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.
Agreed.
Clip versus Magazine
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Yeah, they're used pretty interchangeably. Technically gears mesh with other gears, while sprockets mesh with a chain, belt, or strip.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
My primary point was a response to the
"You know how you stop a bad guy with a gun?
A good guy with a gun. Anything else is handwaving bullshit."
talking point: Columbine had an armed guard, who was apparently not all that useful.
The term 'green-on-blue attack' refers to the (quite common) situations where an aghan security force member will launch a surprise attack on NATO military personnel with which he is supposed to be working. Again, it turns out to not be that difficult to kill a few armed, trained, soldiers if you just wait for their backs to be turned.
More broadly, the relationship to magazine capacity is one of time: Given enough time to muster a response, the cops do show up in overwhelming numbers and either kill the shooter or cause them to kill themselves This means that the main question is how efficient they can be during the time that they have.
You're wrong.
"However, a timeline of the events assembled by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and published by CNN proves just the opposite. The armed guard, Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Neil Gardner, was able to engage the killers, keeping them from shooting more victims, and he personally saved dozens of students."
http://www.examiner.com/article/fact-check-columbine-high-s-armed-guard-saved-student-lives
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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.
And you can't get precise figures because the NRA lobbied congress to forbid government funding from paying for research into gun fatalities.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470
Viewpoint: Silencing the Science on Gun Research FREE ...
Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH
JAMA. 2012;():1-2. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.208207.
The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research.
To ensure that the CDC and its grantees got the message, the following language was added to the final appropriation: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”4
Precisely what was or was not permitted under the clause was unclear. But no federal employee was willing to risk his or her career or the agency's funding to find out. Extramural support for firearm injury prevention research quickly dried up. Even today, 17 years after this legislative action, the CDC's website lacks specific links to information about preventing firearm-related violence.
When other agencies funded high-quality research, similar action was taken. In 2009, Branas et al5 published the results of a case-control study that examined whether carrying a gun increases or decreases the risk of firearm assault. In contrast to earlier research, this particular study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Two years later, Congress extended the restrictive language it had previously applied to the CDC to all Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health.6
These are not the only efforts to keep important health information from the public and patients. For example, in 1997, Cummings et al7 used state-level data from Washington to study the association between purchase of a handgun and the subsequent risk of homicide or suicide. Similar studies could not be conducted today because Washington State's firearm registration files are no longer accessible.8