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.
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.
In the same way that an unenforced "Gun Free Zone" does.
It doesn't.
We do it intentionally because it makes you guys so mad. It's hilarious. "It's not a CLIP!!! AAAAAAA"
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.
The purpose of the second amendment is not for sporting, hunting, or even home defense. It is there to prevent the government from disarming the people and instituting tyranny and/or fascism. We have the second amendment to preserve our natural right to shoot tyrants and fascists should our system of checks and balances fail and they come into power.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
You can also stop a high percentage of the bad guys from getting guns in the first place. This isn't a pipe dream - most of the developed world has something on the order of 100x fewer gun homicides.
Of course, assault rifles are objectively not a big problem. Handguns are. But the path of least resistance for Obama is to score some easy points by going after the big easy target. And because he's going after something that isn't a problem, it gives the other side an easy out as well. Everyone wins, ain't politics great? Oh, sure, we still have something like 8000 handgun homicides at the end, but whatever.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You know how you stop a bad guy with a gun?
A good guy with a gun.
Excellent. Now all we need is a way to tell the two guys apart before the shooting starts.
Isn't it time we banned these 3d assault printers?
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.
We need to wake up and realize that guns are a privilege not a right.
The 2nd Amendment says otherwise. Unless you want to claim all other amendments are just privileges and not rights?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Next you want to ban AK-47's, but I'm sure you don't know that effectively AK-47's, M16's and every other type of machine gun is already banned. The ban does not allow the transfer of any new machine guns to regular citizens that have been manufactured since 1984. Since this calls into the effect the laws of economics the supply is very limited and it costs around $20,000 to buy a M16 in addition to the background check and $200 tax stamp that one must go through with the BATF. Go look up crime statistics and you will find that the number of crimes committed with machine guns is either zero every year or in single digits.
An assault weapon is one that is capable of firing more then one round when the trigger is pulled and they are all tightly controlled by current regulation.
The three AR-15's in my gun safe are all semi-auto only and one of these days I'll pick up an AK clone that is also semi-auto only. These are amazing target rifles, low recoil, semi-auto, accurate. Yet at the same time my fiancee bolt-action 30-06 is much more powerful, has greater effective range and is far more lethal.
The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of sporting, self-defense, or other criteria that gun banners attribute to the 2nd Amendment. AR-15's are used in sporting purposes all the time. 3-gun matches are growing in popularity and an AR-15 is one of the best choices for this sporting competition.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
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.
Just to add on to your point: This is why this is really difficult issue. Limiting the size of clips would minimize the impact of assaults like this. But it would also limit the effectiveness of armed resistance against a tyrannical government.
What do you think of kaws requiring people to lock guns instead of laws limiting magazines? Locking guns would not significantly limit one's ability to resist the government, but would prevent psychologically damaged people from easily stealing them. Every gun owner I know has their gun(s) locked in the kind of case that would resist a rocket launcher anyway. I don't understand why that wasn't the case with Sandy Hook.
My primary point was a response to the
"You know how you stop a bad guy with a gun?
A good guy with a gun. Anything else is handwaving bullshit."
talking point: Columbine had an armed guard, who was apparently not all that useful.
The term 'green-on-blue attack' refers to the (quite common) situations where an aghan security force member will launch a surprise attack on NATO military personnel with which he is supposed to be working. Again, it turns out to not be that difficult to kill a few armed, trained, soldiers if you just wait for their backs to be turned.
More broadly, the relationship to magazine capacity is one of time: Given enough time to muster a response, the cops do show up in overwhelming numbers and either kill the shooter or cause them to kill themselves This means that the main question is how efficient they can be during the time that they have.
You're wrong.
"However, a timeline of the events assembled by the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department and published by CNN proves just the opposite. The armed guard, Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Neil Gardner, was able to engage the killers, keeping them from shooting more victims, and he personally saved dozens of students."
http://www.examiner.com/article/fact-check-columbine-high-s-armed-guard-saved-student-lives
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Three cities with the toughest gun laws in the country, and among the highest rates of gun violence. Analyze that.
Places where reasonable "shall-issue" concealed carry licenses are available have seen large decreases in gun violence. Analyze that too.
But that doesn't fit the narrative.
And to "fix" that, you want to take away the rights of every law-abiding citizen in America to defend themselves.
On April 20, Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun, (which he discharged a total of 25 times) and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired a total of 96 times.
A Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy, Neil Gardner, was assigned to the high school as a full-time uniformed and armed school resource officer. Gardner usually ate lunch with students in the cafeteria, but on April 20 he was eating lunch in his patrol car at the northwest corner of the campus, watching students in the Smokers' Pit in Clement Park. the single officer was NOT IN THE SCHOOL.
At 11:22, the custodian called Deputy Gardner on the school radio, requesting assistance in the Senior parking lot. The only paved route took him around the school to the east and south on Pierce Street, where, at 11:23 he heard on his police radio that a female was down, struck by a car, he assumed. He turned on his lights and siren. While exiting his patrol car in the Senior lot at 11:24, he heard another call on the school radio, "Neil, there's a shooter in the school".[23] Harris, at the West Entrance, immediately fired his rifle at Gardner, who was sixty yards away.[23] Gardner returned fire with his service pistol.[31] He was not wearing his prescription eyeglasses, and was unable to hit the shooters.
Thus, five minutes after the shooting started, and two minutes after the first radio call, Gardner was engaged in a gun fight with the student shooters. There were already two dead and ten wounded. Harris fired ten shots and Gardner fired four, before Harris ducked back into the building. No one was hit. Gardner reported on his police radio, "Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me."
The officer did not enter the building.
They did NOT have an officer there as a guard. They had a resource officer that was there to bust unarmed kids for pot. If teachers were allowed to have concealed carry at school and allowed to carry at school after special training, it would have ended earlier with a lot fewer lost lives.
Please don't let facts get in the way of your rambling incoherent rant though..
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.