighter future". It reeks of desperation, nothing more. Knee jerk laws have been implemented to the tune of 20,000 gun laws. Don't you think one of them should have worked? Hell, California is highest rated on the Brady Campaign's "most gun unfriendly" list. They've tried them ALL. But, I sense you are really after something other than what you are saying. What exactly is it? Nobody cries that long and loud for registration schemes that haven't worked. What is your end goal?

My ideas are not random, and there are massive amounts of laws on EVERY subject. Lawmakers are weird, and laws stack up over the years.

And my end goal? For society to someday advance to the level of prosperity needed where crime is not committed in desperation and people are educated and fair-minded enough not to hurt others without reason. Then, there will be no need for gun restrictions, because the only crimes committed in such a hopeful future will be sparse.

And what you originally said was more to the tone of, 'The Government will never do anything right, so why ever think of improvements?'

At 3/17/09 11:45 AM, RubberTrucky wrote:

I'm glad guns aren't available to the masses over here. I feel that if they would allow guns, this would send a signal that it is okay to kill someone, though out of self defence. But then, what is self defence? If some drunk guy threatens to punch your face in, can you pull out your gun and shoot him? It is clear that he formed a potential threat...

Laws still apply, whether you are allowed to carry a gun or not. If you aren't in mortal danger, you can't respond with lethal force. Your response, just like in the country you are living in (what country is that, BTW?) must be proportional to the threat.

I also feel that if everyone starts carrying guns, robbers will more likely shoot you before robbing you, cause if he doesn't, you might shoot him first.

Hasn't started happening yet. Actually, the opposite is happening. All but two states allow carrying a concealed weapon now and crime has dropped to a pretty low level according to FBI stats. They now match crime from the 1960's

Of course, for sports and hunting guns are naturally allowed, but this may also have it's limitations, since it's not really healthy if 95% of the population is out there shooting killing animals just like that. (isn't there a restriction in the amount of people that can go hunting?) when it comes to sports, don't they use special guns, with less lethal bullets and such?

I guess it would depend on the sport, but most use the same ammo as street guns. Lots of disciplines have different classes - special guns and factory (i.e. non-modified) guns. The majority that I see fit the factory class. When you get into the higher ranks, that may swing more in favor of the special guns.

At 3/17/09 07:51 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

And my end goal? For society to someday advance to the level of prosperity needed where crime is not committed in desperation and people are educated and fair-minded enough not to hurt others without reason. Then, there will be no need for gun restrictions, because the only crimes committed in such a hopeful future will be sparse.

There will always be people more prosperous than others. The less prosperous then envy what the prosperous have and will seek to take it. The problem is that even if there were a stimulus bill that presented every person $1M dollars, within 3 or 4 years, 30% would most likely be penniless. Which again would result in their wanting what those who still had their money have. So, I think you are going to have a long wait.

And what you originally said was more to the tone of, 'The Government will never do anything right, so why ever think of improvements?'

Correct. They do whatever it takes to get reelected, such as impose knee jerk, useless laws that don't work, but allow them to declare that they are tough on crime. You need to realize that gun control ISN'T crime control. You want to stop crime, you'd throw anyone illegally carrying into jail for life. The number would drop substantially. Either criminals would get the message, or, the dumb ones would be in jail incapable of committing more crimes.

There will always be people more prosperous than others. The less prosperous then envy what the prosperous have and will seek to take it. The problem is that even if there were a stimulus bill that presented every person $1M dollars, within 3 or 4 years, 30% would most likely be penniless. Which again would result in their wanting what those who still had their money have. So, I think you are going to have a long wait.

I know it's a long wait. I'm an idealist, and an optimist. But it CAN happen. Someday.

And what you originally said was more to the tone of, 'The Government will never do anything right, so why ever think of improvements?'

Correct. They do whatever it takes to get reelected, such as impose knee jerk, useless laws that don't work, but allow them to declare that they are tough on crime. You need to realize that gun control ISN'T crime control. You want to stop crime, you'd throw anyone illegally carrying into jail for life. The number would drop substantially. Either criminals would get the message, or, the dumb ones would be in jail incapable of committing more crimes.

I absolutely agree with what you're saying here, but the government is as good as it's going to get, at least for now. Don't complain about it, don't give up, just try to work around it. The ideas posted in this thread aren't going to reach the white house anytime soon, so everything here is idealistic, really.

Furthermore, good crime control is not letting everybody have a gun and send those who misuse them to jail, good crime control is letting deserving people get guns, and send everyone who misuses a gun to jail.

At 3/17/09 08:08 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

Furthermore, good crime control is not letting everybody have a gun and send those who misuse them to jail, good crime control is letting deserving people get guns, and send everyone who misuses a gun to jail.

So how do you determine whether someone is "deserving"? Mental history isn't available (and privacy advocates would scream bloody murder if it was). How do you determine whether someone is a future killer? If we knew that, we'd have solved crime long ago. Criminals are already rejected via the NICS system - though law enforcement rarely punishes criminals rejected by the NICS. So even the one piece that can be used isn't followed through on.

So how do you determine whether someone is "deserving"? Mental history isn't available (and privacy advocates would scream bloody murder if it was). How do you determine whether someone is a future killer? If we knew that, we'd have solved crime long ago. Criminals are already rejected via the NICS system - though law enforcement rarely punishes criminals rejected by the NICS. So even the one piece that can be used isn't followed through on.

I made this point clear in my discussion with Proteas.

Legal Age
Not Retarded
Not a criminal
Can operate a gun safely
Can pass a test

Furthermore, I think mental illnesses should be available in government records. Not minor ones or harmless ones, but dangerous ones. I do not have the experience to determine what the dangerous ones are. Psychologists can handle that.

At 3/17/09 07:05 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Though I understand your point.

I don't think you do, because you're still on this whole "guns are meant to kill people" schtick like a typical anti-gun fanatic, even after I presented a good solid argument against it. Rubber rounds are designed to injure someone with blunt force trauma and stun them into submission. The courts recognize this as a legitimate form of self defense, and they also recognize instances of lethal force as legitimate self defense (although both have to be justified).

Because swiping a card at a cash register seems like less of a hassle than waiting three days.

But you forget; the people who have been involved in past shooting massacres would have passed such legal checks with flying colors, assuming they bought them legally to begin with. You'd be giving the green light to law abiding gun owners and potential sociopaths alike to get a gun like THAT *snaps fingers*.

How do you rationalize that?

The Patriot Act spied on us directly and served little purpose, and, as far as we know, achieved almost nothing.

The gun registration act would allow the government knowledge on who has what guns, serves little or no purpose, and achieves nothing.

See what I did there?

I'm offended.

Wah. Wah. WAH.

Go take a midol and cry about it.

I mean, I don't really see much of a way to PREEMPTIVELY slow or stop the trade of illegal guns in this country without a police state. Which I don't want.

What part of "Registration precedes confiscation" do you not get?

At 3/17/09 07:15 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I looked through that link you posted and I think it's just brilliant. It adheres almost exactly to what I want.

So... what exactly needs to be changed with the way we handle gun laws then?

Now we need to make it national. Not every state is Tennessee.

True, but you would be surprised to find that laws don't vary that much from state to state.

At 3/17/09 07:18 PM, JoS wrote: Your still treating people who want to buy guns like criminals. Subjecting them to a background check to buy a gun.

Background check =/= government based monitoring by registration through a database.

I'll take a three day waiting period over the government knowing who I am, where I live, and what gun/s I own.

My plan they get the license and after that its a simple as swiping a credit card for them to get it.

Your plan has that one fatal flaw in it that I sited with g.n.e.; you'd be greenlighting sociopaths to get a gun the same day just as a law abiding citizen would.

We are talking about guns here though, not motor vehicle deaths. You are using them as a diversion from the actual topic.

Bringing motor vehicles into this was not a diversion, it was a refutation. It's a fact that motor vehicles are the leading cause of accidental death, and if your main concern was just that (and not guns), then you'd be more concerned with a very real threat that can be easily legislated against.

My understanding is that a round from an AK-47 would cause more damage than a 9mm.

The AK-47 fires a 7.62x39mm round, smaller and lighter than a 9.mm. If you want, I can dig out one of my military manuals on ballistics and pull out the the feet-per-second measurements on both rounds, the average amount of gunpowder per each round, and the force each round hits with, but I'll skip ahead to the point....

How does a smaller, less powerful round cause more damage than the bigger round?

Spray and pray with an AK in a crowded hallway and your are probably going to fill up a couple of body bags.

You can't "spray" with a semi-automatic weapon, of which all civilian available Ak's are, you can only own a fully automatic if you have a Class 3 weapons license, and that's when the BATF knows you by name. If what the Larry Eugene Phillips, Jr. and Emil Decebal Matasareanu did to their Ak-47's was that simple, don't you think there'd be more crimes committed with converted weaponry?

I used the Tec-9 which qualifys as an assault weapon,

Klebold carried the TEC-DC9, which was the ban-era version of the Tec-9 that met with the legal requirements of the Assault Weapons Ban (Columbine occured during the ban, remember?). All Intratec had to to do to make the weapon ban compliant was remove the barrel shroud and threaded muzzle, the gun was still a semi-automatic firearm and quite legal as Intratec never made a production model fully-automatic version of the gun to begin with.

Klebold also carried a 52, 32, and 28 round magazines, all of which would have been grandfathered in (i.e.; pre-ban).

Are you starting to see how grossly ineffective the Assault Weapons Ban was?

At 3/17/09 08:08 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I know it's a long wait. I'm an idealist, and an optimist. But it CAN happen. Someday.

Idealism can only be effective if you can effectively argue your points and win people over to your point of view, otherwise you're just opining for the hell of it.

At 3/17/09 09:52 PM, Proteas wrote:

Klebold also carried a 52, 32, and 28 round magazines, all of which would have been grandfathered in (i.e.; pre-ban).

BTW, the difference between a ban era magazine (10 rounds max) and a 28 round magazine is 3 seconds of reload time (2 x 1.5 second reloads). Oh, and a good revolver shooter can reload as fast as a semi-auto guy can reload (much to my embarrassment at matches).

My impression of what Cho did was to walk around killing almost execution style. That is what accounts for his high shot to kill ratio. If I'm mistaken, please correct me. So, ANY gun would have been equally effective in that case - including a .22

I don't think you do, because you're still on this whole "guns are meant to kill people" schtick like a typical anti-gun fanatic, even after I presented a good solid argument against it. Rubber rounds are designed to injure someone with blunt force trauma and stun them into submission. The courts recognize this as a legitimate form of self defense, and they also recognize instances of lethal force as legitimate self defense (although both have to be justified).

I just admitted that guns can be used in a way only to hurt people. In this case, "Guns are meant to hurt", still is more sinister than a knife, of which many use to perform daily, routine tasks that don't involve hurting people. I have not acted like an anti-gun fanatic, not at all, all I'm saying is that there is a better system for filtering out those who should not have a gun in the first place.

But you forget; the people who have been involved in past shooting massacres would have passed such legal checks with flying colors, assuming they bought them legally to begin with. You'd be giving the green light to law abiding gun owners and potential sociopaths alike to get a gun like THAT *snaps fingers*.

They would have had the green light anyway, and I never said my plan was to stop school shootings. In fact, you're making a martyr out of them because they happen incredibly rarely, and there is almost no way to stop them and you damn well know it. Man gets gun, legally or illegally. Man enters school with gun in backpack, most likely one or more handguns. Man kills a lot of people. Man kills self. The card idea is much less of a hassle, and you dodged the point completely.

The gun registration act would allow the government knowledge on who has what guns, serves little or no purpose, and achieves nothing.

See what I did there?

No, because one of them wiretaps us and spies on us, and another keeps a list of who owns guns. There are lists on those who can drive, those who can vote, those who have committed crimes too. Should we abolish all of them? We don't treat drivers like criminals when we monitor who can drive and who can't, but that massive license plate number tracking system sure comes in handy when we have a hit and run. Should we only wait for drivers to ram their Honda into a traffic guard before jotting down their number? Furthermore, the point is not to monitor who has guns, but to provide both a simple method for quickly obtaining guns and a simple test to determine who can't operate a gun. A win-win situation from where I'm standing.

Wah. Wah. WAH.

Go take a midol and cry about it.

It was sarcasm. Who actually expresses hurt feelings by saying "I'm offended"?

What part of "Registration precedes confiscation" do you not get?

I understand it perfectly, you don't seem to understand what I'M saying. Guns will be illegally traded in the US unless there is a police officer on every street corner, on every block, and surrounding the country. THAT problem is to be solved by smarter men than either of us. I'm sure we could catch people by either searching peoples houses suddenly and randomly, which I don't want, or catching the people who commit crimes with illegal guns, which defeats preemptively stopping them because they already committed a crime.

So... what exactly needs to be changed with the way we handle gun laws then?

Make it national.

True, but you would be surprised to find that laws don't vary that much from state to state.

You don't seem to have a problem with Tennessee's laws and I love the idea. However, there are differences in those laws, and I want this card idea in every state. Fundamentally we agree, so why do we disagree?

Idealism can only be effective if you can effectively argue your points and win people over to your point of view, otherwise you're just opining for the hell of it.

I disagree. I'm more of an optimist in the fact that I believe that every reasonable problem can be solved with global cooperation and a friendly attitude. HOW to solve these problems is where the debating comes in.

From what I can see, your problem isn't the Card system, it's change and the fear that the system will grow into something more sinister. Well, I'm sorry, I can't help you with those two points.

Or maybe I'm totally off.

At 3/17/09 09:13 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

So how do you determine whether someone is "deserving"? Mental history isn't available (and privacy advocates would scream bloody murder if it was). How do you determine whether someone is a future killer? If we knew that, we'd have solved crime long ago. Criminals are already rejected via the NICS system - though law enforcement rarely punishes criminals rejected by the NICS. So even the one piece that can be used isn't followed through on.

I made this point clear in my discussion with Proteas.

Legal Age
Not Retarded
Not a criminal
Can operate a gun safely
Can pass a test

Furthermore, I think mental illnesses should be available in government records. Not minor ones or harmless ones, but dangerous ones. I do not have the experience to determine what the dangerous ones are. Psychologists can handle that.

The first 3 are already covered by NICS. The last two I'm pretty indifferent to. Gun accidents are low enough that I don't consider them an issue. If the goal is preventing loss of life, lets start with the leading cause and work our way down, not the middle of the pack. Are you on alcohol/anti-alcohol sites arguing for a ban on liquor?

Regarding making patient info available to the govt - good luck with that.

The first 3 are already covered by NICS. The last two I'm pretty indifferent to. Gun accidents are low enough that I don't consider them an issue. If the goal is preventing loss of life, lets start with the leading cause and work our way down, not the middle of the pack. Are you on alcohol/anti-alcohol sites arguing for a ban on liquor?

Liquor can serve purposes other than hurting people. But yes, alcohol problems are also on the list of things I ponder. Also, the last two are what I want in particular. I think if you're going to prevent loss of life, you start with the easiest or simplest. Simple test, mate.

Regarding making patient info available to the govt - good luck with that.

Thank you.

At 3/17/09 10:14 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

No, because one of them wiretaps us and spies on us, and another keeps a list of who owns guns. There are lists on those who can drive, those who can vote, those who have committed crimes too. Should we abolish all of them? We don't treat drivers like criminals when we monitor who can drive and who can't, but that massive license plate number tracking system sure comes in handy when we have a hit and run. Should we only wait for drivers to ram their Honda into a traffic guard before jotting down their number? Furthermore, the point is not to monitor who has guns, but to provide both a simple method for quickly obtaining guns and a simple test to determine who can't operate a gun. A win-win situation from where I'm standing.

There is ONE minor difference. One - the "gun card" targets American citizens while the other - wiretapping - targets international conversations with terror suspects.

Regarding the car - its a privilege, whereas bearing arms is a right "that shall not be infringed". Your point would be way more effective if there was a huge number of accidental shootings, but there isn't.

There is ONE minor difference. One - the "gun card" targets American citizens while the other - wiretapping - targets international conversations with terror suspects.

Wiretapping doesn't target anybody, it listens to every phone conversation it can, destroys our privacy, and then they single out people who sound threatening.

Regarding the car - its a privilege, whereas bearing arms is a right "that shall not be infringed". Your point would be way more effective if there was a huge number of accidental shootings, but there isn't.

I'm working my way up with the death toll, I am. Furthermore, I don't believe that 'The Right To Bear Arms' has aged well. Sure, everybody would have the fair opportunity to APPLY for a gun registration, but it should be a privilege as well. Keep in mind that my belief that said law hasn't aged well does not mean I hate America and I am in no way trying to undermine democracy. I just think that guns were far more necessary back then than they are now.

I'd like to add that voting is a right, but we still keep tags on who can and who can't.

At 3/17/09 10:14 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: The card idea is much less of a hassle, and you dodged the point completely.

So the only thing this does is make the process of buying a gun faster.

That doesn't strike you in the least bit odd, or dangerous?

No, because one of them wiretaps us and spies on us, and another keeps a list of who owns guns. \

I don't see the difference between a government capable of spying on me and a government who wants to know what guns I have, regardless of who's in office. Just because Obama is the new guy in office doesn't make him any better than Bush, in the end they're both just politicians who are out to make themselves look good for the media spotlight.

There are lists on those who can drive, those who can vote, those who have committed crimes too. Should we abolish all of them?

No, because as you have previously pointed out, these items have purposes besides hurting and injuring people, of which guns are designed to do. The government already is ready, capable, and willing to infringe on our personal rights through roving wiretaps, GITMO, and secret prisons in Europe, and you want to give that same government another reason to be suspicious of the general populace.

Furthermore, the point is not to monitor who has guns

Then why is it necessary for the government to know who has them?

Make it national.

Then why are you still arguing the point of a card if the status quo is good enough as it is?

Fundamentally we agree, so why do we disagree?

I'm okay with the status quo, you're okay with the status quo, but you're advocating we trash the status quo despite agreeing with it and replacing it with your idea, which is nothing more than MORE government control over the population at large.

Well, I'm sorry, I can't help you with those two points.

You lose.

At 3/17/09 10:48 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Wiretapping doesn't target anybody,

Where registration does. How convenient.

Furthermore, I don't believe that 'The Right To Bear Arms' has aged well. Sure, everybody would have the fair opportunity to APPLY for a gun registration, but it should be a privilege as well.

Sad to say, the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

At 3/17/09 10:49 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: I'd like to add that voting is a right, but we still keep tags on who can and who can't.

When was the last time voting killed someone?

At 3/17/09 10:48 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote:

There is ONE minor difference. One - the "gun card" targets American citizens while the other - wiretapping - targets international conversations with terror suspects.

Wiretapping doesn't target anybody, it listens to every phone conversation it can, destroys our privacy, and then they single out people who sound threatening.

As long as one endpoint is on foreign soil. And, can you name anyone affected by this? I can't. On the other hand, putting gun ownership records in the hands of the government would affect between 1/3 and 1/2 of ALL the people I know.

Regarding the car - its a privilege, whereas bearing arms is a right "that shall not be infringed". Your point would be way more effective if there was a huge number of accidental shootings, but there isn't.

I'm working my way up with the death toll, I am. Furthermore, I don't believe that 'The Right To Bear Arms' has aged well. Sure, everybody would have the fair opportunity to APPLY for a gun registration, but it should be a privilege as well. Keep in mind that my belief that said law hasn't aged well does not mean I hate America and I am in no way trying to undermine democracy. I just think that guns were far more necessary back then than they are now.

Well, then seek to amend the bill of rights. THAT is how to go about changing it. Until that time, the 2nd amendment reads as it reads - and means what it means.