Defense Distributed Has 3D-Printed an Entire Gun

Daniel_Stuckey writes with this snippet from Motherboard with an update on Cody Wilson's Defense Distributed project: "On Friday morning, Forbes's Andy Greenberg published photos of the world's first completely 3D-printed gun. It has a 3D-printed handle, a 3D-printed trigger, a 3D-printed body and a 3D-printed barrel, all made of polymer. It's not completely plastic, though. So as not to violate the Undetectable Firearms Act and guarantee it would get spotted by a metal detector, Wilson and friends embedded a six-ounce hunk of steel inside the gun. They're calling it 'The Liberator.'" (A name I'm sure that Wilson didn't come up with accidentally.)

Comments

The answer to the question

[bunbuntheminilop]

The NRA thinks more guns are the answer. Looks like we'll find out if that's true when when we can put a gun in the hands of everyone, rich or poor.

Re:The answer to the question

[Aguazul2]

You still need ammo, though.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving people ammo would be too socialist.

We'll make people earn their bullets through their own individual efforts.

Re:The answer to the question

[Opportunist]

The NRA are very social guys, they give you bullets for free. Ok, just the front end, but hey...

Re:The answer to the question

[Squiddie]

As opposed to the civilian disarmament crowd that only wants weapons in the hands of the rich and connected.

Re: The answer to the question

[Izuzan]

Problem with that gun they printed. Judging by the round sitting next to it. It fires 22 shorts or cb caps. Not much better than a pellet rifle coming out of a rifle. Be about as good as a pea shooter coming out of a pistol with a inch long barrel.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is idiotic and you're so fucking ignorant it's sad.

There exist a number of firearms manufacturers that cater to the low-end arena. You can buy NEW firearms in the $100 range.

Compare that to how fucking many thousands for a 3d printer? Fuck, you'll probably spend more on materials printing the fucking thing than you could spend at your local sporting goods store.

But hey, go ahead and continue your anti-gun jackoff session. Don't let facts happen or anything.

Re:The answer to the question

[Cyberax]

Strawman. Civilian disarmament crowd (me included) wants guns only in the hands of the police (and not even ALL of the police). Besides, rich people do not really need to bother with guns themselves - why would they, if they can just hire bodyguards?

Re:The answer to the question

[fredprado]

The civilian disarmament crowd want guns only in the hands of the police and the criminals. The latter is unavoidable no matter how convenient it may be to pretend it is not.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Civilian disarmament crowd is the silly people that think that criminals will give up their guns.

If you think a criminal is not going to have access to a gun if you make them illegal, well you are simply really stupid.

Criminals get what they want no matter what the law says... Crack and Meth is all over the place and laws against it have done nothing to stop it.

Re:The answer to the question

[daninaustin]

That boat already sailed years ago. There are around 300 million guns in the US and they are easy to make. They don't really ever wear out so for better or worse we are going to have to live with them.

Re:The answer to the question

[Cyberax]

Sure. And it's a great way to catch criminals - just make a gun ownership an instant felony. Pretty soon most guns will be confiscated and it'll get much harder for criminals to get one. That's what happened in the UK and most of the Europe - and now they have drastically less gun crimes than the US.

Re:The answer to the question

[Cyberax]

Well, this problem can be solved gradually. Lots of other countries had comparable gun ownership and now are comparably gun-free.

Re:The answer to the question

[cayenne8]

Well, this problem can be solved gradually. Lots of other countries had comparable gun ownership and now are comparably gun-free.

All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true.

Good Luck with that....

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

...drastically less gun crimes than the US.

Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.

Honestly it is more complicated than what either you or I just said. There are other issues being ignored. Fact of the matter is, there are more ways people become desperate enough to think violent crime is a good idea in the US than in Europe..save for those nasty bits of it that have far more violent crime than the US does. They are usually ignored too, suprise suprise.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you just go suck on Obama's dick?
 
I know, I know... the NRA is big evil with over 5 million members and non-member firearm owners (nearly 100 million of us) but it's the will of a handful of elites with their own armed guards (paid for with taxpayer dollars) and a few very rich mouthpieces like the Hollywood puppets and Adolph Bloombitch that really represent the American public. Riiiiggghhhttttt. I guess the 1% are ok when they support your agenda, right?
 
Common leftist hypocrisy.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this problem can be solved gradually. Lots of other countries had comparable gun ownership and now are comparably gun-free.

All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true.

Good Luck with that....

You say that as if the current administration cares what the Constitution says... or knows the difference between the Constitution and toilet paper.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about Mexico. All the drug cartels have weapons and civilians do not.

Re:The answer to the question

[I'm New Around Here]

At the moment, in the USA, anybody can get ahold of a gun by tossing a wad of bills across at table at a gun show

Obviously said by someone who has never tried that technique. And probably has never been to a gun show.

Re:The answer to the question

[I'm New Around Here]

Well, this problem can be solved gradually. Lots of other countries had comparable gun ownership and now are comparably gun-free.

All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true.

Good Luck with that....

No, President Obama has shown quite clearly that he doesn't need to follow the Constitution. The 'checks and balances' of Congress and the Supreme Court have almost disappeared. And his supporters, such as Cyberax, expect him to do even more, since over half the country voted for him so he could.

Re:The answer to the question

[uncqual]

just make a gun ownership an instant felony

Which is, of course, only possible in the United States if the United States Constitution is first amended to nullify the Second Amendment. That only takes the approval of 3/4 of the State Legislatures.

The "amending" step is much harder than the act of making gun ownership illegal (which, itself, would be extremely difficult).

Re:The answer to the question

[Jeremi]

All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true. Good Luck with that....

Or a re-reading of the 2nd Amendment that puts more weight on the "well-ordered militia" clause... I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.

Re:The answer to the question

[guises]

...drastically less gun crimes than the US.

Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.

Nope.

Re: The answer to the question

[Bob the Super Hamste]

That is was I was thinking. I haven't seen, let alone shot a .22 short or even a .22 long (shorter than the standard .22lr). From what I have read on the .22 short it packs about as much punch as my .22 caliber air rifle. Then again my air rifle isn't like the Daisy ones everyone is familiar with (the ones were you can watch the BB in flight as it exits the barrel) as it will shoot right through small game like rabbits, chipmunks, squirrels, possum and would probably fatality wound a smaller raccoon. I really would question the accuracy of their little plastic gun as I doubt it is rifled and if it is it wouldn't be tough enough to engage the bullet which is another thing that my air rifle would have on it.

Re:The answer to the question

[twotailakitsune]

The Supreme Court at one time did read it as "state militia", only a few years ago did they --I think for the 1st time-- read it as a right for private citizens. So it could be a little while before the supreme Court changes its mind.

Re:The answer to the question

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Guns can be had for cheap so that really isn't a barrier. On the low end this printed gun probably costs more than a real gun that actually fires a round with some power behind it, has some accuracy, and has a really good chance of NOT blowing up in your face. I have seen rifles in good working order for about $90 (Mosin-Nagent M91/30s or M44s) and handguns for about $120 (Nagent revolvers) from reputable shops. Granted these are not brand new but good condition WWII era Soviet military surplus. If you looked hard you could probably get those cheaper in a shootable but beat up condition but I haven't seen any.

Re:The answer to the question

[ArcherB]

All you need is a constitutional amendment, and your wishes will come true. Good Luck with that....

Or a re-reading of the 2nd Amendment that puts more weight on the "well-ordered militia" clause... I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.

Actually, that "well regulated militia" part is proof that the Second Amendment was not to protect deer hunters, collectors or hobbyists. It was to protect the citizens from invaders and an abusive government. "Well regulated militia" is completely open to interpretation. My family can make up a "well regulated militia". Understand that at the time it was written, a "well regulated militia" meant farmers who could grab their gun and hit the streets to stand in a straight line and fire en masse. "Well regulated" meant that they all fired when someone said "FIRE!"

As for the national guard, that can no longer qualify since it is under the control of the federal government. I know, it's not "officially" under the federal government, but I know a lot of guardsmen who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who would disagree.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it can't. First, for much of the country it isn't a problem. The problem is the dipshits on the east and west coast trying to take away our guns. There are almost as many guns as people and many of the people buying guns now are buying them because they think the govt is trying to outlaw them. Do you really think they would give them up when they bought them expecting them to be outlawed? Just remember that the guns are not distributed evenly. A recent poll showed that 29% of the population is expecting a civil war. Guess which group is stocking up?

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of Occam's razor?
It's NOT amazing that it hasn't happened.
Go ahead. Grab some well dressed, well groomed middle eastern guy, a hidden camera, and go to a gun show.
Have him try to buy a decently outfitted sniper long gun.
See what happens. Be ready to come to his defense. Do NOT mention you have a camera...

Good luck...

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

In a real time of tyranny I highly doubt a bunch of idiots with handguns and an AR-15 are going to be able to stop a drone strike or the government's satellites from tracking their every movement.

Re:The answer to the question

[Squiddie]

Besides, rich people do not really need to bother with guns themselves - why would they, if they can just hire bodyguards?

Yeah, us lesser being will just settle for being stabbed, raped, and beaten. We're just not as important as the rich or politicians.

Re:The answer to the question

[Entropius]

Ownership of (enough) heroin is also an instant felony. Never mind that heroin has to be smuggled in from overseas, and a junkie requires a continuous supply -- there are lots of junkies around.

The reason that Europe has drastically less gun crime than the US has much less to do with the differences between European and American law and much more to do with the differences between Europeans and Americans.

Re:The answer to the question

[spire3661]

You are going to need to pass a constitutional amendment for that. Good luck

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

Like cocaine possession? Yeah, that worked out very well.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[eheldreth]

f you had ever actually read the case law instead of quoting some talking point you would know the following. Since the first case to touch on the subject in 1886 the Supreme Court has never questioned the individual right. But please carry on.

1. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 Year 1886 - Supports individual right.

"We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

2. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 Year 1939 - Supports individual right. In the absence of evidence since miller was dead and his lawyer a no show the court could not overturn the ruling. Also of interest they used military applicability as a test for 2nd amendment protection meaning ar-15's and ak-47's would be a protected weapon.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

The reason that Europe has drastically less gun crime than the US has much less to do with the differences between European and American law and much more to do with the differences between Europeans and Americans.

^This. Very much this.

If you compare Japanese Americans to native Japanese, you'll see that they have very similar violent crime rates despite living on opposite sides of the world. There's obviously more at play than the laws.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

Haven't you ever considered where this "living document" bullshit about the Constitution came from? If they can convince a critical mass of people that it's true, they won't have to amend the Constitution. They'll evolve it in the public mind and ignore they parts they don't like.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

But Obama and Biden said so. It MUST be true!

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

"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."

Learn what you're talking about before you opine.

I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.

Only if the general population becomes as ignorant as you.

Explain something to me. Why would the government need to add an entry into the "Bill of rights" to protect its own right to arm its soldiers? It goes without saying that soldiers would be armed. That's the entire fucking point of having soldiers. Why would they have to enshrine that ability in the "Bill of rights"?

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

Since Obama took office, Americans have been buying a gun every 1.85 seconds. Think about that for a minute. In the time it took me to type this message, that's 20 guns into distribution. In the time it took you to read it, that's 10 guns. In the time it takes you to check the math, that's another 6 guns.

It's going to take a lot to disarm this country. Thank God for that.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

You, sir, haven't been shopping in a while. 91-30s have gone up to about $140 and M44s are over $200. The cheapest Mosin Nagants around now are the Chinese Type 53s. Those can be had for about $119.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: The NRA, which is nothing more than the arm of the arms manufacturers (more than half the revenue of the NRA comes from arms manufacturers and dealers), wants you to PURCHASE more firearms. They certainly don't want people making their own at home for free. I would guess that the NRA would find a way to be totally opposed to this idea.

Re:The answer to the question

[bbelt16ag]

well the stats are in peeps. the incidents of gun related deaths is down. The biggest of which is suicide.

Re:The answer to the question

[jcr]

Civilian disarmament crowd (me included) wants guns only in the hands of the police

Right, because governments never oppress people who don't have the means to resist.

-jcr

Re:The answer to the question

[MaskedSlacker]

The drug cartels get all their weapons from the US. It's an uneven playing field.

Re:The answer to the question

[Mashiki]

The drug cartels get all their weapons from the US.

That's almost as a funny of statement as the fools up in Canada make, when they say all guns that are illegally obtained come from the US. When in fact about 35% of them come from overseas.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

...drastically less gun crimes than the US.

Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.

Nope.

Does it include suicide stats? We're not regulating access to something to reduce suicides, PERIOD. If you have a problem with the overall suicide rate in the US, lets hear it, otherwise scrub your numbers.

Re: The answer to the question

[Snocone]

Actually, no, that looks like a 9mm round or a .380 ACP. If it was a .22, then the bullet would take up rather more of the cartridge length and you'd notice the larger rim, .22 being rimfire and all.

Hmmmm ... actually, doing a quick SAAMI specs Google, I'll revise that first guess to that round most likely being a .32 S&W Short. They look pretty close to the more common calibers of my first guess, and that cartridge is only rated for 14500 PSI, which makes it a pretty compelling choice of commonly available caliber for a gun whose chamber is plastic. Still consider firing it a "great idea, you go first" kind of experience, mind you...

Re:The answer to the question

[fredprado]

Illusions. Criminals will always have means to get guns, in the same way people can get drugs even though they are illegal. It is a "war" that can't be won.

Personally I would much rather be able to protect myself than wait for the police to arrive, often after my death.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Resizing the Supreme Court only requires a majority in both houses of Congress and the President to sign the bill. Problem solved. Based on current demographic trends, even with massive Republican gerrymandering, both houses will be firmly Democratic within the next decade. Whether you like it or not, gun control is coming. You might as well try not to piss too many people off, otherwise you aren't even going to have a chance to negotiate. A compromise today might prevent an outright ban tomorrow.

Re:The answer to the question

[Karmashock]

Never mind that the rich and powerful will have private or official security that will be armed.

You know those nice young men in sun glasses that follow them around occasionally talking into their cuff links?

And beyond that, many of the supposed anti gun crowd have concealed carry licenses.

Barbara Boxer has such a license in California. As does Chuck Schumer in New York.

Think the average citizen in those states could get one? Think those Senators got permits because they're crack shots and well trained?

Power and influence.

Look, if you want to give away all your rights, that's fine. You give up YOUR rights. You don't get to give away mine. If you want to be lead around by the nose that is your own business. Hell, I'll even help you out by telling you how to live. It is apparently how you want things to work. But you're not going to tell me how to live. And my right be armed is inalienable. You can make it illegal. But it will be a violation of my rights. Just as you can outlaw a religion or gang political speech you find distasteful. Or just randomly kill people you don't like. You can physical do that and you can make that legal.

Making a reprehensible act legal won't make it less reprehensible. It will simply taint the rest of society with your sin.

Re:The answer to the question

[brit74]

According to this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate ), the gun-related deaths in the US are:

Total firearm-related death rate: 10.2
Homicides: 3.2
Suicides: 6.3
Unintentional: 0.2
Undetermined: 0.1

The graph in the comic shows the US "gun related murders" on a logrithmic scale a little under 4. Based on that, it's clear that his graph is including gun homicides and not gun suicides.

Re:The answer to the question

[Cyberax]

The problem is - your rights quite often infringe on others' rights (the right to be not killed), so I kinda want to fix this.

Re:The answer to the question

[babblefrog]

Can I get a cite for that? I don't know that they have ever read it as "state militia".

Re:The answer to the question

[babblefrog]

I know! I can't figure out how the Viet Cong ever kicked our asses. Or how the Soviets lost in Afghanistan!

Re:The answer to the question

[Karmashock]

Yes. And owning a gun does not infringe on your right to not be killed anymore then my owning a car infringes on your right to not be run over repeatedly by my car as I laugh.

Most men have the physical capability to rape a women if they so desire. Should you neuter all men then? Or possibly dope them so they lack that capability?

You might not appreciate these glib rebuttals but they're about as sensible as your initial argument that you're entitled to render people powerless on the off chance that they might exploit their power to harm you. Never mind that statistically almost none of them ever do it. And further that it is only by having such capabilities that we have rights in the first place.

How exactly do you think this country was created in the first place? Are you aware that in Switzerland they GIVE EVERYONE automatic weapons and a bag of bullets? Do you know why? When was the last time Switzerland was invaded? Exactly. Hitler took one look at that and said "never mind"...

Further, what is the first thing any tyrant does to the peasantry? Removes their ability to resist. Disarms them.

You might be a peasant. I am not. You do not disarm me. And peasants do not have rights. They do what their told or horrific brutality corrects their behavior. That is human history. Learn it.

Re:The answer to the question

[Cyberax]

Actually, using a car requires special licensing, mandatory identification all the time and you have to follow lots of very special rules designed to minimize the risk. Owning a gun in most states requires just one qualification - money to buy it.

How exactly do you think this country was created in the first place? Are you aware that in Switzerland they GIVE EVERYONE automatic weapons and a bag of bullets? Do you know why? When was the last time Switzerland was invaded? Exactly. Hitler took one look at that and said "never mind"...

Switzerland has very strict laws against carrying weapons. You can't just take it and go walking around. And the fact that they were never invaded has more to do with their geographic position then with anything else.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

Most of the guns used in crimes are stolen from legal purchasers. If there were no legal purchasers, the number of guns in the hands of criminals would drop sharply.

Re:The answer to the question

[qbzzt]

People who call the constitution "living document" typically seem to be trying to kill it. It is a living document, but it is supposed to be amended through due process.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

It wasn't that hard to pass Prohibition. Funny how Prohibition passes, but we can't get an ERA through. Taking away rights is easy, affirming them is much much harder. There's more a push to amend restrict freedom by banning gay marriage than a push to pass an amendment to affirm it. So, I don't think it's as hard as you think. "terrorists" and "for the children" are the cheat codes for democracy.

Re:The answer to the question

[uncqual]

Fortunately, it's fairly rare for the Supreme Court to decrease the scope of a prior seminal decision in order to reduce rights. Even the conservative members tend to enhance rights through judicial activism. Perhaps this will change, but Heller can't be underestimated -- I think it will turn out to be like Brown and Roe or similar in retrospect. The judicial slicing and dicing will be tempered by the realization that the same logic that applies to trying to limit Heller and McDonald can be applied to Miranda, Roe, and Brown (et al) and that will be a limitation on "living document" interpretation.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

Most guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners. If there were no legal owners, the number of guns in the hands of criminals would drop dramatically.

Personally I would much rather be able to protect myself than wait for the police to arrive, often after my death.

The government statistics indicate you are more likely to accidentally shoot yourself then protect yourself with your gun. And you are more likely to have your gun taken from you and successfully used against you than to successfully use it to defend yourself.

Yes, I know the standard answer to that, "the government lies" but everyone lies, so nobody has high moral ground, it's easier to take a sample of 100% of crime reports for consistent (if not perfect) data. But the opponents look at less than 1% of incidents and extrapolate. And pretend that their numbers are more well founded than the government numbers.

Re: The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Will you point it at your temple and pull the trigger to test your theory that it is shitty?

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

I've bought handguns at a gun show with no wait and no background check. When I sold one of them, I advertised it as "no wait, no checks" and someone posed as a buyer just to say I wasn't supposed to say that, even though I'm not even allowed, as a non-dealer, to conduct a check. My most recent gun show was at the Dallas Convention Center, though I read they hadn't had once since 2002, which is about when I left TX (and the gun show I went to was a few years before that), though I did also see a reference to a gun show there in 2012, but no idea if it happened. Walk in with a wad of cash and two guns, and walk out with less cash and 4 guns. Nobody looks twice at you if you flash a gun before asking about theirs.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

Because the Amendment was written at a time where there was no standing army. The "militia" would be the same as today's "Selective Service registrants". Those would be called upon to fight in case of war, not the active members of the non-existent standing army.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Read some of Jefferson's writings. It actually basically meant they could train for one day a year. That's about it.

Re:The answer to the question

[Mashiki]

Well that's an amusing comic without a doubt. Except when you look at what other weapons become used. An example, in Canada the most common instrument ranking number 1 is blunt force trauma, with a variety of "weapons" blades and so on I believe rank 3.

Re:The answer to the question

[Jane Q. Public]

"Sure. And it's a great way to catch criminals - just make a gun ownership an instant felony. Pretty soon most guns will be confiscated and it'll get much harder for criminals to get one. That's what happened in the UK and most of the Europe - and now they have drastically less gun crimes than the US."

It might be a better world if any of this were actually true. Oh... the part about having fewer gun crimes than the U.S. is true, but misleading as hell:

They already HAD less gun crime than the U.S., before the gun ban. Which stands to reason, because they have a lot fewer people than the U.S.

But if you mean gun crimes per capita, then yes, that's true, too, but also misleading. They do have fewer gun crimes per capita than the U.S. But [A] again, the gun crimes per capita were already lower than in the U.S., and [B] after the recent gun ban (or confiscation, or however you want to put it), gun crime went UP, not down. And has stayed up. Though you won't hear that from the mouths of government. You have to look up the statistics yourself.

And it is even more misleading if you count gun crimes per gun, because there is more than 10 times as much gun crime per gun in the UK than there is in the United States.

Re:The answer to the question

[Karmashock]

As to cars and guns. So if I passed some sort of test a teenager could pass... which is the sort of test you pass to drive... you'd suddenly be okay with me having a gun?

Really? This is what is keeping you up at night? "Oh GOD!!! Do they know which end the bullets come out from!?"...

Or is it that you're worried that gun owners are unaware of the laws regarding guns... little things like its illegal to shoot people in the face because they refused to give you their wallet?

Hilarious, sir.

As ot switzerland, the point is that their nation was only kept free from invasion because they had an armed population. It serves a purpose.

But indifferent to all that, my right to be dangerous goes hand in hand with my right to vote. Why do you get to vote? What qualifications do you have? Do you know how much damage an uneducated electorate can do to a nation?

Tell you what, you pass some poll taxes and other hilarious regulations that will backfire even harder then your silly gun regulation pushes... and we'll consider putting tests on guns.

Citizens are not peasants. You do not disarm us. You come for my gun the same way you come for my right to vote. They are the same thing. They are my power. Free people retain a measure of their power distinct from any external agency.

Felons naturally are not allowed to own weapons or vote. Why is that? Because they're a danger to society? No. Because they are no longer fit to dictate its course or challenge the power of citizens.

Just so and no more.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

And owning a gun does not infringe on your right to not be killed anymore then my owning a car infringes on your right to not be run over repeatedly by my car as I laugh.

Most criminal guns were stolen from legal owners. I think there should be a license to owning a gun that requires a government employee going to your home and seeing your gun safe, and you can be fined for having your guns out of your safe and not in your immediate possession (and no, under your pillow is not possession). Other places have similar rules, and lower gun theft rates (And lower gun crime rates).

Re:The answer to the question

[rtb61]

The rich and connected being the, run away, run away, run away, crowd who always expect other people to do their fighting for them whilst they cheer on the conflict at a safe distance. From poopy pants Nugent to Bush the pretend pilot, to Romney the missionary to France, let's be honest arming them is really rather pointless and just for show, other than shooting house servants if they could get away with it.

Whether the weapon is printed, made in a machine shop or bought, makes no difference, when it is illegal and you get caught with it you will be prosecuted and either fined or imprisoned or both. Making weapons illegal does not make them disappear until people are caught with them, which inevitably happens over time given the nature of the people who have an urge to amass illegal weapons.

Very often what it does mean, is those disturbed individuals often get caught for more petty crimes and further investigation reveals the hoard of weapons which are then destroyed and the person who is a threat to society, isolated from society so as to remove the threat. Believe it or not that does makes a huge difference in threat.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

It did work, on a local scale, in McMinn county, Tennessee.

It won't work, alone, against the entire federal government, as some cranks often portray it. But a rifle-armed segment of the populace, especially including veterans with recent military experience, when combined with a healthy minority of the armed forces rebelling (healthy = equipment and large chunks of command structure intact, as opposed to deserters with just the rifles and packs on their backs) could make a big difference vs. that minority of the armed forces alone.

Regarding handguns, if that's all you own and/or are proficient with, yeah, ha-ha n00b. The purpose of a handgun in war is to fight your way back to where you shouldn't have left your rifle. And yet, that is a valid civil-war/revolution related purpose, so if you accept the argument at all it seems it has to be valid for handguns as well.

Re:The answer to the question

[Karmashock]

Oh, he has a right not to be killed.

But as the saying goes... Your right to throw a punch ends at the other man's nose.

That is what both of you aren't understanding. It ends at the nose. You don't get to rip my arm off because I MIGHT punch a man. My right to throw a punch ends at the other man's NOSE. When I make contact and NOT BEFORE... I have violated that man's rights and my rights in that matter have been exceeded.

So for example, I can have a gun. And I can shoot that gun. But if the bullets from my gun pass through your body or property then I have violated your rights. I'll even give you the noise pollution argument... so if I'm shooting the gun off at 4 am that is probably a violation of your rights too... assuming I'm doing it for recreational purposes or something.

In any case, my right to throw a punch ends at the other man's nose.

Simply being CAPABLE of throwing a punch does not violate anyone's rights. Simply owning a gun does not violate anyone's rights.

Your desire to be safe does not entitle you to render anyone else powerless unless they've personally demonstrated themselves to be unfit as citizens. Felons and the like can be justifiably disarmed.

So that's one path to disarming america. Classify everyone as felons. Of course, you'll also disqualify them from voting and get a pretty quick war on your hands. But then you're doing it for the LOLz and that should be pretty funny... in a sick and sad sort of way. But it's the same sort of humor we get out of that thinking. Grim and horrible... but once you get the joke you just can't stop laughing.

Re:The answer to the question

[Karmashock]

No problem. Do the same thing with cars and kitchen knives.

And while you're at it, make sure people are educated before voting. After all, you wouldn't want some ignorant halfwit contributing his mishmash of misunderstandings and hearsay to the public discourse would you?

As to guns and criminals. The weapon must be accessible by the owner for self defense and precausions taken to secure the weapon must not increase the cost of ownership such that it is harder for the average citizen to aquire a gun.

Its like voting. Regulation on it is very touchy because it is very easy for that regulation to effectively discourage voting or disenfranchise portions of the public.

Now you're obviously intent on doing just that. You simply don't want people to own guns and will use any reasonable sounding pretext to accomplish that goal. That is transparent and obvious. But what you apparently don't understand is that this is a well entrenched argument and there is nothing you've said or thought on the matter that wasn't hashed out generations ago. Yet your master plan never happened.

So long as we remain free your plan will always fail. We will not be disarmed.

Re:The answer to the question

[jcr]

Not very familiar with history, are you?

-jcr

Re:The answer to the question

[Cyberax]

Actually, very familiar with it. No revolution was won with the help of gun nuts with handguns against a well trained military force. None.

Re:The answer to the question

[jcr]

It did work, on a local scale, in McMinn county, Tennessee. ...and many other times and places. The armed resitance to the fugitive slave act is something Americans should take great pride in.

-jcr

Re:The answer to the question

[fredprado]

Most guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners. If there were no legal owners, the number of guns in the hands of criminals would drop dramatically.

Certainly not true. Most guns used in crimes are not "taken from legal owners", they are purchased legally and used by their legal owners to commit crimes, mostly because it is legal to buy them. If it was not people would buy them in the black market, as happens in other countries where guns cannot be easily purchased legally.

Yes, I know the standard answer to that, "the government lies" but everyone lies, so nobody has high moral ground.

Your conclusion cannot be taken from your assumptions even if you could prove them. Moral ground is a subjective concept, and which lies are told, where and when are very significant to determine who has it.

But you have a point, statistics are easily manipulated, hard to be verified, and subjected to biased interpretation. Considering that the only rational attitude is not to base decisions on them unless you have almost unanimous opinions about them, all possible eyes verifying them and it is all but impossible to deny them. Failing that they are best ignored.

I am of the opinion that whenever the government cannot prove the need to regulate something and the efficacy of its methods it has no business restricting individual freedoms in this. I abhor the idea of a paternal government that thinks it knows what is best for its citizens and feels in the right to take decisions from them.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

Do the same thing with cars and kitchen knives.

They do for cars. It's illegal in a number of places to leave your keys in a running car. But leaving your gun in a rack of an unlocked car is legal. Why?

And kitchen knives aren't an issue in crime, so nobody wants to regulate those except the gun-nuts low on intelligence and logic.

Now you're obviously intent on doing just that.

I'm "intent" on not doing what you assert I am. I am requesting sanity. Obviously, that conflicts with your brand of insanity. Better to arm 1,000,000 criminals than have a single citizen inconvenienced in buying/using a gun, right?

We will not be disarmed.

Yes, any "regulation" to help restrict access of guns to criminals that doesn't restrict safe private ownership is an attempt to disarm everyone. And you wonder why people cal you gun nuts "nuts".

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

- Since this "gun" is more lightly to hurt the person pulling the trigger then the person in front of it I would say that this probably IS a good way to stop gun related violence (not to the shooter him self but to others). If he gun somehow managed to get a bullet out of the barrel without destroying the hand of the shooter it would not be able to hit a barn from the inside.
- A plastic barrel? A plastic firing pin? Plastic springs? All this when the trigger of the thing didn't even last till the photo shoot?
- Last thing; if You want a gun, black powder guns are legal in most of the world. A Remington 1858 even has a "quick load" function, a rifled barrel... AND will hit a barn, even from the outside!

Re:The answer to the question

[AmiMoJo]

It would be more accurate to say this fulfils the dream of putting disposable and untraceable weapons in everyone's hands without any kind of background check or limits.

The metal part is optional or soon will be, meaning you can have a weapon that you can print, use and melt down, that is undetectable by conventional means and which has no serial numbers or other identification. It's far from perfect but look how rapidly the technology is advancing.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually UK "gun crime" went up. But that doesn't tell the real story. The "gun crime" being detected after the last few changes is mostly possession. So you get the situation where pro-gun analysts in the US say "UK gun control didn't work" and their basis for comparison is "Sure, less British people are getting shot, but there are more being arrested for having guns, so it's a wash right?" which I guess makes sense as long as you have zero personal awareness of your mortality and so can't see any difference between people getting killed versus getting arrested.

Suppressing ownership also means suppressing opportunity. Opportunity for accidents, opportunity for suicides (which is really important, almost all suicide is opportunity triggered, that's why you can put barriers on Bridge A and the jumpers don't just walk over to Bridge B a few blocks away, they aren't thinking straight because if they were they wouldn't be trying to kill themselves) and opportunity for unplanned crimes. Organised criminals can still buy a gun (on the black market, at a hefty premium), but most criminals aren't organised. They commit crimes of opportunity. Need money, see a woman flashing a lot of cash. Got a gun in my back pocket. Follow her, produce gun, "Give me your cash", shit she's struggling. Bang! Whoops. Now I'm a murderer instead of a thief.

Re:The answer to the question

[AmiMoJo]

Right, it's because Americans think the best way to defend themselves is to overpower their enemies. You have to have your own gun so you can shoot an intruder or mugger. Europeans prefer to call the police and try to scare the burglar off, rather than getting into a fight.

The result is that criminals come armed and with the intention of murdering you if they feel threatened. Can't just run for it because you don't turn your back on someone who is armed. In Europe they usually flee if discovered.

I don't know how the US can fix this. It's become an arms race. If you don't have a gun you are at the mercy of those who do. Statistically it is better to not threaten the criminal with your own weapon but to either hide or run for it yourself. Even the NRA acknowledges that in their "how to survive a school shooter" videos.

Re: The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Pipe dream, people will vote to keep guns legal, states will secede, possible civil war. Brady bill is a failure. Gun control laws no more successful than war on drugs keep kids off pot.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's an amusing comic without a doubt. Except when you look at what other weapons become used. An example, in Canada the most common instrument ranking number 1 is blunt force trauma, with a variety of "weapons" blades and so on I believe rank 3.

How does it matter what the most common instrument is? What matters is numbers of non-suicide deaths per capita from these "instruments". I have yet to see any proof for the argument that the level of killings will continue _at the same level_ only now with knifes or bombs instead. This is not the case anywhere that have strict gun controls. There is though plenty of psychological research (bot criminal and military) that points to there being a much higher barrier to kill up close and bloody with a knife vs. shooting someone with a gun, even if they want to kill.

Re:The answer to the question

[Cyberax]

JFYI, Switzerland is surrounded by mountains so it was much more valuable as a transit route. Do you know that Hitler used Switzerland to move weapons during the WWII? That's WHY it wasn't attacked. It also got lucky in the WWI.

If we look earlier then the one time the Switzerland almost got whipped in the recent history it was saved by... Russians! I kid you not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_and_Swiss_expedition_(1799%E2%80%931800)#Swiss_campaign

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

If there were no legal purchasers, the number of guns in the hands of criminals would drop sharply.

So no more guns in the hands of police, military, national guard, etc.?

Example link: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=8992181

Re:The answer to the question

[Patch86]

You are looking at this from a very Americo-centric point of view (understandably so, considering this is an American company producing that quintessentially American item, the gun). But this perhaps has far greater implications for countries with tighter gun control, such as my native UK.

Here, there are almost no guns. A few licensed shotguns and whatnot, but practically nothing that would be really useful for violent purposes (such as a concealable handgun or semi-automatic rifles). Contrary to what the NRA would tell you, practically no criminals have guns either- shooting crimes are extremely rare (a gun fight is almost always national news). So if you get mugged in the street, it's most likely to be by someone wielding a Swiss Army Knife or a piece of old pipe, if indeed anything more than a rough demeanour and a good bit of intimidation. I know a number of people who have been "mugged" and have managed to see off their attacker with a firm "fuck off" and a well placed shove.

What happens to this system if the criminals can manufacture, cheaply, their own handguns? Suddenly the NRA's nonsense about criminals being the only ones with guns stops being nonsense. That's a big deal.

Re:The answer to the question

[jcr]

gun nuts

Fuck you too, sunshine.

against a well trained military force.

That will come as a great surprise to the British crown. They lost control of a whole lot of the territory they once ruled to the kind of people you're sneering at.

-jcr

Re:The answer to the question

[Cyberax]

Read the history, dude. Nascent US army started from seizure of British munitions (in Saratoga). Later in the war, both sides were armed pretty heavily (for that time).

And they also were not libertardian gun nuts - they acted with the aim to establish a government.

Re: The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

So your point is gun nuts are also racists?

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Americans are more violent than the average person on the planet. This would seem like a mighty fine reason to make it harder for them to commit violence by restricting their access to guns.

Re:The answer to the question

[lexsird]

Seriously? We're not even talking about the need for traditional bullets either, are we? This takes shit to another level that I'm not comfortable with.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Isn't it pretty easy to buy ammo in the states without any permit?

I see Walmart says they are going to stop stocking ammo since the Adam Lanza massacre. Finally following what KMart was shamed into doing in Bowling for Columbine.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

"In the hands of criminals" is not a boolean variable. Quantity matters. And far more criminals have guns in America than in countries with sane gun control laws.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.

Like knives. Which aren't nearly as effective at killing people. So the UK has a fraction of the homicides of the USA.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Personally I would much rather be able to protect myself than wait for the police to arrive, often after my death.

Of course you feel that way. Conservatism is the politics of fear.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

If it was not people would buy them in the black market, as happens in other countries where guns cannot be easily purchased legally.

There you go with the boolean variables again. In a country such as the UK where most gun ownership is illegal, there are some criminals with weapons, obviously bought on the black market. But they are a fraction of the number that the criminals with weapons in country with lax gun control such as the USA.Guns in the UK in anyone's hands are really rare.

Indeed the black market in guns in the USA will be many times the size of the black market in the UK.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Horseshit. How this completely unfounded assertion got Score:3 without any sources to back it up is a mystery.

Re:The answer to the question

[uncqual]

Read the Constitution! EVERY state must consent to the 3/4 requirement if the amendment removes the state's power to assert it's power.

I'd give you a link, but obviously you've not read the United States Constitution and it's better that you do so to understand it and puzzle over it. My comment here is not completely correct (although it's mostly correct) -- if you understand the law, please respond with cites support your position! I look forward to it!

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

It also allowed allied bombers to strike Germany, and the Swiss air force engaged the Luftwaffe in more than one occasion. By the way, I live there and I have seen the Suvorov monument on the Gotthard Pass with my own eyes. What a pity you will only see those sights on your tiny computer screen. ;)

Re: The answer to the question

[uncqual]

Yep! It will be interesting if enough of the united States ignores the United States Constitution!

Those who understand that the Tyranny of the Majority (think Hitler) is more important than the United States Constitution will have a tough choice.

Ultimately, unfortunately, it may come down to the conviction of the soldiers in the tanks who are unwilling or willing to kill their parents or their parent's friends and relatives when asked to so by politically appointed commanders (remember how the USSR collapsed?). Personally, I'm betting on a bunch of good people who value their freedom and the United States Constitution more than a couple more (statistical) years of life making the right decisions. I'm sure I'd make the correct decision, and I'm even surer that tens of millions of Americans would make the same decision.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like a liar. What was the name of the gunshow? Most shows have stipulations that only licensed FFL vendors can sell firearms at shows from tables.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

"The problem is - your rights quite often infringe on others' rights (the right to be not killed), so I kinda want to fix this."

What about my right not to read idiotic posts? I think you need to be infringed...

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

But [A] again, the gun crimes per capita were already lower than in the U.S., and [B] after the recent gun ban (or confiscation, or however you want to put it), gun crime went UP, not down. And has stayed up.

That's not true. The facts are that handguns were banned in the UK in 1997 BECAUSE gun crime was rising. With a particular school massacre being the catalyst. Gun crime continued to rise for 6 years till 2003. Since then it's been falling, and is below the 1997 rate. In fact it's the lowest now since 1990.

So, contrary to your assertion, gun crime did NOT stay up. It's now the lowest it has been in 23 years. There is an unexplained 6 year lag between the law coming in, and the rate of gun crime falling. And yet no explanation for the fall other than the change of law.

Re:The answer to the question

[lexsird]

At some point the intellectual dishonesty of the NRA bashing should come to complete fruition and the Left is going hate it. I factor about the next election cycle when things swing back to the Right due to the ground swell in the grass roots level of this issue, the Left will wish they had hired me to consult for them. lol

Anyway, we've all pissed around, not came to the table in an intelligent approach to problem solving and this article's issue just might be the forefront of a whole new can of worms that's going to stink to high heaven.

Factor this into the equation. Printable guns; who want this in a very bad way? Hmm..I don't know, but if I was a bad guy, an industrious one, tech savy, educated, smart enough to avoid the system if they wanted to do something evil. Here is a way to produce a lethal weapon, ranged, possible sound suppressed. Completely untraceable and disposable. Ha! It's probably recyclable, so it's not only an effective weapon, but it's green. It has appeal to the environmentally conscience villain. Oh yes, and thanks to the movies, we know that metal detectors don't work on plastic guns or their parts. Hurray!

Yeah, inability to work on comprehensive policies is either hallmark of incompetence or corruption. Either way, we are dealing with the possibility of a whole new animal being released into the wild, and we are fucking around arguing about dumb shit like "background checks". What you need is policy that preserves the integrity and spirit of the 2nd Amendment, and places some highly intelligent safety features into play. You can have your cake and eat it as well if you are smart and can work together.

Here's how I see this kind of animal romping about the countryside. The only hope you will have to contain this is through the tools perhaps, and the plastics used to create this. This will catch the dummies, which leaves the smart guys. They will be able to fabricate this and perhaps come up with their on innovations. Your first bad guys will of course be corporate and government types. This is where the really juicy targets are at. At super high dollar and high level corporate shenanigans, this will make wet work far more elegant, the same with politics. When you are dealing with those resources and those stakes, this will find a nice happy home. On down the food chain it rolls, assassins, vigilantes, crime crews, "militias", you name it.

But the bullets, you say? Seriously?

Factor this, if you can print the gun, you can print the simple reloading tools as well. Why not the shell casings and with some modification, even the bullets themselves. With modern chemistry and completely doped up idiots making meth out of common chemicals, how hard will it be for sober people to create a propellant? The variables on that equation get difficult to lock down as any chemical training will probably yield results.

This is dismaying. Even if we found a bottle on the beach and wished every gun on the planet to be turned into kittens and cheese burgers, we will still have them appear, but now not out of predicable venues, but out of thin air as far as any system is concerned. Let's face it, bad people will have reached their weapon production zenith, while the rest of us flounder around in inept, corrupt politics.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

No, but it could equate to "you are saying things that are factually incorrect."

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

The problem is that Congress isn't a "checks and balances" organisation. It's a "policies for sale" organisation. Lobbyists are people that bribe and blackmail. Congressmen are people who do what they are bribed and blackmailed to do.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

"Well regulated" meant that they all fired when someone said "FIRE!"

If it was only that, the 2 words would be superfluous to the sentence. And in any case "disciplined" would work better.

"Well regulated" means "controlled". Proper ranks, with people obeying orders, meeting when required. Exactly what todays libertarians and survivalists are not.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

The civilian disarmament crowd (whatever that is) do not want guns at all. In the UK we did ever see policy with guns and criminals chose to get their job do without them (I think it was a pride thing). For policing we had men over 6 feet tall with large silly hats and a truncheon. That changed a little when some people in Ireland bombed us every so often but returned to 'normal' very quickly. Guns are what we saw in westerns on the tv.

The gun debate on / (to non-usians) seems very strange. Otherwise rational people suddenly wanting to reach for lethal weapons capable of killing large numbers of people.

Re:The answer to the question

[bcmm]

Ammo was already relatively easy to make.

Re:The answer to the question

[stenvar]

The Second Amendment says, in effect, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (The reason we think this is...)" It does not say "People shall have a right to keep and bear arms only as a part of a well-regulated militia.", which is what you seem to think it says.

Keep in mind that the entire Second Amendment, like all amendments, is not granting you specific rights, it is merely reinforcing rights you already have under the Constitution. I.e. Congress already doesn't have authority to infringe your right to keep and bear arms even without any amendment because the Constitution doesn't give it that right in the first place.

Re:The answer to the question

[stenvar]

You're still starting from the erroneous assumption that the Second Amendment grants you a right that you don't already have, but the Bill of Rights instead merely clarifies rights that you already have. Even without a Second Amendment, there would be no legal basis for the federal government to restrict gun ownership.

Re:The answer to the question

[stenvar]

I'm not going to kill you, so you have no right to restrict my ownership of potentially dangerous objects. Trying to restrict my liberties because you presume me to be dangerous without any kind of cause is an infringement on my liberties.

Re:The answer to the question

[dbIII]

Left? Why are they the only ones that would dislike the idiots running the NRA now that they are going all nanny state with suggestions like taxpayer funded security gaurds in every school?
To me they look like a bunch of cowards that want military weapons without the responsibility of military service.

Re:The answer to the question

[Karmashock]

That's not true. Furthermore, instances where guns are used to defend a person that do not result in injury are not well reported.

Many instances are defused simply by displaying a gun to a would be attacker who then decides to back off.

Re:The answer to the question

[dbIII]

Good point. There's that amendment about having weapons for the purpose of defending the country and there's a lot of people that would never sign up to the military if their life depended on it who are insisting that amendment only has the bit they like. The guys running the NRA haven't been anywhere near Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam etc but like to playact as if they did.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Children and small-time criminals would not be able to get guns if they were illegal (situation in UK), only organized crime gangs.

Police can then focus on tackling organised crime to bring down overall homicide rates.

Re:The answer to the question

[Karmashock]

As to leaving your gun in a rack unlocked, that is actually frequently illegal in many places in the US.

Regardless, how many shootings occur because of that.

You basically are assuming that I'm so stupid that I'll believe that your problem with guns is that they're not locked up properly by their owners. Never mind that very little of the issue we have is caused by the consequences of that.

Lets say I just agreed to whatever your beef is with unsecured guns. Would that be the end of it for you? Or is there more? And more? And more... Tell me... where would you stop feeling you had achieved your goal. Because THAT is the place you ACTUALLY want to move the issue.

I'm not that stupid. If you want to HONESTLY argue your point, I am willing to hear your ACTUAL opinion. But if all you've got are false arguments then I have nothing to respond with but boiler plate. And ultimately, we have the second amendment and more then enough political clout to drop kick your whole counter movement as often as required.

It really boils down to this... how much time and money and political power to do you want to destroy while we laugh at you?

Don't like that response? Don't lie to me. Be honest and we can have a real discussion. Short of that we're just apes throwing shit at each other.

Re:The answer to the question

[udachny]

How about a bunch of guys with fully automatic antiaircraft guns, mortars, bazookas and grenade launchers?

Re:The answer to the question

[Yvanhoe]

Murder is an instant felony. Yet murder is still very common. We all know that we won't prevent everyone from killing another person. Yet "it still happens despite being illegal" is not a sufficient argument. In these cases you have to balance between what it will cost to society to persue something as a crime and to accept it as a legal practice.

Murder is impossible to prevent, but we decided that it was still worth trying to lower their occurence. Heroin trafficking is impossible to prevent, but it was decided it is still worth trying to make it hard to get.

Also a comment on Europeans vs European law. There is a strong set of causalities between these two. Here in France, after the war, the country was full of smuggled weapons in the hands of civilians. There was a big crackdown on weapons and criminals in the years following 1945. Many French people of my generation will tell you that their grandfathers had an old war weapon hidden somewhere. Thing is, it is illegal to show, illegal to own, and in a generation or two, most of the population was disarmed.

Note that I am not sure this is a good thing politically-wise but for lowering crimes and accidents, it surely was positive. I am not necessarily opposed to the idea that an armed population is a good idea in a democracy, but don't deny that it has a cost in human lives in periods of peace.

Re:The answer to the question

[Kilo Kilo]

Except that in places where there are outright bans on guns, like Chicago, there hasn't been any effect on the crime rate. No one wants to deal with the underlying problem that American society breeds more violence than the rest of the world.

Re:The answer to the question

[Kilo Kilo]

He lives knowing that he will attempt to protect himself. You live hoping the govt will show up to help you. Which is more the "politics of fear?"

Self-reliance is a traditionally "conservative" value and knowing that you can take care of yourself and others inspires confidence, not fear. However, I'm assuming you say "conservative" meaning "Republican." In which case you could apply that idea to either of our two illustrious political parties. At this point they're each pointing at the other and screaming, "They want to take away your freedoms!" Then, they both go and take away our freedoms.

I love my country.

Re:The answer to the question

[danbert8]

Yes because making it a crime to possess pot has drastically reduced its usage too...

Re:The answer to the question

[GameboyRMH]

If guns were controlled as tightly as cars the NRA would shit themselves. Mandatory testing, registration databases linking machines to owners, requirement for a publicly visible ID number to be displayed on each machine, mandatory insurance...

Re:The answer to the question

[lexsird]

Nanny state for guards at the school? Seriously? I get a kick out of the "nanny state" terminology generated by the right. Then out the other side of their mouth they want industrialized welfare, or just immunity from the law period. Pesky laws anyway, right?

Did you know that back in the old days, WW2, the NRA was about making sure our boys were armed in the field. As in if I recall correctly, they would send guns from members to those fighting the war. My granddad was in WW2, decorated and was part of the NRA. There is rich American history to it, sadly it's missed by snotty kids these days who use the tech for cute cat pictures and seeing if that safe ever got opened. Propaganda; it's digital these days. Ignorance: It's mass produced.

As far as your "military weapons" are concerned, it wasn't that far back on the scale of time that the cutting edge of weapons were muskets. That innovation alone with the ability to sail ships on the ocean allowed the British to rule the world. Yes, the British. Imagine that. Or not.

 

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

He lives knowing that he will attempt to protect himself. You live hoping the govt will show up to help you. Which is more the "politics of fear?"

No, I have the education to know that the chances of a criminal shooting me are tiny compared to other ordinary everyday risks such as being killed on the road, which are in themselves tiny. I don't live in fear, I live without fear of things that I have no need to be fearful of.

Clearly you also buy into the fear thing as well. Which means you're also probably a conservative. (Which is not the same thing as a Republican.)

Re:The answer to the question

[GameboyRMH]

Many countries have exactly that, including mine....well, except that if you "lose" your gun you won't be fined, you're going to jail.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like liberal spam just to have someone saying "yes, there IS a loophole."

I've been to countless gun shows. I've never been to one where the vendors neglect to fill out the federal paperwork and do an NICS check (unless you're in a state where you can get a pre-background-checked purchase permit).

Re:The answer to the question

[danbert8]

Using a car requires special licensing and mandatory identification... Only if it is used on a public road. Similarly, if you want to carry a firearm in public, in many states it also requires a special license and identification. These are STATE regulations in all cases and as they should be because the federal government doesn't have the power to impose them. Remember that you can own vehicles that aren't registered and drive them without a license on private property. Go to a race track sometime, unregistered non-street legal vehicles are all over the place and some tracks even allow people younger than license age to drive.

Re: The answer to the question

[GameboyRMH]

My first thought is that it's designed like a "gambler's gun" like the one that killed Abe Lincoln. Still...I wouldn't want to be shot with one, at point-blank range or not. It's still somewhat more dangerous than a knife and could at least wound at a distance.

Re:The answer to the question

[danbert8]

Any holy shit all those guns and not one murder? How does that even make sense? None of them had a background check or a wait! Any one of them could be a murderous asshole and shot up the whole place.

Re:The answer to the question

[GameboyRMH]

They don't say what kind of 3D printer is needed for this, but just eyeballing it, it looks like it could be produced by most of the low-end 3-digit "hobbyist" printers. Not a bad initial price to be able to crank out many untraceable, nonmetallic guns.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope they lost it to well trained French Troops, figthing too many Europen super poers at once. Oh and a small decision that the West Indian Sugar income was worth more than a bunch of gun running, tax evading smuggling colonists were. Who were costing the crown more than they brought in due to their habbit of breaking treaties with their Indian neighbours and murdering them for the land and then running to the crown for protection.

American war of Independance Professional french troops did the fighting. The American milita you idolise did the Advance to the rear .

Re:The answer to the question

[mikelieman]

Well, if Congress gets off their assess and votes to seat the Judges that are awaiting appointment, and if Congress passes some actual spending bills to pay for the Judiciary, then perhaps "Checks and Balances" **COULD** work.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

.... often after my death.

How often do you expect to die?

Re:The answer to the question

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Right, because that already just works SOOO well against drugs. I mean, the things basically don't exist these days.

Firearms violations in the US are more of a cultural issue. When you compare similar weapons control laws to other countries, you start to see that it isn't actually the laws that make a difference. In fact, even within the US, it's very often the case that the areas with the highest restrictions against firearms tend to have the highest per capita weapons violations.

That and cold weather causes more homicides, as evidenced by this:

http://i.imgur.com/en3HZ5T.jpg

Re:The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

Sooner or later someone will figure out how to make feasible caseless ammo at home. It's a complicated chemistry project but that doesn't make it impossible. And then 3d printed guns will be reasonable things, durable enough to make several shots... OTOH the gun will require a battery. Or maybe a squeeze charger :)

Re:The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

with suggestions like taxpayer funded security gaurds in every school?

We protect politicians with guns. We protect banks with guns. We put our children in a supposed gun-free zone, then if there is a problem we call men with guns to come and solve it, usually way after it is too late. What you are saying makes no sense at all. If it's prudent to protect anything with guns, it's prudent to protect children with them.

To me they look like a bunch of cowards that want military weapons without the responsibility of military service.

To me, it's the people who join the military who are the cowards. They're too afraid to re-examine their beliefs, so they join up and help spread American imperialism. They'd rather die than consider the possibility that joining the military might be wrong when the end result is bombing brown people for profit.

Re: The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

Problem with that gun they printed. Judging by the round sitting next to it. It fires 22 shorts or cb caps. Not much better than a pellet rifle coming out of a rifle.

The problem with your notion is that people have been killed with .22 shorts. Not much better than a pellet gun? You're a liar.

Re:The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

What happens to this system if the criminals can manufacture, cheaply, their own handguns? Suddenly the NRA's nonsense about criminals being the only ones with guns stops being nonsense. That's a big deal.

It won't be nonsense if we ban private gun ownership, either. Then it will be a cold, hard fact. The cops are a gang. Virtually all of the ones who aren't directly corrupt are covering for those who are (according to many, many ex-cops) meaning they are failing both their oath and The People and they are not just evil but also criminals.

If you take guns out of private hands, only criminals will own guns. Those who joined the military or the police and are helping to maintain the status quo are traitors to this country aiding and abetting a domestic enemy against The People — the mercantilists who are systematically looting our economic system.

Re:The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

Good point. There's that amendment about having weapons for the purpose of defending the country

Yes, from enemies both domestic and foreign. That's why The People are supposed to represent The Militia. Every American has the responsibility of defending the nation. Your problem is that you are forgetting the need to defend from domestic enemies.

and there's a lot of people that would never sign up to the military if their life depended on it who are insisting that amendment only has the bit they like.

No, that's not what they're insisting, but since you've already proven yourself a prevaricator by attempting to describe civilians as cowards when it's the military that are too afraid to admit that joining up to bomb brown people for profit makes them evil are the real cowards. I want to go to college, and I can't afford it, so I will sign on the dotted line and be sent off to murder people so that we can maintain American hegemony in the middle east.

The guys running the NRA haven't been anywhere near Afganistan, Iraq, Vietnam etc but like to playact as if they did.

The guys joining the military haven't been anywhere near morality or ethics, but like to playact as if they knew what those words mean.

Re:The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

Or a re-reading of the 2nd Amendment that puts more weight on the "well-ordered militia" clause... I can imagine a future Supreme Court reading that to restrict gun ownership to only those who serve in the National Guard, military, or police forces.

And I can imagine a booted foot stomping on a bare neck, forever.

If you want to live in a military/police state even more than you do already, then that's the re-interpretation you want...

Re:The answer to the question

[wertarbyte]

Are you aware that in Switzerland they GIVE EVERYONE automatic weapons and a bag of bullets?

This is not completely correct. After (compulsory) basic training in the in the swiss armed forces, you stay part of the service; you are placed on "stand by" and are required to keep your personal firearm at home, so you can defend yourself in case of a sudden invasion until reaching your mobilization area (switzerland has very interesting topology that might make this complicated). Up until recently (a few years ago), each service men also received a *sealed* package of ammo, which had to be presented intact on a regular basis.

Re:The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

No revolution was won with the help of gun nuts with handguns against a well trained military force. None.

You should check out how long Jews managed to hide from Nazis in the forest. They had guns, and needed them. Soldiers are commonly issued a rifle and a sidearm because each weapon has its uses. If I were part of an armed resistance, I would want both my rifle and my sidearm.

Re: The answer to the question

[Immerman]

>Ultimately, unfortunately, it may come down to the conviction of the soldiers in the tanks

I think it was the Romans that had an excellent solution to that - never station soldiers in positions where they'll have to suppress their own communities. Ideally you station them where they're supressing communities with whom they have a long-standing animosity: Conquer nation X where you then recruit new soldiers and use them to keep freshly conquered nation Y in line, where X and Y have a history of conflict already. Very low risk of uniformed sympathizers that way.

Of course the US mostly deosn't have a lot of warfare-grade internal hostilities, but it'll still likely come down to whether soldiers are more loyal to the part of their oath where they swear to defend the US and the Constitution, or the part where they swear to follow orders. And the training regime and internal culture focusses pretty heavily on indoctrinating soldiers only on the order-following part, so it will be their consciences versus their training, orders, and peer pressure. I know there's some good people in the military, I only hope their voices win out should things get interesting.

Re:The answer to the question

[Kjella]

What happens to this system if the criminals can manufacture, cheaply, their own handguns? Suddenly the NRA's nonsense about criminals being the only ones with guns stops being nonsense. That's a big deal.

From what the police has been saying, it's not that hard to get your hands on a gun. The reason most criminals don't use guns around here is the risk/reward ratio, knives are both common and efficient while guns draw a lot of attention and carry much stiffer penalties. Clearly it takes a whole different level of premeditation to acquire illegal guns in order to do more crime than getting a knife from a store and the possession is illegal by itself so you don't want to carry it around for no reason. I guess it's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, if they became commonplace than the police wouldn't be able to put so much resources on each gun crime and it could cause more criminals to use guns, but as long as it is rare it is possible to keep it rare.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

The civilian disarmament crowd want guns only in the hands of the police and the criminals.

There is no difference between 'police' and 'criminal'.

In fact, if you are a law abiding citizen going about your business, you currently have a better chance at being victimized by the police than by 'criminals'.

Everyone who isn't 'police' is a suspect, and the entire law enforcement and criminal justice system is skewed against you.

Re:The answer to the question

[Immerman]

And what was the explanation for the initial rise?

At the risk of sounding cliche correlation does not imply causation, and in this case even the correlation is shakey. Societies are *extremely* complex systems, to the point that the relationship between policy and individual behavior is often more a matter of faith/superstition than science - to the point that actual science is often ignored in favor of the pet theories of the generally scientifically ignorant lawmakers.

Re:The answer to the question

[shia84]

People who think that criminals will give up the guns they possess are very silly. People who think that other people actually think that are just as silly.

The vast majority of the criminal population is made out of folks with low educational backgrounds, who have social problems and/or are desperate. Those citizens have an above-average chance of doing something we consider criminal, and the availability of guns while they're a "normal guy" will influence their readiness for violence, self-assessment (respectively overconfidence) and scale of the crime. But everybody has some of that chance, and heck, if you take the time to actually look at the fates of those people, you'll realise that it could be your neighbour or parents the day after tomorrow, if their life takes a harsh turn tomorrow.
In general people first have access to guns, and then become criminals, not the black-and-white "this person was born a criminal and will therefore go and get a gun no matter the legal availability".

The point to take home is that reducing availability and propagation of firearms will undeniably result in fewer criminals with firearms. This has been shown in most modern democracies, the main question is how big this reduction is in practice and how it weighs against the (mainly USA-specific) "guns for liberty from an oppressive government" concept.

Re:The answer to the question

[dbIII]

Nanny state for guards at the school? Seriously?

Doesn't get much more "nanny" than that by all definitions, especially when it's about the taxpayers footing the bill just so tiny minority of a rifle club want to play with the sort of weapons that really shouldn't be used as toys.

The NRA is the sort of thing those soldiers you write about are not running and it's very easy to tell. If they were they would be ashamed of themselves.
Tying the NRA in with George Washington fighting against the British is a huge insult to history. National Guard are heirs to that maybe, but the NRA are just a loud sporting club led by people too cowardly to do the right thing. If you believe the shit they are spouting you need to go back to school - try not to get shot when you are there.

Re:The answer to the question

[dbIII]

So the pretend soldiers that stand for nothing but their own selfishness and fuck the consequences are better than the real ones that stand for the country? That looks like what you are suggesting. You may want to try again and write something that looks a bit less childish, selfish and stupid. Separate the borrowed myth from the real people that do not live up to it, in fact seem opposed to it on the fringes (the smash the state and bring back strong leadership idiots that don't understand that means people like King George running the place), and you'll see that you are championing people that don't give a shit about you or your freedom. They just want a toy.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

And what was the explanation for the initial rise?

American cultural imperialism. Most recently because America exported it's "Gangsta Rap" culture with the idea you're in the "hood" and you need to have a gun. Seriously. It was blatently obvious because the kids that started carrying guns had also started wearing red or blue bandanas, depending what gang they were in. And "gangsta bling". Heck there was even one of these gun owning gangs that called themselves "The Crips", that's how American influenced it was.

At the risk of sounding cliche correlation does not imply causation, and in this case even the correlation is shakey.

You're not just taking the risk, you are sounding cliche. On slashdot it's got to the stage when if anything is correlated, then people are inclined to believe it must not be causal related.

But that's by the by. I'm RESPONDING to a claim that the gun law changes didn't work because gun crime proceeded to rise. And I'm pointing out the factual incorrectness of that claim. And I did so without claiming that the correlation means causation. Simply that no one has offered any other explanation. Be my guest if you want to have a go.

Re: The answer to the question

[iamhassi]

They don't need to hire security for every school. We already have cops that sit behind desks all day, let's just move that desk to the school, like telecommuting. It can be a cop that already has children in school, so when he drops off his kid he's already at work. Win-win for everyone.

Re:The answer to the question

[Radtastic]

Maybe my sarcasm detector is still spinning up this morning. Are you missing the probably inevitable outcome that when firearms can be replicated easily, at home or a dark basement, that it's going to be come *easier* for criminals to get them?

And your statement isn't universally true either. Mexico has very strict gun laws - it's very hard for law abiding citizens to get them. And that hasn't lowered gun-related deaths there.

The relationship between gun laws and gun crime involves other variables. Poverty... stable government... education levels...unemployment... culture... Honestly given the complexity involved, I'm not even sure we have a big enough sample size to truly build a reliable model.

Re:The answer to the question

[Immerman]

Well, as I remember my history they were aiming first to throw out the exploitative "legitimate" government, there was actually quite a bit of disagreement as to whether the replacement would be anything more substantial than a mutual defense pact - a question that didn't get settled until after independence was won, and remained in a state of flux for quite some time. Up to the present day in fact, considering that initially the federal government was *extremely* limited in power, but has been expanding fairly steadily since then - to the point that arguments about Rights now tend to be based on "Where does the constitution say the government can't do this" despite the fact that the constitution clearly states that the federal government is prohibited from exercising *any* powers not explicitly granted to it by that document.

Agreed that handguns are going to be pretty ineffective versus assault rifles, tanks, bombers, etc. in open combat, but they're still *far* more effective than knives, swords, and pungi sticks, especially when coupled with guerilla warfare tactics. Obviously if things ever get bad enough for popular revolt seizing control of military weapons will be one of the first objectives, today just as it was in pretty much every asymmetrically armed conflict throughout history.

Re: The answer to the question

[iamhassi]

Too bad the US has that little paper called The Constitution that says we have the right to bear arms

Re:The answer to the question

[Immerman]

>And kitchen knives aren't an issue in crime

You might want to check your crime statistics. Of course they're far more likely to be used in crimes of passion than by career criminals, but that's to be expected - guns are far more effective. However in places where guns are difficult to acquire, or where possession of a gun while commiting a crime drastically increases the penalties, knives or clubs are frequently used instead. Kitchen knives still aren't going to be popular among career criminals unless you ban more effective knives (punch daggers for example, a brilliant piece of bronze-age engineering capable of penetrating all but the strongest body armor, are banned almost everwhere).

Re:The answer to the question

[Immerman]

+1 funny AND informative.

If you want to stage a shooting massacre, the last place you want to start is someplace where *everyone* is armed.

Re:The answer to the question

[lexsird]

Such trolling. Yawn. The troll was trolling the troll road with a troll motor on his boat, yet the "meh" prevailed.

 

Re:The answer to the question

[jythie]

That will be a harder part for people to get around yeah. Loading at home is not too hard, but making viable smokeless powder is a lot more difficult (and dangerous) then most people think.

Re:The answer to the question

[excelsior_gr]

My parents survived an attack on their lives once (in Europe, not in the US). Their neighbor went nuts and started hacking at their door with a butcher's cleaver. The police arrived just in time to disarm the lunatic. He is now in a special high security prison/hospital where they keep all dangerous loonies.

My parent's didn't own a gun, and I can definitely see your point. If the neighbor owned a gun though, they wouldn't stand a chance. The would-be murderer in this case didn't plan ahead in attacking them, just woke up that day and decided that that's what the voices in his head wanted him to do. I much prefer such people without the right to bear arms. I'll take my chances with the police, thank you very much.

Re: The answer to the question

[Immerman]

Except for the smaller caliber, a natural choice for a proof-of-concept device that might explode in your face, it's quite similar to the original LP-45 Liberator - a compact single-shot weapon with an accurate range of 1-4 yards, designed to be distributed to resistance fighters in occupied territories, the idea being you use the weapon to sneak up and kill an enemy soldier to steal their much more effective weapon.

And at those ranges even a .22 can be quite lethal with a little skill or luck. There's a reason guns are known as the great equalizer - every previous weapon depended on the size and strength of the wielder for punch and/or reload time. With a gun even the smallest and weakest woman is on equal footing against a much larger, stronger attacker - even a few yards of range is plenty sufficient to prevent any physical advantages from being brought into play, all that matters is the existence of the gun and the skill with which it's wielded.

Re:The answer to the question

[jamstar7]

Well that's an amusing comic without a doubt. Except when you look at what other weapons become used. An example, in Canada the most common instrument ranking number 1 is blunt force trauma, with a variety of "weapons" blades and so on I believe rank 3.

So, have they banned hockey sticks in Canada except for licensed and registered members of the NHL?

Re:The answer to the question

[I'm New Around Here]

Well, you just got an earful, didn't ya? :-P

To every one else, pipe down. He says he bought guns in Texas back in the 1990's. Even at gun shows they would be easier to buy and sell casually back then.

To AK, my main point beyond that is the post I replied to is saying anyone at all can walk into a gun show today, and buy any high-tech weapon they want from a dealer with no background checks. He's obviously reading the left-wing talking points memos, and talking out his ass.

Re:The answer to the question

[rbrander]

Well, I just went to Wikipedia for five minutes, but it's not really helping you. The "crime in canada" article says:

"The number of murders dropped to 594 in 2007, 12 fewer than the previous year. One-third of the 2007 murders were stabbings and another third were by firearm. In 2007, there were 190 stabbings and 188 shootings. Handguns were used in two-thirds of all firearm murders."

So, really hard to say if "blunt force trauma" is most of the remaining third, but probably is, along with strangling and eye-poking and whatnot. So it's basically one-third each to clubs/hands, knives, and guns.

OK, so how do Americans bump each other off? Googling "by weapon" got me: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004888.html

For that same 2007, it says 10,086 by gun, 1796 by cutting and stabbing, 647 by blunt object, 854 by hand, 130 arson, 1016 all other reasons.

Dividing by ten to get those numbers in Canadian proportions, your 1797 stabbings become 180, about our 190 stabbings; your blunt-object+hand becomes about 150, same neck of the woods, anyway.

Only the gun numbers are really proportionally higher. Over FIVE TIMES higher.

Not my area of expertise, or a political topic I care much about, but simple stats are easy to look up. They say that while you may denigrate the source of this statistical analysis as a "cartoon", the information appears to be quite correct and your "the same murder rate just shifts to other weapons" thesis is not supported.

Re:The answer to the question

[I'm New Around Here]

Unless the judges that are being kept on hold are going to just rubber-stamp any piece of crap the Democrats pass. Then 'checks and balances' is still a concept headed for extinction.

Re:The answer to the question

[nbritton]

ignore they parts they don't like.

This is exactly what religious individuals do with the bible, I don't see why it would be any different here.

Re:The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

So the pretend soldiers that stand for nothing but their own selfishness and fuck the consequences are better than the real ones that stand for the country?

Stand for the country? You're grossly mistaken about what our armed forces does.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Your points are entirely laughable. Sure, you can pile pounds of plastic together and make a clumpy, ugly gun that might get a shot or two off before blowing off your hand, but as the old adage goes "just because you can does not mean your should".

1. Criminals do not want plastic printed guns. They want guns that look flashy and will work when they need them. The only people interested in plastic guns are tech-advocates pushing 3d-printing as the future and politicians looking to make the points of "this is why gun bans don't work" or "this is why we need more gun bans".

2. A plastic gun may be undetectable, but the projectiles it fires are not. A bullet needs mass to be effective and you simply can not create the density required to be reliably lethal out of plastic. Maybe if you made some kind of plastic dart of harpoon gun you'd be on to something, but a printed gun is not a drop in replacement for a real gun and never will be.

3. All guns fatigue and fail. A steal gun might get 50,000 rounds through it, but we don't see too many aluminum guns for a reason. A plastic gun will fatigue after only a few shots and then be rendered useless, potentially failing catastrophically due to a squib-load thanks to a partially melted barrel.

4. Using 3d printing to make 1700's technology seems a bit stupid. How about we work toward making railgun rifles and gauss pistols? Surely modern technology is be better suited to making modern weapons.

Re:The answer to the question

[I'm New Around Here]

The problem is that ALL of the government is that way. Look at all the money Obama's administration has thrown to his political buddies, or withdrew money in the most public and painful way possible to show how bad the Republicans sequestration is. Nevermind the fact that it is and always has been Obama's sequestration.

Each branch of the federal government is supposed to balance the other two by insisting in its own authority outlined in the Constitution. And each pair of two is supposed to balance the third by working to stop an attempt to over-reach that authority. That is the concept behind 'checks and balances', not this modern idea they all have of cronyism and mutual support of despots of their own party.

Re:The answer to the question

[BooMonster]

How should he try not to get shot at school? Are you suggesting that he bring his ballistic shield with him? It's kind of bulky, especially compared to a Ruger .45 ACP.

In fact, and this scares the crap out of you, if someone decides to start shooting random innocents, the only way we've found to stop them is by poking holes in them. If nobody nearby has a hole-poker, they have to call a professional hole-poker, who takes, on average, an extra twelve victims worth of time to get there.

As far as I can tell, your policy preference is to adopt the gun laws of Detroit, or Mexico.

Re:The answer to the question

[Sique]

Which still means that two third of all illegal weapons in Canada come from the U.S..

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

> The Second Amendment says, in effect, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (The reason we think this is...)" It does not say "People shall have a right to keep and bear arms only as a part of a well-regulated militia.", which is what you seem to think it says.

By that reasoning, depriving prisoners of their guns is a violation of their constitutional rights.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

factor: i do not think that means what you think it means

Re:The answer to the question

[je ne sais quoi]

When I had an alarm system connected in my previous residence, the saleswoman from the alarm company told me that the number one black market item in a home for a burglar to obtain is a gun. Highest street value. Making guns rarer means fewer gun deaths, period, there's no uncertainty there or bullshit answers about how criminals will always have guns. That includes accidental shootings and thefts and subsequent use of the stolen guns to kill people. To use the analogy from further up the thread, if every home had heroine there would be more heroine addicts, guaranteed.

But conservatives/libertarians/etc. are not motivated by rationality nearly as well as fear (evidence here for evidence), so unfortunately they will not accept any rational arguments the way liberals expect them to.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anybody correlate these stats to the reason for the murder, or who committed it? I going to go out on a limb here and guess that most gun crime in the US is between gang bangers and related to the drug trade. If that's the case, how about addressing the underlying problem rather than a simplistic knee-jerk "ban guns" approach?

On the other hand, in a domestic dispute, someone is likely to grab whatever is convenient. Look at how many spouses are killed with a hammer or knife, simply because it was convenient and effective. Yet nobody suggests banning these and oddly enough they naturally try to find the motive for the murder and will blame the perp instead of the tool.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Well regulated militia" is completely open to interpretation.

Um no it is not. Its well defined in the language of the day of the founders, and their reasoning is in their writings.

Its meaning ( like the rest of the Constitution ) is being perverted by modern day Americans siting on their oft couch consuming the daily media, trying to apply their view of the world to it, and totally ignoring the true intent of why it was written and why it says what it says.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, the UK is a regular Utopia, with 8x the violent crime that the US has...

"Your son is dead, ma'am. But you can sleep easy knowing it wasn't a gun that killed him."

Re:The answer to the question

[pla]

and you can be fined for having your guns out of your safe and not in your immediate possession (and no, under your pillow is not possession

I don't think we fundamentally disagree, but you may want to rethink that one "pillow" detail.

Gun safes absolutely make sense to protect your guns from theft, when not home (aside from the many pieces of crap on the market, good guns cost money and frequently appreciate in value if properly taken care of). When home, though, having one reliable pistol in easy reach of your bed counts as a no-brainer.

"Excuse me, Mr. Rapist / home invader, I need to use the, um, bathroom. In the basement. And ignore the sound of a large metal door swinging open, just the, um, medicine cabinet. I also have a headache".

Re: The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

When I was a kid I shot my dad's girlfriend's .22 derringer. It had a nice little report, quite a bit of "kick" (the gun tilts up because of the design) and it put a lovely hole dead center in the coffee can I was shooting. A hole big enough to leave me with no doubts that if a person were to be shot with it, it would be a bad thing. OK, so a quilted tabard might stop it, who dresses like that?

You can kill a person with a .22. Even if you don't kill them, being shot is not the kind of thing that a person doesn't notice. It has lots of uses.

I imagine a final version would be loaded with 9mm, because of its international availabilty.

Re:The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

Making guns rarer means fewer gun deaths, period

Logic? You fail it. It depends on how the guns are distributed. If you make guns rarer in the hands of the people then more gun deaths may be caused by the government and its stooges. If you can show that gun bans will result in a net savings of lives, that'll be great. Unfortunately, no one has yet done that.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of the law enforcement population is made out of folks with low educational backgrounds, who have social problems and/or are desperate. Those citizens have an above-average chance of become cops, and the availability of guns while they're a "normal guy" will influence their readiness for violence, self-assessment (respectively overconfidence) and scale of the abuse of power

I've corrected your post for you.

Re:The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

Too bad you linked to a comic which doesn't have any citations, instead of something which would actually prove your point. Further, too bad the moderators can't tell the difference.

Re:The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

the Amendment was written at a time where there was no standing army. The "militia" would be the same as today's "Selective Service registrants". Those would be called upon to fight in case of war, not the active members of the non-existent standing army.

In that case, anyone registered for the draft, at minimum, should be entitled to keep and bear arms. Or, they should abolish draft registration and outlaw the draft before making the case for taking firearms away from citizens.

Re:The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

Most criminal guns were stolen from legal owners. I think there should be a license to owning a gun that requires a government employee going to your home and seeing your gun safe, and you can be fined for having your guns out of your safe and not in your immediate possession

Most cars used in the commission of crimes were stolen from legal owners. I think there should be a license to owning a car that requires a government employee going to your home and seeing your car safe (since we know automotive locking systems are inadequate to prevent a determined attacker), and you can be fined for storing your vehicle out of your safe while you are not driving the vehicle (and no, going into the store to pick up a jug of milk is not driving.)

Oh wait, you mean cars kill more people than guns, and yet we have practically no restrictions on car ownership? In some other countries, you have to actually pass some kind of meaningful test to get a license. In the USA, you barely need to be awake to pass. We give people back their license to drive after they prove their irresponsibility through DUI or other means even though there is no right to drive. And you want to institute storage laws for firearms that would make them useless in a self-defense scenario? You, sir, are a hypocrite. If your goal is to reduce deaths then you must focus on cars, or misprescription of prescription medication, or alcohol abuse, or any of the things which kill vastly more people than gun crime. If you only care about gun deaths, then you're full of shit anyway, and no one should care what you think because you're only trying to make yourself feel better by "taking a stand" on a relatively minor issue.

Re:The answer to the question

[drinkypoo]

I've bought handguns at a gun show with no wait and no background check.

Those days are over. However, I know lots of people with unregistered firearms which were around before registration requirements. There's absolute loads of guns out there which could reasonably be sold with cash with no one the wiser, because there's no record of who owns them today. I have no intention of committing a crime with it, so I have described my rifle and therefore someone could track ownership back to me through a partial match or something, but it's unregistered and there's no legal requirement to register it. Even in California, so far the only backdated registration requirement was for fully automatic weapons, which are still legal to own if you did the registration shuffle back in 2000. (Any fully automatic weapon not in the hands of a federally licensed firearms dealer which was not registered in 2000 is illegal in the state of California, with the usual law enforcement exceptions.)

As well, I know people who claim they can get me "any gun". Again, no plans to shoot anyone up. I have reason to believe what they say is true, however. If someone doesn't think they can easily get an illegal gun, they are probably suffering a failure of imagination.

Re:The answer to the question

[shutdown -p now]

It's very insightful to look at the history of gun laws in, say, UK, and compare their stats as new laws were introduced to those in US. One thing that you'll immediately find out is that UK had significantly fewer murders than US before any gun control in the former...

Re:The answer to the question

[vk_aditya]

... it wasn't that far back on the scale of time that the cutting edge of weapons were muskets. That innovation alone with the ability to sail ships on the ocean allowed the British to rule the world. Yes, the British. Imagine that. Or not.

I believe that was the Maxim gun, not the musket. Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun, and they have not. -- Belloc

Re: The answer to the question

[switchfeet]

I know this might be cliche, but statistically you're more likely to kill yourself driving your own car too, but we still drive our cars. So I don't think that statistic is very fair.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, just cower in fear every time there's trouble. Are you French?

Re:The answer to the question

[budgenator]

We'll just change it to,

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and play violent video games shall not be infringed.

being able to remotely operate combat systems is almost more important than being able to shoot what you intend to shoot!

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

You know how "gay" used to mean "happy and carefree"? "Well-regulated" in the context of the time the document was written means "well-equipped".

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly i can't remember my old /. login so ill have to post this as an AC.

"Factor this into the equation. Printable guns; who want this in a very bad way? Hmm..I don't know, but if I was a bad guy, an industrious one, tech savy, educated, smart enough to avoid the system if they wanted to do something evil."

bad guys don't tend to be industrious for starters, otherwise they wouldn't be bad guys. your concern that 3d printer will mean anyone can easily get a gun would matter if everyone already couldn't easily get a gun. This is why we can't have calm discussion about things.

Re:The answer to the question

[volmtech]

With total confiscation of guns less people will be killed. People who would have been accidentally shot or shot themselves will be saved but those who could have defended themselves from an attacker will be helpless and the 911 operator will get to listen to their cries of terror as they are bludgeoned to death.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

As an interesting aside, you will, conversely, find that Japan's enviably low infant mortality rate and life expectancies are not shared by Japanese Americans, even when corrected for factors such as diet, exercise, and healthcare quality and availability.

Re: The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

You gotta walk before you can run. Mankind didn't make the jump from shooting arrows from bows to shooting .45 ACP from 1911s and Glocks in the snap of someone's fingers. It won't be long until they figure out how to put a rifled pipe into that plastic frame, then to make it into a revolver, or what have you.

Re:The answer to the question

[Immerman]

>American cultural imperialism...
If correct you have my sympathy - we seem to have no end of really stupid and/or selfish cultural subgroups that somehow manage to infect the larger populace with shitty ideas. But hey, having a populace gulible enough to suck up the tripe - that's on you.

> you are sounding cliche
It's true that the phrase is used rather extensively here, even when particularly applicable. Still, most cliches become cliches precisely because they are widely applicable.

>Be my guest if you want to have a go.
Not even going to bother - I fully recognize the futility of trying to find scientifically valid correlations, much less causal links in chaotic systems outside my area of expertise (which is decisively NOT sociology, psychology, etc. Most of which, incidentally, are barely clinging to any claim of scientific validity by the skin of their teeth.).

Nevertheless, when arguing in favor of sweeping policy changes, especially those which undermine constitutionally guaranteed rights (as gun control in the US does), I believe it falls on those promoting such changes to provide some pretty strong arguments for their case. In this case your claim that gun control worked in the UK despite a considerable unexplained lag in effectiveness (which I would suggest might simply have been the time necessary to get the guns out of the system) is pretty weak. Can you sight any scientifically valid study making a strong claim to such causation, or are you simply operating on social anecdote? It could just as easily have been that the "gangsta" cultural infection was simply a passing fad and would have corrected itself anyway.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

But it can serve as a deterrent to a possible invading force.

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”

Re:The answer to the question

[ceoyoyo]

The overall violent crime rate is similar between the US and other places. The overall violent crime fatalities rate is much different though. A mugging gone wrong without a gun might end up with the victim beaten but alive. A mugging gone wrong with a gun is much more likely to end up with the victim dead.

Re:The answer to the question

[ceoyoyo]

So your hypothesis is that Americans are nutjob killers and everyone suggesting easily available guns result in more violence are just blind to that simple truth?

Re:The answer to the question

[budgenator]

The National Guard falls under both Federal and State Juridiction, the Federal Government can not involuntarily activate an individual Servicemember for more than 180 days, only entire units. This also has implications in regards to the Posse Comitatus Act, The National Guard has the same restrictions while in Federal Service As the US Army and Air Force, and not while under State Service.

Re:The answer to the question

[ceoyoyo]

A lot of good would be done if "well ordered militia" was interpreted to mean:

a) trained to use a gun responsibly
b) responsible enough to secure a gun properly (unloaded, trigger lock, locked in a safe).

Re:The answer to the question

[ceoyoyo]

You're actually incorrect. There is apparently no correlation between the rate of stabbings and the number of guns in circulation. Link was posted in an earlier comment.

Re:The answer to the question

[ceoyoyo]

Yeah, you can make a little gun, all out of plastic, that shoots a couple of rounds, effective at close range, before it explodes in your hands. So this thing is good for what? Overthrowing abusive governments? Doesn't really seem like it. Hunting? Seriously doubt it. Assassination? Hijacking airplanes? Now you're talking. Welcome to mandatory hand searches for everybody.

Re:The answer to the question

[chihowa]

The result is that criminals come armed and with the intention of murdering you if they feel threatened.

I really don't buy this. While some criminals may be ok with murder, it takes quite a different mindset to easily transition from simple burglary to murder. Most people don't seem to be alright with killing another person and the risk/reward is vastly different for burglary (where the case will be barely investigated by police and if they catch you, you're looking at a few years tops) to home invasion/murder (where the police will certainly investigate and you'll get life or death if caught).

If someone is ok with murdering the occupants of a house, they are just as likely to murder them anyway just for the hell of it.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 300 million guns in the US, among 93ish million households. And crime is at a 30 year low. Looks like they were right.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

A large number of veterans and serving military are NRA members.

Remember, though, that all occupussies are lazy, socialist transsexuals wanting free MacBooks.

What, don't like hateful stereotypes?

Then stop making them.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

very true although Britain has some gangs

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow how did this steaming pile of "Blame the victim" garbage get modded insightful? Ohhh right by all the noguns ostrich head in the sand liberal doofuses. Good lord do you think when you post? Rhetorical question because it's obvious you do not.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You are retarded. It's the only possible explanation.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

"And yet no explanation for the fall other than the change of law."

Are you seriously that myopic? There are millions of variables affecting society at any given time. The fact that cling to one of them with no understanding of the others reveals your bias and ignorance of the topic.

Re:The answer to the question

[gordo3000]

actually, every member of the NRA I know either served, or has an immediate relative who is serving (son, brother, father) and usually that person is also a member.

That obviously isn't data about membership tied to either military or military-like service (national guard, etc) but without the data, your statement is pretty baseless.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep using "gun nut" in a petty attempt to label and demonize your opposition. It only makes you look like a desperate fool who has run out of any real negotiating points.

The term "gun nut" seems to be used against anyone who owns a gun, or even believes that the government should have no business preventing people from owning them. Were all the founding fathers "gun nuts"? Was everyone in history who owned a gun, or believed people should have the ability to decide for themselves if they wanted to own a gun or not, a bunch of "gun nuts"? Does this all make you a "freedom hating anti-gun nut"?

Re:The answer to the question

[Jane Q. Public]

It could, but that itself would be just opinion, and incorrect.

I'm not about to spend an hour proving it to you, but I have researched these statistics, and I do know what I'm talking about.

Re:The answer to the question

[brxndxn]

America also breeds more leaders than the rest of the world. As an American, I believe the only areas where violence is excessive is our militarized police force and our movies..

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Obamacare for example was not a result of Obama reacting to lobbying. Quite the contrary all the lobbying power was opposed to it. Public healthcare is a matter of political principle, not lobbying.

Re:The answer to the question

[brxndxn]

You obviously don't know Texas or Florida.. Here in the Gunshine State, you can walk right into any gun show, find a person carrying a gun to sell, and pay cash for it and get it on the spot.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

If I do accidentally shoot myself it will be my own fault for not observing proper gun safety. There are only four rules! I'd still prefer that it was up to me.

A child is also more likely to be killed by a backyard pool, and you don't see anyone getting rid of those.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

I suggest listening to what the NRA has to say is not "research".

My version of events is factually correct. Yours is wrong. The official statistics are here, just as they were when I laid them out in my post:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf

You think you know what you are talking about. But you don't.

Re:The answer to the question

[adamz_myth]

Giving people ammo would be too socialist.

We'll make people earn their bullets through their own individual efforts.

Next will be 3D printed ammo. Even a plastic bullet with a sharp point would be lethal. No one is waiting to be given anything. They are taking back control.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

How many gun shows did you find that have been hosted at the Dallas Convention Center? Oh, you already had enough information to determine the answer to your question, but were too lazy to look, and instead assert I'm a liar.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

The real gunshow loophole is to buy/sell from other visitors, not the FFL table holders. I've heard even person-to-person sale is banned at some shows, but it's something that can only be punished (with ejection), not prevented (unless they stop letting people into gun shows with guns).

Re:The answer to the question

[Jane Q. Public]

I did not get my information from the NRA.

And as I clearly stated before, you aren't going to get it from the UK government, either.

All you did was prove my point.

And I'm not picking on the UK particularly. Recent U.S. administrations have lied to the people quite a lot.

Re:The answer to the question

[fredprado]

And in Norway where civilians can legally buy and own guns, you have a lot less crimes with firearms per capita than in UK. Comparing two different countries with two very different cultures and social reality to make a statistical point is not only ridiculous, it is maliciously fallacious.

Re:The answer to the question

[Jane Q. Public]

After looking at your document, I should also point out that the big gun ban was in '97, so your stats from 2011-2012 don't prove much of anything. UK Gov. says it's "the 7th annual" fall in gun crime. But the ban was 20 years ago.

One must ask: fall from what? Look at the chart on page 5. After the big gun ban -- according to YOUR OWN source -- gun crime went way up, not down.

Gun crime has been going down in the U.S., too. Rather dramatically... it is only half of what it was 20 years ago. Yet the number of guns per capita has been going steadily UP during that whole period.

If you find some stats that actually prove something, I'd be happy to look at those, too.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

I did not get my information from the NRA.

Directly or indirectly you did. They are always the ultimate source of lies about gun statistics.

And as I clearly stated before, you aren't going to get it from the UK government, either.

LOL! The UK government are the only people that collect this data. They run the police, and the police are the only source of offence statistics. Anything you read or claim to have read elsewhere was either based on it, or was invented.

Come on now Jane. Admit you got it wrong. Your ego can take it.

And I'm not picking on the UK particularly.

Oh, I'm sure you'd like to shift the focus away from the UK now.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Dummy, the Constitution is just a piece of paper. And Supreme Court interprets that piece of paper. And they have a very broad authority to do so, even though nothing in that piece of paper ever granted them that right. So yes, resizing the Supreme Court could enact gun laws. If you don't think so then you are too stupid to argue with. You might also argue how it is impossible for the federal government to outlaw local use of drugs because of the Commerce Clause. But the truth is that even though a piece of paper prohibited it, a couple of guys in black robes ruled otherwise. Thus, one million additional people are in jail. So fuck the Constitution. It hasn't done shit.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Norway you say. Hmm... sounds familiar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_breivik

Is the point you're making that it's not guns on their own that are dangerous, but guns in the possession of right wing libertarians?

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the guns criminals use were purchased using a "clean" background of a girlfriend, friend, family, ect.. Or you can just buy one off the street, whether you use it for self defense or nor, you get a couple hundred dollar fine for having an unregistered firearm, saving you money. When you compare a new or used gun from a registered gun shop.

The dipshit behind this is doing it for publicity, it is still going to cost you a hefty amount to either buy all the equipment and produce the guns, or to have someone build them for you. And I go back to the argument that even if you can get a tight control of guns, people will find other ways to commit mass murder.

Re:The answer to the question

[fredprado]

Breivik's case does absolutely nothing to support your argument that gun crimes decrease if guns are made illegal.

Re:The answer to the question

[Jane Q. Public]

"Directly or indirectly you did."

I am willing to converse with you, but not if you're going to be an arrogant asshole about it.

I did NOT get my information from the NRA, directly or indirectly. Any assumption on your part to the contrary is just plain horseshit.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

It doesn't really matter where you got your information from, given that it's wrong.

But it probably did come from the NRA even if you're not aware of it.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally I would much rather be able to protect myself than wait for the police to arrive, often after my death.

Holy crap, man. How many deaths do you plan on having!?

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, "Life in the city" is not the same as "Life elsewhere". As much as it makes you feel morally superior to assert (incorrectly) that guns are only made for killing people, and to hold blind faith in the conviction that everyone should live in cities because it is more "efficient", You will find that doing that results in a sharp impact in food production, food prices, and food availability.

Surprise. Guns are necessary equipment for farmers. Likewise for salmon fishermen, and the like.

Consequences are a bitch. Try fixing the actual problem: People want to kill other people,. Solve that instead.

Re:The answer to the question

[ganjadude]

OR the perp dead

Re:The answer to the question

[ganjadude]

which just shows that outlawing guns does nothing to stop outlaws from getting guns

Re:The answer to the question

[ganjadude]

I have no issue with darwin doing his thing

Re:The answer to the question

[ganjadude]

well if the risk is so low why do we need more laws???

Re:The answer to the question

[Jane Q. Public]

See, there you go being an arrogant asshole again.

The NRA doesn't dictate statistics to the U.S. Department of Justice, nor to the U.S. Bureau of Crime Statistics.

Nor does it dictate statistics from the UK government.

You have not shown that I am wrong in any way. Not even close. Your own stats did not support your position. On the contrary, they supported mine.

Re:The answer to the question

[ganjadude]

gun crime in america is at around a 20 year low with gun bans ending and more guns owned so..explain that one

Re:The answer to the question

[ganjadude]

yeah, like mexico where they have very strict gun control laws... no one EVER gets murdered in mexico....

Re:The answer to the question

[Jane Q. Public]

"That's not true. The facts are that handguns were banned in the UK in 1997 BECAUSE gun crime was rising."

Haha! I call BULLSHIT.

Read your own statistics. The ones YOU supplied to ME.

Gun crime was DROPPING from 1993 to 1997, when the largest gun ban went into effect. See page 5 of your own source.

Gun crime then ROSE, to levels almost double what it had been, between then and around 2003-2005. Again see the numbers in that document, or just look at that chart on p. 5 if you don't want to bother with the math.

Gun crime then started to fall again, well BEFORE the latest gun ban.

Your own assertions are disproved by the document you cite.

Re:The answer to the question

[uncqual]

Of course, the court could be "packed" as Roosevelt tried (unsuccessfully due, in part, to public outcry) to do in 1937. And, yes, that packed court could ignore the Constitution that they swore to uphold (just as a handful of people in the military could conspire to use nuclear weapons to wipe out major cities in the United States).

However, recall that 2/3 of the state legislatures can call for a Constitutional convention and 3/4 of the state legislatures can then ratify the resulting changes -- the House, the Senate, the Administration, and the Judicial branches can do nothing to stop this (well, of course, without just declaring martial law or something like that -- but, that's one reason we have the Second Amendment!). In these matters, Wyoming (the least populous state with a population of about 564,000) has the same power as California (the most populous state with a population of about 37,000,000 - or 65x the population of Wyoming). Such a convention could do almost anything except eliminate equal suffrage in the Senate (but, they could simply gut the Senate's power and add a house of Congress called NewSenate that looks a lot like the current Senate and takes on all the powers of the existing Senate but where large states have NO say!). In the extreme, states with just 40% of the population can rewrite the Constitution to undo whatever court packing scheme was enacted -- and, in theory, just 50%+1 of the people in each of those states would be needed to make this happen -- i.e., just 20% of the population in the U.S. has to agree to rewrite the Constitution. Of course, this isn't likely to happen, but it's a safety valve that discourages the kind of mischief you're proposing.

Ref:

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Most guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners. If there were no legal owners, the number of guns in the hands of criminals would drop dramatically.

Just like now, there are no legal marijuana or cocaine or heroin owners, so there is none available anywhere in the country. Dang, why didn't they think of that before...

Re:The answer to the question

[Attila Dimedici]

However, the UK has a much higher level of home invasion robberies per capita than the U.S.. In the U.S., robbers generally work very hard to avoid going in to a house that they think might be occupied.

Re:The answer to the question

[Stickerboy]

I'm not going to kill you, so you have no right to restrict my ownership of potentially dangerous objects. Trying to restrict my liberties because you presume me to be dangerous without any kind of cause is an infringement on my liberties.

Are you fucking retarded? Do you own a 20 mm minigun? How about a room full of pressure cooker improvised explosives? Maybe a fertilizer bomb? There are clearly things that do not belong in the possession of the general public (other than properly licensed and checked entities) and it doesn't need to progress to pulling or pushing the trigger before saying "oops, he shouldn't have possession of that item!".

Re:The answer to the question

[fat_mike]

In major cities here in the US you can call the police and hope they come Chicago or in the rural areas you can wait hours for some type of law enforcement to show up.

This is the UK transposed on Texas

Texas is (along with being awesome) just one of the 50 states we have. You also have 248,950,295 less people than us. There are roughly 1.1 million city, state and federal officers at any given time. In the US in 2010 there were 1.26 million Violent Crimes and in the UK in 2010 there were 2.1 million Violent Crimes

Math is cool

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

The NRA doesn't dictate statistics to the U.S. Department of Justice, nor to the U.S. Bureau of Crime Statistics.

Let me get this right. You don't trust the UK government who have the data. But you do trust the US government who's only source is the UK government.

But up to now these so called stats of yours are notable by their absence, aren't they? After all you can't now link to the NRA nor one of the other gun-nut sites that get their FUD from the NRA.

It's all rather different from my stats, which are from a primary source, and which I linked to. They show exactly what I said they do. Or are you now thinking that you pretending to be too stupid to read a table of figures is preferable to you admitting you were wrong?
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01940.pdf
Table 2 page 12.

You're looking more pathetic with every post. Are are you so delusional you are blind to the facts when they are inconsistent with your previously held opinion.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Gun crime was DROPPING from 1993 to 1997. See page 5 of your own source.

You must have myopia. Those bars are rising, not falling.

1994: 13,167
1995: 13,434
1996: 13,876

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Which is a strawman. My post was actually illustrating the wrongness of your comment:

"If it was not people would buy them in the black market, as happens in other countries where guns cannot be easily purchased legally."

And nothing about Norway helps your case. You tried to change the subject, so I did too.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

gun crime in america is at around a 20 year low

Measured by who? I heard the NRA had successfully lobbied to stop the government researching this data.

Re:The answer to the question

[ceoyoyo]

Possibly, but statistically that's not the way it happens most of the time.

Re:The answer to the question

[uninformedLuddite]

True but deceptively. Plenty of handguns in Australia. They are just in the hands of criminals as it is too hard for a mundane to get one.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Let's recap. You said:
"after the recent gun ban (or confiscation, or however you want to put it), gun crime went UP, not down. And has stayed up"

In response I said:
"That's not true. The facts are that handguns were banned in the UK in 1997 BECAUSE gun crime was rising. With a particular school massacre being the catalyst. Gun crime continued to rise for 6 years till 2003. Since then it's been falling, and is below the 1997 rate. In fact it's the lowest now since 1990."

The documentation I've supplied show what you said to be wrong, and what I said to be entirely correct. Including the fact that I pointed out gun crime continued to rise for 6 years after the ban, but then fell to it's lowest for the last 23 years.

Re:The answer to the question

[lexsird]

Clumpy ugly gun? Seriously? Have you even worked with or seen the product of even a cheap version of these printers? This isn't your wife's glue gun cobbled onto some parts off of an old dot matrix printer and erector set driven by Etch-A-Sketch-ish software.

First lets politely address your concept and image of "crime", it smacks of seedy punks hanging around at night in shadowy parts of town. This is the most neolithic denominator of crime and quite the straw man for this exchange. What makes me curious is your motivation for going "straw man" on me. Is it because of a polarized political mindset? That's understandable these days, this kind of thread is like a candle flame to the moths of gun issues. Politics is science, right? There was a ratio of sarcasm in that last sentence.

Let's embrace this mental exercise sans the politics if we can, hmm?

First, what I think is remarkable so far that I have seen is that you can print up parts inside of parts. This little bit of magic is helped along with an after printing chemical wash to eliminate the support structures. Rinse, dry and you have it. Now lets keep that in mind and explore what crime has already done with 3-D printers. What I'm thinking about at the moment is how they used them to print up faceplates to snap onto ATM's that would steal credit card info. Do you seriously have your ATM's dimensions committed to memory? I know I don't. Fucking brilliant, right? Disturbing isn't it?

I love to write, for fun. Let's for fun think of a character who is motivated by the oldest reasons so we can get a probable character that is reasonable and believable. Let's say they got fucked over in love or business and they simply have an enemy that has to go. This will be a tough target, it's well protected, probably setting pretty with all the spoils of the conflict. So, the objective is murder. What would be brilliant would be a weapon you could produce that has no conventional design limits. It could literally be a Yard Gnome with a kick ass zip gun wired to a web cam as a gun scope. With the right app, you could drill him from across the planet on your 4g network. Look what I did with that. I even got your 1700s tech in there. The Gnome has a blunderbuss. It would be cute all the way up until it shot the victim. That's 2 minutes of spit balling, and I think I can cook up an entertaining scenario.

How the fuck is this relative to real life? We're dealing with some amazing tools for imaginative minds. Let's try to keep people in their happy bubble so that they make happy productive non-evil shit with their imaginative minds. Railgun rifles and gauss pistols? Seriously? I wouldn't hand something like that over to this neolithic child race, holy fuck that's the acme of irresponsible. That's why we keep them for ourselves, says whomever makes one. lol We're American's we are the only ones to be trusted with such powers. Right? We've been setting on the ability to turn the planet into Mars 2.0 and haven't lost our fucking minds and done so. This gives us ..something something, we got nukes fuck off. So, why not? Let's give every American a pistol that can shoot a projectile out of orbit. We'll take skeet shooting to a whole new level. The moon, what did it do to you, BillyBob?

I'm with you on the get a proper gun for applications like "fight the zombie horde" scenarios. Give me heavy metal and a metric fuck ton of bullets.

At last we get to the point you made about bullets. I think you sell the alternatives short. Consider what you shoot is as important as the mechanics of just shooting something. Consider how intricate one could make a projectile when you can print it out instead of casting it? For example this would be a direction to go for making tranquilizer guns. Imagine how handy a reliable, accurate tranq pistol would be? Quiet. Automatic, high capacity magazines. Put some optics on it. Hell, mount it to a drone, and chase targets with your Iphone. Be the envy of your little secret cadre of neighbors who are the "

Re:The answer to the question

[dbIII]

It's called a throwaway line to tie things back to an issue in the news that many "2nd amendment" posters here are pretending never happened.

Re:The answer to the question

[dbIII]

I used the word "leadership", not the people you know personally who are being let down by the playacting cowards running the NRA.

Re:The answer to the question

[dbIII]

You seem to have missed 9/10 of the meaning of the sentence you've quoted :(

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

That doesn't explain why they took the time and effort to codify the second amendment. The government doesn't need a bill of rights.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

Reading is fundamental.

Japanese Americans are just as American as anyone else, yet they manage to have as low a crime rate in this nation, that's awash with guns, as their counterparts who remained in Japan.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well every few months one of the local retailers here has one of them on sale for $89 +tax. I checked out the M44s once a long time ago and decided that with the fixed folding bayonet, shorter length, and the reduced accuracy and consistancy when compared to a M91/30, that for deer hunting the M44 seemed like a poorer fit. Granted I don't know what the current price is as that same store seems to be fairly vacant of firearms from everyone panic buying but the did have the the $89 deal on 91/30s in January. I admit haven't bought a firearm in a couple of years when I went from the 91/30 to a really nice Finnish M39 (that thing is a tack driver with 203 grain soft point boat tails) but those Finnish ones aren't bottom basement prices either. The Nagent revolvers I saw advertised for $119 a couple of months back and the place had several crates full of them.

Re: The answer to the question

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I know that a .22 is lethal but I was trying to put in perspective the power of the ammo used. Granted .22lr is the most common caliber for firearms and most that take the .22lr will also work properly with the .22 short. The .22 cal air rifle I have shoots clear through small game like a fat rabbit or large possum and that is sub sonic as I believe .22 shorts are. The projectile weight is fairly comparable (the air rifles pellets are a bit lighter unless you have a .25 cal one) but even I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of being shot with my air rifle. There is a world of difference between a rim fire cartridge and a center fire one though. The .22s are all fairly low pressure as the cases have to be thin enough to be crushed to fire but not rupture when fired, while center fire ignition allows for much higher pressures those cases are much thicker.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Clumpy ugly gun? Seriously? Have you even worked with or seen the product of even a cheap version of these printers? This isn't your wife's glue gun cobbled onto some parts off of an old dot matrix printer and erector set driven by Etch-A-Sketch-ish software.

Ironic how that is the best layman's description of what a 3d printer is that I have heard. Might I add that printers have slightly higher temperature plastic and a thinner bead than your typical glue gun? "Clumpy ugly gun" was in reference to the actual gun in discussion here. It looks horrible.

I seriously like the story telling you do. You're very creative, write some fiction and become the next great scifi author. With writing skills like those you shouldn't waste time to post on the internet in response to Anonymous Cowards. Clearly you don't value your time highly enough, but you should because that live fire lawn gnome concept was brilliant. Please understand I mean this with the utmost sincerity.

From my post above "A plastic gun will fatigue after only a few shots". Yes, an armchair assassin would love this technology, however motivation and willingness to actually kill rarely corresponds with the level of education, creativity, and attention to detail needed to pull it off. We are talking some serious engineering here, there'd be load of software to write, circuits to program, and wiring to solder. In virtually any case not out of a James Bond story the assailant would just stab, or strangle their target in a fit of rage or shoot them with a real gun. Most murders are spur of the moment events, not methodically plotted actions thought out by a tormented genus in an underground lair. You might be watching too much television or reading too many spy novels.

Firing traditional pistol rounds in a completely plastic gun, the story we're talking about here, is a very bad idea that will destroy your printed gun in one or two shots. The gun will likely explode the first time it is fired due to the pressure and heat released by the gunpowder causing catastrophic failure before the bullet can leave the barrel. The explosive energy of modern bullets is too great to be used in anything but a steal chamber and barrel. Make a printed airsoft gun, sure. Printed dartguns, absolutely. Print a lower receiver, trigger, or grip, but when you start doing this you have already moved to my side of the argument. Printing the chamber and barrel with intention of firing traditional explosive propelled projectiles is a bonehead move that only a fool would trust to fire when called on. Even if the barrel doesn't explode on the first shot, the interior of the gun will warp and disfigure making the second shot an almost certain squib that, with luck, might only cost you a finger.

Criminals taking advantage of people that use an ATM is not brilliant or disturbing, or even new for that matter. ATM's are a relic of a by-gone era where most places didn't take VISA and payphones were on every corner and in this era you've far more to fear from your waitress than your ATM. If anything skimmer based criminals have made the world safer by robbing you digitally instead of physically taking you hostage at the ATM and forcing you to pay to live. If it turns out you got skimmed then notify your card issuer immediately and dispute the charges. All of that is beside the point however since this is about printing guns, not ATM faceplates. I don't think I said 3d printing is unuseful but rather that 3d printed versions of traditional cartridge firing guns are a bad idea.

Coilguns are real, right-now technology that is super easy to build out of easily obtainable parts. Your assessment of their power is amusing but the reality is that such weapons are far better suited for being printed than traditional firearms. Coilguns do not rely on high energy explosions to propel their projectiles, settling on high energy electromagnetic fields instead. Coil guns require electrical insulation to be safe to operate and using 3d printing techniques could make for a very elegant design that buries all the electrical contacts in safe insulating plastic.

Re:The answer to the question

[I'm New Around Here]

Well, since Obamacare wasn't a "checks and balances" product, by your earlier statement it seems like it must be a "policies for sale" product.

Or it was a product of the sort in my last sentence, rule by despot, with the active involvement of all three branches.

By the way, you don't know what I actually feel about either Obamacare specifically, or public healthcare in general, but I can assure you it isn't what you would assume.

Re:The answer to the question

[fredprado]

Sure it does. You say that UK has less gun related crimes per capita than US because guns cannot be bought there legally. I said that Norway has less gun related crimes per capita than UK even though you can buy guns legally there.

Then in a desperate attempt to change the subject, realizing you have absolutely no argument, you decided to link Breivik incident, which, again, does nothing to support your theory. Actually it does nothing to support any theory that lax gun control help to create Breivik's specific kind of incident either, as UK had considerably more incidents of this sort than Norway too.

Time to admit you are wrong, as you usually are, put your tail between your legs and go away, Basil.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

Because they saw what rights the government takes when they can and explicitly said "the government may not do this". They left out many the governments didn't take yet, like the right to privacy and the right to travel.

Which the anti-rights anti-liberty conservatives assert we don't have because they aren't in the Constitution, an any liberal who asserts they are rights is called a revisionist.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

I'd go with "only men can bear arms" (as they are the only ones required to register) and see how far that goes.

Personally, I'd push the guard back to the state, and start-up local guards as well, and fully abolish the standing army. If the feds think they need military canons stored and ready, with people trained to use them, they can buy them and give them to militia to keep, many would prefer more cheaper units than the fed's preference to buy as many as they can from the highest bidder, being much fewer than if they'd bought the cheaper one.

Re:The answer to the question

[stymy]

Actually, robbers usually only carry guns just in case they run into a homeowner who is armed. In less-armed first world countries, robbers usually just run when confronted. While they could get a gun if they really wanted to, the only thing it accomplishes is longer jail time if they get caught.

Re:The answer to the question

[Jeremi]

If you want to live in a military/police state even more than you do already, then that's the re-interpretation you want...

There seems to be a lot of knee-jerk misinterpretation going on at this site.

I wrote "I can imagine X happening", and multiple people read it as "I hope X happens" and got bent out of shape.

The fact that merely introducing the possibility upsets the 2nd-amendment crowd so much suggests that even they secretly think the possibility is not so far-fetched. After all, given the hash the Supreme Court has made out of the 4th amendment, why should they feel secure about the future sanctity of the 2nd?

Re:The answer to the question

[WGFCrafty]

Why don't you just go suck on Obama's dick?

I know, I know... the NRA is big evil with over 5 million members and non-member firearm owners (nearly 100 million of us) but it's the will of a handful of elites with their own armed guards (paid for with taxpayer dollars) and a few very rich mouthpieces like the Hollywood puppets and Adolph Bloombitch that really represent the American public. Riiiiggghhhttttt. I guess the 1% are ok when they support your agenda, right?

Common leftist hypocrisy.

I'm glad our rights have been preserved! I will thank the gun industry every step i take for making sure you are packing heat. Oh, i own a glock and still think you're an asshole.

Re:The answer to the question

[WGFCrafty]

The reason that Europe has drastically less gun crime than the US has much less to do with the differences between European and American law and much more to do with the differences between Europeans and Americans.

^This. Very much this.

If you compare Japanese Americans to native Japanese, you'll see that they have very similar violent crime rates despite living on opposite sides of the world. There's obviously more at play than the laws.

LK

Even odder is that I have never seen a Japanese movie lacking violence, and as a culture the 20th century proves they are capable of violence, yet they don't kill each other as much. I think this may lie in America being such a pluralistic society.

Re:The answer to the question

[WGFCrafty]

Maybe not in the convention center, but every year as far as I can remember I've seen a sign at least once a year.

Re:The answer to the question

[shutdown -p now]

. In Europe they usually flee if discovered.

I suppose that is why, statistically speaking, in UK, a burglary is four times more likely to happen while the owner is at home, compared to the US.

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

Your argument is that the founders included the second amendment in the bill of rights to protect the government's right to assemble a militia because they were afraid that the government would limit the government's ability to raise an armed force? That's nonsensical.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[jandersen]

The NRA thinks more guns are the answer

A small correction: it should have been "... more guns bought from members of the NRA's manufacturers..."

Re:The answer to the question

[shutdown -p now]

The government statistics indicate you are more likely to accidentally shoot yourself then protect yourself with your gun.

As many such statistics, it is a poor guide for one's own behavior. There are many idiots and clueless in this country owning guns, the barrier to entry being as low as it is. It is not at all surprising that they accidentally shoot themselves while cleaning loaded guns etc. This does not mean that you, as an individual, cannot invest time and effort into learning the basic safety practices to the point of doing them automatically, and ending up in the top 1% of that negligent discharge statistics.

And you are more likely to have your gun taken from you and successfully used against you than to successfully use it to defend yourself.

This is only true if you count only cases where a gun has actually been fired as "successfully used to defend yourself". In practice, those same statistics indicate that somewhere in the vicinity of 95% of all defensive gun use consists of the victim pulling out a gun, and the assailant disengaging and running away. Which actually makes perfect sense, because not even in stand-your-ground states can you shoot a fleeing person, even if they were previously attacking you.

Re:The answer to the question

[Jane Q. Public]

I did read your stats. They contradict you.

It isn't me who's looking bad here.

Re:The answer to the question

[Jane Q. Public]

Okay. For the sake of argument, I'm willing to accept your figures as hard truth for the moment, and amend my statements to conform to your figures:

Gun crime went up. Some kinds of gun crime more than doubled during the 8 or 9 years after the big gun ban. And it did, indeed, stay up for those years.

It did indeed start dropping again, in more recent years. (Are you happy now? Even though I wrote that elsewhere too.) But it started dropping BEFORE the more recent gun ban. So it's not possible to attribute the drop to the legislation.

But the fact remains that did did go up, and stay up, after the '97 ban, for a period that was longer than the recent reduction.

Re:The answer to the question

[Jane Q. Public]

Haha. Way to cherry-pick your figures.

If you want think including fucking BB guns is going to convince somebody, then I repeat what I wrote elsewhere: I'm not the one making an ass out of myself here, fella.

Let's leave the toys out of it, and try shotguns:

1993: 1,592
1994: 1,190
1995: 983
1996: 933

Handguns:
1993: 4,273
1994: 3,087
1995: 3,319
1996: 3,347

Virtually all of your "increase" was BB guns and pellet rifles! We don't even call those guns here.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

No, that's not my argument. Your argument is that if you deliberately misrepresent what someone else says, it's easier to prove it wrong.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I'm very happy that you feel so safe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

I moved out of TX in 2001, and the gun show I went to was most assuredly there, but it was pre-2001. There aren't gun shows in Alaska. There are just guns everywhere. I hiked Resurrection Pass, and didn't realize that we started our hike the same day as a bear mauling (yes, anyone with excelent google foo will know my trip dates better than I do, scout mauled, lived - I stayed in the cabin he slept in the morning he was mauled that very night). On the trail, many of the hikers we passed had guns. The chest-holsters so you can get to them when you are wearing a pack. And rarely small ones. A 22/25/380 won't stop a bear. Bug spray will do a better job than small caliber handguns. But many were 44/45 or something like that. I think a bit heavy for 40 miles over 3 days, so I'd not pack on a trail, even with bears. They are afraid of people, so no big deal.

Re:The answer to the question

[Patch86]

FYI, the Daily Mail isn't a news source, it's a comic strip. The quality of reporting is roughly on par with Garfield.

Re:The answer to the question

[Cyberax]

Most soldiers treat sidearms as useless in actual combat. I have a basic military training and the amount of time dedicated to use of handguns was minuscule compared to all other activities. Because if you have to rely on your gun in an actual military combat then you're already truly fucked up.

As for partisans in WWII - they never were an existential threat for the Wehrmacht.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Haha. Way to cherry-pick your figures.

Excuse me? Who's cherry picking? Cherry picking means choosing amongst the figures to find something that suits you. What you are doing. I gave totals. No cherry picking.

Interesting that you are capable of looking at the figures close enough to find the totals include air guns, which are also controlled. But you see can't see, or admit that you were wrong in saying that gun crimes haven't dropped to roughly 1990 levels.

I haven't see such intellectual dishonesty as yours in quite some time. Though when I did, it was someone of the same politics as you denying global warming. It may even have been you that time, I can't remember.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

I said congress was "policies for sale" not Obama. Congress did everything it could to block and or water down Obama care because of all the cash from health care lobbyists.

I've made no assumptions about your opinion of Obamacare. I chose it as an example of decent policy that's for the benefit of the people, not lobbyists.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

You say that UK has less gun related crimes per capita than US because guns cannot be bought there legally.

No, that's what you claim I said. But it's not what I said. That's why it's a straw man.

The topic, raised by YOU, was black market guns, not gun crime.

Maybe you don't remember what you said from one post to the next.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

It isn't me who's looking bad here.

We all know it's very much you who's looking bad. You know it yourself.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Thank you. That wasn't so difficult was it.

Now what's this about a more recent ban? The big gun control legislation was 1997. The 2006 legislation was just a bit of tidying up and closing loopholes. And 2012 was a temporary lifting of certain restrictions to enable the shooting events at the Olympics.

So, we're agreed that crime has fallen to a lower level than it was at the time of the banning of most firearms.

The only thing that's left is it not matching your expectation (or requirement) that if it didn't rise every year before the ban, and fall every year after the ban, thus showing a peak at the year of the ban. Then the ban was ineffective. I suggest the problem is your expectation, not the effectiveness of the law.

You're making no allowance for the fact that a law needs policing. That after a ban it takes time for the police to get the guns off the streets. 6 years to turn things around is not bad.

Even if you can't bring yourself to accept that the UK gun ban worked. I would hope you'll stop trying to use the UK as an example that gun control doesn't work.

Note, there's a similar problem with the NRA distorting Australian gun stats. So be wary of repeating that too.

Re:The answer to the question

[dbIII]

Doesn't seem to be those folk leading it, just a bunch of cowards that don't want to even consider the hard choices that have to be made and instead just whine about their toys being taken away - which is as far from a "stereotype" of what you'd expect a typical NRA member to be as is possible. The "stereotype" is a brave patriot and not the snivelling cowards calling for a nanny state with schools full of guards.

Re:The answer to the question

[Karmashock]

Actually you do find other weapons used more often in places where guns are banned. You also find a higher robbery and rape rate.

Though you are right there are fewer murders... that said... most of the murders in either case are criminal on criminal violence and should probably be filtered out of the stats unless your objective is to keep gang bangers from killing each other.

If that is your objective then prepare to have everyone just laugh because no one cares about them killing each other. We care about them killing innocents. But they're as likely to beat such people to deal with baseball bats as anything if that is the weapon to hand.

Re:The answer to the question

[Karmashock]

Testing is meaningless since you don't think we have a problem with guns due to lack of training.

Registration is already the law of the land so you're ignorant there.

Registration links the serial number of the gun to the owner so you're ignorant again.

The serial number is on the gun which is effectively the same thing as a VIN number which is even better then a license plate. We only have license plates because VIN numbers or too long easily remember.

And as to mandatory insurance, its painfully obvious that you only want this to raise the cost of ownership and thus discourage their use which is why the supreme court cock blocked you on that issue.

Really, I don't know who you think you're fooling here. We're every bit as clever and educated as you are and these sad little arguments are transparent.

Re:The answer to the question

[Karmashock]

What I said was correct. I just didn't provide all the conditions and details.

Military service in Switzerland is compulsory isn't it? Which means its effectively something you do when you progress from being a child to being a citizen. And when you've finished that they do give you an automatic weapon and bag of bullets.

Yes, the above must be kept sealed etc. Tell me why those machine guns aren't constantly getting stolen and then schools getting mowed down by guys laughing as they machine gun people down?

The whole "people with guns kill people" meme is inaccurate.

You could give the average person a nuclear bomb and they wouldn't hurt anyone with it. Would I do that? No... But the thing is... Guns do not kill people. PEOPLE kill people.

The limiting factor on these murders is not the guns but the people that do the killing. Look at those crazy guys that killed people in boston. Think increasing gun regulation will stop that? What about the Columbine shooting? Doesn't matter.

They've done extensive studies on people that commit spree killings and politically motivated killings. In the first case its almost always a neurological dysfunction. Spree killers tend to almost always be very sick. They have odd brain tumors or neurological imbalances. They're crazy. And a crazy person can kill a lot of people because our society assumes that we trust each other. Drive on the highway... at any time someone could swerve into you and kill you like THAT *snaps fingers*. Nothing you could do about it.

Want to kill a bunch of people? Go to a gas station in the middle of rush hour with a gas can and a dirty rag... you might be able to blow the whole station up.

Or go to a busy restaurant on a Friday night... tends to be a couple hundred people all in a little room. Dozens of ways to make that a death trap.

As to the political killers... those guys methodically network with each other and come up with ways to kill people. They research it. They plan. You're not going to be able to stop every possible means they could come up with... All you can do is find them and remove them from society. That's what the FBI and CIA does. They look for these guys and then they make them go away.

Your antipathy towards guns is naive. The guns aren't killing people. The people are killing people. The vast majority of gun owners are blameless and society is better off with them armed.

When bad things happen it is a comfort to law abiding citizens and a concern to criminals that out there are good people with guns.

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

If I misunderstood your argument, by all means, correct me.

Why does the government need to enshrine its right to raise a defensive force in the bill of rights?

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[stenvar]

Are you fucking retarded?

No, but you seem to be.

Do you own a 20 mm minigun? How about a room full of pressure cooker improvised explosives? Maybe a fertilizer bomb? There are clearly things that do not belong in the possession of the general public

You can write laws until the cows come home and it won't make any difference: each of these are so easy to construct that anybody who wants one can get one. They can either make them in their garage or outsource it to illegal manufacturers.

(other than properly licensed and checked entities)

I won't even start a discussion of how wrong that view is from a political point of view because your views on practicality are even more idiotic...

and it doesn't need to progress to pulling or pushing the trigger before saying "oops, he shouldn't have possession of that item!"

And how are you going to keep it from "progressing" to that point? Require licenses for pressure cookers? Make the purchase of metal working equipment reportable? Put anybody with college level knowledge of chemistry on a potential terrorist list? Have weekly home inspections of anybody with a metal workshop to make sure they haven't constructed something illegal? Or maybe just give federal prosecutors more leeway to create bogus charges: they can't prove that you illegally leaked classified information to the press, but they can get you for having that "illegal gun making equipment" (i.e., a metal lathe or a 3D printer) in the garage.

People complain about the loss of STEM, manufacturing, and engineering jobs. People getting good in these areas necessarily learn the techniques necessary for gun making and bomb making. Many hobbies necessarily involve the ability to make bombs and/or guns. Even just a serious cook would have reason to have large quantities of carbon, sulfur, nitrate, and a pressure cooker.

Just because you may be a software-only klutz without hobbies doesn't mean the entire world works that way.

Re:The answer to the question

[stenvar]

Oh, I just noticed, you are not a software-only klutz, you are actually going for a medical degree. If you think, with a premed education, that these things can be regulated, you are really a complete moron. It is scary to think that people like you actually will practice medicine.

Re:The answer to the question

[Jane Q. Public]

"Now what's this about a more recent ban? The big gun control legislation was 1997. The 2006 legislation was just a bit of tidying up and closing loopholes. And 2012 was a temporary lifting of certain restrictions to enable the shooting events at the Olympics."

Thank you for confirming that the more recent legislation is relatively insignificant. That was the point I made myself, in an earlier comment.

"So, we're agreed that crime has fallen to a lower level than it was at the time of the banning of most firearms."

What we are NOT agreed on, is your implication that legislation had anything to do with it. The very data that you cited very strongly suggests otherwise (in fact one would be justified in calling it very strong evidence that it did not). It certainly does nothing to prove your point. If anything, it does the opposite.

Re:The answer to the question

[Jane Q. Public]

"I haven't see such intellectual dishonesty as yours in quite some time. Though when I did, it was someone of the same politics as you denying global warming. It may even have been you that time, I can't remember."

"Intellectual dishonest", my lily white ass. In the US, we don't call air rifles "firearms", because... they're NOT firearms! I don't know of any other country in the world that claims those are deadly weapons. Hell, a 3" knife is a far deadlier weapon.

It is including those figures in your "gun crime" that is intellectually dishonest.

Re:The answer to the question

[fredprado]

That was exactly what you claimed, but lets play your game and say you didn't. So you admit that lax gun control does not increase the number of gun related crimes. Therefore by your own admission there is no motive for more strict gun control, even if you were right about the black market. You are on the ropes here, my friend, and badly.

Now even if you only had only referred to the black market, which wouldn't make any sense as an isolated argument. Criminals in UK get their guns from the black market, and they are far in excess, per capita, of the guns in the hands of criminals in Norway, even though guns are illegal in UK and legal in Norway. So again, your theory is debunked.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

That was exactly what you claimed, but lets play your game and say you didn't.

Which is it? Because if it's this: "That was exactly what you claimed", then I say: link please?

If on the other hand it's this: "but lets play your game and say you didn't." Then I accept that you now have looked back and have discovered I didn't say what you claimed I had.

So you admit that lax gun control does not increase the number of gun related crimes.

And there you go again, in the very next sentence creating another straw man. When are you going to realise that it's pointless trying to argue with what you hoped people had said. You have to argue with what they actually say.

With your current approach, you'll find you can't argue your way out of a paper bag.

Re:The answer to the question

[fredprado]

Apparently aside for not being able to quote properly you have absolutely no understanding of logical fallacies, or logic at all, my friend. Nothing in our discussions amounts to a Strawman's fallacy, not even your own defective arguments, but you wouldn't recognize a fallacy and be able to categorize it even if it bit you in the ass.

The truth is, you have no point, no argument, nothing besides your stubbornness and willingness to keep repeating your own defective statements time and again. You are a fool, and even more of a fool for thinking you are something else.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Apparently aside for not being able to quote properly you have absolutely no understanding of logical fallacies, or logic at all, my friend. Nothing in our discussions amounts to a Strawman's fallacy

I was being polite. I could have just pointed out you are a liar. Prefer that? Didn't think so.

If ever you want to discuss honestly, without saying I said things that I did not, then that's OK. But otherwise, there's no point in me engaging with someone who just lies.

Re:The answer to the question

[fredprado]

LOL. Finally your true nature surfaces. You are a coward and ironically you are the liar here too. The saddest part is that you believe in your own lies and that is pathological. Seek for psychiatric help, my friend, you desperately need it.

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

Why does the government need to enshrine its right to raise a defensive force in the bill of rights?

It doesn't. How is a private citizen on the draft roll owning a gun a "government right"?

You obviously have no idea about history. Sure, you probably had lots of history classes and memorized lots of dates, but that's not history, that's trivia. History is the recognition that most sports were game-version of war training (with cricket/baseball, and surfing being two that I don't know of any war connection with). The reason those came about is that people who would be conscripted would be untrained in the use of their weapons issued, causing massive losses in the "militia". But lots of revolts were popular at the time (many unsuccessful), so the thought that if the populous were armed and trained, a revolt would be more successful, as would the military be more successful when tested.

So a successful army (well regulated militia, in constitutional speak), being necessary to a free state (defending the people against aggressors foreign and domestic), the right of the draftable people to own armaments of war shall not be infringed. Switzerland is closest to the intention of the 2nd Amendment.

As written, personal defense wasn't ever an intention, but it's the number one gun-nut excuse, which proves to me that most gun-nuts don't even know what the 2nd Amendment is about. Or they are deliberately lying because they don't like to acknowledge "militia" in the wording.

And before you get your panties in a wad, I didn't "call for" any action, nor state that I wanted a "ban" or anything like that. I just explained some stuff because you've been ignorant of the issues (whether deliberately or innocently will likely come out in your response).

Re:The answer to the question

[fredprado]

That is your theory, which you fail to prove, mostly because it can't be proved, being false and all.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to watch this.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the fuck modded thos outright lie up? Countire that have taken gun control seriously have seen a overall decrease in crime.

Re:The answer to the question

[bunkymag]

Agree to a point - so how do you go about changing culture then? Law should form some role in guiding the ideal future direction of society?

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

You obviously have no idea about history.

Right back at you sir. I'll expand on this later.

As written, personal defense wasn't ever an intention

You are incorrect. The contemporaries of the men who drafted the US Constitution(and in at least one case, one of the men himself) also wrote the Pennsylvania constitution, which since 1776 has contained some form of this provision "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state"

But don't take my word for it.

The right to own a firearm for both the national and personal defense was a concern during the 18th century. Despite what you may have read on the huffington post, this is not a late 20th century invention.

Or they are deliberately lying because they don't like to acknowledge "militia" in the wording.

George Mason, one of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, said this "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.". In other words, we're all the militia.

Tench Coxe, member of the Continental Congress, said this "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."

From your bandying about trivia about the inspiration for team sports to the gaps in your knowledge about the intended meaning of "militia" shows that you are projecting. Your accusations about us apply far more to yourself.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

Lots of quote, nothing that indicates a disagreement with my points. Are you going to say something, or just so offended that I made fun of your inability to address the point, so you proved it by going even further off tangent? Every quote you gave agrees with me, so I don't see the point of your "history" lesson. Did they plan on having a standing army when the Constitution was written? If not, does that affect the meaning of the militia?

The joy of the literalists is that they interpret the words to the literal meaning they prefer, then assert that to be the only valid interpretation. Picking and choosing modern words or ancient ones, as suits their causes.

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

Perhaps in your experience, two quotes and one citation are "lots".

Your inability to understand that you're incorrect, doesn't mean that you are not.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[AK Marc]

You assert that I'm incorrect, but post nothing that disagrees with anything I've said. That generally means that the "complainer" agrees with me, but disagrees with the phrasing.

Re:The answer to the question

[Lord Kano]

Your inability to understand it doesn't equate to its absence.

LK

Re:The answer to the question

[Deus.1.01]

Hey...like in Metro 2033!

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly.

When everyone is well armed, the world becomes a more polite, less violent place.

It's easy to be a jerk when your victims can't fight back.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. And it's a great way to catch criminals - just make a gun ownership an instant felony. Pretty soon most guns will be confiscated and it'll get much harder for criminals to get one. That's what happened in the UK and most of the Europe - and now they have drastically less gun crimes than the US.

Sticks and Stones. Not as easy, but still effective.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't become addicted to guns in the same way you can heroin; the demand for illicit guns vs illicit drugs is not really comparable.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how the US can fix this.

Given the continuously declining murder rate for decades, the answer is, "it is fixing this."

Re:The answer to the question

[Hognoxious]

Stopping your kids playing with matches is a good idea, but largely futile if the apartment next to yours is occupied by pyromaniacs.

Re:The answer to the question

[Darth Snowshoe]

"Yes, from enemies both domestic and foreign. That's why The People are supposed to represent The Militia. Every American has the responsibility of defending the nation. Your problem is that you are forgetting the need to defend from domestic enemies."

This is BS. Either you're plotting treason (which is still a capital offense in America) or you're using the second amendment to protect your hobby, and being dishonest about it. Which is it?

Don't play-act about being patriotic if you're planning out some Red Dawn scenario against the Feds.

The second amendment does not obligate everyone to own a gun. Owning a gun doesn't really protect the nation. There are more guns than people in America already. How many more guns would you need to feel protected?

Your vote, and your voice, are the primary defenses of democracy in America.

Re:The answer to the question

[Immerman]

Not necessarily - see the Old West or Deep South for counter-examples - courtesy has a tendency to end rapidly when faced with individuals who threaten the local world-view - which can take nothing more than not actively hiding the fact that you're gay, atheist, etc.. Despite our venier of civilisation our foundation is still animal, with all the strong primitive drives that entails. And in many ways civilisation and consciousness and exacerbates and amplifies those drives by artificially limiting our actions and giving us the ability to weave stories about ourselves and our world that, by and large, are caractures of reality as amplified by our fears and desires.

In an ideal world I would agree with you - but our current cultures grew out of millenia of striving to be more than animal. Until we reach the point where our culture can once again embrace the fact that we are animal we're going to have a rather violent sea of internal conflict boiling under the surface, just waiting for an excuse to erupt to the surface.

It's a sticky question - is it better to live in a world where you can defend yourself against violent attack, or one where violence is less common? I don't own a gun, but given the tyrannical tendencies of just about every government, ever, I prefer to have the option. Just to put things in perspective: In the US in 2007 there were 53,287 childhood deaths (0-19y). Of those only 2,324 were due to firearms, neglecting suicides where presumably the death would have occurred regardless of the availability of a particular tool. And only 138 were accidental, with firearms being by far the least common cause of accidental deaths (whch totaled 11,560) . For all the "think of the children" rhetoric even if we were able to completely eliminate guns, and even if *none* of the firearm homicides would have still occured via other means, we've still only reduced childhood mortality by 4%.

Re:The answer to the question

[Hognoxious]

...drastically less gun crimes than the US.

Replaced by other weapons of opportunity.

True. You can't walk down the street in Britain without tripping over people with arrows sticking out of them. Last week I went to the pub and two guys were fighting with halberds!

Re:The answer to the question

[Stickerboy]

Oh, I just noticed, you are not a software-only klutz, you are actually going for a medical degree. If you think, with a premed education, that these things can be regulated, you are really a complete moron. It is scary to think that people like you actually will practice medicine.

Hey thanks, moron, for stalking me and my slashdot account information. If you didn't notice, my UID is slightly older than your ignorant ass, so you're about a decade too late with the premed cracks. And again, you're fucking retarded, because while the laws don't prevent people necessarily from making a weapon or two at home with materials and tooling that they can purchase, it does give legal pretext to 1) arrest these idiots (like you, I presume) who make these completely unjustifiable weapons without going through the due process of obtaining the proper credentials and 2) monitor the purchases of material (fertilizer, anyone?) to make these weapons and 3) prevent any scalability of businesses who peddle services in obtaining these weapons. You can't outlaw education and skills, but you can tell people, politely, to not turn their skills to violent purposes. And it shouldn't take a bomb going off to take away the said bomb in the first place...which in your fantasy world apparently everyone should be able to stockpile whatever weapons they want.

So, please, do the world a favor and blow yourself up with your favorite hobby. The gene pool thanks you in advance.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, because just like alcohol and drugs, criminal enterprises would never jump at the opportunity to get into the illicit manufacture of such a low-tech commodity. It would be a gun-free utopia!

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

mmmmmm . . . kitten cheese burgers . . .

Re:The answer to the question

[whizbang77045]

Actually, I think they already did this in Switzerland. I don't believe any problems have resulted.

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

The NRA represents the firearms industry. They are currently on the same side as the firearms industry customers (i.e. NRA members) because for the moment the firearms industry is on the same side as their customers. Once people are able to print their own designs or worse print out copyrighted/patented designs downloaded off the internet, we will see how much the firearms industry likes their own customers. We will also see if the NRA will take the side of the industry or their members. My guess will be that it takes the side of whoever gives them more money.

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

The soldiers that join the armed forces are heroes. That doesn't mean that they aren't being used to further the goals of corporations at the expense of those soldiers, their families, and foreign civilians.

I would say we absolutely should have an armed guard at every school, if they were not as rare as they are. The reason we don't have armed guards at schools is because there is no rational incentive to shoot up a school. We need guards for the president because he's a target for assassination. We need guards at banks because they are a target for thieves. Schools are safe. We are overreacting to the high profile but rare school shootings that happen. Kids are far more likely to die in a car accident than in a school shooting.

Re:The answer to the question

[dublin]

This is dismaying. Even if we found a bottle on the beach and wished every gun on the planet to be turned into kittens and cheese burgers, we will still have them appear, but now not out of predicable venues, but out of thin air as far as any system is concerned. Let's face it, bad people will have reached their weapon production zenith, while the rest of us flounder around in inept, corrupt politics.

This is only dismaying if you believe free citizens have no right to fashion weapons for their own defense. The printable gun, in a way, just takes us back to where we were a century or two ago - anyone with a little technical knowledge and patience can make a reasonably effective weapon. Civilization didn't fall back then - in fact, you could argue that it reached its zenith at exactly the time that weapons production became achievable by any sufficiently motivated group with moderate wherewithal. There's a reason that the first use of interchangeable parts was in the firearms industry, paving the way for the machine age at large.

BTW, I've got enough experience with 3D CAD/CAM and the fiddliness of various rapid prototyping methods to recognize that it's actually considerably easier to get hold of conventional machine shop tools like lathes, gun drills, and milling machines and make much more serious weapons than DD's plastic pistol.

(If you're not averse to breaking laws, then history is full of good model weapons - the German MP3008, was a 9mm submachine gun designed to be easily fabricated with minimal tooling and expertise. Note that for resistance purposes, even the most basic of firearms can give you a shot (literally) at a better-armed enemy, allowing you to then take his (far more effective) weapon: witness cheap (a few dollars!) single shot pistols like the Liberator or "Deer Gun"...)

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

The difference is that murder is always bad, and guns are only bad when they lead to murder. Guns can even potentially prevent murder, which is the entire reason police have them.

Murder is impossible to prevent, but the reason it is illegal is because it is bad in itself, not that it sometimes leads to something else that is bad.

You can be a good person and a gun owner. You can't be a good person and a murderer.

Similar claims have been made about drugs. Why are drugs illegal? Because if you use drugs you will resort to mugging people for drug money. Drugs in themselves aren't bad. The muggings are bad. But muggings should be criminalized regardless of their motivation, and it is also quite possible for people to use drugs without resorting to unjustly harming others.

While saying "People are still going to do it" is not a good justification for keeping something legal. Similarly, saying "But they might do something bad with it" is not a good justification for making possession of something illegal.

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

Actually the most commonly quoted statistic is that "You are more likely to be a victim of gun violence if you own a gun". The implication is that you are more likely to be shot with your own gun than protecting yourself with it. This may be true, but that statistic is misleading. It correlates gun ownership with murder rates. It does not demonstrate a causal link between owning a gun and likelihood of being murdered.

This actually makes complete sense. People in violent areas are more likely to be murdered with a gun. Because they live in a dangerous area, they are also more likely to own a gun for protection. I haven't seen any statistics on the likelihood of being shot with your own gun (although I'm sure it's out there). I think the real conclusion is, If you feel threatened enough to own a gun, you are probably in an area dangerous enough where you are more likely to be murdered, and owning a gun is not likely to help.

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

It has nothing to do with conservatism. You don't think liberals own guns too? It's an issue of timing. The police can't get to your house instantly. If you live in a place with almost no crime, that may be fine for you. If you live in a place where muggings and murders are common, owning a gun is probably not a bad idea, especially since police are usually less motivated to provide protection in violent areas (for whatever reason).

I personally would rather have both options. I would like the option of using a gun until the police arrive. I always have the option not to take it out if it seems like it might aggravate the situation. It's not hard to keep a gun in a hidden safe where it is not accessible to children or easily found or stolen by criminals.

BTW I should mention that I am not a conservative and I do not own a gun.

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

You seem to be pretty afraid of guns. Maybe you should be, but both sides are playing the politics of fear.

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think I'd rather be in a gun fight with a crazy person than a knife fight.

I would much rather the police be fighting this guy. But it will probably be about 15 minutes before they arrive, and I'd like to have more than my front door to protect me until they arrive.

The moral of your story for me is that I should buy a gun. I don't currently own one, but me deciding not to own one doesn't make the crazy person any less likely to own one.

Even if I was in favor of complete gun criminalization, I should own the most lethal gun I can legally own for my own protection, which if I got my wish would be no gun at all

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

Or they could just interpret arms to mean body parts. Since we don't give a shit about the constitution anyway, why legitimize it by amending it properly.

Re:The answer to the question

[lexsird]

Indeed, good points all around. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the good free citizen being armed, especially if they are proven capable and responsible. We've really not made any progress towards letting the good people be armed, nor are we progressing from keeping bad people from being armed. The Left pounced on Sandy Hook in typical idiot liberal fashion, they have stepped up their anti-gun propaganda to a full court press. They are seriously retarded in their tactical sense. I think it's not a coincidence that the 1% that controls both sides wants this issue under wraps. This issue alone is folly.

All they are doing is burning political capital in a bonfire. Instead of working on real issues, and putting a stake in heart of the GOP, they are reviving them, sending the GOP grass roots into overdrive to beat them hard the next election.

Back to the printed gun thing. I think it will fill a niche market nicely. Assassinations and murders come to mind. Murder especially, it's the ability to construct in secret a lethal ranged weapon. I can think of applications, but fictional writing is an aspiring hobby of mine. I'm thinking the odds though are in favor of somebody out there looking at this with peaked homicidal interests.

Here's an idea, with 5 seconds of pondering; What if you wanted to assassinate/murder someone inside a heavily secured area? You can't get a weapon in. But who's going to suspect the weapon printed up on the spot? Then comes fact that it's plastic and can be melted/dissolved into a plastic turd and flushed down the toilet. Pesky metal guns, hard to flush them or even hide them from a hard security sweep. How's our protagonist going to solve that one? Awesome stuff.

I don't think your average thug on the street is clapping with glee for one of these, nope. But it makes for another toy in the arsenal. Just what we needed. At least for now it's not low hanging fruit. It will take someone technologically minded to produce one. Christ, if they are that smart, chances of them being criminals is thinner, right? It's just those few anomalies that worry me for now. When BillyBob can run down to Wal-Mart, get what he needs to gun down his sister/wife, is when we all need to worry. That's the nature of tech too, we keep making it simpler for all the fucking idiots. Read slashdot lately, that point is proven elegantly.

Re:The answer to the question

[I'm New Around Here]

Actually, I think the whole Obamacare ordeal defies ready explanation in any traditional pigeon-holing system. It bears President Obama's name in the popular vernacular, but he didn't have a lot to do with it. Speaker Pelosi famously said they had to vote for it to see what's in it, but the House version was completely replaced by the Senate version, so she was actually irrelevant. You mention "all the cash from health care lobbyists", which would include the insurance companies, yet they are going to face extinction within a few years due to greatly expanded coverage of high-cost (as opposed to simply high-risk) customers. So all their cash and lobbying was not successful.

I've made no assumptions about your opinion of Obamacare.

That's a welcome change. Most times people do assume they know what I think of it, or what my reasons for opposing it are. So I thought that's where you were going. I'm glad I was wrong, and I thank you for the conversation.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

It has nothing to do with conservatism.

Of course it does. Go to a shooting range and take a poll and you're going to come up 99% Republican or Libertarian. At an NRA meeting, 99.9%.

Of course there are examples of liberal gun owners. And there are even conservatives that vote Democrat. People are individuals and most don't hit a certain category in some way or another. But statistically, the set "gun owners" is almost entirely contained in the set "conservatives".

But my comment on conservatism being the politics of fear is far wider than just gun ownership. And it's not my opinion, that says it, it's science:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

Conservatives brains work differently. Their genetics make them concentrate on fear responses.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Why would I be afraid of guns? I live in a country where they are virtually non-existant. And when I lived in a country that did allow handguns, I went along with a friend to a shooting range a couple of times. Gun law/ownership in America has no practical effect on me whatsoever.

My opinions are nothing to do with fear, and everything to do with being able to see the American fascination and love of guns as being both bizarre and self-harming. For them. It's like having a friend who's an alcoholic, and trying to help.

Re:The answer to the question

[lexsird]

Ok, thank you for the link. I'm clearly busted though. Clumpy gun, yup! I've seen price check guns far more intimidating. I swear to Christ I could hold up a bank with one. GET THE FUCK ON THE GROUND OR I WILL PUT A LAZER IN YOUR ASS! Think about that the next time you are in Wal-Mart and that hefty gal who is dressed like she seriously isn't from the planet, comes trooping by you with one of those in hand. Or is it? Or is she? Fuck!

Here's my wild sci-fi fun gun to print out. Remember those plastic star trek guns they made back in the 70s? They shot disks that spun like fuck! You could seriously jack a bag of green army men up with one. My question is how fast can one make a disk spin with this new fangled particle acceleration tech?

I can see me at Wal-Mart, looking at that behemoth bitch in those purple heels that someone a fraction of her size should be in. You know, the one with the menacing price check gun. She in line in front of me, looking back at my cart full of saw blades, Duracell batteries, some damn laser I found in sporting goods, and a big can of coffee. She knows. I could feel a bead of sweat forming on my forehead to take a slalom course down my brow. If she made a move, I could take her. She knows that too.

She flashes me a smile. I'm terrified, it's not a she-alien, but a human female/Sasquatch/mutant who's taking a fancy to me. She does have an ample bosom. I come to my senses later sneaking away with my Wal-Mart bags from some part of town and my car is a subject I don't want to discuss.

I return home and my crew has been patiently waiting, smoking my fucking weed, and are eager to load up "the gun" with ammo, and we got Duracells for this, going balls out on this budget. Fuck them cheap batteries. Note: Make sure you work in a well ventilated area when cobbling PVC particle slider/spinner/accelerator barrels together, the glue will get you high as fuck, and in a way the math will always be more difficult way, not the weed way.

Why is this important? Because of that! That thing that landed in our community's back yard. Seriously, look at the size of it! It's fucking so obviously from space or worse, it's just laying there, resting, and I bet it gets up pissed, hungry, thirsty, and whatever ry that trips its trigger. If it's not friendly as a puppy and shits golden eggs, we just might discover the dire need to seriously fuck it up. Shooting saw blades like photon torpedoes at it sounds like a plan to me. If it bleeds, we can kill it. We can then cook it and eat it. That's what happens when you come to Earth and start shit. We fucking kill you, then we cook you, we are after all civilized, then we eat you.

OK, which way do these batteries go in again? Jesus, I haven't seen this many D-Cells since your mom's vibrator got flagged by the TSA at the airport last Thanksgiving.

------

I digress. 100 duck sized horses of course. And the question is: Why did they make that fucking gun so ugly? Don't they have a kinky cosplay girl friend who makes costumes who could touch it up so it doesn't look so blah. Blah, I will point my blah gun at you and blah you with its blah powers of blah! Give it to some kids with Sharpies, anything.

True story, was in an engineering class of sorts, doing Solid Works and the instructor printed out the train we all made. I was really surprised at the level of detail and how tight it went together. We are talking simple as shit train, something Santa's elves would fucking bust a nut laughing at. But it was cool how we could work it up in that, then just print it. It takes forever though. Nobody is going to print out a gun on demand to go down stairs and check what that scary noise was any time in the foreseeable future. I could be wrong.

In parting, I think steering these fellows away from printing guns to something more interesting. We need a print your own girl friend project. Print up the android frame under the latex or whatever kind of rubber skin. Animating it would be awesome, it could be a community project, like

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

Your argument sounds a lot like the arguments some people used to make that black people were more violent and less intelligent because of their genetics. I don't see any big difference in fear between liberals and conservatives. They just seem to be afraid of different things.

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

The position you take is one that is "fearful" of guns, while you may not be afraid of them at this very moment.

Is someone who never goes in the water, because its full of sharks, afraid of sharks? No because there are no sharks on land. Yes because he won't go in the water. It's semantics.

No one really claims to be motivated by fear. Everyone claims that other are motivated by fear to delegitimize their position. This whole argument of who's position is the "fearful" position is not a logical or objective one. It's completely subjective and adds nothing to the discussion.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

The position you take is one that is "fearful" of guns

No it's not. Your theory is wrong.

No one really claims to be motivated by fear. Everyone claims that other are motivated by fear to delegitimize their position. This whole argument of who's position is the "fearful" position is not a logical or objective one. It's completely subjective and adds nothing to the discussion.

It's not subjective. It's been scientifically studied. I already gave you the link.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/conservatives-big-fear-brain-study-finds

You just don't want to believe it. So you disregard the science. And that's another conservative trait.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

People of different races do have different attributes due to their genetics. But not necessarily the ones you mention. Science, not bigotry is always the guide.

However whatever the differences are it's not reason for racist behaviour nor any justification for discrimination.

That YOU don't see any difference in fear between liberals and conservatives IS subjective. Science does see a difference.

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

1 study != science

We don't even know how the human brain works, It is completely ridiculous to make any concrete scientific claims about the brains of conservatives being mor eprone to fear.

This is the epitome of pseudo science. I am not even a conservative.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

1 study != science

a) Of course 1 study is science.
b) It's better than your opinion.
c) It's more than one. There's 3 studies from 3 different years on 3 different countries on the first page of Google.

We don't even know how the human brain works, It is completely ridiculous to make any concrete scientific claims about the brains of conservatives being mor eprone to fear.
This is the epitome of pseudo science. I am not even a conservative.

Denial of science doesn't necessarily mean you're a conservative. It just makes it likely.

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

a) So if I find a study on the internet that says plants have feelings, I am free to say that "science says plants have feelings"? Are you insane? There are countless scientific studies that are flawed. There are even more news stories about scientific studies that are even more flawed.

b) My opinion is skepticism until a claim has withstood rigours scientific scrutiny. Which this claim (that conservatives are conservative because they are ruled by fear) has certainly not.

c) Oh really 3 studies from 3 different countries? Conservative doesn't even mean the same thing in other countries. Conservatives in Europe would be left wing democrats in the US.

Did you even read the actual study? Of course you didn't. You just saw an article about a study and regurgitate it as scientific fact. Actual scientific studies tend to be very clear about the limitations of their claims and interpretations of the results. News stories tend to exaggerrate or even completely misreport the findings in order to make them more interesting.

Are you aware of how many scientific studies are just absolute garbage, especially the psychology ones? This is why studies are not considered valid scientific conclusions. The studies are a method by which others may review the studies and attempt to reproduce them or examine the methodology for errors.

Denial of science is one thing. I am doing the opposite. I am refusing to allow pseudoscience to be represented as accepted scientific knowledge.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

So if I find a study on the internet that says plants have feelings, I am free to say that "science says plants have feelings"? Are you insane? There are countless scientific studies that are flawed.

And you are assuming all the studies are flawed, not because you have looked at the studies and found reasons they are flawed. Heck not just flawed, but you're accusing them of being pseudoscience on no better reason that you don't agree. But because they don't say what you want them to say. That is indeed anti-science.

Conservative doesn't even mean the same thing in other countries. Conservatives in Europe would be left wing democrats in the US.

I said conservative. Small c. It certainly does mean the same. There's a difference in how far to the right the American right wingers have managed to move politics. The Republican Party is far to the right of the UK Conservative Party. But conservative minds are still conservative minds. Theirs is still the politics of fear, the world over.

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yes I am assuming ALL studies are wrong until they have been scrutinized. This is the scientific method. Most guesses (hypotheses) are wrong.

The reason why I call it pseudo science is because the claims made in the article (not even sure if these claims are made in the actual study), go far beyond what any science we have today is capable of concuding.

Even if you come up with an objective measure for political conservatism (something that is normally subjective) that everyone can agree one, showing that "conservatism and larger amygdalas" are correlated by some percentage, it is interesting but not necessarily relevant and certainly does not demonstrate any kind of causal link. Correlation != causation. You can prove that there is a correlation between being black and being a criminal in the US, but this correlation is not relevant, because there is no causal link that being black causes you to be a criminal. There is a more obvious correlation of poverty and criminality, and a correlation beteen being black and poverty.

Furthermore, even if we know that the amygdala plays a role in fear, making the jump to saying that a larger amygdala is definitive sign of having your decisions ruled by fear, is not even close to being an accepted scientific conclusion. It is just a hypothesis, and one that is probably wrong. The brain is a very complex machine. Reducing functionality to the size of it's components is a very crude reduction that is almost guaranteed to be an incomplete picture.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Yes I am assuming ALL studies are wrong until they have been scrutinized. This is the scientific method.

Are you saying they haven't been peer reviewed?

No, your are not assuming all studies are wrong. You're assuming the ones that don't fit your preconceived notions are wrong. And it's certainly not scientific to call studies that you know little about, but don't say what you want: "guesses".

You can prove that there is a correlation between being black and being a criminal in the US, but this correlation is not relevant, because there is no causal link that being black causes you to be a criminal. There is a more obvious correlation of poverty and criminality, and a correlation beteen being black and poverty.

Of course there is. And the point is that scientists say that. It's not a case that the scientists are stupid and uneducated, and they need "TsuruchiBrian" to come along and repeat slashdot's favourite mantra "Correlation is not causation".

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

You're assuming the ones that don't fit your preconceived notions are wrong.

How on earth would you know that?

As I said before I am not a conservative, so the only thing about this that offends me is that it is relayed as accepted scientific knowledge by the article and you.

It might very well be true. But we don't know that yet, and it is irresponsible to pretend we do.

I would be equally adamant about it being pseudoscience if the results had been that liberals are guided by fear. Would your opinion be the same?

What if I show you a study that indicates that people don't come to conclusions in an unbiased way. That they in fact decide what their conclusions are and then only consider information that supports their conclusion. HInt: they are talking about you (the person who has decided that conservatives are wrong, and therefore every study confirming that must be right).

I disagree with conservatives on just about everything. The difference between me and you is that I am not willing to believe this kind of stuff just because it appeals to me.

I am not criticizing scientists. I have no read the study. I am criticizing the article and you for representing this study as well accepted scientific knowledge, when it is still just a very weakly supported hypothesis.

A real scientist, I hope, would not make such a rookie mistake.

Re:The answer to the question

[stenvar]

Hey thanks, moron, for stalking me and my slashdot account information.

Reading your Slashdot profile is "stalking"? You're paranoid, which I suppose goes along with your paranoid fantasies about being able to regulate everybody else's lives just because you have an irrational fear of being harmed.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

What if I show you a study that indicates that people don't come to conclusions in an unbiased way. That they in fact decide what their conclusions are and then only consider information that supports their conclusion.

I'd say you demonstrate it very well.

I have no read the study.

So I was right. Not only are you still referring to them as singular, you haven't read any of them, and yet are calling them pseudoscience sight unseen.

I on the other hand HAVE read a couple of the earlier studies. I couldn't give a damn about what the article said. I just linked to one that referenced the fact that this had been scientifically studied.

You seem to be getting more and more upset by the fact that your preconceived notions are contradicted by the science.

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

I'd say you demonstrate it very well.

How is that when I am the one being skeptical of a a negative study about people I don't agree with (conservatives), and you are the one willing to believe anything that agrees with your worldview.

You are willing to believe the conclusion from an article on a study you have not read.

I am not willing to believe a conclusion made by an article on a study I have not read.

One of these is reasonable. One is not.

So I was right. Not only are you still referring to them as singular, you haven't read any of them, and yet are calling them pseudoscience sight unseen.

You have a reading comprehension problem. I have not read the study. I am not calling the study anything. I am calling the article about the study pseudoscience because it is, and I am calling you're perception of science, pseudoscience.

You seem to be getting more and more upset by the fact that your preconceived notions are contradicted by the science.

I am not upset at all. I just think it is entertaining how retarded you are.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Let me fix that for you:

"You (Basil) are willing to believe the conclusionS from MULTIPLE studIES you HAVE read.

"I (TsuruchiBrian) am not willing to believe a conclusion made by an article on a study I have not read. AND AM IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE ARE OTHER STUDIES TOO.

"One of these is reasonable. One is not.

Yes, one is reasonable, one is not. Yours is not reasonable.

I just think it is entertaining how retarded you are.

Reasonable?

Re:The answer to the question

[TsuruchiBrian]

"You (Basil) are willing to believe the conclusionS from MULTIPLE studIES you HAVE read.

2?

I would like to reiterate that I am not disagreeing with the actual results of this study (correlations between political opinions and sizes of brain structures). I am disagreeing with the unscientific interpretation the *article* and that you are repeating.

I would bet one of two things:

1. The study is well done and makes no claim of conclusive results regarding conservatives being guided by fear, but might hint at it's possibility.

2. The study is not well done.

I just think it is entertaining how retarded you are. Reasonable?

It is certainly not unreasonable to find ignorance pathetic, but still entertaining. This is just a part of being human. As soon as this conversation loses it's entertainment value, I will just stop talking to you.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

As soon as this conversation loses it's entertainment value, I will just stop talking to you.

Funny you should say...

Re:The answer to the question

[stenvar]

Conservatives brains work differently. Their genetics make them concentrate on fear responses.

Yet "progressives" and "liberals" are afraid of free market competition, of climate change, of getting sick and not having health care, of other people with guns, of not having all sorts of insurance provided for them, of cancer and toxins, of falling through the social safety net, etc.

Of course it does. Go to a shooting range and take a poll and you're going to come up 99% Republican or Libertarian. At an NRA meeting, 99.9%.

Bullshit. Gun ownership rates are about 30% for Democrats and 50% for Republicans, but much of that difference is explained simply by where people live.

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

free market competition

Preferring things to be organised in a fairer was is not fear.

of climate change

Preferring the climate not the be fucked up is not fear.

of getting sick and not having health care

Fairness again.

of other people with guns

Everyone is fearful if they have a gun pointed in their face. But those in favour of gun control do so based on statistics mostly.

of not having all sorts of insurance provided for them, of cancer and toxins, of falling through the social safety net, etc.

Your grip on what fear is is getting ever more tenuous. Fear is a primal drive, not a reasoned argument.

Conservatism is the politics of fear. Always was. And in recent years the science has shown it top be true. Childish "well you're fearful too" responses won't change that.

Re:The answer to the question

[stenvar]

The paper you cite shows a correlation between size of the right amygdala and self-reported political attitudes, with "conservatives" having a larger amygdala.

What correlates with the size of the amygdala? Social network size and artistic creativity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3079404/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18922517

A small amygdala correlates with anxiety disorders and social problems. Also, the anterior cingulate gyrus enlarges if people experience more conflict between their beliefs and reality, as liberals apparently do.

So if you insist on interpreting these results in the way you do, they suggest that liberals tend towards fearful, non-artistic loners who can't make sense of the world, while conservatives tend towards social, artistic types who understand how the world works.

(As for "fairness", grow up.)

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

Social network size and artistic creativity.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3079404/

It corresponds with social behaviour towards family and tribe. And fear of the outsider. Fear of immigration. Racism. And other such fears of people being different.

If you look at a more general coverage of the functions of the Amygdala you'll find lots of references to it being the centre of the fear response, and precious little about creativity. The only reference to creativity here is the possibility as an explanation for "unique responses" to the Rorschach ink-blot test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala
An explanation that fits in better with what else we know about the amygdala is that the "unique responses" were seeing images of mad axe-murderers, where most people would see butterflies.

(As for "fairness", grow up.)

There is nothing childish about preferring things that are fair to things that are unfair. Indeed, if you feel that, you're just revealing you're a nasty self-serving person.

Re:The answer to the question

[stenvar]

When science doesn't support your prejudices and bigotry, you resort to fabrications trying to resolve the differences. Don't strain yourself too much, your anterior cingulate gyrus is already abnormally large.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing childish about preferring things that are fair to things that are unfair. Indeed, if you feel that, you're just revealing you're a nasty self-serving person.

None of the policies you talked about are actually "fair". It's a common strategy by people like you to mislabel policies when you engage in propaganda. Just think "Pravda".

Re:The answer to the question

[BasilBrush]

I was the one that brought up the science in the first place. You're the one that's spend many postings rejecting it.

Re:The answer to the question

[Anonymous Coward]

You posted a blog post in which a random person gave his erroneous interpretation of a scientific paper. I posted links to peer reviewed publications (i.e., actual science) that show that his interpretation (and yours) is wrong. That's the problem with people like you: you believe in pseudo-science and don't understand the actual science.

It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Hentes]

It's a plastic toy that's shaped like a gun, but I don't believe it can be fired. The trigger looks already broken on the picture, imagine how reliable the other parts of the gun are.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Trepidity]

Especially considering that it's not particularly difficult to manufacture a gun out of metal using more conventional technologies. It's not some kind of space-age, 21st-century device; guns have been produced for something like 700 years. Instead of a 3d printer, why not get a CNC mill?

The answer, I suspect, is that we're dealing with a gun-nut libertarian desperate to get press for their TECHNO-LIBERATION concept.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[fluffy99]

Especially considering that it's not particularly difficult to manufacture a gun out of metal using more conventional technologies. It's not some kind of space-age, 21st-century device; guns have been produced for something like 700 years. Instead of a 3d printer, why not get a CNC mill?

The answer, I suspect, is that we're dealing with a gun-nut libertarian desperate to get press for their TECHNO-LIBERATION concept.

Because most people can't afford a CNC mill and you can now buy a 3-D printer at Staples?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no no, 3D printing is the future! It will make all other manufacturing processes obsolete!

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

A surprising number of 3d printing projects seem to have been born of the fact that the gutting of domestic blue-collar production means that we currently have a massive glut of geeks who want to make things; but who never had wood shop(and certainly not metal shop, heaven forfend!) in school, and whose fathers pushed paper for a living and weren't in a position to teach them anything about manufacturing...

There are, undoubtedly, applications for which 3d printed materials cannot be matched by any conventional technique(some of the 'sure, let's just print a highly detailed collagen matrix to build a replacement organ' stuff, or some of the single-piece geometry you can get, along with anything that rewards rapid turnaround on very small runs); but there are a lot of 3d printed objects that are essentially really bad plastic versions of something that could have been knocked together with the machine tools of 50 years ago, never mind fancy CNC gear.

(And lest anybody think that I'm criticizing from the outside, I'm actually in a pretty similar boat. My grandfather was a mechanical engineer, did it at work, had a pretty serious setup in his basement. We didn't live at all close to that side of the family, so I only really saw it when doing logistics after the funeral. Dad was mostly a white-collar numbers guy, with a little bit of hobby carpentry that tapered off after he had kids. My own education was strictly college prep, and my only machine-tool time was through a university, plus the online services.)

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

.. that will still just print out a plastic piece of shit.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

A $1300 3d printer. Or you could buy three AK-47's.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't *need* CNC. Just some basic hand tools and a lot of elbow grease. How do you think they did it in the old days?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Small but usable manual mills cost far less than a Staples 3D printer. Tho they take up a bit more of your garage...

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[retchdog]

An astute analysis and very well-put. Thank you.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Because most people can't afford a CNC mill and you can now buy a 3-D printer at Staples?

Any gun you could print out of a 3D printer that cost less that a good CNC mill would be completely useless as it would simply crack under the stress of the first bullet you put in it (assuming it could even exert enough force on the bullet to fire it). If you tried a high enough caliber you might even injure yourself with the shrapnel.

You would be far better off printing yourself a knife and sharpening it - you would be able to do a lot more damage with that.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Culture20]

you can now buy a 3-D printer at Staples

One that prints 5"x5"x5" max.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[CrimsonAvenger]

you can now buy a 3-D printer at Staples

One that prints 5"x5"x5" max.

Which is more than big enough to make a pistol (7" on the diagonal).

Now, whether that pistol would be safe to shoot, that's another question entirely.

Note, by the by, that you couldn't pay me enough to pull the trigger on one of them, unless it were literally a matter of life or death...for someone I liked...a lot.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Lumpy]

Buddy of mine built an AK47, automatic version out of a frigging shovel and some other metal parts in his poorly tooled metal shop. If you have the plans, you can make things better and faster with less than $100 in metal and some crap tools.

And yes he drilled a barrel and even put in some crappy rifling. A weekend project.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[daninaustin]

It's an early prototype. Take a look at the other things they have made like the ar15 receiver and magazine. it took a few tries but they finally got them working. They'll do the same for this.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Lumpy]

You dont need a CNC mill. Let me guess, you think you need a supercomputer to write iphone apps? You can make a gun with rudimentary tools that are in many people's garages. How do you think gun smiths in the 1800's did things? You think they fired up their CNC mill and had their horse program the computer to start cutting?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[daninaustin]

Not anymore and probably never again.. Have you seen the prices of AK's recently? Like most guns & ammo the price on AK's has gone way up. Parts kits are getting scarce and expensive and barrels can no longer be imported. The days of $99 Romanian parts kits and $299 AK's is over. I think that is one of the points of the 3d printing. Right now we depend on supply chains for parts that can dry up at any time but with 3d printing (at least if it continues to improve) we may be able to print out most parts we need. Designs will also evolve to utilize the new materials.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[daninaustin]

Just look on youtube for the homemade 12 gauge shotguns made from metal pipe.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[i.r.id10t]

Assuming your "friend" is a USAian, then he most likely committed several felonies. Unless, he is a licensed FFL w/ SOT (aka "class 3 dealer") and had a letter of request from a le agency or military or the BATFE (should be a convienence store not a government agency) gave explicit permission for "research purposes".

That is the only BS part I'm coming up with - yes, you can use a shovel for an AK receiver flat. Google a forum name of "boris" and "ak shovel"

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Or do a quick search for an AK-47 made out of a shovel.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Mspangler]

"Because most people can't afford a CNC mill and you can now buy a 3-D printer at Staples?"

You don't need a CNC mill unless you want to build several copies of the same thing quickly. Milling machines are not that expensive.

http://www.harborfreight.com/1-1-2-half-horsepower-heavy-duty-milling-drilling-machine-33686.html

it's not the greatest, but it will work.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... no...

Because most people can afford to buy some heavy walled pipe from the hardware store, a few other odds and sods, and put together a perfectly workable zip gun.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1361&bih=1051&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=home+made+guns&oq=home+made+guns&gs_l=img.12...0.0.0.2933.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c..12.img.ukk4Flgz970

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Jeremi]

I think a lot of programmer types like the idea of things being made automatically, so that once you have the design down you can churn out as many copies as you like, just as you can with software.

Having to make each individual item by hand isn't considered an interesting option because it can't scale up.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[dwillden]

Tools and another very key requirement. Knowledge of how to work metal and use said tools. How many kids get more than a semester of shop in Jr high any more? Not many. It takes not only the equipment but the knowhow to do this.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[forkazoo]

You dont need a CNC mill. Let me guess, you think you need a supercomputer to write iphone apps? You can make a gun with rudimentary tools that are in many people's garages. How do you think gun smiths in the 1800's did things? You think they fired up their CNC mill and had their horse program the computer to start cutting?

No, but I do think they did it with a lot more skill and time than it would take me to push a button on a box I just picked up at Staples. And, with a less strict landlord than mine. If I had a workshop and the time to learn the skills, it would be awesome. But, in an urban apartment I will never learn how to make a gun by hand no matter how low-tech the process may be. And if I did, I'd never be sure if I got one wrong until I tried it and I checked to see if it blew up when I fired it. When it's a purely automated system making the parts, you can have a lot of confidence in the consistency.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[dwillden]

As long as it wasn't full auto capable doing that was absolutely legal. As long as the weapon is not an NFA class firearm, you can make any weapon for your own use. Federal firearm laws are based on the commerce clause, if the weapon you make does not enter interstate commerce (I.e. you keep it for yourself), the feds are limited in their ability to control it. That is the biggest draw of the print your gun movement. If we can just print reliable firearms with NO record, then no attempt to ban them will ever be successful.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a fuck?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm curious where they're getting the receiver from. You can manufacture all the other parts of the gun, but the receiver is what the ATF considers to be the gun. I'm not sure how long it's going to be before they change the regulations to ban this if they aren't using an approved of receiver.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[uncqual]

You're statement is incorrect with respect to Federal laws (I don't know which, if any, states have stricter laws than the Feds on manufacturing firearms).

You might be correct if Lumpy had said that his friend sold or distributed the AK47 he made, but he didn't say that.

Check this out for more info (there are some restrictions, so read more than the portion I quoted):

For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe, like many of us, his friend actually believes the Constitution still controls this country, and he didn't give a rat's ass about laws that are in direct violation of it.

Re: It's a 3D printed gun shape

[fluffy99]

I think you missed the point that cnc or 3d printing requires minimal or no skill or ability to think out a design. A manual mill requires at least a little skill.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

You are ignoring three points:

1) the cost of printers vs. wood tools. Printers are now (or soon will be) as low as $200. You will barely get any decent electric tools for that price, let alone any CNC equipment.

2) space. Apartments are ill suited for a workshop, especially when you consider wood/metal shavings and dust.

3) laziness Downloading and printing is alot easier than any woodworking.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

my personal favorite homemade gun

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[daninaustin]

AK receivers are easy to make but you still need the parts kits for the barrel, bolt, bolt carrier and fire control but they are getting harder to find and expensive. The home depot 12 guage only needs shotgun shells and easily obtainable pipe, bolts, etc.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[daninaustin]

Not the greatest is an understatement. I have one almost like that from harbor freight (the geared head one.) The round column sucks. Mine sits in the corner until i need to drill something. You are probably better off with one of the small mills they sell and converting it to cnc.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[daninaustin]

If he meant semi-automatic then you are right, but if it was really an automatic AK (as in machine gun) it was definitely illegal unless he was a licensed manufacturer with SOT tax paid. There are exceptions for building machine guns for govt agencies, but that never happens.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[daninaustin]

Nice idea, but it doesn't keep you out of prison. Better to pick a fight you can win than be a martyr for the cause.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[daninaustin]

That's the whole point of this exercise. They are printing the receiver. That way you don't have to ask permission to get a gun.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Except there are CNC mills that cost less than the 3d printer at staples.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[istartedi]

You think they fired up their CNC mill and had their horse program the computer to start cutting?

Oh come on. Everybody knows a horse can't program, unless of course he's the famous Mr. Ed.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Lord Kano]

He's a self-described anarchist.

LK

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[I'm New Around Here]

You fool, don't you know Mr Ed wasn't actually a horse?

  http://www.snopes.com/lost/mistered.asp

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[blueg3]

I find this all very weird because as a physicist, I ended up having to learn machining. Loved it, very useful. But on the other hand, it's very clear (and often complained-about) that there are no young professional machinists out there -- every decent machinist is old and near retirement. While the demand for it is drying up, there's enough that there's some pretty serious risk of having a shortage of skilled machinists in the future.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[CodeBuster]

I think that lawyers share at least some of the blame for what you describe. After all, can you imagine something as "dangerous" as a machine shop in a high school anymore? Of course not! Why, little Johnny might lose his fingers in the band saw or crush his hand in the drill press. It's easy to see how the pervasive liability culture that's been unfolding since at least the 1960s here in the United States has effectively ruined many of what might once have been considered "classic" activities for boys growing up and it's not just shop class that has suffered but the chemistry lab and even the sorts of activities that were once enjoyed at summer camps. Remember the rope courses and rifle ranges? Yeah, the attorneys and the insurance companies put the kabosh on those too. But the icing on the cake today is the big lie that everyone who goes to college, no matter how much debt they take on to do it, has the ticket to a good job and a bright future. Some of them don't figure it out until after they graduate and end up waiting tables or working the espresso machine while wondering what the hell happened to that bright future they were promised. If my kid wants to become a certified mechanic or skilled tradesman rather than becoming yet another liberal arts washout I think that I would actually be fine with that.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

you can get a shop press for under $100 and stamp AK lowers and mags all day long..

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[flimflammer]

Bullshit. Where can you buy an AK-47 for $400 today?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[flimflammer]

OK that is highly amusing.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Your name is quite astute. You can make your own firearms in the US quite freely, as long as you don't sell or distribute them.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

GGP said automatic. We're talking a violation of the NFA, not the GCA. Do keep up.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can make a gun with rudimentary tools that are in many people's garages."

Or laying around.. Shatner took down a t-rex with a bamboo pipe, some diamonds and a few handfuls of sulfur

Re: It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed the point that cnc or 3d printing requires minimal or no skill or ability to think out a design. A manual mill requires at least a little skill.

But in practice that's not true for CNC*, and only barely true for 3D printing.

*Note that in industry, some shops doing volume runs divide CNC work into CNC Setup and CNC Operator positions, where the Setup man does programs, tools, and workholding, and the Operator loads the next part, pushes go, loads the next part, etc. In a home shop, and in some industrial shops, each guy does everything -- while your assertion is true for a CNC Operator, that's not the relevant context.

Most of the skill in machining with a manual mill is knowing how to hold the workpiece, locating the intersection of the set of tools suitable for the machining operation at hand, and the set of tools you have available, and knowing what speed to run the selected cutter at, what feedrate, and what depth of cut (in various directions) that cutter can make. And all of those things apply equally to CNC.

With 3D printers (specifically FDM machines, since they're by far the most common), you only have one nozzle, and the ways you can deposit material are pretty simple, so there exists free, nearly automatic software that makes all the choices for you to go from solid model to movement and heater commands. But machining has more choices involved, and as a result the few software packages that come close all cost thousands of dollars. In the typical home shop, you'll be no better a machinist with a CNC than you are with a manual machine.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[uncqual]

Agreed -- i was assuming that he was talking about something that most people could purchase legally.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[qbzzt]

Definitely. We lost a lot of the skills, and recreating them would require:

1. Time to learn
2. Space to work in

3d printers are usable with a lot less skills. Today they can only do plastic, and at a high cost per unit. But that technology will improve.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[BadDreamer]

I had wood and metal shop training in school. I also live in an apartment where it's against contract to keep big metal working machines around, not to mention I have no space or power for them here. That is if I can get them up the three flights of stairs in the first place.

A 3D printer and a Dremel I can bring up in a backpack and use without making lots of noise and messing the apartment up with metal filings. If I want a part or two in metal I can make them at work or order them custom made online, but with a 3D printer I can make prototypes and many parts for final products from the comfort of my home.

Not everyone have access to space suitable for metal working machines.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Patch86]

It raises an interesting point on the concept of supply and demand. Historically, machinists have been quite low paid, as it was a blue collar profession with a large number of skilled practitioners. I'd be willing to bet that historically the skilled machinists working for your lab were paid less than the physicists. However now machining is not considered a desirable profession, and for low pay will not attract many new trainees.

So as the supply of machinists dries up, so too will their value. You might reach a point where the machinist is considered a highly valuable employee who needs to be paid a lot of money to retain. That might be the only way to attract people into it as a career.

One day, the machinists in your lab might be the best paid people in there!

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

A fine theory, but unfortunately complete bullshit. My dad did plenty of carpentry and I had both wood- and metalwork classes in school. I still vastly prefer 3D printing to actually doing stuff myself, and that's because the two are inherently different. Making things with 3D printing is a mental activity whereas actually making them yourself is a physical activity. One thing that unifies pretty much all geeks is that they prefer to work with their minds rather than their bodies. Physical activities usually don't have an undo button.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a plastic pistol allows you to get past metal detectors and kill your classmates, hijack a plane etc. There is no legitimate use for a plastic pistol, and yet here we are. This one is most likely still not good enough to actually kill anyone, but give them time. It will happen.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[uncqual]

Yep I missed that. It's unlikely that restriction would pass Second Amendment muster if tested, but it's never been tested and it would be a case of "first impression". Miller tends to support that any restriction on a fully automatic weapon (just as a shotgun with a barrel < 16") would be a violation of the Second Amendment if the military routinely "keeps" and "bears" such arms (which it does). If the SCOTUS smashes that down, expect unwarranted searches being allowed soon after based on the same precedent!

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[stenvar]

The answer, I suspect, is that we're dealing with a gun-nut libertarian desperate to get press for their TECHNO-LIBERATION concept.

Yes, you are. And you will just have to deal with the reality of it. After all, libertarians have to deal with the reality of nutty socialists, progressives, and Christian conservatives in government and politics as well. Welcome to the real world where you actually have to deal with people who hold different political and ideological beliefs from you. Of course, if you're too immature to deal with that kind of reality, you're not going to accomplish anything in politics.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[bcmm]

And the gunsmiths of the Khyber Pass have been making real, metal firearms on a completely amateur basis since before CNC mills existed. Not single-shot proofs-of-concept either, working copies of Lee Enfields and the like. No high-tech of any sort required.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Most manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas. It's more than just liability. Schools tend to train students for the workforce.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[dbIII]

Tools are dirt cheap now in comparsion to not very many years back. There's a huge community of retirees that are getting into serious wood and metalwork with gear they never thought they would have been able to afford a few years ago. I'm not talking about people with much money saved either.
I'm also not convinced that 3D printing is any less a time sink in terms of gaining the skills than CNC or manual machining. While there is a huge amount of flexibility in what the things can do there are still contraints to work around as well as time and material issues to consider in design so perfection does not arrive instantly.
As others have pointed out, CNC is a mass production thing so hobby gear doesn't necessarily benefit from it unless you plan to do the same thing many times over.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[dbIII]

Hobby built guns are legal in a lot of places with far harsher laws than the USA so long as you get the gun registered. A co-worker built a breech loading six foot barrel smooth bore that took cartridges an inch in diameter and it was fully legal. It was a "Brown Bess" lookalike and he was in some sort of black powder gun club. It looked good but couldn't really depend on hitting anything without a very small charge in the cartridge - otherwise it kicked like a giant camel on steroids, nearly look your shoulder off and fired high.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[dbIII]

Makes sense - can't go banning the National Guard from suing military weapons. Oh wait - you thought a "militia" meant the bunch of cowards currently running the NRA who refuse to take responsibility for their own words? Funny how so many Americans that rave about this amendment only seem to know half of it.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[GameboyRMH]

I might do it depending on the results of some remote test-fires. You could wrap it in kevlar for some reassurance.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[drinkypoo]

You'd just want to go to a really old gun design. But the real fundamental problem is a barrel. You can't make a rifled barrel without specialized equipment, full stop. So what are you gonna make? A grease gun?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[drinkypoo]

Funny how so many Americans that rave about this amendment only seem to know half of it.

You're using bullshit logic and your own misinterpretation of the second amendment and then chortling because others don't "understand" it the same way you do. But you're too cowardly to admit that you're not braver than other people, which is why you keep using insults instead of logical argument. It's just another way to justify your opinion. This is called cognitive dissonance; you want to believe you are an intelligent person and that your views have merit, so you have to believe everyone who doesn't believe what you believe is a coward and/or idiot so that you can discount their opinion.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[dbIII]

Considering the logical knots the NRA and similar twist themselves into to pretend "militia" means something other than it did back when the amendment was written it's very clear where the "misinterpretation" lies. Also being cowardly is not being prepared to do what has to be done to save lives - sounds a hell of a lot like the leaders of the NRA now.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[drinkypoo]

Also being cowardly is not being prepared to do what has to be done to save lives - sounds a hell of a lot like the leaders of the NRA now.

I think the leaders of the NRA are a bunch of batshit crazy nutbags concerned primarily with their own power. If another firearms lobby would offer me range insurance like they do, I'd sign up with them instead. But since the NRA fear of a slippery slope appears warranted given what we know about our government, I'm still with them on this one. I'm not actually against background checks and registration of new purchases or on transfers to non-family-members. I live in California, so I live under such laws now, but I plan to get out of this state and still think they're reasonable. On the other hand, I don't remotely trust this government. Hell, I don't even trust my county government, except to be corrupt. I certainly don't trust my state government. There's just no way I can even begin to trust my federal government. I want to have more rights, and for them to have less powers, not the other way around.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[dkf]

You dont need a CNC mill. Let me guess, you think you need a supercomputer to write iphone apps? You can make a gun with rudimentary tools that are in many people's garages. How do you think gun smiths in the 1800's did things? You think they fired up their CNC mill and had their horse program the computer to start cutting?

To counterpoint: small gunsmiths in the 19th century didn't (usually) produce as high quality armaments as those you got from somewhere with a good set of machine tools.

FWIW, I think there are more interesting thing to do with computer-driven machine tools than make firearms; why make a gun when you can work on making a robot that can fetch you a beer and a packet of potato chips? Get your priorities right; overthrowing the government isn't likely to happen today, but getting thirsty is.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Some plate metal and a hand saw + some files . While more work than just buying a fire control set, its not like you are toast if they dry up totally.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Or just use ones imagination, you are not limited to primitive 12 gauge zip guns. Of if you have none, go find out who Phillip Luty was, and borrow his work.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[nbritton]

Frankly it is very trivial as you say. Honestly a pipe is all you need to make a zip gun, I remember as a kid taking a 12 gauge shotgun shell, sticking it into a pipe, and then whacking the percussion cap with a nail and hammer. You might crack or split the pipe, but it will work none the less.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

there's some pretty serious risk of having a shortage of skilled machinists in the future.

That time is now actually. I called a plastics manufacturer the other day to have some enclosures made and was told that their lead time was over 20 weeks because they didn't have enough machinists for making tooling. The person I spoke with said they sent out job postings from Colorado to Pennsylvania and didn't receive a single response.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[istartedi]

No, I actually didn't know it was a zebra. Thank-you for an interesting link, and for restoring my faith in humanity. When I saw the link to Snopes, I thought they were actually going to debunk that a horse could talk.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

But people can afford a basic lathe and mill, both of which are readily available at Harbor Freight for a few hundred dollars.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a regular mill.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

I took classes part time training me to be a machinist from the age of 19 to 23. "Next generation of machinists" was the notion that inspired me to pursue it out of high school. Good skill to have and glad I studied it, but you said it yourself: demand is drying up.

At my current job I have access to a lathe and a mill, but I don't even bother running the CNC myself any more. We can send prints out the door and get parts back for less than the wages it would take for me to make the parts in-house. Now instead of hiring more employees to scale our production, we've eliminated that labor bottleneck in our schedules and can make 1000 widgets without having to hire more people than it takes us to make 10 widgets.

This is WAY more attractive from a business standpoint because it leaves us less exposed to the business cycle, having to consider the prospect of laying people off that we hired during a demand-driven hiring surge. It also avoids the perils of insulating engineering from the expense of design decisions through a subordinate relationship with an in-house fabrication shop.

From my perspective, Mechanical Engineering is going the same way as Doctors and Dentists. I work under the supervision of engineers to prepare drawings, get quotes, handle purchasing, and coordinate production. By the time manufactured components show up in the mail it is an assembly operation. We've tried doing more manufacturing in-house under the pretense of cost-reduction and it was always a case of hiding Bill of Material cost in labor.

Your mileage may vary, but the most value my education has provided me is an ability to propose cost reductions to designs and an ability to guesstimate the market value we should be paying for a fabricated component. The only reason we fire up the machines these days is to take control of schedule where our supplier lead times don't agree with the urgency of our requirements.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[daninaustin]

Good luck trying to make a bolt and trunion by hand. I know some of the tribes in Pakistan do it but it's way beyond the ability of most people.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what you're talking about and you completely missed the OP's point.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[ceoyoyo]

Or somebody who thinks that a plastic gun might be kind of handy for... something.

Re: It's a 3D printed gun shape

[ceoyoyo]

Excellent. Impatient people with no skill, no desire to acquire skill and poor abilities to think things through are exactly the ones you want to have untraceable, hard to detect guns.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not that the common guy *cant*, it just takes time, patience and effort, which most people are not prepared to commit.

There are also ways to far simply making something like the bolt by re-purposing common components. I have also seen some tricks done with 'lamination ideas' where you build it up from layers of plate metal. Something i need to try, just to see how well it really works out. It always looks good on paper and ( possibly faked ) pictures, but the idea seems solid.

Sure, few 'kitchen' techniques will render a weapon as well crafted as a 'properly' built one, but it will be serviceable, which is all that really matters in the end, as if you are reduced to this method, its already hit the fan anyway ..

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm - I'm pretty sure if you went to the hardware store, looked at metal tubing and nails for
a while, and then thought, you'd come up with some crude blueprints.

Then, after that, you could head to a park with some twine and wonder what sort of large
wooden objects you could hide behind and what you might use to rig-up a remote firing
mechanism.

but yea, you'd "never learn" ..

though with this level of intelligence, probably better that you dont.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[uninformedLuddite]

There is an ebook available called 24hr AK47. It goes into great detail on how to build an AK type auto pistol with nothing but stuff you can buy at the hardware store. No mills or anything like that involved.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[I'm New Around Here]

Now go down the page to the Additional Information section and click on the icon that looks like a page of paper.

Bring a cup of coffee, it's going to be a long read.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[WGFCrafty]

I had both.... less then ten years ago and was able to do what I wanted with a mig welder or table saw. Oh, and they're both still there. Also had auto shop and architectural graphics, and this is a public school.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[genejglewis]

Machining has historically been a career with less skilled practitoners than the demand for them. That is part of the reason that machinists are one of the last careers where a large portion of the workforce is unionized. (The unions haven't been broken yet)

My employer is very aware of how difficult it would be to replace me and my skillset, and bends over backward to retain me. i regularly get job offers from other shops who are desperate for a skilled machinist. There just aren't enough of us to go around.

I am a young man, 37, and have been a machinist for all of my adult life. It is a well paid career, as high as any other "skilled trades" job.

Many aspects of the field have been automated, but a skilled manual machinist will always be valuable for one-off parts, prototypes, and the like. Plus, CNC programming still requires a good understanding of cutting forces, material strength, tooling, workholding, etc., in order to write programs that are actually functional.

That said, it is quite easy to pick up enough skill from books, videos, a couple of college courses, to produce a serviceable gun. A smoothbore, single shot pistol, or a shotgun, would be dead simple. A bolt-action rifle, not a lot harder. I'd imagine anyone with a 2 year AAS degree could make a perfectly good revolver.
Some skill and experimentation would be needed for a semi- or full-auto weapon, but none of this is out of reach for anyone with the skill to set up a 3d printer properly and write programs for it.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Anonymous Coward]

He obviously knows a lot more about it than you do... in fact by a long shot it is easily observed by anyone that he knows a significant amount more about about the subject that you do. He also hit the OP's point dead on, the OP was being a complete moron.

You on the other hand have demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing at all about any subject. In a cross section of all your posts, all you ever do is reply with useless responses that are devoid of any content at all.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[Lumpy]

Yes he is doing it "illegally" he really does not care at all about laws, he is the one that showed me that it's trivial to make a silencer for any gun.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[jon3k]

I haven't looked in a couple years, I'm assuming prices went up (probably after Sandyhook)? I remember when you could easily get an AK for $400,

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[CodeBuster]

and this is a public school.

In which State?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[fluffy99]

Not the greatest is an understatement. I have one almost like that from harbor freight (the geared head one.) The round column sucks. Mine sits in the corner until i need to drill something. You are probably better off with one of the small mills they sell and converting it to cnc.

Just curious, can you clarify what you mean by the round column sucks?

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[MrYingster]

Thank you for posting that. I was having a hard time accepting that nonsense about black and white TVs.

Re:It's a 3D printed gun shape

[istartedi]

I was having a hard time accepting that nonsense about black and white TVs.

In the back of my mind, so was I; but once I accepted it, it became fixed and I started making up plausible explanations for it in my own mind. The biggest tater was the bit about players running into refs. Obviously this wouldn't happen in real life, so I mentally corrected the hoax to assume that they meant that players were "bleeding into" the refs on screen.

Long story short, I got reeled in. Totally hypnotized. I guess maybe it's Karma for all the grammar nazis I nailed with my .sig.

Liberator?

[gman003]

They're calling it 'The Liberator.'" (A name I'm sure that Wilson didn't come up with accidentally.)

Given that the FP-45 was an absolutely *shitty* gun, that might not be a good connotation. The "original" Liberator was literally designed to be a gun you use to shoot someone else and then take their gun. Reloading (after the single shot) required about a minute and a small wooden rod or pencil.

Even during WW2, they went almost unused. They were supposed to be distributed amongst insurgency (the Polish and French resistances, mainly), but very few of those produced actually made it to continental Europe.

I suppose the intended connotation was "dirt-cheap gun". The Liberator did cost only a few dollars to produce. But I think, like the actual Liberator, I'd trust this all-plastic gun about as far as I can throw it.

Re:Liberator?

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll do its job. A $3 gun that makes it prohibitively expensive to hold and keep boots on the ground. Everybody will need extra backup,

It isn't for gunfighting, it isn't for holding back home invaders.

It's a gun to make a revolutionary into a soldier/assassin and really only supposed to be used once or twice.

You aren't supposed to trust it -- but it is supposed to be better than your bare hands. I'd say this looks like it'd perform the job admirably.

Re:Liberator?

[Cyberax]

Dude, if you know ANYTHING about revolutions then you would know that guns are NEVER a problem (for both sides).

Re:Liberator?

[phantomfive]

Given that the FP-45 was an absolutely *shitty* gun, that might not be a good connotation.

I'm guessing that matches.

Re:Liberator?

[phantomfive]

What's the problem then? Ammo? (Think Bunker's hill)

Re:Liberator?

[xs650]

But I think, like the actual Liberator, I'd trust this all-plastic gun about as far as I can throw it.

Considering that it's light weight and could be thrown a considerable distance, you would trust it a lot more than I would.

Re:Liberator?

[daninaustin]

Never? I would say always. Which revolution has had enough guns? Revolutionaries have always had to scrounge up guns.

Re:Liberator?

[gman003]

First, soldiers. Guns are cheap, and all you need is money. Or materials. Getting people willing to use those guns, now that's a different story. This is always the #1 issue in a revolution - getting revolutionaries.

Second, supplies for the soldiers. Food. Water. And now, fuel. Wars are won and lost by the supply chain.

Third, advanced weaponry. A Kalashnikov or AR-15 works fine when you're going against infantry, but what does it do against a tank? Or a gunship? Or a fighter? Even the Taliban needed Stinger missiles in order to fight off the Russians. The Revolutionary War needed cannons and ships. Vietnam had fighter jets and tanks. In order to win a war, at some point it has to transition from a guerrilla insurgency to a proper, open military conflict.

Re:Liberator?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand the point of this rant. Yes, the idea is to kill someone and take their gun.... did you really think you needed to point this out? It's the fucking demoralizing premise of guerrilla warfare.

Re:Liberator?

[gman003]

No, see, that's my plan. If I somehow end up in a gunfight using this rifle, I'm throwing it at the enemy in hopes that they'll decide to use it, since it's obviously a greater threat to the user than whoever it's aiming at.

Hmm... do they have a pistol version? Might be good for half a set of dueling pistols.

Re:Liberator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, if you know ANYTHING about revolutions then you would know that guns are NEVER a problem (for both sides).
 
Then why were mujahideen building their own AK parts out of car body panels? Why did the Filipino resistance actually use the Liberator pistol*? Why were established nations like the USSR sending boys into battle with a pocketful of shells with the understanding that when the guy in front of you got shot you were to pick up his rifle and try to fight before you got killed? It's you who doesn't know anything.
 
Much to the chagrin of Gman003, the Filipino resistance actually did use the Liberator pistol.

Re:Liberator?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Iraqi's and afghans have done quite well against armor and advance weapons and that was without the firearms culture that we have here. The Afghan marksman fights with pray and spray, hoping Allah will guide a bullet to strike down the infidels, the only way they have any real effect is with IED's that kill more local citizens than they do foreign military forces. The American marksman learned to aim as a kid, then he started hunting and learned to aim and fire quickly yet accurately. Then he went into the military and learned the very tactics that would be used against him. He's seen the how effective the Afghan and Iraqi use of IED's have been, add to that high school and even college level chemistry classes as well as many with metal working knowledge and tools to turn out the most effective forms of such weapons. The Military would dread facing it's own people, as it knows a very large portion of said people are combat veterans of the Military. Oh, and while there where tanks in Vietnam, they were of little actual use in that war fought in the jungles and swamps of the delta. They were not a significant factor in that war.

Re:Liberator?

[uncqual]

I assume you also believe that those who believe in respecting the other parts of the United States Constitution (for example, disallowing police from searching your home whenever they want for any or no reason without a warrant) are also "rabidly anti-government and completely reality-proof"?

Allowing police to search anyone, anywhere for any or no reason without notice or without a warrant would likely decrease crime significantly. That's certainly an admirable goal and, obviously, only a criminal who had something to hide would object. RIght?

And, after all, since we trust police with guns, we can surely trust them with less lethal tools like the ability to search freely.

Re:Liberator?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your well thought out dissertation on the attitudes and desires of your fellow citizens. Your country will be much helped with this knowledge.

Re:Liberator?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

If there was a revolution within the US today it wouldn't be fought on the open battle field but would be asymmetric guerrilla war. Most of what you would see being done is people taking pot shots at military and government personnel. There would also be a lot of IEDs used as those are trivial to make and probably some home made chemical weapons (mix some household cleaners and toss). Now add in that if a real revolution or civil war broke out in the US there would probably be numerous nations who would be willing to supply heavier arms to the revolutionaries

Re:Liberator?

[I'm New Around Here]

Now add in that if a real revolution or civil war broke out in the US there would probably be numerous nations who would be willing to supply heavier arms to the revolutionaries

Yes, like the Sioux nation, the Seminole nation, the Apache nation,....

Re:Liberator?

[gman003]

Yes, but to achieve *victory* there must be a transition from asymmetric to symmetric war.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, as in Vietnam, the "occupying force" is not local. It can, and will, leave as soon as the cost (in lives or dollars) becomes too great, or when the political landscape no longer favors it. There, the resistance merely has to *exist*, and to function with some semblance of competence.

However, in an American revolution, the "occupying force" is local. They have no country to go *back* to. There is no cost too high to defeat the insurgency. The only way to end the war is for one force to establish itself as the sole military force. Either the original army wins, or the revolution grows strong enough to overpower them. Or, alternatively, the guerrilla forces (c'mon, do you really think there will be only one other faction?) manage to dismantle the "occupying force" but none will be able to establish supremacy, leaving a state of anarchy until one eventually consolidates power.

This is also why wars that start as open military conflict rarely persist long as insurgencies. After losing an open war once, few are willing to fight an insurgency that they *know* is going to have to convert, as some point, into another open war.

Re:Liberator?

[flimflammer]

So basically, it fits perfectly with this printed gun and likely why it shares the same name?

Re:Liberator?

[Cyberax]

Not right. Ability to do searches without a warrant demonstrably leads to lower police efficiency (they get used to shortcuts) and higher corruption potential (which is much worse). Taking away guns doesn't lead to more corruption or more crime.

Re:Liberator?

[qbzzt]

However, in an American revolution, the "occupying force" is local. They have no country to go *back* to. There is no cost too high to defeat the insurgency.

1. An insurgency can force concessions, as long as the rulers can afford to make them.
2. An insurgency can result in splitting the country.

Re:Liberator?

[uncqual]

Huh?

Seriously, outlawing drugs (meth, crack, marijuana, et alt) hasn't led to corruption? Maybe you should check your stats on that! None of these, of course, creep across any US borders or are manufactured in the US? Nope, not possible since passing an unjust law results in immediate compliance - after all, they are illegal and therefore must not exist.

How did prohibition work out?

Re:Liberator?

[dbIII]

After reading the biography of Nancy Wake and some other stuff about the French Resistance towards the end of WWII they seemed to really prefer blowing the utter shit out of their enemy with bazookas when given an unlimited choice of weapons :)

Re:Liberator?

[argStyopa]

Setting aside the probably-politically motivated scorn, it's a modest achievement.

I mean, as much as ATF would like you to believe otherwise, it's EXTREMELY simple to build what is, effectively, a zip-gun: meant to safely shoot a single bullet in short, nasty situation. (More accurately, it's meant to prove you have the CAPABILITY to shoot such a bullet, hopefully deterring your attacker. Having to actually shoot that bullet will quickly prove that a) bullets aren't really the magic-bad-guy-killing-device that the movies make them seem, and b) in a high-stress, high-adrenaline situation, putting a little 9mm-wide piece of lead into even a human-body-sized target isn't simple.)

For that matter, in particular contexts, a Derringer - which isn't much more than this gun - can be quite useful. It's been a successful firearm product for 100+ years.

Then again, I don't think their point (yet) was to try to print a 3d Colt 1911 (yet). Baby steps.

Their point was to prove that the restrictions attempting to contain TECHNOLOGY and hardware is extremely short-sighted and stupid, and that perhaps law enforcement and government is better-tasked with actually pursuing CRIMINALS rather than simply ban their tools and assume the job is done.

Re:Liberator?

[Anonymous Coward]

it appears to be rather light weight. i suspect one could throw it quite far.

Profit

[Fuzzums]

1. 3d-print tomb stones
2. ...
3. profit

I'll even print a bio degradable riffle for your cold dead hands if you want
4. more profit.

Re:Profit

[misexistentialist]

Not a bad idea, since tomb stone retailers price gouge so much

Re:Profit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! At least the plastic will not bio-degrade for a few centuries. Your fancy stone will be illegible in a century or so.

You might smuggle the gun..

[ttucker]

You might smuggle the gun through a metal detector, but has nobody stopped to think that BULLETS ARE MADE OF METAL?!?!?

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Bartles]

I don't think this gun is designed to be smuggled through metal detectors. It's designed to be made at home, hence the reason it's made primarily of plastic.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, the 'smuggling' angle is just to instill fear into citizens to supporting more laws against firearms in this country. Our founderd never stipulated that a 'arm' had to be 'detectable' and in fact, would fully support such a concept if it was possible.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullets can be made out of clay or glass. They won't be great ones, and I wouldn't use one for a lot of purposes, but it'd work for a close end pistol.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[He Who Has No Name]

No... they really can't.

Lead is used because it is dense and keeps its shape under 20k + PSI, but still malleable enough to engage the rifling in a barrel. Soft clay will come apart. Dried clay will shatter in the barrel. Glass will probably shatter and obstruct the bore and blow up the gun.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[iggymanz]

besides what the other poster said about internal ballistics, someone with the low density of either material you mention would not penetrate. there is a reason bullets are made of dense material such as lead, bronze or steel

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[grantek]

If you've got access to propellant it'd often be better to build a Kirk-style blunderbuss out of strong pre-formed tube. It's hard to imagine a situation where you have access to a 3D printer and appropriate plastic, AND happen to have a couple of small-calibre low pressure bullets, but I'm sure there are edge cases where this will do nicely.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a gun made of plastic... do you really think it has rifling?

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Bartles]

In a low-pressure, low-velocity firearm with a smooth bore barrel and a clearance fit of bullet to bore, a clay or glass projectile would work just fine.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Bartles]

And there is a reason people are killed by close proximity shots from blank ammunition. The plastic or cardboard wad. Any projectile moving fast enough can cause damage, sometimes lethal amounts.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Lead is cheap and dense, which is very nice indeed(I can't think of anything offhand that comes terribly close on the cost/density graph, certainly not any nonmetals); but at least a few centuries of firearms survived without the luxury of rifling that actually worked.

Smoothbore muskets used cloth or paper wadding to, er, paper over the dubious fit between a round projectile and the barrel, some modern bullets with jackets hard enough to be a risk to the barrel use polymers.

It wasn't until Minie balls that 'engaging the rifling' became a feature that you tuned your lead alloy for.

Given that the muzzle velocity on something like this is probably pretty dreadful, the density issue would be a real problem; but a smoothbore design with polymer wadding would be doable enough, suckitude aside.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you need to make your own gun at home this is cheaper and deadlier. You just need the shotgun shell and 2 pipes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wV3lmbSv4

And you can do it without brains (jump 1 minute in the video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1qkJV_5So0

I really don't care what kind of gun people made for them self and what use they do with it. I'm more worried about brain-dead drivers.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Lumpy]

dude you can fire stones from a flintlock if you put enough wadding around it. Blunderbus street sweepers shot bolts, nails and glass.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[iggymanz]

no, that is due to the jet of hot gas at the extremely high pressure. it can part flesh or ram fragments of skull into head. stories of wadding and cardboard push into body are merely those of debris left by the gas jet.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[daninaustin]

Not always. There have been some experimental guns with caseless ammo. The bullets are usually lead but you can use other materials. Maybe a shotgun with ceramic bearings instead of lead pellets?

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Jeremi]

Maybe a shotgun with ceramic bearings instead of lead pellets?

I believe the invention you're looking for is a gristle gun.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you use rifling in this 3D-printed pistol? That would be adding an extra complication.

And yes, these bullets would have problems, if for example, you foolishly tried to use them with a full load meant for a military round.

You can use lower amounts of propellant and still produce a shot that will be lethal.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to penetrate to kill, and you'd be surprised what will go through human bodies.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Bob the Super Hamste]

That has me thinking maybe a drag stabilized .22 cal projectile would be good for this. Have it be a sabot round and you could get a bit more power with an increased bore and lower chamber pressures and it might actually be usable.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[ttucker]

I don't think this gun is designed to be smuggled through metal detectors. It's designed to be made at home, hence the reason it's made primarily of plastic.

The article opines deeply and incessantly about how these terrible made at home guns will be smuggled by anyone and everyone into secured areas.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[flyingfsck]

They don't have to be made of metal. Take a shotgun shell for example - most of it is plastic already - not hard to eliminate what little metal is remaining.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Immerman]

Right, just like existing polymer weapons are smuggled everywhere.

Well, okay, existing polymer weapons are (presumably expensive) black-market items designed specifically for getting past security checkpoints, and thus likely to only be used by profesionals, wheras these are non-metalic by default unless you go out of your way to make them detectable...

I suppose this bodes ill for security checkpoints in schools and elsewhere - if the cheapest and easiest weapons for an unbalanced teenager to get their hands on can't be easily detected then we're faced with the choice of either letting underpaid security guards strip-search our children on a daily basis (either physically or with scanners of some sort), or admit that the security checkpoints are pointless. Gods I hope we choose the latter.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[ttucker]

Right, just like existing polymer weapons are smuggled everywhere.

Well, okay, existing polymer weapons are (presumably expensive) black-market items designed specifically for getting past security checkpoints, and thus likely to only be used by profesionals, wheras these are non-metalic by default unless you go out of your way to make them detectable...

I suppose this bodes ill for security checkpoints in schools and elsewhere - if the cheapest and easiest weapons for an unbalanced teenager to get their hands on can't be easily detected then we're faced with the choice of either letting underpaid security guards strip-search our children on a daily basis (either physically or with scanners of some sort), or admit that the security checkpoints are pointless. Gods I hope we choose the latter.

But the cheepest and easiest weapons for unbalanced teenagers will *not* be polymer guns with rare, exotic, possibly imaginary, non-metallic ammunition. Conventional bullets are made of metal, lots of metal. Even more-so in all plastic guns than in any other weapon, the shell casing is essential, because it is then the only part of the gun which can handle the forces and pressures involved in firing a bullet.

Security checkpoints are a little better than putting up a GUN FREE ZONE sign (which by definition keeps only those who abide by laws out), but do you think that a rent-a-cop with a metal detector will be a major hurdle to someone on a shooting spree?

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[Immerman]

No, no rent-a-cop will be an obstacle to someone on a shooting spree, but that's not why they put in checkpoints at schools. The idea there is to stop kids from carrying weapons that may lethally escalate a schoolyard brawl.

As for detecting ammunition, a fair point. There is a problem in that it's far easier to hide a few bullets within something innocuously metalic, or to throw some over the wall, but since we're primarily targetting what are essentially crimes of passion it does seem unlikely to be a major problem.

Re:You might smuggle the gun..

[ttucker]

You are right, from the lens of preventing that spontanious type of violence, the polymer gun is a pretty different and difficult problem. In that scenario, unlike with a shooting spree, the offender really only needs one bullet to do something horrible. One or two .22LR bullets would be very easy to smuggle through a metal detector checkpoint.

Another concern is that someone could readily make something that did not even look like a gun at all.

CAD files

[Anonymous Coward]

Soooo where are they?

And i don't see a problem with calling it a liberator. Neither would hold up past a couple of shots, but that's enough, especially when you can make more with ease...

Uh huh, yah....

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it...Let's see it being fired. :)

I can 3D print a tank given enough time and filament, but that doesn't mean it will actually run.

Is there a children's version?

[Alejux]

My kid will be five soon, and I thought it would be a great present!!!

Re:Is there a children's version?

[plover]

There's always the Hello Kitty AK-47.

Re:Is there a children's version?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect example of what goes wrong in many gun discussions and debates. Misinformation. Misinformation. Misinformation.

It's a Hello Kitty AR15.

Re:Is there a children's version?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he may have been referring to this gag:

http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/media-guide-firearms.jpg

Re:Is there a children's version?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's always Hello Kitty Vader.

If you Google around, you can find a Hello Kitty dildo. Meow!!! Now make that pussy purr!

Re:Is there a children's version?

[plover]

Sorry, I just googled for "Hello Kitty AK-47" images and took the first all-pink gun photo that came up. I didn't study it, and I didnt even consider the Goog would deliver the wrong weapon type.

In Other News...

[cervesaebraciator]

Staples has reversed its recent decision to sell 3-D printers. To remain above reproach, the company will also be cancelling orders for some product lines.

If anyone assumes we're a bunch of spoiled teens

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to fault them for coming to that generalization when we do stupid stuff just for the sake of it.

I have "hacker" friends who screw around with their guns to "learn" more. Once of them has a half dozen little quarter inch scars in his face from where the blew the brass out the back of a gun in little pieces. It was an easy mistake to make. The barrel couldn't take the stresses, deformed a bit; squibbed; he didn't notice; the one he put on top of it corked it and blew back of his experimental gun out. Unlike a Glock when you try to shoot through a squib, his gun moved the bolt off to the side allowing the brass to spray into his face.

If you want to start the Ligth Gunsmithing Hobby don't start by printing parts. There are so many variables in the alignment of printed plastic molecules, that getting consistent mechanical stress resistance is just wishful thinking and luck.

If you want to hack at these things. Go get a safe "known good" gun and learn to modify it. There's plenty of classes, videos and youtube tutorials. You'll soon learn there are things like button rifling that are worth doing right, but probably never worth your time. Let Colt do that for you.

This is like starting in software by rewriting sections of the Linux Kernel to make them faster... that is, it would be if a Kernel Panic could kill you.

Morons. You're not helping.

[Anonymous Coward]

You think you are helping 'gun rights'. But no.. You're just hurting the world of 3d-printing.

Taking bets on when 3d printers and other 'manufacturing devices' get on the board to be regulated somehow... It's comming. Bet. Bet money. Bet MY money.

This isn't even that special. You can make a damm gun from some scrap steel laying around the average garage.

Seriously guys, you're not helping. Stop it. Or at least keep it to yourselves.

Not very relevant

[JanneM]

It's actually quite easy to legally get a gun in many countries. Typically you can get a hunting license or join a shooting club. And yet, the vast majority of people don't bother. In fact, a substantial fraction of those that do get a gun choose to keep them at the club or at some other separate storage, just so they don't have to keep a dangerous weapon at home.

So, there may be people that think this will revolutionize things, in reality it's rather a non-event. People without guns mostly can get them already, but don't want to. Those that want them, already have them.

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[cervesaebraciator]

Taking bets on when 3d printers and other 'manufacturing devices' get on the board to be regulated somehow...

Are you suggesting that wouldn't happen if not for the gun printing efforts? Power lies with the means of production. Democratizing the means of production undermines those who hold power and there will thus always be efforts to resist--in this case to regulate--such democratization.

"If undetectable firearms are outlawed...

[ewg]

...only outlaws will have undetectable firearms."

Re:"If undetectable firearms are outlawed...

[Anonymous Coward]

lol - I always like to stretch this argument to it's extremes:

"If suitcase-portable critical-mass threshold thermonuclear piles are outlawed, only outlaws will have suitcase portable critical-mass mass thermonuclear piles."

I want my suitcase nuke damnit!

CAPTCHA: gunning, lol

I don't doubt that it's a lethal device

[Opportunist]

But I'd be very interested to whom. It seems to be the person firing the gun.

Re:I don't doubt that it's a lethal device

[iggymanz]

indeed normal self defense rounds producing 30,000 c.u.p. (copper unit of pressure, roughly can say psi). even "weak" rounds like 25 ACP and 32 ACP go 12,000 (early old ones) to 25,000 (modern) and up. I have a very hard time seeing how this thing wouldn't fail.

Re:I don't doubt that it's a lethal device

[daninaustin]

I think it's more of a finger to the man than the way things are going in the future. Since you need to have some metal to be legal it makes a lot of sense to make the barrel/bolt/bolt extension out of metal and the rest out of something printed. Also, there was recently news about how GE is making parts for jet engines using 3d printing (laser sintering of titanium i think.) It's only a matter of time until the technology filters down.

Re:I don't doubt that it's a lethal device

[iggymanz]

laser sintered parts have been around for decades. but there are cheaper ways to get the same result that you can *legally* do at home.

As for plastic parts, plenty of ways to make plastic parts, you can machine them out of solid material, or make molds.....not seeing what the big deal is. nothing new added at all.

weird

[tantrum]

To me (a person outside the us) this guy just seems crazy.

If I met this guy I wouldn't trust him for a second. He might be a decent guy, but it really really does not seem like it to me.

Americas relationship with guns simply seems CRAZY to me.

Re:weird

[misexistentialist]

We feel the same way about your relationship to monarchy.

Re:weird

[Overzeetop]

What, that it's a billion dollar operation that's mostly about entertainment and gossip?

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

you just change yours every 5 to 6 years inefficient or worship some other member of your ruling astrocracy whose currently screwing you over.

Least ours is of German manufacture and had years of experience of screwing over the peasants.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan's relationship with tentacles seems CRAZY to me. What's your fucking point?

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Americas relationship with guns simply seems CRAZY to me.

Notice how we didn't ask you about it.

Unlike Europe and Asia, this country was not founded by a conquering king. It was founded on the abuse of authority; we won our freedom because the civilians had guns and formed militias. For a while after that, we kept our freedom because the politicians were afraid that if they abused their authority that the citizenry would not be afraid to use them again. Quotes by people like James Madison sum it up better than I can: "The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." Of course, members of our government don't feel quite as threatened today, or if they do they don't mention it.

We also don't have to look back too far in history to see what tyrannical governments have done to unarmed civilians. Germany and Russia in the last century, of course; but Cuba and North Korea still run roughshod over their civilians. We say to ourselves, "we'd never let that happen here", and we mean it.

When some group says "we have guns because we have the right to hunt, or we need to defend ourselves from crime", they're being disingenuous. We have guns because we want our government to be nervous. We want our police officers to be polite and cautious. The 3AM knock on the door to haul away a political dissident will not be allowed to become commonplace here, because we don't even track the law abiding citizens that have guns.

Unfortunately, the price we pay is very steep. If it my child were killed in a school shooting, I'm sure I'd feel differently.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Their relationship with tentacles is crazy, but I don't see them screwing themselves over under the paranoid suspicion that someone might try to take away their tentacles.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

So why haven't you done anything about your tyrannical government since 2001?

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in 2008 we voted for a guy who claimed he would stop all the wars, close the prison camp, and make the world love us again.

Do we get partial credit for him winning the Nobel Peace Prize?

Re:weird

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well I don't know what the creator of the plastic guns personal feelings are but I think you would find the vast majority of gun owners aren't the crazies you hear about. Most are probably like myself we own 2 maybe 3 firearms (a shotgun, a rifle, and maybe a handgun or another rifle or shotgun in a different caliber for different game) they get used a few times a year for hunting and going to a gun range before the hunting season starts for some practice and then once finished the gun goes back into the locking gun cabinet or gun safe. You never hear about these people on the news as there isn't anything news worthy about some guy shooting a deer during deer season, unless it was some particularly large deer, and even then it is usually on the back page of the sports section in the news paper no one reads anymore. The people you do hear about are the ones who do stupid shit with their firearms, commit crimes, or are just fucking nuts but those people get a lot of press coverage.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

So why haven't you done anything about your tyrannical government since 2001?

Because, sadly, James Madison is still dead, and most politicians today are cowards by comparison. The people in the public eye who today parrot the things he used to say are themselves shills, paid only to promote the noxious positions of their billionaire puppet masters. They'll quote whatever is conveniently aligned with their agenda, exercising it under their right to "Freedom of (Christian) Speech", and cavalierly discard any other important convictions upon which this country was founded that might interfere with their right to practice bigotry.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

We also don't have to look back too far in history to see what tyrannical governments have done to unarmed civilians. Germany

Why do people keep repeating this lie?

The Nazis never changed the gun laws – all German citizens were able to own guns, with similar restrictions as most US states (registration). In addition to that, the Nazis actually equipped civilians with weapons in their numerous sports and paramilitary organizations (to make sure they'd have enough trained personnel for the Wehrmacht).

– Of course, Jews and Communists weren't German citizens and thus forbidden to use guns. Did the millions of armed Germans do anything about it? No. After all, they voted Hitler into power in the first place.

The lesson people SHOULD have learned from National Socialism is that the best way to fight tyranny is to make sure it cannot be established in the first place.

Instead, they give KKK members guns "for freedom" and vote for right-wing nuts. Yeah, let's how that turns out.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

... government to be nervous ...

I like the idea. When did a cop or an incumbent politician protect your freedom to commit civil disobedience? It's not free speech if you can only say it 200 metres away from your audience.

... We want our police officers to be polite and cautious.

Then why does the USA have police officers who:
  - arrest someone for resisting arrest
  - arrest someone for using a camera
  - shoot dogs that are chained during an arrest
  - shoot a woman in a green van when the criminal is a man in a blue ute.
  - conduct surveillance without a warrant

... haul away a political dissident ...

The US attorney-general wants the President to order executions of Americans without trial. No need for secret police, torture, or a jail cell.

I think your republic has serious problems.

Re:weird

[BadDreamer]

And yet you're letting it happen there, with civil liberties being trampled in the name of protecting against "terrorists", including children who bite a cookie into the shape of a gun or school girls who have bottles of dran cleaners.

Guns aren't helping the US retain freedom in the face of politicians who remove it at every opportunity.

Re:weird

[Transfinite]

Of course only an American would think that they are unique in overthrowing tyranny. Whilst it is true that America was founded as a direct result of this you ARE NOT unique and special. For example we here in Britain; The English Civil War, wich actually resulted in the execution of our king in an attempt to curtail tyranny. Perhaps you forgot about that one. We also find some sections of the American populace self centered, selfish. Perhaps reason you have so many troubles is this idea of Libertarianism, essentially the idea of, "my rights first, fuck everybody else's rights". I honestly think your founding fathers is they could see what you have become as a nation would disown you. This idea that an unarmed populace couldn't fight a tyrannical government is pretty weak to be honest. For every example that you give I can give a counter. For example The Spanish Civil War. Unarmed civilians very quickly organised into armed "militia". So your populace is having to endure slaughter, innocent kids etc... Because you as a nation seem to have this paranoid belief that the jack boots are going to kick your doors down at "3AM" and arming yourselves to the teeth with little of no regulation ("My rights, me, me, me") is the answer. It obviously isn't working. Time to evolve and change?

Re:weird

[stenvar]

Americas relationship with guns simply seems CRAZY to me.

The Europeans' relationship to their ruling classes seems CRAZY to me, as does the fact that Europeans are so enamored with fascism, socialism, communism, and monarchies.

Re:weird

[Transfinite]

Unlike your ruling classes? Monarchies? barely the one's ironically that seem most enamoured with them are actually Americans, usually from the ruling classes. Fascism I hope not it disgusts me and actually is illegal in many european nations. Because of course you have no fascism in the USA do you. As for communism,get over it, most of the rest of the world already has, a long time ago. Now socialism, you really need to understand what it is, really for some Americans like you I can't see you actually understand what it is. I've said it before, America is a self centered nation, the rights of the individual seems to be top priority, is sort of goes like: "My right to own lot's and lots of guns, in case 'they' come get me. Fuck everyone else's rights, fuck the kids...blah blah ". There are some sections of the American populace that actually believe that they are a superior nation. Your not, you are NOT SPECIAL. You are not the instigators of all things good. Quite frankly we are getting sick and tired of you, you give the sensible one's in your fine nation a bad name. You mire the name of your nation in the mud through your stupidity.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

God save the Queen.

Re:weird

[stenvar]

And you give us another shining example of what passes for political thought in Europe. Thanks for illustrating my point.

Re:weird

[Transfinite]

What! is that it, is that the best America has to offer. I'm not impressed. What exactly is that supposed to mean? Politics in America is a joke, you still haven't learnt from any of the lesson we have because you are so fucking arrogant. So YOU are another shinning example of exactly why there is anti-american sentiment in Europe, no sorry, the rest of the world. Fucking grow up. You don't need guns, get it?

Re:weird

[dkf]

Unfortunately, the price we pay is very steep. If it my child were killed in a school shooting, I'm sure I'd feel differently.

Perhaps you should hand out "Martyr for Freedom! Sponsored by the NRA!" medals to all the parents who lose children in school shootings. I'm sure they'd feel much better after that.

Re:weird

[rjh]

Of course only an American would think that they are unique in overthrowing tyranny.

He never said we were unique. He only said that in comparison to Europe and Asia, our country was not founded by a conquering king. You hold up Great Britain as an example of a country that's thrown off tyranny, but I suspect you never quite passed your A-levels in history. Queen Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of William I, after all, a guy better known to history as William the Conqueror. So, no, I'm not going to accept Great Britain as an example of a country that avoided being founded by a conquering king, given a conquering king is in the direct ancestry of your current monarch.

We also find some sections of the American populace self centered, selfish.

I'd be quite surprised if you didn't. In a nation of over 300 million people there are going to be large portions of it that you don't like. There are large portions I don't particularly like, either.

I honestly think your founding fathers is they could see what you have become as a nation would disown you.

Of course they would. "Wait, you gave the vote to women, people without property, and the darkies?!"

In the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C., one of Jefferson's finest writings is engraved on the wall in huge letters for the world to see.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

So, yes, we would definitely be disowned by the Founding Fathers. But that's okay. Thomas Jefferson himself gave us permission to improve upon the model they left us. The Framers were horribly flawed human beings. Their great triumph was not that they gave us a Constitution, but they gave us a process: not a law fixed and unchanging for all time, but a means by which we could gradually make our country a shining beacon upon the hill. Rather beautiful, really.

Ah, I see. You were actually meaning to imply they'd be ashamed of how we conduct ourselves because we don't happen to agree with you? Well. Speaking as a Virginian, which is to say a member of one of the original Colonies that rebelled against George III, let me give you the traditional Virginian response to foreigners who want to tell us how we should rule ourselves: go away.

Maybe our system is correct, maybe it's not. Either way, we're not going to pay your opinion about how we should live the slightest tinker's dam of attention. Instead we'll talk with each other, our communities, our neighbors, and we'll fumble our way forward into the future together.

This idea that an unarmed populace couldn't fight a tyrannical government is pretty weak to be honest.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the death-knells of the millions of oppressed North Koreans, over the conflagration of the Jews and the Romany and the homosexuals and the dissenters in German-occupied Poland, over the cries of hunger of the one million Ukrainians who died in the Holodomor, the terrorized shrieks of the Armenians who were pursued by the Turks. We can go back even to the Mongol era, where the great Khan put large parts of Asia and Europe to the sword and unleashed a campaign of rape and terror the world had never seen before.

If you really think that an unarmed populace can quickly organize to resist an armed oppressor, then you are living in a state of utter delusion. In the K

Re:weird

[excelsior_gr]

Unlike Europe and Asia, this country was not founded by a conquering king.

Oh, get off your horse you (anonymous) coward. A lot of countries in Europe and Asia had to fight for their freedom, too. Against Turks, Russians and so on.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully in the US we do not allow others to dictate what we do or do not need.

Re:weird

[Transfinite]

I most certainly did pass my history A-levels thank you very much. So I take it you are ignoring the English Civil War as an example of other places, countries attempting to overthrow tyranny. That by the way led to even more tyranny. The direct ancestry to our present queen says what? Can't see your point. My point still stands.

Ah, I see. You were actually meaning to imply they'd be ashamed of how we conduct ourselves because we don't happen to agree with you?

No, I could not care one bit whether you agree with me or not.

Maybe our system is correct, maybe it's not. Either way, we're not going to pay your opinion about how we should live the slightest tinker's dam of attention. Instead we'll talk with each other, our communities, our neighbors, and we'll fumble our way forward into the future together.

aren't they all, I'm fully aware of that. I'm not judging your system, but the judgement, wisdom of you as a nation, as a whole. To the rest of the word it seems glaringly obvious what needs to happen.Of course that is entirely up to you

If you really think that an unarmed populace can quickly organize to resist an armed oppressor, then you are living in a state of utter delusion.

Sorry there are plenty of examples either way, where this happens. Very recent one's, even ongoing one's. You are just cherry picking

have you ever heard of the POUM Militia....Go read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia

Lol, already have read it. In fact I grew up in Catalonia, I used to play in the civil war defences that still exits by the coast in Vilanova i la Geltrú, next to Sitges, which from memory (read it a long time ago) is mentioned in Orwells diary.

I know and have talked to people wo were personally involved in that tradegy

So why don't you go away and teach your grandmother to suck eggs? I could say something about American arrogance now.

Look, I most certainly do not want to tell you or your countrymen how to live your lives. I am most certainly not anti-american. However I think we find what is happening over there with the gun debate, well crazy. To us it seems obvious. regulate.

I myself am interested in obtaining a FAC (Firearms Arms Certificate), here it's hard and rightly so, I am not anti guns. But what is happening in your country at the moment, the excuses, the obsession. It's bizzare, it's a pity.

Re:weird

[Immerman]

Because the beer and circuses keep flowing. Let the tyranny start affecting more people in their day-to-day lives and things may change. Of course the smart strategy would be to get all the necessary powers to quash a rebellion cemented firmly in place for "good reasons" before actually beginning to abuse them for tyranical purposes. It is precisely the recent drastic expansion of easily abusable government powers that make many people extremely suspicious of recent attempts at gun control. Especially when you have things like mass shootings using handguns being used as an excuse to try ban assault rifles. The simple fact is that handguns are specifically designed to be cheap, compact, convenient, easily concealable tools for killing people - they have minimal other uses. Assault rifles on the other hand are primarily useful for hunting, military actions, and intimidation, while being considerably more difficult to conceal or wield in close quarters, and are only rarely used in violent crimes (personally I'd classify inter-gang warfare as a military action rather than a violent crime, but I suppose some might disagree).

Re:weird

[Immerman]

>I think your republic has serious problems.
I quite agree, except on
>your freedom to commit civil disobedience
We have no legal right to such actions - pretty much by definition you are breaking a law you believe to be unjust in order to draw wider attention to the injustice, and any responsible individual engaging in such behavior does so with the expectation that they will be arrested, in fact they're counting on it - you don't draw attention to an unjust law by having the police ignore your actions, unless your cause has already garnered sufficient attention and sympathy that the police themselves begin engaging in civil disobedience in support of it.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the price we pay is very steep.

Actually, for the vast majority of Americans the 2nd amendment has entirely positive consequences - violent gun crime is heavily concentrated in large cities (see map here.)

I'm a Limey expat who's been able to spend many years sheltering under the "lead umbrella" of my redneck, gun toting neighbours - in the Western suburbs of Boston. I've never been burgled, mugged or car-jacked and never expect to be: the stakes are too high. I would most certainly have been a victim of one of these crimes had I stayed in London.

Re:weird

[Transfinite]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/01/kentucky-girl-2-shot-and-killed-by-brother-5-who-received-rifle-as-gift/

Regulate. I rest my fucking case.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Your view of Libertarianism is uninformed. It is a reaction against personal freedoms being encroached by an overactive and dismissive government or regulatory body. If other countries populace were armed in the first place, perhaps we wouldn't be so quick to practice good ol' English imperialism.

Re: weird

[Anonymous Coward]

"It was founded on the abuse of authority;" ...And we then turned around and immediately began abusing our authority over indians. With guns.

Re:weird

[rjh]

Sorry there are plenty of examples either way, where this happens. Very recent one's, even ongoing one's. You are just cherry picking.

If I'm cherrypicking, then it ought to be easy for you to find five clear counterexamples for each of my examples. After all, I'm cherrypicking. I invite you to do this. If I'm in error I'd love to be corrected. The requirements are simple:

• It must be state-sponsored, or at the very least state-condoned, domestic oppression
• It must involve large amounts of lethal violence
• The enforcers of the state must be willing participants
• The oppressed must be in a disarmed state
• The oppressed must overcome the oppressors.

Nelson Mandela and the ANC doesn't count: he started his career in armed insurrection. Suu Kyi doesn't count: the Burmese military rank-and-file were passively refusing to enforce the junta's orders. (For instance, allowing visitors to come and go from her place of detention pretty much at-will, and turning a blind eye as she talked to the media.) Ceaucescu's Romania doesn't count: the enforcers were defecting to the protesters in record numbers. Honecker's East Germany doesn't count: when the Berlin Wall fell East German guards were among the most enthusiastic participants. Gandhi doesn't count: he was depending on English decency and sense of fair play to keep his followers alive. (Had Great Britain handled Gandhi the same way they handled 19th-century uprisings in India, Gandhi would have been strapped to a cannon and executed long before he made it halfway to the sea for his salt.) Yeltsin doesn't count: when the KGB ordered their elite counterterror forces to take back government, the counterterror forces refused.

When the people with the guns refuse to use guns, yes, unarmed protest movements can have stunning successes. I'm all in favor of them. But when the people with the guns are willing to use them to ensure their continued rule, unarmed protest movements turn into massacres.

If I'm cherrypicking, then show me five counterexamples for each of the large-scale massacres I showed. Just make sure they pass the requirements, because otherwise you're moving the goalposts.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

uhhh NDAA2012 and AUMF2001 and USA PATRIOT Act would *all* like a word with you. It is now "legal" in the US for the government both to kill and to indefinitely detain anyone it wants without trial. And by "legal" I mean, well, they've passed laws, but I disagree with those laws.

Re:weird

[ceoyoyo]

You know Elizabeth II isn't a tyrant, right? The modern UK is ruled by an elected parliamentary system, one which was founded rather a long time ago. The creation of that system and its refinement into what it is today was mostly peaceful, accomplished through politics, not revolution. The same goes for most other European nations. Canada was a British colony like the US, but instead of violent revolution we achieved independence and our current democracy by peaceful political means.

Re:weird

[ceoyoyo]

Very true. And yet when I suggested in a comment to a previous story that making properly securing your gun mandatory would go a long way towards reducing gun deaths in the US somebody claimed such suggestions were just the government trying to take away his freedom.

Gun owners aren't the problem. Crazy people who think they need to have a gun in case they want to shoot somebody are the problem.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait what you're from Britain? I thought this was settled a couple hundred years ago, we did change and evolve, there is no monarch. How's yours doing? The Spanish militias had to get material support from the Soviet Union, with strings attached of course. The idea of Americans owning weapons is so they don't have to compromise themselves to foreign states in order to obtain them. As for the raids, we're getting there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWsbBhzxYw8 I haven't seen this kind of thing happen before in the NE at such a large scale. The Nazi state disappeared people by the use of ambulances so you never know.

Libertarianism is about being responsible for yourself, not for others. A socialist may see this as "my rights first, fuck everybody else's rights" Then again, socialist believe they have a right to entitlements. Simply put, there are many individuals here that don't want to "evolve" like you have so I suggest you stay on the other side of the pond and you have Piers Morgan back too.

Re:weird

[stenvar]

What! is that it, is that the best America has to offer. I'm not impressed. What exactly is that supposed to mean? Politics in America is a joke, you still haven't learnt from any of the lesson we have because you are so fucking arrogant.

Europeans have learned nothing; they are heading down the same path to economic, social, and political self-destruction they were heading down a century ago.

So YOU are another shinning example of exactly why there is anti-american sentiment in Europe

European intellectuals and politicians hated Americans in the 19th century, they hated Americans in the 20th century, and they are hating Americans in the 21st century. Do you think we give a f*ck anymore what you think?

Fucking grow up. You don't need guns, get it?

No, we don't "need" guns; in fact, they may be bad for us. But one isn't free if one doesn't have the freedom to make bad choices. The totalitarian mindset is so deeply engrained in Europe that you don't even realize it.

Re:weird

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I get a similar response when I mention that I don't believe in accidental shootings and the ones that you hear about that are classed that way really are criminally negligent shootings. I will admit I have had a firearm accidentally discharge before (SKS fired when the bolt closed because the pin had frozen forward from sleet) but even then because it was being handled properly and was in good working order (didn't double or empty the mag) it just shot the soft dirt ground about 3 feet out in front of me. It was pointed in a safe direction I knew what was in the direction (the ravine my buddies and I shoot pop cans in) and we all stay behind the firing line when shooting. Granted when it did that I then unloaded it, stripped it, checked it, and cleaned it all to be sure there wasn't any issues.

Re:weird

[rjh]

Although I agree that the UK is a model system for democracies everywhere, that's not the point. The original poster said that unlike much of Europe and Asia, America traces its origins back to the overthrow of absolute rule rather than someone's imposition of it. A respondent argued that modern-day Great Britain was obviously an exception to that, due to the English Civil War. I don't buy that. If you trace Elizabeth II's ancestry back, you reach William the Conqueror. The entire reason Elizabeth is monarch is because she happens to be the descendant of someone who imposed absolute rule. The basis for Elizabeth II's monarchy rests in William the Conqueror's invasion of England, whereas the basis for Barack Obama's presidency goes back to the overthrow of George III's rule.

Re:weird

[stymy]

Besides, it seems to me that the American Revolution was unnecessary in retrospect as Canada stuck with England and still managed to get its independence.

Re:weird

[ceoyoyo]

So what? If you're creative enough tracing back pretty much anybody you might well end up at tyrannical royalty. I'm descended from a bastard son of Czar Nicolas II, who was abandoned on the steps of a monastery.

Elizabeth doesn't rule the UK. The UK is ruled by an elected parliamentary government that happens to have a figurehead monarch as titular head of state. The only difference between the UK and US in terms of rule is that the UK peacefully evolved a democratic system while the US established it by armed rebellion. Yes, I agree with you, that colours US politics to this day. I think I disagree with you that it's a good thing.

To this day the average American seems to have a weird adversarial view of his government. That in itself might even be okay, except that it seems to allow people to conveniently abrogate their democratic responsibility.

Re:weird

[rjh]

So what?

The point is this: the person I was responding to claimed that the English Civil War demonstrated that the origin of power in the United Kingdom was just as rooted in rebellion as the origin of power in the United States is. And that's simply not true. Elizabeth II (who is not a figurehead monarch: she is the only person in the UK who can authorize war or declare peace, and that's one hell of a power; further, she can unilaterally block Parliamentary attempts to limit the Crown's interests or royal prerogatives -- a monarchial benefit that I find hard to believe still exists today in the UK) traces her right to rule back to William the Conqueror, not William Who Ended Oppression. Elizabeth II's authority derives from a long-ago act of conquest, not a long-ago act of rebellion.

With respect to "I think I disagree with you that it's a good thing," I never said I believed the US's national-origin story was a good thing. I only said that it was ours. I'm not saying the UK national-origin story is bad because it's rooted in conquest, nor am I saying the US national-origin story is good because it's rooted in rebellion. I'm only saying they're different and shouldn't be expected to be the same.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you believe that it isn't working? Two dozen dead people every other year (compared to tens of thousands that die in car crashes that same year)? That's a very small price to pay for a vigilant citizenry guarding against external or internal threats to freedom.

And there are many other countries out there where people who are not willing to pay that price can go. One even shares a border with US.

Re:weird

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not so much about libertarianism ideals, as it is that it simply makes no sense to blame 4 million gun owners for the actions of one psychopath. Just because us gun owners like to shoot recreationally with a particular type of firearm, doesn't mean that we're suddenly criminals now. Because society has deemed it necessary to label us as child-killers and potential criminals, and giving us the presumption of guilt, punishing us, even though we did nothing wrong. We'd gladly like to see guns out of criminals and mentally ill people, the problem we have with the gun control movement, is that they lump us together with the criminals and the mentally ill, that we have a problem with.

Re:weird

[alexo]

[W]e want our government to be nervous. We want our police officers to be polite and cautious.

You forgot the pony.

Re:weird

[npendleton]

Gun ownership in the US for most conservatives is not about "freedom", quite the opposite, it is about removing other people's freedoms, such as preventing voting rights and more often delaying remedy and equality, with the force of arms and threat of violence, ruling by tyranny, balanced by artificial social graces to distract people with "form over substance" discussions about Southern hospitality. For the history of the US South, most populations with strongest gun ownership see themselves as part of ruling class, superior by birthright to people in their community they hate based on ignorant prejudice, even if gun owners won't admit how tyrannical feudal class structure they perpetuate has always been.

An example of who conservatives hate? The US Military. Texas, where Defense Distributed is based, was the last US state to decriminalize members US Military voting in elections, around 1942, but Texas still disenfranchised US Military members based on race, for being black, until 1965. At the other extreme, New York State provided absentee voting rights to all New York State citizens in the US Civil War, serving in New York State units, such as the election 1864, 80 to 100 years earlier.

In the US South, conservative gun owners voting patterns in Federal elections continues a history of using government to remove and prevent non-violent equal rights, and only accepting rights equality steps under profound duress of a coalition of many of "We the People", many of "the many states" (the liberal states), and Federal government, formed to actively oppose southern prejudiced laws backed with vigilante violence to enforce rights removal, and after violence and typically many high profile unjust homicides by southern gun totting vigilantes, as gun ownership in the US South comes from a history of ethnically cleansing American Indians from land to build farms, preventing slaves gaining their freedom, putting down slave revolts to gain freedom, raising insurrection against non-violent coalitions (of the people, many states of many US States, and Federal government opposed to oppression by Southern vigilantes), preventing black people and poor people using voting rights as well as accessing education, and so forth. Most conservative state gun owners do not elect leaders nor support candidates who support such broad and non-violent key freedoms, but rather conservative candidates almost always oppose and delay rights equality.

Notice how your reply quotes where from James Madison, a slave owner who very likely understood exactly what state militias in slave states were for, established almost 100 years earlier, a militia designed to kill slaves running away for freedom, or killing slaves organizing revolts for freedom against slave owners, but your quotes are from a politician typically directed and spun toward "the Citizens of New York", a state which did not have much slavery and passed laws to progressively ban slavery in 1799, and had already provided free black people owning land with the same voting rights in the New York State Constitution before that, in 1777.

If US conservatives (often gun "rights" activists) supported "freedom" and "fair and speedy" non-violent dispute resolution for all people based on high quality equality in the eyes of the law, instead of arbitrary violent dispute resolution, then they would support full voting rights solutions for all Americans, and similar rights equality, instead of actively preventing and delaying restoration of equality. This means conservatives would support ending Federal and State level disparities, such as:
* Restoring statehood and full voting rights for Washington, DC. (600,000+ fully taxed US Citizens, more than Wyoming.)
* Statehood for Puerto Rico (3.6 million people, would become the 28th largest US State.)
* Full voting rights for all smaller population territories, such as merging Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Marianas, with Hawaii.
* To assure high quality and efficient labor markets with

Re:weird

[jwhitener]

The "We need our guns to keep the government in check" is one of many red herrings that various political groups, manufacturers, and other 'thought leaders' put out to keep the population squabbling over stupid arguments instead of actually addressing gun violence. There are many countries with high gun ownership and next to zero gun violence.... but no one seems to be talking about that fact.

"my rights first, fuck everybody else's rights"

Some small, vocal, ercent of the populace developed that idea (in various forms) much, much later, than the earlier notions of 'rugged individualism'. For much of America's history, small groups and families were pushing west, settling land, living on their own, free from much government intervention. You lived or died based on your ability to farm and live off the land.

The descendants of those families make up most of our 'Red States'. The red conservative center of the country, surrounded by a ring of blue liberals on the coasts.

The problem with these gun debates is that people seem to only focus on 1 or 2 things. They make the issues black and white, when it is very grey and filled with tons of variables. America has a gun violence problem not only because of various factors in our past, but now mainly due to lots of factors in our present.

1. Income inequality: major problem. We are the richest country on the planet, and we have ghettos. Yeah.... actually ghettos in almost every major city in our country, complete with gang wars. Look at this: http://stateofred.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/detroit-ghetto2-765618.jpg Looks like some place you'd expect in India right? Nope, Detroit.
2. Poor social safety nets: if people have no where to fall back and get help when they need it, violence is an option. And income inequality, ghettos, and weak social safety nets means a cycle of poverty is created that is very hard for generations of families to get out of.
3. Mainly due to the above two items, people are self-segregating. We have high levels of racism, distrust, and poor communication between communities. Which leads to great things like major riots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots
4. The war on drugs. It has created a mega complex of both gangs, prisons, and military style police units. All sides of the 'war' have increased their level of armament over time.
etc...
etc...

There are a ton of issues that contribute to high gun violence rates in America. Yeah... stricter gun laws would help in some situations, as would more background checks, but those are just 1-2 factors among dozens. And the dozens of remaining factors are ones that most 'red states' do not want to touch with a 10 foot pole.

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're just hurting the world of 3d-printing.

No, clueless fools who vote for the entrenched political parties will be the ones hurting the "world" of 3D printing.

And they're not likely to act until printers advance a bit more and someone figures out he can print out $HOLLYWOODBLOCKBUSTER action figures for his kid.

muricans

[Anonymous Coward]

Make cheap weapons at home, headlines news... only in USA...

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[poity]

Is that like saying "piracy is hurting the world of p2p technology"? Is it? And if government cracks down on p2p, should we blame pirates or government?

Something obvous

[Anonymous Coward]

"Security checkpoints, background checks, and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print plastic firearms at home and bring those firearms through metal detectors with no one the wiser," said the congressman

Um, the bullets would set it off.

Oh, I see, a "Congressman" said this. Expect more stupid laws made by ignoramuses.

Re:Something obvous

[I'm New Around Here]

Who says the bullets go through the metal detector? Camouflage them as AA batteries in your camera bag, and send them through the standard xray machine. Do you think the TSA guy watching the monitor would notice?

Re:Something obvous

[GameboyRMH]

Making a nonmetallic round seems easier to me than making a nonmetallic gun. Composite casing, ceramic/stone bullet and primer cap.

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[plover]

Calm down. Long ago, when "zip guns" were being made out of a stolen car antenna, a rubber band, a clothespin, and a rimfire .22 bullet, and teen gangs started threatening each other with them, nobody banned antennas or clothespins.

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[He Who Has No Name]

Politicians won't be able to ban printers entirely. They would be lynched.

Their only real option is to try and impose some kind of blacklisted geometry detector, which won't work and will get the whole regulatory system torn out and stomped on shortly thereafter.

You show me a computer algorithm that can not only recognize arbitrary 3D geometry but discern purpose and intent of an object without any other context, and I'll show you a Nobel Prize.

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's speeding up the regulation comming to be. If it wasn't for the whole 'ooo scary 3d gun' thing drawing attention to them NOW...

It would be a long long time until companies noticed people are printing their own plastic crap.

It comes down to the difference between a year or 5 before these get regulated... And a decade or two.

"You're not helping" is correct.

Looks like more of a grenade to me.

[AmazingRuss]

The only question is how many shots before it explodes.

Re:Looks like more of a grenade to me.

[Jeremi]

The only question is how many shots before it explodes.

Ah, but they've thought of that. You load it with plastic bullets, which are full of plastic gunpowder.

That way you can 3D-print everything you need, and the materials are all tolerance-matched for safety.

Re:Looks like more of a grenade to me.

[AmazingRuss]

He should just print a hydrogen bomb and be done with it.

Are they really Morons?

[Okian Warrior]

... You're just hurting the world of 3d-printing.

Taking bets on when 3d printers and other 'manufacturing devices' get on the board to be regulated somehow... It's comming. Bet. Bet money. Bet MY money.

...Seriously guys, you're not helping. Stop it. Or at least keep it to yourselves.

Should we blame these people for inciting others to action?

I don't think that's right. We should put the blame where it rightly belongs, which is with whatever regulation agency decides to ban things.

Also, should we worry about repercussions before there actually *are* repercussions? Aren't we guessing an extreme consequence here? I mean, do we want to be the "game over, man" guy from that Aliens movie?

And finally, should we be calling people morons and dictating their actions in a dismissive tone on the subject of gun control? There are reasoned arguments on both sides - the percentage spread between pro and con arguments is not totally convincing one way or another - certainly not at the p<0.05 confidence level we typically use. We may disagree with their position, but can we say without reservation that their position has no merit?

Personally, I'm against dictating the actions of others in the first place. I like to hold people responsible for their actions, and these people have done nothing that harms others. The sophistry "they're enabling others to kill" is just that - an emotional narrative with no basis used to sway an argument. If (and that's a big if) others are enabled by these acts, then the others would be responsible, not these people.

Re:Are they really Morons?

[demoncleaner925]

the percentage spread between pro and con arguments is not totally convincing one way or another - certainly not at the p<0.05 confidence level we typically use.

statistical hypothesis testing has absolutely no place in the area of subjective opinion, especially if you dont say what the null hypothesis is. by the way a significance level of 0.05 is very lenient...

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[Squiddie]

You have some battered wife syndrome going on there.

Looks like a gun but how does it work?

[sudnshok]

I'd need to see videos of this working before it means anything to me. No mention in the article how you get a firing pin and springs made out of polymer to work.

Re:Looks like a gun but how does it work?

[Immerman]

Plastic springs are easy - take a good look at the plastic crap you own and I bet you can find a few. Even more common than coiled types that immediately spring to mind are the flexible-bar types - the most common likely being the ridge-and-groove latches that hold most cheap hinged boxes such as Altoid tins closed. A firing pin would be a bit more of a challenge, but it depends on the polymer - some polymers are actually quite hard, and for a more practical device something like a round-headed nail embedded in a larger ploymer striker would potentially increase durability drastically.

I would think the real challenge would be the inside of the barrel, which this gun pretty much eliminates. But I imagine a length of smooth steel pipe available at any hobby shop would make an excellent barrel liner if sufficiently reinforced. Granted it wouldn't have the range of a rifled barrel, but then plenty of people were killed by reasonably accurate guns before rifling was invented.

"My First Rifle"

[westlake]

My kid will be five soon, and I thought it would be a great present!!!

I don't what to think when a post like this gets modded up funny.

A young boy in Kentucky has accidentally shot his two-year-old sister in the chest, killing her. He was playing with a rifle he got for his birthday. The shooting happened in Burkesville, Kentucky as the boy was playing with the 22-calibre 'youth model' gun when it was not realised that the gun was loaded. The children's uncle, David Mann, described the accident as 'something you can't prepare for'

Five-year-old shoots and kills toddler sister with birthday present rifle --- video [May 3]

Here's How the Rifle That Just Killed a 2-Year-Old Girl Is Marketed for Kids

The Crickett website is down.

Re:"My First Rifle"

[Bartles]

No, they are marketing their rifles to parents by showing how cute their kids can be with a Crickett. I know the marketing to kids angle worked for the prohibition of vices crowd when it came to tobacco and alcohol. But stop. Just stop.

Re:"My First Rifle"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Even the gun-nuttiest people I know subscribe to the 'Don't point a loaded gun at something you wouldn't be happy shooting. If you haven't verified that a gun is unloaded, it is loaded.' theory... One or both of those parents must have fucked up pretty seriously.

Re:"My First Rifle"

[Greyfox]

We the people must like this state of affairs or something would be done about it. So there's no sense in becoming hysterically angry that someone would make light of the circumstance. If you're an American, why haven't you fixed the problem yet, if you feel that strongly about it? If you're not, why aren't you busy feeling smugly superior that your own culture is better? And, for what it's worth, the only rational explanation I can come up with for our behavior in the USA is that it's all a secret eugenics project to breed children who will always somehow not be where the bullets are. Sure, to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs, but once we have our first generation of kids who can dodge bullets, our military will be able to stalk through the battlefield like some action movie star. Then who'll be laughing? In fact.. someone's coming... THEY KNOW! Oh, false alarm. It was just my pizza.

Re:"My First Rifle"

[Cederic]

Yes. They bought a five year old a rifle.

Re:"My First Rifle"

[westlake]

Even the gun-nuttiest people I know subscribe to the 'Don't point a loaded gun at something you wouldn't be happy shooting

This boy was five years old.

"My First Rifle" is sold in the glowing day-bright colors of a child's toy.

I was at a house warming party last month where a kid that age was running around and annoying everyone with a toy plastic rifle the same size and coloring.

It never occurred to me that it could have been the real thing,

Re:"My First Rifle"

[Immerman]

More specifically they bought a deadly weapon for a child who lacked the responsibility and discipline to wield it safely, and allowed him to use it without sufficient oversight to prevent reckless behavior. Being five has little to do with it except that instilling such discipline at that age requires far more effort than most parents are willing to expend, and (possibly) more self-awareness than many five-year-olds are capable of. I believe that historically children typically recieved a pocket knife (a considerably less lethal and more versatile tool) and had to prove they could wield it responsibly for a few years before being permitted their first gun. Probably with a slingshot or other intermediate sublethal weapon involved as well. Heck, I never really advanced beyond BB guns myself, and my parents didn't let me use even that without supervision for a year or so.

Such considerations are only exacerbated by a society that provides it's children with gun-shaped toys designed specifically to be used in a criminally negligent manner, while innundating them with imagery of heros (i.e. anyone that actually matters) shrugging off gunshots as minor inconveniences at worst.

Re:"My First Rifle"

[codepunk]

I hate to correct you but a gun is treated as always loaded.

Re:"My First Rifle"

[ceoyoyo]

On the bright side, with this thing little Johnny will probably blow off his hand before he gets the chance to shoot his sister. Sad when that's the bright side....

Re:"My First Rifle"

[ceoyoyo]

He said marketed for kids, not to kids. That rifle is undeniably marketed for kids.

Re:"My First Rifle"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Yes. They bought a five year old a rifle.

If they hadn't also supplied him with ammo, they might as well have bought him a stick.

I find the enthusiasm around guns faintly baffling, and everything I know about deadly weapons comes from video games or hardware that became obsolete once gunpowder started sucking; but there is no reason why a five year old can't use a rifle safely(contempory manufacturing quality, along with relatively low-pressure rounds, means minimal operator risk) So long as somebody is supervising kiddo, and impressing on him in no uncertain terms that this is serious shit, at any time he has access to both the firearm and the ammunition.

Apparently, they weren't up to that particular challenge, and (unfortunately) didn't recognize their unsuitability ahead of time.

Re:"My First Rifle"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I hate to correct you but a gun is treated as always loaded.

I was always given the impression that that rule was bent pretty substantially for cleaning and stripping operations; but I'm certainly not the expert, just the observer.

Re:"My First Rifle"

[Anonymous Coward]

Parents' fault for letting a five year old use it unsupervised. Any amount of feature bans, licensing, and registration wouldn't have stopped their criminal negligence.

mythbusters need to test the wooden gun form

[Joe_Dragon]

mythbusters need to test the wooden gun form in the line of fire

Re:mythbusters need to test the wooden gun form

[iggymanz]

the chinese in 13th century used fire lances of bamboo and wood tubes as early firearms (flamethrowing with no projectile), and sometimes put small fragments of various things (a kind of shotgun/flamethrower). but they soon went to metal barrels.

the pressures in a projectile throwing firearm are immense, even the tiny "pocket pistol" calibers like 25 ACP and such have couple tens of thousands of PSI of pressure or more. it's a job for steel, pure and simple

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Dave..."

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[John Jorsett]

Taking bets on when 3d printers and other 'manufacturing devices' get on the board to be regulated somehow...

Are you suggesting that wouldn't happen if not for the gun printing efforts? Power lies with the means of production. Democratizing the means of production undermines those who hold power and there will thus always be efforts to resist--in this case to regulate--such democratization.

It will happen no matter what, but they need an excuse and this is a great one. If you notice how our privacy has been eroded, it generally comes in jumps after big some traumatic event hits the news. Kind of the same way a boa constrictor suffocates you, by tightening each time you exhale. Getting people in a lather about printed firearms being smuggled aboard aircraft or into secure areas would be the opportunity to tighten.

A good thing for reducing gun violence?

[Darwiniac]

I'm curious as to whether anyone who really studies gun violence from either the pro or anti-gun side has looked at the possibility that making guns free might eliminate the major driving force behind America's gun obsession- the market.

I personally know several people who have personal arsenals costing thousands of dollars. I don't own any because I know that statistically I'm very unlikely to need one and would rather spend my money on other things. I'm sure they are convinced I am at risk, which technically I am, but I know that it is a far lower risk than having a heart attack and I don't see any of them with a portable defib.

Whenever people make irrational choices en mass I suspect marketing. So what happens when 3d printing is able to make all the signature weapons that are the pride of the various gun manufacturers? No more gun profits means no more gun marketing.

Of course, a good counter-argument might be that the internet has made things like media freely available and the markets have only grown. IDK, do people still pay for porn?

Re:A good thing for reducing gun violence?

[DaHat]

I'm confused... do you think Americans have a love of guns because Smith & Wesson, Remington, Lugar, Glock, etc all advertise heavily on tv, radio, billboards, bus benches, magazines, etc and that said advertising is so effective that (some) people rush into gun stores in order to buy?

With the exception of a few hunting or firearm related channels or magazines... I see far more advertising for beer or cigarettes on an average day than I do for firearms.

For the most part, firearms sales in this country have been pretty healthy for quite some time... they only spike in response to external stimuli (such as our currently slightly diminished push for additional 'gun control')... we see the same thing in plenty of other areas... grocery and home improvement stores tend to see pretty healthy sales though the year... then when there is news of an impending storm... both are cleaned out of supplies that people think they won't be able to get afterwards.

Again the reason for the current uptick (which went up since December, but has still been elevated since late 2008) was not because of marketing on the part of the NRA or firearm manufacturers... but because mostly rational people understood that something they wanted to buy may not be available latter... so buying now is preferred than risking not being able to later.

Personally speaking... I have a 'personal arsenals costing thousands of dollars'

I'd estimate that 80% of the firearms I own... are older than I am.. a few by more than a century.

Re:A good thing for reducing gun violence?

[thrich81]

What rational person who has observed gun control politics in this country for the last 50 years thinks there will not be readily available guns for sale legally in the USA anytime in the foreseeable future? That's my problem with the "gun enthusiasts". At absolute worst the Rambo pretenders may not be able to buy a semi-automatic rifle that looks like a "real army gun" like an AR-15 in some states, but they will always able to get semi-automatics which are functionally the same. I don't have a problem with gun ownership (I have a few rifles and shotguns), but I'm scared that the people that seem to want them the most are so easily deluded with, "Obama is going to take their guns away!" -- that's my relatives I'm describing. I'm really peeved that I didn't foresee this in 2008 and buy a bunch of Remington, Lugar, etc stock before the 2009 inauguration.

Re:A good thing for reducing gun violence?

[Darwiniac]

You mentioned advertising for cigarettes. When I suspect marketing is at work in promoting the gun culture in our country I would cite the efforts of big tobacco as an analogous example. Donating to politicians to tie their product to freedom. Making sure use of their product is featured in movies. And generally putting money in the right places to maintain a culture that is friendly to a product that is statistically harmful for most people to purchase and use.

Do I believe that big tobacco ever once placed an add telling kids that smoking is cool? No, nothing so blatant. But there is abundant evidence that they worked to promote that message in the culture using far more crafty marketing tactics. Do I think the gun industry is above doing the same? Do you? Does anyone?

Not sure what your point is about owning old guns. I don't see much argument about old guns coming from either camp in the gun debate. The gun industry has little concern if you have old guns as long as you feel compelled to buy those new ones which still represent (in your case at least) 20% of thousands of dollars of potential sales. Promoting a collecting mentality among consumers seems like a smart marketing model for gun manufacturers, baseball card manufacturers, comic book publishers, etc...

Re:A good thing for reducing gun violence?

[DaHat]

What rational person who has observed gun control politics in this country for the last 50 years thinks there will not be readily available guns for sale legally in the USA anytime in the foreseeable future?

One who recognizes that a sizeable # of those who seek additional controls are not concerned about the constitutionality of their prohibitions or their effectiveness... and have become more brazen in their attempts than their predecessors in past.

While Obama himself has not made any specific statements regarding seizing guns... countless person in his party have... either calling for doing so immediately or preventing the transfer of certain types of weapons to anyone but the government in future (ie you die, your kid can't inherit your AR-15)... and many prefer to err on the side of caution.

Re:A good thing for reducing gun violence?

[DaHat]

Donating to politicians to tie their product to freedom

Little need when such a right was explicitly codified in 1791.

Making sure use of their product is featured in movies

Big difference between smoking & guns in movies... While you rarely see explicit branding of either (it is easier to discern what sort of firearm is on screen with the help of sites like http://www.imfdb.org.../ smoking is rarely a necessary tool of the story... while without firearms there would be very few police, crime, action or military movies.

While there has no doubt been advertising which has, I'd be curious to know how many young people 'got into firearms' because they were even remotely influenced by some tv or movie program... vs those who had the tradition passed down to them my an older relative who wished to pass down the past time of hunting or target shooting. Even in the Cub and Boy Scouts... firearms are an optional component of it.

As far as my older guns... I mentioned it for three reasons:

1. Like the previous line... I'd actually not intended to post it (as the previous line was not completed :( ).

2. Unlike almost any other consumer product... firearms hold their value and functionality pretty well over the years provided they are stored properly. While it is not uncommon to buy a new deer rifle and use it 2-3 weekends a year for 50+ years (this year will be year 9 with mine)... the same cannot be said for purchasers of almost anything else. As a result... there is a massive secondary market for used firearms of all ages and types... and even if successful advertising were getting people to buy the latest and greatest items (granted the new buying is happening, but again, I'm not convinced it is done because of any explicit efforts on the part of the gun makers)... the shear amount of options in the secondary market makes it difficult to get folks to buy new. "I could buy new... or I could save $XXX and get this used but well cared for unit of the previous model" one would say... and possibly not even require the pointless hoop jumping of a 4473 and background check.

Heck... I go to one of the evil 'gun shows' every month or two... and a good 75%+ of the firearms for sale there are used and are purchased either because A) someone is trying to save a buck on something a little older, or B) someone is into collecting certain items that they may not have been alive or able to purchase when new (if it was even available to consumers then)... which is most of what I do, and that relates to #3:

3. When people like the President or others campaign against "weapons designed for the theater of war"... I have to laugh (and cry a bit)... because inside my safe I have quite a few "weapons designed for the theater of war" that were actually built exclusively for and carried by different foreign militaries... unlike the AR-15 which is simply a consumerized (and thus less fun) version of the M-16.

To a person like me (and most people who own more than a few firearms)... advertising firearms is a pretty big waste of time as I already know what I'm looking for (mostly old things)... and when looking for something new (to me or new from the factory), do the research ahead of time to choose well.

Re:A good thing for reducing gun violence?

[drinkypoo]

Again the reason for the current uptick (which went up since December, but has still been elevated since late 2008) was not because of marketing on the part of the NRA or firearm manufacturers... but because mostly rational people understood that something they wanted to buy may not be available latter... so buying now is preferred than risking not being able to later.

Exactamundo. Hell, I did that with some of the high-powered spherical magnets. They have now been recalled and at least one brand is now illegal to sell or resell in the USA. Those little round magnets you bought at thinkgeek? It's illegal to sell them now. Have a nice day.

I'd estimate that 80% of the firearms I own... are older than I am.. a few by more than a century.

Every firearm I own was designed before I was born, both my rifles were built before I was born, and neither one is particularly collectible. My rifle was designed in 1898 and built in 192something and rebarreled in 1935.

Re:A good thing for reducing gun violence?

[drinkypoo]

I'd be curious to know how many young people 'got into firearms' because they were even remotely influenced by some tv or movie program... vs those who had the tradition passed down to them my an older relative who wished to pass down the past time of hunting or target shooting.

I'm curious too. I suspect it's actually fairly considerable. I knew the names, calibers, and some other specs on some various military firearms before I ever actually owned a firearm myself.

To a person like me (and most people who own more than a few firearms)... advertising firearms is a pretty big waste of time as I already know what I'm looking for (mostly old things)... and when looking for something new (to me or new from the factory), do the research ahead of time to choose well.

Advertising creates an association of a brand name to a class of products, so for most people who are too lazy or not clever enough to do proper research, it creates an air of authority for brands they see advertised repeatedly.

Re:A good thing for reducing gun violence?

[theycallmeB]

While I work in a different department of the store, I still hear the stories in the breakroom and 'mostly rational' is not an accurate description of the now diminished hysteria shown by gun buyers over the past six months.

Re:A good thing for reducing gun violence?

[Darwiniac]

Donating to politicians to tie their product to freedom

Little need when such a right was explicitly codified in 1791.

The interpretation of the 2nd amendment is an entire different topic of discussion, that I do not want to get dragged into, but I think an honest person will admit that it is not entirely clear how to interpret it whether you come from the pro-gun or anti-gun side. On the anti-gun side someone could highlight the issue of what it means to be a "well regulated militia" and also that a strict reading of firearm means whatever a firearm was at the time. On the pro-gun side someone could argue that surface to air missiles should be legal. I don't mean to argue either of these points, just that enough ambiguity exists that there is an incentive for those who profit from guns to spend capital on keeping their product legal. I seem to remember the tobacco industry making constitutional arguments for use of their product as well and I've met more than one smoker that asserts that their right to make others suck down their carcinogens is part of living in a free country. And I generally agree with them that if you were to present the issue to someone living in 1791 they would laugh at the idea of banning smoking in any context.

granted the new buying is happening, but again, I'm not convinced it is done because of any explicit efforts on the part of the gun makers

Ok, so you do believe that the gun industry is the one exception among all other businesses in that they are not making explicit efforts for people to buy their product. I don't know how to respond to that, so we will have to disagree. Regarding the origins of gun lust/interest/fascination I don't dismiss the possibility that guns are intrinsically interesting devices. I play FPS games and I think everyone likes the basic idea of projecting force. But just like when I find the remote out of reach and I momentarily try to use the force to summon it to my hand Skywalker style, I suspect that media might have something to do with my son running around making shooting sounds as he points at things. Now, do I think the gun industry pays everyone who promotes guns, no, not anymore than I think the tobacco industry pays everyone to smoke a cigarette in a film. But where we disagree, apparently, is that I believe that the gun industry, like the tobacco industry, works to influence the culture so that their product is still desired even though, statistically, it's not good for you.

Re:A good thing for reducing gun violence?

[Hatta]

Again the reason for the current uptick (which went up since December, but has still been elevated since late 2008) was not because of marketing on the part of the NRA or firearm manufacturers... but because mostly rational people understood that something they wanted to buy may not be available latter... so buying now is preferred than risking not being able to later.

What exactly did they "understand"? That Obama is a socialist gun grabbing muslim nigger? It's 2013, everything you could buy in 2007 is still available. The gun nuts didn't "understand" anything, they freaked the fuck out because a black Democrat won the presidency. These are not rational people.

Re:White people problems

[slick7]

They love their freedoms.

Freedom is only one principle used to achieve results.

But life is about results, not principles.

Without principles, life would be dull and predictable, ho hum. The TAO says to take the middle path, if you walk down the center-line you can get hit by traffic in both directions. Pick a side, any side, at least you can see some of what's coming.

I call for Ammo control..

[Codeyman]

Since gun control is not happening and misguided individuals are hell bent of printing out a gun anyway.. control the ammo. Let's see how they print out 3D bullets.

Re:I call for Ammo control..

[Pseudonym Authority]

Let's see how they print out 3D bullets.

To make gunpowder:
1) Get some chickens and let them shit, for the saltpeter.
2) Burn some wood for charcoal, for the charcoal.
3) Buy some sulfur somewhere.
4) Make black powder from the previous three.
5) Pack powder into your shitty, unstable little `gun'.
6) Stick a nail in the end.
7) ???
8) Someone (likely both of you) gets injured.

Please note that this process can likely be improved. I spent about five minutes thinking it, so don't focus on the details, just take me to mean that that probably won't work well either.
If you want to regulate that away, you might focus on the sulfur part, as it's a little harder to come by. That won't last for long, because lots of stuff explodes. It might even be feasible to use gasoline, who knows? It'll be a cat and mouse game though, if people really want to have guns (for variable definitions of `gun').

Re:I call for Ammo control..

[Richy_T]

I wish they could. Ammo is harder to come by than the guns at the moment.

Re:I call for Ammo control..

[I'm New Around Here]

3) Buy some sulfur somewhere.

Go to any of the natural parks with geothermal features. Chances are you can find sulfur ripe for the picking. One place I was at had thick layers of it at the edge of the crater.

Re:I call for Ammo control..

[Pseudonym Authority]

Then the obvious next move is to close all national and state parks. Now there's something that both parties can agree on!

Re:I call for Ammo control..

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Sulfur is easy to come by. Go to a good garden store and they will sell you elemental sulfur as it is commonly used to decrease soil ph. I bought a a 10lb bag (smallest they sold) of it a few years ago for correcting the ph of the soil in my garden for around $15 or $20.

Re:I call for Ammo control..

[BitZtream]

You do realize that in the early years of guns ... people made their own bullets ... RIGHT?

Its not like its hard to cast bullets from lead, I bought a kit for it. Came with everything I needed except the propane to heat it. I can get lead from any bait & tackle store, the explosive powder can be manufactured trivially at home.

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[tsotha]

This. Guns are incredibly easy to make, and the plastic gun that comes out of a printer is only going to be good for a few rounds before it breaks. Anybody who actually wants to make a gun would do well just to skip the 3D printer and hop on the internet.

The project is interesting in that someday it might be possible to produce something better. I'm skeptical, though, given the materials involved.

Re:If anyone assumes we're a bunch of spoiled teen

[Caesar Tjalbo]

Don't be so negative. Imagine a bright future where you can 3d-print your own Darwin Award, wouldn't that be nice?

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually lots of CAE simulation software can quite easily surmise purpose from 3D geometry.

Not going to happen

[daninaustin]

This might work for the big companies, but many of the 3d printers are home-built. There is no way they will be able to prevent the printing of guns or other things they don't like.

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that like saying "piracy is hurting the world of p2p technology"? Is it?

Yes. Many who should be promoting bittorrent are staying silent to avoid the taint of being associated with piracy. And Google AutoSuggest never includes the word "torrent" anymore.

And if government cracks down on p2p, should we blame pirates or government?

Both.

Baton Twung

[Anonymous Coward]

Baton Twung ... uh uh uh uh

Native Pwide ... uh uh uh uh.

Why 3D print? Why not just a Sten?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that you can make a real submachine gun in your basement in one or two days with hand tools, easy to get materials, and no electricity? Its called a Sten, proved in combat in WW2.

Fuck you Cody Wilson

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for perverting technology so you can live out your gun nut fantasies.

You aren't a hero, you'll never stop a crime, and you'll never "defend" yourself or anyone with your shitty fucking gun.

Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Crazy Americans and their guns... Now all we need is an even more crazy American to get a hold of those CAD and print themselves a gun.

Re:Sigh...

[Takatata]

I am not worried about Americans. They have enough not printed guns so that a few more printed ones do not matter. They are a spit in the ocean. I am worried what this will do in countries with sane weapon laws. And I am worried what this will do to 3D printers.

Re:Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Grab a steel pipe with the needed inner diameter, a dremel tool, some jb weld a stiff spring, a nail and a nut and bolts and you have all that is needed to make a gun. Throw in some wood if you want a more ergonomic grip and trigger. If your country has these things then they have the potential to make guns.

It's a neat little media buzz they have going, but its just buzz. I was awestruck by modern guns when I took them as a hobby. Full of mysterious workings of metal and springs that you don't see in many modern devices. After disassembling things like the old sterling British machine guns I realized they aren't that difficult to make. Once you get a couple designs in your head they really aren't mysterious deadly things anymore. Just metal no more terrifying than a power tool.

Re:Sigh...

[BitZtream]

Nothing.

Its rather trivial to make 'a gun' anyway. You should be less afraid of 3D Printers (which cost money) and more afraid of the Internet where you get directions on how to make guns with shit you can buy at the local hardware store and a few simple hand tools.

Re:Sigh...

[Takatata]

I am afraid this is a bit short sighted. 'Local hardware store' and 'few simple hand tools' are quite a hurdle for the usual left handed couch potato. Downloading a 'gun definition file' and filling some plastic pellets into a 3D printer are not.

Re:Sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe now you'll find out just how sane (or not) your firearm laws really are...

First murder with a printed gun?

[Required Snark]

When will the first murder occur with a printed gun?

When will the first accidental shooting occur with a printed gun?

When will the first child be killed with a printed gun?

When will the first suicide occur with a printed gun?

When will the first robbery occur with a printed gun?

When will the first car jacking occur with a printed gun?

When will the first plane hijack attempt occur with a printed gun?

These are the real world events that no-one in the pro-gun world is willing to acknowledge. It's not a case of if these will happen, but when.

Guns don't make the person carrying one any safer. Remember Christopher Dorner, the rogue cop in LA? He killed two police officers and wounded three others. These were armed trained professionals and they were knew ahead of time that they were the targets. They weren't stupid, they followed protocol, and they all got shot.

Even if you have a gun, if someone gets the drop on you then you are at their mercy. If you think otherwise you're stupid. Rambo, Chuck Norris, John Wayne, James Bond, etc. are people in movies. That's not the real world. Your chances of pulling out your gun and saving the day are something like your chance of being hit by lighting. Saying that you need guns to be safe is a mark of mental instability. As long as you are within shooting range of a gun you are less safe then you would be otherwise. It's simple physics.

I think the first person to be wounded by a printed gun will be in an accidental shooting. This will happen relatively often, because a lot of untrained people will decide to do this with new cheap 3D printers. I also expect there will be a disproportionate number of shootings involving children, because printed guns will seem like toy guns to them, or they will make a mistake. But hey, as long as you have your little penis substitute to make you feel all manly and tough, why should you care?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/3-year-old-accidentally-shoots-dad-death-family-watches-tv-article-1.1116267

Re:First murder with a printed gun?

[Anonymous Coward]

When will the first death occur in Obamacare due to denail of coverage?

This is a REAL WORLD event that no-one in the pro-Obamacare world is willing to acknowledge. It's not a case of if this will happen, but when.

See how easy it is to show how you shouldn't do ANYTHING EVER.

Re:First murder with a printed gun?

[Immerman]

So how does being 3D printed change anything, except by perhaps making the acquisition cheaper and/or easier? I challenge you to find anywhere on Earth where a sufficiently motivated and financed person can't get their hands on a gun today.

>Guns don't make the person carrying one any safer.
Correction - carrying a gun doesn't give confer invulnerability. In most circumstances being armed will increase your survival odds in an open conflict with an armed assailant. Of course if you have the option retreating will likely be even more effective, but that's not always an option for a vareity of reasons, not least of which being if you've charged with apprehending a dangerous individual. Even if you seek to retreat a gun can significantly increase your odds of doing so if your attacker wishes to prevent it and has a decent sense of self preservation. You don't even have to be a good shot - just firing an occasional round reasonably close to your attacker will cause most people to try to maintain cover, buying you precious seconds to make your escape.

Look at it from the other perspective - if the rogue cop *didn't* have a gun, do you think he would have fared nearly as well? And it's not a huge stretch to imagine that instead of a rogue cop it could be a completely innocent guy who witnessed something he shouldn't have and is trying to avoid being silenced.

Re:First murder with a printed gun?

[jon3k]

And when will the first liberal realize that whether the gun was printed or not, or even the fact that a gun was used, has nothing to do with the actual root problem.

Re:White people problems

[Sabriel]

If being hit by traffic is your concern, the centre-line is not the middle path.

Plastic Gunpowder??

[rsborg]

You load it with plastic bullets, which are full of plastic gunpowder.

I've never heard of plastic gunpowder before. I never found any polymer that seemed to be explosive either. Is this some new invention

Re:Plastic Gunpowder??

[Immerman]

I'm sure plastic explosive would do the job, and some formulations are fairly easy to make and quite safe to handle. Of course you couldn't fire it in a normal gun without some sort of relatively sophisticated primer charge - plastique became popular precisely because unlike previous explosives it's extremely stable - you can fire a gun into it or even light it on fire without risk of explosion (it was sometimes used to heat rations during WWII)

Re:Morons. You're not helping.

[He Who Has No Name]

How many false positives do they get? How many false negatives? The auto-sear for a registered conversion device to make an AR-15 capable of automatic fire is an extremely simple object with one moving part and a spring. I can all but guarantee you that somewhere else, somehow, there is a component of some mechanical device that is nearly identical in shape, layout, and dimension.

That's probably the case for most internal parts of most modern weapons, too. Firearms are dazzlingly simple devices when all is said and done. If we start chaining down society from being able to make anything that might be mistaken for a gun, society is going to become fed up with the entire notion of that stupidity in, oh, five minutes. Long enough to find out they can't print their latest design, doodad, iWhatsit accessory, or critical replacement part for a car engine or medical device.

Even with a very good recognition algorithm that somehow didn't piss people off, all it would do is start a design arms race between black market engineers and the bureaucrats maintaining the blacklist. And that would probably, ultimately, drive a level of small arms innovation the likes of which we haven't seen in more than a century.

I fear no government

[Anonymous Coward]

every time some idiot claims they need guns to battle an 'oppressive government', I point out that that the Oklahoma city bombing caused way more damage and killed more than any personal firearm ever could.

Guns in America are all about small minded people grabbing what they perceive to be power.

NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!

[TiggertheMad]

Exactly. Hitler took one look at that and said "never mind"...

Actually, he took a look at them and said, "Invade our bankers and money launderers? Why would we do that? They are helping to fund us when half the world won't trade with us!"

Also, they were neutral and basically German anyway. You know, the whole Aryan thing?

Re:NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!

[Karmashock]

Shows how ignorant you are... he ordered his generals to draw up plans for an invasion of Switzerland. All their estimates came back showing horrific causalities. So he didn't do it.

As to bankers, Germany was bankrupt. That was in part why they went to war. They borrowed money from everyone and used it to fund their industrial build up. Then they invaded their creditors thus negating the need to pay them back.

As to trade, he went to war with the United States and the British Empire... the two powers that dominated international trade at that time. Precisely how would pissing Switzerland off rate compared to that?

I don't know... maybe you were kidding. I can't tell through the internet. And while some people say idiotic things because they're kidding a lot of them are so f'ing clueless they're actually serious.

If you're kidding put in /s tags next time. If you're not...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MRmxfLuNto

comes pre-broken

[burdickjp]

totally awesome that the picture they chose for this shows it with a broken trigger.

I thought sex drove new technology adoption

[Anonymous Coward]

So why a 3d printed gun and not a sex toy? I'm sure a nice (insert your favorite sexual orifice here) would be a big hit.

Outside the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Britain, where handguns are banned and to get a crippled rifle or shotgun you need to jump through a lot of hoops.

I can see this causing a lot of problems

Re:Outside the USA

[BlueStrat]

I live in Britain, where handguns are banned and to get a crippled rifle or shotgun you need to jump through a lot of hoops.

I can see this causing a lot of problems

Those frightened of 3D-printed guns in Britain should be much more worried about people making Sten sub-machine guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten

You Brits were making them like gangbusters in WW2 precisely because they required almost nothing in the way of machining, special/expensive/high-quality/tight-tolerance parts or materials, skills to make, etc etc. Probably still plenty of old original manufacturing templates, jigs, etc scattered about that anyone interested could buy quite cheaply.

Same minimal requirements are needed to produce something like the International Ordnance MP2: http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/37779-2/international_ordnance_MP2_0068.jpg

Just check this site out: http://thehomegunsmith.com/

Those are all much greater real-world, practical threats than some geeks 3D-printing a plastic gun that's as likely to kill/maim the shoot-er as the shoot-ee.

Strat

Re:Outside the USA

[EdgePenguin]

The amount of skill and equipment you need to gather to put together a Sten has been a barrier for them being home made for criminal purposes in the UK since WW2. If matters were as easy as you suggest, then our streets would be plagued by Sten-wielding chavs. The reality is that the UK is a largely gun-free culture, and this applies to criminals too. Pretty much every developed nation outside the US is a testament to how gun control is possible and can make society better.

3D printed guns *may* change that by reducing the skill and equipment you require in one place, and kept secret from the police. I'm hoping that they are overhyping things, and their gun is as likely to take off the shooters fingers as it is to harm the intended target. I don't want the morons who think this http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/index.html is "just an accident" to win

Re:Outside the USA

[BlueStrat]

The amount of skill and equipment you need to gather to put together a Sten has been a barrier for them being home made for criminal purposes in the UK since WW2.

Not too much of a barrier, it seems.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165531/Its-wild-wild-West-Midlands-Homemade-gun-Uzis-Ak47s-make-huge-haul-firearms-seized-police-just-year.html

Pretty much every developed nation outside the US is a testament to how gun control is possible and can make society better.

Depends on what one considers "better". The people featured in the video linked below might disagree with your premise. "Gun control" didn't work out very well for them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmKT43j4Tc

Strat

Re:Outside the USA

[EdgePenguin]

One article from a tabloid is the best evidence you can come up with? Fucking gun nut moron.

Re:Outside the USA

[BlueStrat]

One article from a tabloid is the best evidence you can come up with? Fucking gun nut moron.

Fact/info-free ad hominems are apparently the best you can come up with.

Go massage your neurotic-bordering-on-psychotic fears elsewhere with someone that may care for humoring such.

Strat

Die spinnen, die Amis

[furbyhater]

Dem 'Mericans be craaaazy....

manipulated data

[stenvar]

You shouldn't get your science and statistics out of cartoons. The graph in that cartoon has been manipualted by choosing data points that fit the conclusion, and the reasoning behind the panels is unsound as well.

The US is an outlier (by a factor of two) on both gun ownership and murder rate. But you can look within the US and there is, again, no correlation between gun ownership within populations and their murder rate.

The idea that imposing additional gun control will reduce US murder rates has no scientific support.

Re:manipulated data

[TsuruchiBrian]

There is absolutely a correlation between gun ownership and murder rates. The question is whether gun onwnership causes higher murder rates, or whether this is *only* a correlation.

Re:manipulated data

[stenvar]

There is absolutely a correlation between gun ownership and murder rates.

No, there is no statistically meaningful correlation. I posted scatterplots, you can look at them yourself.

Re:manipulated data

[TsuruchiBrian]

send me a link. What data did you use?

Re:manipulated data

[stenvar]

I posted the links in this discussion thread; just look for the post. I used the data from Wikipedia, which comes from pretty standard sources (Small Arms Survey, UNODC). You can plot it yourself if you don't believe me.

If you want to bring this to a point, just look at Mexico: only 15% of households own guns, half the rate of Germany, but its murder rate is more than 20 times that of Germany and nearly five times that of the US. The US murder rate is higher than Europe because the US is quite a bit more like Mexico than like Europe, and no amount of legislation is going to change that.

Re:manipulated data

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yeah it's easy to cherry pick data. The question is whether gun ownership is correlated with murders, not whether there are some places with more guns and less murders than the USA.

Re:manipulated data

[stenvar]

The question is whether gun ownership is correlated with murders,

Which part of "look at the data" did you not understand? I posted the scatterplots, there is no correlation.

But the issue is not to show whether gun ownership correlates with murders; correlation shows nothing. The issue is whether low gun ownership causes low murder rates. You cannot prove that with specific examples, but you can disprove that hypothesis with specific examples.

So, both your data and your reasoning are wrong.

Re:manipulated data

[TsuruchiBrian]

Which part of "look at the data" did you not understand? I posted the scatterplots, there is no correlation.

I asked you to send me a link to your data. I don't see any links posted by you in this thread. I am not willing to go hunting for your scatter plots when you could just send me a link.

Correlation does not show causation. That does not mean that it shows nothing. I was not claiming that low gun ownership causes low murder rates. I claimed that there is a correlation, which you denied.

You cannot prove that with specific examples, but you can disprove that hypothesis with specific examples.

Absolutely untrue. You can not prove or disprove either with specific examples.

Re:manipulated data

[stenvar]

Absolutely untrue. You can not prove or disprove either with specific examples.

Yes, strangely enough, scientific theories are not symmetric. Causation can be disproven with a single counterexample.

Correlation does not show causation. That does not mean that it shows nothing. I was not claiming that low gun ownership causes low murder rates. I claimed that there is a correlation, which you denied.

Gun control only makes sense if lower gun ownership actually rates likely cause lower murder rates. Correlation is necessary, but not sufficient, to establish causation. There is no correlation, but even if there were, it still wouldn't matter because counterexamples disprove causation.

I asked you to send me a link to your data. I don't see any links posted by you in this thread. I am not willing to go hunting for your scatter plots when you could just send me a link.

It's as much work for me to find the link as it is for you. So stop being so damned lazy. Even better, why don't you actually try to prove your point!

Re:manipulated data

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yes, strangely enough, scientific theories are not symmetric. Causation can be disproven with a single counterexample.

Yes but it has to be the right counterexample. Simply showing a scatter plot does not show causation nor non-causation.

Gun control only makes sense if lower gun ownership actually rates likely cause lower murder rates. Correlation is necessary, but not sufficient, to establish causation. There is no correlation, but even if there were, it still wouldn't matter because counterexamples disprove causation.

I am not arguing for gun control. I am simply pointing out that you are wrong on 2 counts. 1 that there is a correlation between gun ownership and murder rates. And 2 that you can't disprove a causal link with the data you claim to have posted but haven't given me a way to look at.

It's as much work for me to find the link as it is for you. So stop being so damned lazy. Even better, why don't you actually try to prove your point!

It is as much work for me to figure out where you posted a link as it is for you (who already has the link) to simply post it in this thread?

My point is simply that you're claims are bullshit. They are not that gun control causes lower murder rates. People who claim it does are full of shit, and you are doing the same thing.

Re:manipulated data

[stenvar]

1 that there is a correlation between gun ownership and murder rates. And 2 that you can't disprove a causal link with the data you claim to have posted but haven't given me a way to look at.

Put up some data or shut up.

Re:manipulated data

[TsuruchiBrian]

1. I already put up the data.

2. You still can't prove the absence of a causal link with the kind of data you have. This is statistics 101.

Re:manipulated data

[Anonymous Coward]

1. I already put up the data.

There is no link or study anywhere in your last few dozen posts.

2. You still can't prove the absence of a causal link with the kind of data you have. This is statistics 101.

"Gun control legislation causes murder rates to drop." is disproven by a single counterexample. It is also disproven by an absence of a high correlation coefficient.

You're a liar and a moron.

now plot it

[stenvar]

Good, you found some data. Why don't you copy it into your favorite spreadsheet and plot gun ownership vs homicide rates across all nations, or across OECD, and you'll see that there is no correlation.

Re:now plot it

[shawn2772]

Do you know of any report that has done that analysis? I've seen lots of analyses that correlate gun ownership with gun homicide, but that's not really very informative, since it could just mean that people choose the tools that are available when they want to commit murder, not that the availability of the tools actually makes society more dangerous.

Now if, there is a strong correlation between gun ownership and total homicide rate, that may indicate that the presence of guns makes societies more dangerous -- or it may indicate that people living in dangerous societies prefer to own guns, or that some third factor causes both high violence and a tendency to permissiveness with respect to firearms. But at least such a correlation would say something, while the analyses I've seen between gun ownership and gun homicides really don't.

Of course, I suspect that your assertion -- that gun ownership is not correlated with homicide rate -- is correct. But I'd like to see it, and I'm too lazy to do it myself :-)

Re:now plot it

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's no correlation, there's absolutely no reason to ban them.

Check, and mate.

Re:now plot it

[stenvar]

I encourage you to do the evaluation yourself. It literally takes only a few minutes in a spreadsheet or Google Docs, and once you know how to do it, it helps you check lots of other things.

If you really want to see just the pictures, go here. It contains plots for the world, OECD, OECD w/o US and Mexico, and Europe.

http://i.minus.com/id4Z4oYzqltEI.png

http://i.minus.com/isrBKRvyAclXW.png

http://i.minus.com/iPtfP6kkiItiq.png

http://i.minus.com/is6jR1mePdlGS.png

Re:now plot it

[Darth Snowshoe]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

"Myth #2: Guns don't kill people—people kill people.
Fact-check: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership. Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as assault-weapons bans or safe-storage requirements."

And there's a graph. You can see it for yourself.

Re:now plot it

[stenvar]

What I see is an article mixes up homicides, suicides, and gun-deaths, and misuses statistics in the most basic way.

Not only does the MJ article fail to show what it purports to show, the errors and deceptions it contains call into question MJ's competency and integrity.

And yet there are not that many gun crime in EU

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of murder, gun crime, and bank robbery, or whatever is much lower per 100K people than in the US. You keep forgetting that if gun is outlawed, and confiscated from criminal, at some point the source run dry and only criminal WITH MONEY get a gun. It is not as if if there was no market for gun the gun manifacturer would still be able to sell so many and criminal get delivered gun. In fact EU as a whole is an evidence that if you stop gun being widespread, even criminal as a whole get less guns.

Historical footnote

[Rambo Tribble]

While it doesn't appear to be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, some analysts in the wake of WWII attributed more enemy deaths to the original Liberator than to all Allied automatic weapon fire in the war. I guess you had to be there.

Better chance defending with a gun.

[SuperKendall]

If the neighbor owned a gun though, they wouldn't stand a chance.

Yes they would, if they also had a gun - he would have had to break in first and then could have been shot on entry.

It's far, far easier to defend yourself in your home if you have a gun because you can go to any enclosed area and simply shoot whoever opens the door. There have been countless newspaper stories about women taking the kids into a closet and shooting intruders (who were verbally warned not to enter!) when they tried to open the closet.

So you live in stupid

[SuperKendall]

No, I have the education to know that the chances of a criminal shooting me are tiny

The chances of being in a car crash are very, very low.

But I'll bet you wear a seatbelt.

The thing is, even when a chance is small if the upside is huge it's simply a good idea. I wear a seatbelt; I own guns. Both for the same reasons.

The fact that you do one and not the other shows that in fact you are motivated by fear, as much as you like to pretend otherwise.

Re:So you live in stupid

[Sique]

But the chances that I'll accidently or purposefully kill myself with gun, or that an acquintance or relative of me takes my gun to kill me are much higher than that a complete foreigner attempts to shoot me. In the sum, my own gun is about 10 times as dangerous to myself than any other gun. So why increase my risk of being letally shoot by buying a gun?

Re:So you live in stupid

[BasilBrush]

But I'll bet you wear a seatbelt.

a) The law says I have to.
b) There are no downsides.

Neither is applicable to guns.

As has been pointed out to you many times before, your gun is more likely to to kill a member of your family than protect you from crime. Or it cane be stolen by a criminal and used to shoot someone else.
Even if you believe the odds stack the other way in your unique case, the risk is still there.

It's not at all the same as wearing a seatbelt. If you were to have a seatbelt wrapped around your neck as you drive, that would be closer.

We laugh to keep from crying.

[Immerman]

Much (most?) humor is an emotional defensive response against the recognition of painful or uncomfortable realities - I challenge you to think of a joke/prank/etc. that doesn't rest on a physically, socially, or emotionally uncomfortable reality. Fear of death. Displeasure at the complexities of relationships. Poop. (which for some reason primates seem to find both unpleasant and hilarious).

For my part it just seems like evolution in action - the stupidity of the parents resulted in the death of one of their children - such things have been happening since the dawn of life and are at least partially responsible for the fact that we're as intelligent as we are. Tragic, but an almost necessary part of the process. At least it was their own child that died and not some unlucky third party, so at least some small measure of species-benefit can come from the elimination of unfit genes.

That's too bad...

[DrStoooopid]

...if he knew anything about history, he would've called it: "The Liberator 2.0"

If guns are not needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does Britain have an army?

If crime is not a problem there, why purpose does persistent CCTV surveillance have?

Never mind your shallow interpretation of The English Civil War that happened in 1642 in a gun debate. They had some guns, but they were not equalizers nor was the war people vs tyranny. It was one political group against another. Might as well been two separate states for the remainder for all they had in common.Let alone your example of The Spanish Civil War. A war fought with tanks and military support to impose a fascist state that destroyed the country economically, politically, and socially for a significant chunk of the last century. Those are not valid examples of an unarmed population able to defend themselves.

Since it is 'share your opinions on the internets' time. Here is mine: I have traveled and seen much, but never have I seen a hypocritical and pompous population on the scale of the brits. Americans are as diverse as Europeans, they just put individual freedom at the top of their political priority list instead of social order, harmony, compliance, religion, nationalism, and the many other things that other countries choose to put at the top of theirs.

Their real motives will be revealed

[QuebecNerd]

I think that the real motives of the NRA has more to do with the liberty of companies to sell guns than with the liberty of people to own them.

If it ever come to the point were guns sales plummet 50% because people are 3D Printing them for a few dollars instead of purchasing them from gun manufacturers for a few 100s... I would be curious to see the NRA's reaction.

Just sayin...

But doctor, all de bullets are up his nose!

[doccus]

No plastic bullets? No worry.. "tap tap tap" BOOM...

Long lasting printable guns

[BitZtream]

If you want to make a 'proper' gun, you print the gun parts in the cheap enviromentally friendly plastic they use in 3d printers anyway ( PLA )

Then you make a metal version using the 'lost PLA' method.

End result is that you can pretty easily make a METAL gun, with all the durability advantages that go with it.

Throw in a hone for the barral and you can make a pretty fucking accurate weapon out of a 3d printer or CNC machine that you can make cheap as shit. Or as the other article points out, just buy the 3d printer from Staples.

Now we can have more accidental deaths

[lsatenstein]

Reported this past week in NYtimes. A 4 year old using a "scaled down rifle", (built smaller for kids) shot and killed his 2 year old sister. The gun or rifle was supposedly unloaded, but a bullet was left in the chamber. Click, bang dead.

Yes, we need more guns.

Perhaps the answer is to allow printing guns such that the NRA cannot profit from any sales. Maybe then, we replace one evil with another.

Some people just don't get it.

[tboulay]

Hitmen have just found a murder weapon that they can print, shoot and then melt down into a set of coasters. I wonder what a 22 round shot from coffee coasters will come up as when it's run through a ballistics database? Actually, if cops come to question him he could offer them a cup of coffee and make sure not to stain his table by setting their cups on a recycled murder weapon or 2.
 

TL;DR

[fearofcarpet]

From TFA:

In the Forbes article, other than "a single nail that is used as a firing pin", the gun also includes another nonprintable part. The group, the article says, added a six-ounce chunk of steel into the body to make it detectable by metal detectors in order to comply with the undetectable firearms act. The act, Congressman Steve Israel says, is set to expire at the end of the year. "The very least we should do, as a matter of common sense, is extend the undetectable firearms act so that a plastic gun or component can't be brought onto planes because a metal detector can't detect them," notes Israel.

I could never understand why people have no problem with a law that categorically bans ALL guns that are made from non-ferrous materials, and/or that do not look like a gun by X-Ray, but run around like crazy people talking about armed citizens overthrowing the government over limitations on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines--or f***ing background checks. The only way a citizens group would ever have a chance at affecting change in government with guns would be by assassinating a politician--you have no chance against the military or police, sorry. And the Undetectable Firearms Act was written pretty much with that problem in mind (and, obviously other public places like airports.) Why then aren't people pooping their pants over this clear restriction to the supposed core principle of the Second Amendment?

Seriously, where are the protests and demonstrations against the banning of plastic guns 25 years ago? Where were all the threats to vote politicians out of office for violating their constitutional rights? If the answer to the theater shooting in Aurora was that movie-goers should have been carrying guns, and the answer to school shootings is armed teachers, then why not airplanes? Wouldn't we all feel safer if everyone in an airplane was carrying an undetectable plastic gun? I mean, what can box cutters do against bullets? This cognitive dissonance (and the total capitulation of the trampling of the rest of the Bill of Rights) perplexes me.

So, it's a fancy 3d printed zip gun.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing to see here, these aren't new or especially hard to make.

Basically a tube to hold the bullet with a few variations on how to activate it.