Slashdot Mirror
3-D Printed Gun Ban Fails In Senate
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Daily Dot:"On Monday evening, a bill aimed at thwarting the production and distribution of plastic 3-D printed weapons was blocked by Senate Republicans. ... The debate over the new legislation centered around the 1988 Undetectable Firearms Act, which bans the production and distribution of weapons that skirt 'walk through metal detectors.' The act has been renewed on two occasions since its passage. It was due to expire again on the 9th of December. The House voted to renew the bill last week. The rise of 3-D printing has made this year's renewal more complicated in the Senate. Many lawmakers, particularly Democrats, feel the current Undetectable Firearms Act inadequately addresses the rising threat posed by printed plastic weapons."
CBS Says it passed
I believe the Senate Democrats wanted to create a new, tougher bill. The bill that started in the house was passed by both the house and senate. President Obama signed the bill.
If we can delay it long enough, 3d printing might get good enough that all gun control is moot. We can defeat it like we defeated the Clipper Chip - by letting the cat out of the bag.
Is it just me or does this seem like more double speak from this administration?
I'm going to have to call complete bullshit on this one, now while a 3d printed gun may be able to go through a detector unnoticed don't we currently have police state style pat downs anyway that render a metal detector useless, this isn't even getting into the scanners.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Why create a whole new law when the existing one is perfectly adequate?
All of us commit three felonies a day because those asshats in our legislatures just keep piling the laws on to solve non-existent problems.
This is yet another distraction by the ruling class to keep our minds off of our continually declining standard of living.
Undetectable guns are already banned. The failed legislation was a modification to require inclusion of metal components that would be hard to remove. If you think about it, that doesn't make much sense....its either detectable or its not. Those with criminal intent would not likely be deterred by this minor modification.
When we have blatantly inaccurate /. articles to spread fear and panic.
Why does the article bring up Sandy Hook? It has nothing to do with this issue.
No matter where you go, there you are.
Bullets are detectable, right? Good luck making plastic casings for those. Oh, and plastic slugs of course.
-- Sent from a computer.
Not in the U.S. in most localities.
Any person who is legally able to purchase and own a firearm may manufacture their own, so long as it is not intended for re-sale --- the BATF has been very stringent on that last point of late, so it's pretty much impossible to transfer a personally-manufactured firearm.
Please note that the BATF is only interested in the last 20% or so of a firearm, so one may make and sell partially-finished (up to 80%) receivers w/o any need for an FFL.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Some of us don't want to live in a Mad Max style dystopia where every criminal, racist, and nut case can get their hands on whatever gun they want.
You already live in that world. The only question left is if every sane and law abiding citizen should also be able to get a gun to protect themselves.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The stupidity of banning 3D guns is that you are trying to ban something someone does in the privacy of their own home.
Laws that are utterly unenforceable and just exist to make people feel good have no place in our world.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Basically it says you must have some amount of metal in the gun so it can be detected.
You can only go so far with setting restrictions on things like this. When a criminal is desperate enough, they will commit crime with so much as a finger-gun in their pocket and a scribbled note. The laws becomes ineffective at some point. There is no point in spending further time/money on legislation that isn't going to prevent more crime.
Printing plastic guns is a novelty. The only people doing it are hobbyists who are enthusiastic enough to buy the equipment and companies who want street cred' in manufacturing. Criminals are just not going to spend the time trying to print a weapon when so many other options are available. The ones who do will be the publicity whores looking to make national news and capitalize off the ridiculous drama currently being created around the issue.
Want to prevent more gun crime? Start with adequate state-sponsored mental health facilities, stiffer penalties for bullying and high school/workplace "terrorism", loss of permit for negligent CCW abuses (along with annual safety courses).
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Which is actually why it makes it a stupid law.
Its only benefit would be able to charge someone with more fines and problems when they have already performed an illegal act.
People: We have a Gun that is undetectable by normal means.
Government: We can't have that because people who want to hurt people with guns can get past detection. So lets make a law to fix that.
People: So If I wanted to hurt someone with a gun, which is already breaking a bunch of laws, I will just need to break one more.
Government: Thats right, and it will save you money because we will not need to invest into finding ways to track your gun.
Why doesn't the government add an extra $100 fine for performing an illegal activity.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I doubt the bill said anything about 3D printing, it is about plastic guns that are hard to detect with a magnetometer. Could be fabricated with a 3D printer, but also by, say, injection molding, or conventional machining. Let's not demonize 3D printers unnecessarily.
Because the senate has a sane 60% of the vote rule ? Maybe you should learn how the system work before commenting...
Government works the same way. How else did we get the Patriot Act, NSA funding for all that evil nonsense, more and more draconian "hacking" laws, as well as "terrorist" laws? How else do they justify dragging grammar school children out of their classrooms for pointing a fingers and saying "Bang!"
Welcome to the 21st Century, Comrade.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Has there been a single documented case of someone using a 3D-printed plastic gun to commit a crime?
No. You can build whatever unregulated firearms, as long as you do not intend to sell them. AFAIK, you are still bound to respect the NFA, and thus cannot manufacture suppressor, SBR, SBS and full-auto without the proper timestamp. I think that full-auto manufacture is further restricted by Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986.
Have you looked at Chicago lately? The dystopia is here already, thanks to gun control nuts.
I trust the gun nuts far more than I trust the gun control nuts.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
This! I really wish I had mod points right now. This is the crux of all these gun related laws. They are presented as a way to prevent specific crimes from happening again. The stupid part is making some of these things illegal wouldn't have changed the crime that happened before. What the politicians and most of the unwashed masses don't get is making one more aspect of the event illegal doesn't magically prevent it from happening. All it does is add on one more charge. Someone who's desperate or crazy enough to commit the crime anyway, isn't going to suddenly stop because now they're violating one more law.
It's all Bush's fault! BUSH, BUSH, BUSH, BUSH!! It's all Bush's fault, doesn't matter that the house is controlled by the other party!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Sigh.
The whole Undetectable Firearm Act has always been a piss in the wind . There is no such things as full polymer/plastic undetectable firearms mainstream firearm. Most of this is pure paranoia following the introduction of Glock pistols, but guess what ? There is plenty of metal part in a Glock, unless of course you believe Die Hard 2 is a reliable source of firearm information. The barrel, the action are mostly metal, that is the parts handling most of the stress. Only the frame and other low stress stressed parts are made of polymer. Even without the UFA, there would be no point in a full polymer firearm, the materials just don't have the strength to handle the stress and pressure of a round going off, not to mention the rifling in the barrel would wear out pretty quick...
Got to love these carefully reasoned screeds... that completely miss the point.
See, the thing is that it's unlikely that the person who commits the crime is the one that is actually producing the weapons. Thus what the law actually does is make it illegal to own, produce, sell, or distribute guns that would violate the law. Which in turn restricts the supply and makes it harder for a criminal to obtain them.
Without it, you not only have to worry about 3D-print shops mass-producing weapons, but also the possibility of, say, Glock deciding to make and market a polymer/ceramic "undetectable" firearm. Something that, in both cases, would dramatically increase the supply of such weapons on the street and as such, increase the likelihood of them being used in a crime.
Finally, the law is itself in the public interest, as there's little to no public benefit in allowing people or companies to produce "plastic" weapons designed solely to circumvent security checkpoints.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
The reality is that all these bills are an attempt to make the people feel like the government is doing something about their fears. Gun control laws are not going to stop dedicated criminals from obtaining and misusing guns. Regulating ammunition would be more effective and even that will only be partially so. People can make their own ammo as well as making their own guns. The difference is that making your own ammo from scratch requires alot more work then just printing a gun these days. Either way though, bans and regulations are safety blanket measures. Something to make the the people feel safe without ever actually doing anything about the real problems.
I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
Actually, there are simple majority (51%) and supermajority (60%) rules.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Ummm. It is already completely illegal to sell a gun without being a licenses manufacturer (read "company with deep pockets). Nobody in their right mind would actually sell a plastic gun due to the liability issues involved. Gets smuggled past a metal detector = massive law suits from relatives of victims = no more company.
First, the law was first passed once the first Glocks came out with a polymer frame. All Glocks have been VERY detectible with any metal detector, as the barrel and slide are all solid metal. So this law was passed out of complete ignorance and an irrational fear for something that, quite simply, was not a problem in the first place. Yes, the law makers that want to tightly regulate guns do not actually know much about them -- what a surprise.
Now, this law is trying to be applied to home printers. Really, all you will have to do is buy the printer and set it up. Download the design files, and run them through the printer. Add ammo and shoot. Assuming that your printer is good enough, and that the files are formatted for your particular model of printer, then making your own gun should be pretty easy -- well within the reach of anybody with a few thousand to blow on a printer. Currently, there might be software issues, but I am sure that printing will get easier as time goes on, not harder.
As to there being little public benefit in plastic guns, there is little benefit to the law itself. People who intend to do bad things with guns are not going to be stopped by yet another law. Honest citizens will do anything wrong even with a plastic gun.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Regular printers have security mechanisms built into them. Did you know that? Do you know what they are for? I suppose there is nothing to be done about 3d printers, and you wouldn't know anyway, so their is *definitely* nothing to be done.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Works over seas.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
then a law passed by a bunch of professional politicians in Congress and signed by a President responsible for the iron flood of guns into the hands of the Mexican cartels won't phase them.
yes, we need to ban these types of guns, because we all know criminals obey the law... maybe it would be easier to outlaw murder!
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
So what if your gun is undetectable. Bullets are still made of metal and will show up on Xray and metal detectors. But even these 3D printed guns have small bits of metal in them for the firing pin.
"The rising threat", rofl. Once again trade some of your liberty away because of "fear".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Funny that academics don't pin-point race as a risk factor. Sounds like you read that in some alternative media, and now it is your reality -- cause its just such a nice story. Any academic citation to back it up though? Something published that passed peer review?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Right now you can be a law abiding gun owner in one town, but drive over the city or state line and you are a criminal.We need better and fewer gun control regulations that make it easier for law abiding people to own guns for self defense and comply with the law and yet keeps guns out of the hands of felons and the dangerously insane.
The fundamental, if not always stated, purpose of most of these gun laws is to make it harder for law abiding people to own guns. With the goal of reducing the number of guns in circulation. By creating a climate of fear and uncertainty, about compliance with gun laws, gun control advocates are trying to isolate gun owners politically through attrition in their numbers over time.
I do agree that a society with fewer guns will in fact reduce the overall number of gun deaths. My concern is that the trade off between the short term goal of safety which would trade away an enduring Liberty just isn't worth it. And will ultimately lead to a less safe and secure society as the people that control the guns both legally through the government or illegally through criminal gangs will feel more emboldened to oppress and threaten those without effective means of self defense.
My ideal is a society where people don't threaten to take away people's second amendment rights and fewer and fewer people feel the need to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. The only thing that the recent push to further regulate guns (on top of layer upon layer of current gun control laws) has done is increase the number of guns in society. Not only is gun control a failure, it is counter-productive to its own express goals.
People that are willing and able to take on the responsibility of gun ownership should do so and our government should support them with reasonable regulations and laws and not burden them with unnecessary, redundant and conflicting laws as is the case now.
There are a lot of open-source printers out there. Security mechanisms??? Look up "open source" and show me what security mechanisms can withstand that...
Also, what "security mechanisms" are built into printers? I remember that some yellow dots would be added as kind of a serial number to know which printer made the print a few years ago. Great for proving guilt after the fact, but useless for actually stopping anything.
Oh, and printer software is supposed to magically know that this hollow tube is actually a barrel and not a drinking straw?
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Serious question. You can take a gun anywhere you want but without ammo it's just a blunt instrument to strike someone with. Is there any indication someone has developed 3D printed bullets that won't explode the casing?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
But that assumes all shooters are criminals that won't follow any laws and they are always planning on committing the crime.
It's much better to catch someone breaking the law for carrying an illegal gun (or illegally carrying a gun) than it is to catch them for murder.
It also can cut down the number of killings when people aren't carrying as many guns around. There 0 gun crimes committed by people without guns (even including accidental!) in the past forever.
There will always be people determined to hurt someone, in which case they're probably going to find a way - but if we can catch them before they commit the crime of murder or make it too much of a hassle, we can even cut down those.
For one, I don't accept there are two categories: there are plenty of people that cross those lines depending on context (speeding, other "minor" laws), or groups of interacting people that in aggregate blur these categories, or people that might be tempted/forced to switch groups due to some external circumstance.
1) I care because a lot of guns are acquired by criminals from honest people, either knowingly/negligently (gun shows without background checks being the obvious example) or inadvertently (lost/stolen). Reducing the legal boundaries of plastic/undetectable guns means that there are going to be fewer of these and a correspondingly lower probability these guns will be widely distributed or used.
2) The "if a criminal really wants to" argument assumes that all crimes are carefully planned and executed, when facts show otherwise. Statistically, most crimes are unplanned, opportunistic, and random. The chances of all kinds guns (plastic/undetectable being one subset) being used is lowered when access is reduced. Again, facts and statistics bear this out in places where gun control limits access and there is correspondingly lower rates of run related crimes.
Overall, bans like this do have a simple, logical effect of reducing crime. In concert with other measures, laws in general reduce the probability of potential actors from simultaneously having the means (anti-organized crime, gun bans), motive (anti-poverty measures, education, penal), and opportunity (police patrols, security systems) to commit crime. No single thing with STOP all crime for all time.
Works over seas.
Uh oh. We need laws that work over land too!
The reason to ban them is it allows the police to arrest someone who has one of those weapons on them. Sure criminals will still have them but at least then they are criminals before they use the gun to kill someone. This gives us a chance of arresting them before they kill someone.
I'm sorry I spent all my mod points. Nice post.
Suppose authorities get wind of a plot. They obtain a warrant (hopefully), and find a plastic gun in their search. With the law they can prosecute, without the law they have to close the case. The law costs nothing. What's the problem?
This isn't completely correct. You can make a gun and sell it, you just can make it with the intention of selling it. There are lots of AK's and other guns that have been home built and eventually sold or given away by the people that created them.
Sorry. That is illegal. You cannot transfer a gun without a serial number.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I was going to post a similar comment to harrkev's, except I had to log in first to be able to actually post it. So I'll just add to that.
The printer used by Defense Distributed, as far as I know, is an FDM printer, much like the RepRaps. This would mean that I could easily print a plastic gun that's just as good as the ones made by DD. Making such a printer is easy to the point that anyone can make one from scratch with some technical knowledge and programming skills, now that we've seen them and know how they work. There is absolutely no way anyone could prevent a dedicated individual from 3D printing one of these guns.
I'm speaking from experience here, I've got a homemade Mendel90 and I've looked into the related software and firmware.
People also make meth in the privacy of their own homes... So do laws banning meth only exist to make people feel good?
Actually the answer is still yes, as it is with most casual drug use of ANY kind of drug. Some countries have legalized all drugs, understanding that then they can help the small number of people who get addicted instead of being able to use drugs responsibly.
However meth is a bit of a special case, because the making of it basically renders a home unlivable, and poisons the other people living there or even nearby. But you still shouldn't ban meth or meth ingredients, just require it be made in proper facilities.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I was with you righ up until reasonable regulation, that is the problem regulation is not reasonable, as anyone you should try to regulate disregard the law.
Sure you can, people do it every day, the law requiring serial numbers on guns was the Gun Control Act of 1968, the reason for the serial number requirement was one of many parts of the act designed to increase the cost of making a gun to remove cheap (and cheaply built) guns from the market so certain recently politically empowered minorities could not afford to own a gun. The major gun makers approved of this since almost all of them had been stamping serial numbers for decades on all but their cheapest models for warranty reasons, etc and they did not like the cheap mostly foreign competition.
Show me an undetectable piece of firearm ammunition and I'll start to worry. A 3D plastic gun is useless if you can't get ammunition in to the building as well.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
I'm amazed at this caveman way of thinking. "Lets get guns to protect ourselves..."
Gun control isn't about removing guns from law abiding people but to control what guns can be in these peoples hands. I've said this before and will say it again, someone that has an urge to kill due to mental dysfunction will grab the available weapon and go on a rampage. If this guy shows up with a 5 round riffle he will do much less damage than if he shows up with an AK47 he found in his own house.
Then you have the guy who plans a killing. Even if you have a gun, this guy is showing up far more prepared than you are and you will most probably die without a chance to pull out your gun. You stated that less guns will equal less gun related deaths. That alone should be enough incentive to start moving forward in a logical way. Baby steps is all that is needed.
I tell you this now. If your family is taken out by gun violence you will change you point of view.
Sorry. That is illegal. You cannot transfer a gun without a serial number.
Wrong. It's illegal to manufacture them for sale without serial numbers. Likewise, there are lots of circumstances where transfers can legally occur without concern for the serial number at all. (Face to face, within the state, for example.)
And, one can put a serial number on a gun one builds from say, a shovel.
In any case, building with intention for personal use, then giving away or selling is perfectly legal, unless you are in one of the retard states.
Here is an in-depth analysis of this: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1326743
Nobody in their right mind would actually sell a plastic gun due to the liability issues involved. Gets smuggled past a metal detector = massive law suits from relatives of victims = no more company.
Even if there was no crime aspect to consider, nobody would sell these for the potential liability involved in normal legal use. I don't think you can disclaim the implied warranty of fitness on a product that causes grave bodily harm when it fails in a predictable fashion.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
And you will change your view if you have a drugged out guy pounding on your door threatening to kill you after he assaulted your neighbor and was vandalizing your apartment building. Luckily the door held and he eventually gave up. And frankly I am glad I didn't have a gun because I don't really want to shoot anyone even in self defense. But as it was my roommates and I were prepared to defend ourselves as best we could with blunt objects... speaking of "caveman thinking". It wasn't even a high crime area.
Then the police show up 45 minutes later after you call 911 and don't bother getting out of their patrol car to take a statement or even verify that you are the person that had called, then perhaps you might feel differently about the need for armed self defense. Guns are rarely a good means of self defense and they are a last resort. Most gun owners I know understand that. But there are unfortunate times when they might be necessary.
When those around you act like cavemen and threaten or use force against you or your family, then "caveman thinking" is all we have left to survive with. Most people can't hire private security or have a protection detail like many politicians and notable proponents of ever greater gun control. For many a gun is what would allow them to defend themselves in a terrible situation.
People in high crime areas get guns to protect themselves because the police can't or simply don't protect them. Moving forward in a logical way to me would be to make sure that our laws protect the second amendment right to keep and bear arms and that includes the universal and basic right to the same kinds of guns that every traffic cop might have. While focusing on making sure those whose crimes or mental conditions make them ineligible don't actually get guns. When we reduce crime, violence and social injustice then fewer people will want or need guns and that would be a good thing. Until then asking law abiding people to disarm themselves before the criminals is a non-starter and we have already gone too far in that direction in some states and localities.
The current law that was extended already says that. The amendments that Senate Dems wanted to add, said that the metal piece has to be a critical or important functional component of the gun. The logic there being, well you can sell a gun with a metal insert that is unnecessary to the functioning of the gun and bypass the law that way. I don't necessarily disagree with that broadening, but I disagree with the amendment to a bill with already bi-partisan support. No need to stop the extension to get that in. Thankfully Schumer and the Dems seemed to realize that they can try to add that stipulation any time they want.
Oh, the AK47. The same one that was virtually banned in 1934 and then subject to a de facto ban in 1986? If you want to buy a full automatic firearm today, legally, it must have been manufactured prior to 1986. That means there's a finite (and constantly decreasing) number of such weapons. That means that for a barely functioning "machine gun", you'll be spending upwards of $10,000 on the gun alone. Of course, you'll also be jumping over endless legal hurdles along the way. And that's if the state you live in even lets you have a machine gun. My state of residence, NJ, does allow them in theory. All you've gotta do is convince a judge that you need one. To date, zero people have succeeded in convincing a judge.
So, serious question: what new laws would you like to propose that will keep these AK47s out of the hands of crazies better than the existing laws do?
Or, conversely, are you surprised to hear that AK47s are already illegal in practice, and that fully automatic weapons have been used in only two, yes TWO homicides since 1934? (Bonus: one of them featured a cop as the murderer. Are we going to keep machine guns out of cops' hands too?)
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
No it doesn't. Societies work differently overseas, which is the actual important part of the equation and one which those opposed to firearms conveniently ignore.
What the politicians and most of the unwashed masses don't get is making one more aspect of the event illegal doesn't magically prevent it from happening. All it does is add on one more charge. Someone who's desperate or crazy enough to commit the crime anyway, isn't going to suddenly stop because now they're violating one more law.
Yeah, I don't know why murder is illegal. People still kill people. So clearly, someone who is desperate or crazy enough is going to commit the crime anyway. And the law against it is pointless.
What the politicians and most of the unwashed masses don't get is making one more aspect of the event illegal doesn't magically prevent it from happening
There's nothing magical about it, but these techical weapons laws do give the police more opportunities to get in front of a crime. They don't have to wait until you are actually firing at children or coworkers before you've broken a law. They can potentially get involved just seeing you carrying them around, or sitting in a bag on the passenger seat of your car...
Scenario 1: Guy wants to shoot up a school - he selects an illegal clip size for more shooting between reloading. He drives to the school, gets pulled over for a broken tail-light, and his guns on the passenger seat, are taken away before he even gets to the school. Could it happen? Sure... is it likely? Maybe not so much.
Scenario 2: Guy wants to shoot up a school - he selects a legal clip size because they are easier to obtain; he can go to walmart or borrow his Dad's stuff instead of dealing with some creep behind the 7-11; and it won't cause him any problems if someone notices them. He gets to the school... starts shooting, and presumably does less damage. Its still horrific, but less than it might have been. Is this likely, actually, yes, most crimes are committed with guns that are legal; so limiting the capability of legal guns does reduce the damage criminals do.
Sure a hardened well connected criminal who has outstanding warrants, is driving a stolen car... sure... he's not going to be deterred or have his behaviour altered by yet another law. But he is not the ONLY scenario. Nor even the most common one.
I'm not saying I agree with these laws per se, but its not just about throwing another charge on after the shooting spree. You are willfully ignoring that they will impact some crime.
I would like to point out that there are semi-automatic AK47s just like there are semi-automatic M16s (AR15).
So, while your point is good, know your facts.
Why don't we just make a law that says wearing underwear is a crime. That way the authorities can arrest anyone they want (except dirty hippies) when it's convenient to "foil a plot."
Give me a fucking break man.
It should not be the accepted norm that knocking off a 711 or similar petty crime involve threat to life with a gun (or a knife, baseball bat etc. The list of convenient weapons starts to tail off after a while, guns are a particular problem though). If you want to avoid laws regarding the mere possession of objects then at least allow that anyone that makes threats more credible by the use of a weapon should be punished severely.
That seems sensible to me, what are the arguments against it ?
Nullius in verba
Actually I'll probably get hate from the left for pointing this out, but know where most gun control laws started as? "Fear of an armed negro". Go ahead, look it up, type that phrase into Google and there are several videos detailing the history of gun control laws in the USA, the first one of which was right after the civil war and was targeted at recently freed slaves.
Why do you think that damned near ALL the guns they demonize are cheap guns? Remember the whole stink over 25s and Saturday Night Specials? Blacks could afford those. And does anybody think these laws will affect somebody who makes 100k a year? Nope cheaper guns means more blacks could afford guns and again "fear of an armed negro" comes into play.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Yes - so we need to reasonably estimate the proportionality and the efficiency of those laws. For example, restricting the magazine size - an AR can be reloaded in under 2 seconds with a modicum of training (which is literally just repeating the reload again and again, which can be easily practiced in the privacy of one's home), and even less so with coupled (duck taped etc) magazines. This amounts to one, at most two not particularly well-aimed shots. Given the number of shots in a typical spree vs the number of victims, you're unlikely to save even a single life that way. And that's not even accounting for the rarity of sprees themselves. Basically, as laws go, it has a very low return, but is rather costly, especially if you don't include grandfathering provisions (and therefore police has to go and hunt down any remaining hi-cap mags, as they're doing in NY).
Yeah...printed guns. Such danger. I have a 200 round gas-powered rifle that breaks the sound barrier and has no serial number and it's legal in all 50 states. It fires at 1400FPs and breaks the sound barrier on the way out. It can fire sleeved and tracer rounds...still legal btw. Under $200 too if I'm not mistaken. Semi auto too. 100% off the shelf, unmodified too. Still legal.
There are no semi-automatic-only M16 rifles. Since the M16 is very specifically the military variant of the AR-15 platform, it *always* has the capability to be both semi-automatic and "burst". M16 & M16A1 are semi- and fully-automatic. The M16A2 and subsequent variants are semi- and 3-round-burst capable. The M4 series is simply the shortened version of the M16, from 20" to 16" barrels with various other minor modifications (mostly superficial). Hence, when you go to purchase a rifle from ArmaLite, you will buy an AR-15, or from BushMaster it may be the AR-16, etc., ad nauseum.
Of the thousands of variations of AK47-based rifles, there are no super-anal-retentive definitions of which I am aware. I've seen them have semi-automatic fire, or 2-, 3-, 4-round-burst fire, as well as fully-automatic fire while still being classified as AK47-based firearms. If you'd qualified your statement without saying "M16s" at all, I'd probably not have even commented in the first place.
Cheers.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
The purpose of gun (and any weapon) ownership, carrying, and use is indeed about crime prevention. However, it is not so much about defending oneself from an anonymous thug as it is about defending oneself from the criminals collectively known as The Government. Since power corrupts, the framers of the U.S. Constitution tried to distribute the power as widely as reasonably achievable - everyone has the right to be armed (gun, hatchet, knife, whatever) until you have proven yourself a felon, every one of us has the right of redress for harm, everyone has the right of free speech (now, not just at voting time), we all have the right to pursue acquisition of property, etc.
At not point did I say there should be NO GUNS. I said that the type of guns should be controlled. You having a legal 5 shot handgun or riffle isn't going to allow you to go on a rampage of the sort that's been seen in recent years.
Or, conversely, are you surprised to hear that AK47s are already illegal in practice, and that fully automatic weapons have been used in only two, yes TWO homicides since 1934? (Bonus: one of them featured a cop as the murderer. Are we going to keep machine guns out of cops' hands too?)
According to http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html, there have been (at least) two homicides involving legally owned machine guns (including the cop who was the killer).
But that doesn't count the illegal guns: four police officers were killed by full autos between '83 and '92, as well as "less than 1%" of Miami's homicide victims in 1980.
[Their numbers were sourced from Gary Kleck's seminal work, "Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control."]
It's not just about auto/non-auto, it's about weapons that can inflict major damage quickly. As far as I know, in the US you can obtain riffles of all kinds with clip sizes above 5. This is where it's different in Canada. The max clip size for ANY riffle is 5 and handgun is 10. In the US many of the states do not have restrictions on this.
Regardless of what anybody here says, I say keep living with your laws and you gun maniacs. I really don't see the need to collect military grade weapons.
Just a few of a killing sprees recorded over the years (That's just the tip of the iceberg)
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
I say there should be no guns. I think that is an ideal situation. But the point is that if it is good enough for a traffic cop, then it should be good enough for any individual that hasn't been disqualified because of crime or mental status. If cops need guns then so do we.
And that's relevant because making illegal guns more illegal will stop their involvement in crime?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
That's a great link. Great in terms of how misleading it is.
Are you concerned with people being killed by guns? Or are you concerned with victims of mass shootings? Because those are two different things.
An overwhelming majority of gun violence is perpetrated by inner city gangs using illegally possessed handguns. Of course, all those fantastic charts would have you believe the opposite, suggesting that "Killer Obtained Weapons Legally" nearly 80% of the time, until you read "Mass shootings in US, 1982-2012" in the smaller-text subheading. Is this representative of gun crime in general? Of course not. But who cares about gun crime in general. After all, the victims of gun crime are disproportionately minorities. Inner city minorities, not suburban whites. Their stories don't end up on the evening news for weeks on end. You don't care about them, you care about the victims of mass shootings, who account for a fraction of a percent of all gun crime victims.
So yes, you're right. By limiting magazine sizes, we might be able to limit the death toll when it comes to these highly publicized but statistically insignificant mass murders. What you overlook is that this wouldn't have any measurable impact on the gun crime rate in this country. What's different in Canada is that you don't have a Chicago, you don't have a Detroit, you don't have a Camden, you don't have a Newark. You don't have bloods, you don't have crips, you don't have latin kings, all engaged in turf wars. You don't have a culture that glorifies street thugs. But sure, it's the 5 round magazine restriction that keeps you safe. Everyone knows you need more than 5 rounds to kill someone. Explain to me why places like Chicago and New York City have both a "0 round magazine" restriction (guns are effectively illegal there) and some of the highest gun crime rates in the country.
An overwhelming majority of gun crime in this country is committed with handguns. Not M16s or AK47s or M134s, but plain old handguns. I suppose handguns just don't look scary enough to warrant regulation though.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
No, it's relevant because - as the cited site points out - legally owned, full autos have distinctly not been a factor in crimes. But making such absurd claims (that there have been only two homicides by autos in almost 80 years) leads to reasonable questioning of the credibility of valid pro-gun arguments. It is not unlike Chicken Little claiming that the sky is falling. Stick to the facts, and you're safe. Get caught with spouting mistruths, and your legitimate arguments will be ignored.
[BTW - I'm a 1911 owner (Colt's Combat Commander, Mk. II Series 80, SS), and a life long 2nd Amendment supporter - which, IMHO, includes the right to own assault weapons.]
I say lets go back to the wild wild west instead of entrusting a body of authorities we all agree should and can protect us. There comes a point where we have to stop creating umbrellas for the 0.001% scenario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
If you cross reference the developed countries you can see there's a pattern. The more guns per capita, the more firearm violence. It's not a coincidence. You can't look at some of the countries because they actually have wars in their backyards and you would not be comparing apples with apples.
Reduce the presence of guns to the level (say to Canada's level) and you save 20 000 lives per year. Right, it's not worth the millions of dollars in gun sales lost. God forbid the gun enthusiasm is hindered to save a few lives.
So I'm cross referencing, and I notice that USA is 1st in guns per capita but 14th in homicides per capita. Serbia is 2nd in guns per capita but 25th in homicides per capita. Switzerland is 4th in guns per capita but 31st in homicides per capita. Finland is 5th in guns per capita but 42nd in homicides per capita.
Honduras is 1st in homicides per capita, but 88th in guns per capita. El Salvador is 2nd in homicides per capita, but 92nd in guns per capita. Jamaica is 3rd in homicides per capita, but 74th in guns per capita. Swaziland is 4th in homicides per capita, but 86th in guns per capita.
So, I agree that there is definitely a pattern. The more guns per capita, the fewer homicides. Your claim that it's not a coincidence isn't backed up by anything. There's clearly an inverse correlation with gun prevalence and homicide rates, but this data on its own is insufficient to claim a causal relationship. That is, it could very much be a coincidence, literally.
Ironically, Finland has 50% more guns per capita than Canada does, but only half of the homicides per capita as well. If Canada increases the presence of guns by 50%, they can save 35000 lives per year. Right, it's not worth the millions in dollars in gun sales gained. God forbid the gun enthusiasm is promoted to save a few lives.
Or are you suggesting that Finland has some wars going on in their backyard?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
What "body of authorities" can protect people in their own homes?
Well, you analysis of the charts is dumb to say the least. Lets compare violent countries to stable societies. That's what I call comparing apples with apples. Since your knowledge of what is going on in the world is limited I simplified these charts for you to be able to look a comparable countries (Countries that have similar living standards to ours)
For the most part, numbers here very much speak in my favour. Sure it's not a set of perfect stats but generally more firearms = more related deaths. If you don't see that in these numbers then I understand why you want to keep you guns.
Guns per 100 / Deaths per 100k
UK 6.2 0.25
Germany 30.3 1.24
Sweden 31.6 1.47
Iceland 30.3 1.57
Norway 31.3 1.78
Canada 30.8 2.38
Austria 30.4 2.95
France 31.2 3.01
Croatia 21.7 3.54
Finland 45.3 3.64
US 89 10.3
So, my analysis of charts is... dumb. Great riposte, really. I can see the mathematical rigor in your argument already. That's a fantastic cherry-picked subset of the data you have there. Perhaps you can describe your methodology for determining which countries to you choose to include, and which you choose to ignore entirely. It seems as though your understanding of statistics is limited, so I drew you a picture.
Here you'll see a scatter plot illustrating any correlation between gun ownership and gun-related homicides by rank. That is, the horizontal axis represents how a given country ranks in a sequential enumeration of countries by rate of gun ownership, with the top ranking countries having the most guns. The vertical axis represents how a given country ranks in a sequential enumeration of countries by rate of gun-related homicides, with the top ranking countries having the most such homicides. It's clear that, indeed, the safest countries also have the fewest guns. Japan, South Korea, Azerbaijan, Singapore, Poland, and Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe?!) are the safest countries on the list, and all of them rank near the end of the list in terms of gun ownership. However, looking any farther in the rankings shows a different picture. Romania, the United Kingdom, and Norway are all tied in terms of homicide rank, but gun ownership varies widely. Romania is 68th in gun ownership, but Northern Ireland is 18th, and Norway is 8th. In fact, if you look at that scatter plot, you won't notice too much of a trend in any particular direction. Sure, there's the group of six or seven countries in the top-right, which have few guns and few homicides. However, there is no meaningful trend of rising homicide rates as gun ownership increases. There is no line of dots from the bottom-left to the top-right. A linear regression on this dataset yields an R-squared value of 0.024. That means there is no linear relationship here. Well, why would there be? After all, we're looking at ranking data, not absolute numbers. Well, luckily for you, I also drew you a picture of that too.
Here you'll see the same plot, but using absolute numbers instead of rank. The first thing you should notice is that most countries in this dataset are relatively safe, with only a few dots rising up and away from the horizontal axis. Additionally, the two outliers should catch your eye. These are the United States (over in the far right), with its exceptionally high rate of gun ownership (and relatively low rate of gun-related homicides), and Honduras (high up on top), with its exceptionally high rate of gun-related homicides (and relatively low rate of gun ownership). Note the total lack of any dots in the upper right area of the chart. That's where you'd expect to see all the "high gun ownership, high gun crime" countries. There aren't any. In fact, if you look at all the countries with relatively high rates of gun-related crime, there is no visible positive correlation with gun ownership rates. If anything, it looks like gun-related homicides may actually decrease as gun ownership rates increase. Unfortunately, even that statement would have to be qualified by the fact that there is mathematically no linear correlation here either. A linear regression yields an R-squared value of 0.024 again.
Your claim that "more firearms = more related deaths" may be supported by your "not a set of perfect stats", despite the fact that you don't actually do any statistical analysis. However, my set of "actual" stats demonstrates that no, the claim that "more firearms = more related deaths" is false. Baseless. Wrong. Sorry, I know it can be unsettling when facts contradict "common sense". At this point, you can either acknowledge that your beliefs regarding this subject are rooted in emotion and not reality, or you can duck your head back in the sand and continue spewing misinformation. In any case, you can no longer claim ignorance of reality. You've been informed.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I would tell you to cite the law for this, but you can't because it's not illegal.
I picked countries with similar health care, education, economies and culture. That's how to compare stats.
Picking countries with civil unrest doesn't really allows to fair comparison.
The fact that the US has that much gun related deaths is disturbing to say the least. High availability of guns in the US has made them not just easy to get but affordable for anybody. My neighbour wanted to purchased a gun, the RCMP refused him. Why you ask? Because his Ex-Wife didn't approve. That to me is common sense gun control. Showing your drivers license at a gun store and getting a gun is just DUMB!
My 2 cents.
Who you protecting yourself from? Aliens? There are far more chances of a disaster putting your family in harms way and what do you have ready for that? I bet you don't have a few days worth of supply of water in your home. Point made!
So Sweden, Croatia, and the United States have similar health care, education, economies, and culture?
Also, guns are cheaper in Mexico (where they are illegal) than in the United States (where they're legal). Somehow your "high availability" comment seems outright false.
But, either way, I'd like to hear more about your selection criteria. How do you determine similarity of health care, education, economies, and culture? Sounds like a very complex algorithm. Is it safe to say that it consists primarily of checking Ravaldy's gut feeling? That sure sounds a lot more robust than simply looking at all the data, which I think we can both agree does not itself support any of the claims you're making.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Additionally, in the United States, every gun purchase is preceded by a call to the FBI. Framing this as "showing your drivers license" is disingenuous if not deliberately misleading. You make it seem like anyone can just walk in to a store off the street and buy a gun. While the process and requirements vary from state to state, several classes of persons are prohibited from legally purchasing firearms nationwide: convicted felons, persons convicted (or in some cases, merely accused) for any sort of violent crime (including domestic violence), etc.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I still have yet to see you show slanted information as well. You write long empty statements. At least if I write garbage I keep it short. And yes, if you know people that live in those countries that now live here, you would know that their have very similar life styles. Maybe you work where it's white only where you don't get to learn other people's culture but fortunately for me I'm surrounded by people of many races and I do talk to them.
Like to said, different from state to state. The process is tones simpler than in Canada.
Sure, yes, I live in the homogeneous caucasian state of New Jersey where I only interact with 10th generations Americans from the Mayflower. I'm the only immigrant in the entire state. Maybe one day I can move to your amazingly diverse Canadian wonderland, the world's "melting pot".
Since you've moved away from attacking my argument, instead focusing on my person, I think this is a good time for me to declare victory and move on to more constructive threads. Thank you for sharing your point of view, and hopefully next time you'll be in a better position to actually back it up with objective evidence.
Also, thank you for at least acknowledging that I don't rely on slanted information. I try hard to remain objective, and I appreciate the recognition.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
I apologize for being a d*ck as that's exactly what I was.
I'll give you one thing. The crime rate in the US is 1/2 of Canada's. It still doesn't justify the 47 000 annual murders by firearm stats readily available online.
You deter robberies and other petty crimes with guns but the US has 3 times more deaths per capita than Canada. Instead of buying 5 000 000 guns per year the US should increase it's taxes and put it back in the system where it's needed. This being health care, social programs and jobs. By increasing the level of living of people to remove the need to fight for a living.