uh oh gun shops under closer scrutiny...

[Khardis]

again, some of your examples show you are missing the point Fast food, smokes, and cars aren't ment for killing. Guns are. I agree with knives, unfortunatly, they are easy to get, and aren't regulated enough. dead is indeed dead, but the means to that death yield different paths. So killing someone with a bat isn't as bad as killing them with a gun, thats what you're saying. The INTENT behind the item isn't what matters. Its what is done with the item that matters. That a gun is made to kill people is irrelevant. Cars are made for transportation and ye tthey kill MORE people. WHICH is the bigger risk? Pools kill more children then guns, why don't you have to take a child safety course or get fingerprinted to have one installed? Instead of trading your freedom for the illusion of safety think with your mind for a second and not your emotions. Tracing a gun is incredibly easy. When you fire a gun the bullet is carved by the barrel as it exits. This marking is as unique as a fingerprint. And when the bullet is retrieved it links DIRECTLY back to the gun. the ONLY time that marking is irrelevant is when the goddamned gun is not being used by the person who registered it, or its black market. In all cases you do NOT need the fingerprint. In the illegal variety cases its not going to lead you t the actual shooter. In the legal cases where a legal registered weapon is used illegally, the bullet will lead you to them anyway. The fingerprinting is just extra excess police state garbage that they can use MUCH LIKE THE PATRIOT ACT to control your life and limit your freedom. PERIOD. If you do not understand that, then it is YOU who is missing the point.

[mista_mo]

he ment the person behind the gun. bic macs- eadible object, used for consumption and enjoyment of the purchaser Guns- uneadible object, used for killing anouther sentient being and or harming anouther. if you find the weapon (as alot of criminals will toss the gun away) you can check for prints. if the owners prints are on record viola, they could have a match. if they aren't, they are stumped for finding anouther. and yes, they could use the grooving in the barrel to compare to the actual bullet fired and taken out of said corpse. Both help with the case.

[Khardis]

But in norder to excercise those rights the gov't must recognize them first. For thousands of years these rights were not recognized by respective nations and the effect was not having them at all. You can't say it's my right to committ human sacrifice or sniff coke because my religion requires it. The supreme court has held that just because a person believes something to be their right whether it's due to religious convictions or whatever does not exempt them from ignoring an otherwise valid law. So the gov't must pre approve any rights you believe you were born with. My rights are defined clearly in the constitution which predates the government. I was born with certain inalienable rights, and the constitution was drafted to make clear which ones those were, so that when the federal government was created it would not be allowed to trample them. I know that not all governments recognize those rights, Europe and Asia for example have governments that don't recognize those rights, but which merely assign pale versions of those rights to be taken away as pleased. Thats the difference. Those are tyrannical governments. Thats the difference.

[Danny]

So killing someone with a bat isn't as bad as killing them with a gun, thats what you're saying. not wanting to drag this threads debate off topic but i had a total brain fart at this one, i was about to reply "why would you kill someone with a flying rodent?" -carry on, randomness over.

[mista_mo]

again my friend, you are completely goign over the point intent does matter the intention of a firearm is to kill, everyoen who owns a gun, who sells one, who wants to buy one realizes that The intention of a baseball bat is too play baseball. No one is going to realize if your going to smash someone over the head with it, they think you want to hit a ball around with some friends. The intents of each object is completely different. one is designed to kill the other is designed to play sports. trying to finger print people who want to buy a baseball bat or a hockey stick is laughable.

[Khardis]

he ment the person behind the gun. bic macs- eadible object, used for consumption and enjoyment of the purchaser Guns- uneadible object, used for killing anouther sentient being and or harming anouther. if you find the weapon (as alot of criminals will toss the gun away) you can check for prints. if the owners prints are on record viola, they could have a match. if they aren't, they are stumped for finding anouther. and yes, they could use the grooving in the barrel to compare to the actual bullet fired and taken out of said corpse. Both help with the case. Not all guns are used for killing humans. .22 calibur rifles for example. So wrong. Anything can be a weapon, and you didnt answer my question. If I find a weapon, and I need to know if it came from a criminal, I check the prints on the gun to see if it matches a criminals prints. If it doesn't, I use the serial number to locate who the gun is registered to. There was no need for the original owner to be printed since, the gun will link back to him ANYWAY. again my friend, you are completely goign over the point intent does matter the intention of a firearm is to kill, everyoen who owns a gun, who sells one, who wants to buy one realizes that Wrong, the point isn't the reason an item was created. Thats what we call an emotional argument. Its a false argument and derivative of faulty logic. The intention of a baseball bat is too play baseball. No one is going to realize if your going to smash someone over the head with it, they think you want to hit a ball around with some friends. Then why do so many bar owners and convenience's store owners buy them specifically for bashing peoples heads? Oh right, youre using an emotional argument in place of a logical one. WE MUST CRIMINALIZE ONE ITEM THATS A WEAPON BUT NOT ANOTHER BECAUSE THIS ONE IS SCARIER! The intents of each object is completely different. Yes and there is multiple intents for every item. I can buy a dozen big macs, kidnap someone and force feed them until their stomach bursts like that move Seven. They are still a lethal weapon and a method of death. one is designed to kill the other is designed to play sports. Tell that to every bar owner who has a bat under their bar with "peacemaker" written on it. trying to finger print people who want to buy a baseball bat or a hockey stick is laughable. Trying to outlaw 1 item because its scarier than another equally as lethal if used properly item is whats laughable. Its an emotional argument that deserves to be pointed out and laughed at.

[mista_mo]

in answer to your question no, i do not believe killing someone with a bat is any different then killing someone with a gun..you are putting words in my mouth, or seeing something in the post that isn't there. bats aren't regulated because there design is to play sports, not to murder or maim. guns on the other hand are ment for the above. the intent behind the creation of an object plays heavily into what one will do with it. I've allready stated that it is a good idea to add mandatory finger printing for weapons owners, do i need to say it again? emotional buddy? i do not think telling you that a baseball bat (again, re-read the name if you wish it, go ahead, i don't mind) is ment to play a sport is very emotional, it's logic. you seem to be over reacting to someone stating something contradictory to what you think, and are getting pissed. i'm using this simple logic baseball bat ment for baseball big mac ment for eating gun ment for killing honestly, wtf is so hard to understand about it? i'm not beign emotional, this is something that everyone knows is true.

[Khardis]

in answer to your question no, i do not believe killing someone with a bat is any different then killing someone with a gun..you are putting words in my mouth, or seeing something in the post that isn't there. Ah, so bats then are equally as lethal as guns in terms of death. If I kill someone with a bat, they are just as dead as being killed with a gun. OK, so why don't we make people get permission and fingerprinted to buy such a lethal item such as a bat? Is it because we really just want to control peoples lives like the fascists we are or just that we are hypocrites and don't REALLY care about death, just the scary items that cause it and how we can deny them to others? bats aren't regulated because there design is to play sports, not to murder or maim. And yet they are equally as lethal. Funny... you'd think that if DEATH was what you were really worried about, then you would try to get rid of the causes of death, not emotionally cherry pick the political scapegoat du jour to ban or make hard to get. And guns on the other hand are ment for the above. the intent behind the creation of an object plays heavily into what one will do with it. Funny, god made me have a Penis for procreation and yet I have found many useful and fun uses for it. I've allready stated that it is a good idea to add mandatory finger printing for weapons owners, do i need to say it again? Well you can state it if you want to, but its not a good idea. Its a bad idea, its a fascist bull**** idea. Sorry. If you believe something are retarded as that, how can I count on you to help defend our freedom if someone ever wanted to take away our right to criticize the government? And yes you are being emotional. Many items have many differnt uses. Bats for beating peoples heads, guns for paperweights. Its irrelevant. If you are worried about DEATH then focus on making it hard for people to have items that create death, knives, cars, guns, cigs, junk food, drugs, cell phones, etc etc etc on and on. Dont try to pretend thats what you're trying to solve though when you want to ignore stuff like cars which kill more people world wide than guns ever have. This argument isn't about guns by the way. I will tell you what its about and has always been about. The souls ability to breath. You want to stifle my rights so that you can feel better. Doesn't work. Sorry.

[mista_mo]

do not call my loyalty to my country into question ever. I was raised in a military family, with every man on my side in the canadian forces. I intend to continue that tradition. and you are the one who seems to be arguing with emotion..you know what..never mind. nothing is getting through your head anyway, you poke at what i say, and use what you like, while ignoring the facts. oh, and i do not wanna stifle your freedom, far from it, but finger printing as stifling your freedom? okay...

[Khardis]

do not call my loyalty to my country into question ever. I was raised in a military family, with every man on my side in the canadian forces. I intend to continue that tradition. and you are the one who seems to be arguing with emotion..you know what..never mind. nothing is getting through your head anyway, you poke at what i say, and use what you like, while ignoring the facts. oh, and i do not wanna stifle your freedom, far from it, but finger printing as stifling your freedom? okay... You're not using facts, thats the problem. You are using emotional argumentative fallacy in place of factual logical argument. You claim you are worried about death and killing, yet you only want to make a small corss section of the death causing items harder to come by. Its a lie. Thats not your true motive. As with every gun grabbers argument, the true motive is that Guns scare you and you dont want people to have them or to have easy access to them. You want to put your personal security over my personal rights and freedoms. Its wrong. Its unpatriotic. Sorry, but thats what it is. If you said you wanted to make it hard for people to kill people and we should make it harder to get cars, bats, guns, big macs etc I would call you a fascist... but at LEAST you would be a logical fascist. I am arguing with facts and logic emotionally. You should learn the difference. And No i will nto get your emotional diatribe through my skull because if i accept your premise that I should have to give up that little inch of freedom, then I have to keep giving it up elsewhere too. Question. Oh and you're not the only one who has military tradition in his family my Uncle is a vietnam vet, and both my grandfathers served in WW2. The difference between us, is that I am more resistant to give up freedoms and privacies they fought for than you are. DO you think people should be required to have tamper proof ID and or fingerprint before voting to prove who they are?

[Ivarr]

There is nothing wrong with killing effectivly being the purpose of an item. Unfortunatly we do not live in a perfect world. However it is also important to remember that for most people... killing is NOT the purpose of using a gun against another person. The purpose is to stop them from attacking them. Them being killed is just an unfortunate side effect.