Slashdot Mirror
Makerbot Cracks Down On 3D-Printable Gun Parts
Sparrowvsrevolution writes in with a story at Forbes about Makerbot deleting gun component blueprints on Thingiverse. "In the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut shootings, the 3D-printing firm Makerbot has deleted a collection of blueprints for gun components from Thingiverse, its popular user-generated content website that hosts 3D-printable files. Though Thingiverse has long banned designs for weapons and their components in its terms of service, it rarely enforced the rule until the last few days, when the company's lawyer sent notices to users that their software models for gun parts were being purged from the site. Gun control advocates were especially concerned about the appearance of lower receivers for semi-automatic weapons that have appeared on Thingiverse. The lower receiver is the the 'body' of a gun, and its most regulated component. So 3D-printing that piece at home and attaching other parts ordered by mail might allow a lethal weapon to be obtained without any legal barriers or identification. Makerbot's move to delete those files may have been inspired in part by a group calling itself Defense Distributed, which announced its intention to create an entirely 3D-printable gun in August and planned to potentially upload it to Thingiverse. Defense Distributed says it's not deterred by Makerbot's move and will host the plans on its own site."
remove something from the internet.
However they feel about gun parts personally, being involved in distributing them could one day be a very bad thing. It's best to leave that to special-purpose sites.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"The lower receiver is the the 'body' of a gun, and its most regulated component. So 3D-printing that piece at home and attaching other parts ordered by mail might allow a lethal weapon to be obtained without any legal barriers or identification." This is true, but to print a receiver without a federal firearms manufacturing license is a felony. I can mill one out of aluminum without a 3d printer, it would last a lot longer, but that doesn't make it legal. In general, most "bad" things that people can do with a firearm, are already illegal.
-- the computer doesn't want any beer, no matter how much you think it does. NEVER, EVER feed your computer beer.
You probably won't read this but I can only hope to educate someone else. It's a MOOT point, not a MUTE point. Seriously.
The National Firearms Act (27 CFR, Part 479) is only about:
- fully automatic weapons
- short barreled rifes and shotguns
- silencers
- ``any other weapons'' / destructive devices
It does _not_ apply to typical pistols, rifles or shotguns.
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-1.pdf
``c. Firearm. The term “firearm” means: (1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 5845 (e); (6) a machinegun; (7) a muffler or a silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within this definition; and (8) a destructive device.''
Please note that felons are exempt from paying this $200 ``tax'' --- it's imposed only on honest, law-abiding citizens.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Replace the first "don't" with "can't" and the statement is absolutely correct.
"If you can't have a gun you don't have liberty and you're not free."
How very trendy of them.
It seems that absolutely no one is above using this tragedy for getting attention for themselves and their own gain.
It's like they say; a politician should never fail to take advantage of a disaster.
The Defense Department disagrees.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
A QUEUE is when you line up for service. A CUE is a signal for someone to say their line.
"Assault weapons" is a nonsense term. It's an appeal to emotion, not reason. "Ban the scaaaary guns!" You want tighter gun controls? Fine by me. But banning "assault weapons" is just cheap theater by politicians so that they can appear to be doing something instead of doing their best to not even think about causes or symptoms.
No, it doesn't. The NFA imposes a tax on the manufacture or transfer of CERTAIN firearms, namely anything full-auto, a short barreled rifle (under 16"), a short barreled shotgun, silencers, and other explosive devices. However, I agree with your second statement. Further more, the particular regulations they always start talking about, (limited capacity magazines, etc) don't make any difference in the real world.
Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
...and routes around it.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
No I think the common sense would be recognizing that printing the lower receiver with FDM techniques. Would produce a part that is extremely prone to catastrophic failure, not a working component.
Knowing the limitations of the technology and that FDM is probably about as good as its ever going to get. Makes all of the concerns about someone stockpiling FDM printed guns pure FUD.
You only have to have a manufacturing license if you wish to transfer the created firearm to another party. You can make any firearm you want as long as it does not fall under the NFA (can not be easily modified to fire more than one bullet per trigger pull, is not intentionally quieted, etc.), and you do not give it to anyone else. There is a large market in 80% complete receivers. You buy a piece of metal then bend and drill it a bit with a vice and drill press and you have an AK receiver. Order the rest online with no checks. You can also get almost finished aluminium blanks for AR receivers and mill them as you said.
You are correct in saying that most bad things people can do with a firearm are illegal. Making a firearm isn't a bad thing. Make as many as you like, just don't kill people with them.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
Replace "gun" with "nuke" and you see how absurd it goes.
Maybe because it is unavoidable?
thingiverse is a private organization, they can do whatever they want.
its called 'freedom'.
if you want to have a publicly funded 3d printing website that has AR-15 receivers and AK-47 bodies, you are 100% free to do so. . . you can even host it in a non-US country if you are worried about US firearms laws. I hear Somalia is very lenient towards the promulgation of AK-47s.
a mute point
That poor little point.
Now it has to learn sign language.
You could also say allowing access to a potato gun satisfies the statement and there for access to guns that shoot bullets isn't needed.
Problem is Assault weapons ARE already heavily controlled. You have to have a Class 3 license to buy assault rifles.
An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon. It does not have select fire and is only a single shot semi automatic rifle.
Calling these assault rifles it like pointing at a car and calling it a truck.
here is one that will make you wig out. I can buy WITHOUT A LICENSE a fully automatic high rate of fire Gatling gun or machine gun. If it was made before 1986 It's legal to own without any permit or license.
I can also build and own a FLAME THROWER without a license.
Banning Semi automatic modular rifles will solve nothing. It was already proven that this does not work, it's why the previous ban was overturned.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I don't blame anyone for worrying about liabilities, but Pandora's Box is open, there's no closing it now. The specs for many, many firearms parts are readily available, and anyone who wants to take the time to translate those designs to 3D, is going to be able to print them, and distribute the designs. I'm waiting for someone to notice they can print 3D magazines, of any capacity they want. Yes, this is another opportunity to learn that all we do for good, can and will be perverted to bad. Are we willing to throw out the whole 3D printing movement as a result?
Hmmmm, until this site can make a 3D working print of a person's brain, and his body, and somehow make it all work together to produce a mass murdering idiot, then this site isn't. Anyway, last time I checked, knives were lethal weapons, and 2" of water in a bathtub can also be a lethal weapon.
No matter what it is they're trying to censor. Banning citizens from having access to certain technology and equipment serves only to preserve a despot's grip on power. There is no shortage of ways to kill 20 kids in a primary school and unless you're going to pour all your energy into creating a fully childproofed totalitarian big brother state where people in general aren't allowed to do things like North Korea then restricting people won't prevent these tragedies from happening.
They should just chip it out of flint, it's more traditional. That said, I am in favour of gun control laws. However nothing will prevent someone intent on breaking the law from just ignoring any law meant to hinder him.
before this latest school shooting they really did not care. there has been an AR-15 receiver up on thingiverse for more than a year.
and there have been several school shootings in that time.
thingiverse even conducted a poll a few months back, the subject was whether or not users wanted to allow weapons on the site. i dont know the result of the poll, but the practical effect was nothing - they left those items up.
now all of a sudden they took them down.
nevermind 30+ children died today in automobile accidents (statistical average).
'Assualt Weapons" are probably the most cynical bit of bi-partisan political theory I have seen in decades.... on the gun control side they are likely fully aware that such weapons make up such a tiny percentage of gun deaths per year that restrictions on them are unlikely to have any significant impact.. and on the gun freedom side they are likely fully aware that the way the ban (in the past) was written it was so easy to circumvent that manufacturers barely skipped a beat.
So on the one side you have politicians supporting a bill that does nothing, and on the other side you have politicians supporting a bill that,.,. ahm.. does nothing. Yet it is a good way to energize their bases and score political points.
Out of curiosity, what would be the implications of building a railgun or coilgun? (I suspect building/firing a railgun would be difficult as a hobby pursuit, hence the coilgun option.) Looking at this more as an interesting piece of technology than a 2nd amendment exercise.
What if one called a coilgun a "launch device" instead of a "gun"? Kind of like the way a model rocket could be a weapon of launched in a different direction.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Are you sure about that? Last I heard Gatling guns were only legally purchaceable if they were hand cranked, anything with a motor was illegal to own.
Calling these assault rifles it like pointing at a car and calling it a truck.
To be fair, we do exactly that with SUVs.
well, I think a gun barrel made of layers of resin will work fine - go ahead guys, be sure to test it yourselves first though.
> If it was made before 1986 It's legal to own without any permit or license.
Bullshit. Pre-86 machine guns are regulated under the NFA and require extensive paperwork with the ATF, extra background checks, waiting periods that run 6 mo to over a year, tax stamps, chief LEO sign-off, and other requirements in order to own.
All firearms which fire more than one bullet when the trigger is depressed can only be purchased by non law enforcement if they were manufactured prior to 1986 *and* the class 3 forms and background checks have been done. Doing the class 3 forms won't let you get a newer full auto, and just because its old doesn't mean you don't need the paperwork.
People complain about the amount of misinformation, but it would help if the laws weren't so complicated. Get rid of the NFA, suppressors are just hearing protection, full-autos are a novelty that would loose their appeal if they were easy to get, and short barrelled rifles and shotguns aren't significantly more deadly than any other firearm.
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
The AR-15 was designed for military use. What on earth do you think the military planned to do with it -- go deer hunting?
Your distinguishing between queue and cue is a mute point.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
Why would the police print their own weapons?
3D printers, makers, and the like have become enormously popular among libertarian types. There was quite a lot of attention devoted to these projects at last year's PorcFest gathering (1000+ attendees) for one.
Good to know which groups to dis-invite and boycott this year.
Liberty in your lifetime
We already have laws about knives and I've never heard of a nail gun or bottle of booze that was specifically designed to kill people.
Douche Canoes.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Al Capone was jailed for income tax evasion, not for paying a tax which didn't exist when he was arrested.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
I can't have a gun and I am essentially as free in my freedom of speech, hability to pursue happiness than most american. Actually more free since I may smoke pot without a problem, or even solicit sex for money and not be arrested. The only freedom I don't have is gun possession, and if you pretend that makes me NOT free, then youbeing forbidden to possess anything forbidden in USA, like say, an atom bomb even if you had the echnical possibility, or any myriad of forbiden substance, makes you NOT free. So really that sentence is utterly misleading. As for fighting against a governement, you are going to use against battle armored soldier or police... How ?
No it was not. The AR-15 is not a military weapon. Do you even know anything about that gun platform?
The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[8] Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I can think of no way to jury rig a motor onto a hand crank mechanism.
And it will cost you upwards of $100,000 to buy the weapon and the cost for ammunition is astronomical due to it's rate of fire. A lot of rich men own these weapons.
And if guns make people kill, why don't we see these rich guys mowing people down in malls?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And actually, yes, there are numerous hunting variants of AR-15s. Most come with 5 round mags, have no front sight, and have a different barrel and furniture and don't look at all "tactical"
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
"No Department of Defense ever won a war"-Juan Rico, Starship Troopers
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
You would run into licensing issues associated w/ airguns of a certain power / muzzle velocity, depending on your locale.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Dang Android phone....
I meant to say, SUV's are typically called "Douche Canoes" around here from how most of them are driven around others.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Another reason most uneducated people think it's an assault rifle is because they assume AR stands for assault rifle.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* print their own lethal weapon.
Lets try this exact same question in another form.
Why is it a good idea to prescribe medications that increase the risk of violent behavior?
You see, it is believed that it is better to help large numbers of people even when it is at the expense of small numbers of people. If you need this in geek speak... "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."
The only real debate is where the line should be. Absolute stances such as yours pretend that there is no debate, and are born of emotion rather than reason.
"His name was James Damore."
Wikipedia may not be perfect, but I have a lot more faith in it than I do in you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
Depends on one's perspective. I have no problem with the government demanding my neighbours demonstrate a minimum level of safety and competence in constructing and possessing devices which are capable of endangering me and my property.
I mean if you build a railgun with a mean kinetic energy above that of a rifle round, well hell, I'd really like to see a requirement to register the existence of such a thing and keep it properly stored and backstopped.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* smith their own sword.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* carve their own spear.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* sharpen their own rock.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to let *anyone* defend themselves from attack.
The stupidity of the gun grabbers simply astounds me. They're all the moral panic of the drug war with all the security theater of the Patriot Act, and yet they would likely be against both. "Ooh, but guns are scary! Thank God some kids were murdered so we have a new excuse to bitch about them!"
Kinda, kinda not.
The AWB banned guns both by name and by featureset. The problem was the featureset was even more stupid than the list of guns, concentrating on features that were mostly cosmetic, and in a few cases, were useful to both military and non-military (legal, peaceful) shooters alike. The features that distinguish a "military weapon" from something used for target practice and shooting bears were just ignored.
So Bushmaster cranked out hundreds of thousands of stripped down AR-15 clones during the ban that weren't really AR-15s as you'd recognize them but were at least modular and had enough in common for enthusiasts of the concept to buy them, but they weren't semi-automatic versions of a military weapon by a long shot. Circumventing? Not really, this is what the framers of the AWB intended, more or less.
The only case I heard of where the laws were actively circumvented were in the production of large capacity detachable magazines. Because older magazines were grandfathered in, Colt et al just manufactured millions before the ban, stockpiling them so they could be sold afterwards. Dirty, but unlikely to have affected the effectiveness of the AWB in any real sense.
I think the "AWB was full of loopholes" meme is overdone. In reality, it was just a dumb law. It was aimed at getting military-style weapons off the streets. But there's nothing about "military style" that's relevent to effective gun control. It probably was effective at what it was designed to do, it's just what it was designed to do wasn't useful in any real sense.
There was a decline in gun violence related to weapons covered by the ban during the AWB's existence. But gun violence as a whole wasn't affected. So the AWB wasn't circumvented, it was, actually, an effective ban of something that wasn't a cause of anything. Likewise, if Pepsi were banned tomorrow, you'd expect to see the proportion of people who are overweight because of the amount of Pepsi they drink to reduce dramatically. But the number of people who are overweight would probably remain the same, as Coke, RC Cola, not to mention MacDonalds, Burger King, chocolate, ice cream, and other causes of weight gain would remain legal.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This is just the price of manufacturing coming down. People have been free to make anything for quite a while now. Ask any machinist.
I am not sure how those two things are in conflict.
A gatling gun is not a machine gun if it is operated with a hand crank. Nor is a gatling gun exactly portable.
Oh I realize it can be done, but there is a difference between 'what you can do' and 'what is legal to do'.
Yep, looked it up.. hand crank gatling guns are legal to own as they do not consitutue an automatic weapon. Putting a motor on one is the legal equivalent of converting a semiautomatic to automatic which, unless you have the license for it, is illegal. Buying one with a motor already attached it covered under the same laws that cover all machine guns.
I agree. We need to license who can have kids and who can't. Letting anyone print their own future murderer is a shame and should be a crime.
I don't know much about gun technology, so maybe somebody can explain why the lower receiver is the controlled part. Why not the barrel? It seems to me that the barrel is the heart and soul of a gun. You can make a gun with just a barrel and nothing else: it's called a cannon.
Furthermore, I would think the barrel would be the hardest part to manufacture, given the forces and temperatures it must endure, and having to be perfectly straight, and rifled. I would imagine that 3-D printed barrels are probably a long, long way off.
3-D printed receivers are already here, and only going to get better and cheaper. If they don't change the regulatory framework to start controlling the rest of the parts, then soon anyone that wants to will be able to make a gun at home and all the gun control laws in the world will just be so much pissing in the wind.
I love people like you, taking shit out of context. You know the bible tells you to go out and kill people in the name of god, why dont you use that?
The Jeep was first built as a military vehicle. Calling a Grand Cherokee a military vehicle is as ragingly stupid as calling an AR15 a "military weapon"
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Assault Rifles and Assault Weapons are not the same thing. The latter was defined by the AWB in 1994, and the former is defined by the US military, and others, as being, essentially, an intermediate-ammunition firing battle rifle.
Moreover, the term AR-15 covers a firearm design pattern that includes M-16s and M-4s. So yes, some AR-15s are Assault Rifles.
All AR-15s are Assault Weapons, that is, they're defined as such by the AWB. I don't mean the AWB says "Weapons that have the following features are AWs" and you can see that the AR-15 fits the bill, I mean the AWB defines the AR-15 as an Assault Weapon by name.
There's a lot of controversy about the term, but it sounds like you've heard a somewhat confused explanation about them. For more information, check out the excellent Wikipedia pages on both terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapon
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
He might have meant "queue", in an attempt to cut down the number of libertarians posting such comments he might want them to post one at a time, in some kind of order.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I was mostly commenting against the idea that you can own a fully automatic device without a license or permit, or that 1986 impacts this. A hand cranked one is not really 'fully automatic' any more then a semi-automatic rifle is.
I think you put it better then I did, but what you described was pretty much what I was trying to get at.
You are mixing up two different weapons both based on a similar design. The original armalite AR-15 was a select fire weapon designed for a military competition. The Colt(and its derivatives) AR-15 is a a semi auto which means it cannot be an assault weapon.
One of the worlds most popular rifle designs the Mauser was designed for military use. Almost all of them are used for deer hunting these days. The military drives design for weapons due to its large budget. You would have trouble finding any kind of weapon that was designed in the last several hundred years with no input or influence from a military.
You are banning something that looks scary and that is all. Any semi-auto hunting rifle would be just as dangerous and some would argue that a straight pull bolt action or lever gun would be damn near the same. Those guns would also be in far more powerful calibers.
I think some restrictions should be enacted, we should screen gun buyers for mental problems, maybe some guns should be unavailable on the commercial market, but to single out the AR-15 is foolish and pointless.
For fuck's sake, guys, let it wait! In ten years or twenty years, once 3D printing is generally accepted in the home, then go ahead and make your little plastic hobby guns. 3D printing is an unbelievably vital technology, we need it to grow free and unfettered, and you assholes are handing the government a golden excuse on a silver platter to nip it in the bud and regulate it into uselessness because you just can't bear to wait to have shitty, worthless plastic guns.
What would file-sharing look like now if someone had found a way to, shit, I dunno, kill a 12-year-old with Napster three months after it launched? The RIAA would make that happen with a time machine if they could. Nothing turns the general public against a new technology like a solid, broad-spectrum THINK OF THE CHILDREN ad campaign. Do not let them do this.
An assault *rifle,* by definition, has the capability of firing single shots per trigger pull, or full automatic when you hold the trigger down. The AR-15 is not an assault *rifle* because it does not allow for full automatic fire.
An assault *weapon* has no definition besides the 1994 law that basically invented the concept - and the AR15 in general does fall under this definition, except for the weapons manufactured between 1994 and 2004 that remove certain features (flash suppressor, bayonet lug, collapsible stock, maybe pistol grip) but shoot the same. The definition of assault *weapon*, per this law, is based on the presence of the features I mention that most people would not consider especially important to lethality.
"Makerbot has deleted a collection of blueprints for gun components from Thingiverse, "
This is known as "shoveling shit against the tide" as my Dad says.
Guns are hundreds of years old and can be fashioned with hand tools and improvised materials and you have to be really dumb not to be able to type into a search engine "zip gun."
--
BMO
While I agree with you on principle, you're post is wrong on quite a few levels. A Class 3 permit or NFA tax stamp is required for purchasing a fully-automatic weapon. Extensive background checks are required, some states have restrictions of the types of weapons, and your local sheriff has to approve it. The entire process usually takes about 6 months (my Dad has purchased two NFA weapons before). A quick Wikipedia search states this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act Please, think about what you're saying before spouting off this type of stuff. It's misinformation like this that's causing people to freak out over the current gun policies.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
The idea is that you can get an AR-15 by buying all the legal, unregulated, components online, and print your own lower receiver. So while you're correct that you're not able to print the entire thing, it's still significant that you can print that receiver. Essentially you get the government out of the loop completely.
That said, you can buy AK-47 receiver blanks online too, entirely legally. You then drill the holes in the right places, and bend the receiver into the right shape. The tools, plate, etc, generally costs under $200, including a bending rig. So it's not actually 100% true that the Makerbot thingie suddenly makes obtaining firearms a newly completely unregulated activity.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You do realize that smoke is now rising from the ears of every resident grammar nazi here right?
Well done!!!
...my family's Lorenz rifled musket [was] designed for military use. In fact, [it's] more powerful than an AR-15 (.54 caliber). The only difference is, these guns don't look "scary"; wood furniture instead of plastic, no pistol grip ... This is all a knee-jerk reaction based solely upon looks, not capability.
Poor argument. Okay, .54 caliber may be considered "more powerful." However, I don't see killing 27 people with a muzzle-loader. Even the most chicken-shit would rush the guy while he reloaded.
Seriously, how could it possibly be a good idea to have a state so omnipresent and intrusive that it has to specifically "let" you do something before you are able to do it?
In the real world, technology and technological objects exist just as surely as the sun and moon do, and the legislature is no more able to uninvent the firearm than they are to forbid the sun from setting or the moon from rising.
Weapons exist and some people will have them regardless. Better for everyone to have them than for only criminals and thugs to have them.
Ultimately the problem is not the technology, it's human behaviour. It was the same problem when we had flintlocks and the same problem when we had swords and spears and the same problem when we were bashing each others heads in with rough rocks. That is the problem we need to solve and victim disarmament laws not only dont help they are actively counterproductive, because they increase the rewards and decrease the risks for those who indulge in the problem behaviour.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The stupidity of the gun grabbers simply astounds me. They're all the moral panic of the drug war with all the security theater of the Patriot Act, and yet they would likely be against both. "Ooh, but guns are scary! Thank God some kids were murdered so we have a new excuse to bitch about them!"
Your stance is OK as long as you are also OK with the firearms homicide rate in the US being 30 times that of Australia and 60 times that of the UK.
List of countries by firearm-related death rate
Something needs to be done about the cowboy culture in the US as it is killing you off like a third world nation. I won't say that tighter gun control is all of the solution, but you have to start admitting how fucked up you are before you can even start to solve the problem.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
True, the range, accuracy, and reload time of a muzzle loader would be prohibitive in any kind of mass attack. A committed attacker could still do a significant amount of damage after the first shot simply by following basic bayonet drill and using the rifle as a club though. The point I was trying to make is that lethality is not at all affected by appearance, and only somewhat by the capability of the firearm; both of these would be the main focus of any weapons ban. Lethality is mostly affected by the ability and motivation of the user. The bolt action Zastava can basically fire 1 round per second with little aiming (1 every 2 seconds if you actually aim). So that's 5 rounds in 5-10 seconds. Reload with stripper clips would take 2 seconds max. So that makes 15-20 rounds in 30 seconds. Most likely the rifle would also penetrate bullet resistant armor that is generally rated to stop the 5.56 fired from the AR-15. And again, it can also be used as a club (the metal buttplate would do some damage, if the bruising it gives my shoulder when I fire it is any indication). And this rifle and many like it are easily obtained for less than the cost of a middle of the road (in terms of quality) hand gun. These bans are not about actual safety, just the appearance of it.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
They're going to delete all the plans for forks.
They seem to be fine, at least under firearms laws. There is an "any other weapon" class, and a "destructive device" class, but both require either use of an explosive/propellant or a barrel, so neither covers a railgun. The regs were purposely written to exclude airguns (bb/pellet), hence the explosive/propellant requirement.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
You are stupendously wrong.
"Assault weapon" is a term that was made up by the legislature, and is, very generally, a semi automatic firearm capable of accepting "high capacity magazines", with two or more (or was it more than two...) features from a list of: barrel shroud, bayonet mount, pistol grip, collapsing stock, etc. Cosmetic features. "Assault weapon" is a bullshit term, but it DOES mean something now, since several states have defined them, and the federal government did as well.. "Assault rifle", however, was a term coined in the military to refer to small caliber fully automatic rifles.
An AR-15 of certain configurations is considered, legally, an "assault weapon" by several states and under the previous "Assault Weapons Ban". However, identically functioning and almost identically appearing AR-15's are not. "Assault weapon" is a buzzword made up by the anti-gun legislators because it puts fear into people. I even wanted to ban them before I actually got into the politics of firearms and understood what they were actually talking about. You do not need a Class 3 for an "assault weapon".
An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. It is not fully automatic. Legitimate assault rifles (A term no one uses correctly, and a term that really has no use anyway) require a Class 3 stamp because they are fully automatic, and you can't purchase one that was manufactured after 1986, so the few that are out there are $20,000+ guns. But that's ok because poor people commit all the crime, so goes the anti-gun logic.
You are way wrong on the machine gun. NO fully automatic firearms may be purchased by a civilian that were made after 1986. Period. No amount of paperwork fixes that. The class 3 stamp for full auto machine guns is necessary to purchase a pre-1986 machine gun. You can not purchase one made after 1986 (short of some weird stuff with being an FFL "sample dealer" or whatever)
The important thing since all of this is so complicated... Is that Columbine happened during the federal assault weapon and standard capacity magazine ban, and Connecticut still has an assault weapons ban. There was no detectable drop in violent or gun crime when the federal ban was put in place, and when it expired, violent crime has ever since been on the drop. Gun control has been tried. It does not work in the United States.
I know I'm gonna get shot down as a braindead foreign factard for writing this, especially as I'm posting as Anonymous Coward, but "comment is free", so here's my two cents...
From the outside, the US can look like a really worrying place to the rest of the civilised world. First, I don't see how so many of you don't see the correlation between the fact there's about as many guns as people in the US and the fact that about 30,000 people a year are killed because of guns - this would strongly suggest a causal link to me. In practically every other country where private ownership of guns is permitted, it's heavily regulated. Most countries require a licence and an interview with a suitable authority in order to possess a firearm. Many countries also require a good reason for owning a gun, and "I wanna protect my family against the ravening hordes" isn't an acceptable reason (elsewhere). Often, active membership of a gun/hunting club is also required. These all seem like logical requirements for the ownership of something which has no purpose other than to kill/maim (again, elsewhere).
Regarding home defence: the only reason you would even need a firearm to "defend your family" is because there are so many people with guns out there. I also remember reading statistics (can't be arsed to try and find them now - another reason I'll get shot down for this post) that people who have guns in the home are far more likely to commit suicide with them, kill a family member (deliberately or accidentally) or have them stolen than they ever are to successfully defend their home against an intruder. I read a comment recently (again, can't be arsed to find it) from a law enforcement official in Alaska who said that one of the reasons there are so many home invasions is because the criminals are pretty sure that they'll be able to lay their hands on a gun or two during the break-in. He also made the point that a desperate junkie doesn't think rationally, and isn't likely to let the prospect of being shot by the homeowner put them off...
One of the most worrying things to many of us foreigners, though, is the culture that thinks they need a gun to defend against the tyrannical government. Which tyrannical government is that, then? I know that's the reason the Second Amendment was instituted in the first place, but I'm fairly sure the framers of the constitution never envisioned modern weaponry when they did it. The main argument they seem to offer is they need a gun to defend themselves from the government when they come to take their guns away. Like circular logic much? The 'prepper' folks look like they have paranoid delusions to the rest of the world, and their fears are stoked by right-wing media pundits with their outlandish conspiracy theories.
The fact that sales of guns and ammunition rocketed after the Newtown shootings is, frankly, shocking to outsiders. In most other countries that have had the misfortune to experience them, one mass shooting is reason enough to institute stricter gun laws. The US has had 36 mass shootings since Columbine...
As I remember Bill Maher saying years ago, the problem there is that too many people treat the Second Amendment as if it's the Second Commandment. Now I'll sit back and let you tell me all the ways you think I'm wrong... [Apologies for length of rant, but there's a lot of things to admire about US culture, but your unhealthy obsession with guns ain't one of them, and I find it troubling.]
Yes, I'm perfectly OK with that. Our murder rate is less than four times the rate of the UK, so it is pretty obvious they are getting creative with knives, bludgeons, poison, or what have you. I'd rather lose that additional 3 people per 100,000 than lose the ability to kill anyone who breaks into my home. (And our murder rate keeps falling, despite having so many guns readily available.)
And besides, those ASBOs aren't working out for them.
America may have a culture of violence, but that is better than a culture of subservience and weakness in the face of violence.
Are you mad that you can't see around them from in your prius?
I'm definitely part of the "pro gun" crowd. However, I have to say that the 3d printing of guns seems like a bad idea to me. I'm not the least bit upset at this move.
A gun is a defensive weapon in the same way atom bombs were defensive weapons during the cold war.
So why doesn't the US want countries like North Korea and Iran to be able to defend themselves?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
and you have zero credibility.. Log in and try your whining again.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Actually I thought a true railgun did involve explosives. The diagrams I've seen involved including the projectile in a current loop between the rails, then using charges to smash the rails together. The physical action of the collapse focuses the magnetic field, propelling the projectile. So to my thinking, the rails are single-use, and are kind of like a shell casing, except they're probably not re-loadable.
That's why I think a coil gun would be better for casual experimentation. Plus you can think of a coil gun more as a launch device than a weapon - much more interesting to some.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The homicide rate is actually only 4 times the rate of those countries. The vehicular death rate is also 4 times more... Sure it's higher, but freedom has a price. These comparisons to countries still subject to the English crown, with no speech rights, and barely any other personal rights are patently absurd. Excessive safety and government control kills countries more than crime. So if you see a trend that the USA is slipping into a "third world nation" perhaps the cause is that the homicide rate has halved over the past 20 years! We're going to need more guns.
Maybe there's some special class which does, but I don't see any reference to explosives or propellants in the (admittedly non-authoritative) wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
There is reference to one advantage for railguns being "eliminating the hazards of carrying explosives in a tank or naval weapons platform."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
These bans are not about actual safety, just the appearance of it.
That's where we disagree. Perhaps the bans are ineffective or poorly thought out, but they are surely intended for safety. The problem is that people will always try to find ways around the specific bans. Personally, I think auto- and semi-auto have no place in civilian life.
Is wrong and stupid. It is also counter productive, in many ways.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A citizenry armed with small arms is 'symbolic'?
Tell that to the Afghan rebels that sent the Russians home packing. Sure it took them a while, but if they were not armed, they would be dog food.
And you are sadly mistaken about our troops not firing on citizens. Many will do their jobs, as orders. They dont sit and make moral decisions. That is how order falls apart and even more people die. I bet they said that in Germany once too.. and see how that went.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I think you just showed a great reason why over-emotional people like you shouldn't be allowed to own any weapon, let alone an assault rifle.
Potato guns are actually restricted in many jurisdictions...
Me? Taking shit out of context? You copied & pasted from the same article and deliberately left the first sentence out because it proved my point and not yours. Also, this ridiculous over-emotional stance your taking is a great example of why people like you shouldn't be allowed to have deadly weapons.
No, he's right. The terms you are looking for are "gun trust". Now go read up.....
There are (2) ways to possess and own NFA Class 3 restricted firearms: one is the route you mention above (paperwork). The other is via a gun trust.
I hope you get a +5 informative. This is the kind of response I expect to get from someone I trust to own a gun.
As a non-gun person myself, that supports the use of guns for hunting and sporting activities, this was an extremely useful description as opposed to the normal, "It's not an assault rifle" that's typically thrown out with no further explanation.
Thank you
I find that rather sad.
A lot of kids got killed.
Tragic, it is. Abso-fucking-lutely tragic. Kids dying and not knowing what is happening, or why, all those young lives snuffed by an insane loser for no good reason.
A lot of grown-ups got killed.
That sucks too.
And now we have more suckage on the way... you see, for the next year, the news will be filled with tear-jerker stories about kids getting killed, which will appeal to this person looking for a drama fix.
The drama fix will be accompanied with a lot of anti-depressants and whiny heroin fag music, to be followed with "If you don't cry as loudly as I do, you are a terrible person".
Kill me, please.
It seems obvious at this point that guns, even legally owned, are safety hazard for everybody. If you own a car, you must pay for insurance.
Laws on this vary by state -- in several states auto insurance is not mandatory, and if the owner doesn't intend to operate the car on public roads, there is no title, registration, or tax to be paid -- all the paperwork is around vehicles which operate on public roadways. A track car that I transport on a trailer, or farm vehicle that only incidentally uses roads, is not taxed, licensed, or registered.
Most states are the same way with firearms, there is no permit or registration or fee unless you want to obtain a state-issued permit to carry concealed (available in 49 of the 50 states). Imposing an annual tax on a constitutional right has already been struck down by the supreme court, just read up on the history of the "Poll Tax".
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I'd rather lose that additional 3 people per 100,000 than lose the ability to kill anyone who breaks into my home.
I'm sorry, but that stance makes you a complete pile of shit.
I don't care what you have in your home, how valuable it is. It is NOT worth a human life to stop someone from taking it.
These comparisons to countries still subject to the English crown, with no speech rights, and barely any other personal rights are patently absurd.
The idea that those countries are any less free than you is what's patently absurd.
No, agreed. However, a man like him is intent on causing death, he'd find away. He'll get a lorry or produce a bomb or some other way of death production. The point isn't the weapon, it's the person. Although having guns available widely does deserve questioning.
I haven't looked into rail guns in 5 years, perhaps 10. Note that the description talks about the repulsive force between the rails. Perhaps what I'm remembering are early designs, where they were trying to intensify the filed with the controlled collapse of the rails. The articles also talk to rail wear being a big problem, which is why collapsing the rails might have been a good thing to do.
Again, I guess mine is all early information, and they felt that getting rid of conventional ordinance was more valuable than the electronics they'd save by just boosting the current.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
False Premise #3> That a private site choosing not to distribute something they don't want to be associated with is somehow a "prohibition" on that item.
...my family's Lorenz rifled musket [was] designed for military use. In fact, [it's] more powerful than an AR-15 (.54 caliber). The only difference is, these guns don't look "scary"; wood furniture instead of plastic, no pistol grip ... This is all a knee-jerk reaction based solely upon looks, not capability.
Poor argument. Okay, .54 caliber may be considered "more powerful." However, I don't see killing 27 people with a muzzle-loader. Even the most chicken-shit would rush the guy while he reloaded.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
22 people attacked with a knife wielding nut in China, everyone survives
27 people attacked with a semi-automatic rifle with 30 bullet magazines, no one survives
9/11/2001 - 3000+ people attacked by 19 assholes with boxcutters, nobody survives.
Or is that somehow a different situation because the nutters in this case weren't 'Merican?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
EVERY firearm was originally designed for military use. Get over it already.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I dont understand why people keep going LOOK AT THE FIREARM HOMICIDE RATE. But choose to blindly ignore, ALL FUCKING HOMICIDE RATES. How is it somehow worse for a guy to die by bullets than by being stabbed.
Thingiverse lawyers tell them to delete the designs to avoid persecution. I suspect with the giant shit storm from the recent school shooting, they don't want to catch any flack for hosting weapon plans. This is purely a PR move.
Their line of thought goes something like this:
Some journalist discovers plans for gun parts on Thingiverse. They proceed to write a sensationalist piece on how [insert person who wants to kill people here] can download and print guns in their own homes and kill people using them. Stupid people read/hear/watch said story and panic thinking there is now an unlimited source of untraceable guns available. Of course they wont mention that these are only lower receivers and other parts that cant make a complete weapon. But it will be spun so the general public will think that any nerdy introverted kid with a 3D printer and computer can print a gun and shoot their school up. Thingiverse, along with the 3D printing and maker community get a black eye for enabling crazies and criminals to arm themselves without anyone ever knowing.
And to add to the gun argument:
Whats done is done. Adding bans to guns isn't going to work in the short run. Neither is relaxing current regulations going to arm citizens turning the population into a self policing militia. A ban only means that the sale of guns becomes a black market complete with criminal trafficking. Now the ban on guns becomes a new war on drugs where authorities are constantly trying to stem an influx of smuggled guns. And legal gun owners become targets for thieves wanting to steal guns for profit. What about previously legal gun owners do they surrender their guns to authorities to be destroyed? How many would be unscrupulous and recoup their cost by selling their guns on the black market? At this point we need better gun education. Even though the kid who shot the school up was unstable, his mother should have known better. Either she should have never kept the guns at home or avoided buying them altogether.
The school shooting was one of many but they are still isolated incidents. It sad hearing that those kids were shot to death but life is full of tragedy and children die tragically every day. The media takes the incident and turns it into a circus. They cram the gory details, crying parents and pro/anti gun groups yelling at each other down our collective throats until we need to see a shrink for PTSD. I stopped listening/reading/watching the news a long time ago because its full of negativity that I feel causes stress. My mother always watches the news and is always paranoid about some some scary FUD she heard on the news. I tell her to turn the fucking TV off and enjoy life. Watching the news isn't going to make you feel any safer nor will it help protect you from bad things (it may inform though). If something bad happens then so be it, as much as it sucks you just have to deal with it.
Firstly why not look at ALL homicide and violent crime rates? U.K is whooping our ass on that one. Second why dont you look at the list you posted for a second. We are ranked lower than Mexico, who has super stringent gun laws. Brazil has super stringent gun laws. Yet they rank above us even tho firearms are HIGHLY regulated in those countries. Maybe socioeconomic issues have more to do with people killing each other, than the tool which they use to do so.
before the political grandstanding and emotional appealing has begun.
Politicians are sick fuckers.
This is nothing short of censorship, politically and emotionally motivated censorship.
Its not cool, and it wasn't cool after columbine, 9/11. the sinking of the USS Maine, the Lusitania, the aurora shooting, the arizona shooting, etc....
That's a straw man argument. It's a different situation because it's a different situation, not because of the nationality of the attackers or the tools involved.
It's still better than parroting "Guns don't kill people" when quite clearly being shot in the head by one would most likely result in dead with little chance to disarm an attacker form a distance or run away.
I'm not disputing that people kill in other ways. Guns are a tool that make it easier, like how a hammer and nails make it easier for a carpenter to build a house. I wouldn't take a hammer away from a carpenter, but I wouldn't let my kid run around smashing things with it either.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more. Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
It seems obvious at this point that guns, even legally owned, are safety hazard for everybody. If you own a car, you must pay for insurance. If you buy cigarettes, you need to pay large tax. We need to have significant gun tax, to cover costs to society. It should be large enough to discourage people from owning several guns they don't need, let's say to the tune of $200 per handgun per year, $1000 per semi automatic rifle. My guess would be, nobody would have a bunch of guns just laying around. Hey, you want to play around with guns, sure. Your constitutional right, of course. But now we need to put an armed policeman in every school, mall and movie theater to cover the possibility that you will go nuts and start shooting people. You have to pay the cost.
Ok, just as soon as alcohol, petroleum and a host of other items are taxed similarly.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
And if guns make people kill, why don't we see these rich guys mowing people down in malls?
Guns don't make people kill... but if somebody is mentally disturbed and wants to go out taking lots of others, they reach for a suitable weapon that will let them do that. The rich people that are unbalanced actually get the mental care they need.
why? human life is not priceless by any stretch of imagination. Just recently hundreds of thousands died because of nonexistent WMDs in Iraq, many thousands of innocent people died in the war on the terrorist boogeyman.
At least in case of home invasion your personal safety is directly endangered and that makes the use of force infinitely more legitimate than wars causing deaths of thousands because sociopaths ruling the world can't get along. Who said breaking into the house is only about stealing shit? there are sickos who would love to tie you to force you watch the rape on your wife/daughter just because.
Seriously, this is something right out of one of his "cautionary tales"
If you read that Wikipedia table closer, you'll find that it directly, completely, utterly, contridicts that Nationmaster link you posted. The wikipedia table shows the US as having a higher murder rate than any other 1st-world western country. The "most murderous" 1st-World western country after the US is Finland, with a muder rate just a hair over half the US rate.
Perhaps that Nationmaster table isn't the "37 top murder countries"... instead it is the 37 they felt like posting data from.
Perhaps you should pay at least some tiny amount of attention before posting selectively-chosen statistics?
However they feel about gun parts personally, being involved in distributing them could one day be a very bad thing.
You know what's worse? Arbitrarily banning something just because the media does not like it.
What about toy guns? Or gun parts for other different guns? None of those are banned. Just some small components for one gun.
The parts in question are not even crucial components for a gun. They are not in any way themselves a weapon. Should you ban anything spiky or heavy on Thingverse because it could be strapped to a stick and used as a club?
Lastly the reason why it's a REALLY bad idea to ban anything from Thingverse is that it removes the whole common carrier arument. Now that they have shown they police content, they are RESPONSIBLE for all content in Thingverse. Copyright infringement, liability, all of that whole world of legal pain now seems open to descend upon Thingverse.
Giving in to people being scared and censoring things never ends well; why should it for Thingverse?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Law is a giant hammer you want to perform as a scalpel. It doesnt work that way.
Being beaten to death with a heavy rock or just bludgeoned into a puddle of mush with a stick or with bare hands and feet - dead is still dead. The lower tech versions usually involve a lot more time in agony before the merciful end. Even if you had a magical button that could eliminate firearms entirely, the end result would be more, not less, pain and hurt in this world. In a world of melee weapons the larger, younger, and stronger individuals have an even larger edge. In a world with firearms, the small, older and weaker folks at least have an equalizer.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
This is an owner of a website choosing what content it hosts.
Correct; but that is also censorship. It's perfectly legal, but we should not pretend that a site that takes user provided materials and limiting what can be placed according to any rules is not censorship.
The problem with censorship is that it then allows other to sue you claiming you should have censored this or that; much simpler to never sensor anything and instead shut down accounts if other users complain about a user abusing the system somehow.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And the good lord knows that someone intent on mowing down children is going to know and abide by the trivialities of such laws.
I used a Saturn jack to lift my airplane yesterday. It had a 3/4" nut on the end to use the hand wrench on. I chucked a 3/4" socket in my battery drill to drive it. This is all it would take to turn a "hand cranked" anything into an "automatic" anything.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Interesting theory. But the US already has lax gun laws, yet has more deaths by gun per capita than any other nation.
We can wish for this 'more guns make us safer' claim to be the case, but it just isn't so. Any argument consistently disproved by empirical evidence is just sophistry (that's greek for handwavy bullshit).
Full disclosure: I own several guns. I respect the US 2nd amendment. Where exactly do these disasters involve 'a well-regulated militia'? Where do gun shops selling out this week on AR's and 30-round clips involve a well-regulated militia? I don't see modern-day minutemen. I see fear, paranoia and so many n00bs with guns that there's nonstop mayhem.
That's a straw man argument. It's a different situation because it's a different situation, not because of the nationality of the attackers or the tools involved.
That statement makes absolutely zero sense; I could say the same thing about your "27 shot in US vs 27 stabbed in China" example - two completely different situations, right?
It's still better than parroting "Guns don't kill people" when quite clearly being shot in the head by one would most likely result in dead with little chance to disarm an attacker form a distance or run away.
You know why that's such a popular argument? Because it's true, just like it's true that cars and knives and hammers and swords and any other inanimate object doesn't kill people - the individual wielding said inanimate object does.
Saying the opposite, that "guns kill people," works to absolve killers of responsibility by transferring the onus from the person to the tool. Hammers don't nail nails, carpenters with hammers do.
I'm not disputing that people kill in other ways. Guns are a tool that make it easier, like how a hammer and nails make it easier for a carpenter to build a house. I wouldn't take a hammer away from a carpenter, but I wouldn't let my kid run around smashing things with it either.
Right - and as I posited, a knife (or more specifically, boxcutter) apparently makes it easier to kill 3000+ people.
Or did, rather, before we started putting Air Marshalls who carry guns on our planes.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Bottle: "Genie, get back in here!"
Genie: "LOL NO"
I am John Hurt.
Reality check: how exactly did this week's small/weak guy improve the pain quotient of the world by resorting to gunfire, vs. the absurd gedankenexperiment of him trying to strangle 26 consecutive people with his bare hands. IOW, your sentence 2 contradicts 3, 4 and 5.
Also: No end is merciful when the alternative was/is not dying in the first damn place.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more.
You honestly think black powder, lead, and the literal hundreds of thousands of other consumer products that can be used to create explosive devices aren't conveniently available nationwide?
In that case, I've got a nice piece of real estate in NYC that spans the East River you're definitely going to want to invest in.
Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
Tell that to the families of the 200 people killed by Timothy McVeigh.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more.
You honestly think black powder, lead, and the literal hundreds of thousands of other consumer products that can be used to create explosive devices aren't conveniently available nationwide? In that case, I've got a nice piece of real estate in NYC that spans the East River you're definitely going to want to invest in.
Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
Tell that to the families of the 200 people killed by Timothy McVeigh.
I'm not saying that it isn't available. It's just that getting it and making a bomb (successfully) requires a lot more work than getting guns and ammo. There's of course no way you can eliminate all dangers - that doesn't make it useless to eliminate some dangers.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-sales-gasoline-cigarette-and-alcohol-tax-rates-state-2000-2010
There you go.
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more.
You honestly think black powder, lead, and the literal hundreds of thousands of other consumer products that can be used to create explosive devices aren't conveniently available nationwide? In that case, I've got a nice piece of real estate in NYC that spans the East River you're definitely going to want to invest in.
Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
Tell that to the families of the 200 people killed by Timothy McVeigh.
I'm not saying that it isn't available. It's just that getting it and making a bomb (successfully) requires a lot more work than getting guns and ammo.
You think that, but I am telling you it's far from the truth.
For example, unlike firearms, you don't have to pass any sort of background check to purchase bleach and fertilizer.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'd rather lose that additional 3 people per 100,000 than lose the ability to kill anyone who breaks into my home.
I'm sorry, but that stance makes you a complete pile of shit.
I don't care what you have in your home, how valuable it is. It is NOT worth a human life to stop someone from taking it.
The valuable things in your home are your wife and kids. I'm all for gun control and will never own a gun, but anyone breaking into my home to hurt my family has waived their right to live.
"I don't care what you have in your home, how valuable it is. It is NOT worth a human life to stop someone from taking it."
Obviously someone thought it was worth dying to try and take it. Think about that. Remember who's committing the initial wrong, the person who thinks it's ok to steal knowing the risks then does so or the person who stops him and ends up killing him in the process.
The US has a very violent culture, and has a lot of deaths by firearm and otherwise as a result. Large areas of the country DO have the laws you want and those areas are generally the most dangerous ones. The density of firearm ownership is higher in rural areas which also coincidentally have far less crime. Other countries have higher rates of firearm ownership than the US yet far less crime. One example is Sweden. Why does Sweden have fewer shootings despite having more weapons per capita? The same reason they have fewer stabbings, and fewer bludgeonings. It's a less violent culture.
A 'well regulated militia' means a general population which is armed and practiced with their arms. The founders intention was to prevent us from ever entrusting our safety to a standing army, which they considered would be a grave mistake, and their alternative to provide defense was to ensure that the populace in general would remain armed and ready to resist.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Archery gear has a separate set of laws, and is not overseen by the BATF.
State and local laws, usually describing hunting, forbidding of having strung / uncased bows in vehicles (to prevent poaching) and some localities forbid shooting bows w/in their limits.
There is an excise tax on hunting weight bows though.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Something needs to be done about the cowboy culture in the US as it is killing you off like a third world nation
I'll agree the 9 countries above the US on that list are close to being third world in many places. At a listed rate of 10.2 Total firearm-related deaths per 100,000, and a population of 314,975,581, my estimate on our total annihilation, assuming no births or other deaths, is in the range of 10000 years.
file:
Good point; I mean, it's not like someone could take the components used to build a muzzle-loaded projectile (lead, black powder), and somehow reform them into some sort of destructive device capable of far more damage than a single bullet could cause, right?
Your sarcasm is poorly placed. It's not a matter of who can make the deadliest weapon. It's a matter of convenience to do so. If bombs were available at the local 7-11, bombs would be used more.
You honestly think black powder, lead, and the literal hundreds of thousands of other consumer products that can be used to create explosive devices aren't conveniently available nationwide? In that case, I've got a nice piece of real estate in NYC that spans the East River you're definitely going to want to invest in.
Requiring someone to make their own cuts down the number who will, and often eliminates the problem through Darwin awards.
Tell that to the families of the 200 people killed by Timothy McVeigh.
I'm not saying that it isn't available. It's just that getting it and making a bomb (successfully) requires a lot more work than getting guns and ammo.
You think that, but I am telling you it's far from the truth. For example, unlike firearms, you don't have to pass any sort of background check to purchase bleach and fertilizer.
Yes, but you have to learn and do work. Guns take none of that. And you can go to a gun show and skip the background check. And background checks don't work on first-time psychos.
22 stabbed in China vs. 27 shot in the states. similar because it was one person attacking a school of children in similar age rage, differences being China vs. US and knife vs. gun. If there had been a recent mass knife attack in a US school I'd use that, but it seems that since guns are so easily accessible, knives so ineffective and bombs so hard to make, guns tend to be the choice. limiting variables makes the situations easy to compare. Plane hijacking is a completely different situation with too many different variables (more than one attacker, different weapons, different groups of people)
Sky Marshals have been around since 1968, renamed Federal Air Marshal Service 1985. Having them on more planes since 9/11 hasn't had much affect on people trying to hijack/blow-up planes. As far as I can find 9/11 was the only instance of this method of attack being successful. There have been attempts on planes since; The shoe bomber comes to mind, which is why you have to take off your shoes when going through security. It's also interesting how someone hijacked a plane and we now have the TSA and completely evasive screening to get on a plane, Which is also completely ineffective (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yaqq9Jjb4), but there have been several mass shootings in the last few years and still lax regulations on guns.
Yes you can kill people with just about anything. Guns are one of the few tools that are designed for this purpose and maximize the effect. With the exception of bombs, which from what I've been told are hard to make and risk blowing up an inexperienced maker in the process, I'd look it up, but then the TSA/NSA/FBI/CIA and a bunch of other initials would all be at my door, also an effect of 9/11. Other tools are useful in other ways and serve other purposes we can't remove them from society because then there wouldn't be a society and then having a gun would be useful especially for hunting food. I'm still of the opinion that we can't trust people to drive responsibly, which is pretty necessary in this day and age, but we're going to give them guns and expect they'll be responsible with them.
It's very clear that had legally own guns not been readily available to the Newtown or Columbine shooters they would not have been able to kill as many people as effectively, or at all. I'm not saying "ban guns" I'm saying gun owners need to be responsible with their guns, store them properly and not have them accessible to people that shouldn't have them. Gun enthusiast also need to stop making excuses for irresponsible owners and start holding them accountable, I doubt anything makes the public feel more unconformable with people owning guns than when the people with the guns are defending the people shooting and killing other people.
The CDC (i.e., the US government) lists the US homicide rate as 55/million, which would make it 6th on that list. Furthermore, that list seems to exclude just about all countries in North/South America and Africa, many of which have the highest murder rates in the world. And why is the murder rate for Turkey listed as twice that of the highest country in the wikipedia list? This doesn't even come close to passing the smell test.
The metaphysical bank called - your check bounced.
If even a small percentage of the school staff had been carrying concealed weapons the death toll would have been lower. Most likely much lower.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Timothy James "Tim" McVeigh (April 23, 1968 – June 11, 2001) was an American domestic terrorist who detonated a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. Commonly referred to as the Oklahoma City Bombing, the attack killed 168 people and injured over 800.[3] It was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
1/3rd of those dead were children .
The radical extremist left has been pushing your point for a very long time. Why are you against personal responsibility?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
You hit the hammer on the nose :-) I have a free cookie for you for being the ONLY person on slashdot that actually gets it.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Personally, I think auto- and semi-auto have no place in civilian life.
This is where you are wrong. I will give you a chance to elaborate if you like, but I will make the argument that the availability of automatic and semi-automatic weapons are imperative.
Learn? You can spend 5 minutes on google and figure it out.
The same reason they don't want their own citizens to have guns.
I can also build and own a FLAME THROWER without a license.
OMG! I just had visions of some disturbed individual running into a school with a home-built flamethrower yelling and screaming, "Your gun laws are stupid! Your gun laws are stupid!", while scores of children die an agonizingly painful death. :(
PAUSE
We should outlaw flamethrowers now! (tongue planted firmly in cheek)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I don't disagree. And as I said above, the AR-15 was defined as an AW by name, not by function, which made the whole thing sillier. It was a case of "I don't know much about guns, but I know what I don't like."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Learn? You can spend 5 minutes on google and figure it out.
Still, that is something you plan. Any gun-nut already has his supplies.
Personally, I think auto- and semi-auto have no place in civilian life.
This is where you are wrong. I will give you a chance to elaborate if you like, but I will make the argument that the availability of automatic and semi-automatic weapons are imperative.
I am not wrong. It is my opinion, which I expressed. Opinions are neither right nor wrong. You are free to disagree, which you apparently do.
Prius? Those are not fast. I'm mad because they wander all over the road and get in the way of my 2006 Trans Am WS6
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If you're going to continually move the goalposts, I'm not going to bother trying to reason with you.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If you're going to continually move the goalposts, I'm not going to bother trying to reason with you.
I'm not moving the goalposts. I stand by my statement that just because YOU argue that black powder is dangerous (bombs) is no reason to ignore the dangers of guns. Timothy McVeigh have killed 200 people, but many, many, many more people are killed with guns in the USA than with bombs.
22 stabbed in China vs. 27 shot in the states. similar because it was one person attacking a school of children in similar age rage, differences being China vs. US and knife vs. gun.
Osaka Japan, 2001 - Mamoru Takuma rampages through a school with a knife, killing 8 children, wounding 15 others.
Akihabara Japan, 2008 - Tomohiro Kat drives a box truck into a crowd outside an electronics store, killing 3 on impact. He then proceeds to begin stabbing bystanders with a dagger, killing four more people and injuring 8 others.
You also failed to mention the rash of knife attacks on children in China, many of which claimed several lives.
I'm curious - did you leave those examples out intentionally, as they run counter to your ideology, or was it just a matter of piss-poor research skills?
With the exception of bombs, which from what I've been told are hard to make and risk blowing up an inexperienced maker in the process
If an 8-year-old in a third world nation can do it, anyone can.
It's very clear that had legally own guns not been readily available to the Newtown or Columbine shooters they would not have been able to kill as many people as effectively, or at all.
Uh, hate to burst your bubble, but the guns used in both incidents were acquired illegally, and regarding Columbine, there were several pipe bombs placed around the school, which would have increased the casualty rate enormously had they detonated (it's pure chance they didn't).
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If you're going to continually move the goalposts, I'm not going to bother trying to reason with you.
I'm not moving the goalposts. I stand by my statement that just because YOU argue that black powder is dangerous (bombs) is no reason to ignore the dangers of guns. Timothy McVeigh have killed 200 people, but many, many, many more people are killed with guns in the USA than with bombs.
Your original post had nothing to do with "the danger of guns," it was about their availability:
Which I refuted, as you can't buy guns at 7-11, but you can buy bomb making materials there, and at pretty much any other general retail establishment.
then, you move the goalposts the first time:
So, at this point, you say it's now about difficulty of manufacture, not convenient availability, a point which I again refuted by pointing out that purchasing a firearm requires a background check in most circumstances, whereas buying things like bleach and pipe nipples have no such requirement.
So, you moved the posts a third time:
So you've again changed tack, and are now implying that it's not the convenience of material availability or manufacturing logistics that are the problem, it's required knowledge.
Then, there's your latest post:
Which not only completely avoids the previous conversation, it is obviously an attempt to marginalize my opinion by creating an illusion that I somehow don't realize that guns can indeed be used to kill people. Poor show, as anyone who has to make their case by resorting to childish tactics like name calling and marginalization, has no case to make.
Seriously, dude, if you don't realize that your constant changing of topic is a prime example of the phrase, "moving the goalposts," your grasp of English idioms is severely lacking.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I'm curious - did you leave those examples out intentionally
1) I can't provide referances to everything on the internet, there's just too much.
2) I didn't know about those incidents until you pointed them out
3) Actually they kind of prove my point. Sure they stabbed and killed quite a few, but note how many actually survived wounded. Had the attacker had a gun there would have been many more dead
If an 8-year-old in a third world nation can do it, anyone can.
1) I'd like a citation for that
2) There are also 8-year-olds that can play piano at very advance skill level, doesn't mean it's easy and everyone in the world can do it.
the guns used in both incidents were acquired illegally
For Columbine:
"In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. Their friend Robyn Anderson bought a rifle and the two shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December 1998.[18] Through Robert Duran, another friend, Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from Mark Manes for $500."
For Newtown shooters they were bought and owned by the shooters mother. (I trust you could find a ton of info right now supporting this on any news site so I'm not going to provide a citation.)
In both cases the guns were legally owned weapons taken by the shooters when it wasn't legal for them to have them, but the guns were easily accessible through legal means as I stated.
and regarding Columbine, there were several pipe bombs placed around the school, which would have increased the casualty rate enormously had they detonated (it's pure chance they didn't).
Possibly because bomb making isn't very straight forward and, thankfully, the attackers screwed it up.
You're making really good points here. Thank you for a civil discussion there usually isn't enough of that around here.
Why are you against personal responsibility?
Why are you against holding people personally responsible?
Poor show, as anyone who has to make their case by resorting to childish tactics like name calling and marginalization, has no case to make. Seriously, dude, if you don't realize that your constant changing of topic is a prime example of the phrase, "moving the goalposts," your grasp of English idioms is severely lacking.
You are childish by your own admission.
If you can't connect the ease of availability and the ease of manufacture as essentially the same point, or that my concern for the availability of guns was the potential danger of them, it's really not up to me to educate you. Your teachers failed.
I'm curious - did you leave those examples out intentionally
1) I can't provide referances to everything on the internet, there's just too much. 2) I didn't know about those incidents until you pointed them out
I just googled "Mass stabbings."
Wasn't hard.
3) Actually they kind of prove my point. Sure they stabbed and killed quite a few, but note how many actually survived wounded. Had the attacker had a gun there would have been many more dead
Perhaps, but what if they'd have used bombs instead? History tells us the casualty rate would have been far higher.
If an 8-year-old in a third world nation can do it, anyone can.
1) I'd like a citation for that
Ask a Vietnam vet. Be careful, though, some of those guys are pretty messed up from what they saw over there.
2) There are also 8-year-olds that can play piano at very advance skill level, doesn't mean it's easy and everyone in the world can do it.
Non sequitur.
For the record, you can make an explosive device out of nothing more than 4th-of-July sparklers. I know a guy who does it every year, and they are both quite easy to make and relatively safe (outside the blast radius, of course).
the guns used in both incidents were acquired illegally
For Columbine: "In the months prior to the attacks, Harris and Klebold acquired two 9 mm firearms and two 12-gauge shotguns. Their friend Robyn Anderson bought a rifle and the two shotguns at the Tanner Gun Show in December 1998.[18] Through Robert Duran, another friend, Harris and Klebold later bought a handgun from Mark Manes for $500."
That's called a straw purchase, and it is a crime - ergo, not a legal method of acquiring guns.
For Newtown shooters they were bought and owned by the shooters mother. (I trust you could find a ton of info right now supporting this on any news site so I'm not going to provide a citation.)
Right - bought by the mother, stolen by the son. "Stolen" being the important factor here - it is not legal to steal guns. Thus, the guns were acquired illegally.
In both cases the guns were legally owned weapons taken by the shooters when it wasn't legal for them to have them, but the guns were easily accessible through legal means as I stated.
No, they weren't, and you just stated that yourself ("taken by the shooters when it wasn't legal for them").
there's this concept called 'personal responsibility,' which states that we don't blame outside parties for the actions of a certain person, when those actions are wholly owned by said person. Granted, in the cases mentioned measures could and should have been taken to mitigate the risk of unauthorized access, but to try and say the murderers acquired their weapons through legal means is disingenuous at best, and a blatant lie at worst.
and regarding Columbine, there were several pipe bombs placed around the school, which would have increased the casualty rate enormously had they detonated (it's pure chance they didn't).
Possibly because bomb making isn't very straight forward and, thankfully, the attackers screwed it up.
Or, those kids were idiots. You can get all the info you need from either the local library (Improvised Munitions Handbook is published by the military for civilian use, and thus is widely available), not to mention the internet; I actually saw a site years ago that taught how to build a 'dirty' nuke using old glow-in-the-dark watches (apparently they used to use uranium on the faces instead of phosphorous - no bullshit)
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Tell that to the professor shot with a bow and arrow who's students left him to die
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Tell that to the professor shot with a bow and arrow who's students left him to die
Don't be a moron. Of course there are a variety of weapons. Some are more powerful than others. I never said that wasn't the case. The more powerful (in terms of killing potential), the more regulated the weapon ought to be. Obviously, a guy with a bow and arrow is not as dangerous as a guy with AK47's.
Did you miss my point on purpose?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Ok, I'll concede
I'd like to continue, but it's late here and I have family visiting from Ontario and from South Carolina so I'll be busy right up until the new year and probably won't have time to continue.
Have a merry Christmas.
Sorry, I thought you were another poster that kept arguing that point with me. I suppose your point was that the students didn't rush him. I don't know the whole story, but I guess he only killed the prof, right? My point was that a weapon that requires time to reload, is not as dangerous. If he was reloading and repeatedly shooting, I'm guessing someone would have stopped him.
Sorry my reply was a bit snarky. The students all ran away and left the prof to die. All the papers say the prof was a hero but the reality is the 6 students who ran should be labelled cowards.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
If every teacher had one of these along with the training on how to use it when that nut kicked in the door
A. ...you would maybe have stunned the one real wannabe mass killer who would have otherwise done something stupid this year (and thus maybe saved a couple of dozen of potential victims).
B. ...and you would have a country filled with countless problems of abusive tasering (badly behaving kids who got on the nerves of their teachers. Not that the brats were in their rights to begin with. But using a potentially lethal weapon to deal with verbal menace or bad behavious *is* inappropriate) and several extra cases of taser-related deaths on top of the usual ones.
Just look at how much cases of inappropriate tasering there has been since tasers became popular among various security branches.
(And I'm not counting in the potential of malevolent kids stealing their teacher's electrical weapon for nefarious purposes)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]