Slashdot Mirror
3D Printable Ammo Clip Skirts New Proposed Gun Laws
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Over the past weekend, Defense Distributed successfully 3D-printed and tested a magazine for an AR semi-automatic rifle, loading and firing 86 rounds from the 30-round clip. That homemade chunk of curved plastic holds special significance: Between 1994 and 2004, so-called 'high capacity magazines' capable of holding more than 10 bullets were banned from sale. And a new gun control bill proposed by California Senator Dianne Feinstein in the wake of recent shootings would ban those larger ammo clips again. President Obama has also voiced support for the magazine restrictions. Defense Distributed says it hopes to preempt any high capacity magazine ban by showing how impossible it has become to prevent the creation of a simple spring-loaded box in the age of cheap 3D printing. It's posted the 3D-printable magazine blueprints on its website, Defcad.org, and gun enthusiasts have already downloaded files related to the ammo holders more than 2,200 times." Update: 01/15 23:15 GMT by T : Mea culpa; please blame my flu for mistakenly letting through that headline with "clip" where it should say "magazine." I know the difference — and I don't own any clips.
Could people stop using that word? It's almost as bad as technobable on the idiot box.
You know how you stop a bad guy with a gun?
A good guy with a gun. Anything else is handwaving bullshit.
Where's the school shooting going to happen? At the school with the "Gun Free Zone" sign, or at the school with the "Protected by Armed Guards" sign?
Sad times ahead...
Yet there are numerous restrictions and bans on them. Or using alcohol. Is there any law which is going to stop a person who is bound and determined to drink and drive?
The real reason for laws and regulations isn't absolute prohibition or removal, just reduction.
Well, other than the "laws" found in Scientific contexts, but those are really quite different.
For one thing, these are not called "clips", they are magazines. And magazines hold rounds, not "bullets", which are part of a round. Seeing these terms used clues the reader in that the author knows little to nothing about firearms.
In a larger sense, I don't think we need printer control in response to this, because (a) not a single one of the new regulations being proposed would have stopped any of these mass shootings, and (b) because I can't see these plastic magazines working exceptionally well.
How does this keep schools safer?
Not a clip.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Please learn the terminology if you want to have intelligent conversations about a topic. Even if you are pro gun control, learn the terms. Calling a magazine a "clip" is like calling an entire computer a "CPU": its wrong and no one knowledgeable in the field would say it.
Clips Feed Magazines
Magazines Feed Rifles
So instead of convincing them not to ban large magazines, they'll just ban guns that don't have fixed magazines.
Is that really what they wanted?
they're meant to prevent actions. Just because you show the government you still can, won't prevent them from throwing you in federal pound you in the a$$ prison.
Unfortunately, TV and film have filled us with bad terminology. This is about a magazine. A clip is a completely different thing.
Magazines hold multiple rounds. They're typically enclosed for protection from dust and dirt, and are inserted into a firearm through a receiving slot. Magazines are used in semi-automatic pistols like your average Glock, Sig Sauer, Walther, etc. They're also used in rifles like the M-16 or AR-15.
Clips hold two rounds together in a belt fed weapon, like the M-60. They're typically fed from an ammunition box or other container. The clips are expelled after running through the weapon. The expulsion is similar to the way the brass casings are expelled. It's basically a small curved springy piece of metal holding two rounds together.
The names are not interchangeable. There's no such thing as a 30 round clip. It's a 30 round magazine.
Plant a tree in a developing country.
That our esteemed legislators say to themselves
"Well, that's that, then! I guess it's pointless to ban high-capacity magazines."
or
"This is insidious! Alongside a high-capacity magazine ban, we should also ban 3D printing! Clearly it's a technology that will only be used by TERRORISTS!"
I think something like the latter is more likely, and I'm not even one of /.'s famed government-hating libertarian fundamentalists!
Well, Columbine had armed guards, but the school shooters still used the tools the NRA provided to them to effectively kill many children.
Perhaps taking the gun from the bad guys - Alex Jones, and the gun stroking retards who support the NRA would be a more effective tactic.
thing does not mean it should be legal. You can not by a bomb but you can create one. This does not mean we should lift the ban.
Unless of course, you're a leftie arguing for gun control, in which case you're allowed to break the law:
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/12/dc_police_investigating_nbc_co.html
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/01/nbc_host_will_not_be_charged_f.html
I hate it when the gutless, spineless Washington bureaucrats trample all over my rights. The constitution says "arms" for a reason you assholes. You soulless cunts can hide behind your wealth and your tax-payer bought and paid-for man-servants that are armed with the weapons you say I can't have. I don't have that luxury and I don't appreciate your "camel's nose" approach to building a prison out of the nation I love.
The constitution says "arms" for reason assholes, not "all arms except for these things" you fucking twits. And yes you can shout fire in a crowded theater, when the theater is on fire - and the theater is most certainly on fire. So don't give me that intellectually vacant response you vapid bureaucrat.
--Citizen
I wonder if this might have implications elsewhere. I mean, if we discovered that people could also make drugs, moonshine or nuclear bombs, we'd definitely make those things legal too, wouldn't we? Come to think of it - I think that it might be possible to kill people even though that's totally illegal. Why the heck are we criminalizing all the legitimate uses of murder when bad people can just go ahead and do it anyway?
The gun lobby's argument against legislation is always that criminals will break the law anyway, so we might as well not bother. Sure, anyone intent on going out and shooting 30 people is going to be able to find a way around whatever laws are put in place to prevent it.
The point of these laws is to reduce the probability that an unmotivated person turns into a criminal. Before congress banned gun-violence epidemiology, it looked like a gun was 40 times more likely to be used on a household member than on an invader. Those aren't crimes where Billy Bob establishes an elaborate, secretive plan to shoot his wife, those are crimes where Billy Bob gets really pissed off, grabs the nearby gun and pulls the trigger in a drunken haze. Small restrictions, with minimal impact on legitimate gun use, can reduce gun violence. It's not the committed, determined criminal we need to worry about: it's the person who turns to the weapon closest to hand in a fit of anger.
pop quiz hot shot I just printed a bomb and if you don't pay up it will go off and if you try to cut the power it will go off what do you do?
The Newtown shooter used his mother's guns, right? Guns which were legally purchased and registered.
So sure someone who is going to go on a shooting spree isn't likely to care much about what the law says they can and can't have. However, the guns and magazines they manage to get their hands on are likely to be restricted by such laws since that's what will be easiest to get.
Declare the War on Guns, Make possion of these types of clips a mandatory 20 year sentance no parole and siezure of assets like the war on drugs.
Bingo everyone wins and some more money is given to the rich for keeping people in jail , This also creates new jobs.
Perhaps this is a thinly veiled effort to get you to donate your 3-D printer to the government compliments of forfeiture law. [grin; duck]
They are much more likely to inspire legislation banning 3D printing.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It is legal to make alcohol at home. It is just illegal to sell it, or drive drunk. Are you suggesting that is should be legal to make 30 round magazines at home?
Everyone who downloads that file will find themselves actually needing a tinfoil hat. It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.
I can reload a new, full pistol mag in under 1.5 seconds consistently. So, what's the point of that law? And what's to stop a crazy person from walking into a school with a machete, taser, and body armor? Good luck stopping that combo without a weapon. And what's going to stop someone from carrying bleach with chlorine into a crowded place and mixing it, making mustard gas (if I remember correctly). That's like a gun x10.
You either toddler-proof the entire world or you realize you're not going to stop a crazy person from doing stupid shit. There is no solution to mass shooting problems unless you go get some oracles and put them in a pool and form a precrime division...and even that didn't work out, lol.
I'm from Wisconsin where we FINALLY become the 49th state to have a conceiled weapons permit available about a year ago. Now every store that's run by a dumbass has a sign that says "Only criminals are allowed to carry weapons in this store." It actually says "no guns or weapons allowed" but since criminals won't read or respect that, I translated it.
For the record, I don't own a gun. I only carry LTL weapons because they work better at disabling a target and the court case would go a lot better if someone who tries to rob me isn't dead. Also it's easier to get financial compensation from them, lol.
If they think 20 bullets per mag is going to stop someone from going on a shooting spree or that 20 less dead people is acceptable, they're dreaming. I mean I know not one single politician actually believe any of this gun law BS, it's all just for show, but still.
What the government is going to quickly realize is that, like the recording industry, they're going to simply start playing a game of whack-a-mole since this type of processes is going going to become cheaper and more widely available.
A 30 round magazine is normal capacity for the AR-15.
Yet there are numerous restrictions and bans on them. Or using alcohol. Is there any law which is going to stop a person who is bound and determined to drink and drive?
The real reason for laws and regulations isn't absolute prohibition or removal, just reduction.
You're talking about laws that reduce poor judgment or carelessness. They enforce proper action in good-hearted people. But murder is different. It requires evil intent. There are already laws against murder. Once someone decides that (mass)murder is their goal, there aren't a whole lot of laws that will stop them. Maybe serve as a bar by which to judge and punish the murderer, yes, but precious few laws create an environment which will stop them.
3D printers are still relatively new and easier to control. There's not "need" for it other than for hobbyist and enthusiasts. They did it for model rockets propellants. Anyways, I believe this whole "we'll show them!" attitude from Defense Distributed is misguided and it could blow up in their face.
Just like with NRA, why are they doubling-down on a bad hand instead of doing something constructive? Use 3D printers to create water filtration systems instead of weapons? Or safety mechanisms for guns (whatever they may be?) I'm all for guns and enjoy shooting them at a range, but the public opinion has been tipped over against guns. Or at least that's how I'm perceiving the news.
If the NY bill goes through, it will be illegal to own any 30 round mag whether you print it yourself or not.
Would have prevented Sandy Hook or Aurora?
The simple fact is politicians are going for low hanging fruit because they do not want to admit we live in a world with dysfunctional people and the money that could be spent to treat them does not buy sufficient votes for those in power.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I am not sure if this rant was supposed to be pro or contra gun control but it makes a decent point to double check permits to weed out the nutcases.
Redefine in law that manufacturing includes providing the specifications, instructions, and details for a manufacturing device - be it a CNC machine or a 3d printer.
Now the poor blighter with a printer can't use the file, since that would be, legally, the product, and prohibited from distribution.
Fear not, the Legislature will find a way to outloaw all this if they can. And they are persistent.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I downloaded the model and looked at it; it's really not that complicated a shape. A first-year 3D design student could do it in a couple of hours provided they had a model to work from.
I was really hoping the model would include a decent 3d-printable spring, but apparently you have to purchase those separately and add them yourself.
These folks lack vision, though. Why stop at a 30-round magazine? As long as you've got the ability to print anything, why not a 300-round magazine that looks like Charleton Heston in a bikini?
Come on, Defcad, step it up.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
Waaay back when, I hit the Bureau of Crime Statistics, the Dept of Justice, and the FBI websites to see all the data relating to violent crimes, gun crimes, and so on.
According to our own records, automatic or high-capacity weapons are used so infrequently to perpetrate crimes that they don't even have their own separate breakdown - they're sloshed into the 'other' bucket with weapons like 'talking billy bass animated fish sculpture'. The most popular weapon for crime appears to be cheap semiautomatic pistols. The cheaper the better.
If your goal is to reduce gun crime, it seems like focusing on automatic rifles and other scary-sounding guns is dumb. Even if they had the potential for greater harm, the smaller guns have actually realized their potential. Of course, if the goal is not just myopically focused on guns, and instead it's meant to reduce suffering, to save lives, and so on - why does no one look at the statistics that say there's more than twice the number of suicides by gun in a year than murders in the US? If we're going to spend money, why not focus on the sectors with the biggest benefits?
(as an amusing aside, check out the violent crime breakdowns by race. What if it was politically correct acknowledge the groups that are outliers by several orders of magnitude, and try to focus on fixing the cultural problems that cause it?).
Yet there are numerous restrictions and bans on them. Or using alcohol. Is there any law which is going to stop a person who is bound and determined to drink and drive?
The real reason for laws and regulations isn't absolute prohibition or removal, just reduction.
You're talking about laws that reduce poor judgment or carelessness. They enforce proper action in good-hearted people. But murder is different. It requires evil intent. There are already laws against murder. Once someone decides that (mass)murder is their goal, there aren't a whole lot of laws that will stop them. Maybe serve as a bar by which to judge and punish the murderer, yes, but precious few laws create an environment which will stop them.
Oops, didn't preview.
But it is legal to make 30 round magazines at home... Hell, I can make a thousand round magazine if I really wanted to. I just can't sell it.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Why not? Who and how is going to oversee what someone does inside their house? How are they going to prevent someone from designing their own bullets and printing them unless they're spying on their computers?
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
The assault weapons ban is what they'll do if just a symbolic victory is good enough - they're practically banned already. The magazine limit thing? That will annoy gun owners but won't make much of a difference.
Now Swiss-style gun controls (even without the universal military training) would be an intelligent and effective response. Universal background checks, government gun registry, safe storage requirements. Let's see how much the NRA admires Switzerland then.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Who you gonna shoot with that mega round magizine when military is using remote controlled drones to wip you butt out from a position of pure courage of being out of range?
Why was the second amendment written? the drone are comming....
It's not legal to ferment grain at home. Only beer and wine.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
Wonder where we would be by now if in middle ages the church banned pencils because with them you could draw porn images.
I hope the intention of these guys was to prompt legislation prohibiting possession of these things. You try to skirt the law AFTER the political and popular hubaloo has died down, not right in the middle where your dumbass idea can be prohibited by statute.
This just means that they'll add regulations for the manufacture of gun components, instead of just the sale. This heads us in the route of possession being illegal.
After lubrication and fouling, the most common source of malfunctions in AR's is the magazine. The feed lips tend to deform and leave the round a bit out of alignment for when the bolt comes forward. Also, a full magazine tends to bulge if the walls aren't stiff enough. That's why we use steel magazines, and high quality polymer mags like Magpul Pmags. Not even some of the more popular polymer mags pass the torture tests very well.
It will probably take a few iterations and better materials in 3D printing to get up to snuff. I'm sure the technology will get there eventually.
all this hype and threat of violating the second amendment is only causing a run on guns and ammo and the odds of those who are not properly educated will feed this addiction of the government to strip us all of the bill or rights.
Good plan huh?
It also says, "Well regulated militia."
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
They are waiting patiently for Americans to be disarmed so they can take over. Just like they did Mexico.
For sure, if it isn't illegal already. There are plenty of other things which are illegal to manufacture at home. Such as various forms of drug.
I'm not sure how you could misunderstand my point but then again your reply puts you squarely in the "That person doesn't agree with me and thus is obviously a nut case. Let's weed-out these people with these nasty unapproved thoughts."
--Citizen
I've got a Garand, you insensitive clod!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Where's the school shooting going to happen? At the school with the "Gun Free Zone" sign, or at the school with the "Protected by Armed Guards" sign?
Have you stopped to think about the practicality of that for a moment? The NRA wants armed guards at every school. Conveniently, they have not specified who will pay for these armed guards, meaning it will likely come from the education budget. Being as armed guards make more than teachers, schools will likely lay off at least 1-2 teachers for each guard they hire.
The bigger problem though is the true scale of this. How many schools did you attend that had only one door? I can't think of any from my younger days. The shooter in Newtown used his gun to get in through a locked door, which tells us you would need a guard at every door. This means that rather than 1 guard per school you'll probably need at least 3 or 4. Which means you'll lay off 6-10 teachers.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
People that make these CAD files are directly responsible for the inevitable massacres that will be perpetuated with them. I hope there is a hell for them to burn in.
How many rapes were deterred by just flashing a gun?
How many burglaries were deterred by a prominently displayed sign?
How many violent home invasions were deterred by the knowledge that the state/county/neighborhood has high gun ownership?
With a question like this, anecdotes are pretty much worthless, just a way of distracting people from thinking rationally about the real issues of risk and benefit. For every anecdote of somebody whose life or the life of a loved one was saved because a gun was in the house, there is another anecdote of somebody who died in an accidental shooting or shot a loved one by mistake. There are examples of people who survived an auto accident only because they were thrown from the car, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't fasten your seat belt--we know that because we have actual statistics that show that [I]on the average[/I], seat belts save lives.
So if you want to make a real case, forget the anecdotes and cite some real numbers.
Beer IS fermented grain. It's not legal in the US to distill alcohol (regardless of if it comes from grain, fruit, or anything else) for the purposes of consumption. You can distill small quantities for use as fuel.
In Belgium, where guns are strictly controlled, most burglaries are done by unarmed Romanian children. The gangs give them proper training before shipping them to Brussels, and the first thing they learn is that when they get caught, they have to stick their hands up and wait for the cops. The cops send the kiddies back to romania, and a week later a new shipment arrives. You see, "bad guys" is a word invented by the NRA, so they can put thieves and psychos in one bag. Thieves are not interested in killing you, they are interested in MONEY. Gun control is not about thieves, it is about mentally unstable people, and most gun related deaths are suicides.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
That is the "comma argument" and it doesn't hold water. Even the Supreme Court understands that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Though it did take them a long while to understand the obvious. But then again perhaps Courts of the past didn't think that we should have spell-out in case law everything obvious... that does lead down the wrong path. Laws function to make some things illegal. All else is legal. Once we start spelling-out "Oh this is legal now." We The People lose what little control we had.
--Citizen
But it doesn't mandate the government be the regulator.
Putting the gun debate aside for a moment...
I'm fascinated by what will happen when 3D printing manages to create its first illegal object. I don't think they've printed anything illegal yet, have they?
What will happen when they do? Authorities will have to crack down on 3D printing patterns, which will be impossible. Or perhaps the law (all laws?) will be rewritten so that possession of the object is illegal but possession of the digital design is permitted...which will make monitoring of 3D printer usage mandatory. This upcoming clash between object legality and post-scarcity technology will make the copyright wars look like a kindergarten brawl.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Dispatching nerve stapling sweeper teams...
How do we know that gun enthusiasts downloaded the plans 2,200 times? Did they self-identify before downloading the files? Did the company hosting the files check to see that the downloads were even unique? How do they know there weren't people that were just interested in seeing what the plans looked like, and what their printer could do?
I've downloaded files before just because they were available, and never used them - and I suspect I'm not the only person who has.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
R u 4 lolz?
If that's true, then I'm terrified.
Ok, so a loony can only shoot 10 people per magazine instead of X. But then it only takes about 1-2 seconds to change the magazine.
Its not about guns, its about control.
Good job, now they will ban 3d printers for public use and large capacity clips.
" loading and firing 86 rounds from the 30-round clip. "
It's built with Time Lord technology! Bigger on the inside than the outside!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Just because it's impossible to, by law, prevent me from sneaking up on you and clobbering you with a brick then bashing your skull in doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal.
If we, as a people, decide we don't want new large-capacity gun clips being created, we can pass a law prohibiting them and treat anyone found with one the same as we treat people who possess other "generally illegal to posses, unless it's grandfathered" items like elephant tusks: If it's not obviously old enough to pre-date the law, the police can confiscate it until you can show that it's at least probably old enough to be legal.
If we, the people want to, we can follow up by asking Congress to require gun-makers to change their gun designs in at least subtle ways so existing home-made ammo clips won't fit them, thereby making it all but certain that a large-capacity ammo clip that does fit a newer gun was made after the law that prohibited the manufacture of such clips went into effect.
The key words in all of the above are "if we, the people, want to." NOT if lobbyists for one side or the other strong-arm Congress into doing their bidding, but if WE, the PEOPLE, demand such action from our lawmakers.
By the way, I'm assuming that such an action would not be unconstitutional. The fact that such laws were on the books for over 10 years and either went unchallenged or survived court challenge before Congress let them lapse supports this assumption. If Congress passes such gun- and ammo-control laws and I am wrong on the Constitutional issue, I hope it hits a judge's desk quickly.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Last time I voted, there weren't any armed guards intimidating me to vote a certain way or another.
Please, go out into the real world or at least read a history book. The US is nowhere near tyranny. If you want to argue over taxes and socialism, then France is more of a "tyranny".
In a rush to get gun control first. NY behind closed doors and at night passed more gun controlled. Oh also used the govenor's necessity order to prevent the 3 day law bake period.
Banned all pre 1994 high round magazines. Banned all assault rifles with 1 feature (bayonet, pistol grip, or telescoping stock). All rifles must now be resgistered. All magazine's are now 7 round limit down from 10. And then some tougher laws on shooting first responders and stuff.
Yeah for even more registration.
Less than 10 copies you may want to machine it yourself. More than a thousand, you may want to make a die and outsource it.
Ban ALL guns and ammo and magazines of any size!! Eventually, have even law enforcement should only carry swords (once illegal firearms have all been confiscated, for the most part). I don't want anyone to have the power to quickly kill a lot of people! If it were the middle ages, a man couldn't kill very many people with a sword before being subdued. I hate hearing about shootings :( It makes me cry. I just read an article on CNN about a teacher's final embrace of a small child just before they were both gunned down, among many others.
I wonder how many people here who believe in the freedom of information think that freedom should not apply to the information a 3D printer requires to make a high capacity magazine?
After all, It would be a bit hypocritical to insist that digital technology (or even the VCR) has legal uses and should not be banned, while insisting 3d printed firearm parts should be banned. And if you can print your own Magazine, why even bother banning the magazine at all?
If you truly want information to be free, this will include the ability to download an make an entire gun, let alone a high capacity magazine.
As 3D printing becomes the norm, attempting to ban physical objects which have the potential for illegal purposes becomes moot. Its all information in the end.
Even if you outlaw 3d printed firearms, and put DRM on every single 3d printer, how long until someone jail breaks their 3D printer?
It is not the object that commits the crime, but the person. Much like jail-breaking my devices should not be a crime, nor should printing my own gun parts. Eventually laws will have to be changed that emphasize the actions performed by a person, and not the tools they carry.
The British are comming.... Oops! That never happened either...
Three cities with the toughest gun laws in the country, and among the highest rates of gun violence. Analyze that.
Places where reasonable "shall-issue" concealed carry licenses are available have seen large decreases in gun violence. Analyze that too.
But that doesn't fit the narrative.
And to "fix" that, you want to take away the rights of every law-abiding citizen in America to defend themselves.
Looking from outside in my opinion problem isn't with gun control. Problem is that civil war hasn't ended. South still things they can legimitely take back what they have lost during that war. They think 2nd admentment legally allows them to do that when they finally goes in official minority (now they have tweaked House of Represatives, but they will ran out of these tricks too). Therefore they are very touchy. No one wants to ban all arms. But there's arms who are really meant for utter destruction than real protection of your property or your pulse. But most people who oppose this are mostly freakishly obsessed with assault guns. If they could buy and shoot a tank - they would do it.
Just my two cents,
Peter.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
You do know what beer is made out of, don't you?
86 rounds from a 30-round clip^H^H^H^Hmagazine? Wow!
Whenever a politician or journalist suggests passing X law that regulates technology/the internet and they get terminology and/or the material facts wrong people here on slashdot get rather up in arms about it. It's because not only is the law they propose is unlikely to work, but also its makes it very obvious that they are completely unknowledgeable out the technology they are attempting to regulate and thus are unqualified to do so.
Gun control laws are no different. Claiming that owning more than X amount ammunition or possessing magazines greater than Y capacity should be prohibited because you could use it to shoot up a bunch of people is is would be like the MPAA/RIAA proposing that each household should be limited to owning 100 gb worth of data shortage and only 2 gb for each smartphone or portable media device because nobody can afford to fill such devices with legitimately purchased content and if you own devices greater than that capacity, then that only means you will use it for piracy. Add bonus points if the proponents of such a law starts substituting the words "floppy disk" for "hard drive" and "SIM card" for "SD card" in their talking points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22
Yeah, because clearly the police should waste their time investigating a journalist who can definitively argue that there was no intent except informing the public.
That's such a valid use of resources, why let's compound it by arranging a prosecution, and a trial that will result in a sane jury telling the DA to fuck off and bring them a real crime.
Such complaints only reveals a lack of integrity by pursuing this agenda of attacking opponents with petty persecutions. You can't pretend grievances, and you can't feign offenses just to attack those who disagree with you. It destroys your own position by revealing a nasty bitterness to it.
Remind me never to have you on the same side of any argument.
There's more that one way to approach a question. Different states have very different gun laws. So one could compare rates of victimization for various types of crimes (with appropriate statistical adjustment for demographic factors). One could look at rates of accidental gun injuries and "friendly fire" shootings. There have been efforts to research these issues using the same sort of sophisticated epidemiology that has been developed to assess disease risk and drug safety. Unfortunately such research has been largely blocked by political pressure from the gun lobby. Apparently, they feel that their interests are best served if we keep arguing about stupid anecdotes instead of real science.
Think of it like drugs. You have the scientific name (Sildenafil citrate) and the street name (Viagra).
And, honestly, it isn't *that* far off. Some early 3D PRINTERS were made from normal printers.
After that AR lower was shown on YouTube, some Democrat congressman started talking about mandating chips in all 3D printers to prevent them from printing what the government doesn't want them to print.
No law is going to stop a highly determined, single-minded individual from getting a large clip.
But it will create an extra barrier for people who do not need it.
So such a law sounds like it'll help avoid situations where someone goes postal with a large clip.
It will not prevent someone who planned an attack well in advance -- but those folks you don't stop by taking away one of their weapons.
Taking away the gun from a guy who's suddenly having a bad day leaves a guy who's having a bad day and will shout it to the world.
Taking away an attacker's gun leaves an evil, angry person hell-bent on finding a new weapon.
Taking away an attacker's motivation to attack does not do that.
Laws can achieve the first two. Only the first seems to make sense.
In this case, thanks to this 3D design, the 2nd option is essentially nullified -- making the law well-targetted.
Uh, well, because bullets (cartridges) have chemical agents in them (primers, powder), so you wouldn't get far printing them (and the casing has to meet certain tolerances for those propellants to be used, so extruded plastic isn't going to be good for that). A magazine, on the other hand, is just an inert attachable box for bullets with a spring in it (follower), and doesn't need to meet such stringent requirements.
Bullets (cartridges) are made by many at home, however, in a process called "reloading" (not to be confused with loading a fresh magazine into a firearm), but it usually involves starting with the brass cases and putting everything (primer, powder, bullet) together.
The AR-15 is a glorified .22 caliber weapon. It's a lack of knowledge of the general public that makes this weapon intimidating. It would be one of the last weapons I would choose on a "dog day afternoon". As a former Marine I can tell you first hand this is not a weapon that exceeds at killing things. Hell, I don't even own one. Fear more the people with handguns who can conceal a multitude of >= .40 caliber ammunition on their person inconspicuously. It's unfortunate that the information getting force fed to the average American is inaccurate and from a source that is least educated on the topic.
I feel more and more everyday that the legislation is headed to a scenario that is no different than the Salem Witch Trials. Pinning guilt falsely without first doing their due diligence. I think these mass shootings are terrible in every way shape and form. But I revel in the day they take all these assault rifles away and one of these incidents happens again. The issue is in the individual. You can't stop someone that is determined. They will get the weapons, they will devise their plans, and they will execute them. However, with proper medical help and public awareness ... you can take the determination out of the person (one way or another).
Remember the Aurora Shooting? Now try to imagine if everyone in that theater had a firearm. I guarantee we would not have lost the amount of life we did without weapons present.
And I look forward to those of you that argue "Well, if no one had guns...". Yes true, if there were no guns in America; how could we shoot each other? We couldn't. That is very observant on your part. 'A' for effort. But is that the reality? Is that really a valid argument? Is it feasible to remove all the weapons from entirety of the United States of America? No. So please let that pipe dream go.
Designs for pipe bombs have been available for ages on print , from BBS and finaly 'the internet'. Does that mean that I should acctually build and posess one? Yes that's a rethorical question!
So they shouldn't ban it because it's possible to 3D print one?
So...why ban drugs that are easily grown or made at home....
So why enforce copyright since it's easy for me to download what I want at home....
Point of order: fermenting grain at home is perfectly legal. What's illegal is distilling alcohol without a commercial license to do so. It doesn't matter whether that alcohol came from grain, grapes, or what.
Of all the things they could use a 3D printer for they can only think of making stuff to kill people. Yeeehaw.
This is why we like definitions. None of the current proposals ban anything that can fire a burst. So you talking about how many people can be killed in a single burst is just emotional fear mongering that contributes nothing positive to the discussion.
Anything that can fire bursts is already illegal unless it fits certain criteria and is properly registered. Not one -- repeat NOT ONE -- of these lawfully owned weapons has been used by a civilian to commit a crime.
What about hammer deaths? Each year, more people are killed in the US by hammers than rifles (of which an AR15 is one).
Those doing it to show how the law is not workable have some justification, but unless you're going out hunting rabid rats, you don't need 30 round clips.
Hell, a bolt action rifle is all that's needed. If you needed more than one shot and weren't far off enough to reload a bolt action, you were doing it wrong and should have had a shotgun instead.
no, no no. Only one quarter of the sentences counts, they whole sentence and it's context doesn't matter.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The trouble is, 'fixed' is a hard thing to define.
Witness "The Bullet Button", which makes AR15s legal in California:
http://www.riflegear.com/p-58-ar15-bullet-button.aspx
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/tag/bullet-button/
This, like all such gun control laws, would be laughable if we weren't talking about possible prison terms hinging on ATFs interpretation of laws written by ignorant lawmakers to serve no logical purpose.
And make it a summary execution.
At Columbine, Harris shot from his carbine and his shotgun. He had 13 10-round magazines, of which he used 10, firing over 90 rounds. He fired at least 25 times from his shotgun, which he had to load one shell at a time. That's a lot of reloading, and over 120 rounds fired.
Klebold used his pistol, for which he had three large-capacity magazines, one over 50 IIRC. He only managed about 50 rounds, which he could have done reloading at most once.
The problem just where the ban is directed...
If eventually the 3D printers can create durable materials strong enough to fire bullets, the logical thing to ban are bullets. Or at least being able to buy them in sufficient quantities that won't draw the suspicions of law enforcement. I doubt one would be able to actually make bullets with a 3D printer since the printers only make things out of plastic, and no plastic is durable enough to act as a bullet, nor a bullet casing.
Are you suggesting it is not already legal to do so?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I think it is time we ban "Assault Applications" and "High Capacity Operating Systems"
Sorry, distilling not fermenting. You are right there in my haste I didn't make the distinction.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
I wish Americans would only take their constitution as spelt out to them:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Because if you did, your army would not cost you anything because it would be full of unpaid volunteers and would only be used for self defense/policing and the rest of you would be living in magnificent castles.. I would however feel sorry for all the armless bears.. but it would be small price to pay if you really wanted to think of your children.
Unfortunately, like religious zealots and to the detriment of your children, you bend the guiding words of your founding fathers to behave like complete ass-hats.
Sad, really.
N/t
The thing that is missed here is that 3D printing is simply one way to make these or a range of other items. It simply makes it easier for a noob. A guy with a CNC mill can churn out actual parts out of mechanically sound materials (engineering plastics & metals for example). This is actually a fairly large cottage industry already, both illicit and legal. These things are not hard.
The ONLY reason we don't see a lot of this is: motivation. More people who can casually make a few mouse clicks with a 3D printer to make parts out of brittle material without and law-breaking motivation will do so. People seem to be attracted to law-breaking for various reasons, nefarious and otherwise- just for the sake of it. But a lot of weapons are being produced right now on hobby equipment, both legal and illegal. The parts someone makes might be just as easily used as a door stop as a lethal device...and it is always a subjective law enforcement act to decide which case it is. This has not worked so well in the past.
The vanishingly small majority is doing it for nefarious purposes, and *NOTHING* stops them from obtaining/making these parts with a variety of methods. Is the computer model the criminal possession? The finished article?
The laws that outlaw writing down or linking to or simulating how illegal acts are committed are abhorrent and end up being counter productive on the one hand, and suppress free speech on the other. Outlawing a description of the Bayer process, for example, because it can be used to purify a range of illicit drugs even as it is the basis for a vast array of industrial processes (this happened, BTW). Outlawing certain books or placing on a federal watch list anyone that purchases/borrows/reads certain books that most suburban 14 year old boys of a certain age have probably read (happened, BTW).
This is the latest round of irrationality. I'm no great fan of guns, and American culture is significantly diminished by the presence of gun violence. But people literally believe that by passing laws and invoking prohibitions that they can make a dent in the violence problems, and because of this, they can ignore more complex issues that are actually causative- the drug war, for example, and a culture of war that has been widening for decades in America.
TL;DR
Some folks will make stuff with 3d printing out of boredom. Others out of a desire to break the law (like owning a switchblade in junior high school). No law stands in the way of an individual with nefarious intent, and 3d printing is but one tool they might use to achieve a goal. Nothing can stop them, really. They can't even really slow them down.
Where can my sexy woman get herself one of these fancy "ammo clip skirts." It would go nicely with her "grenade launcher bra" and her "rocket launcher stockings."
Who says sex and violence are separable?
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
Just ban guns instead?
Oh, wait, religion...
So where was the heroic, well-armed populace when this one went down?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
People have always been able to do this with a piece of sheet metal, a pair of pliers and a file. Now you can also do it with a 3D printer. Which do you think is really easier.
Most people can barely operate an iPhone and with these new walled garden simplified tablets most people are going to be iCripples when it comes to technology. That is, the general population is going to become MORE clueless at using technology - consumer tech is diverging from creation/pro tech. Typical consumers who didn't grow up with lego can hardly assemble their IKEA furniture.
A lazy, crazy, or moronic person is still deterred by not being able to easily BUY a solution at Walmart.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The most recent actual clip fed weapon would probably be a machine gun: either the Japanese Type 92 (30 round rigid strip clip)or the Type 11 (which actually had a hopper that held 6 5-round rifle clips).
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
May I recommend this article
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/
The parent says
Not so, according to the cited article. The second amendment was not intended to let you battle the government, but let you fight with a militia to supprt the government.
Here's another interesting piece from said article.
Crooks can go shop lifting all over but that not an reason to legalise it.
No, it didn't. The Justice Department could find no measurable change in crime attributed to the AWB. No respectable organiztion could find such an effect, including the CDC. The reason it's hard to get a good grasp on "assault weapon" crime? Because it's so damn rare relative to other crime.
Just look at the numbers there, 385 deaths and 455 injuries = 459 incidents? In any case, 385 deaths over 8 years. That would make "assault weapons" one of the rarer causes of death in the US. This is much less than even death from circumcision.
Americans are happy with shallow RERUN debates from the past - a "reboot' of the last high rating programming. If you think movie franchise reboots are going too far in recent years - you need to watch some "news"...
Reality-TV loves fights so naturally the NRA vs any gun ban (no matter how reasonable) is going to get the ratings. We can't address OTHER factors - and even if we could, it has to be entertaining reality-tv for serious coverage -- because most politicians don't CARE unless there is something in it for them personally.
Mental cases need to be spotted and prevented from easy access to any weapons... or even from being in public! Whoa! what a concept! We put nutters into padded rooms away from where they can do harm! Every American I talk to still knows nothing about the Chinese man who did the same thing the same week but nobody died... because he only attacked 20 children with a KNIFE. Limited gun access SHOULD be a solution - how more obvious a contrast does one need? But it is not the only factor... Mental drugs sponsor the "news" so that issue is out. Mental checks of gun owners? maybe.. if the NRA will make a visible fight of it; or at least FOX News if they are concerned about their viewers losing their guns...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
If you are an American citizen, male, and between the ages of 18 and 40, you ARE the militia. Whether you have formalized that relationship between yourself and any militia by enlisting, you are still a member of the militia.
If you are not well regulated, that's your fault, not ours.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The only thing good about this one is those idiotic security measures were easily circumvented. How about we talk about how stupid it is to have metal detectors, security cams, rent-a-cops, and prison-like schools? I bet some schools put metal bars on the windows now in response to this shooting.... and I hope the next nut picks one of those and shoots between the bars... after shooting the school's cop 1st! This guy did his thing in no time and a cop wouldn't have lowered the number any- and metal bars might have saved 1-2 more but not likely-- he might have shot more people if he couldn't get in from a window.
We do more harm long term making schools into prisons than we do trying to prevent a small number from dying every year... which die despite the stupid security measures taken. It is a yearly statistic in this nation; which is not good-- but it is far less than tons of other things.
Where can you get a drum for $825???
The highest count I've seen is about 2000 and they were going for a lot more per round.
Anybody can use a copier to make their own $20 bills. So what? Large cap magazines need to be illegal. In practice that will make them much less common.
BTW, assault rifles need to be banned as well. There's no reason that a civilian needs an AK-47/74/AR-15 (a military issue with full auto mode disabled). These weapons have little legitimate use and are a weapons of choice in mass shootings (it seems like last 3-4 mass shootings were done with AR-15).
If sale is legal, you could have ALWAYS made your own.
If possession is prohibited, you'd still be breaking the law.
The existence of a 3D printer changes little, it just takes it from possible, to trivial.
They want the 2nd amendment so they can have their assault weapons.
Because they're fighting a losing battle against civilization itself. They want to the ability to enforce their freedom of speech, while stifling others who don't have assault weapons.
Never mind that they also vote for the party that controls 40% worlds defense budget. Ensuring that its a lost cause, and many of them are former police and military, who have benefited immensely from the runaway defense and law enforcement budgets.
Nothing illegal about that. Also, you certainly don't need a 3D printer to do it. An AR15 magazine, for example, is just a simple sheet metal box with a spring in it. You certainly can, even without any special tools or training, use a hammer to tap a bit of furnace pipe into the correct box shape, use tin snips to trim the lips, and use it in your AR.
If any shooter bothers to practice just a little, he can get rifle reloads in around a second, pistol reloads even faster. They were able to get the Arizona guy because he screwed up.
Conversely, the Aurora guy used a very large 100-round magazine, and many people were saved because those are unreliable.
If you want a real common-sense rule, no magazine larger than the weapon was designed to accept. I would consider this even to be a safety regulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoSNHe413rY&feature=share&list=UUvB3solmhqtgDeLpD-yTtfg
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
However, crime is down in nearly all major cities in the USA and by larger amounts than NYC. So the measures taken already are not proof.
Especially NYC having cops feeling up people at "random" with no reason - which has only raised the minor crime rate. Naturally, it is not random, it is dark skinned people who are targeted -many times over.
At that time the phrase "Well-regulated" meant something more akin to "smoothly functioning" than "politically restricted".
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Step 1: Outlaw high-capacity clips, grandfathering in those that already exist.
Step 2: Realize it's very hard to tell if a gun clip was made shortly before or shortly after the law goes into effect.
Step 3: Require gun designs to change, all but ensuring that any gun clip that fits new guns was made after the large-capacity ban went into effect.
You will still have old guns and people will still be able to make large-capacity clips for them and plausibly lie and claim they were made before the ban, but eventually those old guns will be lost, destroyed, wear out, or what not. Anyone caught with a large capacity clip that fits a new gun will have a very hard time claiming that he made his ammo clip before the ban went into effect.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Yeah, because clearly the police should waste their time investigating a journalist who can definitively argue that there was no intent except informing the public.
Very little effort needed to investigate - the police know who the perp is, they know when the crime took place, and they have extensive video of the crime taking place.
And lacking intent to commit a crime doesn't matter under US law. Mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does apply in some other countries, but not the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
That's such a valid use of resources, why let's compound it by arranging a prosecution, and a trial that will result in a sane jury telling the DA to fuck off and bring them a real crime.
Right, wealthy white people can commit crimes while poor blacks doing the same thing get thrown in jail.
Such complaints only reveals a lack of integrity by pursuing this agenda of attacking opponents with petty persecutions.
Petty persecutions? Gun control advocates having been saying for years that high-capacity magazines are EXTREMELY dangerous and that civilians can't be trusted with them. Either that is true or it isn't true.
You can't pretend grievances, and you can't feign offenses just to attack those who disagree with you.
Pretend grievances? This is a clear cut crime. In some jurisdictions high-capacity magazines are illegal. Apply the law equally to all.
Do you think if a pro-gun, anti-government activist illegally had a high-capacity magazine it would be ignored?
It destroys your own position by revealing a nasty bitterness to it.
My position is logically consistent, yours is hypocritical. I didn't attack the journalist, I attacked his conduct, along with the police who willfully ignored ample evidence of a serious crime.
When laws aren't enforced, when some people are allowed to break the law, that greatly reduces respect for law & law enforcement.
100 people die everyday in automobile accidents in the USA.
Ban Cars!
AND NOW WE DANCE.
Aspergery losers that can't focus on things that matter.
In modern times, clip and magazines are interchangeable terms, get over it.
Note that the FFs could have easily said: "A standing army being necessary..." but they didn't. They SPECIFICALLY said a "well regulated militia" in the context of securing a FREE state. They had experienced weapon confiscations by their ruler and they wanted to prevent this happening to future citizens.
Kent State showed us how the National Guard was anything BUT a militia.
(and the captcha is "disarm" - LOL)
Wait a minute, you're onto something.
If you lay off enough teachers, then school will cease to be an attractive place for childen to congregate (no reason to go there, since there are no teachers to provide education service), and the targets will distribute differently. This could create a serious logistic problems for people who are trying to plan a massacre.
As tech-heads, we look at the distribution problem and try to solve it. The most efficient way to handle distributed targets is with distributed attack, so this results in a fleet of killbots, each of which needs only one or two bullets. The nut still gets his massacre, the government gets their limited magazine powertrip without significant public resistance, the taxpayers get freed of the monocle-wearing Porche-driving teachers getting fat on their paychecks, the children get to die in their homes surrounded by their loving homeschooling families instead of alone-in-a-crowd in a terrorized schoolroom stampede, and we get the killbot spinoff tech (as well as the initial enjoyment of designing them). Everybody wins!
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
All this posturing and the regulations of "clips" and "assault weapons" are security theater; they don't result in any increase in safety or reduction in violence.
<sarcasm>Yeah, and those laws work so well</sarcasm>
The frustrating thing is that a high cap magazine ban would do nothing to address either violent crime in general or mass shootings by madmen. Lets say they limit magazines to 7 rounds. What is the response time of the police? 30 minutes? Even if it was a superhuman 5 minutes, a not particularly skilled shooter can change mags and get off an aimed shot in 3-4 seconds. Lets say he's firing aimed shots at a rate of one every 3 seconds. So our insane teenager who was taking drugs to keep his psychosis under control can fire 92 aimed shots using 17 round magazines but only 84 shots using 7 round magazines.... Clearly limiting mag capacity has nothing to do with stopping mass murders by insane people, so what is the point?
First, that definition. They want to ban anything over 10 rounds. Now for an ultra-compact pistol or a very old pistol design like a 1911, they were designed to work with a magazine that holds fewer than 10 rounds. However, normal-size semi-auto handguns designed in the last 30 or so years have generally been built to hold 13-20 round magazines as standard.
So, in a Sig-Sauer P228 designed for 13 rounds, a 20-round magazine is extended, as it extends a couple inches below the grip. In an FN Five-seveN, 20-rounds is the standard magazine size that fits within the grip. The real definition of "extended magazine" in a pistol is whether it fits within the grip as designed.
Seriously, a 13-round magazine was considered large when the Browning Hi-Power came out -- back in the 1930s. Technology has moved past that now.
For rifles, the AR-15 was designed for 10-30 round magazines as standard. The "banana clip" you see billed as a "large-capacity" or "extended" magazine is simply a standard-size magazine. They do make larger ones, but honestly I'd prefer the bad guys use those, because they're not very reliable. The Aurora shooter was hindered when his drum magazine feed jammed.
Now to the purpose, it's not having to reload. I got an extended magazine for target shooting so I could concentrate on the shooting for longer periods without the distraction of reloading. For self-defense, well, the bad guys aren't going to abide by any ban, and you might want the option to have a magazine as big as what they're going to be bringing.
Why wanting them so badly? I'd bet a lot of the "want" is in reaction to the intent to ban them. People have been saying that Obama should be awarded "gun salesman of the decade" for his efforts to encourage more purchases -- people buying before the ban what they otherwise might not have bothered to purchase.
The obvious one--distraction. We're all talking about guns and not the economy, net neutrality, privacy, or other boring things we were all worried about last month. "They're taking our guns!" "You monster--you love your guns more than America's Children?!!
It's blatant abuse of rhetoric but unfortunately, it works.
Everybody already talks about this one. "They're distracting us from the real issues...The tail wags the dog...Don't you see you're being duped by the media? Why aren't they reporting the things that really matter?" This conversation is repetitive, boring, and fruitless.
The other manipulation here is more subtle.
Guns are symbols of power. Note it's SYMBOLS here.
The ritual reply "Oh, so you want to revolt against the government? You're a nut and besides, they'll beat you every time." is also misdirection.
It's not about the actual ability to defy the law. It's about the attitude that I might be able to define and defend my own freedom. But, if it's important enough to me, I might have a chance to say "no" and make it stick. I might win. I'll probably lose. But with this attitude, I might fight more often than I'll quietly crawl away.
If I've got a bunch of shotguns, a few pistols, and a rifle or two, I have the following internal dialogue:
"I have the ability to kill people. But of course I wouldn't and don't do it unless it's appropriate. Like, say somebody trying to hurt me or my family.
If they come to rob my house, I'll walk out the back door; I have insurance and it's not like they rob the place every day. If they did, I'd have to come up with another plan. But they don't.
Having considered those things and deciding what I will do in certain situations means something:
I am making decisions about things that matter--my and other people's lives.
I am using my own moral and practical conscience, as well as my awareness of the legal and social consequences of my action--or failure to take action.
I am not following a strict procedure; I am responsible for the outcome here.
And I like this. I like it a lot.
This personal decision making and personal accountability is much more interesting than living in a world where "that which is not mandatory is forbidden".
I might go further and demand that my public servants--those elected officials that work for the public, not the other way around!--are also held personally accountable for their actions.
I might get the idea I should expect those public servants to hold accountable those persons that I can't personally call to explain their actions. Corporate "persons". Judges and police. Those with financial, military and political power.
I might get the idea that we should all be accountable to each other. Not just the small people required to explain themselves to the big ones.
I might get the idea that we are all equal.
THIS is what is meant by "...Sam Colt made them equal.". Not that the little guy will shoot the big guy because they both have a pistol.
That the little guy has an attitude that he shouldn't have to crawl in front of the big guy.
I may never shoot a person or hunt another animal in my life.
I have no particular desire to do so, but if I decide it's the appropriate thing to do, it is my decision and the consequences are mine as well.
Possessing "symbols" of power--and knowing that I can freely go out and acquire more of them gives me a certain attitude.
An attitude which--were it present in a larger portion of the populace--would become inconvenient for those who wish to retain power only for themselves.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
It's not legal to ferment grain at home. Only beer and wine.
But it is relatively easy to GET high proof alcohol even though it is easy to make. That's why alcohol prohibition was so damaging to the US.
Here are three ingredients which combine to make a BAD situation:
1. Demand
2. Non-complex production (kitchen chemistry/basement workshop level)
3. Prohibition of use/ownership
Hell, just 1 and 3 are bad enough. When you toss in 2 it becomes unwinnable. Other countries get away with it because Demand is low. Which is what we really should be looking at reducing in the US before trying to get to number 3.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
It's pretty clear there is going to be a "war on guns", just like there has been a "war on drugs", and it is going to have the same effects: lots of legitimate and useful activities that used to be legal will become illegal, lots of harmless people will end up in prison, lots of illegal dealers will make tons more money, and nobody will be any safer as a result. It seems we already have a "gun czar".
For geeks, a really serious consequence of the war on drugs has been that doing chemistry at home is largely dead. Unless you're part of an established corporation or a university, buying glassware or chemicals is going to cast suspicion on you. Medical drug regulation has also been closely linked with this, in the name of safety, creating the "orphan drug problem" (drugs that are so cheap and easy to make that nobody wants to spend the money getting them "approved") and attacking other cheap drugs.
With the war on guns, it's going to be worse, because the ability to manufacture any kind of metal or plastic parts will be considered suspicious; they could be gun parts after all. At the very least, having these things around will be used to justify searches and enhance penalties if prosecutors can construct any tenuous link to a crime. We have seen a bit of this already with electronics and wires being regularly considered "bomb making materials".
Corporations will fall in behind this "war on guns", not out of a grand or deliberate conspiracy, but because it serves their interests; they really don't want you to manufacture anything at home; you are supposed to buy their sh*t and service, not make and repair things yourself. They can appear to be progressive and pro-safety while at the same time supporting making illegal something that is primarily against their business interests.
It's ironic that this fundamental erosion of liberties comes from people calling themselves "liberals", people who keep railing against the great evils of corporations and who keep telling us that we should reuse and our kids should become more educated and more skilled in science and engineering, yet keep taking away the liberty to do so through more and more laws ostensibly meant to protect us from ourselves.
(In case you're wondering, I don't own guns and I never did. I don't like them and wouldn't want to have one in the house. But I don't want the right to own one to be restricted. I had a large chemistry set. I have a metal working shop, I build electronics, and I have a 3D printer.)
I don't want to live in a country in which the government makes decisions about who is "good hearted" and who is not, and in which the government regulates everything that I might do to harm myself or others. People should be punished for actual harm they do to others, not for improper thoughts or their capacity and resources for committing crimes. I shouldn't have to worry about whether buying hardware or glassware will arouse the suspicion of government and cause me problems; once that's the case, we have moved from a free society into a totalitarian one.
And that is something we will simply have to live with if we want to live in a free society. Because once our government tries to prevent people from committing crimes based on analyzing their behavior, we no longer live in a free society.
“There’s more opportunity to demonstrate the usefulness, the consequences of our project. I can already print this magazine and show that prohibition has run up against a problem.”
This is like making meth in one's basement to show that prohibition of drugs has a problem.
There have been plenty of cases of 3d printers used to print out things that violate copyright etc (figurines or whatever). In that case it's not really difference from what gets done at cheap overseas factories in a slightly bigger-scale.
It's still illegal, just not criminally so (and less likely to attract attention depending on scale).
Nice strawman. You do realize that we're not just one giant agglomeration right? Some gun advocates argue based on ideology while others argue based on the ineffectiveness of the proposed regulations. Often the two are at odds in terms of where their ideological basis starts.
Of course, you're just looking for ways to attack the arguments that make you look smart so why should I expect you to understand the nuances of debate?
OMFG....excuse my while I clean up the mess from my spit-take. Oh, if only I had some mod points at the moment... Best laugh I've had all day!
That? That was a pigeon.
The primary purpose of protecting the right to own firearms is to allow the civilian populace of the United States to maintain the necessary power to resist and possibly violently overthrow an oppressive, out-of-control government.
Hunting and target shooting are just side benefits.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Wrong. The argument is someone doing a mass shooting is looking to kill as many people as possible for whatever reason and will use whatever is available. You restrict standard capacity magazines, he reloads multiple times (which is what the VA tech shooter did with 10 round magazines). You remove rifles with 'military features', they use hunting rifles. Then the campaign against grandpas deer rifle (aka MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT SNIPER RIFLES) begins, and so on and so forth until they remove the second amendment. This is what they've done with the 1st and 4th with free speech zones, no knock raids, warrantless wiretapping etc.
You mention china but conveniently neglect the spate of mass stabbings that resulted in many deaths in 2010 in china. They have restrictions on standard kitchen knife purchases now.
Basically you want feel good security theater and are willing to surrender rights you have no interest in exercising because of your irrational fear of inanimate objects. You probably support the patriot act.
I can make a really good suppressor with a few basic tools and a clean oil filter, but it's still illegal as hell.
30 round mags would still be illegal if the were stamped out of metal or produced on a 3D printer.
That doesn't mean the regulations would be useless. It means anyone using a 3D printer to make one risks jail time.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Afghanistan (against USA, Soviets, England at various points in the last couple hundred years), Iraq, vietnam, etc. etc. Assymetrical warfare isn't as cut and dry as military might and superior airpower. During the 1914 war in Colorado the mining companies had to truck in guardsmen from other regions because the local guys didn't want to indiscriminately kill their neighbors. It also ignores the probability that once things lit up, some other power would funnel arms and support to the rebels because a lot of other nations would have an interest in destabilizing the USA.
The result of this is that they will ban the manufacture of such clips to all but those that hold a special license.
Link from TFA to the NRA web site:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110718225409/http://www.nraila.org/issues/FirearmsGlossary/
“CLIP: A device for holding a group of cartridges. Semantic wars have been fought over the word, with some insisting it is not a synonym for “detachable magazine.” For 80 years, however, it has been so used by manufacturers and the military. There is no argument that it can also mean a separate device for holding and transferring a group of cartridges to a fixed or detachable magazine or as a device inserted with cartridges into the mechanism of a firearm becoming, in effect, part of that mechanism.”
OK ya gun nuts. No to enter into the whole debate here on gun control, just a question:
Bullet, Cartridge, Shell.
Differance?
Also on the whole Clip VS Magizine thing, just say "Mags" to avoid confusion with US Weekly.
Also are "Clips" a hold over from WWII when certain guns like the M1 acutally used desposable metal clips? (I think SKS as well)
If WWII video games taught me anything is was... pop,pop,pop,pop,pop,pop,pop,pop,PA-TING! Reload! :)
Your M1 Garand has a magazine that you feed bullets into via a clip...
bunch of fucking lunatics. cant wait for the day when i walk around the city and everyone is carrying their own assault rifle just itching to shoot.
oh yeah, dont forget the bullet proof clothing and backpacks on the kids. and they are people so give them a smaller gun for starters if the assault rifle is too heavy.
not that's the society for me, yes sir.
... I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home ...
Some AK-47s are semiautomatic only in operation, therefore not machine guns. With a 5 round magazine how does such an AK differ from the regular hunting or sporting semi-auto rifle?
If someone put a 30 round magazine into the hunting or sporting rifle how does it differ from an "assault weapon"?
This second part is of particular importance. This is how the ban will eventually expand to include nearly all semi-auto firearms. Look at the legislation about to be passed in NY. One cosmetic characteristic will define a rifle as an "assault weapon". At some point in the future of these characteristics will include a detachable magazine.
Also note that the old 10 round limit on magazines is not enough now. Now NY wants to limit magazines to 7. It makes no sense, unless the ultimate goal is a complete ban.
Really? What are you fermenting to make beer exactly? Barley is most definitely a grain. It is illegal to distill the fermented product into liquor without some permits.
I mean, it's about the only part of the gun that's easier to make at home than the magazine.
Seriously, does anyone NOT see that the banning of 'large magazines' is about the most meaningless, worthless feel-good legislation one can write?
-Styopa
It's important because, if you don't know the difference, you probably don't know what you are talking about. You may have a (strong) opinion on the subject, but it's not likely to be an informed opinion. Do you take the opinion of people who call a computer case the "CPU" seriously?
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
I am afraid of people in the NRA owning guns.
Most NRA members are not expecting tyranny. Sure there are a couple, and the media like to focus on these people because it further's the media's anti-gun agenda.
That said, while the majority of NRA members do not expect tyranny, they do expect a ban on private ownership of firearms. They do expect a gradual erosion of our rights in this regard. Look at NY, a 10 round magazine limit is suddenly too much, now the maximum magazine capacity must be 7. Look at the NY "assault weapon" ban, it bans rifles based on the presence of a single cosmetic feature. The proponents admit that "assault weapons" are indistinguishable from regular hunting on sporting rifles from a technical perspective, that the only thing they differ by are cosmetic appearance. Yet they ban these rifles anyway. This suggests that the fear of a complete ban on all semi-auto firearms is quite plausible.
Most members of the NRA do not give a rats ass about "assault weapons", nor do they own one, nor do they have any plans to own one. However they reasonably see a course of action by politicians that may ultimately lead to their regular hunting and sporting rifles being banned. That is why they support the NRA in this regard. They know it happened elsewhere. They don't want it to happen here. They want nothing more than to continue to engage in the hunting and sporting activities that they currently enjoy. The NRA is the only organization that can credibly help them is this regard.
The honest manufacturers are not raising prices ... Then start selling them for $2.00 a round to the local morons that are panic buying and make yourself a nice profit
Hypocrisy at its finest - when it's done to you it's "dishonest", when you do it to someone else it's just making a nice profit from "morons". What a beautiful example of holding two conflicting values with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever.
FTR, I am for the most part not against doing this. But at least I'm consistent.
My other UID is three digits.
A) Time reloading is time not shooting at kids. B) If during that time the shooter has a moment to reflect, there is a chance they will stop on their own, and likely kill themselves. C) It's more time for people to flee. D) Its an opportunity for someone to take action against the shooter.
Sadly none of this is really true. A magazine can be swapped extremely quickly. People are very unlikely to have time to flee or attack the shooter.
That's the only answer that is required.
I can't believe that guy broke the gun free school zone law. That law was designed to stop him cold.
militia = civilians, they already had a regular army at that time it was written, they just won a war, with civilian militia support. They will cover this thing called The American Revolution in middle school when you get there.
So you're telling me that gun registration has never, ever helped solve a crime by identifying where a gun originated and allowing the police to whittle down a list of suspects? Not once, in the entire history of gun registration?
I'm begging you, please stop with the confiscation straw man. The US government will never confiscate everyone's firearms. Period. I'm so confident that I will bet you US$1000 that the government will never confiscate weapons.
Lots of people want to have a real discussion about reasonable gun control measures that make everyone happy, but we can't have such a discussion if everyone is freaking out over the impossible.
:(){
you don't understand asymmetrical warfare. Or the constitution. Insurrection is not very probable, but it is available. along your line of reasoning, let's repeal the 4th amendment b/c I've never used it, and have nothing to hide anyway!
Just because we can "get around" a law doesn't mean we should fight to prevent it in the first place. You know if this is touted as another way to get around it, the law will change. Then it will make more of us criminals.
Stop the law..
The real reason for laws and regulations isn't absolute prohibition or removal, just reduction
No, its about control of the population and 'social engineering' of them. (
"The very nature of the 2nd Amendment is such that the weapons that should be freely available to citizens must be weapons of quality which would permit them to resist and fight a foreign invader. "
I think you're saying that all US citizens should have the right to own their own battleships/ stealth bombers / personal nuclear weapons if they so choose... or that the Second Amendment is out of date and be repealed? ;-)
Depends on the area, you can still make small amounts for personal use in some areas, and others only for fuel.
And since when do you ferment beer? :)
for an M1 Garand. En bloc clips to be exact. ;^)
Lighten up a bit. Please.
Would be illegal, easy to print and absolutely hilarious.
what do you think beer is made from? GRAIN!
Cocks Feed Your Mom
With all the pedantic discussion of magazines and clips (whether talking about speed loaders, ammo dumps, etc.)..
WHen will we start talking about firearm control or sidearm control instead of gun control. Gun control means making sure the 155mm round lands in the right place or the anti-aircraft shell explodes at the right place relative to the plane.
Oh, are you talking about rifles and pistols?
The author, George Mason, specifically wrote elsewhere that the militia was basically every private citizen.
His point still applies. Your Garand just happens to have a non-removable magazine in it, but it's still a magazine, and you feed it with clips.
Now I don't live in the USA, but I've been watching from afar. And it seems to me that both sides are getting it all wrong.
As I see it, the real problem isn't the guns, but that people with guns kill other people.
So, banning guns seems to be starting at the furthest possible end of the causality chain. A more logical approach would be - and I am offering two alternatives here - to either
a) ban killing
or
b) ban people
Much more logical and not subject to so much details and matters of definition.
PS: Someone will probably point out that killing is already illegal and didn't work, so we can move to proposal b) immediately.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"Mea culpa; please blame my flu for mistakenly letting through that headline with "clip" where it should say "magazine." I know the difference"
No...no you don't. These clips also don't skirt any laws you stupid tool. Just like manufacturing a receiver on your 3D printer wouldn't.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The second amendment as it actually occurs in the US constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There are some important distinctions there that you overlooked. If you want people to view you as being knowledgeable on the constitution, it would help if you took the time to actually read it. Being as the second amendment is the shortest of al of them, such an error on your part causes suspicion that you are not very good at reading comprehension in general.
Or do you only read what your church tells you to read, and ignore primary sources?
The genie is long and truly out of the bottle. When someone realizes the implication of oval boring, we'll even have printable guns that leave no scoring on the bullet to identify the weapon it was fired from.
As desirable as it might be to better control who has access to guns, outlawing them will only benefit the global market in illegal weapons. Witness the success of the "War On Drugs", initiated by the Nixon administration and the greatest single factor in the ascent of Mexican drug cartels.
Thank you, at least one person got it! The rest of the pedantic wankers in this thread can go back to counting lines of code... :)
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You know, here in the US we have several big media companies that control public perception. You, the common citizen, you don't have a big media company, so whatever you say: nobody is going to hear anyway. So you don't need any silly right to voice your opinion, no one is paying attention anyway! And if you think you can make any sort of difference with your little tiny voice, you're obviously delusional. And with you're mental health issues, we can't have you talking to other people: so we have this nice little room for you to stay in...
The hardest part of manufacturing a gun is the barrel. If you can make up some barrels, get a hold of a lathe and some high tensile strength steel or alloy then make up some barrels and put them aside. Making the receiver and all the other parts would be simple. With the proliferation of CAD/CAM software and 3d printer and CAD / CAM hardware you can have all of that done up rather quickly. More and more people are fabricating metal parts at home such as in my hobby motorcycling. It would not take much to take skills I have acquired in motorcycle maintenance and fabrication and turn them to gun manufacture. I'm sure there are CAD / CAM drawings out there floating around in cyber space that will be available indefinitely. If you get your and on some sheet metal stamping you are good to go. You can always as stated above do the clips in plastic but they are not as reliable or study. I might not want to put my life on the line for plastic clips. In 15 years the Government is going to have trouble keeping track of all these home built weapons and if you can do it all with plastics and ceramics you an go anywhere with the stuff.
Paul E. Bahre
The full nasty form of the proposed law bans possession, not sale, as I understand it. If so, then this doesn't "end-run" anything. It does of course make it easier for somebody wishing to possess illegal magazines (which would no longer refer to Hustler!) to do so.
I commented on Facebook a few months back that the work with 3D printers and firearms clearly marked the end of prohibition as any kind of rational, effective, approach to any firearms issues.
Clearly we're not trying hard enough...
Sure you can. Check out the laws on alternative fuels. As long as it's under a certain amount and for personal use you don't even have to denature it. And how often are they going to be making sure you're not occasionally fueling yourself as well as your vehicles?????
Just what do you think beer is? Fermented grain. ANY kind of grain. Perhaps what you were reaching for is DISTILLATION of fermented grain.... Dumbass...
will one day lead accessory to murder charges
3D Printing holds so much promise, and yet all we can talk about of Slashdot is printed guns. If like me, you are tired of all this bickering about gun laws and want to read about the real potential of 3D printers, then I would like to recommend the new book "3D Printing: The Next Technology Goldrush - Future Factories and How To Capitalize on Distributed Manufacturing." I have been lucky enough to see a pre-release review copy and am pleased to see that it discusses many different aspects of the 3D printing revolution. There is a chapter on the 3D printed gun controversy but the rest of the book is filled with all kinds of inspiring stories.
http://3d-printing-news.com/
yes, according to Heller v. DC, which went against a LOT of precedence.
According to Alexander Hamilton...
If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia
You're advocating for armed insurrection. Which is so illegal the framers of the constitution listed it as one of the few crimes that are explicitly in the constitution.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
There are roughly the same number of road deaths as gun deaths in the USA each year. Yet road transport has has practical, important use for most people every single day.
The only excuses for guns are the hobbies of hunting and target shooting. It's not worth it.
No. You are lying. The number of traffic related deaths outnumbers the deaths from firearms by a considerable amount. Compare again to rifles, and the number is fairly tiny compared to our population. A noteable amount of those are justifiable homicides as well. If you want to violate the United States Constitution then why not go to Mexico where they have absolute gun control? Your opinion cannot nullify 2A, even if you feel really really strongly about it. And a correction to all involved, a 10 round magazine is low-capacity, not standard. 15 round magazines are not high, they're standard.
In all these discussions everyone has lost the real idea behind the current NY law and the proposed US Gun laws:
The Gun Control is "possession of" NOT "sale of"; no Grandfather clauses.
Remember to tell all your friends that under the proposed Obama gun control... any one who ever served in the military will be a criminal if he or she has any of the typical souvenirs. (armor piecing bullet, high cap magazine, etc.; I have seen these in that "welded junk" art.)
At least 60 Million registered law abiding citizens today become Criminals under the proposed law.
The 35 Million Criminals and Ex-Criminal of course still stay criminals. And do not care they are breaking another law.
Anyone who ever bought military surplus ammo is a Criminal (if any is still loaded.)
I tried to read as many posts as I could in this thread, however, has anyone else thought about the ramifications from this? i mean, i've thought about this from the time i heard of 3d printer models being available for guns and gun parts (mags). i am a gun enthusiast (nut) and i avidly believe in the 2nd Amendment. the ramifications are enormous to this... guns available on ebay without serial numbers, parts readily available to all. felons buying 3d printers, downloading the torrent, building their own arsenal. while i am up for a little "old west" style of living, be it anarchy, chaos, etc. there are various philosophical debates to be had concerning this. there will be an uproar from the anti-gun crowd when this info is more wide-spread and main streamed. even more so when the first armed robber/murder is committed with an unlicensed, unregistered, no serial number AR-15 that was obviously produced on a 3D printer with no recourse as to who provided the weapon. this takes the term "hacking" to entirely new level. we've went from our coding history to the destruction of networks in nuclear facilities to providing arms to everyone with access to a decent 3d printer. lots to consider. /CF
I own lots of clips.... Stripper clips to load my magazines :-D
The only people that really need to *not* have guns are the ones that want them really, really, really bad.
The people that don't care to have guns are probably the ones that are best served by and most sensibly able to own them.
Reality's a bitch.