Nothing wrong with rubber domes. Not everybody can shell out $100+ for a good mech keyboard right now.

Get o-rings under reds, browns, or blacks. It stops them from bottoming out loud. If you already have them just put a whole bunch of o-rings under them. Every mech keyboard is still generally loud.

"Cool" hobby weapons, but should mainly be kept in shooting ranges. Having an armory hold the weapons wouldn't be a bad idea.

You're right, fully auto isn't banned in a good number of states. They just need background checks and ATF licensing which may still have leaks, albeit much less I'm betting.

I think almost every assault weapon law deals with semi-auto weapons. I never checked other state laws since automatic weapons are banned in California (assault weapons cover different semi-auto in my state). But still, every single modern gun is a semi-automatic weapon (meaning it loads the next bullet using the energy from the cap). Only pump shotguns aren't semiautomatic (that I can think of that's being actively used).

You should really quote or put a post # because it's hard to tell who you're talking to.

Never said there was no effect, just said it won't be enough if you want to save more people and its effectiveness is very variable to possibly no effect or slightly more if the gun is stolen to possibly keeping maybe a theoretical 80% alive. Rather have a less variable factor.

Automatic weapons are already banned (it's very hard to own one). Banning semi-automatic weapons bans everything basically. Don't care much about the extended clips. Also, how would you limit ammo? Would it be x per year, x per month? What about police officers who train and shoot with their own money? Who gets the special privilege to buy more ammo (exhibition shooters, gun manufactures, etc)? Because some people need a lot more ammo than others.

Depends on where he's stationed and if he's behind bullet-proof glass and the guy doesn't set up a trap for him. I mean if every school had a SWAT team yes, there would have been less deaths. But a single armed guard? Take him out and you're set to rampage. Either way people are going to die because you don't know he's a threat until he's killed someone (unless he's taking hostages, but we're mainly talking about the fringe killers). For all we know the guard might be talking to a child while the guy comes up from behind and kills him. There's also a shoot-out (the guy was wearing a bulletproof vest, so that's going to be a fun battle) where people might get hit by crossfire. You need much more security than a single armed guard unless you choose to keep him in the security office until people start dying.

The guy got buzzed in. Security does shit when the guy conceals it well, unless you want the TSA for every single school. I mean he was the son of a teacher, who the heck expects him to shoot up the place?

PS. Everyone should start using citations or have a works cited part so that we can compare data. Try not to use articles but the actual data source (what organization came up with the data) because articles tend to focus on a single statistic. ie some article might say that the death rate due to firearms is 15%, but the person decided to include suicides due to firearms instead of just homicides so you've got a biased article using a skewed statistic that everyone will cite because they don't bother checking the source.

It is definitely more, but some people draw the line elsewhere. People who hunt or quickdraw don't think the risk is high enough (ie because explosive precursors aren't banned and they can kill a lot of people. Much more than any gun could if userd properly). Or some people believe in the retaliation clause and bad guys will have it idea.

I personally don't care much because my caring doesn't do anything (no gun law votes anytime soon, and I'm not going to try to get a proposition or anything in my state). Crazy people killing others is always going to happen, and I'm fine with the scarce statistics. Rather not deal with prohibition with the current US culture, but I could live if guns are banned or not. I'm just trying to make sure you keep consistent. Is there anything else that's legal that you should be banning if you outlawed guns, mainly.

If that's where you want to draw the line, then yes. I personally don't think banning guns can be easily done at this point in time because it'd fuck over all gun collectors and current gun owners anyways. I'm just saying that you should be able to create a standard for banning weapons. I just really hate inconsistencies based off how a person feels at the time (look at old gotfrag unlock threads if you care).

EDIT: Let me put it this way in a fake argument:
Why should guns be banned? Because guns can be used to kill people.
But other things can be used to kill people too. But guns are very easy to use to kill people.
But so are cars. But guns aren't part of the everyday economy like cars are. Cars are really useful.
What about bow and arrows? Bows and arrows can't kill as many people as a single gun could.
Lethality line. That's generally where the argument goes, at least the way I see it.

I addressed that in my second post. I thought it was obvious they had different utility, but they still have lethal capacity. Just like how guns can be used for hunting and for exhibitions. My second post states that somewhere you draw the lethality line. It's like with nukes: no country would ever make privately owning a nuke legal because it crosses the lethality border. Although nukes have much less uses than guns, there is a lethality line, and you have to draw a line around it's other uses, the skill curve to use it to kill people, and it's maximum lethality.

What about Parasite and UAII (on UMB or very hard)?

http://teamfortress.tv/forum/category/22

You don't have to, but then you have to deal with random damage to you every so often when you're trying to kill something else. Generally, it should be the purpose of everyone in the server to make the sniper's time miserable so that they play it less. Letting somebody shoot at you for free is dumb.