Printable Gun Downloads Top 100k In 2 Days, Thanks to Kim Dotcom

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "The promise of a fully 3D-printable gun is that it can spread via the Internet and entirely circumvent gun control laws. Two days after that digital weapon's blueprint first appeared online, it seems to be fulfilling that promise. Files for the printable gun known as that 'Liberator' have been downloaded more than 100,000 times in two days, according to Defense Distributed, the group that created it. Those downloads were facilitated by Kim Dotcom's startup Mega, which Defense Distributed is using to host the Liberator's CAD files. And it's also been uploaded to the Pirate Bay, where it's one of the most popular files in the filesharing site's uncensorable 3D printing category."

Comments

Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

The way this is promoted in the news you'd think that zip guns never existed, and until "just hours ago" there was no way to come up with an improvised weapon.

Re:Yawn

[TWiTfan]

Yeah, but this is the *hip*, *new* way to create cheap-ass zip guns!

It's also a conveniently great excuse for the corporate slaves in Congress to decry those terrorist facilitators at Mega and The Pirate Bay.

Re:Yawn

[StripedCow]

Just like tablets didn't exist before the iPad.

Re:Yawn

[CanHasDIY]

Yeah, but this is the *hip*, *new* way to create cheap-ass zip guns!

No, it's the hip new way of creating zip guns that cost more than several actual firearms would, considering the cost of the printer and materials.

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

But guns aren't illegal in the United States. Why would our congress be concerned with this?

Re: Yawn

[TWiTfan]

They're not. But they ARE concerned with pirated movies, music, and software.

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

But guns aren't illegal in the United States. Why would our congress be concerned with this?

Because you are attempting to manufacture something that they cannot track or tax appropriately. The latter probably has them more up in arms than anything.

Re:Yawn

[mcmonkey]

The way this is promoted in the news you'd think that zip guns never existed, and until "just hours ago" there was no way to come up with an improvised weapon.

The difference is, things like "zip guns" are actual guns that fire. This story is about plans that could potentially be used to make a gun. Are there 100k 3D printers that could use these plans in existence?

I'm guessing most of these downloads will live the life of most warez and media downloaded. It will sit forgotten in someone's download folder, gathering dust, until it is eventually deleted or lost unused.

100k downloads translate into how many guns printed? I'd put the over/under at 20.

Re:Yawn

[cold fjord]

It's also a conveniently great excuse for the corporate slaves in Congress to decry those terrorist facilitators at Mega and The Pirate Bay.

I think there is a more interesting question. Kim Dotcom had a lot of support on Slashdot and across the internet when it was the US government pursuing him for allegations of criminal copyright infringement. How much of that support will evaporate now that he has been linked to Defense Distributed's gun project? I would think there will be at least some who will turn up their nose at this. There are a lot of progressives around here, and many of them are opposed to personal firearms ownership.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but this is the *hip*, *new* way to create cheap-ass zip guns!

It's also a conveniently great excuse for the corporate slaves in Congress to decry those terrorist facilitators at Mega and The Pirate Bay.

Ah, correction. This is the hipster lazy-ass way of basically doing anything, with absolutely minimum effort required (physical or mental) to create it.

Re:Yawn

[DigiShaman]

Ammo is the problem. But I can imagine them being created and distributed among gangs. You think urban crime is bad now? You haven't seen nothing yet once the basement dwelling production starts.

Re:Yawn

[xenobyte]

There are a lot of progressives around here, and many of them are opposed to personal firearms ownership.

Certainly not all of us. I'm very much for gun ownership for one reason: As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted), and cannot guarantee against the authorities abusing their armed power against the people (this has happened countless times already), people need to be armed in order to meet the challenge on an equal footing.

Re:Yawn

[Feyshtey]

if you think this technology has reached its zenith you're out of your mind. The Genie is out of the bottle. and materials science will just be ongoing massive Genie Steriods injections.

Besides, the beauty of 3d printing is that you can print most of another printer...

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking in terms of money via standard sales. You need to compare it to the cost of acquiring a firearm if you knew you would fail a background check.

This isn't for people who can walk into Walmart and walk out with a firearm.

Re:Yawn

[CanHasDIY]

Ammo is the problem. But I can imagine them being created and distributed among gangs. You think urban crime is bad now? You haven't seen nothing yet once the basement dwelling production starts.

Malarky.

Gang bangers can get a Saturday Night Special for less than $100 on the black market, one that's good for several shots. A 3d printed gun is good for maybe 1 shot, barring catastrophic failure, and use hundreds of dollars worth of material, not to mention the cost of the printer to make them with.

The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of progressives around here, and many of them are opposed to personal firearms ownership.

I really wish that word would stop getting associated with the Democrats. They've already ruined the meaning of "liberal", was that not enough?

Re:Yawn

[xorsyst]

As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted),

Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low.

Re:Yawn

[cyber-vandal]

Yes issue everyone with their own army, air force, navy and nuclear weapons.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

This has nothing to do with a printable gun, that's just being used as a means to an end. This media frenzy is purely about controlling the printers and what better way than to use guns! An awful lot of companies are trying to have them banned for private usage because they're terrified they'll eventually lead to the great unwashed masses making their own junk from "pirated plans".

Re:Yawn

[Grimbleton]

I consider myself pretty socially progressive. Fortunately that has nothing to do with guns, which I love!

Re:Yawn

[Archangel Michael]

The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.

For now. Tech will get better, faster, cheaper, always.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's the hip new way of creating zip guns that cost more than several actual firearms would, considering the cost of the printer and materials.

Why would you consider the cost of the printer, but not the cost of a gun factory? What matters is whether or not the 3D printed gun has a lower black market sale price.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the fact that you can print a zip gun that matters. The real story here is a dramatic lowering of the threshold of skill required to make one. Before this, you needed at least rudimentary metalworking and shop knowledge, as well as a non-trivial cost in shop machinery and materials to produce one. That already cuts out a significant fraction of the population. With the printable variant, though, there is no skill threshold anymore, and the cost of machinery is reduced to just the cost of the 3D printer and the ABS plastic.

In a nutshell, it's not so much the final product that's a game changer, but a (potential) dramatic lowering of the necessary thresholds, as it has been with so many game-changing technologies in the past.

Re:Yawn

[CanHasDIY]

The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.

For now. Tech will get better, faster, cheaper, always.

... and it will still be FUD by definition to assume the worst of said technological development.

Sure, in the future it may lead to cheaper weapons for criminals, but conversely, it will also lead to cheaper weapons for the oppressed. So, unless you're a supporter of fascist totalitarianism, there is an obvious upside.

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the genuine conservatives whose name has been ruined due to association with Republicans. Or family-values, which seems to including having a foreign mistress that you lie about being out of the country with.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between a printed gun and an old fashioned zip gun is that these can get past metal detectors. That's why the media is freaking out over them.

Re:Yawn

[Em Adespoton]

There are a lot of progressives around here, and many of them are opposed to personal firearms ownership.

I really wish that word would stop getting associated with the Democrats. They've already ruined the meaning of "liberal", was that not enough?

In Canada, it's been associated with the Conservatives, not the liberals.

In Canada, the Conservatives are progressive, the Democrats are new, and the Liberals party. If that's not enough to make you Green, I'm not sure what is.

Re:Yawn

[nospam007]

"No, it's the hip new way of creating zip guns that cost more than several actual firearms would, considering the cost of the printer and materials."

It's for nerd-terrorists. They'll change the drawing slightly before sharing it with thousands of hicks and watch the news until the exploding 3d printed gun reports are getting in.

Re:Yawn

[tnk1]

Sometimes when it means a weapon you can produce, on demand, with the materials at hand, the price is right no matter if it is much higher than otherwise.

Not to mention that eventually, this process could produce a weapons superior to the crap that it creates now. The more people looking at this process and being able to replicate it, the better it could become.

Agreed, that for people who know better, the current state of this art is overhyped crap. Too bad it is extremely illegal and even more unethical to try and make some money off the craze. Unless your name is Kim Dotcom anyway.

Re:Yawn

[jxander]

Someone hurry and patent "a zip gun, but from a computer!" It's an entirely new idea.

Be sure to include specifications about the roundness of any edges.

Re: Yawn

[Em Adespoton]

But guns aren't illegal in the United States. Why would our congress be concerned with this?

Because you are attempting to manufacture something that they cannot track or tax appropriately. The latter probably has them more up in arms than anything.

No, it's because distributing plans allowing anyone to make guns steals profits from time-honoured companies like S&W, Remington, Winchester and Colt. They'll want a piece of this action, and the ability to only trade DRM'd gun plans.

Re: Yawn

[lgw]

Those guys aren't concerned about this tech at all right now. You can get an AK-47 kit cheaper than a 3D printer in the US, and that hasn't hurt their business any. Now, many years from now when you can print a gun that looks just like one of the high-end guns from those companies, they'll be up in arms over trademark violations, but that's far off.

I not sure your typical /.er is aware of this, but annual gun sales have about doubled since Obama took office, and the joke of putting Obama's picture on a "salesman of the year" plaque has gone past common to cliche. The gun industry as a whole is quite happy with the current state of affairs.

Re:Yawn

[CanHasDIY]

As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted),

Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low.

Yet they have more violent crime per-capita than we do in the US.

Re:Yawn

[cold fjord]

Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low.

Nonetheless . . .

Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control

Re:Yawn

[lgw]

Florida has a Green Nazi party - complete with a green swastika logo. I can't even guess what their platform is.

Re:Yawn

[HornWumpus]

A zip gun factory is a drill press, a vice and a chamber reamer. Lowes will cut the black pipe for you for free. Though Getting a 20 foot length cut into 40 6 inch pieces, each with one end threaded and 40 caps might get you the stink eye and a followup visit from the feds. Best to use someone else's car and pay cash.

Re:Yawn

[CanHasDIY]

Same here. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to help the less fortunate, so long as our civil liberties are not fucked with.

Re:Yawn

[HornWumpus]

Hicks know better and already own a bunch of real guns.

What you'd get with the modified version is the urban script kiddies. New York City hicks (they think the world ends at the border of their home town).

Re:Yawn

[gl4ss]

Ammo is the problem. But I can imagine them being created and distributed among gangs. You think urban crime is bad now? You haven't seen nothing yet once the basement dwelling production starts.

pfftafasd fjasdfjaod fjijf aosdö fkasd mjfasd fmcjasdoc fmasdo cfasdj

people are just so fucking stupid.

and ignorant of even gang history.

fucking eeediots I tell you. american gangs post ww2 when they started forming were originally using zipguns, fists and improvised weapons.. but since then guns have become so fucking cheap that why bother? and even then it's still better to make a zipgun with hw store tools than via this route.

if you have a fucking basement shop to make the guns build friggin stens.

 

Re:Yawn

[xorsyst]

As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted),

Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low.

Yet they have more violent crime per-capita than we do in the US.

That may or may not be true, but isn't directly related to my point really, is it?

Re:Yawn

[CanHasDIY]

It's not the fact that you can print a zip gun that matters. The real story here is a dramatic lowering of the threshold of skill required to make one. Before this, you needed at least $50 and access to a hardware store to produce one.

FTFY.

Nothing but FUD.

Re:Yawn

[HornWumpus]

I don't know of anything illegal or unethical about making a bunch of zip guns and turning them in for a gun buy-back. I'd go so far as to say it's a moral imperative. If you don't drain the gun buy-back fund with profitable junk, quality guns will be destroyed and utility will be lost.

Re:Yawn

[jythie]

Better faster and cheaper perhaps, but that does not mean that this particular method will ever be more cost effective then guns milled on existing hardware which will also continue to, as you say, get better/faster/cheaper. For that matter, it is not true that any individual technology will always get better faster or cheaper. History is littered with technologies that encountered diminishing returns on improvements and were abandoned or relegated to niches where there strengths outweigh their weaknesses and lack of advancement.

Re:Yawn

[jythie]

Realistically, this method is not for people who could not otherwise obtain a weapon and is unlikely to ever be. What it does do is produce a physical manifestation of a largely intellectual and ideological point as part of a larger discussion. Such techniques are unlikely to have any impact on actual access to or ownership of weapons.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Points at the local pawn shop going for $150. 9mm good for more than a few shots and mag changes. And that's a legal channel -- gray market at the absolute worst.

I agree with you... it's one thing to be concerned about this on the basic of plastics and metal detection bypass (even if such concerns are bullshit -- assassins are a different class of individual). It's another to think this is revolutionary. For a bit of paperwork you can legally turn a typical tire gauge into a single shot .22 .

Really, is everybody so young or naive they've never seen or at least heard of old zip guns? A cheap firearm isn't exactly a wonder of mechanical engineering -- and if you go the shotgun/unrifled route, it doesn't get much more straightforward. tube that withstands pressure, something to keep the cartridge in position, something to hit the primer... done.

It's like the people that don't get that semi auto is actually more complicated to manufacture and design than full auto...

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

" gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low."

Pretty low isn't low enough if you're forced to deal with one of the armed ones. Why is it acceptable for the victim to have to die in that scenario?

Re:Yawn

[Mr. Slippery]

Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low.

...because when the population is disarmed, crooks don't need guns to inflict a violent crime rate much higher than that of the U.S.

A 20-something male mugger doesn't need a gun to attack the average 70-year-old lady; Grandma needs the gun to protect herself.

Re:Yawn

[harrkev]

Not to mention that eventually, this process could produce a weapons superior to the crap that it creates now.

Seriously? A plastic magazine I can understand (I have a couple). A plastic receiver? Maybe, just maybe. Even real "plastic pistols" have steel rails reinforcing them. A plastic barrel? No thank you. Without a decent source of steel barrels, I do not see ANYTHING good coming from this except for more "Darwin Award" candidates.

Not to mention that the "Liberators" (aka "the Darwinator") is a single-shot. Not a lot of room for improvement in single-shot guns. The tech is pretty much down to a science at this point (open action, replace bullet).

Now, if 3d printing has a way to use stronger plastics in the future, the MAYBE this will lead to some unique designs, but I would still want steel in the barrel and the bolt. And how exactly would you 3D print an extractor claw, small pins and springs, etc. that are strong enough to survive more than one shot?

Re: Yawn

[jythie]

Heh, I am actually wondering if the NRA and its supporters in congress might come down on these since I could actually see some of its sponsors (i.e. the gun manufacturers, who pull the NRA's financial and back-room strings) feeling threatened. Right now the barrier to producing weapons for your own use is mostly one of time and skill, but the barrier to selling guns is high enough that there are only a handful of companies that do it on any significant scale. The idea of free CAD files floating around allowing people to skip the manufacturers and print their own, even if most gun owners still go to the store, might worry them.

Re:Yawn

[xorsyst]

No, it's because the penalty for owning an illegal firearm is significantly more than the penalty for many violent crimes.

Re: Yawn

[jythie]

Thing is, many of those companies are already pretty paranoid. Any hint of even the smallest regulation and get bent out of shape even if the potential impact on them is minimal. They have exhibited extreme slippery slope thinking, which in this case means that they might start getting concerned long before such techniques could even begin to have a measurable impact on their bottom line. Maybe.

Re:Yawn

[xorsyst]

I don't recall where I said it was.

Re: Yawn

[Zeorge]

Uh, have you used a 3D printer before? You really think it's plug-n-play with no skill set required? How about being able to use AutoCAD or Solidworks? The programs to slice and compile the gcode? I guess if you have 8k to spend on a used, commercial, 3D printer you can print without any prior CAD knowledge but I have yet to meet someone who had either an open source or commercial printer who did nit have to have some understanding of CAD. So, we went from rudimentary metal shop skills and $50 of tools and parts to $2k ( for a hobby printer that has a build envelope large enough fir the gun parts) or $8k for a used printer off of eBay. Throw in hours of learning any variant of free or commercial CAD software and some more hours learning the printer. Yeah, not exactly available to the typical gangbanger.

Re:Yawn

[AmiMoJo]

The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.

For now. 3D printers themselves were thousands of Dollars a few years ago.

This has been coming for a long time. Metalworking equipment has been getting cheaper and better for a few hundred years, and plastic working equipment since the invention of modern plastics.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, the plastic used to print this is cheap. It probably costs like $2 to actually print the thing. The printer is the only real expense.

Re:Yawn

[CanHasDIY]

The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.

For now. 3D printers themselves were thousands of Dollars a few years ago.

Doesn't matter - people have been able to build a zip gun, at least equivalent in capability and reliability as the 3D printed gun (moreso in many cases), for less than $50 in parts since at least the 1960's.

US Army manual TM 31-210, which can be had for free with no more effort than a Google search, has instructions on several different versions.

Re:Yawn

[Agent0013]

As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted),

Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low.

Yet they have more violent crime per-capita than we do in the US.

That may or may not be true, but isn't directly related to my point really, is it?

Yes, it is directly related. A 90 year old grandmother can defend herself against a knife wielding rapist if she has a gun. Without it she is relegated to only being a victim. Unless she is some sort of Navy Seal that can fight the criminal on his own terms.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there is no way anyone will ever figure out solutions to those problems. Let me guess, your momma told you you were special, and you think you know more than anyone else, and since you think there is no solution, well, then, there isn't one.

Re:Yawn

[SolitaryMan]

Why are you so worried if other people want to turn their guns in for a buy-back, my freedom loving friend?

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

No worries. We'll shoot them first.

Re:Yawn

[Myopic]

It's nice you admit that xenobyte was wrong and xorsyst was right. Some commenters try to change the subject or do hand-waving to distract from the truth of a statement.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, abso-freaking-lutely. I dream of the day where MAD is between people, not countries.

Re:Yawn

[AmiMoJo]

In countries where most people don't have guns criminals tend not to want them. For a start the punishment for committing a crime using a gun is higher so criminals are better off avoiding them if possible. Since they know their victims can't just shoot them dead they prefer to simply run for it if discovered most of the time.

Gun crime is pretty rare in the UK, and tends to mostly be between gangs where things have escalated. Even high value robberies of banks and jewellers tend not to involve guns most of the time. Most criminals try to avoid discovery and confrontation anyway.

Besides which guns don't put you on an equal footing. You are surprised by an armed criminal, now you have to get/draw your weapon and aim it at them. Chances are they already have it pointed at you and will start firing when they see you intend to kill them. Statistics clearly support this - if the victim is armed they are more likely to be shot themselves.

Re:Yawn

[BenJury]

As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted),

Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low.

Yet they have more violent crime per-capita than we do in the US.

That's actually not true. The statistics that both countries produce are based on different criteria. For example, AFAIK, the UK includes crimes where there is just a threat of violence. (no actual bodily harm has to occur) In the US crimes of aggravated assault and above are counted. So 'violent crime' is a oranges vs apples comparison. Arguably a better comparison is the murder rate, which is ~4.8 for the US and ~1.2 for the UK.

Re: Yawn

[SolitaryMan]

Which is also the reason for the outcry about gun control. Freedom my ass, only thing they care about is their corporate sponsors.

Re:Yawn

[Atzanteol]

I think the point is that cost and availability are not currently impediments to gang members who want guns. So solving those "problems" changes nothing.

Re:Yawn

[SolitaryMan]

Number of intentional homicides per 100k people:

US: 4.8

UK: 1.2

source

Re:Yawn

[cold fjord]

Since combining libertarian with "National Socialist" essentially results in a oxymoron, I'm going with it being a joke.

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party

The Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (LNSGP) is an American organization that cites the National Socialist German Workers Party as its primary ideological inspiration, while also incorporating elements of Libertarianism and the Green movement. It has not been established whether LNSGP has any activity or existence other than through the website associated with the domain name nazi.org. . .

The LNSGP at present has no intention of gaining ballot access or fielding political candidates, and it has been suggested that it is a joke, e.g. in its entry at politics1.com,[1].

Re:Yawn

[yli2008]

Cost is not the only factor. For a criminal, the prospect to creating guns without serial numbers is potentially very appealing. You are right that currently, the tech is very expensive and not practical, but it *will* be only a matter of time before it becomes cheap, reliable, and mass-producible, and when that happens, printed guns become more and more appealing. Depending on how much the Tech ramps up, those $100 Saturday Night specials will be replaced by $100 printed pieces. There will come a time when someone commits a murder with one of these guns, and then everyone will proceed to lose their shit and demand the lawmakers drop the regulation anvil on printed guns.

Re:Yawn

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm

Yes, it is accurate to state we have more recorded Violent Crime than you have in the USA. However I cannot help but notice, that you fail to qualify your statement by noting that the 2 countries use different methods to record/classify Violent Crimes. The following quote from the wikipedia article sums up the issue : "The comparison of violent crime statistics between countries is usually problematic, due to the way different countries classify crime. (1)"

I will leave it you to do the research into the differences in how our 2 countries record & classify violent crimes. I have provided links to both the FBI (2) and the ONS (3) report on Crime in England and Wales as starting points for your research...

Link :
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime
2. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
3. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_283456.pdf (page 16)

Re:Yawn

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.

Currently. However, you do realize the first real, large-scale mass production, where all parts are made to within a fine tolerance, and can be pulled from bins rather than having craftsmen custom-fit everthing, was guns during the Civil War? Decades before Henry Ford applied ot to cars.

Porn leads the way in consumer electronics, and guns in manufacturing.

Re:Yawn

[westlake]

As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns

There are two types of criminals with guns, the amateur and the pro. One is unpredictable, the other has experience. Neither play fair. Neither leaned their skills on the target range. Both will do their very best to take you by surprise.

You can't keep a gun close at night without the risk of shooting your wife, your kid and your cat by accident.

people need to be armed in order to meet the challenge on an equal footing.

There is no equal footing.

The real restraints on the police and military are political and social. if it comes down to a test of raw firepower, material ad resources, you lose.

Re:Yawn

[HornWumpus]

They are ether being defrauded after being scared or they are working the system for profit. Frightening then defrauding someone is unethical.

Re:Yawn

[ganjadude]

Because a lot of guns that are rare get turned in. it would be much better off to let someone buy them instead of destroying a perfectly good and rare tool.

Re:Yawn

[MooseTick]

"A 90 year old grandmother can defend herself against a knife wielding rapist if she has a gun. Without it she is relegated to only being a victim."

I guess there is no way she could own a knife also. Or pepper spray, or a taser, or mace. Without a gun the elderly are generally helpless against a knife wielding rapist?

Re:Yawn

[ganjadude]

The murder rate in the us has drops from almost 20K in the early 90s to just about 10K last year. If we can cut murder by 1/2 in 20 years with assault rifle bans expiring in the process. I dont see why we need any new laws.

Re:Yawn

[Laur]

A 90 year old grandmother can defend herself against a knife wielding rapist if she has a gun. Without it she is relegated to only being a victim. Unless she is some sort of Navy Seal that can fight the criminal on his own terms.

Or she could use pepper spray. Incapacitates faster than a gun and requires less accuracy, plus the enormous benefit that you're much less likely to kill someone with it (including yourself or loved ones).

Re:Yawn

[Tr3vin]

Sure, in the future it may lead to cheaper weapons for criminals, but conversely, it will also lead to cheaper weapons for the oppressed.

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

Re:Yawn

[Jhon]

"Simply not true - gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low."

Maybe I missed something, but I do not read ANYWHERE in the GP that he claimed that gun ownership in the UK was high. He claimed: "As long as we cannot prevent criminals from having guns (most do, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted),"

Your statement basically affirms what he said. Saying that it is "Simply not true" is demonstrably wrong. However, if you said: "You are right, but it's still pretty low" that would have added to the discussion rather than create a distraction.

Re:Yawn

[Jhon]

"That may or may not be true, but isn't directly related to my point really, is it?"

Which point is that? The point in which you were wrong about the GP's post being "Simply not true"? That point?

Re:Yawn

[jandrese]

Also, how hard is it to just buy a gun in the US? Sure if you're a criminally insane felon you'll have to go to a gun show or use the internet or get someone else to buy it for you, but that's hardly a barrier.

Re:Yawn

[swillden]

The way this is promoted in the news you'd think that zip guns never existed, and until "just hours ago" there was no way to come up with an improvised weapon.

This first iteration is roughly equivalent to (perhaps arguably inferior to) a zip gun... but there are some limitations on the capability of zip guns which 3D-printed guns don't have. Specifically, zip guns are simple because they must be simple. A gun with complex, detailed parts cannot be easily crafted by an unskilled person. That same limitation does not apply to 3D printed guns. Indeed, even this first iteration has inner workings which are far more sophisticated than the zip gun (in fact, it's overly complicated).

What does that mean? It means that we're only a bit (okay, a lot) of design work away from a printable automatic, or even select-fire, magazine-fed gun. Durability may always be a problem, especially for the parts that have to handle high pressures, but what if we combine the simple, strong parts of a zip gun with a sophisticated 3D-printed frame and action?

The point is that what's been made so far isn't really all that useful or interesting... but it's only the beginning. It will get better, much better, as both 3D printers and the designs improve. It will also get cheaper.

Re:Yawn

[Jhon]

"and cannot guarantee against the authorities abusing their armed power against the people (this has happened countless times already)"

Here's a question that most people don't consider:

Given the thought of an "ARMED populous in the US' is in part to insure protection against Government tyranny or to out right overthrow a tyrannical Government" is scoffed at by most, why is it we send arms to "rebels" in other countries (who would otherwise be grocers or cobblers or other benign profession) to help them?

It doesn't take a lot of people unwilling to live by the common law to cause major problems.

Re:Yawn

[LF11]

Technical correction: The weapon was tested to 9 or 10 shots, not just 1. Not many, but enough.

In my opinion, the principle value of this is in the hystrionics it induces in the hearts of people who don't understand civil liberties.

Re:Yawn

[xorsyst]

The GP made a statement of fact that was false. I corrected him. At no point did I argue for gun control, or state that violent crime is higher or lower in either country.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

And totally different definitions of what is reported as "violent crime".

Re:Yawn

[xorsyst]

He said that most criminals have guns, even in countries where gun possession is highly restricted.
The UK is a country where gun possession is highly restricted
Gun possession by criminals in the UK is pretty low
Therefore his assertion was wrong.

Re:Yawn

[xorsyst]

No, it's tangentially related. My point was that he stated a factual inaccuracy, and I was pulling him up on it.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Or she could use pepper spray. Incapacitates faster than a gun and requires less accuracy, plus the enormous benefit that you're much less likely to kill someone with it (including yourself or loved ones).

Pepper spray is very inaccurate. You are more likely to get the crap in your own eye. Also it only incapacitate if you are able to run, else you only get a more enraged rapist. Why do you hate elder and handicapped peoples?

And BTW, pepper spray, tazer, baton and other 'defense' device are as restricted then gun in many states because they are all able to cause death in the right circumstance just like a gun can cause death in the right circumstance (eg: shoot the head, heart or major artery. Anything else is never fatal when threated)

Re:Yawn

[SolitaryMan]

They are not yours and it is not up to you to decide what owners do with them.

Yeah, may be some antiques get destroyed. I guess this is the price you have to pay for living in a free society.

Re: Yawn

[Solandri]

That's actually the more interesting part about this I think. Up until now, most people have thought of copyright as only applying to intangible goods like movies, music, and software. So "it's ok" if the copyright terms are extended to ridiculous lengths because it doesn't affect anything physical.

What they don't realize is that what we decide about copyright based on intangible goods is going to directly affect our access to tangible goods in the future. As 3D printing technology improves, eventually you're going to be able to print your own car. Except if the plans for all modern cars are protected by a death+70 year copyright, the only car you'll be able to print is what your great-grandparents were driven around in when they were kids. That's why copyright needs to be rolled back to something like 25-50 years - slightly longer than patents which were designed from the get-go with tangible goods in mind.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm progressive on a lot of issues - pro-choice, pro-single payer healthcare, pro marriage equality. I'm also pro-personal gun ownership, at least in the context of the US, where the magical "make all the guns disappear" fairy is unlikely to appear. I guess that makes me a sort of libertarian, but one who recognizes that there are cases like healthcare where the government should intervene.

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Any hint of even the smallest regulation and get bent out of shape even if the potential impact on them is minimal. They have exhibited extreme slippery slope thinking

One: the sales double when they squawk in the face of potential regulation. Two: regulation really would mean reduced sales, so it's a no-brainer for them. Squawk squawk squawk.

But regarding slippery slope thinking: When history has provided clear examples for the use of gun control in genocide or public "reeducation", and when the opposition has foolishly tipped their hat ("Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The goal is prohibition of private ownership of firearms.") it's not really slippery slope thinking any more, just straight-up logic.
Also, why describe the use of "slippery slope" as pejorative? When discussing risk aversion, "slippery slope" is both natural and effective. The Founders engaged in "slippery slope" thinking when discussing separation of powers in the constitution, and every one of the amendments in the bill of rights (and whether the bill of rights should exist at all).

Re:Yawn

[TWiTfan]

Florida has a Green Nazi party - complete with a green swastika logo. I can't even guess what their platform is.

More ecologically-friendly ovens.

Re:Yawn

[SolitaryMan]

There are a lot of baseless assumptions about other people's motivations you are making there.

Re:Yawn

[ganjadude]

you are right, it is not my decision. but i would much rather see these beautiful antiques be preserved and not destroyed. to me its no different then book burning

Re:Yawn

[Archangel Michael]

Bingo! From Petty criminals to mass murdering despots. The only problem for both is when the victim can fight back.

Re:Yawn

[Archangel Michael]

Criminals will always get weapons. Even if it is a hammer. We going to ban Hammers because they kill more people than rifles?

Re:Yawn

[RevDisk]

Think a car enthusiast would cry if a beautifully restored muscle car was slagged to buy a Ford Focus during that whole "Cash for Clunkers" thing? That a craftsman would cry if he heard of a spouse selling tens of thousands of dollars worth of tools for a pittance?

Some enterprising folks DO set up shop outside those gun buyback programs and rescue the good weapons. Gun buy-backs are just good ways of disposing of junk or evidence.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides which guns don't put you on an equal footing. You are surprised by an armed criminal, now you have to get/draw your weapon and aim it at them. Chances are they already have it pointed at you and will start firing when they see you intend to kill them. Statistics clearly support this - if the victim is armed they are more likely to be shot themselves.

Being shot does not equal being killed. I met an old dude who shot a mugger in the face. The mugger shot him first. Old dude was old when this happened, but survived getting shot.

Re:Yawn

[Nadaka]

I am extremely progressive. Some might even call me a god damn socialist and I wouldn't be offended. And yes, the right to bear arms is something I believe in. We need guns to protect ourselves from the theocrats and fascists.

Re:Yawn

[Nadaka]

Pepper spray doesn't necessarily incapacitate more quickly, and definitely does not incapacitate more reliably.

Re:Yawn

[cold fjord]

I guess there is no way she could own a knife also. Or pepper spray, or a taser, or mace. Without a gun the elderly are generally helpless against a knife wielding rapist?

Knife fighting tends to be pretty physical. The mismatch between a 90 year old woman and a 20 year old man is pretty substantial, don't you think? As far as I know, pepper spray and tasers are illegal for private citizens to possess in the UK.

Are stun guns legal in the UK?

It is against the law to import:High voltage electric 'stun guns'.
Pepper sprays, CS gas canisters and other self defence sprays.
High-powered air rifles.
Martial Arts weapons such as death stars and swordsticks.
Knives that have a concealed blade or a sharp point such as belt buckle blades.

Besides that practical problem, there is another:

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .

Read this bit of madness - and there are far too many cases like it: Five years in prison for acting in self-defence

There are attempts at reform, but there doesn't seem to be enough movement.

A rather different example: Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder

Re:Yawn

[sethradio]

The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.

For now. Tech will get better, faster, cheaper, always.

... and it will still be FUD by definition to assume the worst of said technological development.

Sure, in the future it may lead to cheaper weapons for criminals, but conversely, it will also lead to cheaper weapons for the oppressed. So, unless you're a supporter of fascist totalitarianism, there is an obvious upside.

Agreed.

Re:Yawn

[operagost]

Uh, in a democratic republic we elect our representatives. If enough of us want them to stop destroying valuable antiques for political gain, they should.

Re:Yawn

[operagost]

As I understand it, it does work and the only metal parts are the firing pin and another useless part that is just there to meet US regulations for metal detection.

Re:Yawn

[operagost]

In 100% of the US, if you guy your gun from someone with a federal firearms license (basically every dealer), they have to run a background check. Beyond that, it's up to the states. Most Joe Blows don't find it profitable to sell at gun shows.

Re:Yawn

[screwdriver]

It wouldn't use anywhere near hundreds of dollars worth of material to print just one gun. But you're right, the whole thing is WAY overblown. The cover of the NY post spoke of "terror concerns" with these weapons. Really? A gun that can fire maybe one 22 caliber round that probably isn't even accurate and takes thousands of dollars worth of equipment to produce? A gun that could very likely blow up in your hand when you fire it? I'm more concerned that the government will try to regulate 3D printing.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

The printer shouldn't be included in your calculations of the cost of printed weapon unless you also include the manufacturing facility's cost in your estimation of everything else. How much does an M-16 cost?

Re:Yawn

[operagost]

Most anti-gun states in the USA have outlawed pepper spray and tasers.

Re:Yawn

[cold fjord]

This may be helpful:

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

. . . An amazing trend of nearly 500 years of declining interpersonal violence in England reversed abruptly in 1954 as violence began to increase dramatically. In 2001 Britain had the highest level of homicides in Western Europe, and violent crimes were at three times the level of the next worst country. “One thing which no amount of statistical manipulation can disguise,” the shadow home secretary, Oliver Letwin, pointed out in October 2003, “is that violent crime has doubled in the last six years and continues to rise alarmingly.” Indeed, with the exception of murder, violent crime in England and Wales is far higher than in the United States. And while the American murder rate has been in decline for more than a decade, the English murder rate has been rising. You are six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York City. More than half of English burglaries are “hot burglaries”(someone is at home), while in America, where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police, only 13 percent are “hot burglaries.” As for the effectiveness of stringent gun control, since handguns were banned in 1998, handgun crime has more than doubled. Gun crime has recently been described as spreading “like a cancer.” Units of British police are, for the first time in their history, routinely armed, and American policemen are being hired to advise British departments.

Re:Yawn

[operagost]

I guarantee that between shooting someone in the face with a gun and shooting them in the face with pepper spray, the bullet will be more incapacitating.

Re:Yawn

[cold fjord]

Gun crime in the UK increased after the ban.

Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control

Re:Yawn

[operagost]

Gun crime is pretty rare in the UK, and tends to mostly be between gangs where things have escalated.

Yeah, those brown people are a menace so let them just take each other out, amirite?

Re:Yawn

[operagost]

Unfortunately, giving government the power to do the former makes it easier for them to do the latter. Or haven't you noticed that you can't choose to not have health insurance? Or that having a gun is now considered a "health issue"?

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Technical correction: The weapon was tested to 9 or 10 shots, not just 1. Not many, but enough.

In my opinion, the principle value of this is in the hystrionics it induces in the hearts of people who don't understand civil liberties.

Enough for what? The life of the gun could very well have a mean of 15 cycles. If I was the sort of enthusiast that goes out shooting, testing it to 9 or 10 shots doesn't exactly inspire confidence in me.

Re:Yawn

[tibit]

Oh, so when you print a page on your printer, you now amortize the cost of the entire printer on every page printed? Get real, please.

Re:Yawn

[tibit]

You are aware that you can 3D print from metals too, right?

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

I will provide a counter-example, Venezuela. Won't go into detail here, but they went from full firearm ownership to a complete ban on anyone but the military even possessing them in a year's time, step by step (first disallowing assault-like weapons, then banning private sales, etc.)

Yes, slippery slopes are feared... because they happen.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose I should expect the FBI at my door soon since I just *had* to verify the information in this post. ...and my captcha is "homicide". Perfect.

Re:Yawn

[SolitaryMan]

First, that point would be valid only if *all* or at least *most* of the destroyed guns were antique.

Second, the point of the political campaign is not to destroy antiques, it is the decision of an individual owner to destroy them, which has nothing to do with the buy-back campaign. Looks like somebody is trying to use "antique" argument for a political gain.

Third, if you are worried about antiques being destroyed, you may petition campaign leaders not to destroy them, but preserve in the museum or something. Trying to stop the campaign, because antiques might get destroyed looks more like trying to use some loophole to push your agenda.

And finally, what if enough of us want tougher gun laws? Don't you think those elected representatives should do something about it too?

Re:Yawn

[SolitaryMan]

Think a car enthusiast would cry if a beautifully restored muscle car was slagged to buy a Ford Focus during that whole "Cash for Clunkers" thing? That a craftsman would cry if he heard of a spouse selling tens of thousands of dollars worth of tools for a pittance?

They may cry all they want, but if it is not their stuff to begin with, it is not up to them to decide what owners do with them. Freedom also means you have to live with other people's choices no matter how wrong you think they are.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you can borrow/rent the printer. Then the cost of the rental should be included.

You get that your M16, SA80 and computer mouse all include a fraction of the cost to buy and run the factory the came from right?

Re:Yawn

[richlv]

the coverage on /. has been absurdly high.
"they will announce something soon !"
"they will announce printable gun !"
"they will announce printable gun today !"
"THEY ANNOUNCE PRINTABLE GUN !"
"they actually reveal printable gun !"

is slashdot involved or just getting abused ? just a bit... too much.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

For now. Tech will get better, faster, cheaper, always.

Well, usually, tech will get better, faster and cheaper. There are exceptions. Rome springs to mind.

Re:Yawn

[Hatta]

Unfortunately, the theocrats and fascists are the most likely to assert their will through the use of force.

Re:Yawn

[AmiMoJo]

Yes, but those construction techniques require skill. You need to be able to operate the machinery. Soon you will be able to press a button and ten minutes later a gun pops out.

Plus while it may have been $50 in parts the metal shaping tools tended to be rather more expensive.

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

UK as well.
* Gun ownership was a right (you guys grandfather'ed this one).
* Gun ownership is a not a right; but requires good reason (self defence is good reason).
* Gun ownership is a not a right and requires good reason (self defence is NOT good reason).

The difference is next to no one owned a gun, so no one really cared.

Re:Yawn

[Faluzeer]

This may be helpful:

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

Is it helpful? The answer is no. I produce reputable links to show that there is a difference between what the UK & the USA classifies as Violent crime and you produce a partisan link that is long on rhetoric but short on citations. Perhaps in my (admittedly) skimming of the article I missed the citations to the raw data that was mentioned...
As for the assertion that "since handguns were banned in 1998, handgun crime has more than doubled." Do you have a citation for that? As yet, I have been unable to find any information prior to 2000/2001. The link I did find shows that there was an increase from 2000/2001 that peaked in 2003 / 2004 and has fallen substantially since then.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf (page 69)

Re:Yawn

[quantaman]

" gun ownership among criminals in the uk is pretty low."

Pretty low isn't low enough if you're forced to deal with one of the armed ones. Why is it acceptable for the victim to have to die in that scenario?

Why is it acceptable for the victim to have to die if they don't like guns and are attacked by one of the much more common armed criminals in your society?

I don't like the idea of being less safe just so you can maybe neutralize the criminal's advantage.

Re:Yawn

[femtobyte]

Well, the rebels we armed tend to be ones who want to establish far-right authoritarian dictatorships. It's true, a tiny minority of heavily armed authoritarian thugs can do a lot to disrupt civil societies, even succeeding in installing murderous regimes of their own. However, given that the results of our armed "freedom fighters" tend towards results like Pinochet or the Taliban, there's little evidence that armed minorities are helpful for creating peaceful, democratic societies.

Re:Yawn

[Nadaka]

Yes, they are. And that is why we need to option to level the field in our favor by remaining armed and vigilant.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ridiculous. There are no BORDERS to New York City. There's New York and Greater New York which contains places like Cleveland, Moscow and Ttian.

Re:Yawn

[quantaman]

Give a hundred old ladies guns, and another hundred old ladies pepper spray, and have rapists go after all of them (ethics review board might have an issue with the experimental design). I wouldn't be surprised in the pepper spray ladies did better.

Assuming the best case where the woman has warning and has time to draw the problem with a gun is it's lethal, I'm a guy but I have a lot of trouble thinking of a scenario where I'd actually shoot someone who hadn't already taken the first shot, ie at best my gun would be a bluff. And while most women don't have the same physical combat options I do I suspect they'd have the same reluctance to take a life.

So if the women has time to draw a gun most rapists might run, but a few of the bolder ones will realize she isn't willing to shoot, and they'll probably be right. With pepper spray fewer will run, but almost all of those who continue will end up with a face full of pepper spray.

Re:Yawn

[spire3661]

Yes, but it SCALES. The first one will be expensive, the first hundred wont be.

Re:Yawn

[spire3661]

Waste of resources. It does no good to turn a useful tool into a useless one.

Re:Yawn

[canadiannomad]

MAYBE this will lead to some unique designs, but I would still want steel in the barrel and the bolt.

Just think 3d printing of carbon nanotubes.... Steel would be weak and heavy in comparison.

Re:Yawn

[Artifakt]

And here's a few questions that follow from yours: If gun control laws can't deter weapons falling into the hands of criminals, won't many guns supplied to foreign factions also fall into the hands of criminals? Won't the tyrants spin that as the US is arming common criminals in their nation to destabilize their regime? (They're going to spin it that way for revolutionaries and even non-violent political opposition - why on Earth wouldn't they spin it that way for regular robbers and rapists that actually use a US provided weapon). How do you aid freedom fighters (real or in quotes), so long as there are traditional criminals in the same nation? Do you just assume revolutionary organizations are adept at controlling their own rogues and the unaligned ones? Are you assuming the corrupt tyrants can enforce their gun control laws on their criminals even though somehow it's impossible in the US?

Re:Yawn

[HornWumpus]

Enough of you should be able to amend the constitution.

Until then, go away and quit lying.

Re:Yawn

[HornWumpus]

FYI cash for clunkers had a maximum age for the clunker to prevent this from being an issue. I know that's off point, but thought I would clarify.

BTW what if someone was convincingly lying to the old car owner and scared him into selling the car for less then it was worth? Pure bullshit like 'car brakes can't be fixed after 20 years' or 'guns kill people'.

Re:Yawn

[Teancum]

You can also print things with cake frosting and other materials. Good point though about the metal.

Re: Yawn

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Honestly I don't see this putting the weapons manufacturers out of business even if it was cheaper. Most legitimate firearms owners are collectors, hence that figure of there being more firearms than people in the USA (or whatever it is, it's often used as an argument in favor of gun control, and a rather stupid argument at that.) Anything you can just print up willy nilly isn't exactly collector material.

Re:Yawn

[ganjadude]

on your last point i wil lsimply point out that murders have been cut in half since the early 90s to around10K people. America has a population of 400 million plus.

Id say the laws on the books are more than enough

Re: Yawn

[AlphaWolf_HK]

On mythbusters they actually found a fully working semi automatic made by a prison inmate, created entirely from improvised tools.

Re:Yawn

[kaatochacha]

Because it stops this:
1) City uses needed funds to buyback crappy old weapons.
2) Criminals, who would have armed themselves with crappy old weapons, instead obtain/steal newer weapons
3) Gun manufacturers are subsidized by cities who should be spending their money better.

Plus, it's a waste. Some actual antique items of historical value get destroyed by zealots.

Re:Yawn

[SolitaryMan]

What if somebody convincingly lying to you, trying to scare you into buying or supporting guns? Pure bullshit like 'scary government will take away all your freedoms'?

Oh, but I'm sure THAT never happens.

Re:Yawn

[SolitaryMan]

Please point to where I was lying or stop your fear mongering.

Re:Yawn

[kaatochacha]

So you're saying arm a group of people, with half the people being unwilling to use the arm they've been given.
Yes, you're right, that group would do much worse.

I'm assuming anyone giving Grandma a gun would also want Grandma to train how to use it. It's not just hand out and hope.

Re:Yawn

[SolitaryMan]

My last point was not about murders. The point was, most americans want stricter gun laws. Regarding of your personal position, this means that elected officials have to (i.e. it is their job) to do something about it.

Re:Yawn

[quantaman]

It's not that easy:
Marshall claimed that of the World War II U.S. troops in actual combat, 75% never fired their personal weapons at the enemy for the purpose of killing, even though they were engaged in combat and under direct threat.

Now the Marshall work is controversial, but I think it's clear that our society understands that killing is really bad and unacceptable, and that's a very good thing. You'd need to put all those grannies through a Full Metal Jacket style bootcamp to break down their psychological aversion to killing.

We live in a generally peaceful society where there are very few people mentally prepared to kill another person, that's not a bug it's a feature.

Re:Yawn

[kaatochacha]

Don't give apple any ideas.
Or there will soon be a sleek, rounded pistol retailing for 10K.

Re: Yawn

[Teancum]

As much as it seems like the major content producers (aka "Hollywood") have an upper hand in terms of copyright term lengths and making new and creative "applications" of intellectual content, I think the time is soon at hand where that trend will be reversed in some substantial manner.

I'm not saying it will go back to 17 years like it was in 1790, but it will be reduced and more content will be made publicly available. I also envision that things like the GPL and other open source licenses will be very common with these kinds of 3D model products.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

What does it matter if you're killed by a gun in a crime or by a gun by accident? It's the accidental deaths that are compelling reason for gun regulation, not gun crime.

Here's a better, more vivid use of the statistics from
West Wing Season 2, Episode 13, Bartett's Third State of the Union

"If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year [c.2002]. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?"

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Florida has a Green Nazi party - complete with a green swastika logo. I can't even guess what their platform is.

Reduced carbon emissions from ovens?

Re:Yawn

[ganjadude]

The people who speak the loudest want stricter gun laws, not the majority.

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

"Technical correction: The weapon was tested to 9 or 10 shots, not just 1. Not many, but enough."

Two things to keep in mind: First, "single-shot" generally refers to firearms that only hold one round and must be cleared and reloaded before firing again, so most people are referring to magazine capacity. Also, considering the average mass-produced firearm is test-fired to upwards of 10,000 rounds or more before it leaves the factory, 9 or 10 successfull test fires is pathetic.

Second, the guns aren't printed pre-assembled. A human still has to put the pieces together, and that introduces a near-infinite number of potential inconsistencies in the finished product. Even trained gunsmiths can make mistakes, how meticulous do you think some uneducated goon will be in putting one of these together.

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

"What matters is whether or not the 3D printed gun has a lower black market sale price."

It would definitely command a lower price on the black market, considering factory-built firearms are rigorously tested before they leave the factory and should theoretically be able to function forever, whereas the printable guns are assembled by "some guy" who's unlikely to have the same QC standards as, say, Smith and Wesson. These printable guns are designed to be what they call drop weapons, as in you use it once and drop it into a river, fire, etc. Given their rather extreme limitations and the inconsistencies in production, even serious criminals would regard the Liberator as little more than a novelty.

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun buy backs only accept legally manufactured firearms with traceable serial numbers, plus you generally have to prove ownership of the weapon, which is tough with no receipt.

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Many very rare vehicles were destroyed during Cash for Clunkers, most of them owned by people who had no idea of their value. And yeah, car enthusiasts were pretty pissed, manily because Cash for Clunkers was pure waste, but also the credits received were less than 1/4 of what some of these cars were worth.

Re:Yawn

[mrchew1982]

Pepper spray is a panacea for the paranoid. There are about 3 people out of ten that it does not incapacitate or slow down.

Re:Yawn

[benwad]

So, unless you're a supporter of fascist totalitarianism, there is an obvious upside.

If only the French Resistance had a couple of single-shot plastic-barreled guns! Or maybe we should give some to the Syrian rebels - Assad won't stand a chance!

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Tools are usually used in an act of creation, that would certainly be my definition.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Which oppressed would that be? People with criminal records stopping them from buying guns? People who need one ina ahurry to shoot that asshole neighbour? Those poor deserving heroes!

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Trollmeister making those guns was hard in the days when people actually made things rather than sitting on their fat asses talking about how easy it was to make things and what a sweet deal all those nice hard working Chinese are getting?

Re:Yawn

[Atzanteol]

Do you always go around posting rhetoric that has nothing to do with what the comment you're replying to says?

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the biggest load of bullshit I have ever read. Cherry picking by biased journalists doesn't count as relevant information.

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

The gun is named the Liberator for a.reason! The US Govt mass produced single shot, stamped .45's and dropped them behind enemy lines to the resistance fighters in WWII.

Re:Yawn

[harrkev]

Yes, it works for ONE SHOT. Supposedly the thing destroys itself after around 10 shots or so. Also, look at the length of the barrel -- barely as long as the cartridge, which happens to be a .380, a rather underpowered cartridge in the first place.

Yes, this is cool. No, I would not shoot it, because I don't trust a plastic barrel.

Re:Yawn

[harrkev]

Wake me up when 3D metal printing becomes affordable.

Re:Yawn

[bat21]

Uh, yeah, not illegal. Unless they're making these things full-auto, there's nothing illegal about what they're doing in most states.

Re:Yawn

[SolitaryMan]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

Re:Yawn

[tibit]

Careful: those who wanted to be woken up when 3D printing in general were to get affordable are not asleep anymore.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

How tough would it be to integrate a CNC/lathe into a 3D printer? Why stick to just plastic when you can mix and match various metals. It's still a form of 3D printing, so why does everyone automatically get stuck think inside the box of plastic?

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

True. I own a small arsenal, purchased new, and have less that $2k invested because I live in a free state that doesn't illegally infringe my constitutional rights.

This technology will be most useful for people in restrictive cities and states where a functional weapon can be created, used, and then discarded. It will be tough to collect fingerprints from a melted lump of plastic thrown into a camp fire.

My guess is that this could be the end of gun control and the beginning of ammunition control. Where the 3D gun printers should concentrate their efforts is on alternative, possibly liquid, propellants that could be mixed and injected into plastic bullets.

Re: Yawn

[HornWumpus]

Oldest eligible cars were 25 years old. 2009-25 = 1984!

Rare? Not so much.

Re: Yawn

[HornWumpus]

Gun buy backs around here are 'no questions asked'.

Re:Yawn

[TheCarp]

Where are you buying your plastic? I Don't think I have yet paid more than $40 for a spool of plastic, and it lasts a while too. That gun doesn't have that many components. Several hours of printing time but I would be surprized if it took more than $10 in actual materials.

Re: Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. My wife wants to buy a gun. I am meh on the idea one way or the other...

However, the price from 10 years ago to now is double. The price of ammo is out of the park. Never mind the stupid ass rumors out there. For someone who just wants to own one. The cost is crazy.

It may eventually get cheaper to print one. But only because of the price of real gun will be out of sight. Just the materials to print one makes this economically unviable at the moment...

The people I know that own guns right now are bitching about one thing. The cost of ammo. Everyone is snapping it up.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

3D printing can do titanium, but that's the cutting edge right now. The models capable of printing with metals are still exclusive to the industrial tier (and very, very expensive). But the prince is dropping as more players get in on the game, same as the sand and plastic printing models that have now reached the consumer market. Give it a few years,

Pins and springs, and other moving parts are pretty trivial to produce on the higher end machines, it's commonly demo'ed at industry trade shows. The barrier to entry is high, but it's only a matter of time until princes drop enough to get this stuff into the consumer market.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no foresight. Demand results in more people getting into the production end, which ends up driving down costs. Just 5-6 years ago, the sand and plastic type 3D printers would sell for six figures. This is new to the consumer market, but the tech itself is pretty oldschool.

The whole "The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD." is pure propaganda from people who should know better but don't. How much do you think plastic-type 3D printers would drop to in prince, once the metal and titanium ones become cheap enough to produce that they hit the consumer market?

This is by no means new tech. The printing and rapid-prototyping industries are already at least a decade ahead of the consumer market, and innovation comes around very quickly. It's a very, very competitive industry.

Re:Yawn

[lefin1]

That's exactly what I was thinking. Don't forget the 2 liter plastic bottle silencer mount.

Re:Yawn

[iamhassi]

The whole "OMG cheap guns for criminals" angle is pure FUD.

For now. Tech will get better, faster, cheaper, always.

still better, faster, cheaper to go buy a metal pipe at home depot and build a gun for $20

Re:Yawn

[Samizdata]

Someone hurry and patent "a zip gun, but from a computer!" It's an entirely new idea.

Be sure to include specifications about the roundness of any edges.

Yeah, but leave that slide to unlock safety crap out of the patent please...

Re:Yawn

[stenvar]

Right now, people are simply retrofitting designs based on 200 years of experience of making guns out of metal. 3D printing and other modern technologies change the equation completely and people will come up with new designs rapidly, designs well suited to these new materials.

Still, even all the metal parts you need for a retro-metal design (springs, pins, pipes), you can already get at your local hardware store, and 3D printing can make it much easier than it used to be to hold them together in the shape of a gun.

Re:Yawn

[stenvar]

Progressives can change their mind when faced with facts (I used to be a progressive myself). And although many progressives may have grown up far from guns and any kind of hands-on engineering, perhaps plans for 3D printed guns will convince some of them that gun control is impossible and irrational, and will likely only increase the criminalization of daily life and restrictions on useful technologies.

Re:Yawn

[stenvar]

Homicide rates are lower in the UK than in the US. but violent crime rates are higher in the UK than in the US.

Note the majority of homicides in the US occur in a tiny sliver of the population and are drug and gang related. Gun control won't help, but legalizing drugs and dealing with minority issues might.

Re:Yawn

[tingentleman]

No, it's the hip new way of creating zip guns that cost more than several actual firearms would, considering the cost of the printer and materials.

Not in sensible parts of the world where firearms cannot be bought. For example, in the UK I have never even seen a handgun whilst on home soil.

Re:Yawn

[CanHasDIY]

Considering the high rate of violent, non-gun-related crime, I don't think "sensible" is a word I would use to describe the situation.

Nice try, though.

Re:Yawn

[tftp]

I guess there is no way she could own a knife also. Or pepper spray, or a taser, or mace. Without a gun the elderly are generally helpless against a knife wielding rapist?

Let's presume that the rapist is not a 90 year old man, and that for some reason a younger man wants to commit this crime. Do you think a 50 y/o man *without* a knife would have any trouble with a 90 y/o *with* a knife? Knives require a certain level of proficiency to be effective, especially in a fight at an open space (not in someone else's kitchen, in darkness.) A career criminal can be expected to know basics of knife fight - those long years in prison had to be used for something, after all, and everyone there is a teacher. How many women even know how to grip the knife correctly, or what stance to take?

Pepper spray is notoriously ineffective against people on drugs. Taser is a device that, in ranged mode, has to be aimed and fired; dense clothing often is a sufficient protection. In contact mode taser is not a weapon at all because if the victim can touch the attacker, then the attacker can also touch the victim - and he will not be gentle at that.

A firearm is a superior solution because it releases far more energy that it takes to pull the bang switch, and it is effective at all practical threat distances, and there is no commonly worn protection against a bullet. If an attacker sees a 9mm barrel pointed at him, he sees imminent death. If an attacker sees a pepper spray or a Taser, he knows that these are not a threat to his life, and interprets it as a challenge, as a game that his prey wants to play before giving up. Also, if the victim manages to hurt the attacker with these ineffective defenses, the attacker will be very, very angry - and fully capable to prove that to the victim.

Re:Yawn

[tftp]

Give a hundred old ladies guns, and another hundred old ladies pepper spray, and have rapists go after all of them (ethics review board might have an issue with the experimental design). I wouldn't be surprised in the pepper spray ladies did better.

"Your wrong," as it is customary to say here. Police trainers always tell their students that even a mortally wounded attacker may have enough strength left to cross the few yards separating him and the shooter and to kill the shooter with his bare hands (or a knife, or a gun.) This has happened before, more than once. Why? Because that attacker has nothing to lose, and he certainly has a solid revenge motive.

There is another expression: "Don't attack an old man. If he is not strong enough to fight you, he will kill you." There is not much that the state can threaten a 80 y/o man with. Besides, every jury will be on his side, and against some 19 y/o attacker(s) who wanted his cell phone or his c/c.

I'm a guy but I have a lot of trouble thinking of a scenario where I'd actually shoot someone who hadn't already taken the first shot, ie at best my gun would be a bluff.

You wouldn't shoot a guy who broke into your house, tied up your wife and is now doing the same to your two teenage daughters?

Also, don't think that women are somehow more pacifist than men. They may be less likely to attack unprovoked, but they have an instinct to defend their family - and that instinct is often stronger than among men. Just this week a woman stabbed an intruder to death with a kitchen knife, while her husband was experimenting with non-lethal methods of persuasion.

a few of the bolder ones will realize she isn't willing to shoot, and they'll probably be right. With pepper spray fewer will run, but almost all of those who continue will end up with a face full of pepper spray.

Most of those "bold" ones will quickly become dead ones, and the homicide will be written off as justified. With pepper spray many of the attackers will end up with a face full of it ... but the victim will be raped and then probably killed. At very least, the victim will be pepper-sprayed by the attacker to teach her to not do that ever again.

Re:Yawn

[quantaman]

Give a hundred old ladies guns, and another hundred old ladies pepper spray, and have rapists go after all of them (ethics review board might have an issue with the experimental design). I wouldn't be surprised in the pepper spray ladies did better.

"Your wrong," as it is customary to say here. Police trainers always tell their students that even a mortally wounded attacker may have enough strength left to cross the few yards separating him and the shooter and to kill the shooter with his bare hands (or a knife, or a gun.) This has happened before, more than once. Why? Because that attacker has nothing to lose, and he certainly has a solid revenge motive.

Glad you agree with me...
If someone shoots me they just announced they're trying to kill me, I have a basic instinct to fight for my life. That's why a gun isn't that great for stopping an attack. You have to kill the person or it doesn't really work. Pepper spray just says I want the fight to end.

There is another expression: "Don't attack an old man. If he is not strong enough to fight you, he will kill you." There is not much that the state can threaten a 80 y/o man with. Besides, every jury will be on his side, and against some 19 y/o attacker(s) who wanted his cell phone or his c/c.

Most likely he'll just do nothing (which is why old people tend to be victims).

I'm a guy but I have a lot of trouble thinking of a scenario where I'd actually shoot someone who hadn't already taken the first shot, ie at best my gun would be a bluff.

You wouldn't shoot a guy who broke into your house, tied up your wife and is now doing the same to your two teenage daughters?

Depending on his size I might first grab a bat or other object and start pummelling him. There's probably scenarios like that where I would fire a gun to protect others, but the cost of that availability is high enough that I don't think it justifies firearms.

a few of the bolder ones will realize she isn't willing to shoot, and they'll probably be right. With pepper spray fewer will run, but almost all of those who continue will end up with a face full of pepper spray.

Most of those "bold" ones will quickly become dead ones, and the homicide will be written off as justified. With pepper spray many of the attackers will end up with a face full of it ... but the victim will be raped and then probably killed. At very least, the victim will be pepper-sprayed by the attacker to teach her to not do that ever again.

Did you just ignore the WWII link? I really think you've vastly overestimating the willingness of most people to use lethal force. As for pepper spray, do you realize how friggin intense that pain is? Frankly I think a successful dose of pepper spray is a more reliable stopper than a gunshot. A gunshot can hurt a lot, can debilitate and even kill, but as you mentioned "even a mortally wounded attacker may have enough strength left to cross the few yards separating him and the shooter and to kill the shooter with his bare hands". Pepper spray simply inflicts pain, very intense pain, to the eyes no less. You can't just ignore that, you're going to fall down go fetal and the victim will run away.

Besides, if there's enough guns around that the victim has a gun then wouldn't the perpetrator have one too? The perpetrator is the one who started the confrontation, they're going to be a lot more ready to draw, shoot, and kill than the victim. That's the problem with all of these scenarios you created, you're always assuming the good guy is the only one armed, in that case sure they're more safe. But we can't arm only good guys, the bad guys are going to want guns too.

Re:Yawn

[tftp]

Pepper spray just says I want the fight to end.

[Channeling Bush...] "Who cares what you want?" - the criminal is not interested in the fight to end; he now wants you dead, even if a moment earlier he'd be content with just maiming you.

Most likely he'll just do nothing (which is why old people tend to be victims).

Old people are more likely to be targeted than Arnold lookalikes. Among those who are targeted, some are fighting back, and others do not. There was an old man who was killed by a gang of feral teenagers - they were playing their "knock-out kings" murder game. The man was Asian; he was not raised in the USA, and probably he believed that the government will protect him. He took that belief to the grave.

Depending on his size I might first grab a bat or other object and start pummelling him.

It would be patently insane. What if you lose? Just stop and think about it for a moment. There are very few people on this planet who can take a bat and be sure that they defeat an intruder. In most cases the intruder takes the bat away from you and then uses it on you - this is an unfortunate quality of a contact weapon.

Besides, you throw away your gun, grab a bat... and then the intruder pulls out his gun. What happens now?

Remember, your duty is not to the intruder, it is to yourself and to those who you protect. You are allowed by law to use deadly force only if you fear for your life. If you do, the threat is large enough to use that deadly force.

If you do not think the threat is that grave and you can get away with using a bat, this *legally* converts the situation from self-defense into a banal quarrel. The intruder then can sue you for millions if you hit him with a bat and break his arm. This has happened before. You always need to know on which side of the fence you are - are you afraid for your life or not? You cannot claim one but act according to the other. It's the legal divide between going to prison and staying free. An armed confrontation is not the right time and place to think. You have to have the thinking done ahead of time. The only thinking you can afford is to match the situation to one of templates that you prepared ahead of time. If you start thinking deeper, you will lose - your actions will be examined under the microscope in court.

Pepper spray simply inflicts pain, very intense pain, to the eyes no less. You can't just ignore that,

As I said, many street drugs reduce sensitivity to pain.

Besides, if there's enough guns around that the victim has a gun then wouldn't the perpetrator have one too?

Those are statistically unrelated variables. You should expect the perpetrator to have a weapon on him. It does not matter if it is a gun or a knife or a pipe or just his fists. See Trayvon's example - he nearly killed a man with his bare hands. Trayvon was a tall and strong football player, and his victim was a short and skinny Hispanic.

Regardless, criminals already have guns, and they will always have guns, as long as it benefits them. If you disarm yourself, this only makes their job easier. A and B are not related. Get a gun, know how to use it, and establish for yourself very rigid scenarios where use of a gun is required. Then you will be prepared.

Oh, by the way, often home intruders come as a team. I wish you luck fighting two or three guys with just a bat. You will not win that, unless you were trained in Shaolin Temple.

Re:Yawn

[quantaman]

Pepper spray just says I want the fight to end.

[Channeling Bush...] "Who cares what you want?" - the criminal is not interested in the fight to end; he now wants you dead, even if a moment earlier he'd be content with just maiming you.

If he isn't overcome with debilitating pain.

Most likely he'll just do nothing (which is why old people tend to be victims).

Old people are more likely to be targeted than Arnold lookalikes. Among those who are targeted, some are fighting back, and others do not. There was an old man who was killed by a gang of feral teenagers - they were playing their "knock-out kings" murder game. The man was Asian; he was not raised in the USA, and probably he believed that the government will protect him. He took that belief to the grave.

"The man was Asian; he was not raised in the USA, and probably he believed that the government will protect him. He took that belief to the grave."

Really?

Besides, it's unfortunate, but the best way to protect old people is to create a less violent society.

Depending on his size I might first grab a bat or other object and start pummelling him.

It would be patently insane. What if you lose? Just stop and think about it for a moment. There are very few people on this planet who can take a bat and be sure that they defeat an intruder. In most cases the intruder takes the bat away from you and then uses it on you - this is an unfortunate quality of a contact weapon.

Besides, you throw away your gun, grab a bat... and then the intruder pulls out his gun. What happens now?

Remember, your duty is not to the intruder, it is to yourself and to those who you protect. You are allowed by law to use deadly force only if you fear for your life. If you do, the threat is large enough to use that deadly force.

If you do not think the threat is that grave and you can get away with using a bat, this *legally* converts the situation from self-defense into a banal quarrel. The intruder then can sue you for millions if you hit him with a bat and break his arm. This has happened before. You always need to know on which side of the fence you are - are you afraid for your life or not? You cannot claim one but act according to the other. It's the legal divide between going to prison and staying free. An armed confrontation is not the right time and place to think. You have to have the thinking done ahead of time. The only thinking you can afford is to match the situation to one of templates that you prepared ahead of time. If you start thinking deeper, you will lose - your actions will be examined under the microscope in court.

Dude, I come at you swinging a bat with a bit of surprise and unless you have some serious martial arts training I win.

Pepper spray simply inflicts pain, very intense pain, to the eyes no less. You can't just ignore that,

As I said, many street drugs reduce sensitivity to pain.

Maybe

Besides, if there's enough guns around that the victim has a gun then wouldn't the perpetrator have one too?

Those are statistically unrelated variables. You should expect the perpetrator to have a weapon on him. It does not matter if it is a gun or a knife or a pipe or just his fists. See Trayvon's example - he nearly killed a man with his bare hands. Trayvon was a tall and strong football player, and his victim was a short and skinny Hispanic.

Regardless, criminals already have guns, and they will always have guns, as long as it benefits them. If you disarm yourself, this only makes their job easier. A and B are not related. Get a gun, know how to use it, and establish for yourself very rigid scenarios where use of a gun is required. Then you will be prepared.

Oh, by the way, often home intruders come as a team.

Re:Yawn

[tftp]

"The man was Asian; he was not raised in the USA, and probably he believed that the government will protect him. He took that belief to the grave." -- Really?

Hard to ask him now.

Dude, I come at you swinging a bat with a bit of surprise and unless you have some serious martial arts training I win.

There won't be any surprise in most cases of self-defense. If anyone is surprised, it would be the victim. The criminal is fully aware of everything because he initiated the situation.

Now about the bat. Make one for yourself out of packing foam, grab a friend and play that out. You will be defeated after the first swing, most likely.

Why is that? Because you cannot, probably, hold the bat in one hand, like medieval warriors held their swords. (There were two-handed swords too, but that's a different story.) A bat just doesn't have the right balance for one-handed operation. The medieval fighter held a shield in another hand. That part is essential. What happens when you grab the bat with both hands, take a swing - and miss, of course? YOU ARE EXPOSED to an instant knockout blow to your head, and you have nothing to defend against that blow because your both hands are holding the bat - and the bat is on trajectory away from the target. You don't even have a fellow soldier to the right of you, watching your now exposed front and right side. You are dead meat.

The nearest match to a bat among medieval weapons would be either a club, or a mace, or a Morgenstern. You do not know how to correctly wield those. Hardly anyone has that skill today. Huge inertia of these weapons requires special handling. Without this knowledge and skills you will lose, instantly.

It would be awfully arrogant to assume that one can just grab a piece of wood and become an invincible warrior - despite humanity's thousands of years of experience with exactly these weapons. Criminals know more about fighting with and without such weapons than any green-skinned programmer, fresh from a cubicle. You will not win. If you want to win, use overwhelming force, just once. Use the weapon that you are familiar with. (You are always welcome to train with a bat - but not on a baseball field. You'd have to train for combat.)

Trayvon nearly killed a man??? At most he started to lay on a beating, assuming it would have escalated to murder is ludicrous

That was alleged, however little we know so far. The trial will expose everything that transpired, and then we will know for sure. Meanwhile, it does look like Trayvon was beating a man who was down. How much of head trauma are you willing to take before you depart into the better world?

Criminals have guns because they're friggin everywhere because you don't have gun control. Get serious gun control and there's no guns for the criminals to get.

I was born and raised in a country with very strict gun controls. Even today a common man cannot have a handgun there. Still, criminals always had handguns. Where did they come from, one may ask?

1. From World War II battlegrounds. Many full-auto weapons can be recovered and restored.
2. From warehouses of the army. There are millions of firearms stacked sky high, in crates, oiled and ready to go. A crate more, or a crate less ... who will ever look inside?
3. From current stocks of weapons issued to guards, police, army, etc. Some of these weapons are genuinely lost, but most are taken away after killing the owner.
4. From modern war zones, inside and outside of the country. Africa specializes on second hand weapons, they have many millions in stock. Thanks to Obama, there are a few thousand more in Mexico now.
5. Manufactured domestically. A modern CNC can make you a firearm with a single press of a button. But one can make a zip gun out of Home Depot components. That'd be enough to shoot a police officer with it and capture his factory-ma

Re:Yawn

[quantaman]

Dude, I come at you swinging a bat with a bit of surprise and unless you have some serious martial arts training I win.

There won't be any surprise in most cases of self-defense. If anyone is surprised, it would be the victim. The criminal is fully aware of everything because he initiated the situation.

Now about the bat. Make one for yourself out of packing foam, grab a friend and play that out. You will be defeated after the first swing, most likely.

Why is that? Because you cannot, probably, hold the bat in one hand, like medieval warriors held their swords. (There were two-handed swords too, but that's a different story.) A bat just doesn't have the right balance for one-handed operation. The medieval fighter held a shield in another hand. That part is essential. What happens when you grab the bat with both hands, take a swing - and miss, of course? YOU ARE EXPOSED to an instant knockout blow to your head, and you have nothing to defend against that blow because your both hands are holding the bat - and the bat is on trajectory away from the target. You don't even have a fellow soldier to the right of you, watching your now exposed front and right side. You are dead meat.

The nearest match to a bat among medieval weapons would be either a club, or a mace, or a Morgenstern. You do not know how to correctly wield those. Hardly anyone has that skill today. Huge inertia of these weapons requires special handling. Without this knowledge and skills you will lose, instantly.

It would be awfully arrogant to assume that one can just grab a piece of wood and become an invincible warrior - despite humanity's thousands of years of experience with exactly these weapons. Criminals know more about fighting with and without such weapons than any green-skinned programmer, fresh from a cubicle. You will not win. If you want to win, use overwhelming force, just once. Use the weapon that you are familiar with. (You are always welcome to train with a bat - but not on a baseball field. You'd have to train for combat.)

It's big, heavy, and probably metal.

Swing with two hands and an adrenaline rush and you don't risk missing and killing one of the kids (or going through the wall and killing a neighbour).

Besides it's a contrived situation. Given me and the criminal both having guns and me and the criminal both having a bat I'll opt for the bats every time.

Trayvon nearly killed a man??? At most he started to lay on a beating, assuming it would have escalated to murder is ludicrous

That was alleged, however little we know so far. The trial will expose everything that transpired, and then we will know for sure. Meanwhile, it does look like Trayvon was beating a man who was down. How much of head trauma are you willing to take before you depart into the better world?

We might find out in the trial. Besides, even if Trayvon was beating a man who was down that's a long way from murder, sure it might have eventually resulted in death, but most likely the worst case was some broken bones and a concussion.

I'd like to live in a world where two people can get in a fight without one of them ending up shot.

Criminals have guns because they're friggin everywhere because you don't have gun control. Get serious gun control and there's no guns for the criminals to get.

I was born and raised in a country with very strict gun controls. Even today a common man cannot have a handgun there. Still, criminals always had handguns. Where did they come from, one may ask?

Russia isn't exactly a model of good governance. Most of the criminal firearm problem in North America is due to guns coming in from the US.

Even if you take legal firearms away from everyone on the planet, manufactured firearms will be still with us. Do you want to go with bare hands and best intent

Re:Yawn

[tftp]

It's big, heavy, and probably metal.

It's also useless, unless you are The Incredible Hulk. A man with a bat loses 100% against a man with a small pen knife. Intertia is not your friend. I know that it's possible to do fencing with heavy weapons, but it requires a very uncommon physique. This article could be useful, even though it talks about an edged weapon. A blunt weapon, like a bat, is far less useful in a battle.

Swing with two hands and an adrenaline rush and you don't risk missing and killing one of the kids

Get a heavy pipe and try swinging it in your small apartment, I dare you. It is just not feasible; houses are built with narrow hallways. The target of your attack can just lazily step aside, and your swing is wasted. Unless you are a second coming of Terminator, you will not be able to control a heavy weapon, with one hand or with both. Your advantage would be in a light weapon, with katana being on the heaviest end of the spectrum, and a rapier on the lighter end. With the latter you can easily defend yourself against multiple attackers, assuming that they don't have ranged weapons. A rapier will be also very accurate in thrust style attacks, so that you can work around the hostage.

Oh, you said "kids?" Well then, imagine that the criminal is holding your daughter. With a handgun, from several yards away, you can hit him in the eye of your choice, and the hostage will be only slightly scared. Can you swing a heavy bat at the same criminal when he can always push your kid under the strike? When I said "overwhelming force," there is a reason for that. This is not a duel between two French aristocrats; it's not a game.

Besides it's a contrived situation. Given me and the criminal both having guns and me and the criminal both having a bat I'll opt for the bats every time.

It's your life, even if somehow you can convince the criminal to have a bat (that is hard to conceal) instead of a knife or a handgun. I'm just telling you how, in my opinion, the conflict will unfold. I have no dog there.

Besides, even if Trayvon was beating a man who was down that's a long way from murder, sure it might have eventually resulted in death, but most likely the worst case was some broken bones and a concussion.

A strike in the head is often fatal - instantly, or a short time later. There are several medical reasons for that, and none of them are particularly pleasant to discuss.

Russia isn't exactly a model of good governance.

It's worse pretty much everywhere else, except a handful of countries. But even in the UK the percentage of gun crimes is rising with every year. The situation in the USA is much worse still.

Most of the criminal firearm problem in North America is due to guns coming in from the US.

Then please ask Obama to stop sending weapons to Mexican mafia. But regardless, Mexican narcocartels are rich enough to buy their full-auto weapons anywhere in the world. You simply cannot get most of these weapons in gun stores in the USA.

Criminals don't come from another planet.

Mathematically thinking, they actually do. The fact that they were born here is not relevant; their minds are out of this world. You can also say that your mind is out of this world, depending on what mindset owns this planet :-)

They have guns because Americans say guns are acceptable, even cool, they have guns because they're really easy to get so you don't have to be part of some sophisticated underworld because they're floating around everywhere.

Criminals have guns not because they watched TV one day, and their favorite hawk Piers Morgan told them, in plain text, that guns

Re:Yawn

[quantaman]

It's big, heavy, and probably metal.

It's also useless, unless you are The Incredible Hulk. A man with a bat loses 100% against a man with a small pen knife. Intertia is not your friend. I know that it's possible to do fencing with heavy weapons, but it requires a very uncommon physique. This article could be useful, even though it talks about an edged weapon. A blunt weapon, like a bat, is far less useful in a battle.

It's not fencing, the intruder doesn't have a shield. I swing a bat the inertia is going somewhere, that somewhere is the intruder.

Oh, you said "kids?" Well then, imagine that the criminal is holding your daughter. With a handgun, from several yards away, you can hit him in the eye of your choice, and the hostage will be only slightly scared. Can you swing a heavy bat at the same criminal when he can always push your kid under the strike? When I said "overwhelming force," there is a reason for that. This is not a duel between two French aristocrats; it's not a game.

You're expecting the average person to shoot the criminal in the eye of their choice while the criminal has a close family member at gun point (and somehow do this before the criminal realizes it's easier to shoot the dude with the gun).

You've been watching too many movies.

And you think the bat as a weapon is impractical?!?!?

A strike in the head is often fatal - instantly, or a short time later. There are several medical reasons for that, and none of them are particularly pleasant to discuss.

Yeah, I know once someone tried inventing this sport called 'boxing' but in the first fight they tried the two dudes hit eachother in the head and just fell over dead and they gave it up.

True story.

Russia isn't exactly a model of good governance.

It's worse pretty much everywhere else, except a handful of countries. But even in the UK the percentage of gun crimes is rising with every year. The situation in the USA is much worse still.

UK, way fewer guns way fewer murders.

Most of the criminal firearm problem in North America is due to guns coming in from the US.

Then please ask Obama to stop sending weapons to Mexican mafia. But regardless, Mexican narcocartels are rich enough to buy their full-auto weapons anywhere in the world. You simply cannot get most of these weapons in gun stores in the USA.

Wow... you just can't help yourself from taking a completely random shot at Obama.

As I said, guns are always easy to get for a criminal. He is already in that "sophisticated underworld," where drugs, weapons and everything else is available for a reasonable price. Do I know where to get a gun with removed s/n? No, I do not - and I have no need to know, and it's illegal to own one anyway. But criminals don't care about laws.

They are not always easy to get for criminals, in other countries criminals rarely have guns, they have guns in the US because it's really easy to get guns.

Every extra gun makes everyone else a little less safe.

There must be rivers of blood flowing down the streets of Swiss cities... and those poor American colonists, how did they survive, being 100% armed?

In 2005 over 10% of households contained handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that contained handguns. In 2005 almost 29% of households in Switzerland contained firearms of some kind, compared to almost 43% in the USA.

Besides, Switzerland is a very small and fairly homogeneous coun

Re:Yawn

[tftp]

I swing a bat the inertia is going somewhere, that somewhere is the intruder.

My point is that the inertia is a two-edged sword. You cannot redirect the strike when the target moves. That's why karate fighters don't usually swing huge tree trunks around. It's fine if you can do it and hit the opponents; but if the opponents are not drunk you will not hit them at all, and your weapon will pull you to the side.

You're expecting the average person to shoot the criminal in the eye of their choice while the criminal has a close family member at gun point

No, not at gun point. Even the police is not going to go head first into that situation. You need a sniper now, and a hostage negotiator. Your task is only to prevent the criminal from taking a hostage. If you can do it with a bat, more power to you. I'm not that brave.

With regard to accuracy under stress, it's easier to do if you have a superior weapon. You can always try to defend yourself and your family with scissors, but YMMV.

If you are questioning just the technical accuracy... it's trivial. The typical distance for handgun targets is 10 to 25 yards. Test yourself one day.

Suicides are more likely with guns, that's actually reasonably well established (and kinda obvious).

If someone wants to kill himself, he will do it eventually. And if someone doesn't want to kill himself, a gun will not hypnotize him into that. I, personally, don't care either way. A free man has power of life and death over his own body.

I like how you're crediting the steady fall in violence in society to the advent of firearms.

As they say, "God created men; Samuel Colt made them equal" :-)

Re:Yawn

[quantaman]

If someone wants to kill himself, he will do it eventually. And if someone doesn't want to kill himself, a gun will not hypnotize him into that. I, personally, don't care either way. A free man has power of life and death over his own body.

Should the you who's having a really crappy day have the power to kill the you who will have a lifetime of other days? People have moments of weakness, if possible I'd like to make it less tempting for those moments to end with their own death.

Either way you're bringing up scenarios that, while they may justify a gun, aren't that common. If every criminal is armed, and constantly committing home invasions, then sure, I might be in favour of a lot more guns, but I don't think that's the world. With strong gun control, even if a few tragic scenarios happen where someone could have really used a gun, I think a lot more tragic scenarios will have been avoided.

Re:Yawn

[tftp]

Should the you who's having a really crappy day have the power to kill the you who will have a lifetime of other days?

Unconditionally YES. No man can be called free if he doesn't have this ultimate freedom - and the responsibility that comes with it.

People have moments of weakness, if possible I'd like to make it less tempting for those moments to end with their own death.

I believe in free will and self-determination. It is wise to keep dangerous temptations away from children - they don't know any better. But once a person becomes an adult, this restriction is lifted and he is free to do whatever he wants - as long as it doesn't clash with the same right of someone else. If he was wrong... too bad, he should have asked for an advice, or perhaps he should have thought about it a bit more. If someone, after all, suicides - respect his decision; he had his reasons; one day you may have yours. None of us live forever, as far as I know, and not everyone is excited about spending his last ten years of life in a bed, paralyzed, unable to even eat on his own, and over those ten years burning through the entire education fund that was being saved up for your grandchildren. When your time is up, it's up - deal with it. Many suicides are just an easy escape from a painful and terminal illness.

If every criminal is armed, and constantly committing home invasions, then sure, I might be in favour of a lot more guns, but I don't think that's the world.

Do you think criminals commit home invasions just on some special days, like Santa Claus? They go out and burglarize residences until they are caught or killed. There are very few criminals who were successful for a while but then, before they were arrested, suddenly saw the light and became honest workers. Most soldier on until stopped. Criminals are not very smart. Smart people don't need to rob houses; we get paid big bucks for sitting in our chairs and pressing keys on the keyboard.

By the way, all criminals are always armed, as far as the victim is concerned. Not everyone carries a gun, but a crowbar will be plenty sufficient for an old man (that happened too, and more than once. Burglars don't like witnesses; dead men tell no tales.) I read that knife crime in UK is off the charts, and I can understand why - knives are cheap, silent, deadly, easy to make, and easy to dispose of. Gun crime is also rising as a side effect of that - criminals need guns to defend themselves against criminals with knives. It's not a mutual appreciation society, you know.

With strong gun control, even if a few tragic scenarios happen where someone could have really used a gun, I think a lot more tragic scenarios will have been avoided.

We are firmly in the land of hypotheticals at this point. I'd better stop now :-)

Re:Yawn

[quantaman]

Should the you who's having a really crappy day have the power to kill the you who will have a lifetime of other days?

Unconditionally YES. No man can be called free if he doesn't have this ultimate freedom - and the responsibility that comes with it.

People have moments of weakness, if possible I'd like to make it less tempting for those moments to end with their own death.

I believe in free will and self-determination. It is wise to keep dangerous temptations away from children - they don't know any better. But once a person becomes an adult, this restriction is lifted and he is free to do whatever he wants - as long as it doesn't clash with the same right of someone else. If he was wrong... too bad, he should have asked for an advice, or perhaps he should have thought about it a bit more. If someone, after all, suicides - respect his decision; he had his reasons; one day you may have yours. None of us live forever, as far as I know, and not everyone is excited about spending his last ten years of life in a bed, paralyzed, unable to even eat on his own, and over those ten years burning through the entire education fund that was being saved up for your grandchildren. When your time is up, it's up - deal with it. Many suicides are just an easy escape from a painful and terminal illness.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to commit suicide but you seem to be arguing that not only should we not try to prevent it, but it should even be easier.

I know a guy who committed suicide and a girl who attempted suicide and no one is happy that he succeeded or that she failed (least of all her!). I understand if you think that guns are worth the risk, but can't you at least acknowledge that more people killing themselves is a bad thing??

If every criminal is armed, and constantly committing home invasions, then sure, I might be in favour of a lot more guns, but I don't think that's the world.

Do you think criminals commit home invasions just on some special days, like Santa Claus? They go out and burglarize residences until they are caught or killed. There are very few criminals who were successful for a while but then, before they were arrested, suddenly saw the light and became honest workers. Most soldier on until stopped. Criminals are not very smart. Smart people don't need to rob houses; we get paid big bucks for sitting in our chairs and pressing keys on the keyboard.

By the way, all criminals are always armed, as far as the victim is concerned. Not everyone carries a gun, but a crowbar will be plenty sufficient for an old man (that happened too, and more than once. Burglars don't like witnesses; dead men tell no tales.) I read that knife crime in UK is off the charts, and I can understand why - knives are cheap, silent, deadly, easy to make, and easy to dispose of. Gun crime is also rising as a side effect of that - criminals need guns to defend themselves against criminals with knives. It's not a mutual appreciation society, you know.

Actually I'm guessing the ones who don't get caught or killed stop on their own once they pass their mid-twenties. Either way I don't think criminals are all the hardened killers you imagine them to be, there are those who will constantly seek out the deadliest weapon they can find and be willing to use it, but I think most of society is on a bell curve, with criminals at the end of one tail, and the tail gets narrower and narrower with increasing levels of depravity until you actually start to get to the group you're talking about.

Re:Yawn

[tftp]

not only should we not try to prevent it, but it should even be easier.

It's already easy enough. You just can't make it easier. What you can do is to make it less painful. Is the fear of pain a deterrent? Perhaps, to some. But the car exhaust (CO) will kill you painlessly; some sleeping pills (barbiturates) will do the same. Heroin will do you in as sure as a bullet; and not only you won't suffer a pain, you will be rewarded with the final performance. It's far easier for most suiciders to just park their car in the garage, close the door, and let the CO kill them, than to look for a gun and then shoot themselves. It is very painful, by the way, and very messy - shooting yourself is not a good way to leave this world.

The society will not notice the outcome of their decision anyway; there are 6+ billion people on the planet already, it's not like we are endangered species or something. If someone wants to make room, it's their right. Not that I encourage them, of course. They are just free.

I know a guy who committed suicide and a girl who attempted suicide and no one is happy that he succeeded or that she failed

Romeo and Juliet, something like that? Those were successful all the way through. Does the society want them dead? Not really. But, darwinistically speaking, the society benefits from mentally stable people, not from head cases. Those *should* evolve out, in the grand scheme of things. Like taxes, if you support a certain behavior you get more of it. There are people who try to commit suicide repeatedly (and fail N-1 times out of that.) Then firemen are summoned, the police, and the doctors... what for? In the USA the Constitution guarantees your right for pursuit of happiness, but it does not define what form it may take. If you cannot live without your man|girl, don't. Will I be sad? Probably. But I cannot tell you to suffer for years, if not for the rest of your life, just because it is in my personal interests, either political or religious, to keep you alive. That would be awfully selfish of me. On that subject:

can't you at least acknowledge that more people killing themselves is a bad thing?

Bad thing... bad thing... bad to who? What metric are you using, and whose viewpoint? Per the blind and deaf quadriplegic, his life is over already. Per his brother, he must be kept alive until brother's own child can inherit his house. Per his wife, he should die immediately, so that she inherits. Per his aunt, Jesus the God personally told her that suicide is a sin, so the poor injured man must be kept alive for as long as possible - even though he suffers physically and mentally. Who is correct here, in this sea of incompatible interests? (This is a dramatization of a real world scenario that played out in Florida.)

So when you say "bad thing" you need to qualify this statement. The nature doesn't have bad things. Things can be declared good or bad only by an observer who has an opinion.

Actually I'm guessing the ones who don't get caught or killed stop on their own once they pass their mid-twenties.

I'm not sure where you live, but in most countries criminals cannot stop. There are the usual socioeconomic reasons for that. There is not enough jobs even for citizens who never jaywalked. What chance, in your opinion, a man with a burglary or a theft under his belt has? How many store managers will be happy to give him the keys to the money box? The only jobs that are left for them are menial jobs, like digging of ditches. Maybe one can become a licensed professional, like an electrician or a plumber, but that's not easy - there is a requirement for apprenticeship, and with that see above.

Can a criminal reform? Yes. Most of those success stories are from white collar crime, where for example an accountant made a "mistake" toward his own bank account. Just once in his whole life. He won't do that again. Kevin Mitnick is a good example.

Re:Yawn

[quantaman]

More guns = more suicides, whatever you think of the different methods the numbers seem to suggest guns make it easier/more tempting.

Romeo and Juliet, something like that? Those were successful all the way through. Does the society want them dead? Not really. But, darwinistically speaking, the society benefits from mentally stable people, not from head cases. Those *should* evolve out, in the grand scheme of things. Like taxes, if you support a certain behavior you get more of it. There are people who try to commit suicide repeatedly (and fail N-1 times out of that.) Then firemen are summoned, the police, and the doctors... what for? In the USA the Constitution guarantees your right for pursuit of happiness, but it does not define what form it may take. If you cannot live without your man|girl, don't. Will I be sad? Probably. But I cannot tell you to suffer for years, if not for the rest of your life, just because it is in my personal interests, either political or religious, to keep you alive. That would be awfully selfish of me. On that subject:

No, two people who didn't know eachother. They didn't have some illness, they weren't a drag on society, and I wouldn't call them particularly mentally unstable. They were just extremely depressed for a period. I'm sorry dude but you sound like a massive asshole. People who are so depressed they're willing to kill themselves and your solution is to give them a hand and act like you're some kind of altruist? Have you actually met someone who's attempted or committed suicide? You seem to be throwing out these cardboard stereotypes about suicidal people, criminals, old people, everyone. There's such insane variety around any kind of label you can imagine and you seem to be ignoring all of it.

I'm not sure where you live, but in most countries criminals cannot stop. There are the usual socioeconomic reasons for that. There is not enough jobs even for citizens who never jaywalked. What chance, in your opinion, a man with a burglary or a theft under his belt has? How many store managers will be happy to give him the keys to the money box? The only jobs that are left for them are menial jobs, like digging of ditches. Maybe one can become a licensed professional, like an electrician or a plumber, but that's not easy - there is a requirement for apprenticeship, and with that see above.

Can a criminal reform? Yes. Most of those success stories are from white collar crime, where for example an accountant made a "mistake" toward his own bank account. Just once in his whole life. He won't do that again. Kevin Mitnick is a good example. Some violent criminals embrace religion in prison and also become ex-criminals. The vast majority, however, is stuck in the vicious circle forever. They don't know how to live differently, and the society rejects them even if they try to end their wrong ways; they become career criminals.

That's a lovely four paragraph explanation explaining how criminals are criminals for life. Unfortunately it's simply not true, even for violent crime.

It doesn't matter how much you argue otherwise, crime is a symptom of youth and as they age people generally turn away from a life of crime. (I wouldn't be surprised if incarceration was negatively correlated with future offences but that's an unrelated debate).

Re:Yawn

[tftp]

You seem to be throwing out these cardboard stereotypes about suicidal people, criminals, old people, everyone. There's such insane variety around any kind of label you can imagine and you seem to be ignoring all of it.

That is true. Even if Slashdot would be capable of providing enough writing space for a ten-volume manuscript, it is still necessary to have a better command of the subject. I am not a professional in this particular area and don't have access to specific, statistically significant cases. My opinion is based on personal observations and on what I read. My opinion may be right or wrong, but I have it and it's mine. And you have yours.

BTW, if your friend is depressed, I don't think you should give him a map to the nearest tall building. You are free to persuade him - and he is free to listen to you or not to listen. Usually people do listen, especially those who don't have physical, material reasons for their decision. (That's what I read!)

It doesn't matter how much you argue otherwise, crime is a symptom of youth and as they age people generally turn away from a life of crime.

... at least because they are not physically capable anymore of the exertion that is required to do it. Quite possible. Still, plenty of young ones around to ruin one's day. And not so young too - look at the FBI's list of most wanted criminals; most of them are well past their teens. (But, of course, those are unusually bad; statistically, they don't matter.)

Re:Yawn

[quantaman]

That is true. Even if Slashdot would be capable of providing enough writing space for a ten-volume manuscript, it is still necessary to have a better command of the subject. I am not a professional in this particular area and don't have access to specific, statistically significant cases. My opinion is based on personal observations and on what I read. My opinion may be right or wrong, but I have it and it's mine. And you have yours.

BTW, if your friend is depressed, I don't think you should give him a map to the nearest tall building. You are free to persuade him - and he is free to listen to you or not to listen. Usually people do listen, especially those who don't have physical, material reasons for their decision. (That's what I read!)

Depression is kinda nasty in that it's hell to endure and depending on the causes really hard to get out of. People help but at the end of the day there's often not a lot you can do. Note, this is partially conjecture since I hadn't known the guy for a few years and the girl was a relatively new acquaintance at the time. That being said I had one reasonably close friend who went through a divorce and used me a lot for emotional support, she later confessed she considered suicide at the time so who knows what could have happened but she (and the other girl who survived her attempt) are definitely a lot happier now.

... at least because they are not physically capable anymore of the exertion that is required to do it. Quite possible. Still, plenty of young ones around to ruin one's day. And not so young too - look at the FBI's list of most wanted criminals; most of them are well past their teens. (But, of course, those are unusually bad; statistically, they don't matter.)

Regardless of why they stop they do stop, I suspect a lot of it is just plain maturity. As for the FBI list it's actually a worse example than you realize, almost all of them were listed for activities from more then a decade ago :)

uncensorable?

[fustakrakich]

Not when somebody can drop an anchor on your cable...

This is the best way of gun control

[Hentes]

Give gun nuts a tool to blow themselves up with.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

natural selection at work soon

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Feyshtey]

By that line of reasoning its natural selection when you disarm yourself.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Capt James McCarthy]

Give gun nuts a tool to blow themselves up with.

Just because you find weapons have no purpose in your life doesn't mean that you can decry someone who appreciates and finds value in weapons.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[buchner.johannes]

Let drunk drivers drive and they will get themselves killed.

Problem is, they harm others and don't consider this. Just consider someone drunk or angry with a gun in their hand.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Feyshtey]

Aside from the fact that you assume anyone that is a proponent of the 2nd Amendment is too incompetent to evaluate and safely utilize this technology, you also demonstrate that this whole argument really has nothing to do with saving lives. You're perfectly willing to sacrafice innocent lives so long as their loss serves your political agenda.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

When guns are killing more than 30,000 people every year? Yes. Yes I can.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[PortHaven]

If there weren't guns in America. (Be it civilian, police and military.) You wouldn't be here...

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

At the High School my wife works at five students have committed suicide with guns in their homes.

Zero have been killed by an armed intruder.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[cogeek]

Not sure where you get your statistics of 30,000 people dying per year from guns, but even assuming it's an accurate statistic (huge leap of faith here), according to the US Census, http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf (see here's the difference of just putting a number out there versus data to back it up) 46,800 people were killed in the US alone in auto accidents in 2012. Why is no one screaming to Congress to ban automobiles? It would save 16,800 more lives per year than your "fact" of 30,000 people killed by guns each year.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[dadelbunts]

Yes because without guns people would stop killing and injuring each other amirite.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Capt James McCarthy]

When guns are killing more than 30,000 people every year? Yes. Yes I can.

By that logic then, you must ban the automobile. It killed over 32000 people last year alone.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you and folks like you have zero credibility in your fruitless and ignorant quest to disarm law-abiding American citizens. People who keep firearms are "gun nuts". Your arguments were already terrible and embarrassing, but when you add ad hominem attacks to your already laughable position, it's hard to imagine why no one takes you seriously.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are there so many suicides at that high school? The problem isn't the firearms, but why are there so many suicidal youth? Isn't that the big problem you seem to be overlooking in your quest to blame guns?

Suicidal people will find other methods of harming themselves, attacking the instrument used to attempt suicide is sort of missing the point, no?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

...unless you are Native American. Then there would be a lot more of you here.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

Really? Places with no guns have zero people? Aside from pedantic arguments that alternate prior histories would produce alternate people (so "you" in specific would not be here, but a lot of different people would), I'd say the entire history of human civilization before guns (and continued existence of humans in regions of less or no guns) flatly contradicts the idea that guns are a basic necessity of life.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[CanHasDIY]

Which guns? All the ones I own just sit there until acted upon by a human.

I keep hearing tales of these guns that kill people all on their own, but I've yet to encounter one myself.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Feyshtey]

How many laws have you demanded to evaluate the mental health of the kids in the school?

Zero? Yeah, thought so.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the fact that you assume anyone that is a proponent of the 2nd Amendment is too incompetent to evaluate and safely utilize this technology

It's not the 2A proponents. It's the other people near them who are too incompetent. One of them will go crazy and steal the 2A proponent's gun and cause serious damage with it (usually killing the 2A proponent)

you also demonstrate that this whole argument really has nothing to do with saving lives. You're perfectly willing to sacrafice innocent lives so long as their loss serves your political agenda.

That's how it should be. Are YOU going to sacrifice innocent lives to further his agenda? Of course not. This is America, and we believe in personal responsibility. he's taking his political agendas into his own hands. You 2A proponents should learn from him.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, Hentes is perfectly willing to make an obviously tongue-in-cheek comment about people stupid enough to attempt to use this gun, and is in no way representative of any particular political agenda.

Flippancy, it happens on the Internet.

Contrast Hentes to say, the NRA, and its spokesman, and you'll notice that one is a representative of a larger group, while the other just happens to be another smart-mouth.

But hey, let's see who is willing to sacrifice innocent lives. Whose reasoning was it that you can't prevent all possible gun deaths, so no laws should be passed?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Kaptain Kruton]

30,000? And where did you get that number?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[just_a_monkey]

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that it would be much harder for them to injure each other without weapons.

I do not believe in the "guns do not promote injury, therefore they can be safely allowed" argumentation. Gun-ownership should (as should ownership of anything) be a question of freedom, not a question of damage minimization. (Because the regulators will always win the latter. More regulation will always give less injuries. And if it doesn't, it was because the regulations weren't oppressive and invasive enough.)

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Infiniti2000]

Good analogy. So, let's put the same restrictions on guns like we do on automobiles here in the U.S. You know, registration is required, licenses are required, insurance is required. In some states, an inspection is required. How does all that work for you?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

I'm all in favor of focusing on preventing automobile deaths. In fact, if we scrapped the entire "war on terror" and used those hundreds of billions to build out public transport infrastructure befitting a first-world nation, we'd be doing far better in the "saving lives" department. However, a significant difference between cars and guns: cars provide a heck of a lot more than 50% more useful functionality to society than guns, so they're perhaps "worth" slightly more carnage. Which would cause more problems: all the guns in the country spontaneously jamming and failing to fire, or all the cars in the country breaking down?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[CanHasDIY]

Why is no one screaming to Congress to ban automobiles?

Because restrictions on automobiles might inconvenience them, so it's not up for discussion. Same goes for any mention of the deaths caused by swimming pool accidents.

Further supporting my contention that gun-grabbers couldn't give two shits about 'protecting the children' or saving lives.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[ColdWetDog]

You would still do better, much better, on a number of fronts, by tightening up DRIVING LICENSE qualifications.

Go with the data. Cars are much, much more dangerous than guns. By (slowly) ending the driving culture you would save on lives, power, pollution, space, what's left of my hearing and perhaps my sanity.

Now, get off my road!

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[AuMatar]

Because automobiles provide a useful purpose- bringing people to and from jobs, entertainment, etc. It has a positive effect on people's lives, and we decide its worth the cost. Guns provide no use aside from hunting, which a tiny minority of guns are actually used for.

Also, on a per capita basis its ridiculously the other way. The majority of people don't own guns, but do own cars. So a far larger percentage of gun owners cause deaths than car owners.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[ShanghaiBill]

Suicidal people will find other methods of harming themselves, attacking the instrument used to attempt suicide is sort of missing the point, no?

Not true at all. If suicide is easy and convenient, the suicide rate will be much higher. Nothing is easier than pointing a handgun at your head and giving the trigger a little tug. Using a long gun (rifle or shotgun) is only slightly harder, but they are used in suicides far less. Homes with handguns have higher suicide rates than homes with long guns, which have higher suicide rates than homes with no guns. So claiming that suicidal people will "find a way" is not true.

I own a couple long guns (a rifle and a shotgun) and I am a strong supporter of gun rights. I accept a higher suicide rate as a price we pay for living in a free society. But we shouldn't delude ourselves into believing that there is no trade off, and freedom has no cost.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[robthebloke]

Gun deaths in the US in 2010: 11,078 homicides, 19,392 suicides, and 606 unintentional killings.

Why is no one screaming to Congress to ban automobiles?

Because that's a stupid argument, and you already know the answer.

In the vietnam war, 58,000 american soldiers lost their lives. A large number (but not all) US citizens campaigned for US troups to pull out, and eventually that happened. You see the thing about a democracy is, that you make decisions based on the majority, not the minority. It so happens that an overwhelming majority or americans believe that cars are a good thing, and should not be banned. The problem with gun ownership, is that there is now a majority of americans who believe that restrictions on gun ownership should be tightened (to some degree). They might not agree on everything, but there is general agreement for tighter restrictions. You might not like this, you might not agree with it, but unfortunately, you live in a democracy and therefore have to accept societies wishes I'm afraid. The best thing you can do, is stop making trite arguments, and start making sensible suggestions for compromises that would both be acceptable for you, and for the anti-gun lobby.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[WillgasM]

Let's all just live in padded cells and eat jello then. The world's a dangerous place; In fact, it has a 100% mortality rate.
How about we prosecute criminals rather than persecute everyone.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Capt James McCarthy]

However, a significant difference between cars and guns: cars provide a heck of a lot more than 50% more useful functionality to society than guns, so they're perhaps "worth" slightly more carnage. Which would cause more problems: all the guns in the country spontaneously jamming and failing to fire, or all the cars in the country breaking down?

Oh I don't know....Every time I bite into a juicy steak, I thank the gun that put that killed that cow quickly.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[cogeek]

Based on your "useful purpose" example of bringing people to and from "entertainment", then my guns provide the exact same service. I go shooting weekly as "entertainment", so they provide me the same "useful purpose" as your automobile does to you. Thank you for arguing my point for me.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy you sound like a heavy smoker in denial about his habit. Anyway marry your boomstick. As long as you Americans shoot at eachother at least you're not busy bombing the rest of the world.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking for myself, I'd like to reduce the number of automobiles in this country, and transition to public transportation.

That said, I can look outside and see dozens of cars in use. I can probably expect to see hundreds, if not thousands, on my way home.

How many guns in use will I see?

What's the acceptable ration of utility to injury/death?

And exactly what makes you think that there aren't advocates for improving public safety when it comes to the use of automobiles? Ralph Nader's Unsafe at Any Speed is close to its 50th Anniversary. Maybe you should read it.

And read about how companies like GM responded. Strikingly similar to how firearms manufacturers respond to being challenged. Huh.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[umghhh]

I do not know about 30k kills a year but there is a difference between a device that has some utility value besides killing and one that hardly does.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

At the High School my wife works at five students have committed suicide with guns in their homes.

Zero have been killed by an armed intruder.

Posting as AC because I'm moderating. What "moderator" marked the quoted comment to -1? I modded it up to counter that, and I don't even agree with the comment!. Agree with it or not, it's a reasonable remark in this debate. It prompted several reasonable responses. -1 is supposed to be for trolls and flamebait, not comments the moderator doesn't agree with. Using it that way is pure censorship, which is not the purpose of the mod system.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

Interestingly, we as a society permit a huge amount of inconvenience to regulate car use. You've got to be licensed, trained, registered, tracked, and taxed to operate a car.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[St.Creed]

Not really: suicide is often a cry for help, and when people slit their wrists or overdose on sleeping pills, they often get found in time to get them to a hospital. After that, you can try and treat the depression.

Guns make sure no such option is available. And that's why even when the number of suicide attempts may be equal, the availability of guns in one country and not in the other, ensures a noticeable difference in lethality of said suicide attempts. "Successrates" vary between NL and USA: 2% to 2.5% out of all attempts (and there are a lot of attempts: 100.000 in the Netherlands alone each year). A small but noticeable difference with a lot of casualties attached.

Of course, the real issue is suicide, but handing suicidal people better ways of killing themselves does not seem like a good idea.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

You're perfectly willing to sacrafice innocent lives so long as their loss serves your political agenda.

You realize that this is exactly what most people don't like about NRA types, right?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[ColdWetDog]

Fine by me. You pretty much have that anyway. All you need to do is tighten up the federal database ("all" you need to do, yes, it's not trivial) and expand hunter safety courses to handguns.

That and come up with some meaningful way to get people to lock up firearms around kids. Although I could argue if you want to get your progeny killed, fine, that's your business. Don't use seat belts or bicycle helmets and don't lock up your guns. Darwin wins, eventually.

It really hasn't been in the radar of the 'gun debate' but hunter safety courses - which are mandatory in every state that I've ever hunted in - have been credited with a significant drop in fire arms related accidents. Whether that data is true is open to analysis but if the hunter safety course I went through eons ago was at all typical, there were people there who barely understood the difference between the front and back end of the rifle. Just the simple concept of muzzle control has probably saved a couple of people in that group (don't point the muzzle at anything you're not planning on shooting).

Of course, the redneck in me wants to say that 'gun control is using both hands', but I'm cranked on caffeine at the moment ....

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[GameboyRMH]

Disarming yourself isn't going to cause an explosion at arm's-length from your face which may or may not be safely directed away from you.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Froboz23]

cogeek is absolutely correct. Car and guns are both responsible for tens of thousands of deaths every year, and they should be treated similarly. Because they are inherently dangerous, cars should require a license to own and operate. Same for guns. To get that license, you should be required to take a safety course to demonstrate that you understand the risks of using a car, and know how to use one safely. Same for guns. The sale of cars should be regulated, with titles of ownership that would require a notary witness to transfer ownership to another person. Same for guns. Cars should require a key to operate them, so some random person can't walk up and steal your car, or use your car without you knowing about it. Same with guns. And people should not leave their keys in their car locks when not in use. Same with guns.

Cars and guns should both be legal, but reasonably regulated to minimize deaths caused by their use.

I'm glad we see eye to eye on this issue cogeek.

BTW, I am a car owner, and a gun owner.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Opportunist]

I'd ask your wife why those students felt the need to end their life, must be horrible to go to that high school.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Capt James McCarthy]

Good analogy. So, let's put the same restrictions on guns like we do on automobiles here in the U.S. You know, registration is required, licenses are required, insurance is required. In some states, an inspection is required. How does all that work for you?

I'm not an avid hunter, but a license is required. Also, to carry a weapon, again a license is required (unless it's outlawed by a particular State). To purchase a gun, registration/background check is required. You don't actually think that the local, state, and federal governments would miss out on an opportunity to require licenses and collect those taxes so you can go enjoy a nice skeet shoot do you?

Where do people get the idea that you can get a gun as easily getting a candy bar from a machine?

And last time I checked, you don't have to have a license to actually purchase a used vehicle. However, you will need a license to register said purchased vehicle to be able to use it on the public roads. However, if I only use the vehicle on my property, I do not have to register the vehicle. But that is a state by state decision.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[CanHasDIY]

At the High School my wife works at five students have committed suicide with guns in their homes.

So? Japan has one of the highest rates of suicide in the world, and virtually zero guns in private hands.

What you've posted is the definition of a non sequitur.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[vux984]

Aside from the fact that you assume anyone that is a proponent of the 2nd Amendment is too incompetent to evaluate and safely utilize this technology,

No. He said "gun nut" that's a much smaller subset than "anyone that is a proponent of the 2nd Amendment".

Its like the NRA. They are proponents of the 2nd amendment, but their leadership isn't merely gun nuts, they are just plain nuts. (Seriously, the coverage their convention got literally blew my mind. Their guest speaker list was a who's who of political dingbats. Sarah Palin, Glen Beck...

The gun enthusiasts I know would be embarrassed to be at an event where they were speaking. And for good reason... Palin was off in lala land talking about Big Gulps and Tobacco... subjects near and dear to any 2nd Amendment issue, right? And Glen Beck engaged in his usual apoplectics over the world coming to an end... Barack Obama and the doom of all mankind...it all just brought him to tears... again.

Because increased background checks would be the doom of all mankind?

They might be Ineffective, they might be unnecessary... I don't know. But rational people could have a conversation about it. These people aren't rational.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Guns provide no use aside from hunting, which a tiny minority of guns are actually used for.

In order to have made this sweeping generalization, you must live in a highly urbanized coastal city and have no concept of life outside the 5-block radius you inhabit.

Here in the Midwest, most guns are actually used for hunting.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[i kan reed]

Why do you assume zero? I think you'll find defunding mental health treatment wasn't a liberal policy.

Moreover, the data shows that lack of gun availability really does reduce suicide rate(page with a list of citations covering numerous different examinations of this ), but we're not allowed to research that in the U.S. Generally speaking suicides are impulsive acts, and the person committing suicide isn't willing to go through a complicated process to do so. Mental health treatment for suicidal thoughts, however, hasn't been shown to dramatically affect suicide rates(though it does work for other things).

Just because what you're saying sounds nice and protects guns doesn't mean it does anyone any good. (And I think there's no point to gun control without repealing/altering the 2nd amendment)

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[GameboyRMH]

That might be a valid comparison if cars were only used for going to the movies or racing, but you just overlooked every other use of vehicles in people's lives. If you and a large fraction of the population depend on your gun for transportation to, from and perhaps during work, require one for virtually every movement of goods, and have a similar safe non-entertainment use vs. death ratio to cars right now, then we'll talk.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[BasilBrush]

a) Risk versus utility is far higher for guns.
b) Many more laws already exist to restrict car owners for the purpose of safety than exist to restrict gun owners.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[CanHasDIY]

Guns make sure no such option is available. And that's why even when the number of suicide attempts may be equal, the availability of guns in one country and not in the other, ensures a noticeable difference in lethality of said suicide attempts.

Then why does Japan, who has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, also have one of the highest successful suicide rates?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[X0563511]

... and before someone comes in with "they don't shoot them!" ... pretty much they do.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, registration is required, licenses are required, insurance is required.

Registration: already required for weapons
Licenses: already required for hunting
Insurance: deaths due to accidental gun deaths are orders of magnitude smaller than deaths due to automobile accidents.

But spewing vitriol is far easier than critical thinking, amirite?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

You like statistics? How about this? The medical/pharmaceutical establishment kills 784,000 people every year and that is not counting the 1.5 million unborn children deliberately murdered by the same people that are licensed to practice the "healing arts". No politician, especially liberals are contemplating doing anything about this.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[CanHasDIY]

Interestingly, we as a society permit a huge amount of inconvenience to regulate car use. You've got to be licensed, trained, registered, tracked, and taxed to operate a car.

Licensed, registered, and taxed, yes.

Training, not so much. Personally I think there should be a training requirement to get a driver's license, similar to the process they use in Germany; 'twould greatly reduce the number of fatal accidents, IMO.

Tracking, again, no evidence in law that I'm aware of.

Oh and a side note: You don't have a Constitutional right to own a car. You do have a Constitutional right to own and carry a firearm, whether or not you choose to exercise it.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[GameboyRMH]

You completely overlooked the voluntary vs. involuntary / negligent aspect of that loss of life. I'm all for assisted suicide and less state nannying when people decide to put only themselves in dangerous situations.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Opportunist]

There are quite a few leisure activities that are potentially dangerous, even lethal. Outlaw them all? Freeclimbing, paragliding, basejumping... they all serve no real purpose and are very dangerous, potentially lethal and accidents can turn ugly very fast.

Or is that ok 'cause so few people do it that it doesn't matter even when 30% of them died every year?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd ask your wife why those students felt the need to end their life, must be horrible to go to that high school.

Nah, the kids were just weak, and Darwin worked its course

I like how popular American culture on one hand says they're for personal responsibility, but they rarely let a kid take any personal responsibility (must be the schools, the government, the TV, the video games, other kids bullying him, etc.) ...and then they wonder why the kids (who survived through the system) they're churning out are irresponsible, entitled, and carrying debts well beyond their means.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[CanHasDIY]

you live in a democracy

Common misconception; we actually live in a republic, not a pure democracy.

If this were a democracy, Jim Crow laws would still be in effect.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[jd.schmidt]

LOL, so you arguing for the gubbermint to restrict access to poor quality self-made weapons.... well OK if that is what you want.

Or maybe the original post was a joke?

"You take my gun from my cold dead hands!"

"I find your deal acceptable!"

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[atriusofbricia]

Good analogy. So, let's put the same restrictions on guns like we do on automobiles here in the U.S. You know, registration is required, licenses are required, insurance is required. In some states, an inspection is required. How does all that work for you?

And I can buy any gun I can afford and not have to pass any background check or hear about how my gun is too "deadly" and has too many "assault features"? The same as I can buy a 1000HP super car if I have the money, right?

So, if we treat guns like we treat cars yes you might have to register (to carry in public places as car registration isn't required merely to own) have a license (also to carry in public places as you don't need a license to drive on private property) and perhaps insurance (again, only required to carry in public as I don't have to insure my car sitting in the drive way). I can also buy a .50 heavy machine gun on a cash and carry basis along with whatever else I can afford.

Somehow I doubt very much that's the direction you want this analogy to go, no?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Feyshtey]

It certainly ensures which direction that explosion is traveling.

All else being equal, nature doesnt favor the disarmed. And a criminal isnt playing on equal footing by following your rules.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Mr. Slippery]

Which would cause more problems: all the guns in the country spontaneously jamming and failing to fire, or all the cars in the country breaking down?

If cars break down, there are bikes, busses, mass transit, and walking. It's inconvenient but civilization as we know it could survive.

If firearms stop working, every human being is at the mercy of larger and stronger people. As the cliche goes, ""God created men, but Sam Colt made them equal." A free and democratic nation cannot exist without firearms.

Homicides using firearms number about 10,000/year in the U.S.; defensive gun use estimates range from 55,000 to 2,500,000 (yes, the error bars are that huge). Guns are used far more often to protect people than to murder.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[BasilBrush]

Then why does Japan, who has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, also have one of the highest successful suicide rates?

If you're so simple that you don't realise that multiple variables can influence an outcome, you have no place on Slashdot.

The Japanese have a much stronger sense of duty, failure and shame, and are lousy at getting together with the opposite sex. Those things and other cultural differences lead to a higher suicide rate. Which says absolutely nothing about the GPs correct point that gun availability raises the proportion of successful suicides. They are entirely different variables.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

In many cases a background check, registration, and even a license is not required to purchase or sell a gun. That was the whole point behind the legislation that Congress attempted (and failed) to pass just a few weeks ago.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[BasilBrush]

Or horrible to have gun nut parents.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Petron]

There are aprox 280,000,000 guns in the US. Earlier somebody stated that there are 30,000 deaths per year (in the US?). Some people doubt that number is correct, but we will go with it for now.

Now the ratio of deaths per firearm is 0.01%.

That is an extreme minority. Especally when you consider that guns that commit murder are likely used for multiple murders (that percentage is actually lower).

Now lets look at benefits of gun rights. States and cities with fewer gun control laws have lower burglary rates in the US. Why? Interviews with criminals show their biggest fear, more than being caught by a cop, is being caught by an armed home-owner. This fear reduces the number of crimes committed. And an added bonus: You don't even need to own a gun to have the benefits! Criminals don't know if you have a gun or not. This is why cities like Chicago have increased crime rates when more strict gun laws are passed. Criminals have their fear of finding a gun owner reduced, so they are more likely to commit crimes.

And one more thing to add. The various reports of death by gun per year figures always include suicide. Now the suicide rates from areas with strict gun laws and lax gun laws are about the same, so those people killed wouldn't be 'saved' by more gun laws, they just shift those death totals to different methods of suicide.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Feyshtey]

So then you must scratch any gun-related suicides from your list of gun control arguments. That is most certainly a person knowingly putting themselves in a dangerous situation, is it not?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[cogeek]

Again, no source quoted for your "statistics." Amazing what passes for an education these days. But let's combine the homicides and unintentional killings, (assuming someone that wants to commit suicide could just as easily take pills, jump in front of a train, slit wrists, etc.) you now have 1/3rd of the deaths that are related to automobiles. We could very easily outlaw private ownership of vehicles in the US, make everyone travel by bus or train, all goods transported by company owned tractor trailers and automobile fatalities would become nearly non-existent. But no one is trying to pass that because too many people would cry out. The laws that are being passed are knee-jerk reaction laws designed to make people feel safe, nothing more. It's not about safety, it's about grabbing power and usurping our "rights", not our "privileges" - First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[BasilBrush]

What you're posted is the definition of a mathematical moron.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the USA isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic designed to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority and luckily we have this thing called the bill of rights that at least in theory prevents the government from passing more gun control. You may be right 90% of Americans may in fact support background checks (although that is disputable given that the poll is from a website that is pro gun control thus excluding gun rights supporters) the problem is we already have those background checks that those 90% of Americans supported. Thus what you're actually seeing is that 90% of gun control advocates feel that we already have an appropriate level of gun control and any more would be inappropriate.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Gunnut1124]

Hey now, that's not funny...

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

Training, not so much.

Indeed, not much, and woefully inadequate. I suppose this varies by state -- when I first got a driver's license, you had to submit a certificate from a certified drivers' ed provider that you had completed ~16 hours of training. That's still ~16 hours more than required to grab a gun, which you're also allowed to carry around and/or operate after/while knocking back a few beers.

You do have a Constitutional right to own and carry a firearm

Just because it's in the Constitution (possibly with scope limitations to indicate use within "a well regulated militia") doesn't mean it's a great idea for (today's) society. Slavery was also institutionalized in the Constitution.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[CanHasDIY]

Then why does Japan, who has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, also have one of the highest successful suicide rates?

If you're so simple that you don't realise that multiple variables can influence an outcome, you have no place on Slashdot.

Sayeth the guy trying to defend the claim that the US has a "high suicide rate" purely due to the prevalence of firearms. I presume you'll be closing your own account, then?

The Japanese have a much stronger sense of duty, failure and shame, and are lousy at getting together with the opposite sex. Those things and other cultural differences lead to a higher suicide rate. Which says absolutely nothing about the GPs correct point that gun availability raises the proportion of successful suicides. They are entirely different variables.

Which does jack-shit to change the fact that, in spite of the complete absence of private firearms ownership, Japanese people kill themselves at a rate far higher than Americans.

The only thing you've managed to prove with this post is that you're an egocentric asshole. Congrats, I suppose...

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

". Guns provide no use aside from hunting"

Self defense.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[CanHasDIY]

Isn't there a bridge somewhere you're supposed to be guarding?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[cogeek]

The real question is, is that really a steak you're biting into or just what the Matrix tells you is a steak? lol

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[BasilBrush]

Fine. Replacing all those guns with cattle stunners will be a step forward. At least there will be no killing other people from a distance.

Re: This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Real data would show that in a comparative analysis, cars by rate of exposure are less dangerous than guns.

Most of us are around hundreds of cars in use in a single day. Very few of us will even see a gun, let alone on in use.

But don't let actual and real statistics get in your way.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

After the mass school shootings that have been happening of late, I'm pretty sure quite a few people feel that it's better to get rid of the idiots that endorse gun touting then let their idiocy continue to get innocents killed. Along the same line, I'm totally fine with your smoking, as long as you keep it to yourself, you may be killing yourself slowly but hell, we've tried to tell you to stop, if you're still doing it at this point you are aware of and accept the consequences.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps because arguing the same old tired gun grabber propaganda is not on topic, or falls into the "troll" category?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[GameboyRMH]

It's OK I live in a decent country where I'm highly unlikely to be shot or even robbed. Sounds like you live in Somalia though so I understand why you think guns are important.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[CanHasDIY]

Training, not so much.

Indeed, not much, and woefully inadequate. I suppose this varies by state -- when I first got a driver's license, you had to submit a certificate from a certified drivers' ed provider that you had completed ~16 hours of training.

Beats my state - here all you need is to be over the age of 16 and pass a rudimentary driving exam.

That's still ~16 hours more than required to grab a gun, which you're also allowed to carry around and/or operate after/while knocking back a few beers.

Uh, I don't know where you got the idea that it's legal to operate a firearm while under the influence, but where I live that's not only a crime, it's strongly frowned upon by the culture, enough so to discourage the behavior among all but the most anti-social assholes.

You do have a Constitutional right to own and carry a firearm

Just because it's in the Constitution (possibly with scope limitations to indicate use within "a well regulated militia") doesn't mean it's a great idea for (today's) society. Slavery was also institutionalized in the Constitution.

I won't necessarily disagree with the idea that there should be at least a minimum training requirement (personally, I believe firearms instruction should be part of the basic educational curriculum, starting early). What I disagree with is the fact that nobody in government seems interested in education on this matter, but rather are putting forward nothing but a bunch of knee-jerk reactionary bullshit that will do absolutely nothing to stop criminals from being criminals, and only serves to create more criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens (like drug laws).

Therein lies the problem: How do we move forward intelligently on this subject, when the people in charge of that movement are acting with anything but intelligence?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[BasilBrush]

Sayeth the guy trying to defend the claim that the US has a "high suicide rate" purely due to the prevalence of firearms.

a) You're referring to a different guy. That's why I referred to him as the GP.
b) He didn't say "purely". He's intelligent. You're simple.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[cayenne8]

Of course, the real issue is suicide, but handing suicidal people better ways of killing themselves does not seem like a good idea.

I dunno, maybe it is natures way of cleaning the gene pool a bit?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[cogeek]

I've never argued against gun registration, depending on who has access to the registration. Local law enforcement I have no issue knowing I have guns. Federal government, I do. So, fine, treat guns and cars the same. As for training, I agree wholeheartedly. I'm a CCW (Conceal Carry Weapon) permit holder, I shoot competitively at USPSA (US Practical Shooters Association) events weekly. I go through over 200 rounds / week in training and competition. Not many other gun owners go through nearly that much, but at the very least CQC (Close Quarters Combat), basic firearms handling and legal knowledge should be tested for gun ownership. So yeah, we're on the same page.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

If firearms stop working, every human being is at the mercy of larger and stronger people.

Fortunately, 100% of larger and stronger people aren't vicious muder-rapist psychopaths just waiting for the chance to rampage over society. I think there are plenty of perfectly nice large and strong people to handle the tiny few who suddenly decide to go rogue. Hey, I already walk around unarmed --- a short, flabby weakling --- and yet don't regularly get beset by burly bandits. With guns, I'm still at the mercy of those better armed, with better marksmanship, and more willingness to initiate violence with the element of surprise (no matter how well-armed a sharpshooter I am, I'm still screwed if a stranger decides to shoot me in the back of my head).

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[grantspassalan]

I'm all in favor of focusing on preventing automobile deaths. In fact, if we scrapped the entire "war on terror" and used those hundreds of billions to build out public transport infrastructure befitting a first-world nation, we'd be doing far better in the "saving lives" department. However, a significant difference between cars and guns: cars provide a heck of a lot more than 50% more useful functionality to society than guns, so they're perhaps "worth" slightly more carnage. Which would cause more problems: all the guns in the country spontaneously jamming and failing to fire, or all the cars in the country breaking down?

If only a fraction of the Jews that were living in Hitler Germany would have had guns, 6 million+ murders would have been prevented. Tyrants can arise in any culture. The founding fathers of the US just had fought off a tyrannical government. It was for this reason that they included the Second Amendment in the Constitution, because they feared that generations later history might repeat itself. No draconian gun control law will ever prevent criminals obtaining or using guns.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, so you arguing for the gubbermint to restrict access to poor quality self-made weapons....

Where did you learn to read? Poster made no mention of involving the government.

Free people implicitly accept that something can be a bad idea without getting the government involved to stop it.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Suicide in Japanese culture can be seen as honorable and the right thing to do.

In our (western) culture it's generally seen as cowardice and an act of pure selfishness, something people don't want to do but see no other option.

So while you're right, the cultural differences don't make it an appropriate parallel.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderation was "-1 Offensive to NRA"

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[lp_bugman]

Bad people will always find a way to get guns. Mexico has very few guns per capita. Guns are highly regulated and is illegal to own .45/magnum/.38 hollow point or assault weapons... This results on a disproportionate valance where citizens are powerless to defend themselves against tugs. Now they are dealing across the country with people having to pay "plaza" (racketeering) , kidnapings, robberies, deheadings, ... I do firmly beliebe high ownership of guns by population Makes for safer towns... when people is educated.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Mr. Slippery]

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that it would be much harder for them to injure each other without weapons.

You've confused "without weapon" with "without firearms".

Despite the easy availability of firearms in the U.S., about 30% of our homicides are committed without them -- with knives, clubs, fists and feet, fire, poison, and so on.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[BasilBrush]

I can't help myself. The first time I see someone posting something stupid I am impelled to correct them. The second time I'm driven to point out their ignorance.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[AGMW]

Er ... no. His post successfully explained the anomaly to me. That you cannot see the point isn't down to his explanation being 'bad', or indeed because he may be egocentric (not sure how that affects it either way?).

His point, if I may attempt to clarify, is that because Japanese culture has the aforementioned duty, failure, shame deeply ingrained, combined with the history of ritual suicide, that there may well be more people considering suicide because of their perceived failures, shame, loss of face, etc, and ritual suicides are most often committed using blades anyway, so _possibly_ even if there were a gun available, they'd chose to use a blade, but given the strict gun control, and the fondness for harakiri (suicide by ritual self disembowelling) the lack of guns doesn't hold them back.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how it should be. Are YOU going to sacrifice innocent lives to further his agenda? Of course not. This is America, and we believe in personal responsibility. he's taking his political agendas into his own hands. You 2A proponents should learn from him.

1) Correct, I'm not going to sacrifice innocent lives to further his agenda. Furthermore, I'm not going to sacrifice innocent lives to further my own agenda.
2) In what fucked up manner can you honestly claim that sacrificing innocent lives is taking "personal responsibility", or even "taking his political agendas into his own hands"? It is kind of the exact opposite of both.
3) If you really believe that we should learn from him, we would be gunning you down. Note that I am not saying that we would ever do that, and attempting to quote me in such a way as to go "See? See? 2A proponents are dangerous and guns must be taken from all!!!" will just make you appear quite childish. I am simply pointing out the flaw in your own logic.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[jd.schmidt]

The poster deliberatly misread the chains OP (claiming the OP was really hoping for people to die to advance some goal). I did the same thing on purpose (after all, goverment restriction might be one way to prevent accidental deaths of this kind) to point out how easy it is to misread something on purpose.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[lgw]

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me that it would be much harder for them to injure each other without weapons.

People will always have weapons - weapons were likely the first technology, after all. The advantage of guns is that they equalize the weak and the strong, the disabled and elderly and the street tough. Guns make it much harder for the strong to terrorize the weak. Arguments based on freedom seem to fall on deaf ears these days, sadly - but then, so do arguments based on empowering people to help themselves instead of being dependent on the government for help.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Hand guns were banned in England back in 97.

According to this paper:
http://www.bmj.com/content/336/7643/539

The suicide rates for men between 25 and 34 spiked AFTER that ban.

If you're going to commit suicide, you'll find a way.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

The only point you are actually making is that you are more likely to SUCCEED in committing suicide with a firearm, ideally you want to help these people BEFORE they even attempt to commit suicide. Are you really that fucking dense? You want to get them help BEFORE they try to kill themselves with a firearm, pills, etc etc.

You really don't get it do you?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[cellocgw]

. and before someone comes in with "they don't shoot [cows]!" ... pretty much they do.

They did (shoot cows) until Anton Chigurh stole the apparatus for his own purposes.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

Uh, I don't know where you got the idea that it's legal to operate a firearm while under the influence

Maybe from the wingnuts lobbying to allow concealed carry in bars. Also, the standards for "under the influence" are a heck of a lot looser for firearms than cars --- no one's losing their right to have a gun and going to jail for surprise checkpoint breathalyzer tests indicating BAC over 0.05. True, if you're belligerently stumbling drunk and lurching around town flailing a pistol, you might get in trouble.

Therein lies the problem: How do we move forward intelligently on this subject, when the people in charge of that movement are acting with anything but intelligence?

Well, that's a general problem with virtually every area of policy. Perhaps one approach is to also push back strongly against idiots like the NRA leadership, who oppose even the most *sensible* solutions (that even an overwhelming majority of NRA members support). Gun advocates need to step up and prove the NRA does not represent them --- support useful regulations like training and basic criminal background checks, instead of rallying behind extremist paranoid nutbags.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[mog007]

You don't have a Constitutional right to own a car. You do have a Constitutional right to own and carry a firearm, whether or not you choose to exercise it.

Rights are not granted by the Constitution. The right to bear arms is enumerated, but the right to own a car can simply be incorporated by the 9th Amendment.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[AGMW]

And a criminal isnt playing on equal footing by following your rules.

You hear a lot about "but then only criminals will have guns", and that may well be partially true.
The difference, of course, is that if only the criminal has a gun they mug you, you hand over your wallet, and they leave. They are unlikely to decide to shoot you anyway because then they're murders rather than muggers. best of all, you live, but are a little poorer.
The other fact that is ignored is that criminals simply do not walk into schools or cinemas and shoot kids. They just don't do it!

To recap:
Strict Gun Laws = a chance to be robbed at gunpoint, far less chance of having someone shoot your kids.
No Gun Laws = Far less chance of petty crime, but a high incidence of mass shootings.

For the record, in the UK you are more likely to be mugged at knife point as guns simply aren't that easy to get hold of - but you're still unlikely to be mugged at all. Also, those criminals who _do_ get guns tend to use them to shoot each other rather than the public at large.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[grantspassalan]

"Gun deaths in the US in 2010: 11,078 homicides, 19,392 suicides, and 606 unintentional killings."

The pharmaceutical/medical establishment kills 784,000* people each year. That is not counting the 1.5 million unborn children DELIBERATELY murdered each year by government licensed medical practitioners. If you want to do some math, that comes to over 13 Vietnam wars EACH year. Why is this never mentioned by our politicians or our liberal media?

  * http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[CanHasDIY]

Therein lies the problem: How do we move forward intelligently on this subject, when the people in charge of that movement are acting with anything but intelligence?

Well, that's a general problem with virtually every area of policy. Perhaps one approach is to also push back strongly against idiots like the NRA leadership, who oppose even the most *sensible* solutions (that even an overwhelming majority of NRA members support). Gun advocates need to step up and prove the NRA does not represent them --- support useful regulations like training and basic criminal background checks, instead of rallying behind extremist paranoid nutbags.

Yea, here's the issue with that: not everything that's been put out and referred to as "common sense measures" bear even the slightest resemblance to common sense. Look at the recently failed background check/ban bill - If you took the time to read it, you'd see that there was nothing in the bill that would prevent a massacre from occuring, and several onerous amendments were added at the last minute. One clause I found particularly disturbing was the section that stated the USAG office would be given the authority to force gun shops to sell firearms to individuals considered "prohibited persons," in flagrant violation of existing law (and sensibilities). It was an obvious attempt to make the Executive Branch's Mexican gun-running scheme defacto legalized, and that's one major reason I'm glad the bill died on the floor.

The only way to move forward on the gun (and really, any) issue is to A) stop letting extremists of all walks direct the conversation, and B) don't be afraid to take our time and really work out the kinks. Insisting on a "quick fix" that doesn't fix anything at all is not the correct way to both ensure the protections of liberty and life.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Hatta]

A better analogy is with the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights. Do you want to have to register before you can speak freely? Do you want to require a licensing before one is allowed to plead the 5th? Do you want to have your home inspected before you're allowed to assert your 4th amendment rights?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Mr. Slippery]

You know, registration is required, licenses are required, insurance is required. In some states, an inspection is required.

This is one of the stupidest arguments that gun control advocates makes, because you don't need any of that to own a car, only to drive one on the public roads.

I don't have a problem with requiring that folks have a permit to carry a handgun in public (provided it's a "shall-issue" to any qualified person and is affordable to all citizens), though of course Johnny Gangbanger isn't going to stop carrying just because he lacks a permission slip from the government. But telling me that I can't own a firearm on my own property, though, is a different matter.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[grantspassalan]

...unless you are Native American. Then there would be a lot more of you here.

Except that so-called "Native Americans" are not natives either, but just happened to come here a little sooner than the Europeans.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[offrdbandit]

Terrible analogy. Nothing is required to own an automobile (any automobile). Registration and insurance are required to *operate the automobile on public roads*. A more appropriate analogy would be requiring registration to carry a firearm in public. Then again, that kind of thinking doesn't serve the purpose of disarming the public, now does it?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

Nothing like a little revisionist victim-blaming wild-ass historical speculation to "prove" your point.
Let's consider an actual historical counterpoint, where an oppressed minority *did* have guns: the armed factions of the Civil Rights movement in the US, that promoted stockpiling guns for armed resistance against racist authoritarianism. You remember what happened to them? They mostly got murdered by FBI assassins, or thrown in jail for life --- and generally used as a propaganda tool by racists to legitimate the (ongoing) criminalization of being a black male. We didn't see the creation of well-armed enclaves of racial unity and justice. Jews with guns would just have been used as further propaganda by the Nazi leadership to speed up public acceptance of the idea that Jews were such a dangerous threat to the very fabric of civil society that they needed to be removed at all costs.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, all those things are only required if you want to operate a car on public roads. It's perfectly legal to operate an unregistered, uninsured, uninspected car without a driver's license, while drunk, if you do it on your own property.

Ownership of things (cars, guns, etc.) is a right. Using public roads is a privilege.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[sv_libertarian]

http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/we-need-to-regulate-cars-the-way-we-regulate-guns

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Myopic]

Do you reject the entire premise of economics, that if the cost of something is higher then fewer people will buy the thing?

If the difficulty of suicide is higher, fewer people will commit suicide. This is obvious and people who say otherwise are clowns.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[sv_libertarian]

Umm... registration is not required in most US states for guns. Hunting licenses have nothing to do with gun ownership, it has to do with getting permission to go kill an animal.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[loufoque]

I'm in favor of the 2nd amendment, but I'm not a gun nut. I have never owned or fired a gun in my life.
I just think no government should arbitrarily restrict the ownership of any kind of goods.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Correct, I'm not going to sacrifice innocent lives to further his agenda. Furthermore, I'm not going to sacrifice innocent lives to further my own agenda.

Sure, you don't have to sacrifice others. It's your loss to not do it though

2) In what fucked up manner can you honestly claim that sacrificing innocent lives is taking "personal responsibility", or even "taking his political agendas into his own hands"? It is kind of the exact opposite of both.

It is taking personality responsibility because he is pulling the proverbial trigger. He's the one asking for the laws, voting for particular politicians. He's not waiting for somebody else to do those things.

3) If you really believe that we should learn from him, we would be gunning you down. Note that I am not saying that we would ever do that, and attempting to quote me in such a way as to go "See? See? 2A proponents are dangerous and guns must be taken from all!!!" will just make you appear quite childish. I am simply pointing out the flaw in your own logic.

Erm.. why would you gun "me" down? I'm not the one pushing his agenda. I'm just the messenger. I'm not the one with logical flaws in my statement here.

And no, you don't have to shoot anybody down. Tell me: are gun control nuts trying to shoot or kill any 2A proponent? Again, the only one making faulty logic is you my childish friend.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ignore the anti-gun nuts. When the shit hits the fan, we'll use them for slaves.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You've got to be licensed, trained, registered, tracked, and taxed to operate a car.

By the state I live in not the feds and even then only to operate them on public roadways. I have been operating vehicles since age 8 all legally. Tractors, trucks, cars, and even high performance race cars all on private property or race tracks. As far as a tax when I buy a firearm from a legal licensed dealer I pay the local sales tax just like I do when I buy a car from a dealer. I haven't paid any tax on my project car, it isn't licensed, registered, or insured but then it doesn't operate on the public roadways. If I ever decide that I would like it to operate on the public roads then yes I will need go do all of those things. To take it a step further most states that allow you to carry a firearm in public require that you have some training, a license to do so, and an annual fee to continue doing so. They also tend to stipulate what types of firearms you are allowed to carry. For example even if I got a permit to carry in my state I couldn't just go walking around down town Minneapolis with my shotgun or rifle slung across my back.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Myopic]

Who pretty much has that anyway? We don't register, license, or inspect guns in most places in America, certainly not anywhere I've lived (Alaska, New Hampshire, Vermont, Nevada, Wisconsin). When I got my first gun I asked, "so how do I register it?" and people laughed at me. "Register it? Why would you do that?"

The answer to "come up with some meaningful way to get people to lock up firearms" is insurance. If people had to buy insurance against mis-use of their firearms then that would be a 90% solution to the problem. Insurers would do inspections of homes and come up with rubrics by which to judge risk that a person would allow their gun to be used improperly. People who securely lock their guns would pay low rates, wackaloon rednecks with small cocks who wave guns around like it was the end times would pay high rates, perhaps high enough to be prohibitive.

Like having laws against child abuse, we don't let people "get their progeny killed". We here in Western Civilization consider that bad because it is a violation of individual rights -- you don't get to do just any fuck-all thing you want to your children, because your children are people not property. Only an asshat would suggest that as a good reason to let fucktards be negligent with guns.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost all of those restrictions only apply when operating your vehicle on a public road, so your argument is shockingly stupid.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, cause we've all forgotten how to throw rocks. Unbelievable the amount of dumbass on this thread.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Since you brought up Automobile deaths vs Firearms death, lets really look at the data.

Number of households in the US: 114,761,359 (2007-2011)
Number of households in the US with at least one automobile: (90.9% 2010): 104,318,076
Number of households in the US with at least one firearm: (47% Gallup 2011): 53,937,839

Number of deaths involving an automobile in the US: (2010) 35,332 (no breakdown of accidental, homicide, or suicide given)
Number of deaths involving a firearm in the US: (2010) 31,672 including 11,078 homicides, 606 accidental discharge, 19,392 suicides, 252 undeterminable intent, 344 other.

Using the above (all from US census with the exception of the gallop poll as indicated which agrees with NRA estimates), lets normalize the mortality rate based on availability within a household:
Number of deaths per 100,000 households with automobiles involving an automobile in US: 33.9
Number of deaths per 100,000 households with firearms involving a firearm in US: 58.7

As you can see the mortality rate from firearms is 24.8 greater than automobiles. The correct method of interpreting these calculations are as follows:
34 out of 100,000 households with an automobile experienced or caused a death with an automobile in 2010.
59 out of 100,000 households with a firearm experienced or caused a death with a firearm in 2010.
(Note: "experienced or caused a death" signifies that the death originated from the item within the household. The death itself can be within a household that doesn't possess the item.)

This exercise highlights the fact that while there were 3,660 more deaths involving automobiles than firearms in 2010, only 47% of the households had access to a firearm versus 90.9% of the households having access to a motor vehicle.

Despite your assertion that "No one is screaming to Congress to ban automobiles", there are quite a large number of governmental regulations related to motor vehicles. Comparing automobile deaths with firearm related deaths actually hurts your argument since it demonstrates that the regulation of manufacture (safety, fuel efficiency, pollution controls), ownership (registration and taxation) and operation (licensing and traffic enforcement) keeps the mortality rate of automobile ownership quite low despite being in almost 91% of households.

Of course this ignores the fact automobiles are designed to transport people and firearms are designed to kill.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

OK...

UK Violent Crime Rate for 2012 933 per 100,000. Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22275280

US Violent Crime Rate for 2011 386.3 per 100,000. Source http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

I guess guns are REALLY BAD, OOOOH, SCARY!!!!!! Not.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I agree with your common sense views on firearms and safe care and handling, but when comparing cars and guns the current regulations for cars apply only to those who wish to operate them on public roadways and as such the regulations are not very different for firearms. For example I can drive a vehicle on private property without having to conform to any existing laws, even the laws regarding vehicle emissions, safety, etc. as it is on private property. For carrying and using firearms on public property we already have similar laws even regarding hunting with long guns in a number of states. In a large number of states now they require that you have undergone the standard firearm safety course to even get a hunting licenses. Coupled with laws that state that to carry a firearm onto public hunting grounds you need to have a valid hunting license and can only do so during valid hunting seasons there are those regulations. Now that means that during deer season I can't just go wander around down town Minneapolis with my deer rifle as I have a valid hunting license since there isn't any public hunting land there, but I can go and take that same firearm up to the north woods and wander around all I want for 2 weeks in early November. When it comes to carry permits they are even more restrictive as typically a permit to carry only allows a person to carry a handgun, requires renewal periodically, has an additional background check (more in depth than what is required for acquiring a long gun), and requires some form of training. This is so that you can legally carry a handgun in public spaces, just like with a vehicle. Also we don't have laws mandating that people lock their cars even though it is a good idea.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Feyshtey]

I didnt misread anything. The OP's statements are hard to misinterpret. He (or she) stated quite plainly that the best way to control firearms is to let firearms entusiasts kill themselves, which in turn shows a callous disregard for human life based purely on political position. It follows that this person doesnt actually wish to save lives. He wishes only to save lives HE values.

And while I am a proponent of the 2nd ammendment, I wish no harm to befall anyone, least of all my family. So if I must choose between harming one who wishes to harm me or mine, or allowing me or mine to be harmed, the choice is simple.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Infiniti2000]

You do not need a license to carry a gun in Florida, but there are restrictions on how to carry (i.e., to carry a ready weapon you need a concealed weapons permit). Also, that's not an example I gave. I was talking about licensing the equipment, not the person. You don't need ANY registration or background check. I can easily buy from a complete stranger. There are gun shows ALL THE TIME where this is very actively encouraged.

Regarding licenses, note that I didn't even mention licenses of people. I was talking about equipment registration. Anyway, that analogy works, too. You don't need a shooting license (equivalent to a drivers license) to various reasons, but it's not all-inclusive. In short, it's a lot easier to own and operate a hand gun than to own and operate a car. But, quite honestly all that was beside my point which was simple, and honestly your analogy is kind of a strawman and I'm simply answering it in kind: as a gun rights activist, don't make the analogy to car death rates unless you're willing to accept the continuance of the analogy to registration. You can see by the responses here that most gun rights activists can't stomach that.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Suicides are not necessarily a problem. In fact, killing yourself is a fundamental right IMO. There ought to be a way to do it easily, cleanly, painlessly and surely.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[AuMatar]

I grew up in the midwest. Didn't know anyone who'd ever gone hunting. Besides which, the MAJORITY of the US lives in urban or suburban areas, so if someone is being focused in on their area its you.

Plus nobody ever uses a hand gun to go hunting. So still the majority of guns are not hunting weapons.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[AuMatar]

For the .1% of us that will ever be in that situation? There's cops out there who have never had to pull their weapon, forget about private citizens. You're more likely to be hurt by your own weapon than actually defend yourself with a gun.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[St.Creed]

I've just done a quick tour on Japanese suicide statistics and it's a pretty mixed bag. Mostly people commit suicide by throwing themselves in front of trains, hanging, jumping off cliffs or overdosing - just as in most other countries, people are looking for a painless end to their sorrows, not a painful and protracted death bed to make a political statement.

Since the railway charges the family with the cost of the delays etc., more people are turning to gassing themselves - with all the risk for the area that involves, especially the ones getting creative with sulfur dioxide in appartment buildings.

If handguns were available over the counter, I'm pretty sure the methods would be replaced.

I couldn't find any statistics on the failed attempts versus successful ones. That might shed some light on the subject. I have the distinct feeling that the absolute numbers of people attempting suicide may not be higher in Japan but that they are more determined or use more lethal methods. This would both support my statement (providing them with guns will increase casualties) and support the countervailing argument (the main issue is committing suicide, not the method itself).

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[St.Creed]

Like infections or broken bones. Before we got around to finding ways of fixing things. Personally, I'm pretty happy with that. The genepool can look after itself - and otherwise I'm hopeful that in a few decades we can clean it up ourselves as much as we like.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[St.Creed]

I meant: with genetherapy. Duh.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean that spike that was driven through their brain after they were led to a conveyor belt, correct?

Not trying to be idealistic or anything, just curious if you know how your food is actually made.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Jyms]

Why do people have such a big problem with suicide anyway? It is not like we have a shortage of people on Earth. If some people want to off themselves and free up more resources for the rest of us, I think that is very noble of them. Preventing suicide by removing the most convenient tool is not exactly solving the problem. In a way you are making life even harder for the suicidal.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Bob the Super Hamste]

a) Risk versus utility is far higher for guns.

[Citation needed]
Guns don't magically load them selves, take aim, and fire all on their own.

b) Many more laws already exist to restrict car owners for the purpose of safety than exist to restrict gun owners

again [Citation needed]
Please tell me which laws restrict vehicle ownership where there isn't a comparable one for firearms? The only one I can think of are the various state laws that require carrying insurance to operate a vehicle on public roads. While the gun laws that exist restrict the age limits more than those for cars (typically no age for vehicles while 18 or 21 for various firearms), require waiting periods, background checks, restrict the type of ammo that can be purchased (you can still buy leaded gasoline and use it, just not on public roads), are more restrictive age limits on ammo compared to fuel (typically 18 for shotgun and rifle ammo and 21 for handgun ammo while gasoline is restricted to those 16 and above).

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[SolitaryMan]

You think there are no free countries with tougher gun laws?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Mr. Slippery]

Moreover, the data shows that lack of gun availability really does reduce suicide rate

No, it doesn't. What the data shows is that people who choose to commit suicide and have a gun around, will use a gun; that suicide is more common in rural areas; and that people in rural areas are more likely to have a gun around. International comparison shows that the U.S. has a lower suicide rate than many nations with strict gun control.

Generally speaking suicides are impulsive acts, and the person committing suicide isn't willing to go through a complicated process to do so.

Observation of cultures with higher suicide rates disproves this hypothesis. Jumping off a building or in front of a train takes some preparation.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[drinkypoo]

I'd say the entire history of human civilization before guns (and continued existence of humans in regions of less or no guns) flatly contradicts the idea that guns are a basic necessity of life.

I would consider the idea of giving up my rifle and only hunting at range with a bow, but I'd still want a pistol backup for pigs. The porcine kind, the big tuskers that you can find in the country here out west.

They may or may not be a basic necessity of life, but they have plenty of uses.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Archangel Michael]

The 30K deaths, include about 20K suicides by gun. They grossly inflate gun deaths, and equate all of them with gun crimes. If you want to piss them off, quote this little factoid, people using clubs and hammers kill more people than people using rifles do.

And if they claim that gun suicides should be included, then ask them what the rate of suicides is in gun controlled countries compared to the US. To give you a clue, total suicides in the UK are only .2 per 100,000 less than the US (and all the guns). This proves, people committing suicide will use whatever they can get to kill themselves, and gun control will have no effect on suicides, and therefore shouldn't be included in any gun control debates.

Gun Crime has been going down over the last 20 years, but that doesn't fit the narrative that gun people are loons. However, of the high profile gun killings, most of the people who did those are (D) or voted (D) in elections. I would suggest that (D)s shouldn't own guns. Of the cities that have gun control laws, most of them vote (D) and also have the highest gun crime rates (Chicago, DC). Again, suggesting that (D)s should not be allowed guns (using any number of their logic points).

It is pretty easy to deconstruct the emotional arguments Liberals make, because it is nothing short of scare tactics and feel good emotionalism.

Do it for the Children!

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[drinkypoo]

I think there are plenty of perfectly nice large and strong people to handle the tiny few who suddenly decide to go rogue.

There aren't, because both are unevenly distributed. Notably, if the former is not present when the latter acts out, they will do you no good whatsoever. Hence the old canard (to which I happen to subscribe) about the police being only minutes away when seconds count.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Archangel Michael]

And yet, cars kill more people than guns do (including suicides). It is even more alarming when you remove suicides from Gun Deaths. And even slightly more alarming when you remove all others leaving just gun crime deaths. Guns are loud scary items, and emotions count more than facts. Take Emotion out of the debate, and the anti-gun crowd is left a huge empty bag of nothing. It is all they have.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, so half of that 30k is suicides, and since the suicide rate in the US is roughly comparable to that in other developed nations, it's pretty safe to assume that those 15k people are going to kill themselves by some other means. So, a better number is 15k, which is still high, I admit.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[drinkypoo]

when I first got a driver's license, you had to submit a certificate from a certified drivers' ed provider that you had completed ~16 hours of training. That's still ~16 hours more than required to grab a gun, which you're also allowed to carry around and/or operate after/while knocking back a few beers.

When I first got a driver's license (in California) all I had to do was pass a shitty multiple-guess test on which you could get a fairly pathetic score, and then take a quite pathetic practical driving test on which I was unfairly dinged for poor throttle control (a little jerky, literally the first time I'd ever driven a GM vehicle which have wonky throttles compared to other vehicles) and which I still passed. It didn't even involve parallel parking, or freeway driving. The written test better judges your ability to take tests than to remember the rules of the road, and it's not very long in any case. California has the most people, the most vehicle, and the most vehicle-miles traveled.

You do have a Constitutional right to own and carry a firearm

Just because it's in the Constitution (possibly with scope limitations to indicate use within "a well regulated militia") doesn't mean it's a great idea for (today's) society. Slavery was also institutionalized in the Constitution.

It's funny that you mention slavery, because firearm ownership is specifically intended as a hedge against tyranny, due to the lessons learned during the gaining of American independence.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Archangel Michael]

I would go one more. Entertainment is not a right, Liberty is. Guns ensure Liberty, Entertainment doesn't. I personally value Liberty over being entertained. Those who don't, will be enslaved and pacified by those providing entertainment in exchange for liberty.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[drinkypoo]

You want to get them help BEFORE they try to kill themselves with a firearm, pills, etc etc.

You really don't get it do you?

Given that it is possible to help them at any time before they succeed at killing themselves, I'd argue that it is you that was not put on this earth to "get it", mister coward.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't because the deaths people care about (like Sandy Hook) are pretty much unavoidable by any licensing scheme, and the deaths people don't really care about (drug dealers shooting each other etc), which is the majority of gun homicides, are done by stolen guns. So there would still be a crapload of people killed each year, and the legal gun owners (of which there are many) would be the ones affected.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Archangel Michael]

You realize that you're much much more likely to be killed by a car than in a gun crime? I mean, it is not even close to the same level of danger. The fact that cars kill more people, while being less in number than guns, should also scare the crap out of you every time you drive to work. Chicago and DC not withstanding.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Archangel Michael]

And yet, gun crimes are much less of a problem than car crimes. And all those safety features, licensing and training of cars and drivers haven't made cars safer than guns. How does that compute in your world that we need more gun laws? Shouldn't we be looking at cars some more?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that so-called "Native Americans" are not natives either, but just happened to come here a little sooner than the Europeans.

True, though some people think 13,000+ years of residence establishes some rights.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[PortHaven]

"...unless you are Native American. Then there would be a lot more of you here."

Actually sir, you tragically prove my point. There were no guns in Native America. There are now no Natives in America.

Ya, kind of see what I'm saying here?

Remove the guns from non-Native America. And there would be no USA either.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[PortHaven]

Get rid of all the guns in a America...large and small.

How long do you think the USA exist if we had no weapons?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[jettoblack]

Car registration/licensing/insurance are only required if you want to drive on other people's property, like public roads (property of the People). It's perfectly legal to drive on your own private property without doing any of those things.

So to fully extend your analogy, public or private firearm ranges may require shooters to be licensed & insured if they want to shoot on their property... (but I think most of them would stick with the safety courses they currently use.)

Furthermore, unlike the right to bear arms, driving is a privilege, not a right guaranteed by the constitution. Would you be ok with mandatory registration, licensing, and proof of insurance before you can exercise your first, third, fourth, or fifth amendment rights?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[robogun]

The right to firearms possession is Constitutionally guaranteed to not be infringed. In the same part of the Constitution that guarantees your right to free speech, to not be unreasonably searched, to due process, jury trials, excessive punishment, etc.

If your argument is followed, expect the other rights to be annulled, and no way to stop it.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

And when your assailant has a gun, you're 0.1 seconds away from being dead (assuming they aren't polite enough to stop and chat first, instead of just shooting you before you realize what's happening). And, just as guns "empower" physically weak good guys, they also empower every scrawny punk-ass meth-head --- so now, instead of worrying about the one big burly evil dude, my chances of being murdered are multiplied to every cowardly little shit with a pistol (or being caught in the crossfire when a "good guy" goes paranoid vigilante).

I live unarmed, surrounded by unarmed people, several minutes away from armed response. I also live freely without cowering in paranoid fear. Billions of others on this planet do the same. Stopping crime is far better done by assuring equality and opportunity and decent conditions to all, than by gun-totin' vigilantes patrolling their little violent fiefdoms. When no one's life is so miserable that shooting up a liquor store for $42 looks like an upward career move, there's far less crime. I wish to live in a world where people respect one another out of shared humanity, not fear they'll end up on the wrong end of a gun --- and I'm living my wish.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Sweet so for firearms you are proposing no age limits for purchase, no background checks, no waiting periods, no restriction on the type of ammo purchased (you can still buy leaded gasoline), no restrictions on where I can take it (looking at you gun free zones), etc.

Be careful what you wish for. Also regarding registration, driver's licenses, and training for vehicles are only required for operating one on public roadways. Much like carry permits (driver's license), the training (driver training) required to get one, and the forms I have to fill out to purchase a firearm from a dealer (vehicle registration). The state of Minnesota knows about all the firearms I have as they were purchased from actual dealers (who hold a FFL) yet my project car the state has no knowledge of, no taxes, no registration, no license plates but then it never gets driven on public roads. Also I was legally driving long before I got my state issued driver's license out on the farm (cars, trucks and tractors) as well as racing cars out at various tracks (Road America out in Elkhart Lake, WI is a fun and pretty track and so was BIR up in Brainerd, MN before a tornado took out all the trees). To carry a firearm around in my state in public I need one of the following, a valid hunting license (which requires that I have gone though the standard firearm safety course) and that restricts me to being on public hunting land during a valid hunting season with the correct type of firearm for that season, or to acquire a permit to carry.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[drinkypoo]

Stopping crime is far better done by assuring equality and opportunity and decent conditions to all, than by gun-totin' vigilantes patrolling their little violent fiefdoms.

I don't disagree. Where we part company is when you suggest that reducing private gun ownership won't lead to more gun-totin' vigilantes patrolling their little violent fiefdoms. Only we won't call them vigilantes, we'll just call them cops who happen to shoot a lot of people dead "in the line of duty".

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Also to purchase a firearm you need to be at least 18 (typically 21 for handguns) with similar ages for ammo purchase while basically anyone age 16 or up can purchase a vehicle and fuel for it.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

Why are you assuming a nation without guns is a nation without weapons?

A free and united people will be damn hard to conquer, guns or no. How could a gunless people survive when the gun-carrying Canadian Imperial Invasion Force pours down from the North? The better question is how the gun-carrying Canadian Imperial Invasion Force can survive when they start finding out that 100% of their vehicles have slashed tires and busted engines from sand in the gas tank; when the rations they commandeer have unusually high incidences of nasty food poisoning; when their field offices catch fire every night, and their power lines are down, and their water mains are busted. Without guns, but a willingness to resist occupation, Americans could easily fight an asymmetric sabotage war that would make the country entirely undesirable to take over.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Feyshtey]

Define "free".

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Pffft. Sabotaging the enemy's stuff is for pansies. Real men burn their own stuff

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[zzsmirkzz]

The problem with gun ownership, is that there is now a majority of americans who believe that restrictions on gun ownership should be tightened (to some degree).

First, citation needed. Along with the actual question(s) that were asked because this is a subject where the specific language of the question really matters as it is easy to mislead people to say something they don't really mean (or even realize they said).

Second, the problem with gun control is that the "Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is an amendment to the Constitution and can not be superseded with a regular law. The existing language leaves no room for legally/constitutionally restricting this right, in any way. (unless you can find a definition of "infringe" that allows for that, I have asked many times and have never got a response). This means that you need at least 2/3's (66.7%) of the population's representation (Senators & Representatives) and then 2/3's of the States to agree to change it. Gun control has no where near that much support and the proponents of it know it which is why they have never even suggested enacting gun control in the only legal way, as a constitutional amendment which limits/restricts the second.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[cogeek]

Agreed AM. To quote the great Benjamin Franklin "Those who would surrender liberty for security deserve neither."

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[zzsmirkzz]

Unfortunately, the numbers you've used, while mathematically correct, really don't provide any meaningful insight. If you want to compare useful numbers, compare the total number of firearms in the US and the total number of automobiles on the road in the US (the per household figures have no relation to the question and are completely irrelevant). Compare the total number of guns to total gun deaths, and the total number of automobiles to total car deaths. Those comparisons would actually have some relevance to the discussion.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

Well, I'm all in favor of disarming and disempowering cops, too. From my perspective, there seems to be a positive correlation between fans of private militias and folks who like Sheriff Joe Arpaio's goon squads to be given unlimited reign to harass folks for the crime of looking Mexican. The "moar guns!" advocates rarely seem to be big supporters of dismantling the prison-industrial complex, or cutting back on police violence against anyone not White Christian Male Real American. Given the abundance of evidence from programs where restricting regular patrol-beat cops from carrying guns *reduced* violence (since minor offenders wouldn't be lead into a "shoot first or be shot" mindset), coordinated public/private disarmament is a great way to go.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

On average, people spend a lot more hours using cars than using guns. Being eaten by grizzly bears also kills far fewer people than guns or cars, but that's a poor reason to encourage letting hungry grizzly bears loose in every public area. Per amount of use, guns are far more dangerous than cars. With little impediment to the socially beneficial uses of guns, additional safeguards can significantly cut down on damage (just like mandatory seat-belts dramatically reduced the rate of automobile fatalities per person-mile).

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Your death stats include suicides which make up the vast majority of all gun related deaths, it's pretty clear how flawed your methodology is. Additionally, you assume one death = one incident = one household. There's no breakdown of illegal gun purchases v. gun ownership, purchasing for the express purpose of murder or suicide, anything like that. You're not really supporting your argument you're just muddling a bunch of statistics together. You don't need to be in a household with a car or a gun to die to either one.

People don't commit suicides with cars to any statistically significant degree, people don't have to live in a house with a gun to get access to one, and unless you're a young black male it's highly unlikely you will be in the homicides column. So what's your point? I'm sick of really shitty arguments like yours, do any due diligence, you seem to realize that your methodology is completely flawed but post it anyway.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[SolitaryMan]

Well, GP did have something in mind when he said "free society" and I was interested in his definition and his thoughts on the subject.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, somebody completely does NOT get natural selection. If an idiotic madman with a gun confronts an unarmed genius, or even if the unarmed genius is dumb enough to confront an armed madman, guess what? The idiot with the gun lives to have children, while the genius is an evolutionary dead end.

Natural selection is all about surviving long enough to procreate.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Good analogy. So, let's put the same restrictions on guns like we do on automobiles here in the U.S. You know, registration is required, licenses are required, insurance is required. In some states, an inspection is required. How does all that work for you?

Registration, licensing, insurance, and inspection are not required to own an automobile. Anybody can purchase and own an automobile.

Registration, licensing, insurance, and inspection are not legally required to drive an automobile on private property. Race cars are a great example of this.

Registration, etc. are only required to drive the car on the public roadway. Applied to guns, this would mean that persons who use a municipal shooting range or hunt on public lands may need to have some sort of paperwork. And, wouldn't you know it, hunting licenses are commonly required, and shooting ranges often have membership lists....

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Mr. Slippery]

I think there are plenty of perfectly nice large and strong people to handle the tiny few who suddenly decide to go rogue.

Violent people very rarely "suddenly decide to go rogue". They typically have a history of increasing violence.

The odds of one of those perfectly nice large and strong people being around when one of those rogues attacks you is low; and firearms enable people who are perfectly nice but not large and strong to protect you.

A quick internet search turns up many instances of ">older ladies defending themselves with firearms, and of mothers defending themselves and their kids, when no nice young large and strong folks were around. People who want all guns to disappear want a world where those ladies would be defenseless against their attackers.

Hey, I already walk around unarmed --- a short, flabby weakling --- and yet don't regularly get beset by burly bandits.

Nor are you regularly shot at by gun-toting thugs.

Part of the reason that, if you live in a middle-class area, you're not very likely to be assaulted is because we hire people with guns to lock up burly bandits. And also because potential burly bandits know that some portion of potential victims are armed -- armed citizens create a penumbra of protection.

With guns, I'm still at the mercy of those better armed, with better marksmanship, and more willingness to initiate violence with the element of surprise

All of those factors apply even more without guns (except substitute "marksmanship" with more general "skill"). In a typical assault scenario, if you have a gun your attacker is not significantly "better armed" even if he has a bigger gun, and marksmanship is not much of a factor because assaults happen at close range. With knives or other weapons, both the size of the attacker and of the weapon matters much more, and skill is a huge factor.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

If this were a democracy, Jim Crow laws would still be in effect.

On what do you base this? Civil Rights legislation came about *after* this was a nationally popular stance --- *not* because some brave representatives stuck their neck out, against the majorities of their voting constituencies, to stand on principle for equality. In fact, Civil Rights were delayed because of those representatives working to sabotage reform to prevent their "States' Rights" to discriminate from being trampled. What evidence is there that being a republic particularly helped in this case? That equal rights regardless of skin color was not already a *democratically* winning stance when and where it was implemented?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[i kan reed]

You should feel bad for your post. You won't, because you like lying to yourself. We all do. But god-damn that's a complete fabrication on your part.

That's entirely untrue. Did you actually go past the summary of first fucking study? Abstract of study number 2:

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, across the United States, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of suicide, particularly firearm suicide.

Emphasis mine. Literally demonstrates the opposite of what you said is true. Why? I mean, international comparisons do have some validity when controls are placed, but merged statistics are fairly useless a means of understanding causation.

Gun owning households are more likely to have suicides(especially gun suicides), but no more likely to have suicidal thoughts. That's an incredibly damning fact, and cross cultural comparisons are no match.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Hatta]

If you want to prevent suicide, make the world a little less dog-eat-dog. Don't attack the tools, attack the motivation. People commit suicide because it's the only way they have to escape extreme emotional anguish. Removing that escape will only make them suffer more.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Hatta]

There are no free countries.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

It's funny that you mention slavery, because firearm ownership is specifically intended as a hedge against tyranny, due to the lessons learned during the gaining of American independence.

And it sure helped the slaves, didn't it? Actually, the "well regulated militia" part of the clause was primarily referring to Southern "Slave Patrols" --- state militias used to suppress rebellions and hunt down runaways. Southern states didn't want to have to rely on the Federal Government to brutalize their slaves for them, thus needed assurance in that big bundle of compromises called "The Constitution" that they could maintain their State's Rights to violent oppression. Despite revisionist history pretending that gun laws were to help weak minorities, the original intent (and continuing function) has always been to empower the already powerful to stifle dissent. Whenever derided minorities have taken up arms and violent resistance, they've been brutally squashed, while the gun-lovin' majority cheers on.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Hatta]

The problem with gun ownership, is that there is now a majority of americans who believe that restrictions on gun ownership should be tightened (to some degree). They might not agree on everything, but there is general agreement for tighter restrictions.

Great, amend the Constitution via the procedures laid out therein, and you can implement all the restrictions on gun ownership you want. If you can't do that, you can't legally restrict gun ownership. I'm sure that won't stop you from trying though.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[SolitaryMan]

What are we paying the price of "higher suicide rates" for then?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

At the High School my wife works at five students have committed suicide with guns in their homes. Zero have been killed by an armed intruder.

only 55% of US males who commit suicide use firearms, and only 30% of women. More women poison themselves than shoot themselves. And home invasion is not uncommon here. Here's one in the news right now, two men who allegedly broke into a home and killed all five family members with a tire iron are on trial right now.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[jammer170]

I don't understand this kind of thinking - automobiles kill more people than guns do with those restrictions in place, and that is an argument in favor of implementing the same restrictions that automobiles have on guns? Why?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Pseudonym Authority]

I'm sure that sounded much more clever in your head.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing. A sensible well-reasoned article on /. ? Whatever is the world coming to?

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad analysis there. Take a look around you, you're more likely to encounter a car in your daily life than any gun. Why is that? Why is it that so many people can live around cars and not be injured, let alone die, if they're so dangerous? Maybe you're a fucking moron afraid of the horseless carriage, but most of the rest of us aren't deluded by your fantasies.

Sorry, but you idiots parroting this car nonsense need to realize how obviously facetious your argumentation is. I don't know what makes you think you can make such a stupid attempt to advance your agenda, but you ought to realize how badly it discredits you.

Maybe you're just confused by how many people don't call you on your bullshit. If you want to make this argument, get some real statistics that stand up to a whiff of scrutiny rather than trying to push this nonsense on the rest of us. The only thing you've done is shown how gun rights advocates are terrible with logic and facts, which makes the hypocrisy from them when they complain about the gun control advocates being illogical and emotional only more blatant.

Then again the NRA fear-mongering campaigns do the same. Oh wait, theyre allowed to create a hypothetical situation involving the rape of a mother or sister or wife, whereas bringing up the shooting of anybody by mistake is nothing but hysteria.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[BasilBrush]

1) And yet, gun crimes are much less of a problem than car crimes.

2) And all those safety features, licensing and training of cars and drivers haven't made cars safer than guns.

Neither of those statements stand up. Both are subjective as there is no hint as to measurement, and whilst it appears they make sense to you in the sense you had in mind, they are opposite to what I would have subjectively said.

Perhaps if you tried something that could be objectively measured.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Well actually, in most states, registration, licencing, and insurance is only required to operate a car on government built roads....If your car never goes on those govt built roads you don't need any paperwork...
Lets see:
1. you don't need a criminal background check to buy a car
2. high capacity gas tanks aren't restricted.
3. Automatics are legal to own, with out extra taxes and paperwork.
4. There is not a $200 tax, and 6 month wait to put a muffler on your car
5. There is no waiting period to buy a car.
6. you can buy as many cars, and as much gas as you can afford in any given time period.
7. You don't get reported to the BATFE for buying more than 2 cars in a week.
8. there is no "assult car" ban. No one really NEEDS a 2 seat sports car

  I would love to have all those encumbrances lifted if all I had to do was register/licence my guns only if I wanted to use a government built gun range.
RB

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Hatta]

For the chance that one day we might be able to win our freedom.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[BasilBrush]

Guns don't magically load them selves, take aim, and fire all on their own.

I can't imagine what is happening in your brain to make you think that is a sequiteur, let along a refutation of "Risk versus utility is far higher for guns."

You're trying to say that guns in people's hands are risk free? Or that cars go off on killing sprees by themselves? What? It makes no sense.

Please tell me which laws restrict vehicle ownership where there isn't a comparable one for firearms?

I said restrict owners, not restrict ownership.

Regulations for both vary from state to state, but in general:

Universal license requirement. Passing a driving test. Speed limits. Mandatory insurance. Parking restrictions. Roadworthiness (lights, tire tread etc.). Manufacturing safety standards.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[BasilBrush]

No, it's even better in print.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no meaningful rebuttal? The gun enthusiasts' argument is that if we look solely at the number of deaths then why isn't automobiles outlawed? There were no qualifiers on the types of deaths. You can't argue against a measurement just because it doesn't support your personal views. Especially when that measurement was first proposed as an argument against gun control.

Also there was no assumption that "one death = one incident = one household". You need to reread the comment.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually household is a better measure. The Newtown shooting was done by an individual who had access to guns owned by his mother who resided in the same household. The difference between someone owning a single gun and owning multiple guns isn't a factor. Gun collectors like to use the total number of guns sold to lower the significance of the fatalities (they like to use total guns / total fatalities) however no reliable statistic of how many guns are in actual use exist. This still doesn't help with the comparison against automobiles since millions of miles are travelled each year without incident.

The fact that enough guns are sold to supply every household in the US with 2.7 guns despite only 47% of households actually owning a gun seems to indicate that there may be a thriving unregulated gray market for guns that would have been addressed by the failed attempt to extend the same background check requirements to gun shows and private sales that are required from licensed gun dealers.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Carnildo]

Not true at all. If suicide is easy and convenient, the suicide rate will be much higher.

Epidemiological studies say otherwise: restricting access to means of suicide just changes the method. It has no impact on the suicide rate. Ban guns, and people switch to hanging, or wrist-cutting, or stepping in front of trains, or...

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[dadelbunts]

Yes and thats why the U.K has a violent crime rate higher than South Africa. I guess they need more regulations.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars that have an automatic transmission and have one of the following: spoiler(s), alloy rims, a hoodscoop, or 4 point harness will be classified as 'race cars' (regardless of engine displacement) and will only be allowed to someone after extensive background checks and not be allowed to travel between states. Gas tanks in excesss of 5 gallons are prohibited unless grandfathered in. Aftermarket exhaust systems are federally regulated, require extensive background checks, and you must register with your local sheriff if you own one.

Because of concern about street racing endangering our children you must be 21 years old to own a compact car, but be 18 to own a full size car with a v8.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

It also ignores that deaths is a poor metric. I'd rather be accidentally shot and lose a leg than be half crushed in a car accident and be fully crippled the rest of my life. Nether one gets counted in death statistics. What are the accident rates of permanent body damage with decreased functionality? That's the stat that matters.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

I probably would have killed myself if I had a gun in my apartment. Well, actually I would have played Russian Roulette and left it up to chance. Instead I had two weak suicide attempts that both failed. On the other hand, having a gun near me would let me believe that no matter how bad things got, I always had an easily way out. That may have given me a little more strength compared to feeling completely helpless. There's no way to tell which way it would have went.

I fully support the right for people to own their own weapons. It would be mean of me to pass on a high genetic risk for depression to my kids. If I was dead that couldn't happen. Society could benefit if more suicidal people killed themselves. There'd be less unstable people in the world.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[BoberFett]

30,000 people a year? Pfffft...

Hitler, Stalin, Mao. They killed people by the tens of millions.

You want to save lives? Disarm governments. Not citizens.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[drinkypoo]

Given the abundance of evidence from programs where restricting regular patrol-beat cops from carrying guns *reduced* violence (since minor offenders wouldn't be lead into a "shoot first or be shot" mindset), coordinated public/private disarmament is a great way to go.

The issue I have with that is that if we actually did dismantle the prison-industrial complex, that would also entail police reform and then I wouldn't be as scared to have so many cops running around with guns... but I still want cops to be able to deal with violent criminals, since even such a system would still have some of them.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[ShanghaiBill]

Epidemiological studies say otherwise: restricting access to means of suicide just changes the method. It has no impact on the suicide rate. Ban guns, and people switch to hanging, or wrist-cutting, or stepping in front of trains, or...

With all due respect, you are completely full of shit.

individuals in a firearm owning home are close to five times more likely to commit suicide than those individuals who do not own firearms. Gun Violence and Suicide

Additional citations: Guns in the home -- American Journal of Epidemiology, Gun availability is a risk factor for suicide - Harvard Univerisity

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Xarvh]

32 years and never once I felt the need to have a gun to defend myself.
I do wonder what kind of violent place the US is.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Xarvh]

ALSO, AFAIK, cars are regulated, insured and you need a licence.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

"Deal with violent criminals" is what you have a SWAT team for --- I think cops can still have some fancy murder equipment locked up in storage (perhaps even in the trunk of patrol cars), ready to come out when an armed bank robbery is in progress. But what we don't need is cops, with an itchy trigger finger and (legitimately) afraid of being shot by abundant firearms in private hands, gallivanting around ready to pump you full of lead if you reach for your wallet with the wrong skin color. For ordinary duties --- when you aren't in hot pursuit of a known armed menace, but perhaps just busting shoplifters or ticketing speeders, police don't need to be 0.5 seconds away from applying deadly force.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

And there it is, the reason for you and your ilk bringing up this issue in the first place. You think the Constitution is not a great idea for today's society. As I suspected.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

There are not. You losing in congress proves that. I'm not even in the NRA yet, but if you keep pushing, I will be.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, firearms are designed to kill. As such, they will be used when situations occur in which you may die, or if you have someone who is threatening your life.
Ban firearms, and something else will take its place. I, for one, will never support your attempts to do that, and will not allow it to happen, ever.
Here is what I think of you: you do not respect other people or their rights. You care more about how you feel than about others. You are a controlling bully, who thinks that if others do not have the means to protect themselves, that you can have your idea of some utopia. Perhaps that means you can rob more houses, or rape someone who you know currently owns a weapon but wouldn't if your objective was met, I don't know.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[grantspassalan]

The FBI did not methodically want to exterminate a specific class of people, such as Nazis did with the Jews. The Nazis got away with it because the Jews were not armed so the Nazi goons could come in the middle of the night and haul the hapless Jews off to concentration camps. If only 10% of the Jews had killed a Nazi goon, the Nazis would have never been able to come up with enough goons carry out their dastardly deed. There would have been 600,000 dead Nazis. All dictators throughout history have always known that you must first disarm whoever you are going to want to exterminate for whatever reason. The kind of people that dictators can hire to round up defenseless victims are usually cowards anyway and because of that cowardice would balk at arresting people who could effectively resist being hauled off for extermination. Black males were never at any time being hauled off to concentration camps just because they were black.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you. You and yours steal boys from their parents. Look up in the book of deuteronomy what the penalty for that is you fucking piece of shit.

Now look up a similar thing about young girls (It's different, man keeps the girl and pays the father)

You regulate and ban that too. I hope your order is disolved you piece of shit.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the insurance requirement, that would work great for me. The only restrictions on cars are ones that you want to drive on public roads. If not operating on a public road, there is no need for a license, registration, or insurance. (Ever notice a license plate or registration sticker on a NASCAR vehicle?) Thusly, by your logic I could buy any type of gun (including machine guns) for cash with no license or documentation as long as I didn't carry it around publicly. If I did want to carry concealed, I would need a license (which I have), and register my handguns (which in my state of NY you already have to do as well).

Hmm, treating a gun like the inanimate object it is. What a refreshing idea.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the majority. I hope your tyranny of the majority is destroyed. Women are the majority. What men like has been banned (from Actual girls (not women) to guns etc etc etc)

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[drinkypoo]

For ordinary duties --- when you aren't in hot pursuit of a known armed menace, but perhaps just busting shoplifters or ticketing speeders, police don't need to be 0.5 seconds away from applying deadly force.

I disagree. We are a violent nation. How long does it take to whip out a knife and stab a cop a bunch of times? No, they should be armed. What should change is that we should not be deliberately hiring dumb cops who will follow orders without considering whether they are good ones. To protect and to serve, not to patronize and harass.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Infiniti2000]

I didn't make that claim, but in response to your comment I would say there are two approaches: (1) we need more control over automobiles, too, or (2) those controls don't work, so remove them from both automobiles and guns. I think we all agree we need to find a happy medium. But, as long as people like Capt James McCarthy keep equating guns with cars, then let's make sure it's a full comparison and not selective. Gun rights activists always want to talk about how more dangerous cars are in terms of life lost and injuries, like that justifies fewer controls on guns. It's a non sequitur argument and amazingly lots of other gun rights activists turn off their brains and buy into it.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ridiculous to claim that nothing is easier than shooting yourself when the average American household has a number of over the counter medicines and chemical supplies that one could commit suicide with.

I'm thinking that it is even easier to swallow a bottle of sleeping pills than it is to shoot yourself.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[femtobyte]

The problem with your "lets only hire good and responsible cops, then give them lots of extra authority (license to kill) because they are good and responsible" is exactly where *abuse of authority* starts from. Absolutely, we should be hiring "good" cops with a deep understanding of what their civic duty for protecting society is --- much like we should be electing "good" politicians. But in order to *keep* the system from degenerating into authoritarian, self-serving power center, having generally higher IQ cops with better training than before won't help --- in fact, it will only add to their sense of self-righteous impunity. Insisting on "absolute" safety against rather rare occurrences (people stabbing cops) while setting the stage for more common occurrences of cops murdering people "in the line of duty" is not the way to go.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[jammer170]

I won't speak for all gun rights advocates, but the ones I know don't use the comparison of cars to guns in reference to the restrictions - its gun control advocates who do that. When most (I won't presume to speak for all) gun rights advocates compares cars to guns, it is to point out the fact that if gun control advocates truly cared about saving lives, they would be equally as active in caring about car deaths, which are higher. Since they aren't, it is clear there must be something else that gun control advocates are concerned with in addition to (or instead of, depending on the specific individual) the deaths. So in context, it is a full comparison. The parent is essentially expanding the context further than the grandparent, and as I pointed out, there didn't seem to be any logic behind it, given that cars have more restrictions than guns, and yet cars cause more deaths, so where is the societal benefit to expanding car restrictions to guns? That is the kind of thinking I just can't comprehend.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

living in perpetual fear of the police, the alex jones is strong in this one

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

And a closer look will reveal that your statistical interpretation relies on the firearm violence from where? The big cities which have the most oppressive firearms restrictions! Thereby proving once again to us "Big Picture" thinkers that so-called gun control that Democrat libtards promote is patently bogus.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Carnildo]

The studies you cite don't distinguish cause from effect -- suicide risk leading to gun possession versus gun possession leading to suicide risk. The American Journal of Epidemiology study, in particular, emphasizes that it's a study of correlation rather than causation. A good study would be done somewhere where an external force (say, the government) caused a widespread change in the availability of guns.

The study I'm referring to did distinguish cause from effect: it studied the suicide rate before and after the UK-wide replacement of town gas, which contains carbon monoxide and can be used to commit suicide, with natural gas, which cannot. Taking away one of the most common methods of committing suicide did not have a noticeable effect on suicide rates.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Three things you missed in your history and political science education:

1. There has never been a true democracy, ever. Even the Athenians, the so-called founders of democracy, did not have a true democracy: very few people had the vote, and conditions for the slaves working in the mines were terrible. A republic is not a democracy.
2. Tyrrany of the majority is a major problem that civil liberties are designed to protect against, as both US and world history has shown repeatedly. Part of living in a civilized country is not giving large groups the ability to infringe individual rights of persons in smaller groups.
3. There is a huge difference between the viewpoints of big-city dwellers, and the rest of the population. Firearm ownership outside the cities occurs at a very high rate. This is called demographics: read up on it.

Also, the automotive deaths issue is NOT a stupid argument. It is a logical and rational counter to the gun control propoganda, which attempts to manipulate people by massively inflating the danger of firearm ownership. When one side in a debate is lying, or presenting misleading statistics, both of which the gun control fanatics have been caught doing many times, it is entirely reasonable to point that out with contrary facts.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Counting suicides with homicides is a great way to artificially inflate the numbers. I wonder how many people are gullible enough to fall for that one.

In reality, the suicide rate in the US is comparable to many other countries, and lower than some, including some with very high restrictions on firearm ownership.

A person less fixed on generating propaganda, and more interested in legitimate reasoning, would take this into account, and ignore the suicides, under the reasonable assumption that these people would simply find other ways if they didn't have access to firearms. This would eliminate almost 2/3 of the firearm deaths.

But you didn't want to do that, because you aren't using facts as a tool for thinking rationally, you're mis-using them to attempt to manipulate others.

Once you take people not involved in the drug trade out of the picture, the numbers of deaths associated with firearms get even lower.

In short, the risk of being killed by a firearm, for an ordinary person, is tiny compared to the risk of being killed on the roads, in spite of the vast amounts of regulation of manufacture, ownership, and operation associated with vehicles.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

34 out of 100,000 households with an automobile experienced or caused a death with an automobile in 2010.
59 out of 100,000 households with a firearm experienced or caused a death with a firearm in 2010.

The 2010 rate of firearm homicide deaths is given as 3.6 per 100,000 based upon CDC statistics.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[cffrost]

You don't have a Constitutional right to own a car.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." — Ninth Amendment

To me, existing government regulations surrounding vehicle use and ownership don't offer a compelling argument for legitimizing restrictions of the Second Amendment — rather, it's an example of overreach that treads upon the human rights to travel and property, which can be particularly onerous in a nation where automobile-centric urban planning/suburban sprawl paired with deficient mass transit is so prevalent.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think comparing the number of people intentionally killed by a firearm while discounting suicides with the number of people intentionally killed by an automobile is going to help your argument.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[stenvar]

Cars are registered to establish ownership for recovery and sales and for taxation; taxation is used to have people pay for the costs of maintaining a public road infrastructure. Neither is a reason that applies to guns.

Driver's licenses are required to ensure that people know what the rules of the road are; guns are much simpler and such a requirement doesn't make sense.

Guns rarely cause accidents outside the home; outside the home, when gun use causes harm, it is due to deliberate action, in which case insurance doesn't pay.

So, the analogy doesn't work.

Re:This is the best way of gun control

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is easier than pointing a handgun at your head and giving the trigger a little tug.

Please try it for us now then?

boohoo

[mnajem9960]

a gun for retards.

Circumvent Gun Control Laws??

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good thing the Bad Guys that abuse firearms follow those laws!

Whatever would we do without gun control

Re:Circumvent Gun Control Laws??

[Anonymous Coward]

That's irrelevant and a naive view. Plenty of countries operate just fine with strict gun control laws and with lower violent crime rates than the U.S.

Re:Circumvent Gun Control Laws??

[Anonymous Coward]

And many don't. Both the UK and Australia are prime examples of gun control not actually decreasing violent crimes because guns weren't actually a big problem to begin with.

Re:Circumvent Gun Control Laws??

[moeinvt]

"Plenty of countries operate just fine with strict gun control laws and with lower violent crime rates than the U.S."

Looking at another country and assuming that the U.S. could reduce violent crime simply by duplicating that country's gun control laws is the naive view.

Check out this new report from PEW research:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware

The number of privately owned firearms in the USA is way up. Both the number of firearms owners and the number of concealed carry permit holders are at record highs. Meanwhile, violent crime rates, and even firearms-related crime rates are down. The Clinton gun ban expired in 2004, yet there has been no associated spike in violent crime or gun crime.

The most interesting and relevant case of a foreign country is Australia because we have a before/after view of gun confiscation.

Bullets....

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck 3D printing them.

gumby

[Anonymous Coward]

You can also 3D print Gumby!

Re:gumby

[PortHaven]

Really, cause Gumby is supposed to be flexible. And most of the output I've seen is hard plastic.

Re:gumby

[lxs]

Here you go. Flexible PLA It's nasty stuff though. I ripped up my entire Kapton bed prying it off. (no I'm not the weird guy in the video)

Guns

[Anonymous Coward]

one up the bum, no harm done

So many people miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Before people go on a rant about how unusable a plastic gun is, making a good gun was not the point of this. The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs. What good are gun laws when someone with no mechanical skills at all can make one in their kitchen?

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Before people go on a rant about how unusable a plastic gun is, making a good gun was not the point of this. The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs. What good are gun laws when someone with no mechanical skills at all can make one in their kitchen?

Yes because guns are smuggled *out* of mexico where they wreak havoc on the fabric of society... Think you have it backwards. Add to that the fact that the US doesn't really spend any money trying to take guns away from anyone (unless they have committed some other crime) and this whole thing is a complete non-issue. It's a first world solution looking for a problem. Give repressed minorities in third world countries an easy way to arm themselves and maybe the world will give a shit.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[PortHaven]

Really, cause I think he nailed it.

I'd also point out that the very first "metal" guns weren't all that safe and reliable as well. So this is a generation 1 prototype. Consider in 20 years, when 3D printers are in most middle class homes (if we still have a middle class). What do you think 20 years of tweaking and discovery will do? Might these become more reliable, & safer,... there was a time that folk though using a polymer frame on a handgun was ludicrus. Glocks and many others have shown that is NOT the case.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[StripedCow]

The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs.

Next up: downloadable and printable schematics for a uranium enrichment facility, because you know, what good are nuclear laws as established by the IAEA, when anybody and their grandmother can make a nuclear bomb in their kitchen?

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Ironchew]

The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs.

Gun control works quite well in countries that have decided to implement it nationwide.

Thorough gun control is analogous to bomb control. Anyone can build a bomb with instructions on the internet, but most of us don't. Why? The public has decided that bombs kill way too many people and the law (in the United States, at least), severely punishes people who, successfully or otherwise, blow up a bomb. Like all other hazardous items (with the curious exception of guns), individuals have to be licensed to handle bombs and there is probably a federal registry that lists all of them and where they store their bomb-building supplies.

People in the United States don't have lots of bombs in their houses. Why, then, would gun control enforcement pose any particular challenge?

Re:So many people miss the point.

[WillgasM]

You're absolutely right. We should repeal these oppressive laws against improvised explosives while we're at it. (that wasn't sarcasm, btw)

Re:So many people miss the point.

[CanHasDIY]

The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs.

Gun control works quite well in countries that have decided to implement it nationwide.

Indeed - just look at how little gun crime there is in places like Iran and North Korea.

Oh, were those not the nations you were thinking of?

Re:So many people miss the point.

[St.Creed]

I doubt that. I think it will go like this:

Next: rigorous import controls on 3D printers
Next: mandatory insertion of identifiers that can be traced to the owner of a 3D printer
Next: 3D printer plastics will become a controlled substance

This gun-printer is a wet dream for any industry that felt (yes: past tense) threatened by 3D printing. The bloody idiot just gave all the enemies of 3D printing a powerful political weapon.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

"we could prosecute the numb-nuts who put these plans up on the internet"
Because that wouldn't violate the first amendment. Murder is illegal, but I can freely start a blog about all the different ways you could kill someone if you so wanted. The problem is they haven't restricted the clause in the constitution to the context in which it was written. An "Internet" back then didn't exist. Oh, I guess we have not have a right to free speech on the internet.

"Those are the 'guns' that they had in mind."

Supreme Court Justice Story appointed by James Madson on 1811, comments given 1833:
"The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

TL;DR: private military with as much might as the official military are perfectly legal under the intentions of founders of this nation.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Ironchew]

You would be fighting overwhelming public opinion on that one. The proposal would justifiably crash and burn.

There may have been a time when the second amendment did cover IEDs. Luckily, the U.S. consitution is a living document and we no longer subscribe to those notions of individual arms, much like how we don't allow the average citizen to stockpile chemical or nuclear weapons.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[ColdWetDog]

In twenty years I could have dozens of easily produced, finely made, reliable and accurate weapons built on my little CNC machine and lathe. Yep, it takes a bit of skill (but not much, my brother in law whose previous mechanical skills were limited to getting the grill started up in the spring is making target barrels now).

I win!

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because USians don't jerk off to pictures of bombs like they do to pictures of guns.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun control work's well in many places because it's enforcable. While it is possible to illegally get hold of guns where I live (the UK) it's difficult and risky.

If printable guns, and in the future ammunition, becomes available gun control would quickly become unenforcable. The question is what do we do then?

Re:So many people miss the point.

[GameboyRMH]

They could already do that with metal - but I'm not going to harp on the 3D printing hate / "what's the point, this could be easier" argument. What's different about the Liberator is that it's untraceable, easily disposable and can pass through a metal detector. Add stone/composite bullets and it's a great assassin's tool.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[umghhh]

I think you go in the right direction with your argument but you missed it slightly. The part of the constitution that is dealing with guns was written for the situation where guns indeed had much smaller firepower as measured with speed they could fire and distance they could be used effectively. The other side i.e. UK military that were just repelled with use of militia like force were not armed that much better than said militia man (except the big guns that is). IN these times a militia armed with weapons that its members could use for hunting made sense. Today it does not. Gosh even argument about use of military on the US soil is circumvented by police units that are armed like a combat army units. Try to fight those with militia like means and you will see that what you need to fight them is not a gun at home but an organisation - guns and munitions you can then get from your enemy or other places. Back then the mostly in the country side living population needed and used guns for living and for own protection as arm of law, i.e. sheriffs back then, was not patrolling streets constantly and you could not call them to rescue you with your mobile phone. I suppose assuming US will deteriorate back to these inspiring times then you may indeed need a gun at home.

Of course for the big part of population the right to own and bear arms is god given so no arguments apply. To make any change in risk caused by said arms you would need to confiscate the existing privately owned weapons which is not going to happen. The discussion is entertaining at times but it is not changing anything really.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[ducomputergeek]

Really? Because both my grandfather had dynamite and blasting caps on their farms even as I was growing up in the 80's. I don't recall either having or requiring any permits. In my Dad's era they went down to the MFA and bought it by the create when they wanted to clear some land. And down in that area this wasn't exactly uncommon either.

Hell, our school had .22's and .410 shotguns we learned to shoot in the 5th grade as part of hunters education and safety. The high school had M1's and 1903 Springfield's for the rifle club/marksmanship team. I hear gun free zones today and think to myself that back then our school had a freaking armory located in the school. Kids had shotguns in their trucks and would go hunting after school. Guns were everywhere. No one even thought about coming into school and shooting up the place.

I look around and wonder what exactly happened in the past 40 years. I mean I run across people today, especially in the city, that when I tell them that we learned to shoot at school as kids react in complete shock and horror.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Feyshtey]

Are you even cognizant of the fact that you are effectively calling for burning books? You want to prosecute every publisher of Chemistry, Biology and Physics books too? Hell, you must criminalize or regulate every University in the nation. These train people every day on much nastier things than handguns.

Or better yet, you should ban anything that promotes thought of building anything destructive. This would of course outlaw any military or history books and journals, or even blogs. Better still, you should ban anything that you feel puts any person in conflict with any other. If we all just thought exactly the same way, we'd never have any reason to wish harm to anyone else, no matter what form that violence may take?

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Feyshtey]

Next: rigorous import controls on 3D printers

Great theory until you understand that a printer can print almost everything to build a printer....And unless you are planning to regulate every piece of electronics and every type of coding software, this ship has already sailed way over the horizon.

Next: mandatory insertion of identifiers that can be traced to the owner of a 3D printer

See above; too many geeks with too many skills. How long does an unbreakable phone last before it's jailbroken?

Next: 3D printer plastics will become a controlled substance

Any attempt on this front would bankrupt not only most manufacturing, it would bankrupt the state in attempting to enforce it. (Not that the idiots in congress seem to have any real concern for putting us into bankruptcy...)

Re:So many people miss the point.

[WillgasM]

Yeah, I realize I'm a bit more out there than most. I tend to believe you should be able to do whatever the hell you want so long as you don't pose considerable risk to others (or violate their rights). If I have the acreage to safely do so, I should be allowed to turn my old laser printer into a mushroom cloud. Maybe write me a ticket for scaring your cat, but don't label me a terrorist. Obviously intent factors in. If I release a manifesto in which I urge everyone to blow up city hall, then I probably shouldn't have a bomb.
So lets apply that same common sense to guns. Simply having a gun in my house does not pose considerable risk to my neighbors. Me carrying a gun doesn't even pose a considerable risk to others. Me waving a gun in a crowd, that's illegal. Me threatening to shoot my neighbors, that's illegal.
Chemical weapons and nukes are a whole-nother category. It's pretty impossible to make a nuke or dirty bomb without being a risk to your neighbors, so I can understand having a blanket policy against such weapons.
When properly used, a gun is no threat to you. Improper use should be illegal, not the gun itself.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[misexistentialist]

No doubt you are correct that the establishment of totalitarian states in many countries works quite well. Slavery sounds quite burdensome, but it's actually the easiest thing in the world.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Mr. Slippery]

Anyone can build a bomb with instructions on the internet, but most of us don't. Why? The public has decided that bombs kill way too many people and the law (in the United States, at least), severely punishes people who, successfully or otherwise, blow up a bomb.

SHM. No. The reason most of us don't build bombs has nothing to do with bomb control laws. The reason most of us don't build bombs is because bombs are not useful to most people.

Guns are useful to 1) good citizens who want to defend themselves, and 2) bad people who want to hurt, steal from, and kill other people.

Good citizens can't use a bomb to defend themselves against someone home invaders or muggers. Bad people can't rob or rape someone with a bomb. (Though most robberies and rapes don't use firearms). Bombs are poor tools for murdering a specific person, and most murderers want to kill someone specific.

When bad people actually want bombs, as Boston proved it's not hard for them to get them.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[grantspassalan]

The difference is that there is not a constitutional amendment that gives people the right to make and own bombs. The weapons carried by the infantry of the revolutionary army were the same as those among the civilian population. Many of the men in that army brought their own weapons with them from home. It was a BYOR (bring your own rifle) situation. If it were not an outrageous lie that the majority supports gun control, the Constitution could be amended by such a majority to erase the Second Amendment.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[SillyHamster]

Gun control works quite well in countries that have decided to implement it nationwide.

In that there is less gun crime? Maybe. In that there is less violence? No. Compare UK's crime rate to the US's crime rate, seeing how the US is the standard of "gun crazy", while UK has successfully disarmed its citizenry.

Thorough gun control is analogous to bomb control. Anyone can build a bomb with instructions on the internet, but most of us don't. Why? The public has decided that bombs kill way too many people and the law (in the United States, at least), severely punishes people who, successfully or otherwise, blow up a bomb. Like all other hazardous items (with the curious exception of guns), individuals have to be licensed to handle bombs and there is probably a federal registry that lists all of them and where they store their bomb-building supplies.

I'm sure the 250 people directly injured from the Boston marathon bombings will be glad to hear that bomb control laws protected them.

People in the United States don't have lots of bombs in their houses. Why, then, would gun control enforcement pose any particular challenge?

The reason why people don't have bombs isn't because of the laws on the books, it's because they don't have a desire to inflict mass destruction on their fellow citizens. Your idea of cause and effect is utterly wrong. Every act of terrorism in Western countries were against the law - the laws don't stop criminals, they just provide us a standardized way of punishing them (with the hopes that the standard will provide deterrence).

Guns are different than bombs because they are personal self defense weapons. You can't protect yourself from a mugging with a bomb (without a high risk of collateral damage), but you can with a gun.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[sv_libertarian]

Great idea! Let's restrict speech to the same context as the 18th Century. The Founders could not have envisioned the internet, wireless communication, rotary offset printing, and anything else not involving writing by hand or setting lead type in a hand operated press.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Agent0013]

Maybe it has something to do with the lack of access or familiarity to guns that has made these later generations feel the need to use them to destructive ends?!

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Ironchew]

If it were not an outrageous lie that the majority supports gun control, the Constitution could be amended by such a majority to erase the Second Amendment.

There are already several types of guns that you are not allowed to own in the United States without rigorous licensing, the second amendment notwithstanding (machine guns come to mind). As much as I would like to repeal the second amendment, it has not stood in the way of gun control legislation in the past and it won't prevent future legislation either.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Myopic]

Just about as good as laws against making pressure cooker bombs in your kitchen, I suppose. We have those laws, you know.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Myopic]

Mod parent +5 Informative

This is it. A fairly small number of loony Americans have untenable hard-ons for "guns" in a way that they don't for any other "arms". They don't get boners over knives, they don't get boners over hand grenades or throwing stars, they don't get boners over spears or mortars or sarin gas. Late at night, deep in their cellars full of ammo boxes and guns, they masturbate while dreaming about "guns" and cuddle up with them to sleep. Anything that is a "gun" counts but if it has a name other than "gun" then it doesn't count. Harpoons? They are like guns, but they aren't called "spear guns" so they don't count. BB guns? They aren't really "guns" but they have "gun" in the name so they count. People who think like that aren't terribly bright.

I was recently thinking that we could end the abortion debate if only we renamed the device used in the procedure a "fetus gun", suddenly all the right wingers would swing over and start defending the "fetus gun".

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Ironchew]

Bombs are poor tools for murdering a specific person, and most murderers want to kill someone specific.

I agree with you there, but specifically in regard to the exceptional amount of mass shootings the United States experiences, the shooters could have used a bomb instead. With the exception of the recent bombings at the Boston marathon, they didn't. The ease of accessing assault weapons in the United States goes a long way towards perpetuating mass shootings; we may not be able to prevent all future shootings with legislation, but we could do a lot better than what we have now.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you say gun control work's well and is enforceable when you live in the UK where gun crime has doubled since they banned handguns?

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Myopic]

Oh, yes, the wonders of childhood memories and the silliness of an adult thinking they are complete.

Just so you don't say something so ridiculous as "No one even thought about coming into school and shooting up the place" again, here is a list of school shootings from the 1980s when you were growing up.

The worst school attack in American history happened in 1927 when a person who today we would call a Tea Partier (I prefer Teatard) blew up his local school because he thought that using tax money to educate the local schoolchildren was a violation of his liberty. Ponder that. Ponder the mentality of a person in 1927 would equate "schools" with "tyranny", then compare to people today who equate "health care" with "tyranny".

Re:So many people miss the point.

[swillden]

Gun control works quite well in countries that have decided to implement it nationwide.

Define "works". If your definition includes "reduces intentional homicides", you're provably wrong. Plot a graph of private gun ownership rates against intentional homicide rates around the world and what you'll find is that there is no correlation. In fact based on the most recent numbers from UNODC and the 2007 small arms report, there's a slight negative correlation, which means that countries with more guns tend to have fewer homicides.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm Bomb Control

I seem to remember something about bombs in america not too recently. I don't think the lack of them was what made the news.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[scamper_22]

I sadly thought I don't build a bomb and blow a bomb because I have a certain moral sense that tells me not to.

Apparently, it is because the law would severely punish me.

But since we're on the topic of bomb control.
Bomb control doesn't work.
Somehow, the Boston bombers were able to build a bomb and use it to kill people.

The bad guys who want to use bombs in a harmful manner seem to able to make and use them.

Gun control doesn't work either. Guns are too easy to make. Just like bombs. The difference of course is that people see a valid reason to have a gun, and so a lot of people have them. Most of them don't go around killing people though.

Countries with gun control and low gun crime tend to have high quality citizens. That Swiss have a high rate of gun ownership, but they don't have all the gun deaths. So does Finland.

You cannot control bombs/guns/drugs.
You have to focus on making sure you people don't want to abuse them.

You can certainly try and control more complex items. While a gun is easy to produce, an F16 is much more complex. So you certainly control the proliferation of F16s among the citizenry.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[moeinvt]

", the public owning guns isn't going to cause any military on the planet to even blink"

An enemy with nukes that wanted to eradicate the population would obviously not be deterred by armed citizens.

Otherwise, it doesn't take a keen military mind to realize that attempting an invasion and occupation of a country with 80 million armed citizens would be suicidal.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[BenEnglishAtHome]

The public has decided that bombs kill way too many people and the law (in the United States, at least), severely punishes people who, successfully or otherwise, blow up a bomb. Like all other hazardous items (with the curious exception of guns), individuals have to be licensed to handle bombs and there is probably a federal registry that lists all of them and where they store their bomb-building supplies.

Wrong on all counts. This is what happened the last time a group of my buddies got together for a little informal target practice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTAeNxH-hIk

That video shows good, clean fun and an exercise of basic human rights. Anyone who disagrees is wrong but may, of course, have some good points to make. Feel free.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun control works quite well in countries that have decided to implement it nationwide.

Yes, it helped bring about the change that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot hoped for. Hope and Change!

Re:So many people miss the point.

[jammer170]

You have a very odd definition of "exceptional". The total number of people who died or are injured due to mass shootings in the last ten years are fewer than the number of people who die in a single month due to car accidents. This is really no different than 9/11. Slashdot by and large seems to agree the government massively overreacted to that tragedy, and far more people died in that than in the mass shootings since then. Unless you think America's response to 9/11 has been reasonable, please explain to me why the rights of the people should be taken away for these tragedies but not the other?

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, Iran especially not, the gun control there is especially not effective.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point was to prove that antigun laws are as useless and counterproductive as the war on drugs.

Gun control works quite well in countries that have decided to implement it nationwide.

Indeed - just look at how little gun crime there is in places like Iran and North Korea.

Oh, were those not the nations you were thinking of?

Strawman. Countries with strict gun control laws span the range of political systems and degrees of personal freedoms. Countries with no gun control laws likely do the same.

The reality is that there is no credible case to be made connecting gun rights and the existence or defense of liberty.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[dadelbunts]

In the 1800s they could produce such finely made weapons without a cnc machine. Whats your point? Are you somehow implying its not worth it to pursue future technologies because you can do it okish right now? Go extract metals from the earth and forge them into a viable weapon without the need of any tools and then you can come brag on slashdot.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bombs are spectacular, but kill way too few people. A terrorist bomb typically kill only a handful of people. Not very efficient. Now, a terrorist with a gun can do much more damage to a crowd.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[grantspassalan]

A person or a class of persons being targeted for being exterminated in concentration camps does not need a machine gun. If such a person has an AR 15, it will take at least a SWAT team of 10 or more to successfully arrest or kill such a person. It might be possible to come up with a few hundred SWAT teams, but not thousands, tens of thousands or more. Those that want to eliminate their opposition, or even worse get rid of a given class of people know this. That is why every dictator in history has ALWAYS first disarmed the people he wanted to oppress. That is why the liberals at hot after "assault weapons" because these are plenty good enough to prevent wholesale takeover of an armed population. It is not likely that a wannabe dictator will be able to get the US Armed Forces to fire on their fellow Americans, because American soldiers have sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the commander-in-chief.

If any government ever passes legislation to confiscate weapons from the people, they will have a civil war on their hands orders of magnitude worse than what is going on in Syria right now. For a glimpse into such a future, consider what has been happening in Syria for over two years now. Although their dictator Assad has the military behind him, with much greater firepower, he has not been able to quell the revolt. This particular despot is not even up against a generally armed population, but a much smaller ragtag group of dedicated revolutionaries.

Re:So many people miss the point.

[Occams]

reductio ad absurdum

Just downloaded

[magic maverick]

It's 2.12 MB (2.02 MiB), so it's not like it would break the bank, even if it wasn't hosted by Kimmy.
Link to the Pirate Bay, or you can add this to your Torrent software:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:6c4089ac6c134f1b2dff18499658b228d9eb2657&dn=Liberator+-+First+3D+Printable+Gun&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.openbittorrent.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%3A80&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.istole.it%3A6969&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.ccc.de%3A80

STL files.

Re:Just downloaded

[magic maverick]

Fuck, that should be something like, you need a program to open STL files.

Re:Just downloaded

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the nickname Kimmy. Kimmy dotCommy!

Re:Just downloaded

[Anonymous Coward]

Like Skeinforge?

Oh Noes

[Anonymous Coward]

I've also heard that each downloaded blueprint can be used at least 5000 times. That's a half-billion guns (or more!) that just got downloaded. Er, descriptions of guns that got downloaded. Whatever. Just imagine how many guns you could make if you had all 100,000 copies of these blueprints (and a gun factory that could produce usable barrels).

Sharable, reusable blueprints. Wow. What will these crazy kids think up next.

Re:Oh Noes

[AC-x]

I've also heard that each downloaded blueprint can be used at least 5000 times

It's worse than that, as a digital file it can be used infinite times with no loss of quality, which means there are 100,000 times more than infinity guns now potentially in circulation! Won't anyone think of the children??

Re:Oh Noes

[Anonymous Coward]

Won't anyone think of the children??

Wonderful idea! I'm going to print some of these off for the kids, in pink for the girls and blue for the boys.

How many printed?

[schneidafunk]

100,000 sounds like a lot of downloads, but I would bet that less than 10% will actually go through the process of printing one. Of those printed, many hobbyists will just do it to see if it's possible. How many people are going to be willing to fire one?

Re:How many printed?

[tocsy]

This was very similar to my question: how many people, out of the 100,000 downloads, actually have a 3D printer or access to one? They're not cheap - it's probably more cost effective (not to mention more reliable) to just buy a regular gun. I understand the argument that this raises concerns about proliferation of firearms (and I share some of those same concerns) but I feel as if 3D printing of guns will probably be a relatively small issue. I think it's most likely a fad that will be relegated to nothing more than a novelty as time goes on... but who knows.

Re:How many printed?

[AC-x]

I doubt 10,000 people have access to a high quality enough 3D printer to actually print a usable gun (i.e. one that doesn't blow up in your hand), the team that created this model used a commercial grade printer, not your average plastic extruder printer.

Re:How many printed?

[Nukenbar]

I think the number is closer to 20 that might try and print/assemble the gun.

Re:How many printed?

[Anonymous Coward]

10%? Almost no one owns a 3-D printer. They cost thousands of dollars. This is just people downloading crap.

Re:How many printed?

[GameboyRMH]

Way less than 10%. Surely less than 1%. I bet every tech-savvy gun "enthusiast" just downloaded this to preserve it and as an act of rebellion, as I often do with leaked data that can't be deadly.

Re:How many printed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, your country lets you just go out and buy a gun.

Most countries don't, thus driving the price of any small weapon through the roof and requiring that the purchaser deal with unsavory characters that are just as likely to turn on him as sell him something.

The nice thing is that for under $1,000 you can build yourself a 3D printer and you don't have to worry about the Hell's Angels kidnapping your children.

Re:How many printed?

[Myopic]

I bet it's less than 1%, and this gun at this time isn't the real problem. The real problem is the gun that can be printed five years from now using metal epoxy that will have a MTBF high enough to be used in attacks.

Re:How many printed?

[PuZZleDucK]

I'n not even an enthusiast, infact I quite dislike guns... but I did too :]

Log This

[Anonymous Coward]

Up next, cross-referencing offending IP's physical address to a criminal DB. If the DMCA can track down offending grandma's - why can't we find our needle in the haystack?

Which law?

[WillgasM]

Exactly which gun control law does this circumvent? AFAIK, exchanging blueprints isn't illegal.
So long as you're not a felon or selling guns you've printed, no laws have been broken.

Re:Which law?

[Feyshtey]

Not even printing and assemblng the weapon breaks gun control law. You need no license or certification to produce a firearm, unless that weapon is a class3 (fully auto, cannons, sawed off shotguns, mortars, etc.), or you intend to sell it.

Re:Which law?

[cold fjord]

Exactly which gun control law does this circumvent?

Why 3D-Printed Untraceable Guns Could Be Good For America

. . . current law already allows home hobbyists to build their own firearms provided they are for personal use only (and not for sale). Such guns are already “untraceable.” 3D-printing doesn’t change that basic fact — it merely allows a wider range of hobbyists without specialized machine shop skills to do what’s already legal. . . more

Re:Which law?

[houghi]

In many countries in the world you do.

Re:Which law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Today, none. Tomorrow, perhaps tons of them.

Re:Which law?

[Anonymous Coward]

We might be on the Internet, living in a multi-cultural world... Even commenting on websites thats focal point is advancing technology and communications between far flung corners of the globe, like Hawaii..

At the end of all that, this is still slashdot and the rest of the world doesn't exist*. USA, USA, USA!

(*China does exist, but only as a governmental entity, there are no Chinese citizens only government departments engaging in espionage against Americans.)

Re:Which law?

[HornWumpus]

Tough tittie for them. Their people just got a tiny bit more free.

Re:Which law?

[swillden]

Not even printing and assemblng the weapon breaks gun control law. You need no license or certification to produce a firearm, unless that weapon is a class3 (fully auto, cannons, sawed off shotguns, mortars, etc.), or you intend to sell it.

Almost. There is federal law banning the production of "undetectable" guns, so you have to be sure you add a significant chunk of metal to make it legal. Assuming you do that, then, yes, it's legal.

Re:Which law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not completely true, Vermont(of all states) bans zip guns. Whether or not this particular weapon qualifies seems to be something a prosecutor/jury would have to decide.

Re:Which law?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe cannons are generally allowed (as long as their ammo isn't a destructive device/incendiary) they just happen to be really honking big calibers.

Re:Which law?

[hicksw]

CONSPIRACY to commit a no-no.
--
Give me six lines written by the most honorable of men, and I will find an excuse in them to hang him. - Cardinal Richelieu

Dramatic much?

[fermion]

entirely circumvent gun control laws

In countries where that are significant gun control laws, I doubt that this is going to change much. Such countries also have other laws that control other things. In the US this would be a very expensive way to circumvent laws that do not exist. Any FFL compliance is voluntary. Anyone can sell gun to anyone on the street. The only prosecutions that occur is when there is knowledge that the sale would otherwise be regulated. I have seen sales go off on school property with no repercussions. Even if new laws are passed, the NRA will water them down like they always have to make it trivial to aquite the toys that the nuts like to play with. Of course it will continue to be non trivial to acquire something that one could actually defend oneself.

This is interesting because it reduces the skill needed to assemble a weapon to something the average adult can do. In many cases we are safe because real weapons requires a level of skill not accessible to the average adult. The average adult does not have the skill to weaponize biological agents. The average adult does not have the skill to weaponize household chemicals.

The average adult does have the skill to go to the NRA gun show in Houston and buy a rifle. The average adult probably does not have the funds or skill to successfully print a gun. As a person who has designed for and used a 3D Printer, it is a non trivial process.

As I said, outside the US this may be a game changer. Assuming that there are not other regulations to prevent it.

Bullet control

[ehud42]

Not to say that DIY'ers can't get around this, but all them fancy guns need fancy bullets. Home made guns will also need decent bullets. So, why not tighten up bullet control:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw

(It's Chris Rock)

I realize lots of hunters, etc reload their own, but I'm not aware of too many DIY'ers who are able to make reliable primers (might be wrong) - so maybe just control the sale and distribution of primers?

Re:Bullet control

[ducomputergeek]

Well that's only going to work if you also ban white tip matchsticks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0jxpLH8FtY

Re:Bullet control

[oodaloop]

Skate to where the puck's gonna be. If primers are banned or restricted, plans for improvising replacements will be widely available.

Re:Bullet control

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to say that DIY'ers can't get around this, but all them fancy guns need fancy bullets. Home made guns will also need decent bullets. So, why not tighten up bullet control:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZrFVtmRXrw

(It's Chris Rock)

I realize lots of hunters, etc reload their own, but I'm not aware of too many DIY'ers who are able to make reliable primers (might be wrong) - so maybe just control the sale and distribution of primers?

Your average gun owner might purchase and store a couple hundred rounds of ammo for a shotgun, rifle, or handgun, mainly for self-defense. They might plink away a couple hundred rounds a year in practice or hunting. Control of primers would have little or no effect with the majority.

Your average competitive shooter will shoot and reload upwards of 3,000+ rounds/year.

Those into the shooting sports with any level of dedication are shooting 20,000+ rounds/year. That's per individual, so what exactly is a legal reasonable amount to buy/own if you want to "control" the sale and distribution?

Are these competitors now going to be told their sport is far too dangerous to even exist anymore, because civilians have no "need" to purchase or own primers in mass quantities?

If so, kind of makes you wonder why we don't go after alcohol and tobacco. Yes, let's not speak too loudly about those elephants in the room that killed 3 people in the time it took to read this.

And ironically, it isn't those with reloading benches being robbed before a mass shooting occurs. Those hell-bent on harming others obtained their supplies from the "average" gun owners.

Re:Bullet control

[Anonymous Coward]

Since bullets aren't (and can't be) serialized, that would merely create a profit opportunity and a large secondary market for bullets.

Re:Bullet control

[Anonymous Coward]

While there are plenty of possible substitutes for primers, you really only need primers if you're relying on mechanical (ie percussion) ignition.

I'm sure the nerds here can think up all kinds of interesting alternatives for ammunition that doesn't need percussion-type primers to work (as can anyone who's ever launched a model rocket). It wouldn't be the kind of ammo that's mass produced (yet!), but if you're fabbing your own gun, you could fab up some ammo for it too. Yeah, that might be a little beyond just loading a file and pressing 'start' on a 3D printer, but personal fabbing technology is not getting any less capable (and rocket igniters are a hell of lot easier to make than primers, or you can buy spark plugs and ignition coils anywhere). Heck, a piezo-electric type barbecue starter would let you keep it mostly mechanical.

Re:Bullet control

[moeinvt]

"So, why not tighten up bullet control:"

Ammunition falls under the category of "arms". A court would strike down legislation enacting an ammo ban just as if it were a law affecting firearms.
It would be silly for the government to argue otherwise because their own import/export regulations classify them as the same.

Conversion rate = low:

[Hartree]

And, out of those 100K+ downloads, what fraction of a percent will actually get printed out, and what fraction of those will actually get assembled to the point of working?

Re:Conversion rate = low:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd imagine a good number of those that do actually produce a gun will be from media outlets.

Re:Conversion rate = low:

[Hartree]

Especially now that the State Department has issued an ITAR inquiry into several files on DEFCAD's web site.

Here's the difference...

[PortHaven]

BEFORE: Skilled Blue Collared metal workers could make a zip gun. As manufacturing is almost gone in America, this was a dying breed going the way of the winged water buffalo.

NOW: The huge spat of nerds and computer programmers now have the means to accomplish what formerly required a moderately skilled metal worker.

NOW THEY'RE SCARED. NERDS WITH GUNS!!!!

Re:Here's the difference...

[Feyshtey]

What skill? You can use a drill and screw together pipe fittings?

Re:Here's the difference...

[WillgasM]

Except that it never really took skill. As a young lad I made several (incredibly dangerous) guns out of scrap metal. All I had was a hacksaw, a drill, and some files. I could probably whip one out in under 30 minutes if properly motivated, and it would survive more than a couple rounds.

Re:Here's the difference...

[telchine]

NOW THEY'RE SCARED. NERDS WITH GUNS!!!!

I'm imagining a high noon showdown between Linus and RMS

Re:Here's the difference...

[TWiTfan]

No kidding. Any idiot can walk into Home Depot and buy everything you need to make a zip gun in about 20 minutes. It's not like you need to weld and hand forge the damned thing. It's just a pipe and something to strike the primer with.

Re:Here's the difference...

[cold fjord]

NOW THEY'RE SCARED. NERDS WITH GUNS!!!!

Nerds with guns? What an idea.

Some Techies Hear Call of the Shooting Range

Eric S. Raymond's Home Page - Eric's Gun Nut Page

Re:Here's the difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not FREE ENOUGH!!!"

"Jeez, take a chill pill. And a bath."

Re:Here's the difference...

[Opportunist]

"Get a life!"

"Get a haircut!"

Re:Here's the difference...

[Mr. Slippery]

BEFORE: Skilled Blue Collared metal workers could make a zip gun.

Skilled metal workers? Zip guns are more like the work of juvenile delinquents and prison inmates. Skilled black market machinists can make much better weapons, like submachine guns.

Re:Here's the difference...

[Archangel Michael]

"Linux"

"GNU/LINUX"

Re:Here's the difference...

[Goaway]

Man, remember when people cared about Eric S. Raymond?

Re:Here's the difference...

[CanHasDIY]

"It's not FREE ENOUGH!!!"

"Jeez, take a chill pill. And a bath."

I think you've failed to take into account Linus' propensity for profane speech...

"It's not FREE ENOUGH!!!"

"Fuck off and take a chill pill, you ancient bastard. And a bath; you fucking reek, old man."

Ah, much better.

Re:Here's the difference...

[CanHasDIY]

Man, remember when people cared about Eric S. Raymond?

Pepperidge Farm remembers!

Re:Here's the difference...

[cold fjord]

Man, do I. When was that? Like a month ago? Time files. Or better - time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.

Re:Here's the difference...

[HornWumpus]

A chamber reamer will make a fancy zip gun. One where the round doesn't rattle around in the chamber before firing. No guarantees (except Bender's) about rattling it's way down the pipe.

Re:Here's the difference...

[aztracker1]

That was my first thought too... rifling the barrel is probably the most "challenging" part.

Re:Here's the difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

...or they could walk into Walmart and buy a ready-made assault rifle.

Re:Here's the difference...

[Feyshtey]

Rifling the barrel only helps accuracy. It's not necessary unless the weapon will be fired at range.

Re:Here's the difference...

[idontgno]

Worse than that. H1B Nerds with Guns taking away the jobs in the improvised firearms industry from decent hard-working American citizens. American manufacturing prowess and hard-earned skills in underground one-shot guns flying away to Bangalore and Shanghai and Dublin. Pretty soon, you won't be able to buy a quality zip gun with a proud "Made in America" label. It'll all be plastic zip guns off of some container ship from China. Probably with lots of melamine.

I probably should include a sarcasm tag. Poe's Law is strong with this one.

Re:Here's the difference...

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Nerds with guns? What an idea.

I'd download that movie. :)

Re:Here's the difference...

[codepunk]

You need a background check, ID, be of age, escorted out the door to do that.

Re:Here's the difference...

[Goaway]

Oh, right, I was off the internet for April 1st, so I missed that.

I am surprised the editors didn't

[Anonymous Coward]

mention bitcoin and raspberry pi.

Uhm

[noobermin]

DISCLAIMER: I am a godless liberal in some respects, so I might be biased...but this is becoming like bitcoin, guys. A 3D printed gun is cool to me as a demonstration of the advanced state of the technology, but we don't need a story of even little happening with TEH 3D PRONTED GUNNS (GUBERMIENT, etc).

Slashdot has become awash with political crap. Let's return to a site for nerds, stuff that matters. Not stuff that rallies the libertarians and the collectivists, okay?

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's return to a site for nerds

Too late. Slashdot long ago made the transition from tech site to tech culture site. (Why do you think there are so many "wtf is bitcoin" posts on every Bitcoin thread? Could it be because Slashdot no longer attracts a particularly tech-savvy constituency?)

Slashdot, these days, is just a comment-focused version of Wired.

Re:Uhm

[CanHasDIY]

...
Presented by Dice.com

Re:Uhm

[ArcadeMan]

I just had an amazing idea: 3D-printed bitcoins!

Re:Uhm

[ColdWetDog]

Nope. This is a perfect geek subject. If for no other reason than the conversation here trends towards rationality and detail (I like Firethorn's analysis above). Just because it's not Linux / Apple / Microsoft / Google doesn't mean it's not relevant an interesting.

What I find fascinating is the non American's take on all this. It's just a whole different world out there - maybe not better or worse, just different. That's interesting and important (stuff that matters). Americans tend to be rather parochial.

Besides, you don't have to read the gun threads. I read perhaps 30% of the threads here. Really, do we need another Google-bash (however we do need some more Oracle bashing)?

Now, get off our target range.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot has become awash with political crap. Let's return to a site for nerds, stuff that matters.

Sometimes, political issues matter a great deal to technology.

In fact, politics is the biggest threat to the advancement and availability of technology.

In this case, the political concern is obvious: If politicians start cracking down on the use of 3D printers for guns, then what kind of controls will they deploy to enforce that crackdown, and what will the collateral damage be?

Since your post was shamefully rated "5 insightful", I infer that we should not talk about such things on slashdot.

Re:Uhm

[geekmux]

...Slashdot has become awash with political crap. Let's return to a site for nerds, stuff that matters. Not stuff that rallies the libertarians and the collectivists, okay?

We tried to.

We got sued.

By a patent troll.

And an IP lawyer.

The DMCA takedown notice didn't help.

Neither did the MAFIAA when they went after that Anonymous Coward guy.

Like I really need to cite any more examples, genres, or memes here to show how the legal landscape is as powerful as the political one, and has changed things considerably.

I would go into further detail, but I have to consult my lawyer first. Not sure if he'll call me back though, he kind of freaked out over the (warrantless) wiretap he thought he heard on my phone...

Re:Uhm

[SillyHamster]

Too late. Slashdot long ago made the transition from tech site to tech culture site. (Why do you think there are so many "wtf is bitcoin" posts on every Bitcoin thread? Could it be because Slashdot no longer attracts a particularly tech-savvy constituency?)

It certainly explains the Luddites.

Re:Uhm

[davegravy]

Mod parent up.

There aren't many places on the net where you can go to discuss political topics rationally without emotional/inflammatory interference. You just don't get amuch of that on Slashdot, I presume due to the above average intelligence that most Slashdotters have in common (elitist as that sounds).

It's not part of the site's mission statement, agreed, but its uniqueness in this regard is what draws people to discuss out of scope topics. I don't think it's a bad thing.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

Make the current owners of Slashdot aware of how much you'll pay to buy the site from them. If your offer is accepted, you can go run it however you want to.

Re:Uhm

[drinkypoo]

I am a godless liberal, and a gun owner, and even if I weren't I would find this stuff interesting because of the legal ramifications for 3d printing. I think 3d printing is pretty important, especially since it is now coming with reasonable range.

Why don't you just not read the stories you don't want to read, instead of whining? It would be easier for everyone.

Re:Uhm

[ThePeices]

Slashdot has become awash with political crap. Let's return to a site for nerds, stuff that matters. Not stuff that rallies the libertarians and the collectivists, okay?

I would mod you up even more for your insightful words, but you are already at +5.

Slashdot, *please* go back to News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters!
And while im in rant mode, *please* realise that not all of us are Americans, Stuff that Matters shouldnt be about some democrat vs republican bullshit.

Re:Uhm

[ThePeices]

No, Dont mod parent up, This is Slashdot, not some fucking American political bullshit discussion site.

Slashdot should be:

NEWS FOR NERDS, STUFF THAT MATTERS!

Re:Uhm

[PuZZleDucK]

Mod parent up.

We can never have too much Oracle bashing.

Re:Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to know about the greens? We can have news about them too.

Re:Uhm

[Samizdata]

But then you need a recycler to throw the printed bitcoins in after you "spent" them.

I appreciate natural selection....

[AmazingRuss]

...taking out anybody stupid enough to fire one of these things.

Why bother, when you can go to wal mart and buy a real gun? That's a question only a Teabilly Loon can answer.

Re:I appreciate natural selection....

[Myopic]

Because at Walmart you have to pass a background check.

You have a shortsighted view of this issue: imagine in a few years when 3D printers can print with a metal epoxy (like JB Weld) so that the gun can shoot 10,000 times MTBF instead of 3 times MTBF.

Re:I appreciate natural selection....

[Anonymous Coward]

imagine in a few years when 3D printers can print with a metal epoxy (like JB Weld)

Oh my god, printable knives would never run out of ammo!

Thanks to Kim Dotcom?

[fekmist]

Thanks to Kim Dotcom? I'd say it's more appropriate to say it's thanks to the internet as a whole. It doesn't matter where it was uploaded, the people that downloaded it in the first 2 days knew about it long before its release. If anything this is yet another misleading headline to make him look like he's doing something illegal, which he isn't.

Re:Thanks to Kim Dotcom?

[fekmist]

Yeah, this is most definitely a case of the Streisand effect. :)

Needs special printer.

[syntaxterror7]

If you read / watch all the info you will see they used a special printer that provides greater than normal structure to its 3d models. I am waiting for someone to try this on a home extruder. I don't think it is going to go well. I'm sure the one armed man will be on the news soon.

The great thing about printable guns

[Anonymous Coward]

The great thing about this new era of printable guns (and I'm not the first person to make this point) is that it turns gun rights into an information freedom problem - you know, information wants to be free, no censorship [of firearm models, 3D CAD drawings, or what have you], etc - and thus it welds the gun-rights and information-anarchy crowds together.

Jolly good.

Re:The great thing about printable guns

[GameboyRMH]

I didn't share & preserve the Mexican police leaks for the same reason I won't be sharing the Liberator plans: The bad outweighs the good here, this could get people killed. I don't want to be welded to the gun-rights crowd.

Re:The great thing about printable guns

[moeinvt]

In the era of "cyber warfare" an information freedom issue might also be considered a "Right to keep and bear arms" issue.

A friend and I were having a discussion about this a while ago. If computer viruses, worms and even social media are now employed as weapons, wouldn't the government be prohibited from infringing on our right to possess electronics and software based on the Second Amendment?

How about society does this

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Kill with a printed gun = mandatory death sentence.

There ends the problem with printing weapons.

Re:How about society does this

[Anonymous Coward]

you must have a problem with life and death in that country...really the only thing you can think of is more violence?
do you also think that the 2 years old girl killed by the 5 years old brother would still be alive if she was armed too?

Re:How about society does this

[CanHasDIY]

Didn't realize Kim Jong Un had a /. account...

Re:How about society does this

[FrostDust]

Then you'll have a society afraid of fighting off a violent attacker, choosing between death on the sidewalk or in an execution chamber.

Re:How about society does this

[Norwell Bob]

How adorably naive.

A) Many of the same people who want to do away with private ownership of guns also oppose the death penalty under any circumstances.

B) Criminals in regions that still employ the death penalty kidnap, rape and kill despite the consequences of being caught. Crazy, right? Criminals ignore laws and punishment!! We *really* ought to try and reach them. Maybe a PSA?

Re:How about society does this

[serviscope_minor]

Kill with a printed gun = mandatory death sentence.

So... if you have the choice between being killed by an intruder or getting put to death for defending yourself you should just, well, die?

Re:How about society does this

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill with a printed gun = mandatory death sentence.

So... if you have the choice between being killed by an intruder or getting put to death for defending yourself you should just, well, die?

No of course not, that would be ridiculous.

You would call the cops and let the professionals deal with your killer.

Re:How about society does this

[Culture20]

You would call the cops and let the professionals deal with your killer.

For the slow readers in the audience, this means the cops arrive thirteen minutes after you get killed. Even if they wanted to save you, most of the time they can't.

Re:How about society does this

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, you can choose a less than lethal way to stop the intruder such as rubber bullets or beanbag rounds.

Sounds like the Drake Equation

[Firethorn]

That sounds like the Drake Equation used to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations. You have the first three steps...

1. How many people will download it? (solved)
2. How many people will print it?
3. How many will assemble it?
4. How many will fire it?
5. How many will actually use it to further a crime?
6. How many will cause injury with it in the commission of a violent crime?
7. How many will kill somebody with it?

I'm guessing it's going to round to zero by about step 5.

Summary is wrong

[SirGarlon]

The promise of a fully 3D-printable gun is that it ... entirely circumvent[s] gun control laws.

I'm sorry, that is just false. In my state, Massachusetts, for example, you need a license to *possess* any firearm.

All 3D-printable weapons really circumvent is the Federal background check, which you can just as easily bypass by buying at a gun show. Well, that and whatever state laws may require a license to buy a gun but not to own or carry it. (Those may or may not exist; if they do then they seem pretty stupid.)

It would be smart to at least check what the laws in your state actually are, before you print one of these puppies out.

Re:Summary is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Private gun sales do not require ID, or background checks.

Re:Summary is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on how you define circumvent.

I define it as 'getting around' , which could mean legally or illegally. So it could cover ALL states if you want it to.

If you want to go the legal-only route, it gets around no law in several states. Federally ( and most states ), with a few restrictions, you can legally manufacture from scratch a firearm for personal use, with no background check or other hoops to go thru, as it should be. All this does is make it easier for those who cant use simple hand tools or have a lot of patience. ( if you are experienced or have money for decent tools, you wouldn't be considering this in the first place )

Re:Summary is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually in many states you need to pass a background check to buy at a gun show, too. Private person-to-person sales are not so regulated, although there are legislators trying to make that happen. (Not that that will do anything to prevent the kind of black-market sales that already routinely happen to people who can't pass such a check.)

Re:Summary is wrong

[moeinvt]

"...circumvent is the Federal background check, which you can just as easily bypass by buying at a gun show."

Wrong for the ten millionth time.

If you ever go to a gun show, you will see that the merchandise at all of the booths and tables is being sold by licensed dealers. They MUST perform a background check at the gun show in exactly the same manner as they would at their store or anywhere else.

You could circumvent the background check by purchasing from a private seller. If that's your intent, you'd be 100X better off looking in the local classified ads than wandering through the crowds at a gun show to find someone looking to do a private sale.

Re:Summary is wrong

[moeinvt]

"Private gun sales do not require ID, or background checks."

If you were selling a firearm, you'd be seriously DUMB not to ask the buyer for ID. It is illegal to sell a pistol to anyone that's not a resident of your state. It's also illegal to sell a rifle or shotgun to anyone under 18 or to sell a pistol to anyone under 21.

Re:Summary is wrong

[ArtemaOne]

Every gun show I have seen requires background checks on the purchases of guns. Or did you come from 1992? Can you travel through time? This is amazing! Stop believing politicians. They lie, but they keep that a secret from you.

Thanks to Kim Dotcom?

[AC-x]

How about thanks to the media and legal hoo-ha around the whole thing? I bet most people wouldn't have heard of the project if it hadn't been reported on so much (see also: Streisand effect).

Probably mostly reporters

[Optic]

I'm sure most of the downloads were by reporters looking to write a sensational story.

100k downloads of CAD files

[Anonymous Coward]

followed by 100k downloads of AutoCAD + crack.zip

Next article: 100K severed hands

[Anonymous Coward]

Steel barrels aren't controlled by the government. Just go buy one.

Moderators as Trolls

[Anonymous Coward]

When guns are killing more than 30,000 people every year? Yes. Yes I can.

Posting as AC because I'm moderating. What "moderator" marked the quoted comment to -1? I modded it up to counter that, and I don't even agree with the comment!. Agree with it or not, it's a reasonable remark in this debate. It prompted several reasonable responses. -1 is supposed to be for trolls and flamebait, not comments the moderator doesn't agree with. Using it that way is pure censorship, which is not the purpose of the mod system.

Re:Moderators as Trolls

[cogeek]

Agreed and thank you for doing so. Obviously I disagree with the OP as well, but there has to be open communications on issues whether we agree or disagree.

Circumvents nothing

[petes_PoV]

and entirely circumvent gun control laws ...

Those (enlightened, safe) parts of the world with gun controls generally have the same sensible controls over ammo, too. So being able to print a gun leaves you with a rather cheesy ornament since you can't get any bullets to fire from the thing. That's probably just as well since places that don't permit people to shoot each other generally have a population that knows nothing about guns: how to maintain them, load them or shoot them. So putting a weapon in the hands of inexperienced people is probably the dumbest thing you can possibly do.

Re:Circumvents nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

...So putting a weapon in the hands of inexperienced people is probably the dumbest thing you can possibly do.

That may be true, but putting a weapon in the hands of dumb people might actually be one of the smartest things mankind could do...for itself.

Re:Circumvents nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Which enlighted/safe parts of the world are you referring to?

overblown

[slashmydots]

Let me put this back into proportion for a second.

One trip to the dollar store and anyone can make a high-yield chlorine gas bomb.

One trip to certain sporting goods stores and anyone can buy a harpoon gun without a license or ID.

One trip to ebay and anyone can build a high-yield black powder explosive.

One trip to the junkyard and anyone can build a machete or sword.

One trip to the Walmart and anyone can buy rubbing alcohol, matches, and firewood starter sticks to burn anything down.

One trip to a gas station and you can make a rudimentary napalm explosive (diesel and dish soap).

So now one trip to the internet and...wait, you probably don't have a 3d printer and neither does anyone else in your area. Hmmm, lol. Okay, so one trip to imaginary 3D printing store that doesn't mind you printing guns and tada, you've got an inaccurate, low quality firearm.

You know, let me add one more. One trip to Gamo's website and you can buy a US-made 1400 FPS BB rifle that runs on CO2 and fires sleeved hardened metal custom rounds with armor-piercing tips without a license since it's not a "gun." It does break the sound barrier and cause a sonic boom when it fires by the way and is guaranteed to kill small animals and they recommend you take it hunting. So yeah, this is not the end of the world or really even anything new.

Circumvent?

[Grimbleton]

This doesn't circumvent anything. It's still illegal for a felon to be in possession of a gun, and it's still legal for someone who can legally own a gun to make a gun. This changes nothing at all.

Firearms (or lack thereof) in the UK (was Re:Yawn)

[WillAdams]

Gun ownership among everyone in the U.K. is low. It was so low in WWII that ``The American Committee for defense of British Homes has organized to collect gifts of pistols, rifles, revolvers, shotguns (and binoculars) from American civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes'':

http://twinbuttebunch.org/index.php?fuseaction=misc.sendguns

I'm given to understand that my grandfather sent over a Remington No. 4 which an uncle of mine had cut down to a pistol....

This article indicates a dramatic uptick in gun crime (89%) in the U.K. though:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

FWIW, I can't think of a single police force in the U.S. where regular police officers on patrol carry submachine guns.

Another article:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

An interesting statistic is that a home is burglarized when occupied ~13% of the time in the U.S., while that number is 47% in the U.K. --- my father worked as a prison guard, and a recurring theme among people serving time for robbery was the importance of ``casing the joint'' because one didn't want to risk confronting an armed home-owner.

and here's an article which argues about statistical reporting:
http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-british-gun-crime-stats-a-sham

and here're some hard numbers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

A government strong enough to protect you from everything, is strong enough to take everything from you.

William

Not seeing the forest for the trees

[jd.schmidt]

While topics like this typically bring out the worst in discussion, normally fairly dumb second amendment ranting. These printable guns really are news for nerds, demonstrating a technological advancement while also showing the possible dangers of new technology.

To get it, just replace the word printable gun with another type of arm, say a printable bomb with slots for of the shelf cell triggers, and pretend it was posted online by someone who you dislike. Choose your least favorite terrorist organization here.

The reality is a fair number of terror attacks really couldn’t have been as effective without modern technology. 911 required jumbo jets. You can’t go on a shooting rampage with a muzzle loaded gun. Modern bomb triggers has simplified bomb making and detonation. And of course the Internet itself makes all these things easier to learn to do.

Of course these technologies have been a great benefit, and violence has gone down over the years as our societies have advanced. However, we also have more laws and more tools in the hand of law enforcement to combat violence. It seems to me actual intelligent discussion about how to address the potential dark side of new technologies is an important part of new technology. I wish more of the discussion could be about technologies ramification for society as opposed to what it normally degenerates into.

Re:Firearms (or lack thereof) in the UK (was Re:Ya

[xorsyst]

You don't seem to be disagreeing with me.

3D models from games

[Anonymous Coward]

Would I need this 3D blueprint... Couldn't I also take the 3D model file of a gun from a very detailed video game and print it with a 3D printer at the right scale and fire off bullets with it?? lol

Re:Firearms (or lack thereof) in the UK (was Re:Ya

[idontgno]

Were you expecting him to?

Oh, right. You came here for an argument. I'm sorry, but this is Abuse. You want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

Stupid git.

You Earth-Hating Bastard

[SuperKendall]

Why are you so worried if other people want to turn their guns in for a buy-back, my freedom loving friend?

Have you not considered the waste of the energy expended to build the gun? By turning it in for disposal, you are spitting in the face of Gaia - and not in the sexy way that turns her on.

No, keeping your guns is the only green approach, all other suggestions are the domain of cigar-chomping leopard hunter tycoons.

Same Difference

[SuperKendall]

For now. Tech will get better, faster, cheaper, always.

That's true of manufacturing too. Mass-produced guns will ALWAYS be cheaper and more reliable than one-off printed devices, because any significant improvement to 3D printing can also be applied to factories if it's good enough.

The domain of home-printed guns is solely that of the gun enthusiast, not the criminal who values practicality and speed above all else.

Re:Same Difference

[BoberFett]

The difference is that gun manufacturing is a highly regulated and controlled industry in the US. If you want to start a company to make guns and sell them, there's a whole lot of red tape to go through. Home manufacturing sidesteps the legal issues.

Re:Same Difference

[pnutjam]

I love to see people make concrete statements about laws as if they are set it stone.

Re:Same Difference

[TheCarp]

> The domain of home-printed guns is solely that of the gun enthusiast, not the criminal who values practicality
> and speed above all else.

In the aggregate yes. However, there are enough people out there that the tiny fraction of them that are this type of criminal, that still make large enough numbers to say one thing definitively: Someone will do it.

I am not saything this to imply its a problem, in fact, quite the opposite. Someone will do it... some small fraction of a small fraction of a really large number may even be enough to convince some people that its a real problem.

I think it more likely that these will find their way into the hands of some criminals who know people with 3d printers, as a novelty. Lets not also forget, these have some minor advantages. Being lightweight, you could carry several, all pre-armed.... then dispose of them easily in a small fire, without any worry of recovery and fingerprinting.

Somebody will take advantage of that.... not because its a great idea, or because its a big danger.... just because... there are enough days and enough people for anything to happen a few times.

Re:Same Difference

[BoberFett]

Where did say anything resembling what you're claiming?

Re:Same Difference

[pnutjam]

Here, I'll fix it for you.

Currently, home manufacturing sidesteps the legal issues.

Re:Same Difference

[BoberFett]

Wow. Are you saying that for any statement which is not immutable, you include the word currently?

Get the fuck over yourself, Mr. Pedantic.

Re:Same Difference

[pnutjam]

No, I just think that an issue that is so obviously in danger of change should be noted.

Bullshit

[SuperKendall]

For a criminal, the prospect to creating guns without serial numbers is potentially very appealing.

That's a really ignorant statement, because it assumes criminals buy from sources where serial numbers can be tracked.

In reality criminals don't care about serial numbers, because they are buying from illegal gun suppliers. Not having to abide by any rules, illegal guns are cheaper and easier to acquire and not traceable to boot.

So being able to print out a far less usable gun holds zero appeal to the criminal element.

Re:Bullshit

[swalve]

Seriously. You buy a gun from someone, hang onto it until you need to murder someone, and then throw it in the ocean. Problem solved. No need to buy a 3D printer. If you are really desperate, smash them in the head with a rock and throw it back into the quarry.

Here's Irony

[houbou]

Man responsible for the wide distribution of 3D printed gun specs killed by man who printed one.

Cheaper than normal

[SuperKendall]

You need to compare it to the cost of acquiring a firearm if you knew you would fail a background check.

Under $100 for a simple gun. Illegal guns are cheaper because many are stolen, so there's zero cost to the supplier. They also don't have to abide with costly regulations so there's no overhead.

No criminal today purchases a gun by legal means to commit crimes with. Far cheaper and easier to get one illegally.

Re:Cheaper than normal

[Anonymous Coward]

> No criminal today purchases a gun by legal means to commit crimes with.

I thought many school shootings and mass shooting happen with legally guns (either by the shooter or the shooters parents).

Re: Cheaper than normal

[Anonymous Coward]

"I thought many school shootings and mass shooting happen with legally guns (either by the shooter or the shooters parents)."

A gun purchased through legal means with the intent of turning it over to a third party is a violation of federal gun laws. So if the shooter's parents bought the guns for their kids, those guns were obtained illegally.

In the majority of school shootings, the guns were either stollen, illegally purchased, or the buyer exploited the loopholes regarding private, over-the-back-fence gun sales.

Are there that many 3d printers

[rossdee]

Maybe the gun shops should sell 3d printers instead of Smith and Wessons

You need nothing

[SuperKendall]

To make a gun that simply fires a shot or two forward requires no skill whatsoever. It requires a pipe of the right diameter and even a kid can figure out the rest.

There's no lowering of thresholds at all here, except that it's far easier now to print out a handle for your gun with the Punisher engraved on it. So what we are facing is a leap in possible aesthetes for really bad and unreliable weapons.

Re:Firearms (or lack thereof) in the UK (was Re:Ya

[Faluzeer]

Firearm Offences in England & Wales :
Data involves ALL crimes involving a firearm.
Page 23 of http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb1109chap3.pdf
Page 5 of http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs10/hosb1210chap1.pdf
Page 55 of https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf

Homicide :
It is accurate to state that in England and Wales "A separate offence is recorded for each victim of homicide, so that in an incident in which several people are killed, the number of homicides counted is the total number of persons killed". However it would appear that the FBI also records Homicides based on the number of Victims, not the number of people involved in committing the Homicide, so I am not sure how we are substantially under reporting the issue when compared to the USA.

England & Wales :
Footnote 1, page 32 : https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116483/hosb0212.pdf
USA :
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/murder
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Re:Firearms (or lack thereof) in the UK (was Re:Ya

[Nadaka]

Most police forces now issue an AR-15 to be stored in the trunk of every squad car ever since the oakland bank robbery where police where incapable of stopping heavilly armored bank robbers.

Where?

[DarthVain]

I can't see why this is a big deal in the US. As many people pointed out it is likely easier to simply just make a gun. I mean what criminal is going to spend 20,000 on a 3D printer and thousands on material to assemble what is a POS gun. Particularly when they can go out and get one (that is a real gun) from various sources for a fraction of the cost. It is moot.

What would be interesting is if the article had a breakdown of WHERE those downloads were coming from. For example if you live in a country where arms are very strictly regulated for example...

Re:Firearms (or lack thereof) in the UK (was Re:Ya

[operagost]

Side note: Court Jester Joe Biden recently claimed in an interview with Field and Stream magazine that police were telling him they were "outgunned out there".

These are the same police who can buy brand new, fully automatic weapons and the American citizen can't. If they're outgunned, they need to get bigger budgets and buy better guns, not take away ours.

Freedom..yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is NOT in the right to carry a gun, its in the not having to.

When you are so afraid of your neighbours, townspeople, countrymen that they only way you can leave your home is to carry a gun, you have become a prisoner of fear and paranoia. Just remember, the people YOU are afraid of can also arm themselves with these guns, so now you are probably even LESS safe.

Banned by Corporations

[RyoShin]

Am I the only one who sees various states (and/or the fed) trying to outlaw 3D printer weapons specifically? Not because they're a viable threat to anything, mind you, but because the expansion of 3D printers (now available at, what was it, Staples?) makes it continually easier for your average consumer to do this, plus the progression of the design, will make them a more interesting replacement for regular guns.

In other words, the NRA, which seems to work/lobby not on gun rights but on gun corporations' profits, will pay^H^H^Hconvince Congress to put the kibosh on these.

Maybe I'm just being cynical.

Re:Banned by Corporations

[Culture20]

Nope, others have made submissions about this very topic (banned by State Department actually):
http://slashdot.org/submission/2653097/liberator-3d-printed-gun-blueprints-removed-by-us-state-department
http://slashdot.org/submission/2653039/state-dept-demands-takedown-of-3d-printed-gun-file-under-export-control-laws

That's what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

More idiots with anger management problems, lack of sensibility, lack of empathy, no sense of the consequences of their actions, and no training armed with potentially deadly stuff.
*slow clap*

I once heard something about a peculiar device called Pandora's Box. Maybe, those retarded dingleberryies, those cream-faced loons, at Defence Distributed should read that.

@every brain-dead gun nutter : thou art a flesh-monger, a fool and a coward. You scallion. You rampallian. You fustilarian. I'll tickle your catastrophe.
(and yes I post this as AC as I have no account)

Re:That's what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

"speaking of anger management, this is about the most ironic post I have seen in quite some time". You just keep on with your crazy self.

Re:That's what we need

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike gun-nutters my potential anger won't result in someone dead.

I do desire we may better be strangers.
Peace, ye fat guts.

Since printable guns will hurt gun manufacturers

[Anonymous Coward]

Why hasn't the NRA come out against 3D printed guns?

Re:Firearms (or lack thereof) in the UK (was Re:Ya

[kaatochacha]

FYI: That was North Hollywood, I think.

As I said, same difference

[SuperKendall]

The difference is that gun manufacturing is a highly regulated and controlled industry in the US.

That is so, but is irrelevant - because to the end user there are zero regulations if the person chooses not to be burdened by them. That will always be so, and again it will simply be cheaper to buy a mass-produced gun than to make one.

Home manufacturing sidesteps the legal issues.

So does buying them outside of regular channels. So again it all just comes down to cost, thus (again) the only people who will be printing guns are owners with lawful intent who want to experiment.

Re:As I said, same difference

[BoberFett]

For now. Technology continues to get cheaper and easier to use.

Re:Firearms (or lack thereof) in the UK (was Re:Ya

[WillAdams]

An AR-15 is not a machine gun, sub-machine gun, nor fully automatic --- it doesn't even have a 3 round burst mode --- it's a semi-automatic rifle (or carbine w/ short barrel and collapsing stock).

Give me an M-14 or M-1 Garand any day.

Didn't take long

[sa1lnr]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22478310

good point

[eioonoeow]

Yes, the idea is really nice and you should read my recommendation as well Designer iPHone 5 Cases

Re:Firearms (or lack thereof) in the UK (was Re:Ya

[WillAdams]

An interesting movement among firearms manufacturers is a refusal to sell firearms to police departments which their municipalities won't allow their citizens to buy:

The Firearms Equality Movement --- http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/update-number-us-gun-makers-refusing-sales-govt-firearms-equality

100k downloads = 99,990 curiousity

[lsatenstein]

Many individuals want to see what a printfile is for a 3D printer. This gun file gives them a chance to explore, without actually buying a 3d printer to make such a weapon. I just hope that legislators consider the 3d weapon print file to be a weapon, and require it to be encrypted, and only released to registered weapon(gun) owners.

Perhaps the justice system should treat 3d Gun printfiles as they would ChildPorn.

speaking of cheap 3d printers --

[jaf0]

there's a kickstarter for a sub $500 3d printer. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1650950769/rigidbot-3d-printer/

Re:speaking of cheap 3d printers --

[jaf0]

ends today, for those of you with a little cash and no 3d printer yet. it's got a 10x10x10 print area :O

..." now let's check 3D Printer sales..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep... just like I thought. Still wildly expensive. And... the number purchased is still statistically insignificant.

Assembling a gun printed from plastic requires several metal parts, one of which must meet SAAMI standards or you just blow your face off.

Printing guns at home is to public safety... as the Ultra Light DIY kit is to international air flights.

Meaning... you'd be an idiot to think you can get THERE from HERE.

The number is not small, it is zero

[SuperKendall]

However, there are enough people out there that the tiny fraction of them that are this type of criminal

You can stop right there because there is NO tiny fraction. Until the end of time, it will be far easier and cheaper to get guns illegally, even in countries where guns are tightly regulated.

Anyone considering a gun for criminal use simply has zero desire to jump through the hoops and significant expense required to produce one. Why do you think that no crimes are reported today with custom built guns when it's already easy to assemble them? And 3D printing will not be anywhere near that point for at least 10 years.

Re:The number is not small, it is zero

[TheCarp]

> Anyone considering a gun for criminal use simply has zero desire to jump through the hoops and
> significant expense required to produce one. Why do you think that no crimes are reported today
> with custom built guns when it's already easy to assemble them

You are assuming an order of events starting with "Person decides to be criminal" and ending with "Criminal aquires gun". What about a person who already has a 3d printer? How about someone who knows someone with a 3d printer? How about this "Wow these 3d printed guns are cool" then progressing to "shit, i need a weapon... this will do".

What you describe is why it wont become a trend, or be a big deal, but, at some point, there are just too many people for anything not to happen once or twice.

What could go wrong?

[CHIT2ME]

I just hope that the creators and distributors have lots and lots of liability insurance. All the disclaimers in the world won't save them!

reductio ad absurdum

[Occams]

There will be a lot of candidates for the Darwin Awards this year.

im having doubrts about slashdot lately

[KingBenny]

it stinks of involvement and lost its fresh neutral smell it maybe never had, i also found out my screwdriver here has a hardened steel tip, i cant upload it but i could stab you, only once to kill you, so maybe screwdrivers need to be banned from existence. How low can you go on a site renowned for smarts ? This is almost like blaming tor browser for pedophiles. dafuq slashdot ... maybe you should get the commander back, you're slipping into tabloid or government control it's one of those two i'm sure

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uploaded to the Piratebay? That would be a first. The Piratebay does not host files, only links to torrent seeds. Of course it is in the best interest of the media industry and the US government to perpetuate the non-truth.

cheap high powered rifles, ammo?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, but, do you have any idea how many powered rifles, with cases of milsurp ammo, $1,000 can buy, on a weekend, at the gun & pawn, or from legit dealers at the Gun shows? Mosin Nagants, Mausers, Enfields, all good against 1" plate steel at 300 yards, are all good for the SHTF or the insurrection, (but, can hunt hogs until then). Most Veterans have at least one or two, along with several hundred rounds!

Safest countries to live in? Switzerland and Israel. Everyone who is fit for military duty, aged 18 to 65, has a FULL AUTOMATIC assault rifle in their home, along with hundreds of rounds of ammo!

Thanks to Obama, America has just, in 4 short years, doubled the firearms ownership over what was extant during the Bush years, plus, caused the mother of all shortages (in guns and ammo, brass, bullets and powder!)! Some 160 MILLION of us, are well, and fully, armed.