Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/22/09 01:58 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: All you need to protect yourself from tyranny is a compass and your feet.

It's worldwide, so unless you have a spaceship, we're going to have to resist the gun bans..

At 3/22/09 04:50 PM, Mr-Money wrote:
It's worldwide, so unless you have a spaceship, we're going to have to resist the gun bans..

Humans are not worldwide. They are just in the dirt.

Alright, I concede.

But never say I didn't try.

At 3/22/09 10:31 AM, JoS wrote: some people who want a gun though and can't legally have it will be deterred enough to not get a gun.

What deterrent does this law serve that makes it any more effective than what we have now?

We put The Club on our cars, or alarms, but people will still steal it if they want to, so why bother?

That's just it, this isn't aimed at deterring anyone except law abiding citizens. You haven't said shit about that 1% of gun shops that sell 52% or what CAN be done about that by simply revoking their business and federal firearm licenses and locking up the owners for a few years, you just want to obliquely go on and on how this is a "step in the right direction" that in reality doesn't accomplish a damn thing.

Same thing happens with credit cards and debit cards, but we still continue to use them.

Credit and debits can't kill people.

Simply because someone committed enough may find a way to circumvent the process does not mean we should not do it at all.

We've got 20,000 gun laws on the books now as it is and we've still got gun crimes in this country. What difference is gun law 20,001 going to make?

Why bother revoking the drivers license of people who get too many demerit points or drink and drive, when if they want there is nothing stopping them from getting behind the wheel.

Because you can put them in jail and prevent them from killing more people.

That's what this whole thing fails to do; it fails to give a proper deterrent against gun crime, it just adds another hoop that law abiding citizens will have jump through to get a gun, which is pointless criminals don't buy guns legally to begin with.

At 3/22/09 10:42 AM, JoS wrote: This man killed two SWAT officers with his assault rifle.

Can you show that the weapon in question was a military grade weapon capable of selective fire modes (fully automatic or three round burst fire), and that the perpetrator in question either (a) had a Class 3 Weapons License or (b) stole the weapon from someone who did? Otherwise, the term "assault rifle" does not apply to this situation and is mere hyperbole on the part of the media.

At 3/22/09 07:14 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/22/09 10:31 AM, JoS wrote: some people who want a gun though and can't legally have it will be deterred enough to not get a gun.

What deterrent does this law serve that makes it any more effective than what we have now?

It is a more efficient, less inconvenient way of doing it. You get approved or denied right on the spot, don't have to come back in three days or anything like that. The idea is how can we make this process you have now work better for law abiding citizens.

We put The Club on our cars, or alarms, but people will still steal it if they want to, so why bother?

That's just it, this isn't aimed at deterring anyone except law abiding citizens.

Quite the opposite in fact. Its aimed at promoting law abiding citizens to buy guns. They do not have to wait 3 days. Why do you advocate making people wait longer unnecessarily?

Credit and debits can't kill people.

I would argue this system is far more secure and less likely to be tampered with then the current system.

We've got 20,000 gun laws on the books now as it is and we've still got gun crimes in this country. What difference is gun law 20,001 going to make?

Actually there are only about 300 federal and state laws regarding guns. Source Not to mention that no matter how many laws there are in the US, at any one time no more than 20 or so may apply (there are I think 8 major federal laws on firearms and the highest count in any state is 13, meaning the highest that could apply to you theoretically is 21).

That's what this whole thing fails to do; it fails to give a proper deterrent against gun crime, it just adds another hoop that law abiding citizens will have jump through to get a gun, which is pointless criminals don't buy guns legally to begin with.

So lets just do away with any background checks of any type, my idea or the current system. I go into the gun shop, show ID that I am of age and I walk out with as many guns as I want.

Wait never mind, I could be underage and just use a fake ID, so lets scrap the age thing too. Guns for all.

At 3/22/09 08:24 PM, JoS wrote:

So lets just do away with any background checks of any type, my idea or the current system. I go into the gun shop, show ID that I am of age and I walk out with as many guns as I want.

Wait never mind, I could be underage and just use a fake ID, so lets scrap the age thing too. Guns for all.

Just like it was pre 1967 (when the crime rate was lower).

At 3/22/09 10:42 AM, JoS wrote:

This is where the danger of assault weapons lies. Its not that they are often used, especially in the commission of crimes, but criminals and drug dealers may have them in their homes, stash house etc and when police come to arrest these suspects they may face this. So while average citizens may not be as concerned about them, police officers are.

This man killed two SWAT officers with his assault rifle.

This doesn't really support your side of the argument.

The story was exactly that which us pro-rights folks have been saying endlessly in this debate:

* we know who the murders are - people with previous convictions (check)
* we know murderers murder with guns they didn't legally buy (I'm guessing this is the case since felons can't buy guns) (a probable check)
* we know murders break laws - murder, illegally possession of a gun by a felon, skipping bail (check)
* we know that if this loser was in jail where he should have been this wouldn't have happened (check)
* we know that taking away MY assault rifle wouldn't have prevented this from happening (check)
* since it doesn't appear existing law was enforced (at least not vigorously) with this loser why do you think it'd be enforced vigorously with any other law? Around here, if caught with an illegal weapon, you have said weapon confiscated and are turned loose. THOSE are the people you should be prosecuting! You've caught them. Now put them away and they won't be a problem next month (after stealing a new gun). There. A REAL solution. Not some "well, it probably won't make much difference, but lets at least give it a shot" solution.

At 3/22/09 08:24 PM, JoS wrote: Why do you advocate making people wait longer unnecessarily?

Because I think the minute somebody passes one of these legally required background checks and uses said gun in an illegal manner, then you and others like you advocating this system will be on here advocating ANOTHER restriction or modification of the gun laws that is aimed at taking the piss on law abiding gun owners instead of deterring or punishing people who actually commit the crimes. And again after that restriction doesn't work the way you want it too, and again after that ad nauseum.

So.... instant background check and another pointless topic like this when the next Virgina Tech goes down.... or wait three days on a background check. Let me ponder that one for a while.

I would argue this system is far more secure and less likely to be tampered with then the current system.

Based on what?

What foolproof method could you possibly devise that could make this license the holy grail of licenses that can't be faked?

Actually there are only about 300 federal and state laws regarding guns.

My point still stands; this is another pile of crap law on top of another one.

Wait never mind, I could be underage and just use a fake ID, so lets scrap the age thing too. Guns for all.

Appeal to Ridicule.

At 3/22/09 08:43 PM, LiquidSperber wrote: This doesn't really support your side of the argument.

The point of mentioning the Oakland incident was to refute claims that assault weapons are never or very rarely use din the commission of crimes because they are cumbersome and difficult to conceal. When they are used they are ineffective, using the Bank of America robbery as proof, no cops or civilians died.

Well here is a case where one man with an "assault rifle" (we do not know exactly what type yet though) killed two SWAT officers and wounded a third.

- assault rifle used in commission of a crime (check)
- assault rifle kills person (check, check)

And I never said my process was immune to abuse or that they could not be forged. With enough determination, criminals will find a way to beat the system. Will they get really good at making forged cards, maybe. They won't be able to create new IDs unless they actually break into the FBIs computer system to plant the data, but could they change the picture on the card, maybe if they tried hard enough.

I would think though that the photo ID licenses with electronically stored data would be a little more secure then just flashing a drivers license (which are much easier to fake especially when you don't have to sync up data with a central database).

Criminals will continue to do what they want regardless of the law, whether ti be stealing, buying guns or doing drugs, and no law or punishment is going to stop everyone. That does not mean we should make it easier for them.

How do you propose we keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Or should we just give up trying and scrap every gun law on the books, make it a free for all?

And for the last time, please stop accusing me of wanting to ban guns or being some gun control nut. I have nothing against guns in the hands of responsible law abiding people. I personally plan on owning several handguns and long guns.

At 3/22/09 11:47 PM, JoS wrote: The point of mentioning the Oakland incident was to refute claims that assault weapons are never or very rarely use din the commission of crimes because they are cumbersome and difficult to conceal.

I'm still waiting for you to show what was used in the Oakland incident and whether or not it qualifies as an assault rifle/weapon. For all we know this guy had a pistol and was just that good of a shot.

I would think though that the photo ID licenses with electronically stored data would be a little more secure then just flashing a drivers license

How?

That does not mean we should make it easier for them.

Nobody is arguing that we should, and nobody is arguing that it is easy to begin with or it will be that much easier if we don't adopt your idea. The way I see it, you want this to stop criminals from getting guns easily, which is honorable. But you're doing it by adding another law aimed at law abiding citizens who buy their guns legally, instead of doing it by penalizing those who would buy theirs illegally, which is both idiotic and completely ignoring the problem altogether; criminals won't be any more effect by your system than they are now by the one that's already in place.

So instead of proposing law after law aimed at law abiding citizens, why not go for my idea of closing down the 1% of gun shops that sell 52% of illegal firearms used in crimes? You'd have everyone who supports gun rights on board in a heartbeat, because you'd be doing something that actually makes sense for a change instead of giving us another reason to bitch.

At 3/23/09 12:51 PM, Proteas wrote: I'm still waiting for you to show what was used in the Oakland incident and whether or not it qualifies as an assault rifle/weapon. For all we know this guy had a pistol and was just that good of a shot.

I have yet to find a source as to what the gun was, but according to the police statement two guns were used, one on the street, one in the apartment. The second weapon (used on the SWAT officers in the apartment) was called an assault rifle by the police. I am assuming the one used in the street was probably a handgun.

Nobody is arguing that we should, and nobody is arguing that it is easy to begin with or it will be that much easier if we don't adopt your idea. The way I see it, you want this to stop criminals from getting guns easily, which is honorable. But you're doing it by adding another law aimed at law abiding citizens who buy their guns legally, instead of doing it by penalizing those who would buy theirs illegally,

But then how do we define legally and illegally if there are no measures in place such as background checks? Do we have people fill out a questionnaire and if they answer yes to one of the questions there is no sale?

which is both idiotic and completely ignoring the problem altogether; criminals won't be any more effect by your system than they are now by the one that's already in place.

My idea is simply aimed at changing the current system. It is still essentially the same, or in some cases even easier by abolishing secondary state mandated checks. The idea is increase the efficiency of the system to decrease the time it takes for law abiding citizens to buy their guns while still presenting a road block to criminals who may try and purchase their guns through a licensed dealer.

So instead of proposing law after law aimed at law abiding citizens, why not go for my idea of closing down the 1% of gun shops that sell 52% of illegal firearms used in crimes?

OK seriously, this is the last time I am going to say it because it is clearly not getting through.

My proposal would probably result in fewer laws on the books about guns, not more, by eliminating state laws regarding purchase of guns. It would take the same system we have now and take it out of the 1980s and into the 21st century using something called technology. Why fill out a form, fax it in, wait three days for a reply when it can be done automatically. Or do you still like to give an impression of you credit card when you use it?

Scary I know.

At 3/23/09 02:28 PM, JoS wrote: The second weapon (used on the SWAT officers in the apartment) was called an assault rifle by the police.

So it's the police arguing this point and not the media. Sweet. What qualified the weapon as an assault rifle in their eyes? Was it capable of full auto or three round burst fire, or did it simply "look" like an a military grade weapon, perhaps an AR-15?

But then how do we define legally and illegally if there are no measures in place such as background checks?

There are measures in place. Quit arguing like this is the wild west.

The idea is increase the efficiency of the system to decrease the time it takes for law abiding citizens to buy their guns while still presenting a road block to criminals who may try and purchase their guns through a licensed dealer.

So this system doesn't change anything except forcing the individual gun owners to register with the government.

Forget the opposition I'm putting up against this, I want to see you try and get a bill like this passed the right-wing lobbyist groups like the NRA.

It would take the same system we have now and take it out of the 1980s and into the 21st century using something called technology.

Uh huh. It's 2009 and we're still taking 3 days to get a response back from the NICS database, I'm really curious to see what you would do to make background checks "instant" that our government agencies haven't already been trying.

One reason for the delays is entirely clerical. Trust me, I have worked with these types of law enforcement databases.

Example

Name: Mike Smith
DOB: 14-03-1975

This man may have no record, but there may be a Michael Smith with the same DOB or one that is similar, who has a record. Under the current system this would result in a delay in sale because it has to be further researched to see if these are different people.

Under my idea where each gun purchaser has their own unique ID number with their license, this delay is not seen by the individual, any delays and further research would be done at time of entering the relevant court documents, not when someone goes to buy the gun. This speeds up the purchase of legal guns.

As for my argument about legal and illegal. I am aware of the fact there are measures in place. That is why there is a distinction. But those measures also hinder legal purchases by law abiding citizens. If we want to make it so there is no hindrance to citizens that means no regulations at all. The debate is therefore not about whether we put measures in place or not, it is about how much can we do while still maintaining the balance. I would argue that some sort of background check maintains this balance and is not overly impairing on the ability to buy guns.

Want to know what I think is a stupid gun law? In Canada, we have three classes of weapons, unrestricted (rifles and shotguns), restricted (handguns and some models of long guns), and prohibited weapons (OC spray, tasers, handguns under a certain size, shorted rifles and shotguns etc). You need a firearms license of the appropriate class to buy , possess or transport them. To transport a restricted weapon you need an Auhtorization to transport (ATT) on top of your license. You need a new ATT for each time you want to transport the gun (you can get ones lasting up to 5 years, but only between two locations ie. your home to the range and back and is only valid during the days of the week and times you selected). That is a dumb law (the ATT).

At 3/23/09 03:48 PM, JoS wrote: Under my idea where each gun purchaser has their own unique ID number with their license

Under the system we have now, everyone already has a unique ID numbers; it's the Social Security Number. You can't apply for a job, a loan, a credit card, or ANYTHING in this country without supplying one. So you're premise about us needing unique id numbers for your system is already flawed because everyone already has one. Your number would still have to be put through the same NICS database and handled by the same people who do it now, and it would still take up to three days to get a response back from. This system doesn't accomplish anything except piss off gun owners and stroke the egos of gun control nutts who can't argue guns to begin with, just like the Assault Weapons Ban.

NEXT.

If we want to make it so there is no hindrance to citizens that means no regulations at all.

Okay, so let's see your argument for there being no regulations at all.

Because no matter what argument you put forth, it's a hindrance, and you want to make it so gun buying isn't a hindrance to law abiding citizens. So let's hear your argument for there being no regulations on guns then.

I would argue that some sort of background check maintains this balance and is not overly impairing on the ability to buy guns.

There already IS "some sort of background check" in place. Having an instant background check and being able to walk out with the gun the same day would be every law abiding gun owner's dream, but if you were to tell them that they'd have to sign up for a whole new system of government monitoring, they'd vote "no" on it every time and vote YOU out of office the next time elections came around.

That is a dumb law (the ATT).

You're always welcome in the U.S., dude. :-D

At 3/23/09 04:10 PM, Proteas wrote: You're always welcome in the U.S., dude. :-D

I would need an ATT to get to the border, and back after.

At 3/23/09 04:15 PM, JoS wrote: I would need an ATT to get to the border, and back after.

I didn't mean to visit.

At 3/22/09 11:47 PM, JoS wrote:

At 3/22/09 08:43 PM, LiquidSperber wrote: This doesn't really support your side of the argument.

The point of mentioning the Oakland incident was to refute claims that assault weapons are never or very rarely use din the commission of crimes because they are cumbersome and difficult to conceal. When they are used they are ineffective, using the Bank of America robbery as proof, no cops or civilians died.

How does 2 murders reverse the statement that they are rarely used? That's like me saying that we need to ban flamethrowers because their use in crime is out of control on the day after that guy in CA used one. The fact remains they are used in < 2% of crimes. It just so happens that at year end when stats show rifles were used in < 2% of the murders, these two murders will be included in that percentage. This shows the need to NO create laws as knee jerk reactions. Emotions run high and "SOMETHING has to be done". So several million semi-auto owners get punished because this jerk and a small number of other jerks misuse them.

BTW, I NEVER argued they are ineffective. Current conventional wisdom is to use semi-auto rifles for home defense rather than pistols specifically because they are more effective. A good argument certainly could be made that they very rarely used outside the house due to their lack of concealability.

Well here is a case where one man with an "assault rifle" (we do not know exactly what type yet though) killed two SWAT officers and wounded a third.

- assault rifle used in commission of a crime (check)
- assault rifle kills person (check, check)

So far I've seen no info on the "assault weapon" or how he got it, so its pretty premature to decide an assault weapon ban would have prevented this. For all we know, it could have been stolen from a police car (like we see mentioned quite often in the news) or stolen from an armory.

Oh, and seeing as how this happened in CA, all the laws you are after are ALREADY in effect. From the CA AG's web site (I'm assuming the rifle used was either an semi-auto AK or semi-auto AR):

"The 2000 assault weapons law (SB 23) identified assault weapons by specific characteristics. Those weapons so defined must have been lawfully possessed on or before December 31, 1999 and registered on or before December 31, 2000. Penal Code section 12276, subdivisions (e) and (f), reaffirmed by the Kasler v. Lockyer decision, make AK and AR-15 series weapons unlawful for sale after August 16, 2000, even if their assault weapon characteristics are removed. Persons owning these weapons on this date were required to register them with the DOJ on or before January 23, 2001"

On the other hand, the rifles could have been WW2 vintage M1's or SKS's - not banned by the AWB. I haven't seen how many rounds were fired, but the M1 holds 8 rounds and an SKS holds 10 rounds, so he wouldn't have even needed an assault rifle.

And I never said my process was immune to abuse or that they could not be forged. With enough determination, criminals will find a way to beat the system. Will they get really good at making forged cards, maybe. They won't be able to create new IDs unless they actually break into the FBIs computer system to plant the data, but could they change the picture on the card, maybe if they tried hard enough.

Once you have one stolen legit id, all you'd have to do is clone it's magnetic strip. Machines for doing that are readily available.

How do you propose we keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Or should we just give up trying and scrap every gun law on the books, make it a free for all?

Already answered: keep them in jail. CA just released a massive number of criminals knowing it would result in an estimated 150 murders. They were ok with that. Again... gun control is NOT crime control.

And for the last time, please stop accusing me of wanting to ban guns or being some gun control nut. I have nothing against guns in the hands of responsible law abiding people. I personally plan on owning several handguns and long guns.

To the best of my knowledge I haven't accused you of that.

At 3/23/09 02:28 PM, JoS wrote:

But then how do we define legally and illegally if there are no measures in place such as background checks? Do we have people fill out a questionnaire and if they answer yes to one of the questions there is no sale?

There IS a process. Its called NICS. Now, when someone fails due to being a felon - arrest him. Turns out the law is ALREADY in place. Enforce it.

At 3/23/09 03:48 PM, JoS wrote:

Want to know what I think is a stupid gun law? In Canada, we have three classes of weapons, ...

No doubt brought on by a group of people declaring "well, we have to try SOMETHING".

At 2/17/09 03:39 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: The potential danger of assault rifles outweighs the purpose.

I would disagree.
The entire purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect yourself from the government, so the entire body you are supposed to protect yourself from is taking away your rights seems like a good idea?

At 3/24/09 09:17 PM, mexifry895 wrote:

At 2/17/09 03:39 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: The potential danger of assault rifles outweighs the purpose.

I would disagree.
The entire purpose of the 2nd amendment was to protect yourself from the government, so the entire body you are supposed to protect yourself from is taking away your rights seems like a good idea?

Also, the insanity we call the U.S./Mexico border is definitely a great place for assult rifles, as tens of thousands of people die every year at the border.