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?
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?
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.
"It's a shoulder thing that goes up."
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!
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
A magazine is a generic term that refers to the storage of ammunition. You can certainly keep 30 rounds of ammo in your rifle's detachable magazine. You can also store your ship's ammunition in the ship's magazine. You could even replenish your bolt action hunting rifle's magazine.
So you should be clear on your terminology before you take part in these discussions. Otherwise we can dismiss anything you say since you've already displayed your ignorance on the topic.
-can I out-pedant a pedant?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
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.
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.
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
You store ammo in a magazine. Ships have magazines, semi-automatic pistols have magazines, and even your bolt-action hunting rifles have magazines.
Are you specifically talking about detachable magazines for semi-automatic rifles? Why didn't you say so? I hate it when people use generic terms when they mean something specific.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
The term clip is commonly used to describe a firearm magazine, especially in newspapers, movies, and on television. Because of this usage, the Merriam-Webster dictionary now defines a clip as "a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also :a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm".
Language changes. Get over it. Moreover, even while you are technically correct, this distinction has no substantive impact on the underlying discussion.
Also: your definition of clip is wrong. Both stripper and en block clips can hold more than two rounds, and the weapon involved need not be belt fed.
And yesterday, the news reported a woman who, along with her two children, was hiding in the attic because a guy broke in with a crowbar. When he began to enter the attic, she shot him. It's very likely that if she had any weapon other than a gun, she would not have been able to stop him.
Of course, a gun being used properly isn't sensationalist for you.
Source: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/
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.
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.
Clips refer to the bent metal piece used to hold several rounds together but are not fully enclosed. ( ex: http://www.zib-militaria.de/WebRoot/Store8/Shops/61431412/48C1/1864/62AB/9010/85F2/C0A8/28BD/B650/792.jpg ) These were commonly used in older rifles like the M1 Garand.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
A magazine is a generic term that refers to the storage of ammunition. You can certainly keep 30 rounds of ammo in your rifle's detachable magazine. You can also store your ship's ammunition in the ship's magazine. You could even replenish your bolt action hunting rifle's magazine.
So you should be clear on your terminology before you take part in these discussions. Otherwise we can dismiss anything you say since you've already displayed your ignorance on the topic.
-can I out-pedant a pedant?
No, you can't. He's right, you are not. The term clip comes from stripper-clips that were used to load magazines during WWI and WWII. You use a stripper clip when loading an internal magazine on a weapon, for instance. US culture misuses the word clip because the M-1 Garand, of WWII fame, used a box clip to load ammo into the internal magazine of the weapon. All those vets came back thinking that the clip from their M1 was the same thing as the magazine that you might load into your semi-automatic pistol.
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.
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.
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?).
I'm all about the retractable batons and unfortunately women aren't big on those because you REALLY need some muscle behind those to do anything. But ranged tasers are illegal for civilians, as are the most effective less than lethal weaponry...but we'll let them have guns! .39g 4.5mm brass BBs. If someone walks in with anything other than a gun, that'll ruin their fucking day, lol. It's slightly louder than some real pistols, the BBs go about an inch into you, its fire speed is ridiculous, and you'll be bleeding badly after getting hit with that. They haven't been known to kill someone though. I got the gun used for $35 too. Now that's safe self defense. Of course high powered BB gun vs actual pistol, not such a great idea without lots of cover or an escape plan + the jump on them so you better be a quick draw. This is why people need ranged tasers.
At my shop I have a 21 round 600FPS gas-powered, full metal BB gun shooting
What is the term for the belt in a belt fed weapon? And how do you say "200 round {belt}"?
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.
Um. Yes and no.
The M1 Garand (arguably one of the most widely used assault rifles ever made) uses an 8-round clip. The clip is inserted into the magazine, and the clip is ejected from the magazine when the last round is fired.
The fact that over six million M1 rifles were manufactured and used in three wars (WWII, Korea, Vietnam) by American troops probably contributed significantly to the use of the word "clip" when in most cases what is intended is the word "magazine".
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money.
Most importantly just like the "civil war on some drugs", this would guarantee wide and easy availability of large magazines to everybody who's not a complete hermit.
So if you really needed/wanted a 30 rounder, rather than being perpetually sold out at the gun store since Obama was elected, every punk on the street corner will have 10 to sell to you for cash, any time of day or night.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
I'd make some cocoa and lightly mourn the fact that you and so many other ignorant people resort to fear mongering to find fulfillment. Shoulda, coulda, woulda...I'm not going to live my life terrorized by the fact that your opinion can only be properly expressed when you live and rage Anonymously.
[i]Clips hold two rounds together in a belt fed weapon[/i]
Not quite.
Belt usually uses links, not clips.
Also check "Garand clip" or "Mauser clip" for a clip that holds more than 2 rounds.
Yes, I know what a clip is.
Do you know what a magazine is?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
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.
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.
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.
No, there are clips that hold far more than two rounds. Like the 8-round clip used in the M1 rifle. There are also clips that can be arbitrarily large, and hold as many rounds as you can fit, lift, and fit between the gun and an obstacle like the ground. They work like a belt, except they are stiff.
If anything, it makes more sense to 3D print a clip than a magazine.
A typical magazine consists of multiple parts, including spring loading, which cannot be printed. So you need to go on the market for parts and assemble them anyhow. So it's not really doing much more than someone bending sheet metal into a form to create a magazine casing. You still need the plate and spring mechanism.
A clip, on the other hand, can be fully created by a 3D printer, without the need for extras.
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.
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.
Before looking at the facts of the case, first consider the line of reasoning used in the argument. Critics use a specific example (the Columbine tragedy) to make a general conclusion (armed school guards don't help). It's called inductive reasoning, and it is not a valid line of reasoning, because generalizations based on specific examples are easily disproved. For example, inductive reasoning would argue that because life-long smoker George Burns died of a heart attack at the age of 100 (the specific example), smoking is not hazardous to your health (the general conclusion).
In the case of the Columbine tragedy, the facts of the case disprove the conclusion that an armed guard did not help. At the time of the shooting, 11:19 a.m., Gardner was eating lunch in his car in the parking lot on the far side of the campus, away from where the shooting occurred. His parking space was near an area known as the "Smoker's Pit," and he used his lunch time to make sure students weren't in the area smoking during their lunch period.
The Columbine shooters, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, chose that time for the attack because they knew a number of students would be in and near the school cafeteria. They placed two bombs inside the cafeteria timed to explode, which they thought would force students to evacuate outside, where they were waiting. However, the bombs did not go off.
After the bombs failed to detonate, Harris and Klebold began shooting students eating lunch outside. Deputy Gardner was notified of the shooting by a custodian within three minutes of the first shot, and had to drive around the campus to enter the parking lot where the shooting took place. It took him two minutes to arrive. He confronted the shooters in the parking lot, about five minutes after the first shot was fired. Deputy Gardner exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold, which stopped the pair from firing at students. Gardner's actions allow teacher Patti Nielson and student Brian Anderson (who were both shot at and injured) to escape and survive.
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.
If any of you fucking traitors ever use your guns to subvert our democratically elected government, I promise to be among the first to defend our country.
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.
And the Columbine shooter had a High Point carbine with 10 round magazines. This isn't about "safety for the children" it is about disarming American citizens.
Don't fall for what the TV tells you.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I've got a Garand, you insensitive clod!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So how do you explain the current government tyranny? According to you there should be none.
Ahh, so because the right word can create ambiguity in an imbiciles brain, you don't have to use it.
I guess I'll start using the deceleratrix since people may not know what I mean by brake pedal.
Long signatures suck.
I would build a cell connection into them so when they are fired the police are automatically notified of your location.
Now that I think about it, it probably already exists.
Oh, and the same rule applies to guns..which is likely to miss out of 10 times.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Alarmist Bullshit. Disarming America for what? You think your paltry weapon could stop a military tyranny?
More importantly, do yo think people in today's American military are going to enforce a hostile coup?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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
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.
And if you'd like to see the UK "Use of weapons in violent incidents,1 2001/02 to 2011/12, CSEW " stats they are downloadable from the UK office for national statistics.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.html?newquery=gun+crime
An AC that is wrong? What are the statistics for that? I@M sure you can down load more detail from other places. Can't be bothered looking.
M1 Garand is a battle rifle, not an assault rifle. You're probably right about the clip thing though.
Do you really - I mean, really - think that you are at the risk of experiencing tyranny from your duly elected government in the US? Give your head a shake.
With what? A whistle?
Not that simple... how many of those 28 were suicide? How many were accidents? I don't honestly know, but I know the answer isn't going to be zero because it's NEVER zero.
In my mind, someone that wants to kill themselves shouldn't count against guns any more than it should count against tailpipes if they decide to sit in a car in a garage.
And accidents happen regardless of what we're talking about. Accidents shouldn't be held against any more than it should be against a car.
So, let's just pull a number out of our ass and say that 20 of them were not suicides or accidents. Seems a reasonable guess.
Of those 20, how many do you suspect were committed by a legal gun owner who just lost their shit for one reason or another and wasn't otherwise committing a crime (i.e., wasn't robbing a bank or shooting it out with a rival gang or some such)? Certainly some of them were, but how many? Again, I don't know... a reasonable guess though? 50% maybe?
So now we're down to 10 deaths you MIGHT be able to stop by better regulating guns... the other 18 were going to happen anyway (whether with a gun or not).
My point? The situation IS NOT as dire as you make it out to be when you factor in causes and reasons.
Now, don't get me wrong: I'm a gun owner, I even have an assault weapon, and I'm worried we're going to go WAY too far here with laws... but I *do* think there's some reasonable steps we can take that might help save a few lives... much better background checks certainly including on private sales... laws requiring reporting of lost or stolen guns (how is that NOT a law now?!?)... much harsher penalties for any crime committed involving a gun... maybe even waiting period on all gun purchases. And there's a few more that don't go too far.
I DON'T want bans though, on any particular class of guns (because they do nothing, as the statistics associated with the 1994 ban prove) nor do I think there's a need to magazine size restrictions (although, I DO expect that'll pass as a feel-good measure and although I'll hate it, it's not the end of the world, so long as there's no outright AWB).
Biden and others like to say we should do anything we can to save even one life. I hate to sound callous, but that's bullshit. One life is NOT worth the potential freedom of a nation. Several HUNDRED aren't even. The second amendment helps ensure our freedom from the worst possibilities (possibilities which I acknowledge are improbable given out system of government... but NOT IMPOSSIBLE). It's a freedom no one should want to voluntarily give up and should fight giving up involuntarily to their last breath if necessary (certainly I hope it's never necessary, believe me, I'm in no rush whatsoever to be in any sort of fight, let alone one against my own government). History proves time and again that giving up that freedom leads to nothing good. It *IS* worth the price we pay, terrible as that reality is. But it *IS* the reality.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
The Columbine shooters killed themselves. Are you suggesting in your last sentence that they were the "good guys"?
Burn the land and boil the sea........
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.
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.
"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 2nd Amendment was written in a time when people had muskets in order to enable a well-regulated militia to defend themselves from colonial powers and attacks by native Americans, not the federal government. The militia kept their muskets locked up in an armory away from home until they were needed. We still have that, it's called the National Guard. Go sign up if you want to, but you don't get to bring your service rifle home with you.
" 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.
It's already there.
3D printing isn't just about squirting bits of spaghetti plastic into a pile - most of the advanced companies are coupling it with the 'lost wax' moulding techniques, meaning that you can already '3D print' in stainless steel, brass, bronze, and titanium.
They 3D print the wax, and then cast in the metal of your choice. So - making a titanium magazine is entirely possible, with a variety of online vendors, today.
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.
Statistics show that if you outlaw guns, those numbers will increase.
Statistics don't mean anything unless they're fully analyzed along with repercussions.
Sure, we have more gun-related deaths, but we also have significantly less violent crimes overall.
Also need to take into account what TYPE of firearm is used in most gun-related crimes (handguns) and wonder why they are banning assault weapons when rifles are used in fewer than 400 per year. My fear is that's it's a stepping stone to more oppressive gun control.
We already know gun bans don't work. Columbine happened with an AR-15 during an assault weapon ban. Anecdots, when used properly, support facts that can be verified. I do agree with you though, the post you responded to does not prove anything, on the other hand neither does yours, nor does mine. Except that anecdotes and statistics can be skewed any way one wants. To truly make a decision, one must know the facts and how they correlate together and then consider it all as a whole.
Cite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8D8b51EwrI
I always like hearing this argument (about Military might) ... if anything were to happen on a big enough scale, some of those people will be ex-military and some of those military will question the shooting of "fellow Americans." Even though you are taught to believe that our troops are programmed robots who will shot whatever they are told, it's simply not true. Granted, it would be a matter of scale issue. They will not think twice about a small uprising in a compound in Texas, but if it happens on a greater scale the outcome will be civil war with hardware on both sides.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
History epic fail.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
when the duly elected government decides that they have no chance of garnering a majority vote, and instead take extra-judicial means to sign an executive order to make a law that does not pass majority vote, then yes, that is called imperialism. We have an elected republic for a reason and we have a series of checks and balances for a reason. This sitting president also signed an executive order for the extra-judicial assassination of a US citizen on foreign soil without any trial or due process. He suspended habeas corpus by signing into law the NDAA not to mention the continued reinstatement of the Patriot Act time and time again. Anyone who voted for or signed the patriot act should be tried and hung for treason. Anyone responsible for the NDAA should be tried and beheaded for treason when found guilty. if this horse shit had ANYTHING to do with public safety they would not go targeting weapons that are responsible for less than 0.2 percent of all annual gun deaths. They would target weapons responsible for more than 90% of all gun homicides. Thats like deciding to do something about drunk driving by banning the expensive cognacs and top dollar bourbons.
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.
Which is why a better plan is to allow teachers to have the choice to fund their own classes and certifications, and carry firearms if they so choose. There's also the option of simply posting an officer at the school. You know, a city paid officer. I'm sure most towns could do with one less speed trap.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
28 gun deaths per day is a steep price for our society's inability to distinguish between anecdotes and statistics.
Indeed. I wonder how many would there be per day if the War on Drugs was ended?
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.
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!
There is no tyranny. Pretty easy.
Apparently some liberals can't spell.
I presume you meant "Wholly overrated".
You also presume that communities aren't willing to foot the bill for armed school guards.
It's up to that community to decide how to spend it's budget.
If a community it decides an armed baby sitter is more important than adding another unionized non-armed baby sitter that spews indoctrination, it's their' choice.
Oh wow... So the NRA is the only source of guns.... What would the military do if the NRA stopped providing guns?
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.
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.
Norway allowed adults to have guns. The children he killed would always have been unarmed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway
How are we defining tyranny today? Will any rights infringement do, or do there have to be actual storm troopers in riot gear marching down the street? Are you under the misconception that democracy of all things obviates tyranny?
"We won, and therefore we may do what we want." -- This is the talk of democracy, but not the talk of freedom.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
The "armed guards" should be the teachers themselves. Offer teachers an incentive. The school system pays for their training. The school system then gives the teacher a fifty to one hundred dollar bonus each pay period in which they carry their weapon, acting as security. Nice, easy work, with a bit of fun training thrown in.
If I can't trust a teacher to handle a weapon properly, then I sure as HELL can't trust that teacher to handle my children properly.
"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
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.
The problem is - anti-gun nuts won't HEAR the real statistics. They stick their fingers in their ears, and scream "NYAH NYAH NYAH!" so that they don't have to face reality.
I'd much rather be eating breakfast in Lubbock, Texas, where every adult seems to carry a weapon, than in Manhattan where only one homie from the 'hood has a gun.
"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
So I guess you are saying that fighting off English control because it had become tyrannical and oppressive was a bad thing? Are we really going to have to review American history here? And you are entirely wrong about the nature of the colonial militia. Everyone had a gun. They were expected to bring it to the battle. And letting the government control the people is NOT what this country is about. The People control the government. When Uncle Sam starts trying to be my mommy, it's time to knock him/her down a notch or two (at the ballot box, preferably.)
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.
Teacher: Johnny, stop bothering Sally.
Johnny:
Teacher: For the 100th time, Johnny, leave that girl alone.
Johnny: Make my day.
Teacher:
Except you missed the point by looking for "Gun Crime" vs. "Violent Crime". If someone is killed, does it really matter what weapon was used to do it? So even if the US has more gun crime, if OVERALL violent crime is lower...
Note: I don't have the statistics, I don't know what the overall crime rate is, just that parent missed the point with his response.
See, that's where you're wrong. It's not what the government wants, it's what the people want. We want less guns on the streets. We want an absolute end to assault rifles. We are not afraid of our government. Just because you're paranoid and delusional does not mean the rest of us have to be armed to the teeth.
Get help. This is no way to live your life.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
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.
`"Democratically elected", you said? I think what you mean to defend, is the "republic which give prior approval to certain people for candidacy, based on corporate whims and dictates".
It's amazing that so many people still believe the United States is a "democracy".
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Do you see the word "democracy" in that pledge?
"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
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.
"War on Drugs"
"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
Overdrinking and binge drinking contributes to the deaths of 23,000 women and girls a year. Sherly we should outlaw or put new rules and limits on drinking alcoholic beverages. After all statistics are all we are caring about, we should do the most good right... [Citation: CDC report in the news last week.]
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
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.
You may rationalize the second amendment in any way you like - but Thomas Jefferson, among others, made it patently clear that it is the duty of American citizens to be armed, for the purpose of challenging government, and keeping government honest.
The government should fear the people - the people should not fear the government.
"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
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
Want to wager how long it'll take for a disgruntled teacher to shoot a kid? Or perhaps accidentally discharge a weapon into someone's precious little Jonny?
I presume you meant "Wholly overrated".
No, I meant Holy. As in "Holy trashcans, batman, that conservative nonsense was overrated!"
You also presume that communities aren't willing to foot the bill for armed school guards.
Considering how many communities complain about paying anything to their school districts, why would we expect them to be willing to take a tax increase to pay for armed guards?
It's up to that community to decide how to spend it's budget.
Very few districts anywhere are getting increases in their budgets. Many are facing significant cuts. If the community says the district needs armed guards, but gives them no money for it, then that means someone has to be laid off and most likely that would be a teacher.
an armed baby sitter
Why do you assume that school is for baby sitting? Has it occurred to you that some people actual go to school to learn, rather than to be supervised and directed?
unionized non-armed baby sitter that spews indoctrination
First of all, why would it be beneficial to arm the teachers? Do you really want more guns in the schools? How big of a gun should a teacher have, if they need to be prepared for an attacker with an AR15? What if the next attacker has body armor - should the teachers have even bigger weapons yet in case of that? Should the teachers have body armor for that situation? How about the kids - shouldn't they wear armor as well?
Second, your notion of indoctrination is bullshit, unless you really believe that reading, writing, and math are somehow indoctrination. Did Rush Limbaugh tell you that 1+1 = 2 is only true for liberals or something?
it's their' choice.
Apparently punctuation is part of indoctrination as well? Good to see you were not indoctrinated in punctuation - or logic.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
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.
"Statistics show that if you outlaw guns, those numbers will increase."
[citation needed]
Murder rate US: 4.8
Murder rate UK: 1.2
In other words, statistics show that "Scarred Intellect" is a liar and a pedophile.
I believe that the biggest problem that we need to fix in this country to prevent mass shootings is to fix our mental health program. I don't think gun control would really fix the problem. And I think that we Americans should have the right to own guns. But, then I heard the NRA talk about why they believe we need to be able to own guns, and I realize that the major gun lobby in this country is full of crazy people who seriously think that they need the ability to overthrow the government. And I start to wonder whether it is really the mental health system in this country that is the problem, or an organization that feeds upon paranoia and fantasies of violence. I don't want to take guns away from regular Americans. I want to take them away from the NRA, because they are the type of people that I don't trust with guns.
for a while.
With time there will be fewer and fewer available. Something that has been seen many times before.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Article one of the constitution allows for the suspension of hadeas corpus. I don't agree that they should have done so, but you can hardly call it treasonous.
Disagreeing with you does not make me a troll.
Are you suggesting it is not already legal to do so?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
The "armed guards" should be the teachers themselves. Offer teachers an incentive. The school system pays for their training. The school system then gives the teacher a fifty to one hundred dollar bonus each pay period in which they carry their weapon, acting as security. Nice, easy work, with a bit of fun training thrown in.
So you want the schools to spend more money, then? Who will pay for this? This is the same problem I already brought up, and if you are handing out more money to the existing teachers you will need to release some of the other teachers as the money just isn't there.
But even more so, Should the teachers really be tasked with this? And besides, if the teachers are all carrying glock 9s, the attackers just need to put on body armor and then the teachers are no longer impediments. If the guy in Colorado could afford armor on grad student pay, then anyone else who could pull together the money for an AR15 likely could as well.
If I can't trust a teacher to handle a weapon properly, then I sure as HELL can't trust that teacher to handle my children properly.
What on earth do those two skills have to do with each other?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
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.
"What on earth do those two skills have to do with each other?"
Responsibility.
"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
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.
A typical magazine consists of multiple parts, including spring loading, which cannot be printed. So you need to go on the market for parts and assemble them anyhow.
Actually, there were a few designs on the Defense Distributed site (among others) for magazines that used 3D-printed plastic springs. Perhaps not the best for reliability or longevity, but it can be done and the technology will only improve with time.
Also, what's wrong with buying springs and other parts? It's not like springs are hard to manufacture or restricted in any way (nor would it be remotely feasible to restrict their production or sale).
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
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 downloadable spread sheet listed many types of crime. I addressed incorrect point that the UK stopped reporting violent crime. They are reported. OVERALL violent crime in the UK doesn't end in murder. Just a fight in the pub between the same two people next week. Free service makes fighting financially viable :)
The king of England was the legitimate ruler of the Colonies, at the time, and look how well that worked out. Ever notice that oaths to office first specify allegiance to the Constitution, pledging to protect same from all enemies, "foreign and domestic"? There isn't as much concern for elected leaders. Enemies can be domestic, and they can be democratically elected leaders.
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.
It amazes me how you guys love your second amendment yet know nothing about it. It is not about protection from tyranny. You aren't in a regulated militia. It is 100% not to revolt against the government. Do you really believe the government wrote something in its own founding document that gives you the right to go and kill them if you don't like what they are doing? Insane. Go read the real history of the second amendment.
I swear, the bar for education in America is getting lower and lower.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
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.
Also, what's wrong with buying springs and other parts? It's not like springs are hard to manufacture or restricted in any way (nor would it be remotely feasible to restrict their production or sale).
I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. Just that it means you aren't fabricating magazines any more than if you bend a metal sheet in a form. Which doesn't take a 3D printer.
Yes, the whistle of the missile that blows you and your little assault gun apart.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
I suppose you will want to ban hammers next? After all the current gun control controversy is about rifles and more hammers were used to kill people in 2011 than rifles were used to kill people.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
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.
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
Exactly. Treat it like being defib or CPR certified. Those who qualify and take the training, should be allowed to protect our children in this way also. And if they can't pass a background check, why the hell are they around our kids? Don't force them to do it, of course, but give them the option. Almost all states have CCW permits with the usual requirements, and those requirements match up pretty well to who we allow to be teachers (I'd hope).
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
thats because while they work tirelessly to remove your legal rights to protect yourself, they wrap themselves up in the very blanket of freedoms they want to deny you. They hire for themselves several armed security guards, often paid for by you and me. Translation: only the rich and powerful deserve to live. Everyone else is food for the rich and powerful.
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.
I've been arguing that we're fighting this battle the wrong way. I think you should have any kind of weapon you want - assault, semi automatic, hundred round magazine, hardened steel katana, whatever - provided you have purchased the appropriate lockable storage unit to match it. The tragedy of Sandy Hook could have been prevented if the mother had had her guns stored properly. Modern day gun safes include biometric finger printer readers that open in seconds but are tough to crack unless you're the actual owner.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
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.
OK... on a random tangent from this subject, if someone hasn't done so already, I think we need a corollary to Godwin's Law. Any time someone adds "protection from our tyrannical government" to the discussion, /. needs a way to flag said poster's account as "Irrelevant" from now until the end of time. a) if there was going to be a gun-grab, more than likely it would have happened when both houses of Congress and the White House controlled by the Democrats. Which didn't happen. b) If the government did decide to turn on its citizens, how is your AR-15 going to help when the Navy can just send up a few Tomahawk's from off the cost and obliterate your arsenal?
So how do you explain the current government tyranny? According to you there should be none.
If you look closely you'll see that actual government tyranny occurs outside the United States, not inside. Americans still select their leaders by voting in free and fair elections. Laws are enacted by Congress, not by decree. The Army defends the republic, not oppresses the people. Contrary to common exaggeration on Slashdot, corporations and the rich can do no more than try to influence voters, not actually stuff money into ballot boxes and have it counted as a vote.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
See, that's where you're wrong. It's not what the government wants, it's what the people want. We want less guns on the streets. We want an absolute end to assault rifles. We are not afraid of our government. Just because you're paranoid and delusional does not mean the rest of us have to be armed to the teeth.
You don't speak for me, or anyone else outside your own head, so fuck you.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
No, civil war is going on in Syria, its far from tyranny. In a perfect Tyranny there is no dissent they get squashed by tanks or killed by being left outdoors to starve and freeze to death. See North Korea, that is a perfect tyranny.
In Syria people are working out there issues violently with bloodshed yes, but they are not stopped from doing so.
The militia kept their muskets locked up in an armory away from home until they were needed. We still have that, it's called the National Guard. Go sign up if you want to, but you don't get to bring your service rifle home with you.
You're wrong on several points there. Historically it was common for local militia members to be expected to furnish their own weapon.
And the current militia is:
10 USC 311 - Militia: composition and classes
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
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.
100 people die everyday in automobile accidents in the USA.
Ban Cars!
Murder rate Mexico: 22.7
Or didn't you know that Mexico has much more restrictive gun control than the USA?
Matter of fact, they already make it illegal to own "assault weapons" (as well as assault rifles).
And yet, they have nearly five times the murder rate - how is that possible??
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
AND NOW WE DANCE.
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.
Yes, I agree, statistics should be scrutinized heavily here, as should facts...such as the fact that 28 people were killed yesterday by a mentally deranged human, not by an inanimate object in their hand.
We have a hell of a lot larger issue with mental illness in this country than we do the tools they abuse. Perhaps if people like you start targeting the real cause of these problems, real progress could be made instead of continuing to beat the impossible drum of attempting to collect up 100 million firearms in order to make us "safer", when in reality all that will do is ensure that only criminals are armed and dangerous.
But of the kinds of guns they're looking to ban, it's likely nobody was killed by one yesterday. As you say, "Statistics should be analyzed intelligently and acted upon." An "assault weapon" ban is the result of emotion and political power plays, not the hard analysis of statistics.
Don't you know that Mexico is awash in guns (including semi-automatic guns) smuggled through the non-existing border with the US? Maybe you've heard that most of semi-automatic guns in Mexico are bought legally in the US?
Yes, well the point is to ban magazines with capacities "higher than we want you to have" (aka, anything greater than zero) and not "higher than would normally be used with a weapon of this type".
Separately, and not in relation to the parent post, but since I'm posting right now... the AC are out in force today!
Patience is a virtue, but haste is my life.
They shot themselves because police finally arrived and they had no place to go. They knew the police had guns, and armor, so that's all it took for them to know they stood no chance compared to the hoards of the defenseless.
If "good guys with guns" on the site in advance, best case, nobody would have to die including the perpetrators. Worst case, they kill themselves someplace out of sight and putting no one else in danger.
More Twoson than Cupertino
Wish I had some mod points to mod you up, dude.
I find it interesting that the people who are most likely to demand unthinking adherence to the idea of "American exceptionalism" are the same people who are most likely to equate "patriotism" with being violently anti-government. Which, exactly, are they insisting upon: blind allegiance, or virulent paranoia? I get so confused.
Gun deaths per day include suicides. Banning guns would just cause them to kill themselves by some other means. Remove guns and you'll only shift the statistics from "suicide by gun" to the other "suicide by ____" buckets. In the end, you haven't accomplished a thing.
Almost half (49%) of all homicides using firearms are inner-city kids killing one another. I can guarantee that all of the firearms were obtained illegally, because it is not legal to sell to a minor. We're talking around 5,000 children killed per year, and I haven't heard of any proposals that do anything about that. The issue there is not "assault weapons" as those are almost all handgun deaths. Nor is the issue "high capacity" magazines. What is the underlying cause for thousands of kids per year to feel the need to try to kill one another? Focusing on the why could help eliminate so many deaths per year. Tons of existing laws are being broken -- seems like there's plenty of room to "do something" with the laws that are already on the books, although again I think only addressing the method used for killing would simply see a shift from guns to knives, or some other weapon.
What TFA points out is the futility of a renewed ban on high capacity magazines. Technology has improved to the point where anyone could "print" their own. The genie is out of the bottle. There now is no way for a law to keep high capacity magazines out of the hands of people willing to break the law. Perhaps in 1994 when the first AWB went into effect it could have been possible (didn't matter since existing magazines were grandfathered, and there were plenty of them on the market). At this point a law banning high capacity magazines would make people "feel" more secure, without actually making people more secure.
Also, not to be too pedantic, but it wasn't an "assault rifle" . Assault rifles (shoulder fired firearms capable of select fire (more than one bullet per pull of the trigger)) are already banned, per the National Firearms Act update in 1986. It also was not an "assault weapon" as those are illegal in Connecticut (using the same definition of "assault weapon" as the 1994 AWB), and it has been confirmed that the AR-15 used in the shooting was a legal configuration in Connecticut. A huge part of the problem in the whole gun control debate is people not really understanding what it is they are talking about banning. The details don't matter for those who would just like to see all guns banned, but for everyone else the details do matter.
"WTF, how can you possibly claim it wasn't an assault weapon?" I anticipate many are thinking. Easy. I've read the law. To be an assault weapon, it must be a semi-automatic firearm that accepts a detachable magazine (check), plus has two of the following features: pistol grip (check), collapsible stock, bayonet lug, flash suppressor. The CT gun didn't have a collapsible stock, bayonet lug or flash suppressor, so it wasn't an assault weapon. At the end of the day, "assault weapons" are just guns that have certain cosmetic features -- they don't function any differently than semi-automatic guns that aren't "assault weapons." They aren't more lethal.
Feinstein's new proposed Assault Weapon Ban is similar to the 1994 ban, but change the "two" to "one" for the features. Every pistol has a pistol grip, so all semi-auto
So one one hand you say that guns if guns weren't available, criminals or killers would use something else, then turn around and say "it's a good thing that lady had a gun, because otherwise she would have been in trouble." Which is it?
Guns are apparently excellent tools for taking lives. Please acknowledge this in your discussions.
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
As long as the gun rights advocates admit that the price of the easy availability of guns is the 28 deaths a day, the problem is most gun nuts try to deny that the deaths are due to the easy availability of guns.
Don't try to argue use with the statistics and claim we are safer with the easy availability of guns. Admit you believe that the increase in gun violence is the price we pay for feeling we need the guns to be safe from tyranny.
Now we can have a rational discussion.
"What on earth do those two skills have to do with each other?"
Responsibility.
Except that teaching requires discipline and initiative in order to meet the requirements to obtain licensure. A gun permit in some states is as simple as filling out a form and paying for a background check. And at that, background check says nothing about responsibility - it only states that you have not been convicted of a serious crime or hospitalized for serious mental health ailments. Even in the most stringent states, you need only a short class for a pistol permit, and those same states won't let someone teach elementary school without a master's degree.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
I don't know whose post you were reading, but it wasn't mine. I said nothing about "if guns weren't available". It just happens that the intruder didn't have a gun regardless of whether or not they were available. I only pointed out that a gun is probably the only weapon she had a good chance of stopping him with because it's one of a very small number of weapons that doesn't rely on the wielder having a great deal of strength to be effective.
<sarcasm>Yeah, and those laws work so well</sarcasm>
They were cornered in the attic and the man had forcibly broken into the house and followed them. How, exactly, is she supposed to "keep him at bay"? It's not a dog on a chain, it's someone who is following you until you're backed into a corner. If you're backed in a corner, protecting two children, and someone much stronger comes along... you're going to shoot to do as much damage as possible. Not take the chance that you run out of bullets trying to scare him off (she only had six)... every shot needs to count. She didn't take the law into her own hands... she acted within the bounds of what the law allowed to stop someone.
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?
Overdrinking and binge drinking contributes to the deaths of 23,000 women and girls a year. Sherly we should outlaw or put new rules and limits on drinking alcoholic beverages. After all statistics are all we are caring about, we should do the most good right... [Citation: CDC report in the news last week.]
A significant portion are underage, too.
Laws don't "make things happen", other than grow government.
More Twoson than Cupertino
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.
Ahh, but would it have been prevented if he didn't have access to a gun? Sandy Hook wasn't the worst elementary school incident -- that distinction goes to a disgruntled politician and his homemade bomb.. (James Holmes also booby-trapped his apartment with homemade explosives).
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
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.)
Someone intent on killing a room full of kindergartners is going to figure out how to do it, and no amount of legislation is going to stop them.
Fantastic. When can I pick up my rocket launcher and tank? After all, no restrictions are needed since people will kill people regardless of available weapons....right?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
28 gun deaths per day is a steep price for our society's inability to distinguish between anecdotes and statistics.
Your statistic completely ignores the woman who used a gun to defend herself from harm without inflicting fatal injury. Your stat cannot measure lives saved, and never attempts to. Yet lives saved vs. lives lost is the most important comparison if we were to honestly judge guns based on their net gain or harm to society.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics - the existence of a stat that you can cite does not make your position the most reasoned or best course of action.
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.
Perhaps you're not following the conversation? I did mention "training". Of COURSE we don't want any lame halfwit being coerced into carrying a weapon at school, on the excuse that he/she might defend their students. We want them TRAINED. During the course of the training, we want them to at least be superficially evaluated psychologically. We want them to be competent with their weapons. We want them to be able to make judgement calls.
Training. Something that teachers are proficient at, right?
"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
It does. They have triangulating sound-delay gunshot detectors in a lot of major US cities. So unless you use a silencer or shoot during a thunderstorm, they've got you to a 100 foot area or something like that.
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).
The 2nd Amendment was written in a time when people had muskets in ...
You should consider reading the actual words - page and pages of them - by the people who wrote that amendment. They go into great detail about their thoughts on the personal possession and use of firearms. They considered self-defense to be so self-evident of a natural right that there was no need to write about it in the nation's chartering documents. But just to head off any confusion, they did explicitly mention one of the things the government was not allowed to interfere with: the right to keep and bear arms. That they meant it personally goes without saying (though they did say it, a lot). But they wanted to also be very clear that the states should retain mustering rights, and not be subordinate to the feds in that regard.
Regardless, they were all for personal gun ownership and use, and said so in every way possible - even though they thought that went without saying.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
...
Not sure if trolling or joking...
Surely nobody's stupid enough to actually believe such nonsense...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
This is possibly one of the saddest comments I have ever read in my 14, 15, whatever it's been, years on Slashdot.
Forget the politics. Forget the anger. Forget the "rah-rah-rah" of the NRA or second amendment. For purposes of this, I don't even care about the second amendment.
28 gun deaths per day is a cheap price for... whatever comes next is meaningless.
I think you have lost a sense of proportion. I think you have been horribly desensitized, or perhaps you just make these comments ad hoc without actually having the maturity and strength to think what your words actually mean in the real, physical world. Please, just think about 28 people in your office being killed today.
And another 28 tomorrow.
Look at the people walking by you. This isn't abstract, these are real lives that you dismiss in such a cavalier manner.
Ten thousand people by the time we reach New Year's day 2014.
Twenty thousand people in the next two years.
More than a hundred thousand people in the next decade.
And one of the most depressing parts is you're an Anonymous Coward and probably won't even see this comment, and most likely won't think of these real lives that you so cheaply throw away for even a second.
If you believe so strongly that this is worth it and the second amendment means what you say it means, sign up for the national guard and put yourself at the lethal end of someone else's gun.
May God protect you that none of the ten thousand people who will be murdered in 2013 is someone you know.
Good job, now they will ban 3d printers for public use and large capacity clips.
Just like how they banned lathes and drill presses the first time someone milled their own receiver, right?
Idiot.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Training. Something that teachers are proficient at, right?
You're oversimplifying the matter, though.
For one, you are overlooking the age distribution of teachers. Few people begin teaching as fully licensed teachers before they are 30. More importantly in many schools few teachers are less than 50 years old and many are past the average age of retirement for the American workforce in general. How many people in the 50+ group are nimble enough to be trusted with a weapon? And how many who are under 50 are not under such pressure that you would not want to trust them?
In other words, the teachers are generally not the ideal group of people to place weapons in the hands of.
Second, what if a teacher doesn't want to carry a weapon? Would you advocate firing them for it? Not everyone feels that the correct solution is adding more weapons to the mix.
Third, what do you do if the attacker is wearing body armor? We've learned from other attacks that body armor is not prohibitively expensive for a determined attacker. A glock 9 won't do squat against someone holding an AR15 wearing armor. Then the attacker just starts by taking out the teacher and has a room full of defenseless kids, just like before.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
But, by not allowing ANYONE to have guns will make it harder for criminals to do stuff.
No, it won't. History evidences that fact.
How many criminals are weak and puny and would, otherwise, not be able to rob a store, or kill a bunch of students? Many of them are only powerful when they have a gun.
Ban the hammer, I will drive nails with a crowbar. Ban the crowbar, I will use a rock. Point being, you cannot stop a determined carpenter from driving the nail.
The only real solution is to get rid of all of the guns. But that means that the good people can't have guns either.
The worst mass killings in history have all been perpetrated with explosives; explosives comprised of common chemicals, many of which we all keep on hand in our homes as cleaning supplies.
Tell me - would banning guns have stopped Timothy McVeigh?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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.
My state has severe gun regulations and batons are also banned along with any kind of electrical weapon. Only a matter of time until air guns are regulated out of existence, as you can see in Europe. No right to armed self-defense means no right to armed self-defense, period.
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!
It's a stupid question - the manufacture and possession of a pipe bomb is, in itself, a crime.
Knowing shit is not, thankfully, a criminal act. Let's do our best to keep it that way, shall we?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
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....
You know, if it wasn't plainly obvious you're trying to be a smart-ass, I'd say you're starting to get it.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
No, I'm sorry, you're flat out wrong. The Second Amendment is meant to protect the states and people from a tyrannical federal government as much as from Indians and colonial powers. This doesn't mean that any time someone doesn't like a law that he is justified in attacking the federal government. That's a straw man. It's meant as a last resort.
Furthermore, the Second Amendment goes beyond that idea. It's meant to prevent the keeping of a standing army by the federal government, primarily because of the mischief a central government will sooner or later get the country into because of a standing army. What kind of mischief is this that the Founders were talking about? Wars of aggression and self-aggrandizement for the politicians in the federal government. We would not be playing world policeman today if we respected the Second Amendment as it was originally conceived. We would have a tiny group of regulars employed by the federal government, and the country's army would be decentralized, composed of state and local militias whose equipment and training would be prescribed by Congress for the purpose of making it uniform across the country. That's what "well-regulated" means. Some of these soldiers would be professional soldiers. The majority would be weekend warriors in the literal sense. They would be a national force that could be called up and very quickly whipped into shape to provide for the country's legitimate defense. The federal government would be relatively powerless to stick its nose in the business of other countries the world over, as it does today.
The Founders knew that will a standing army comes a permanent military state, and with that high taxes and crushing debt. Does any of this sound familiar? It should. Just open a newspaper. We have been on a downward spiral since WWII, at the very least. We need more Second Amendment in this country, not less.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
If any of you fucking traitors ever use your guns to subvert our democratically elected government, I promise to be among the first to defend our country.
If you don't like the freedoms we have in this country, you are free to leave it. Only gun-loving patriotic Americans need stick around. You can sit around during an emergency like a victim and hope the police show up on time to save your ass. I will do what I need to do to protect myself and my family. You are aware the courts have ruled that the police are not required to show up to protect you aren't you!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
You are as wrong as wrong can be.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
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
Thats like deciding to do something about drunk driving by banning the expensive cognacs and top dollar bourbons.
Your comparison just looks silly. We all know they would ban the cheap stuff that poor people from the ghetto drink. Just compare crack cocaine to the powdered stuff.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
You do realize that the people who wrote that line, and submitted it to the States for ratification, which it was; just got done fighting a war for independence from another country that started as a tax revolt, right?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I would gladly defend the constitution of the States of America against the criminal organization that seeks to destroy it!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
People may have had their smoothbore Brown Bess muskets locked up at the armory but their Pennsylvania Rifles were hanging over the front door!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
The one I love the best:
You can buy a .12 gauge shotgun, and 00 or 01 Buck load which will pretty much kill anyone from any sporting goods store. However, non-lethal bean-bag rounds that police use for crowd control are "law enforcement only" and cannot be purchased by the average citizen.
Clearly the law is set up for me to kill an invader and have the coroner take him away to a morgue rather than just to subdue him and wait for the police to haul him away to a jail.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
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
Considering the authors of the Constitution had just gone and killed their prior government. Um, yes....
Regulated = trained btw...
You will very soon find that I speak for the majority of Americans when I say "enough is enough". Assault rifles have no place in the hands of amateurs. Arguments to the contrary, though they may be shrill and frequent, are pitiful in their desperation.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Two rocket launchers were turned in at a recent LA gun buyback. I suspect there are more rocket launchers in civilian hands than just those two, yet somehow we don't have rocket launcher massacres going on. That despite the fact that those rocket launchers are already banned, and therefore are possessed by criminals.
It already is legal for you to own a tank, if you can afford it.
A firearm is a tool, and like any tool it can be used for good or for bad. Firearms are reportedly used millions of times a year in self defense, which most would argue is a good use. Unfortunately they are also used around 10,000 times a year to commit murder, which is a bad use. It seems absurd to me to prevent millions of good uses per year to "prevent" ten thousand bad uses, especially if the best you can say is that murders by guns are down by about 10,000 but murders by other methods are up by about 10,000.
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! :)
You would have sided with the sheriff at the battle of athens?
The last revolution on American soil was actually fought by military guys returning from world war 2 and overthrowing the local corrupt government in Athens Tennessee
I appreciate your zeal. Are you sure that the best way to defend your country would be to put down a revolt? Do you think Thomas Jefferson would agree? Please feel free to be long-winded about this, a short sharp answer will not do.
I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
Your M1 Garand has a magazine that you feed bullets into via a clip...
The National Gaurd is a standing military force, not a militia. The key difference is that when called to serve members of the gaurd don't have a choice. The Militia had the right to leave and return to defend their homes at any time.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
... 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.
Leave and let you blow yourself up?
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.
Well, we can't analyze statistics intelligently and act on them, because the NRA lobbied Congress to prevent us from doing so.
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
What if they set fire to your home because your religion is unpopular?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
There is no oppression. You are free. The United States is a free country. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
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.
That woman was on the phone with her husband during the break-in. It's not clear from the story whether either of them called 911, which would have been a good idea. The fire department can get to my house in 2-3 minutes. Can the police do the same when they get a call of a home break-in? Is a burglar going to stick around if you tell him the police are coming?
The woman is also lucky that he burglar didn't have a gun. If she started shooting at him, he would have started shooting back. If you're facing an armed burglar, you have about as good a chance of killing him as he does of killing you.
If you're worried about burglars, get a dog. It's safer.
You will very soon find that I speak for the majority of Americans when I say "enough is enough".
Bull. Shit.
As I said before, you speak for no one other than yourself and that mouse that apparently inhabits your pocket.
Assault rifles have no place in the hands of amateurs.
Assault rifles, i.e. military rifles with full-auto or burst firing, are not available to civilians. Of course, you know that, and are failing to make the distinction not out of ignorance, but rather as a malicious attempt to further your political agenda at the expense of everyone else's rights.
Thankfully, you don't get to decide what my rights are.
Arguments to the contrary, though they may be shrill and frequent, are pitiful in their desperation.
Ah, yes, the 'neener-neener boo-boo, you're a doody-head' argument. Classy.
My apologies, I did not realize I was talking to a child, or rather, a person with the reasoning skills of a child. From now on, I'll do my best to stick to monosyllabics, so that maybe you'll be able to comprehend some of the big-boy topics being discussed.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Ever been to Tel-Aviv?
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.
For me (a non US citizen) I feel that it's fairly simple. The Internet allows people's words to reach more people, this is only harmful if you are scared of what people will say. Modern firearms allow people's bullets to reach more people, this is just harmful. The analogy doesn't hold when you look at results.
When was the last time the spirit of the 2nd amendment, the "security of a free state", was maintained with a firearm in the US? What is the ratio of violent crimes with firearms in relation to defending that free state? What ratio is too high?
I imagine if I was raised in the US I would be pro-gun, because it's based completely on indoctrination - the same as my anti-gun beliefs are. I don't think that would make me a better person, I think it would make me more dangerous to the society around me, and I think a society constantly in danger is one that will lead to disaster when things get tough.
I worry about what will happen in the US when oil starts getting scarcer and much more expensive. I worry about what will happen in the US when corporations get even more power, and less afraid of the government. I worry because it will have a flow on effect that will change the world.
I think the point is that resistance will be needed whenever it stops being a free, democratically elected government. At that point, you probably wouldn't be defending the government.
Remember, the Nazis were democratically elected to power, but after the March 1933 election all other parties were banned. Germany became a de-facto dictatorship regardless of the "democratic" elections that were held in subsequent years.
Muskets WERE the military weapon of the day, just like the M-16/M4 are today. Civilians can own the non-automatic AR-15.
I find it hard to believe that the 2d amendment is about letting governmental entities beyond the Federal government keep arms in the middle of a document about individual rights. There's also that pesky, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" thing.
As applied today, I think the proper reading of the 2d amendment "well regulated" part is that the National Guard should be providing training and marksmanship classed to any citizen willing to arm themselves with a military caliber rifle and show up. In times of emergency these volunteers could be called up to supplement the National Guard.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Would any of the potential gun control measures being discussed have prevented that woman from owning the weapon she used to defend herself? If the answer to that question is no, then your story is a pure red herring.
:(){
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.
:(){
Undoing moderation to post.
Dunno if there are more recent examples, but in 1946 some WWII veterans used guns as private citizens to help ensure free elections. Now, this doesn't address your other questions, of whether or not such protection from (real or imagined) tyranny is worth it. I tend to be somewhere in the middle: I think people should have the right to bear arms, but that requiring licensing, registration, and training do not infringe on those rights.
The easiest way to explain the only muskets existed argument is understanding that, at a fundamental level you are likely using the exact same argument yourself.
The Constitution only says "arms", it doesn't mention anything about "guns" or "small arms". There was simply no distinguishing at the time between nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, large bombs and flintlock muskets. Of course the reason for this was they didn't exist. The big weapons of the day, cannons, were expensive and required a crew to operate, and really were only useful under particular circumstances.
Now of course, because of the nature of these arms, *most* (not all) people say the Constitution doesn't apply to those, so the government CAN make laws regarding possession of those types of arms. So unless you are one of the very few who think we call all have weaponized Anthrax, the only real disagreement is which arms are covered and which are not.
That doesn’t mean you *CAN’T* think it ought to apply to guns, but you are still deciding which “arms” are legitimately covered by the Constituion.
From the web page: DELIVERY TIME JUNE 30, 2013 or before
You cant read very well. Mine were ordered 7 days ago and I just got a notification that they will ship in 2 weeks so if I want engraving I need to send the file.
Are you really that utterly stupid?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Her husband was on one phone with her, and on another phone with 911. The police were called prior to her shooting the intruder. There was enough time for her to shoot him 5 times, for him to get up, walk/stumble downstairs, go outside, get in his vehicle, drive off, and crash before the police showed up.
It's not a red herring on the issue of restricting magazine sizes. This case clearly demonstrates that 6 bullets isn't a guarantee that you will take down a single intruder, and there are plenty of cases where there's more than one intruder. The argument for high capacity magazines is that you may have to defend againast more than one intruder. The argument against is mass shootings. The important question is, "will a ban on high capacity magazines stop mass shootings?" The article points out that a ban is easy to bypass, since you can just print your own magazines.
"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? ;-)
Funny thing is the article I saw above the above one was about a guy being awoken at 5am only to find a naked man choking/wrestling with his rottweiler. When the homeowner got the naked intruder's attention, he lunged at the homeowner, who shot him twice (non-fatal last I heard). Dogs make great early warning systems, but are either shitty at stopping someone or shitty at being a family pet... very few dogs are truly effective at both against a determined intruder.
There's no reason that a civilian needs an AK-47/74/AR-15 (a military issue with full auto mode disabled)
(Emphasis added) .243 wssm) and lower power rimfire rounds (like .22lr) with nothing but your fingers means the same gun can be used for both large game and small game hunting. Being lightweight means it's easier to carry if you like longer trips without seeing civilization. Easy to maintain is another obvious benefit as... well it's just darned easy to maintain an ar-15.
Actually the receivers on an ar-15 and a m16 are different, the m16 receiver has an area milled out for the auto seer as well as a third hole for the automatic fire control group. Auto mode isn't just disabled the physical parts for the full auto mode won't fit. The advantages of an ar-15 in "legitimate" uses are numerous. For hunting having a modular platform that is easy to maintain and lightweight is an obvious plus. The ability to switch between higher powered larger caliber rounds (like the 50 beowulf or
There's something wrong with the Loganville police if it takes them so long to respond to the emergency.
There are too many unanswered questions about this story. I don't trust the TV news to get it all right.
Unfortunately, the NRA lobbied Congress to deny funds for research into gun crimes, so we could find out exactly what happens in situations like this. So we don't know.
for an M1 Garand. En bloc clips to be exact. ;^)
Lighten up a bit. Please.
So how do you explain the current government tyranny? According to you there should be none.
Seatbelts protect people from crashes, but they don't make you invincible.
An armed populace can, if the provocation is severe enough, form an insurgent movement and wage asymmetric war against an invading force. It's quite effective; we saw just how so in Iraq and Afghanistan. We were unable to make real progress until we finally developed a counterinsurgency doctrine that was based on getting the locals on our side. A more brutal approach would not have worked, as the Soviets discovered in Afghanistan earlier.
Firearms have historically protected against many local tyrannies. Even without proper firearms, Native Americans fought us to a draw, and had they been a more unified people, the face of the US might be quite different.
After the civil war, the confederates couldn't fight a conventional war, so they formed the KKK and used lynchings and such to terrorize newly freed blacks. The freemen defended their lands with firearms, and the Democrats working with the KKK pushed for some of the earliest gun control measures.
Tyranny doesn't, of course, come just from governments. The worst tyranny in the US is from criminal gangs terrorizing poor urban areas; those areas invariably have strict gun control.
Firearms are nothing without human spirit resolved to use them if need be. That's why the worst abuses of government power are, invariably, the popular ones. The war on drugs has been incredibly popular in the name of The Children, and it's still a minority view to oppose it.
And that makes gun control the greatest potential tyranny because so many people are entirely willing to give the police license to forcibly disarm their neighbors.
Certain political parties which get blackballed off of ballots and out of debates would disagree that they are exactly "fair".
I'm ok with tobacco if its pure and people are allowed to grow their own or buy it at the farmers market.
Dear god I wish we would ban mass manufactured cigarettes, I live with smokers and they have no regard for anyones sensibilities. Not all smokers are like this, I know a few I don't live with that will have some regard for the people their with.
Anyway, the smell from a manufactured cigarette is the worst. I also know for a fact that plain burning plant matter is less harmful then a cocktail full of shit chemicals flavored with plant matter.
The bean bags are not as non-lethal as you would think in untrained hands. I think selling them to the public, mis advertised as non-lethal would be pretty bad. I wouldn't mind if people took a course, learned about the safe use of them, and were certified to use them. Or if it was basic common knowledge.
Also I would say the design of the bean bags are more for riot control then self defense. They would make an impractical weapon in a public setting. They might be reliably to stop home robberies.
Police are a deterrent not an effective means of personal protection. Allot of people like to confuse the two.
says the anon coward.....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
well when one of them men who wrote the damn thing tells us that we should look at it as it was written, at the time it was written, rather than interpreting it, It only makes sense that we do so
long story short, if it is a legal weapon for our military, it is legal for us, as per the constitution, if you believe otherwise, well good for you, but dont get upset when i protect myself from an enemy, foreign OR domestic.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
My apologies, I did not realize I was talking to a child, or rather, a person with the reasoning skills of a child. From now on, I'll do my best to stick to monosyllabics, so that maybe you'll be able to comprehend some of the big-boy topics being discussed.
I'm fairly confident that anyone who reads this exchange will know who the adult is. Not worried one bit.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Do you know what has more power than your democratically elected government? The Constitution. That document, you see, is the Supreme Law of the Land. Nothing can supersede it. Anything that attempts to do so is, by definition, unconstitutional, and thus illegal. If it needs changing, then you can hold a Constitutional Convention, and add or remove Amendments to it, thus altering it. Again, anything else is unconstitutional.
What If a President decided to sign an executive order banning women or blacks or gays from voting, would that be legal? What if they banned a religion? Or shut down the presses, or passed laws allowing anyone who criticized them to be arrested? Are those all legal valid laws just because they were made executive orders by some democratically elected president? What if Congress did the same? Sure, unlike an executive order, Congress is actually supposed to make laws. So, if they passed the above laws, would that make them all legal? What if the Supreme Court upheld them when contested? Does that make it legal? Or would the Supreme Court have committed treason?
Democracy is merely mob rule, that's why the architects of our nation didn't create one. We are a Constitutional Republic, meaning a Republic where the Representatives are ruled by a defined document, namely the Constitution.
Do you know what the military oath is? "... I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; ... " They are not taking an oath to protect you, your home, your land, our country, our government, not any of it. They are protecting the Constitution. Now, they also continue with, "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me" but that is followed by the immediate caveat, "according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." The last bit of religious stuff aside, the Uniform Code of Military Justice specifically requires you NOT to obey an unlawful order. Any order that goes against the Constitution is unlawful, and under the UCMJ you are required NOT to obey it, even if given by the current democratically elected President. At some point, the people in the military will have to ask themselves just how seriously they take that oath to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies.
The only "fucking traitors" are the ones who think they can piss all over the Constitution, or supersede it without due authority. If the President actually signs an executive order banning any type of guns, it's not only illegal and unconstitutional, but treasonous. The Supreme Court upholding it makes it no less so. You are free to defend that bullshit all you want if it comes to an actual insurrection, but if the men and women in the military aren't full of shit, they'll be to be on our side, not yours, when it all goes down.
So, long story short, good luck with that.
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
How many of those 28 gun deaths were lawful homicides committed in self-defense?
You speak of "analyzing statistics intelligently", but your data lacks crucial distinctions to analyze it properly.
If missiles are involved, somehow I doubt you'd be anywhere near them - they've been more or less illegal since 1934, and you have to convince your local cops that you have a good reason to have guided munitions. The standard's rather lower for suppressors and sawn-off shotguns, but I imagine precision guided artillery rockets might provoke some interesting conversations with the chief of police.
The problem is they're generally very good at influencing voters.
The author, George Mason, specifically wrote elsewhere that the militia was basically every private citizen.
If they were trying to ban the stuff poor people from the ghetto drink, ("beer", or .38 snubnose revolvers) they'd also be banning the stuff Joe Sixpack in Arkansas drinks ("beer", or .38 snubnose revolvers - also the gun of choice among the law abiding, last I checked).
Yes, this really is like going after expensive scotch, in this metaphor.
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.
Seconding your questions about the internet and such... It is exactly because we don't look to the original intent of the framers of our country (authors of the constitution) that we have allowed the government to not treat emails and private chats the same as snail mail and other "personal effects."
Uh, the NRA is 4 million or more regular Americans.
Because I really don't care that 27.9 or more of those deaths (on average) are drug dealers killing other drug dealers. That is also the majority of the "killed by an acquaintence" statistic.
And almost all of them are drug dealers killing other drug dealers. That violence will never stop. So, yes, it is a cheap price to me. I wasn't the original poster of that comment but I will admit that I really don't care about drug dealers killing other drug dealers and get very upset when someone uses the existence of that activity as a reason to restrict my access to whatever weapon I want.
The actual statistics are more like 27 of those deaths are drug dealers killing other drug dealers. But that is exactly the mentality of the control freaks currently in power right now. Equate us all with drug dealers.
That's for the best. My CCW instructor who was also a police officer and police academy instructor taught us that once we make the decision to use our weapon, we are to "shoot to stop the threat" and that the only reliable way to stop the threat was to "shut down the computer." He went on to explain for those that still didn't understand that the goal was not to injure but to kill by shutting down the central nervous system by targeting a rectangle about three inches wide centered on the nose and running from the eyes to the sternum. Not killing for the sake of killing but killing because that is the only way to guarantee that the threat has been eliminated. He also pointed out that the side benefit of this is that the assailant will not be making up any bullshit story about how mistaken you were about his (her) intentions.
I'm honestly okay with this. If I'm firing a weapon somewhere I didn't expect to need to, I want the police there like five minutes ago and that just saves me a call. I can call in after the immediate threat to life and limb is past, and vector them in, but this way they'll have a head start compared to me, a cell phone, and calling when the situation has become safe. That's also assuming I'm able to summon help - cellphones aren't precisely 100% reliable, and I could be injured and unable to dial.
His willingness and ability to force open a barred attic demonstrates that he had some kind of force multiplier at hand, and that he wasn't simply there to clean out the jewelry box, otherwise he'd have just grabbed the jewelry box and made a hasty exit. If the article I read was right about the attic having to be forced open, then a pretty solid attempt at "holding him at bay" already failed.
Six wasn't enough to stop him; but the threat of six more (she bluffed that she was reloading the gun) was enough to make him want to leave.
Her accuracy under stress was commendable, and her use of a choke point nearly ideal. Under hypothetical worse-than-ideal conditions, I'd answer your question with "Quite a few more than she had".
To play devil's advocate for a moment, not a single firearm has to be used to make the economic calculus so unpleasant that potential aggressors won't want to do what it takes to subjugate the continental US. They just have to be there. Remember "a rifle behind every blade of glass" back in world war 2? It's not the millitia types, it's not the survivalists, it's the fact that there are approximately 315 million guns in safes, sock drawers, and holsters and getting every last one would pretty well be the definition of "statistically impossible". If every SWAT team, beat cop, soldier, and hunter were all fighting some hypothetical external bad guy, the odds get worse - that 315 million is only counting civilian-owned weapons.
Thing is, every state actor knows this. That's why we're so worried about non-state actors who don't wear uniforms announcing their affiliation & c. now. We've made it so expensive in lives and treasure to do things the old fashioned way, the only threats to the US have to cheat simply to be threats at all.
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
If any of you fucking traitors ever use your guns to subvert our democratically elected government, I promise to be among the first to defend our country.
If the United States descends into actual, genuine tyranny, it very likely won't have a democratically elected government anymore - maybe a "President for life." How are you not tracking with that?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Maybe you've heard wrong?
Mexico's Gun Supply and the 90 Percent Myth
. . . According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.
This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States. . . .more
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Well, we can't analyze statistics intelligently and act on them, because the NRA lobbied Congress to prevent us from doing so.
Rubbish. The Department of Justice can perform statistical analysis as well as anyone.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
You are leaving out some inconvenient facts there about the Center for Disease Control, not firearms control . . . .
Public Health Pot Shots - How the CDC succumbed to the Gun "Epidemic"
Contrary to this picture of dispassionate scientists under assault by the Neanderthal NRA and its know-nothing allies in Congress, serious scholars have been criticizing the CDC's "public health" approach to gun research for years. In a presentation at the American Society of Criminology's 1994 meeting, for example, University of Illinois sociologist David Bordua and epidemiologist David Cowan called the public health literature on guns "advocacy based on political beliefs rather than scientific fact." Bordua and Cowan noted that The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association, the main outlets for CDC-funded studies of firearms, are consistent supporters of strict gun control. They found that "reports with findings not supporting the position of the journal are rarely cited," "little is cited from the criminological or sociological field," and the articles that are cited "are almost always by medical or public health researchers."
Further, Bordua and Cowan said, "assumptions are presented as fact: that there is a causal association between gun ownership and the risk of violence, that this association is consistent across all demographic categories, and that additional legislation will reduce the prevalence of firearms and consequently reduce the incidence of violence." They concluded that "[i]ncestuous and selective literature citations may be acceptable for political tracts, but they introduce an artificial bias into scientific publications. Stating as fact associations which may be demonstrably false is not just unscientific, it is unprincipled." In a 1994 presentation to the Western Economics Association, State University of New York at Buffalo criminologist Lawrence Southwick compared public health firearm studies to popular articles produced by the gun lobby: "Generally the level of analysis done on each side is of a low quality. The papers published in the medical literature (which are uniformly anti-gun) are particularly poor science."
As Bordua, Cowan, and Southwick observed, a prejudice against gun ownership pervades the public health field. Deborah Prothrow-Stith, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, nicely summarizes the typical attitude of her colleagues in a recent book. "My own view on gun control is simple," she writes. "I hate guns and cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned." Opposition to gun ownership is also the official position of the U.S. Public Health Service, the CDC's parent agency. Since 1979, its goal has been "to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership," starting with a 25 percent reduction by the turn of the century.. . . more
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
True or False: a bean bag round to the chest is less lethal than 16 pellets that are ballistically the same as .380 rounds. Because that's what a 2 3/4 inch shell with 01 Buckshot from a .12 gauge effectively is.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
So how do you explain the current government tyranny? According to you there should be none.
The US govt is probably not any more tyrannical now than it always has been. This is the "free" country that put its own law-abiding citizens into concentration camps during WW2 just because they had slanted eyes. Gitmo is insignificant in comparison.
When the US Constitution lists a bunch of rights, those weren't listed there because its writers thought you'd actually get them. They are listed exactly because they knew no realistic govt would ever let you have them, to give you a cudgel to keep whacking the govt with to at least prevent the whole thing from becoming a fundamentalist hell-hole.
What the US has today isn't true tyranny. You'll know true tyranny when you get it.
sigs are hazardous to your health
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.
No, he'll join up to the democratically accountable military or law enforcement arms of the government, and get a few weekends target practice with proper weapons against neo-nazi scum who want to establish gun law so they can fulfill their fantasies of returning to a pure white American golden age.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
If any of you fucking traitors ever use your guns to subvert our democratically elected government, I promise to be among the first to defend our country.
Luckily, you won't need to. The US military is somewhat more powerful than a rag bag collection of paranoid survivalists and neo-fascists.
Now, if the US military decide to get rid of the government, there's a whole new ballgame. I'd love to see which side the gun-fanboys would be on then.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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!
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.
You'll have to pry my 3D printer from my hot, crispy fingers.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
we have more gun-related deaths, but we also have significantly less violent crimes overall.
Less than where?
Say you choose the UK, where I live. Americans love to say that we have more violent crime than in the US. But "violent crime" includes things like low level drunken punch ups where someone gets a couple of bruises or cuts. I wouldn't be surprised if we had more incidents like this, my impression is that a lot more people get drunk in Britain on a regular basis than in the US (without getting all Daily Faily about binge drinking).
But at least these drunken punch ups don't often end up with one or more people being shot dead. Knife crime is an issue here, but you're still more likely to survive someone pulling out a knife and stabbing you than someone pulling out a gun and emptying a few rounds into you.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
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.
He probably was a bit drunk and mistook you for a taxi.
And if he was a car hijacker, what if he'd jumped in with a drawn weapon of his own? I assume you don't drive with your revolver in one hand all the time.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
if it happens on a greater scale the outcome will be civil war with hardware on both sides
If you have an actual civil war, the choice of weapons is irrelevant, as both sides will get hold of more or less the same amount of whatever they can, including helicopter gunships, heavy machine guns, tanks, cruise missiles and H-bombs (even assuming that the military split evenly into pro- and anti-government, and don't just keep all the good stuff for the government side, which is unlikely).
Whether or not you have a legally owned rifle or handgun at home will be irrelevant.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
we have more gun-related deaths, but we also have significantly less violent crimes overall.
Less than where?
That was covered in my citation. But if you're correct, then even my citation is just another misinterpretation of the statistics...it's hard to find a good, objective source for all of this. Do you know of a better one? Because I'd REALLY like to understand the pro gun control side.
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...
You will very soon find that I speak for the majority of Americans when I say "enough is enough".
Bull. Shit.
Oh look, how timely: a poll showing that a majority of Americans want stricter gun controls:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/cnn-poll-majority-approve-of-obama-biden-in-advance-of-gun-control-announcement/?hpt=hp_t1
Me and the mouse in my pocket will be over here, with the rest of the adults.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
I see your anecdote and raise it this one: "Gun-toting soccer mom found shot dead" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33220258/
You will very soon find that I speak for the majority of Americans when I say "enough is enough".
Bull. Shit.
Oh look, how timely: a poll showing that a majority of Americans want stricter gun controls:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/16/cnn-poll-majority-approve-of-obama-biden-in-advance-of-gun-control-announcement/?hpt=hp_t1
Me and the mouse in my pocket will be over here, with the rest of the adults.
Poll title:
CNN Poll: Majority approve of Obama and Biden in advance of gun control announcement
Let me guess, you went to Google, punched in something like "Majority approve gun control poll," and C&P'd the first legitimate looking link you saw, without even taking 2 seconds to read the damn page title.
Brilliant work there, Hoss. Tell ya what, you keep living a fantasy, reveling in your narcissistic, falsely inflated sense of mental superiority, and I'll keep laughing my ass off at your pathetic attempts to denigrate me.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Care to read it completely? Especially the section about semiautomatic guns. Most of the seized weapons are handguns, which don't need to originate in the US.
"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 2nd Amendment was written in a time when people had muskets in order to enable a well-regulated militia to defend themselves from colonial powers and attacks by native Americans, not the federal government. The militia kept their muskets locked up in an armory away from home until they were needed. We still have that, it's called the National Guard. Go sign up if you want to, but you don't get to bring your service rifle home with you.
It's an archaic usage except with regard to shotguns, but when you regulate a firearm, you are adjusting it so that the bullets you fire go where the sights are pointing, so that you will hit what you're shooting at. A well-regulated militia, in the usage of the time, was one that was trained well enough to be able to reliably hit what they were shooting at. The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when muskets were the norm and rifles were too expensive to equip run-of-the-mill troops with; it says 'arms' because the Founders understood that technology advances, and since the intent was to preserve the right of individuals to keep weapons comparable to those carried by soldiers, they didn't tie it down to a particular technology.
The National Guard is the militia? Not for years. The militia can't be sent beyond the borders of the United States; back during Desert Storm, several governors filed suit to prevent National Guard units from being deployed to the Middle East. SCOTUS ruled that the National Guard was part of the standing military, not the militia, and could be deployed anywhere in the world. The militia kept their 'muskets' on the wall of their homes, where they would be available when they were called up; otherwise all that would be necessary to do would be to use a small force to seize the armory in order to neuter an entire community's ability to resist.
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
Poll title:
CNN Poll: Majority approve of Obama and Biden in advance of gun control announcement
You should try reading the article. You might find it has a bit more to say than that.
Let me guess, you went to Google, punched in something like "Majority approve gun control poll," and C&P'd the first legitimate looking link you saw, without even taking 2 seconds to read the damn page title.
Actually, I found the article this morning on the front page of CNN during my morning reading.
Let me guess: you read the title and didn't read any farther than that. Amiright?
Brilliant work there, Hoss. Tell ya what, you keep living a fantasy, reveling in your narcissistic, falsely inflated sense of mental superiority, and I'll keep laughing my ass off at your pathetic attempts to denigrate me.
My motivation is entirely on eliminating assault rifles from the hands of lunatics.
What's your motivation?
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
I'm not sure that the people who want bills to amend the state/federal constitutions to explicitly state "a marriage may only be made between a man and a woman" would recognize the irony that all it would take to back the legislation up a couple hundred years would be to change the wording to put "white" in front of both 'man' and 'woman'.
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.
But didn't Biden just recently say "If our actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking"? Or did he mean it's only worth it if you do it "our" way? Wouldn't you pay more if it would save your kid's life? Or do you not care how it's done, as long as you don't have to pay for it? If laying off 6-10 teachers results in only saving one life, isn't that worth it?
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
If our government were a democracy, you'd have a point. However, it is not; America is a Constitutional Republic, and her laws are based on written policy, not the whims of today. For example, take the Jim Crow laws of the 1950's and 60's - the majority of Americans supported the laws, and wanted to keep "Separate but Equal" as the defacto standard. However, the SCOTUS of the time realized that such laws were in violation of the Constitution, and thus, struck them down, regardless of public sentiment.
Roe v. Wade had a similar issue - the majority of people wanted to keep abortion criminalized, but the SCOTUS realized that the state had no power to decide what medical procedures a person could receive, and thus, upheld the lower court decision.
According to your rationale, blacks should still be forced to use seperate facilities for everything, and women shouldn't have a right to choose what to do with their own bodies. Do you really think that way? I doubt it; rather, I think you're trying to act like this issue is somehow different, even though armament ownership is protected under the same document as equal rights and free speech.
Hypocrisy, in other words.
What's your motivation?
Namely, ensuring that coddled, idiot suburbanites who are under the impression that every American lives in a situation identical to their own do not take away my Constitutional right to protect myself.
Ever been to bear country? I'm guessing no. Had you have, you would realize that, in certain areas of this nation, there is a need for high caliber, semi-automatic rifles in order to protect our families and livelihoods from apex predator attack. Ever wonder why you hear about mountain lions in California taking down joggers and bikers on a regular basis, but you never hear those type of stories coming from Montana or Iowa? It's because in the midwest, we recognize that a bolt-action rifle will do nothing but piss one of these large, killer animals off, whereas a semi-automatic has the potential to actually kill the thing before it kills us.
I know it's asking a lot to expect people to realize that opinions are subjective, and that your living arrangements do not accurately reflect the situations of all 360,000,000 Americans, but that won't ever stop me from trying to enlighten.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
According to your rationale, blacks should still be forced to use seperate facilities for everything, and women shouldn't have a right to choose what to do with their own bodies. Do you really think that way? I doubt it; rather, I think you're trying to act like this issue is somehow different, even though armament ownership is protected under the same document as equal rights and free speech.
That's a specious argument. The Supreme Court has already upheld the constitutionality of a ban on assault weapons. Again, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It doesn't say anything about what kind of arms.
By your logic, the Second Amendment should allow for every citizen (mentally ill or not) to own a fully-automatic military-grade firearm. Since we know that there are in fact legal limits in place regarding fully-automatic weapons, we can conclude that your logic is faulty. The right to bear arms is not, in fact, an unlimited right. This is an inconvenient truth for the gun nuts out there, but the fact is that there is NOT an unconditional right to own any arms that you choose. The only question, then, is where the line is. Given the current climate, coupled with the unrepentant defiance of the idiots who are currently running the NRA, I think it's a fair bet that the line is about to be moved. I would even go so far as to say that the NRA's position has convinced many Americans that the time to eliminate assault rifles is now. They've hurt their cause. Way to go, NRA.
Namely, ensuring that coddled, idiot suburbanites who are under the impression that every American lives in a situation identical to their own do not take away my Constitutional right to protect myself.
Your constitutional right to protect yourself doesn't have to include assault weapons. And anyway, I hold it as self-evident that situations all over America would be improved if there were no assault weapons AND no handguns available.
Ever been to bear country? I'm guessing no. Had you have, you would realize that, in certain areas of this nation, there is a need for high caliber, semi-automatic rifles in order to protect our families and livelihoods from apex predator attack.
That exception (if it's really even a legitimate exception -- a casual web search says that you've grossly exaggerated the reality) doesn't mean that all Americans, everywhere, need unfettered access to assault weapons with no background checks. All rights -- even the right to free speech -- have limits. To argue that the Second Amendment gives you unlimited rights is just stupid to the point of being able to discount everything else you've said. Of course it has limits. Get over it.
I know it's asking a lot to expect people to realize that opinions are subjective, and that your living arrangements do not accurately reflect the situations of all 360,000,000 Americans, but that won't ever stop me from trying to enlighten.
By the same token, I don't think you realize that the easy access to guns has made living in a large city a nightmare. What you're probably not realizing is that there are more of us in cities than there are those of you out in the hinterlands, and that demographic is increasingly moving toward concentration of the population in cities. At this point, our need to limit access to guns is far more dire than for your narrow exceptions regarding bobcats and bears. Sorry if that doesn't bode well for you and your family, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Might want to invest in some pepper spray.
Sorry, man. You're going to lose this one. And there's really nothing you can do about it. Assault weapons are going to be eliminated. If not now, then soon.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
If laying off 6-10 teachers results in only saving one life, isn't that worth it?
if laying off 6-10 teachers saves one life and gives all the students in that school a subpar education, then it makes sense to consider finding an option that can save that life without sacrificing the futures of those children. Considering how far behind our education system has already fallen, it seems that we should really look into options that do not cause it to fall even further.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
will one day lead accessory to murder charges
Just saying "You are wrong as wrong can be" does not make any sort of argument at all. If that person is wrong, it shouldn't be hard to point to a few real facts making the point.
"To stop the terrorists."
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.
One thing that many people seem to miss is that our military has a high number of those "southern rednecks" who highly value the 2nd Amendment.
That said, there are plenty of current examples of groups of individuals with nothing much more that rifles successfully opposing a highly trained and well armed military. Iraq and Afghanistan anyone?
And you should not be so dismissal about the desire to disarm America.
Just read Slashdot, Huffingtonpost, Demunderground, DailyKOS, New York Times Op Eds and reader's comments, etc. There is plenty of support on the Left for completely banning guns.
Then hear high profile politicians discuss how confiscation is "on the table".
And then there is the clear intent of the legislation that Obama proposed to completely ban some kinds of guns, arbitrarily call "Assault weapons", leaving the actual definition to bureaucrats. Today, an "Assault Rifle" is an AR-15. Tomorrow it will be a Mini-14, the next day a 10-22.
Don't think for a second that if Obama and his sycophants thought they had a chance to repeal the 2nd and confiscate all the firearms in the U.S, that they wouldn't try.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Here are a few more interesting tidbits of deaths per day in the US
3,200 babies are aborted per day in the US
268 were killed by doctors (malpractice)
88 were killed in car crashes
63 were killed related to alcohol
9 per day drown
1.7 per day killed while riding their bike or falling at work
1 death every 3 days from starvation in the US
1 death every 7 days dies from lightning
1 death every 10 days from dog attacks
1 death every 10 days in a mass school shooting (US 2012)
1 death every 4-6 months someone is crushed to death by a soda machine
Gotta watch out for those soda machines!
28 is accurate for just murders. 9-10 a day if you don't count criminals killing criminals.
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.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously???
This made sense back in the 18th and 19th centuries. Do you really expect to stand up to the US government with a bunch of hunting rifles, shotguns, pistols and the odd assault rifle? Hell, why aren't the people doing that now, when things like gitmo, DHS overreach and other such stomping of freedoms surely must be considered tyranny? (here's a hint - you'd lose long before martial law was declared).
Enjoy your "freedom".
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 want to state what is to me and many other older Americans very obvious, that the greatest single threat to the constitution of the United States, is it's own government!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Good luck with "protecting from tyranny" these days, with the tyranny having M1 Abrams tanks, A-10 Warthog planes and weapons like that at their disposal.
Tell me, oh honorable freedom fighter, how does your assault gun gonna penetrate that M1's armour?