Slashdot Mirror
California Lawmaker Wants 3-D Printers To Be Regulated
New submitter phrackthat writes with news that California State Senator Leland Yee (D-S.F.) says he wants regulations to track who owns and uses 3-D printers. Yee's comments come in response to the recent news of Defense Distributed's successful test-firing of a 3-D printed gun.
"He's concerned that just about anyone with access to those cutting-edge printers can arm themselves. 'Terrorists can make these guns and do some horrible things to an individual and then walk away scott-free, and that is something that is really dangerous,' said Yee. He said while this new technology is impressive, it must be regulated when it comes to making guns. He says background checks, requiring serial numbers and even registering them could be part of new legislation that he says will protect the public. Yee added, 'This particular gun has no trace whatsoever.'"
I don't think doing something horrible to an individual qualifies as terrorism. In my day we call those people criminals.
You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
Wouldn't most "horrible things" that you would do with a gun be illegal? Meaning you wouldn't be able to walk away scott-free.
Unless there is some crazy loophole that says if you kill someone with an unregistered homemade gun it's 100% legal. Which if that's the case I don't think it's the 3D printer that is the problem.
Also, I guess this means it's time to start regulating CNC machines as well.
I'd like to thank middle-class crypto-anarchist Cody Wilson from Defense Distributed for ensuring that idiot politicians of every stripe try to clamp down on the most promising new manufacturing technology in a decade.
Nice job! Love the plastic zip gun you made, kid.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
Guns and explosives are easy to get thanks to America's right to bear arms. The representative would have 3d printer regulation before gun regulation? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Since 3d printers can be made by hobbyists at home, effective regulation is impossible. Not to mention that firing a 3d printed gun as a proof of concept and having an effective weapon are two very different things. A car is a far more dangerous weapon than a 3D printer. Are you afraid to drive?
Why not regulate lathes? They can be used to make a barrel of a high powered rifle.
Why not regulate mills? They can be used to make land mines.
Why not regulate sheet metal? They can be used to make the skin of missiles.
Why not regulate screwdrivers? They can be used to make bombs.
Why not just regulate and put a serial number in each and every bullet manufactured? I doubt that anyone would be able to 3D-print a bullet and its charge for many years to come.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
While I agree with the Senator, I believe we must act with comprehensive reform. Laser printers are being used to print counterfeit money. Those too should be regulated and tracked just as strictly as 3d printers. All printer owners should be tracked, registered, and of course, pay a government tax to cover all this tracking.
Goddamn, I'm good at this political bullshit. Block something I don't want under the guise of "comprehensive reform." Being a greasy politician is easy.
This is the kind of stupidity I see coming from Democrats across the country and its just sickening. Just as the DOD and DOJ are pushing to block the ability to share the plans for these printed guns they seem to forget the fact that these printers are available world-wide; and the US does not have a monopoly on people with engineering experience let alone knowledge in creating firearms.
So by trying to ban this, all they are doing is drawing more attention to it. As if countries like Iran, North Korea or Syria don't have people who know how to acquire a lathe and make a gun of better quality themselves. So this is made out of plastic and not detectable by a radar/magnetometer, you know what; the bullet/shell will be.
The ability to create a plastic/resin based shell casing that can properly detonate and propel a shell as required isn't possible.
He who is always at the bottom of the distribution list, but needs the information first!
California and New York are engaged in an all out conflict to see which state can erode its citizens' rights the quickest. They'll try anything to regulate what you can and cannot do as an individual. They want to police your every movement, thought, and activity.
Want to smoke cigarettes? Then get ready to pay the government $5 in taxes per pack just for the privilege. They'll throw out regressive and punitive taxes on smoking to create their own vision for America. You can't even open a private club or restaurant that allows smoking without going through extreme legal battles for the permit.
Want a 20oz soda? Well that's against the law. At least that's how they wanted it in NYC. And no more delivery of 2 liter bottles of soda with pizza takeout. That's another law that they want to pass. Banning pizza companies from delivering a 2 liter soda with your order.
Want to practice the 2nd Amendment? You need fingerprints, background checks, additional invasive background checks, registration to a permanent database, tons of money, and expensive lawyers. And if you get a gun or a concealed carry permit they'll illegally give your information over to the newspapers and blogs to reveal your personal information to everyone. Try getting a concealed carry permit for a pistol in certain cities in CA or NY. You need at least $5,000 for the fees and lawyers. It's prohibitive and costs people right out of their constitutional rights. You need to be wealthy to protect yourself.
3D printers? Why not try to regulate them? Everything else needs to be regulated anyways in our new utopian liberal fantasy. After all we need to protect the children from terrorism and school shootings and violent video games.
"Protection" is a disease. The government is not obliged to protect you. Congress has upheld that police are not required to protect you. Protecting yourself and your family is your responsibility. Life is dangerous. Be prepared. More folks die in car crashes, we don't ban cars or streets. Zip-Guns made of junk can kill you, hell, a plastic knife can kill you if sharpened properly, a broken window tied to a stick is a lethal weapon of opportunity. Limiting freedom should never be the answer to fear. The answer is to simply be aware of the danger you face in every day life, and protect yourself. Regulations like these are cancerous leaches of tax-payer money.
We really need to change the 2nd amendment, or create a new one clarifying that we have the right to bear technology, cryptography, photography, computers, and firearms included.
Lets just clear something up right now, gun bans have NEVER worked and will NEVER work because of one simple flaw in the logic. you see criminals? DON'T FOLLOW LAWS which is why they are called criminals, fucking duh!
Take Mexico, a country with a 100% ban on guns, you can't even one a 22 in that country...are the criminals throwing rocks at each other? Nope they do like all the other criminals with connections and buy from the former USSR where you can buy a crate of RPGs for the cost of a used BMW and where you can get a case of AK47s thrown in with every purchase over $50k.
This is as fucking retarded as trying to regulate or ban copper pipes because somebody might make a zip gun. I mean have you SEEN this "gun"? You are gonna be lucky if it fires even a single clip before being just trashed, in fact I've seen zip guns that make better weapons than this thing, and it took a $50,000 3D printer to make a gun that had less quality than what you can make in any machine shop for less than $200!
I'm sorry but this entire thing is just fucking retarded, every major city like Chicago where they have made it practically impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a gun has become a criminal paradise and why not? Don't have to worry about prey fighting back when even the cops in these areas tell you "don't resist, just beg real nice after they are done raping and looting and maybe they won't kill you". Its fucking disgusting is what it is, we should be teaching people how to defend themselves from these fucking scum and instead we are creating a nation of prey, that is ALL they are, they are prey and the wolves will feed and feed well.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
There is a difference between laws designed to regulate availability of material goods and laws designed to punish human beings.
3D guns are ludicrous to anyone who has ever used 3D printers and knows anything about the tolerances, surface finish and strengths needed for a gun.
Any criminal can by a top quality gun for far less than the software and printer needed to make a 3D printed toy plastic so-called gun.
Politicians have no clue as to the real world.
Why do we have laws at all then? Why do we say don't have sex with children when criminals are just going to do it anyway?
Really bad analogy. Your implication is that we could stop people from having sex with children by banning children.
The analogy you're looking for is that just like we have laws that carry penalties for abusing kids, we have penalties for killing people. Using rifles, or using blunt instruments like pipes and bats (which are used far more often than rifles to murder people, says the FBI).
So yes: we have laws that "ban" murder, by making it really suck to be a murderer that's been caught having murdered someone. Just like it sucks to be someone that's been caught having abused a kid.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If I sell you a gun, you and I both consent to the transaction. Doesn't matter whether it's legal or not, neither of us will call the cops.
If you sexually assault someone, that person is not consenting, and will call the cops (or their parents will).
You cannot effectively enforce a law against a transaction where all parties involved consent, and even trying to do so inevitably involved measures corrosive to liberty.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
A democracy stops working for the benefit for all as soon as people stop ignoring the constitution.
When the laws are working for the benefit of all, some people will not be happy and some people will not get what they want. I know some of you believe that guns are evil but criminals will always find a way to procure guns. The majority of gun related violence is perpetrated by criminals. When I say gun violence, I am not just talking about deaths but also non-lethal injuries and use of guns for intimidation. The anti-gun people are too focused on individual stats and do not stop to consider armed robberies where nobody gets shot during the robbery. That is still a use of guns as a weapon to intimidate/coerce others into doing something against their will.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Senator Yee is dumb and doesn't know what he's talking about.
But, you are dumber, and don't understand the basic concept of laws and enforcement. There are plenty of place with stricter bans on guns than the US that are not Mexico. The difference is obviously an effective enforcement system and corrupt government and enforment officials OWNED BY THE DRUG CARTELS .
Stop trying to fit reality into your world view. You don't know jack shit about gang-related crimes. The people living in Chicago that have to deal with shootings are hardly living in a "criminal paradise," and arming the non-violent citizens of the city would not help the crime situation. There are all kinds of exisiting issues including poverty, segregation due to social-economic status, and existing problems of gun violence that each new generation of young, poor men is dragged into. I assure you that Chicago is not a "criminal paradise," and that relaxing gun laws there or in any other city would make the situation worse, not better.
Somehow, you got it into your dumb head that not only is more violence the solution to the current violence problem, but that everyone else thinks the same way you do and would go and arm themselves with guns to shoot other human beings to "protect themselves" if only the government would get out of their way and let them own guns. And that if the government had laws against buying guns, that they would go out and print their own guns, if only there were those damn laws against 3-D printers.
There is a difference between laws designed to regulate availability of material goods and laws designed to punish human beings.
Exactly. Politicians just love that former category, precisely because it never works. It never works and never solves the problem, so there is always a menacing problem they can promise to do something about the next time they campaign. It also has the side-effect of requiring a police state to have even a slight hope of enforcement, which again is great from the perspective of most politicians.
... unless you exclude Chicago and a few other cities where it is practically impossible to legally own a firearm; then the USA has one of the lowest. They understand all of this.
Politicians know the War on Drugs doesn't stop people from acquiring drugs. They know that mass shootings overwhelmingly tend to happen in "gun free" zones. They know even an outright ban on guns doesn't stop criminals from acquiring them. They know someone not afraid of a murder charge isn't going to be deterred by a weapons violation. They probably know that the USA has one of the highest murder rates of the industralized world
They are interested in perpetuating the problems. It's what wins elections. It's what makes people increasingly feel they need government intervention. It's fun to think of them as a bunch of morons who couldn't find their ass in the dark, but this is called allowing sentiment to interfere with judgment.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
If the only thing keeping you from having sex with children is a law stating so, then you're beyond all help as it is. Laws aren't made for the righteous, they're made so that *when a transgressor is caught* there's a system in place to apply punishment.
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
It depends a lot on culture and government as well. Nothing exists in a vaccume. What works for Australia and Britain won't work for the US. What works in Russia won't work in Mexico. China is different than Chile. All of these are pretty much "no duh" statements when you think about them, but most people try to bottle one statistic inside a glass jar as though the size of the country, population, cultural norms, etc have no effect on the outcome of a law. His point, while you can poke holes in bits and pieces all day long, is essentially correct.
Criminals don't follow laws, and especially in the case of the US, the population is way to large and already well armed enough that it would be impossible to police and secure guns. The better option is to place reasonable limits on them (such as the ones that are already in place and have been in place for decades), punish people who use guns for evil purposes (killing, robbery), and let law abiding citizens protect themselves (gun ownership and carry permits). Basically, what has been going on. Instead politicians decide they can win votes by trying to either
a) Invent a big scary imaginary monster, oh no, it'll eat you. Nevermind the fact that this gun is impractical for any realistic purpose, all of which have already been gone over elsewhere or
b) Convince people that someone in an office somewhere, writing something in a book, will somehow protect them. Nevermind the fact that guns that can't be detected by metal detectors have been outlawed for nearly 30 years (if I remember the date right). Nevermind the fact that people can already make more practical firearms at home. Basically nevermind the fact that this breaks no new ground at all anyway.
I call them feel-good laws. They make lawmakers feel like they've done something, they make people ignorant of what laws are already on the books, or the true capabilities of guns feel safer, but they basically do nothing except try to restrict law abiding citizens. There's no point to them at all and they have no real impact on criminals or crime.
Anyway, I'm off the topic, and if your an Aussie and disagree, then feel free to pass all the gun laws you want. I mean that, in a non-sarcastic way, because that's what your country wants and what your culture wants. As an American, I don't want more (or less really) gun laws, I think things are fairly well balanced as they are, the media just likes to blow things out of proportion. All statistics aside, those are cultural differences.
Way off topic from the original point I was making, but there you go.
Take Mexico, a country with a 100% ban on guns...
We all agree that government restrictions are to be avoided whenever possible but in the case of gun control there is a clear trade off: either you have strict controls (with strict enforcement) or you have an exceedingly high rate of deaths due to guns. If the US is happy with one of the highest rate of gun deaths in the world then that's its choice: it knows one reliable way to reduce it if it so chooses.
That being said controlling 3D printers because of this is just daft. You can almost certainly make a gun with a CNC machine (in fact a quick Google search turned up this video). They have not controlled these so why should a 3D printer be any different? They can machine plastic just as easily if the sole concern is detectability.
That's the joke. The Democrats are right-wingers too. At least when seen from a country with a less screwed up political system.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
And yet, every day when I look at google news, there is another story about some kind of gun violence/accident in some place thousands of miles from me. It's like a constant drumbeat in the media to get people to think things are so bad, something must be done. And politicians of course, are never hesitant to restrict people's rights or acquire yet ever more power. America's problem with guns is a media conspiracy that makes politicians cum in their pants.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"The republicans are in a pickle. If they support 3D gun printing, they hurt gun manufacturers, which is what they really are supporting ($$$$)."
Not really. 3d guns (at least fully printed guns) aren't (at least for the near future, and probably longer) going to be nearly as reliable as commercially manufactured guns.
And you need a $1000-$5000 3d printer. And the knowledge of how to use it. And obtain the gun schematic files.
That restricts 3d printed guns to a bunch of libertarian or anarchist geeks who like firearms and who could almost certainly afford to buy the real things.
3d printing will make gun parts (and car parts and electronics parts, etc.) easily. And help drive prices down. Which is good for everyone.
(OK, the printers are also good for making 30-round magazines and getting around stupid and at least semi-unconstitutional laws restricting magazine sizes.)
But there won't be mass arsenals of 3d printed guns anytime soon. They're still at the expensive toy / proof of concept stage.
" I assure you that Chicago is not a "criminal paradise," and that relaxing gun laws there or in any other city would make the situation worse, not better."
Please take a look at several EU countries where gun ownership is mandated - lowest crime rates on the fucking planet. Why? Because anyone and everyone can make you have a bad fucking day.
You're absolutely retarded.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
And the US government is massively corrupt, not at the level of Mexico but there's one for that: "yet"
It may be worth adding "inevitable" as well, because power is always corrupting. That's sort of the point of our (largely ignored) Constitution -- it was designed to shackle government because the greatest threat anyone ever faces, is their own government grown too fat and too powerful.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
"Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, but Sam Colt made them equal."
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I prefer to be free.
You prefer to be safe.
Luckily, my country wasn't created to be the land of the safe. Unfortunately, a free society creates more liberals over time who try continually to redefine their country because freedom is so web 1.0.
THL phish sticks
This depends very much on where this happens or in what cultural/religious context.
In SOME parts of the world, if a woman calls the cops after being raped she can expect to be arrested, thrown in jail and raped some more.
In SOME parts of the world, if a woman tells her parents she has been raped THEY will kill her.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
The more you reduce the presence of firearms by honest citizens, the less they are used to prevent crime.
Some numbers for you:
There are approximately 300,000,000 guns in the US (give or take).
2011 reported 11,101 gun homicides. That means that the gun grabbers
want to restrict the rights of ALL Americans to try to stop the 0.0037%
of guns that cause the problem. To put it another way,
approximately 45% of households own guns. Assuming a uniform
distribution of family sizes across gun-owning and defenseless
households, that means that 140,200,000 people are in a household with
guns (US population in 2011 is 311,591,917). The government wants to
infringe on the rights of over 300 million people to stop 11,101
criminals (assuming one criminal per murder). That means that gun-control laws are trying to stop the 0.008% of gun owners that do
bad things. To put it another way, for every single murderer, there are 12,630 honest gun owners. Wow! Clearly, guns are indeed a problem.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Would you prefer to be raped or dead ?
I'd prefer my would-be rapist be dead, which is much more likely if I'm armed.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Your logic is pretty lame. You're arguing that you can't regulate criminals because they are criminals.
Well now it's up to you to prove that you are not a moron, person who claims lawful regulations affect criminal behavior which is defined literally as "not following the law".
It's not lame; it's called "common sense".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
A couple of years ago if I looked at the news I'd have thought sharks grew legs, walked up on land, and started eating children out of playgrounds.
Never underestimate the medias ability to over report and hyper sensationalize the fixation of the moment.
Thanks for the link but you'd think common fricking sense would tell you its not gonna work. does it work in the UK? Sure it does and in Australia too because they are islands and its really not that hard with today's tech to police an island.
Now compare this to North and South America, which you would have to look at as one entity since the massive borders and literally millions of fast boats (coke boats) and light aircraft means that the borders between countries on this land mass mean jack and squat, and you can see just by using common fricking sense why this shit ain't gonna work. How many fucking years has America had a "war on drugs" going now? 80+ years isn't it? yet I can walk out my door even in BF AR and score any drug i want in less than 2 hours, less than 1 hour if you exclude driving time...you think guns will ever be ANY different? think Mr Dope Dealer would have ANY problem selling me an AK if draconian gun laws mean he can make several hundred percent profit on each gun?
The sad part is this has become a left/right issue and its not, its a common sense issue. 1.- Criminals don't obey laws, 2.- you have a border that leaks so bad that you can buy everything from smack to slaves because its so damned easy to smuggle across so 3.-Gun bans will ONLY affect those that OBEY the law which guess what? is the ones you WANT to be able to defend themselves against the criminals!
I'll get hate for saying this but fuck it, i always say how I feel and don't pull punches, to me it comes down to what I call "NYC cowardice rules". its that complete horseshit that the ones in power sell in NYC, that "Don't resist, do as your told,you are weak and the criminal is strong, don't fight back" which is a bunch of fucking bullshit, because time and time again we have seen criminals slaughter everybody just for the fuck of it. Maybe the Wichita massacre would have turned out differently if those in the home had a gun, how many think the outcome of the flight (93 i think) that crashed in PA on 9/11 would have been positive if they had followed the NYC cowardice rule?
At the end of the day you can NOT count on the cops or anybody else BUT YOURSELF to protect you and your loved ones. Either you stand or you get on your knees and beg like prey. Well fuck the NYC cowardice crap, i'm nobody's god damned prey. that criminal may kill me but I can guaran-damn-tee you that you won't have any problem catching the criminal later, just follow the trail of blood coming from the scumbag to his door.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
To make your study meaningful, you should also take a few more data points both before and after the ban. This is so that you can identify any trends that were in place throughout the ban and were not really affected by it. To the best of my knowledge, both the decrease in homicide and the increase in assaults were in that category.
I'd prefer my would-be rapist be dead
Sure we all would.
which is much more likely if I'm armed.
It increases the odds of a lot of things.
It increases the odds he's also carrying a gun. It increases the odds he's had plenty of practice with it, since its legal for him to carry it around.
It increases the odds of a shootout. It increases the odds you get shot. (Maybe he's a better shot than you. Maybe he approaches you with it drawn while yours is still holstered. Not much of an edge for you.
It increases the odds an innocent bystander gets short. It increases the odds of an accidental discharge. It increases the odds someone irresponsible ends up with a gun in their hands. It increases the odds someone irresponsible ends up with -your- gun in their hands.
I'm Not saying I wouldn't want to have a gun in my hands if I were attacked, but its wrong to oversimplify it so that is the only scenario we look at.
It increases the odds he's also carrying a gun.
My being armed doesn't do that.
It increases the odds he's had plenty of practice with it, since its legal for him to carry it around.
Legal to carry is completely orthogonal to plenty of practice, because you don't practice with it while you're wandering around town. Further, odds are good he's already a felon, and is already barred from carry, if not ownership.
It increases the odds of a shootout. It increases the odds you get shot. (Maybe he's a better shot than you. Maybe he approaches you with it drawn while yours is still holstered. Not much of an edge for you.
If he has a gun, and I have no gun, then he's definitely got the edge.
It increases the odds an innocent bystander gets short. It increases the odds of an accidental discharge. It increases the odds someone irresponsible ends up with a gun in their hands. It increases the odds someone irresponsible ends up with -your- gun in their hands.
Yes, there are potential negative outcomes. But in the scenario of a more physically powerful attacker, none of them are very different from the already extant outcome, for the attacked in any case. Meanwhile, preventing or reducing attacks is everyone's responsibility, and we are collectively falling down on the job.
I'm Not saying I wouldn't want to have a gun in my hands if I were attacked, but its wrong to oversimplify it so that is the only scenario we look at.
You and your straw man must be cuddled close tonight. I never claimed that was the only scenario. You wanted something to complain about, but I didn't say what you want me to have said.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Umm....so using this common frickin' sense of yours, you're saying it's easy to enforce gun laws in Australia because it's an island (which, by the way, has ~80% the land area of the US), but their laws wouldn't work in the US because of all the boats and light aircraft that can make it across US land borders? Or perhaps all those Australian criminals decided to stop being criminals once the gun law was passed?
And to top off your post with 'NYers are cowards'....man, the real world would be a better place if people like you spent some time outside the insular, self-affirming little world you live in.
And the US with one of the highest crime rates in the world has one of the highest gun ownership rates.
If you remove the crime numbers from Progressive Democrat-controlled major cities with the strictest gun control laws like Chicago, NYC, etc, the US crime rate is one of the lowest.
Keeping crime and criminals in check requires cooperation and action from both police and citizens. Disarming half the crime-fighting force does not help reduce crime. It not only requires a much larger and more brutal law enforcement arm to maintain order, It turns that disarmed half into helpless victims and erodes trust, legitimacy, and respect for the government and for police, as well as reducing citizen cooperation with police. It promotes increasing hostility by citizens towards police and the government.
This is the reality for the US and it's society & culture. Maybe gun control works in Australia or the UK. If they're happy, that's great. Different solutions to fit different nations and cultures. It's not just gun control. What works in N. Korea wouldn't work in the UK. What works in France wouldn't work in China. Rinse and repeat for other nations/cultures and various laws/policies/etc. This is true for a large number of things including gun control.
Do you think gay marriage would work in Saudi Arabia? Do you think a death penalty for being LGBT would work in the US/UK? Same thing for gun laws seeking a national database/registration and outright bans in the US. It would take an extremely intrusive, controlling, brutal, and tyrannical police state to have any hope of even beginning to enforce such bans/restrictions in the US. Many millions would die.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
The net effect is already known. We have jurisdictions with strict gun control in the US, and there's no causative decrease in armed crime. Gun control, at best, hopes to effect the supply, the supply is already massive so it can't do much there, at worst it's an attempt to control ownership which no law can accomplish: laws can only regulate legal commerce. Black markets just pop up and go around fhem when there is massive demand, and with the already massive supply prices stay relatively low. Example: the so called drug war. No impact on supply or demand. And with vigorous gun laws, you will create a black market.
So if you want to reduce supply, you have to get rid of guns: confiscation or buy back with significant incentives, and even then you can't eliminate supply. But thats what youd have to do. And to reduce demand you have to both reduce crime, and increase penalties on gun crimes to something so severe you both deter and slowly eliminate law breakers.
If you're serious about reducing gun violence, look at the root cause of most of it: drug control laws. Get rid of drug prohibition and a large percentage of all violent crime goes away. Anything else, including gun control laws, is only going to make a minor difference, at best, and is likely to just make things worse. You have to eliminate the root cause of violence, the gun is not the cause, it's just one means, and don't kid yourself if a lot of money is available to a criminal element, they will get all the guns they want no matter what laws you pass.
Python