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?
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?
Good point. That is to say, you and every other Slashdork is all gung-ho about "technology misuse" when it comes to, say, pirated software or movie or music distribution or breaking DRM, but when it comes to printing a sodding plastic box, we get "omfg, technology misuse" and Slashdot turns into a cesspool of whiny moralising dweebs.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
Oh yeah,
Well another woman was killed by her own AR-15 assault rifle, and then had her gun used to murder 20 children.
28 people were killed by guns yesterday, and most of them probably didn't deserve to die.
28 more will die tomorrow. And the next day. Just like every day for the past decade.
Anecdotes prove nothing. Statistics should be analyzed intelligently and acted upon.
28 gun deaths per day is a steep price for our society's inability to distinguish between anecdotes and statistics.
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?).
28 gun deaths per day is a steep price for our society's inability to distinguish between anecdotes and statistics.
28 gun deaths per day is a cheap price for our society's continued freedom from government tyranny. That's what the second amendment is about. Not self defense, not hunting, not skeet shooting. Protection from tyranny. It's a recognized right for the people to possess the means to revolt should they choose.
So how do you explain the current government tyranny? According to you there should be none.
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.
And yet, the risk of actually being killed by a firearm in Norway is significantly smaller than in the US.
Even in the light of the Utöya massacre, you'll have to look hard to find a single Norwegian that actually want more relaxed gun laws.
With what? A whistle?
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!
I've looked at the statistics, unfortunately most of the studies on defensive gun use were done back in the 1990's and many are 20 years old at this point. The National Crime Victimization Survey circa 1993 was the lowest of the lot citing an estimated 108,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year. The Kleck studies put that number higher at between 650k - and 2.5M per year. The Kleck piece is Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevelance and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun", Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1
If you don't like the Kleck study(s) for whatever reason he the National Insitute of Justice that came up with 1.5M defensive uses of firearms per year: Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997).
The flip side of those studies being that old now is there are all of critical reviews of their data and methodology at this point.
Even if we take the lowest number of defensive gun uses at an average of 108,000 per years, the number of times a firearm was used to stop a crime was still over 3 times the total number of gun deaths. And depending on the defition of defensive gun use, oftentimes "using a firearm" means drawing and presenting the gun is enough to stop the crime or potential crime without a shot being fired.
An incident that happened to me a couple years ago. It was a hot muggy July day and I was sitting in city traffic. I had the windows rolled down as my car was old and starting to overheat so I wasn't running A/C. Some guy opened my car door, got in, and started to tell me where to drive until he looked over and saw the barrel of the revolver I had on me at the time. His eyes got large and he promptly got out of my car and walked off. To this day I have no idea why he got in my car. Did he mean me harm? I don't know. All I know is that I didn't know him, he wasn't supposed to be there, and my revolver ended the situation and no shots were fired.
Now if you want to look at statistics consider this: violent crime in the US has dropped over 50% of it's 1992 levels. The reasons are likely many, many factors. I'm sure economy, more forrms of electronic entertainment, more people allowed to carry concealed all factor into that. The violent crime rate last year for England and Wales was 4x that of the US. In fact it was almost TWICE the the 1992 US rate of violent crime.
If you break down the homicide rates in the US, as the Justice Statistics has, with the latest report I found being from 2008, amoung whites, the murder rate is a little higher at around 1.6/100k, but still within the same rates as most of Western Europe. But amoung the black population it was 8.6/100k and 8.2/100k in the hispanic population increasing the overall homicide rate in the US to around 4 - 5/100k. Sucide rates didn't look much different between the US and Europe. Yes more people used guns to commit sucicide, but it suggests that if guns were not used they would have found another way.
Personally the 28 guns deaths vs the 100 or more crimes that were prevented by guns per day is a price that I can live with.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Every time I hear someone break out into song about how the 2nd amendment was written at a time of muskets being the norm and that they (the founders) would not have meant for it to cover the weaponry of today I get more confused. I've never really been able to put my finger on exactly why I get confused, but it's always just seemed so ridiculous to me that someone would think that the amendments are not designed to keep pace with the world and its advances. Let me just ask this question - maybe it will help me to understand where certain people, those who believe as you do, are coming from.
It seems that the logical extension of your stance on the 2nd amendment would beg the following questions. Since we didn't have the internet back then does that mean that the 1st amendment shouldn't apply to speech on the internet? I mean, come now, no way they saw that coming and frankly they could have never expected radical, potentially dangerous ideas to be able to spread so quickly. For that matter, since we didn't have automobiles does that mean that the 4th amendment shouldn't apply to your new SUV or, if you're lucky enough to have one, your own airplane? I mean, how could they gave intended to cover those things when they didn't even exist?
As a rule we take for granted and get all "up in arms" when the man infringes on one of the other rights protected (not granted - protected) by the constitution. We PAINSTAKINGLY point out how everything new is actually old (there is nothing new under the sun) and that the constitutionally protected rights should extend to this or that situation. But guns get different treatment and the 2nd amendment is treated differently. Why? And does it actually make sense to treat it differently or is it a purely emotional subject?
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
Tyranny is the crap going on in Syria right now, where the government is indiscriminately blasting civilian neighborhoods in retaliation for assisting rebels. 150 civilians are dying daily there because of attacks from government forces.
There is a lot of bad stuff going on in the world right now, including here in the US, but very little falls under the formal realm of tyranny. When the Army sets fire to your home because your neighbor is printing magazine clips from a 3D printer, you have the right to start calling it tyranny.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.