Slashdot Mirror
The $1,200 DIY Gunsmithing Machine
An anonymous reader writes: You may recall Cody Wilson as the man behind the world's first 3D-printed gun. He built a company behind the ideals of DIY gun-making, and now he's come back with another device: the "Ghost Gunner," a CNC mill designed to create the lower receiver of an AR-15 rifle. "That simple chunk of metal has become the epicenter of a gun control firestorm. A lower receiver is the body of the gun that connects its stock, barrel, magazine and other parts. As such, it's also the rifle's most regulated element. Mill your own lower receiver at home, however, and you can order the rest of the parts from online gun shops, creating a semi-automatic weapon with no serial number, obtained with no background check, no waiting period or other regulatory hurdles. Some gun control advocates call it a "ghost gun." Selling that untraceable gun body is illegal, but no law prevents you from making one." Wilson's goal is still to render government gun regulation useless, even as debate rages on banning this kind of manufacturing.
Ban "Assault Lathes"!
Selling an un-serialized lower is not illegal. It's just illegal to make it with the intention of selling it.
It's a good idea to serialize it before you sell it though, and record the transaction.
I have a small CNC and with a few tool changes and some time i've been making 1911s and ar15s for years...
this isn't new or exciting this is the way ar-15's and 1911s are made
cast rough shape machine to precise specs...
I'm not sure why this is a big deal, its still REALLY hard to build a barrel and chamber so you still need to buy them, honestly making the receiver the registered part is silly most people could build a receiver with time and effort few people could make a decent barrel or precise chamber.
is the only thing he did to make this special is provide the right tooling in the box? and a pre-installed set of gcode big fucking deal it takes 2 seconds to get the gcode for an ar of the net
Really government over reach is a huge problem and I like the idea of people being able to make their own guns. I know a lot of people want to blame guns for many problems but that is a rather cheap excuse and avoidance of the fact that the public needs improved living conditions so that there are less violent people who act out irrationally. Without much hope of a decent future we do have far too many people who act out. We also have prisons that make only token gestures at rehabilitation of inmates and a mental health system that is a national disgrace.
It relies on being enforced 100% of the time--correctly.
You can not keep someone who wants a gun from obtaining one.
A police state is all fun and games... until you get shot in the head.
strictly speaking its not a new way, its just a media hyped version of the old way, only now instead of a $10 drill and $5 piece of plastic to finish an ar15 lower, you need a $1200 machine...
"Wilson's goal is still to render government gun regulation useless" That's more than just making a gun.
But precisely finishing the last 20 percent of a lower receiver has still required access to a milling machine that typically costs tens of thousands of dollars.
Whatever. I made mine with a $350 micro milling machine from Harbor Freight. The template kit to mill & drill the other 20% of the incomplete lower receiver was about the same cost as the 80% complete lower receiver. So all of the parts & tooling in sum total less than $550. Plus I use the mill for other things and the template has resale value. Also FTA:
Defense Distributedâ(TM)s machine canâ(TM)t carve pieces as large as its competitors, but its small size makes it more rigid and precise, allowing it to cut an aluminum lower receiver from an 80 percent lower in around an hour. Thatâ(TM)s a task Wilson says would still be impossible with todayâ(TM)s cheapest hobbyist mills but doesnâ(TM)t require five-figure professional tools. âoeWeâ(TM)re making this easier by an order of magnitude,â he says.
I think that they meant to quote him as saying it is POSSIBLE. An order of magnitude is a gross overstatement, given that this was the 3d milling version of trace paper.
Subversive ambitions aside, Wilson doesnâ(TM)t hide the fact that the Ghost Gunner is also a money-making project.
Indeed.
Why would you want a untraceable phone? I cannot think of any ethical reason.
And how many percent of the populace will vote for anarchy ?
Wilson's goal is still to render government gun regulation useless, even as debate rages on banning this kind of manufacturing
Or he will wake the sleeping giant and increased regulation will proliferate!
Striving toward political change is also != anarchy.
sig: sauer
Good. As a libertarian, gun owner, voter, and not insane person, I understand that there needs to be SOME government regulation of guns. There is no reason not to try something to prevent insane people from getting firearms. They're going to murder anyway, but a firearm makes it simple. The thing is, it's already impossible for the mentally unstable or those with a significant criminal history to legally obtain a firearm. Loopholes are the problem. Trusting, irresponsible relatives. Completely irresponsible gunshow sellers who don't background check despite the fact that, at least in Ohio where I come from, it's law that they have to.
This is a cool thing, but it's also a bad thing because it's directly abusable by criminals.
Armed confrontation with the state will not work. Syria is most recent historical example, but there are plenty more. If you want to fight police state, then active participation in the democratic process is the way to achieve that. More guns? Well, that will just result in more gun death AND easy justification for further police militarization (crazies with untraceable semi-automatics).
I'm trying to, but Obama won't return my calls.
sig: sauer
That would depend on exactly the kind of change someone is striving for.
Why would you want an untraceable computer? I cannot think of any ethical reason
1) Are too big to easily hide, attracting the attention of cops. So crooks don't like to carry them.
2) Are too big to easily commit suicide with.
3) Are too big for young children to easily play with.
As a direct result of this, long guns kill less than 500 people a year.
Pistols, however, are used by criminals, by people committing suicide, and by kids playing around with them. As a direct result, over 30,000 people die every year after being shot with a pistol.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Yes but what if the state collapses and we're left to deal with roving bands of Palinistas? They'll sure as hell be armed.
Then you are a naive fool who should stay silent on the matter.
Good-bye
I've never met a true anti-gun person. Every person I meet who argues that the general public shouldn't have (or only have very restrictive) access to guns also argues that the police should be allowed to use guns to enforce this argument. This is not an anti-gun argument. This is a monopolization of force argument.
If the state collapses, there won't be any gun laws. Problem solved.
I can kill a school of toddlers with a $2 energy drink.
The drink is a snack for when I'm done.
People can kill each other, that's a reality and it's not going away no matter how many laws you write, books you burn, or tech you somehow uninvent. And that perpetual fact is only going to grow in scale over time.
Call me when the proletarian can enrich uranium with pancake batter and a hammer. Or don't; I'm still going to be apathetic, because we'll still have the futile idea that it's possible to unfact that "People have access to weapons." and we'll still be wasting effort on that angle, instead of saying "It's here and not leaving; what should we do now that we live with the fact?"
The goal is not to make untraceable weapons – that's merely a side effect. The goal is to make the weapon yourself as opposed to buying it from a large manufacturer.
well put. A lot of "anti-gunners" say to "just call the police"
I usually tell them to read up on Warren vs DC (three college aged women got raped for 4 hours. called 911 several times, and had no response from police. because police are NOT OBLIGATED TO PROTECT YOU)
An AK-47 receiver made out of a rusty shovel:
http://thechive.com/2012/12/06...
Perhaps the problem is that the receiver is the legally-controlled part of the gun. Everything else is spare parts. Making receivers is easy now.
I'm no expert, but it seems to me that making a barrel is the hardest part. Why isn't the barrel the controlled part?
Guns.
Neat.
*yawn*
I don't respond to AC's.
Wilsons goal of enabling anyone to privately fabricate an untraceable gun is part of a larger anarchist mission: To show how technology can render the entire notion of government obsolete. Hes spent the last two years developing firearms designed to be printed as easily as ink on a page, neutering attempts at gun control. 'This is a way to jab at the bleeding hearts of these total statists' Wilson says. 'Its about humiliating the power that wants to humiliate you,' he says.
I'm all on board the maker train (I own a makerbot at home) but Jesus tap-dancing Christ...Anarchy? You dont need to make "ghost" guns to skirt gun control. After 4 major shootings in the US in 2 years, lawmakers themselves refuse to enact any sort of gun control. Hell, getting a gun in america is as easy as filling out a form. the biggest hurtle is the waiting period and even that is only a sometimes kind of thing. We cant even use serialized guns to independently track homicide rates in our country unless we get a FoIA from the ATF, which incidentally hasnt had a full time director in years. News reports routinely redact the make and model of firearms used in shootings out of fearfulness they'll incur a defamation lawsuit from the NRA. if you really want to "humiliate the power" and "jab at hearts" you leak confidential information. Hell, Bradley Manning and Julian Assange are national treasures and they did it without a gun.
my prediction is the homemade printable gun will be outlawed not from some evil 'obama gunna take muh gunz" scheme but by lobbying pressure from the NRA, who represent weapons manufacturers profit margins (not you.)
Good people go to bed earlier.
It seems like this guy is TRYING to get 3-d printers, CNC machines, and other manufacturing techniques heavily regulated/banned to the public.
Perhaps he is trying to get stupid attempts at firearms regulations banned.
Have gnu, will travel.
>>>Libya?
Two things.
1. It was coalition airstrikes, not citizens with guns that brought the regime down. No outside force will airstrike nuclear-armed US, no matter how bad things get internally.
2. Where are they now? Anarchy. Not exactly happy ending.
The waiting period for an AR-15 is generally on the order of 20 minutes at a gun store in most states. If you have the money, you walk out with it not long after walking in.
On the other hand, if you have $1,200 you can order this lathe and wait for it to show up (days to weeks). Then you buy the "80% lower" from somewhere and wait for it to come (days to weeks). Then you mill it (hours) and if you have all the other parts you can assemble your gun. If everything was correct the first time through, you now have a gun that took far longer - and likely more money - than just buying a bushmaster (or any other brand AR-15 you like) from your local sporting goods or outdoors store.
I've seen bushmasters in the local flyer for Dick's Sporting Goods go for less than $1,200. If I had that much money burning a hole in my pocket I could get that gun the same day. I don't see an advantage here.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The magician tricks the audience by directing their attention over there, while over here he is pulling something from his sleeve.
Guns are simply a distraction. A place to focus attention when the real problems are elsewhere. On one hand, you have the question of why do people want to kill people. OTOH there is the vast array of killing methods.
When every person is blessed by these principles:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
- and when everyone has a fair chance at a good life including medical care, economic opportunity and freedom from oppression, there will be less incentive to kill. Millions of Americans, not to mention those in other countries, have no hope of a good life. They look around at others who have it all, but there is not a pittance for them nor anyone to care for their physical or mental health.
For those who want to kill, guns are not the only resource. Knives might be the obvious alternative, or clubs. But my friend who lived in a rough part of the city used to carry a squeeze bottle of acid as a defense. These are still small potatoes when any interested party can make powerful explosives and chemical/biological poisons that can be widely distributed in air or water, or simply added to Halloween candy.
Are guns such a threat, or are we being manipulated to distract us from the real threats?
...omphaloskepsis often...
... police are NOT OBLIGATED TO PROTECT YOU
Sounds like you've identified a problem worth addressing. What do you propose to do to fix that?
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
First, guns don't protect, never have, never will. That is not the function of a gun. So anyone on their high horse should look to see if they're suffering altitude sickness.
Second, the design of these specific rifles is a non-issue. The gun market is inherently grey, which means regulation is minimal to non-existent. There's no white hats in weaponry of any kind. And, yes, that includes the re-enactment stuff I work with. I know that, recognize that and accept it*. No shades, just a thick, pea-soup foggy grey.
*That is why I despise "goody two shoes" arguments from both extreme camps. This isn't black, this isn't white, this is murky grey. I own it for my part, I hold nobody to a higher standard than I hold myself, but I refuse to hold them to a lower one either. Own it.
Third, the design of any regular weapon is a non-issue, but nothing stops you from designing an irregular weapon. With modern cheap hardware, a 3D printer and suitable low-cost materials, a person is quite capable of designing a 3-5 mile range sniper rifle that can be controlled via telerobotics from the home. We already know that low-cost cruise missiles with ranges in excess of 100 miles can also be built at home. With 3D printing, the costs become lower. With advances in technology (remember, the $5000 100-mile cruise missile was designed over a decade ago and it wasn't even close to what budget efforts could do), you can expect far greater ranges, far greater precision and far greater payloads today.
This, again, goes back to this being grey hat technology. If a black hat wanted to use such devices, we'd know about. Or, rather, the survivors would. America still exists, so black hats either don't have the courage of their convictions or they don't have the skill. Either way, they're not worthy of consideration. Worthy of being dumped into a deep oceanic trench, bu not worthy of consideration.
White hats? If white hats were building actively guided systems capable of that sort of range, you'd be seeing miniature computer boards running Linux, Squid and Tor relays launched into stable orbits that crossed nations with restricted network access. We don't. We see "peace corps" infiltrators attempting to install such devices directly, along with who knows what malware, causing international incidents and seriously destabilizing international relations, as part of neocon stupidity. White hats putting in a passive alternative with no hostile software and no damage to other nations -- that's an OBVIOUS way to do good for everyone and to minimize harm. But, no, they either don't have the skill or the courage of their convictions.
So it's all grey. That's all there is. Thick, pea-soup fog.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
> Look at European countries. ... thanks to strict regulation they have relatively few gun homicides
When the UK banned guns, violent crime and homicide skyrocketed. From 1990-1996, the homicide rate was 11-13 per million. Guns were banned in 1997. From 1998 - 2008, the homicide rate was 12-18. Overall, homicides increased by about 50%. Rape is up over 100% - more than doubled.
The number of guns used in those rapes and murders dropped once it was guaranteed that the ay law-abiding victim would be unarmed, but there have been a lot more murders, a lot more rapes, and a lot more violent crime overall.
Sorry if that doesn't match what you guessed might happen, but that's what actually did happen. Australia was similar. We know longer need to debate what the effects of banning guns might be. The UK and Australia tried it, and we can see what the results really are - twice as much violent crime.
Off topic: What would you suggest when there is no democratic process in place?
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
> About the only thing left would be strict regulation of primers and maybe gunpowder itself.
Powder is really easy to make. It is, after all, 9th century technology.
Primers are a little tedious just because they're small.
Would you be in favor of gun control if it made your children less safe?
The studies and statistics about guns have been so completely obfuscated by special interests that it's nigh impossible for an average citizen - even smart ones like Slashdot readers - to answer the simple question: "is free access to guns good or bad?".
Looking into this in depth is really hard, but when you go back to basics there's a glimmer of truth.
Firstly, the thing to measure is mortality rate. Not all gun incidents lead to death, and if you have no money for medicine (or food) because you were robbed at gunpoint, it affects your chance of death.
Secondly, socialized medicine has such an enormous impact on mortality that you can't simply compare American mortality with, for example, the UK. You could compare UK mortality with, say, Swiss, or you could compare areas within the US which allow/disallow free access to guns. New Hampshire versus Michigan, for example.
When you do the proper comparison, you find that easy access to guns lowers the mortality rate.
This is counter intuitive simply due to the badly-cited statistics. Yes, if you let your kids play in the front yard of a gun owner their chance of death by accidental shooting goes up; however, their chance of death by all causes drops precipitously. You can believe the chosen statistic and it's unspoken implication, or you can dig into the real issues.
I'll leave you with this recent paper which attempts to sort out the issues in an academically rigorous manner. Here's a quote from that paper:
I'm happy to discuss the advisability of gun control with anyone, so long as they don't cite a misleading statistic out of context, or focus on the wrong issues.
I like to form my opinions based on science. If you know of convincing counter studies, I'd like to read them.
"no serial number, obtained with no background check, no waiting period or other regulatory hurdles"
It is definitely worth mentioning that if it is not legal for you to own a firearm, then it is not legal for you to MAKE your own firearm either. This isn't a loophole available to felons/etc.
Self answer because no edit: Never mind, question answered. Thought experiment plus link in a child comment served to provide the answer.
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
Syria is most recent historical example
The Civil War there has been ongoing for a little over three years. The American Revolutionary War took eight years to fully resolve itself. The Syrian Government only controls about 20% of the country if this map is any indication, so that would seem to dispel your notion that you can't effectively fight the police state.
The Syrian Government is doomed in the long term; it's basically a battle of attrition at this point and the cold mathematical reality is that al-Assad's followers have less males of military age than his opponents. Barring decisive intervention from the outside he is doomed; I leave it to the reader to decide if this is a good thing or not...
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That's because you're calling the White House switchboard. Try the Country Club next time and you'll probably catch him. :)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
> A democracy is all fun and games, until you get shot in the head,
+ ...by a cop.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Both of my AR's were obtained without a background check. I bought both from a private seller. 100% legal.
Honestly this is all mental masterbation. You can easily build an AK47 lower without a milling machine and just some hand tools and a old shovel.
In fact.... here you go....
http://www.northeastshooters.c...
The AR15 is not the best platform in the world, it's just popular. if you really want a gun that can take insane abuse and easily built with hand tools.... AK47 is the gun to build to be subversive..
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Afraid of? Low IQ people like you mostly.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Too expensive. What we need is for someone to setup a network of DIY workshops that you can just go in, maybe pay a nominal fee, and use stuff like this.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
for cheap chinese CNC mill/drills. Snore. I wonder if the people who are going to be up in .... (arms?) over this know that a CNC mill makes pretty much anything and these dangerous items are in their very own communities! The horroR!
ThatsNotPudding typed: I saw my first gun-packing meathead in Walmart last week end (why, he was White - how did you guess?). I was very tempted to go up to him and ask :"What are you so scared of, that you have to carry a gun in public?" We all should, every time.
Or you could mind your own business and shut your piehole. Don't want a gun? Don't buy one. If you feel the need to project your own feelings of inadequacy ("What are you so scared of, that you have to carry a gun in public?"), think calming thoughts and repeat to yourself: My feelings are my own, I know nothing about that other guy. I should take up knitting.
m
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
Except for states that have stringent gunsmithing laws...
Perhaps the black man should worry more about being killed by other black men instead since that is where the danger actually lies.
I support the gun rights and the second amendment to the fullest. These assholes printing and machining their own stuff are going to make the regulatory environment worse. I'd really rather not have sales of gun parts regulated and that is exactly where we will end up if these guys don't stop pushing home made guns. They are right that guns are here to stay be they legal or otherwise and it is not necessary for the government to over-regulate. I don't honestly care if they make their own, but when they push it in the face of the public it just whips up media fear mongering.
My local Sheriffs Department patrols both urban and rural areas. Patrol vehicles have a shotgun and a rifle. Prior to 9/11 and all the federal subsidies and giveaways of military class gear, the Sheriff chose the Mini-14 over the M-16/M-4/AR-15.
What the range master at the Sheriffs training facility explained to me is that the Mini-14 offers the exact same performance as the semi-auto M16/M-4/AR-15 type rifles at a fraction of the price. Plus it is easier to maintain. That the only advantage of the M-16/M-4/AR-15 was a visually intimidating look by having a "military" silhouette. He said only the SWAT team needed that intimidation factor and that patrol officers were better served by the more compact and simpler Mini-14.
Again, this was in the 1990s, when the Sheriff was spending their own money.
I love how these folks think that civilization is created when people are ready to kill each other at a moment's notice.
Rough men willing to do violence don't necessarily create civilization but they certainly maintain it. Pacifists can only exist where there are non-pacifists willing to protect them, or they exist in total isolation. However history shows that when that isolation ends they become victims.
Of all the politicians bleating about the dangers of home-made untraceable weapons, and (probably) exhorting us to 'think of the children', how many of them are motivated primarily by concern for their fellow man? I'm betting it's at least a minority, and perhaps a vanishingly small one. No, I think most of them are reacting primarily out of fear - fear of losing their power over the citizenry; fear of primal, animalistic human urges that they want to see only on football fields and battlefields; and fear for their own skins.
I'm very much anti-gun and am strongly in favour of gun control. As a Canadian I contrast the level of gun violence here with that in the US and am thankful my country's traditions are so different. I really don't want to live in a crazy, bullet-riddled land. But in the face of rapidly-growing government power, and rampant governmental abuses of citizens, I'm starting to see the wisdom of people having access to guns. I'd like to think we can find a better way though.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Because in the rest of the world, cops and soldiers are the only ones walking around with weapons, and the only places where people walk around with weapons have generally degraded into a fairly lawless state.
Like Switzerland, where target shooting is a fairly popular sport, as it is in the U.S? I believe in Switzerland hundreds of thousands of civilians even possess what would in certain US jurisdictions be considered "assault weapons", i.e. magazine fed semi-automatic rifles.These numbers do not include actually military weapons in private residences of reservists, the previous refers to actual privately owned firearms.
When things degrade into a lawless state, the private ownership of firearms is the prior state probably had little to nothing to do with the decline.
So whether a state exists as lawful and civilized, or fails and degrades into lawlessness, seems not to be determined by the private ownership of firearms.
Obligatory postscript: Since I compared the US and Switzerland it should be noted that Switzerland does have effective background checks, required training, and required safe storage. Three things that if implemented in the US would probably drastically reduce firearms related deaths. We even have the infrastructure for the training, the hunter safety classes in all states are mostly general firearms safety. Drop the few hunting topics from these classes and we would have general purpose firearms safety training.
In what way is a semi automatic rifle with no serial number consistent with a well regulated militia?
In the context of the time "well regulated" meant practiced to a level to be useful. A private citizen possessing a firearm and being practiced enough would be considered "well regulated". Showing up on the town commons and drilling under the direction of a state appointed officer was not required. Most militiamen of the day did no such thing. They merely showed up armed during an emergency.
"Miltia" means all able bodied males of a certain age range. Matter of fact such a definition exists in federal law today. And even this current definition explicitly indicates that the national guard or other military service is *not* required. Like the military reserves, the militia has an inactive component that is not required to show up anywhere and formally train. This automatically being in the "militia" seems to be the legal basis for conscription since this law allows the President to call the militia to active service under regular military command.
You rather missed the point, and no, my numbers are not wrong. My numbers are accurate, yours are pointless and irrelevant (but useful to mislead).
When these countries removed the ability of law-abiding citizens to to defend themselves by presenting a gun, far more of them were raped and murdered, often by an attacker with a knife, often by an attacker with a gun. After the ban, the number of attackers with guns dropped a little bit (your statistic), while the number of law-abiding citizens with a gun dropped by 100%, meaning a lot more dead citizens (the statistics I presented).
If you've been raped and murdered, does it benefit you that you were unarmed and the attacker had a knife?
Prior to the ban, those people didn't get raped and murdered, because they (like the bad guys) could be armed.
You're advocating for MORE rape and murder, so long as fewer guns are involved.
If you ban screaming, you'l have fewer screaming murders.
If you ban calling 911, you'll have fewer murder victims call 911 while being attacked.
If you ban guns, you'll have fewer guns used to defend against or commit murders.
Personally, I'd prefer fewer murders. I don't care how many murders involve screaming, calling 911, or any particular weapon. I want fewer murders, and we know, from clear experience, that as soon as guns were banned the number of murders immediately jumped by 50%.
> Nitrocellulose is not black powder.
And penguins aren't horses. Your point is?
You're just noting that you can choose to use either black powder or nitrocellulose based powder, or other propellants, in a gun?
They, however, have such a strong emotional investment (fear, in this case) in their position that they will never be made to see the truth clearly and objectively, no matter what words you say to them.
Its not simply fear. Scapegoating may be a bigger factor. By blaming the "gun" for social problems they don't have to admit that their favorite social policies have utterly failed, possibly even made things worse. They need a scapegoat to maintain their denial of their failure, the "gun" is so convenient in this scapegoat role. It only needs simplistic and superficial logic to accept as the culprit.
80% unregistered AR lowers have been around for AWHILE. The 80% lower runs around 90 bucks, around $150 for the jigs to machine it, and another $800 or so for the rest of the parts of the gun. Then you need the tools to put it together, which could get pretty costly, in to the $500 or more range if you want the right stuff, and know how to put it all together correctly so that it doesn't blow you hand off after 100 rounds. Add in trouble shooting it correctly if it doesn't eject shells right, doesn't cycle right or a multitude of other issues with certain tools to need in certain issues, all that cost more money. If you were looking to do this on a big scale, like the FUD article seems to suggest is going to happen, then you would need something a little better then a hobbyist "CNC" from Harbor (junk) Freight.
At $1200 for a lower that has no finish on it and doesn't have the upper with it? This is just another PR stunt by some anti-gun group that cooked up this terrible idea. Shocking how stupidly long it took them to come up with it considering the amount of time the 80% lowers have been around. And for what that's worth, what criminal is going to spend that type of cash and time for weapons he can obtain illegally and cheaper then the one this D-bag is selling?
FUD, a term coined on slashdot that now is apparently the stories they strive to put on the site. Sad common sense is no longer used on this site.
Reduce the police department and arm the citizens.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Armed confrontation with the state will not work. Syria is most recent historical example,
Um... is that the same Syria where large portions of the country have been taken over by rebels engaged in an armed confrontation with the state?
Sure you want to use that one as your example?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
True, but you're not going to find those Bushmasters for sale in Connecticut where new AR-15's have already been outlawed.
"Wilson's goal is still to render government gun regulation useless"
That's more than just making a gun.
It's also nothing close to anarchy.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
> A democracy is all fun and games, until you get shot in the head,
+ ...by a cop.
+... who gets 2 weeks paid vacation as a "punishment."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Why would you want an untraceable weapon? I cannot think of any ethical reason.
To quote the great Ace Ventura, "That's none of your damn business, Dan, and I'll thank you to stay out of my personal life."
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Your attempt to include links to such statistics failed.
I did not include the link in an attempt to provide statistics.
Please, try again.
No, I won't. This shit is clear as daylight. I have lived in the flesh. People "see it" or they "don't see it."
If it were "clear", you would've had no problems substantiating it with links to evidence..
We could extend that statement to say if the statement "Jim Crow laws are bad" weren't clear in the past, we wouldn't have needed a whole goddamned Civil Right Movement to make the case for it.
For something like this, with so much evidence that had been published in so many years, "clear" is firmly in the eye of the beholder.
You see it or you don't. I am not going to debate you, and if that gives *you* the impression of winning the point, go ahead and do your victory dance.
Why would it be race-based fear? And if so, why do so many black guys I know carry? Are you saying that black guys need to be afraid of white guys and not vice-versa? I find your comment confused and disturbing.
> Small Arms tech has languished, mainly due to the ATF having a chilling effect on anything firearms related.
> I don't think a major change in design has happened since the 50s with the use of composites.
Also, designs such as the 1911, the most popular firearm recently, are time-tested and known to be very reliable and safe.
In the rare instance where you actually need to fire your weapon, it absolutely, positively must work. Even more, you're
holding an explosion in your hand. An "you're holding it wrong" bug is annoying with a smart phone, it is absolutely unacceptable
when it comes to an explosion in your hand.
I've never met a true anti-gun person. Every person I meet who argues that the general public shouldn't have (or only have very restrictive) access to guns also argues that the police should be allowed to use guns to enforce this argument. This is not an anti-gun argument. This is a monopolization of force argument.
If you as the opposite of "monopolization of force" think that there should be a balance of force between citizens and government and a real option of fighting the government, then you should start arguing for private ownership of real military heavy weaponry -- rockets, bombs, machine canons, armed fighter jets, attack helicopters, etc. Having hand guns in the hands of citizens is a joke in this context.
Reductio ad absurdum; besides, it's not like the tanks are firing rockets into neighborhoods with fighter jets.
All we need is an equalization of force: cops get tanks, we can have tanks; cops get machine guns with grenade launchers, we get them.
Of course, you're probably assuming TPTB would turn our own (actual) soldiers against us.. trouble with that is, they're going to be hard-pressed to convince guys like my brothers to start killing their own families over an ideology. Ever wonder why our soldiers are spread across the globe, rather than defending their own home turf?
Because soldiers are trained to use tanks and bombs to secure freedom, not take it away.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
besides, it's not like the tanks are firing rockets into neighborhoods with fighter jets.
"tanks" == "cops"
Funny typo, but far from my best (or would it be worst?) work.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Historically, our right to bear arms has mostly been meant as a deterrent to keep self-righteous, patronizing Europeans out of our business.
When was the last foreign ground invasion of the US again? And the last European?
Protect yourself, the police will not do it for you. Any other solution is just wishful thinking.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
I go ahead and say this in every gun thread Slashdot has, you're the first mentioning it, so you get the response.
The Federalist Papers, Common Sense, Poor Richard's Almanac, or the 1776 Jefferson & Madison Spring Catalog are not the Constitution. While those publications can give someone insight into that particular author's point of view and intentions, they in no way should be used to base law on. If what they meant was good enough, as you claim, they should have written it down in the official legal document. They didn't.
Pretty convenient, huh?
They do that. Every school I've ever had has a dress code. Or is school not government enough? You can also try going into court looking like a scumbag. The judges (at least in Chattanooga) will throw your ass out. That's also government. I could probably find a few more.
I point this out because, as you've mentioned, it doesn't make logical sense. That's because it is an emotional problem. We ban what seems scary and let the apparently mundane keep right on truckin even if it's mostly the same. That's part of what humans are and a great way to manipulate them as we are all now seeing.
California was debating requiring a serial number on home made guns independent of how they were made.
Actually, the legislature passed that. But, in a fit of sanity, governor Jerry Brown vetoed it.
Anyone familiar with California politics will realize how extrordinary that is. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
It can take an 80% receiver to finshed in about an hour.
Can it machine a finished receiver from a block of aluminum, even if it takes a few days?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Your attempt to include links to such statistics failed. Please, try again. Be sure, your links point to differences between ratios of law-breakers vs. prosecutions by race. Any pointers comparing ratios populations vs. prosecutions are meaningless and will be discarded.
Not the op, but how about this one:
The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: the punishment cost of being young, black, and male
"(1) young black males are sentenced more harshly than any other group, (2) race is most influential in the sentencing of younger rather than older males, (3) the influence of offender's age on sentencing is greater among males than females, and (4) the main effects of race, gender, and age are more modest compared to the very large differences in sentencing outcomes across certain age-race-gender combinations."
Translation: Young Black Males are the most screwed if they end up in court, likely to receive far longer sentences for the exact same crime. The severity of their likely sentence drops if they're female or a different race, or are older. "Young Black Male" is statistically treated significantly worse than "Young White Male", but once they start passing into middle age the significance drops.
A review of other articles (scholar.google.com) shows that sex&age are probably bigger factors though. An old black guy is about as well/badly off as an old white guy in most criminal trials. I hate Taylor Francis, btw, they don't take my university credentials to see the full papers, so I'm mostly working off of abstracts. Some of the issue seems to be that states with high percentages of poor black populations also tend to be the harshest sentence-wise. So a crime in a predominantly white state where the defendant(90% likely to be white) might get a year regardless of their skin color, but 'down south' where the defendant is statistically black(let's go with 60%), odds are he'll get a decade, again, regardless of skin color. Appropriate sentence for a crime is up to debate, of course, but I'm trying to keep it about race.
I don't read AC A human right
I agree on the flamethrowers, though I also remember versions of them being used for pest control as well as controlled burns, snow removal, and other such tasks.
They make a device that pushes out propane or natural gas into animal burrows, turning them into fuel-air explosives, then the operator triggers a spark using the device that detonates it, killing rodents such as gophers in the tunnel network through a combination of overpressure and oxygen deprivation.
It's not what most would consider a flamethrower, but it comes under it in the rules.
As for assault weapons - rifles are used for a statistically insignificant number of murders in the USA, much less the sub-category of 'assault weapons' that are rifles. I have to be specific here because some handguns count as 'assault weapons' as well. The state of California goes above and beyond and counts a firearm that's generally too heavy to be fired unsupported as an assault weapon, even if it's single shot. Never mind that finding a single murder in the USA from that caliber is rather difficult...
I don't read AC A human right
> You've also glibly disregarded the changes in rate and nature of rape crime reporting - by rate mean the percentage of incidents that get reported.
> So sorry if your abuse of statistics shows you to be a bigoted twat with an agenda but that's what happened.
What do you think caused people to start reporting rapes, murders, and other violent crime at precisely the moment when guns were banned?
The crime rate was relatively steady for several years.
Guns were banned.
Crime rates immediately jumped.
Everyone just decided to start reporting murders that year, whereas previously they just ignored murders and didn't call police?
> Not him, but my guess would be "more people started to become SURVIVING victims as opposed to DEAD victims"
The MURDER rate increased by 50%. By definition, the victim of a murder is dead. Any suggestion that the murder rate suddenly changed because people weren't reporting the murders before is silly.
Does the death of Princess Diana explain the exact same course of events in Australia, in US states tat experienced the same thing at various, etc? Twenty years ago, it would have made sense to argue about this. Everyone had their own predictions about what might happen. Today, many jurisdictions have banned guns, and they all see the same same - an immediate and dramatic increase in violent crime. It's like arguing over whether man will ever set foot on the moon. That would have been a reasonable argument to have in 1940, but we've done it. Repeatedly. We can simply look back and _see_ what the results have consistently been.
Well, if you are unable to substantiate your assertions, then don't be surprised, if your arguments are summarily discarded — with prejudice and even an occasional glee.
I would have thought, Hans Christian Andersen took care of this particular line of reasoning 200 years ago or so...
Right, you didn't. Out of politeness, I assumed, that you tried to, but failed...
Once again, if "so much evidence" really existed, you would've had no problem offering links to some of it. Yet, you did not. The most obvious reason is — no such evidence actually exists. Thanks for playing.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I can not open the actual document without paying for it — only the summary is available.
It may very well be, the harsher-sentenced folks really do commit "harsher" crimes — or under more judge-infuriating circumstances (such as with particular brutality or against a particularly sympathetic victim, under influence of drugs, or by being repeat offenders). Also, being poorer on average, they might be unable to secure as good a lawyer.
The giant elephant in the room, which various race-baiters refuse to acknowledge, is that Asians should be just as much (if not more) a target of the "Whitey" racism as Blacks. And yet, there aren't even any allegations of them being targeted by neither cops nor judges. They also study so well, some universities even choose to impose harsher requirements on them to get a more "balanced" student body (a truly racist practice too)...
So, no — until I see actual statistics showing certain races punished harsher for the same crimes, I'm not going to accept that assertion on face-value. My comment demanding proof was downmodded and OP's is currently at "5 Insightful" — which means, lots of people saw the exchange, but not one was able to offer the evidence I asked for... Not one person.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Yes, but if you shoot an intruder trying to rape you, you better believe the police will be there pronto at that point for some reason.
I can not open the actual document without paying for it — only the summary is available.
Like I mentioned, university credentials. Wiley accepts them, Taylor Francis doesn't.
So, no — until I see actual statistics showing certain races punished harsher for the same crimes, I'm not going to accept that assertion on face-value.
That's actually what the study I posted looked at. They adjusted for crime, economic standing, state and whatnot, and found longer/harsher sentences for people who were male, black, and young. The trifecta really screws that segment of the population.
is that Asians should be just as much (if not more) a target of the "Whitey" racism as Blacks.
I'm not sure where you're coming from here, but I can tell you that Asians aren't known for criminality like young male blacks are. The result is a perception that they're dangerous, leading to harsher sentences(my hypothesis). Asians today are generally not seen as criminals, but hard workers/good in school.
which means, lots of people saw the exchange, but not one was able to offer the evidence I asked for... Not one person.
I posted it. You didn't accept it. Hell, I pointed out that the studies show that being young/male is a bigger factor than being black.
I don't read AC A human right
Well, there you go... If Asians aren't known for criminality, but (male) Blacks are — is it evidence of racism or of something genuinely wrong with the young male Blacks? Such as, for example, the horrendous rate of kids Black kids growing up without fathers (17% for Asians, 25% for Whites, 67% for Blacks)?
I could not accept it, because I could not access it...
That would seem to support my argument — that the "racism" of law-enforcement is not to blame. But, again, I can not "accept" it without reading it...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
We need less guns, not more. Less guns means less people getting shot...but I guess that logic is to, well, logic for US brains.
Cà lá½ sá± ra Ä'ái cáa sÃng 3D - má(TM)t nhà thiát ká chuyÃn nghiáp nhÆ váy là má(TM)t bÆác tián mái và sá½ là má(TM)t cÃng cᥠcà già trá cho chÃnh phá
Perhaps this product will be accepted by the government this is the product of advanced 3D - in an printing industry first in the world
In the south side of Chicago blacks have been packing for decades, carry permit be damned. You're funny.