The cry against "sniper" rifles is starting to come in congress.

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Unless you're a ninja, the only other publically available means of wiping out a large number of people with a legal purchase is a car.

I don't know, before the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma, the largest mass murder in US history was committed with a 5 gallon can of gasoline.

There are all kinds of nasty things you can use to kill large numbers of people, all legal and publicly available. Just gotta use a little imagination....

Yeah, everything's possible with imagination.

At least after Oklahoma city, people notice when someone tries to buy a whole mess of fertilizer at once.

You mean like a farmer?

Shhhhh! He'll want to require registration of fertilizer next.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Mookow
There is still plenty recognizable left if you get hit in the chest with a 50 BMG round. You're almost certainly dead, but its not like it makes a person explode. Go easier on the video games.

"Almost certainly"? If anyone could survive a .50BMG round to the chest (edit - unarmoured), I'd promptly shoot them in the head, because they'd be the frickin' undead. Unless you're wearing a few layers of Mark IV and ceramic, you're going to have a ragged exit wound the size of a baseball.

- M4H

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Mookow
There is still plenty recognizable left if you get hit in the chest with a 50 BMG round. You're almost certainly dead, but its not like it makes a person explode. Go easier on the video games.

"Almost certainly"? If anyone could survive a .50BMG round to the chest (edit - unarmoured), I'd promptly shoot them in the head, because they'd be the frickin' undead. Unless you're wearing a few layers of Mark IV and ceramic, you're going to have a ragged exit wound the size of a baseball.

- M4H

I was thinking more along the lines of shot that just hits the chest... ie it hits in the side, takes out a couple of ribs, and exits. I guess I should have clarified.

 

[Triumph]

I wish losers like you would just stay out of the thread. Amused has a different opinion than I do on the matter, but he can deabte it without be a complete child.

Your argument was simply, "There is no good reason why guns should not be registered and have their markings archived." Where is the debate in that? You state something as complete fact and provide no basis for it. That angers me, and you anger me. Others had proposed clear and concise reasoning for an opposition to gun registration in this very thread, and you chose to ignore it. Your rebuttal came after my post.

a: Just like I said, you can get rid of fingerprints too. You can get rid of a lot of evidence. The guy in Maryland could have altered his barrel between shootings so he wasn't linked by ballistics. Know what? He didn't. If people alter their barrel in 5 of 10 cases, at least we have a link in 5 of them we didn't have before.

There isn't a national database of fingerprints. Unless you were arrested for something at some point in time, your fingerprints aren't on file in the Pentagon or some such place.

b. It does not infringe on any rights. Guns are dangerous enough that the government should know where they are. Unless you're a ninja, the only other publically available means of wiping out a large number of people with a legal purchase is a car. Just because you think you have a legal right to a gun doesn't mean you have a legal right to not regiser it.

Here's a shocker; I DO have a legal right to own a gun! I don't just think that. And I also have the right to privacy (implied by the Constitution), and I also have the right of "innocent until proven guilty," meaning don't force me to register my gun because I might someday use it for a crime. I guess we should also keep a DNA sample on file from every male, because he might someday father a child, and not claim it as his or take responsibility for it.

You don't make a real c point, but I'll still argue against another problem people have with registration. It may be impossible to get samples from all previously sold guns, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be helpful to have them for all guns sold from here on.

I was simply emphasizing that it doesn't work, because that point seems to be lost on people. Also, I would ask you, BDawg, to examine your position in regards to future effects, i.e. the "slippery slope" syndrome. It is true, it does happen, and we may someday look back and regret it.

 

[Graphicd00d]

Gun control worked for Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Triumph

I wish losers like you would just stay out of the thread. Amused has a different opinion than I do on the matter, but he can deabte it without be a complete child.

Your argument was simply, "There is no good reason why guns should not be registered and have their markings archived." Where is the debate in that? You state something as complete fact and provide no basis for it. That angers me, and you anger me. Others had proposed clear and concise reasoning for an opposition to gun registration in this very thread, and you chose to ignore it. Your rebuttal came after my post.

And I haven't heard a good reason why we shouldn't.

a: Just like I said, you can get rid of fingerprints too. You can get rid of a lot of evidence. The guy in Maryland could have altered his barrel between shootings so he wasn't linked by ballistics. Know what? He didn't. If people alter their barrel in 5 of 10 cases, at least we have a link in 5 of them we didn't have before.

There isn't a national database of fingerprints. Unless you were arrested for something at some point in time, your fingerprints aren't on file in the Pentagon or some such place.

I understand there isn't a national database of fingerprints (unless you got fingerprinted in kindegarten in one of those "child safety" efforts. ). My point is that fingerprints can be altered too, but they still are useful for forensics.

b. It does not infringe on any rights. Guns are dangerous enough that the government should know where they are. Unless you're a ninja, the only other publically available means of wiping out a large number of people with a legal purchase is a car. Just because you think you have a legal right to a gun doesn't mean you have a legal right to not regiser it.

Here's a shocker; I DO have a legal right to own a gun! I don't just think that. And I also have the right to privacy (implied by the Constitution), and I also have the right of "innocent until proven guilty," meaning don't force me to register my gun because I might someday use it for a crime. I guess we should also keep a DNA sample on file from every male, because he might someday father a child, and not claim it as his or take responsibility for it.

No, I think DNA samples infringes on right to privacy, but registering a posession doesn't infringe on your rights.

You don't make a real c point, but I'll still argue against another problem people have with registration. It may be impossible to get samples from all previously sold guns, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be helpful to have them for all guns sold from here on.

I was simply emphasizing that it doesn't work, because that point seems to be lost on people. Also, I would ask you, BDawg, to examine your position in regards to future effects, i.e. the "slippery slope" syndrome. It is true, it does happen, and we may someday look back and regret it.

[/quote]

I don't think this leads to a slippery slope. I don't think registering guns leads to any sort of marxist state or totalitarian rule. Heck, Iraq seems to have pretty lax gun laws. We register births and deaths, cars, property, and we still live a free society. It's not like anyones asking Jews to register.

 

[Graphicd00d]

It seems that a lot people don't know their Constitutional rights. I suggest everyone to read them.
That is why this country is in the state its in now because the majority of the public doesn't know their rights and let the govt. trample all over them.
And people who think gun registration is good, it's not.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Mookow
I was thinking more along the lines of shot that just hits the chest... ie it hits in the side, takes out a couple of ribs, and exits. I guess I should have clarified.

Heh ... I guess you're not quite grasping the idea of just how much damage a slug of that caliber can do. You'd be missing a chunk of your side probably ... and Counter-Strike pretty much has it right with the AWP - a sniper shot to body mass is death. There's pretty much no spot you can hit (there's a couple, but not with a .50BMG) that won't kill. Just too many organs in there that you really need. Lungs and heart cover pretty much the upper half, a gut shot will kill you, just not as fast, ditto for liver/kidneys. And then there's always the massive blood loss, internal bleeding, and infections to finish off anything the bullet fails to.

Thanks for clarifying though. You could possibly survive one in the shoulder/arm and live if you got to an ambulance and ER quickly enough to stop the bleeding and shock.

- M4H

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Mookow
I was thinking more along the lines of shot that just hits the chest... ie it hits in the side, takes out a couple of ribs, and exits. I guess I should have clarified.

Heh ... I guess you're not quite grasping the idea of just how much damage a slug of that caliber can do. You'd be missing a chunk of your side probably ... and Counter-Strike pretty much has it right with the AWP - a sniper shot to body mass is death. There's pretty much no spot you can hit (there's a couple, but not with a .50BMG) that won't kill. Just too many organs in there that you really need. Lungs and heart cover pretty much the upper half, a gut shot will kill you, just not as fast, ditto for liver/kidneys. And then there's always the massive blood loss, internal bleeding, and infections to finish off anything the bullet fails to.

Thanks for clarifying though. You could possibly survive one in the shoulder/arm and live if you got to an ambulance and ER quickly enough to stop the bleeding and shock.

- M4H

Even missing a chunk of your side, given medical attention to stop the bleeding, you'd live. I know what kind of damage a 50 BMG does. I've read the biography of Carlos Hathcock.

Also, getting one kidney shot wont kill you (except by bleeding to death). You have two kidneys.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BDawg
I don't think this leads to a slippery slope. I don't think registering guns leads to any sort of marxist state or totalitarian rule. Heck, Iraq seems to have pretty lax gun laws. We register births and deaths, cars, property, and we still live a free society. It's not like anyones asking Jews to register.

No, not registering Jews. Jews won't get wiped out. Gun owners will.

Does Iraq have lax gun laws? I couldn't find any information about whether private citizens in Iraq can own guns.

 

[Lucky]

I don't think registering guns leads to any sort of marxist state or totalitarian rule.

save for the swiss, gun registration has inevitably lead to confiscation in every case.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BDawg


And I haven't heard a good reason why we shouldn't.

We don't need to provide a good reason why you shouldn't pass a law that will impose hardships upon legal gun owners. YOU need to prove the new law and restrictions will help anything. You don't pass laws because there "is no good reason not to." You pass laws because there is a good reason to do so. So far, you have not presented a good reason.

You still have yet to show a single case in which an unaltered gun was not tracable to it's last legal owner. Since this is the case, registration has no use in tracing guns. It's only use is in identifying legal gun owners without probable cause.

As for the rest of your argument, it defies history. Registration, in every case, has been followed by confiscation.

 

[AkumaX]

judge dredd, dna recognition guns

 

[tcsenter]

There is still plenty recognizable left if you get hit in the chest with a 50 BMG round. You're almost certainly dead, but its not like it makes a person explode. Go easier on the video games.

It was a bit of an exaggeration, but a .50BMG does create a catastrophic wound channel unless the target is at extended ranges of 800 yards or more away, where the energy and velocity begins to readily drop-off. At shorter distances, out to 400 yards or so, a .50BMG can nearly tear a human torso in two, leaving it attached only by several inches of ribs and soft tissue. At any rate, it leaves a big f-cking hole when it exits.

 

[Alex]

Originally posted by: Desslok
It was only a matter of time. I wonder why they haven't tried to ban knives yet??

 

[MadRat]

Originally posted by: Graphicd00d
Gun control worked for Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Yep, and each of them came in like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[Howard]

The M82A1/2 are NOT fully automatic, they are semi-auto. And AFAIK, the M92 is a pistol?

 

[jlee]

Interesting quote I read....

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.
-Julius Caesar

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: CadetLee
Interesting quote I read....

Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.
-Julius Caesar

Um, you know that quote comes from a Shakespeare hoax that has been circulating on the internet, right?

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BDawg


And I haven't heard a good reason why we shouldn't.

We don't need to provide a good reason why you shouldn't pass a law that will impose hardships upon legal gun owners. YOU need to prove the new law and restrictions will help anything. You don't pass laws because there "is no good reason not to." You pass laws because there is a good reason to do so. So far, you have not presented a good reason.

You still have yet to show a single case in which an unaltered gun was not tracable to it's last legal owner. Since this is the case, registration has no use in tracing guns. It's only use is in identifying legal gun owners without probable cause.

The good reason is that it can track guns used in crimes. Maybe some guns used in crimes are obtained illegally, but plenty are bought legally.

Guns are already registered; this isn't imposing any additional hardships on gun owners.

If there isn't a single use, then why is the idea supported by the ATF and Fraternal Order of Police?

And you're right, I haven't shown a single case where it's been used yet. No diseases or conditions have been cured via stem cell research, but that doesn't mean they won't.

As for the rest of your argument, it defies history. Registration, in every case, has been followed by confiscation.

[/quote]

Really? No one's come to get my car yet. My dad still has guns; they're registered and no one's come to get them.

Why not read this to dispel most of the myths thrown around here. Ballistics Registration Myths

 

[Lucky]

Guns are already registered; this isn't imposing any additional hardships on gun owners

They are, huh? :Q

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BDawg


And I haven't heard a good reason why we shouldn't.

We don't need to provide a good reason why you shouldn't pass a law that will impose hardships upon legal gun owners. YOU need to prove the new law and restrictions will help anything. You don't pass laws because there "is no good reason not to." You pass laws because there is a good reason to do so. So far, you have not presented a good reason.

You still have yet to show a single case in which an unaltered gun was not tracable to it's last legal owner. Since this is the case, registration has no use in tracing guns. It's only use is in identifying legal gun owners without probable cause.

The good reason is that it can track guns used in crimes. Maybe some guns used in crimes are obtained illegally, but plenty are bought legally.

Guns are already registered; this isn't imposing any additional hardships on gun owners.

If there isn't a single case, then why is the idea supported by the ATF and Fraternal Order of Police?

And you're right, I haven't shown a single case where it's been used yet. No diseases or conditions have been cured via stem cell research, but that doesn't mean they won't.

As for the rest of your argument, it defies history. Registration, in every case, has been followed by confiscation.

Really? No one's come to get my car yet. My dad still has guns; they're registered and no one's come to get them.

Why not read this to dispel most of the myths thrown around here. Ballistics Registration Myths[/quote]

You register a car because you use it on state roads. If you only use your car on your personal property, do you have to register? Not a good analogy...sorry.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Guns are already registered; this isn't imposing any additional hardships on gun owners

They are, huh? :Q

If they aren't how do the police trace a gun when they find it? A lot of responsible gun owners even notify local police when they move into a new area.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: CadetLee


You register a car because you use it on state roads. If you only use your car on your personal property, do you have to register? Not a good analogy...sorry.

Amused said that historically, registration leads to confiscation. In response to that, registration of cars is a perfectly good analogy.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: BDawg


And I haven't heard a good reason why we shouldn't.

We don't need to provide a good reason why you shouldn't pass a law that will impose hardships upon legal gun owners. YOU need to prove the new law and restrictions will help anything. You don't pass laws because there "is no good reason not to." You pass laws because there is a good reason to do so. So far, you have not presented a good reason.

You still have yet to show a single case in which an unaltered gun was not tracable to it's last legal owner. Since this is the case, registration has no use in tracing guns. It's only use is in identifying legal gun owners without probable cause.

The good reason is that it can track guns used in crimes. Maybe some guns used in crimes are obtained illegally, but plenty are bought legally.

And the vast majority of guns used in crimes are bought illegally or stolen. Just as the vast majority of cars used in crimes.

Guns are already registered; this isn't imposing any additional hardships on gun owners.

Guns are registered to the last legal owner with retailers/sellers, and available to the government with probable cause. They are not registered with the federal government, and only a minority of states and cities have registration programs.

If there isn't a single use, then why is the idea supported by the ATF and Fraternal Order of Police?

The idea is NOT supported by the vast majority of individual officers, or by police chiefs.

And you're right, I haven't shown a single case where it's been used yet. No diseases or conditions have been cured via stem cell research, but that doesn't mean they won't.

You do not pass laws because "they might work." You do not endanger people's freedoms, and put conditions and hardships on Constitutional rights just to make the handwringers feel like they are doing something. You have not presented a valid reason why this law should be passed.

As for the rest of your argument, it defies history. Registration, in every case, has been followed by confiscation.

[/quote]

Really? No one's come to get my car yet. My dad still has guns; they're registered and no one's come to get them.

Your Dad's guns are registered? With who?

Guns and cars are entirely different and mutually exclusive examples. Cars are registered to collect taxes and only when used on publiclly maintained highways.

Why not read this to dispel most of the myths thrown around here. Ballistics Registration Myths

It dispells nothing. It sells a boatload of horse sh!t, though. Cops can ALREADY find the last legal owner of a gun... and that does VERY little if anything in solving the vast majority of crimes.

A fact you still have not delt with: Every case of national registration of firearms has led to bans and confiscations.