Beyond the Liberator: A 3D-Printed Plastic 9mm Semi-Auto Pistol

Profiled at Ars Technica is the (mostly) 3D-printed semi-auto pistol design from a West Virginia maker known as Derwood. The PLA-based design, which Derwood calls the Shuty MP-1, isn't quite all-plastic; like others that are roughly similar, it utilizes metal for a few parts that aren't practical in plastic. (Ars says just the barrel and springs, but it looks like metal is used for the guide rod and an internal plate, as well as for the screws that hold the whole thing together.) The core of the gun is a lower that bears a strong resemblance to an AR-15's, but the assembled gun looks to me more like a Skorpion submachine gun. Unlike Cody Wilson's single-shot Liberator pistol (mentioned here a few times before), the design files are not available for download -- at least not yet: "Not long," Derwood writes in a comment on a YouTube video of the pistol's assembly.

Comments

Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did 3D printing turn Slashdot into a haven for militant gun nuts? What about 3D printed things that aren't designed to kill people?

Re:Militant Slashdot

[rfengr]

It's about gun control, and besides, a 9mm is not for killing people. It's about stopping a threat.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[drinkypoo]

It's about gun control, and besides, a 9mm is not for killing people. It's about stopping a threat.

9mm is almost as lethal as a .45 ACP, according to the charts. Not quite, but damned close. Hence the BHP in 9mm following the 1911...

Re:Militant Slashdot

[rfengr]

Yes, but 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. Compare that to being shot with a hunting caliber rifle; that was my comparison.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Pro Tip:

The vast majority of folks who read /. aren't gun nuts. They're the engineers who design such things. It's called: " Pushing beyond the limits " with existing tech.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[msauve]

"Hence the BHP in 9mm following the 1911"

Except for the fact that the 9mm (Luger) was introduce in 1902, two years before the 45acp used by the 1911.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[ClickOnThis]

Yes, but 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. Compare that to being shot with a hunting caliber rifle; that was my comparison.

That's a false comparison. Nobody carries around a hunting rifle to, in your own words, "stop a threat."

If you're claiming hand-guns are somehow a "soft" method of defending yourself, then you are sorely mistaken.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[bill_mcgonigle]

You miss the point. Nobody who wants a good gun wants a 3D-printed gun in 2016 (check back in a decade). The issue is always the government oppression that arises from such happenings. Free Speech still falls under 'stuff that matters'. Maybe you weren't around for CryptoWar I when we illegally wore T-shirts with the RSA algorithm on it to trade shows.

http://www.cypherspace.org/ada...

Re: Militant Slashdot

[He Who Has No Name]

The vast majority of Slashdot readers are also objective thinkers and (generally) less prone to emotional-hysterics-on-command, which tends to make them balk at the core structure of gun control ideology.

The ideology of civilian disarmament depends on constantly keeping people terrified of sensationalized emotional and irrational fallacies. That's not a behavior pattern frequently found in hardcore tech folks.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[DogDude]

I'd say that most Slashdotters are not afraid of their own shadows, hence don't see the need to walk around with guns all of the time.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[DogDude]

government oppression

[rolls eyes]

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, you are a disingenuous ass.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Fwipp]

They've always been here - they just needed an excuse to call guns nerdy so they can talk about their "I'm gonna shoot a bad guy and be the hero" fantasies.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny because the same sensationalism sells guns too.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of slashtards are nerds. Hardly rational, scared to death of their own shadow and with a deep seething hatred for anything even remotely associated to what they see as "jock things" and which well adjusted, socially apt people see as mainstream. Nobody pays any attention to nerds. If they become too annoying we just shut them up and ridicule them.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I've just never created an account. And my t-shirt of choice circa 2000 was DeCSS source.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[TheReaperD]

.357 magnum is the most lethal of the handgun calibers but, I don't see them designing ones out of PVC or other base plastics. Maybe one day with either multi-material systems or metal fabrication systems they can. The scary part is when high powered rifle rounds will be able to be used on a 3D printed gun. I'm not thrilled about the prospect but, I'm realistic enough that I know there's no stopping it.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[TheReaperD]

I think better phrasing would be that the 9mm supplanted the .45 ACP in the US for military and police use. Nearly as lethal and able to have a much larger store of ammunition. A double tap beats a larger round any day, whether you're a good shot or not.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

The vast majority of Slashdot readers ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there are no pictures of the gun I'm assuming this is just an AR-15 "Pistol" which is chambered in 9mm for reasons of controlling recoil. The first 3d printed gun wasn't the "liberator"... it was an AR-15 lower. This translates to the first 3d printed gun firing "high powered rifle rounds" before they printed a gun that could fire pistol rounds.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[bangular]

I frankly do not understand gun control in America. Gun control seems to boil down to
1) Getting rid of "assault rifles"
2) Consistent background checks
3) Magazine sizes

That's great and all, but the vast majority of gun violence are handguns. Even more, the .22lr of all things seems to be the deadliest caliber. Whether or not you are for gun control, let's discuss the actual killer: handguns. All this other stuff is just a distraction.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[DaHat]

Nobody carries around a hunting rifle to, in your own words, "stop a threat."

Oh?

"it's coming right for us!" *bang*

That deer was looking awful vicious...

Re:Militant Slashdot

[DaHat]

45acp dates back to 1904, the M1911 only reached production in 1911. Thanks for trying to look up dates though, but not the meaning of BHP (aka Browning Hi-Power), or when it went into service... 1935 > 1911.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I rather thought that the actual killer was the actual killer.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep - it's an actual killer ..... with a gun! Motive ... and means + hugely enhanced opportunity!

Re: Militant Slashdot

[blindseer]

The reason you don't understand this is because you are ignorant (perhaps willingly so) of how the people that want to ban weapons have thought out their plan. These people know that banning handguns, or most any weapon really, is the goal but they also know that banning handguns is difficult politically.

To understand this best we must go back in time by nearly a century. The National Firearms Act of 1934 placed a prohibitively high tax on a number of weapons, among them were machine guns, firearm report suppressors ("silencers"), "destructive devices" (grenades, landmines, large bore ammunition, etc.), the curious catch-all "any other weapon", and the also curious "short barreled" rifles and shotguns.

Let's talk about that "short barrel" category. The 1934 NFA originally had the intent to ban handguns and to prevent people from making handgun analogs from the not banned rifles and shotguns they made sure that people would not be allowed to shorten the barrels on these "long guns". Because of resistance from a number of powerful groups the ban on handguns went away but the "short barrel" designation remained. This law created the distinction among "handguns", "long guns", and "short barrel" arms where none existed before.

Forty years later the group Handgun Control Incorporated was created, with the (obvious) intent to ban handguns. Again this was met with resistance politically, few people in politics wanted to be associated with a group of that name. In 1981 James Brady was seriously injured in the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. HCI found themselves a new "mascot" and renamed themselves to the Brady Campaign. James Brady was shot with a .22 caliber revolver, which seems like a perfect mascot for an organization that wanted to ban handguns.

At about 1989 HCI renamed themselves Brady Campaign but still kept their original intent on banning handguns. The difference now is that they didn't wear this intent on their sleeves. It was now more politically acceptable to be an advocate for those injured by "gun violence" in general, leaving out that the ultimate goal is still banning handguns if not all firearms.

As the decades passed the banning of handguns became even less politically viable. People wanted personal defense weapons and a handgun makes a reasonable weapon for this task. The people today that call for "reasonable" gun control can draw a direct lineage to those people that wanted to ban handguns nearly a century ago. Given the age of many of these politicians and public figures I have to wonder if these aren't the same people that signed the 1934 National Firearms Act into law.

These bans on "assault weapons", magazine limitations, and background checks are all part of the boiling the frog, oiling up that slippery slope, or what have you that will lead us to banning handguns. These people have tried for over a century now to ban handguns but the majority of the people won't have it. They are still working on sharpening the point of the wedge between people and their personal defense arms. They think that by creating the idea that limits on some arms should bring us down the path to limits on all arms. That once we create the idea that the government should be able to dictate with what tools we are permitted to defend ourselves that at some future point in time the government would be able to dictate that the people cannot have any tools of self defense.

This has been going on for a long time in the USA, the best that they've been able to do is place some rather trivial limits on the people's ability to arm themselves. What I find interesting about these advancements in 3D printing is that it makes all those laws irrelevant. They can make it illegal to manufacture these weapons but the people that feel the government should not be able to dictate how the people may arm themselves will find these bans exceedingly difficult to enforce.

This is a question I've asked myself many times, is a law really a law if the govern

Re:Militant Slashdot

[segedunum]

....a 9mm is not for killing people. It's about stopping a threat.

I love the mental gymnastics Americans perform in order to justify why they are entitled to carry a weapon that kills people.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Tom]

Because nobody ever died from a 9mm shot.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you have millions of drug addled scum burning down your cities 100 years ago too ?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Tom]

The ideology of civilian disarmament depends on constantly keeping people terrified of sensationalized emotional and irrational fallacies.

Nonsense. The ideology of political control depends on that, with or without guns. Just look around the world, and you see governments using this very strategy in all countries, all government types and irrespective of gun controls or not.

The only difference is that people without guns react with demonstrations and civil unrest, while people with guns react with mass shootings and conspiracy theories.

Meanwhile the government doesn't care because if it comes to it, you have your guns, but they have tanks and planes.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[msauve]

And yet the claim was about cartridges, only giving firearms as an example. Thanks for trying to participate, but you're crippled by your lack of understanding.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[blindseer]

Apparently so since much of the desire to ban these weapons was the result of gang warfare during Prohibition.

Funny that, history repeating itself. Alcohol prohibition resulted in violence not seen before it's implementation. Now today people don't shoot each other over alcohol because it is available at nearly every convenience store with nothing more than proving you are an adult and have the ability to pay for it.

Perhaps we would not have "drug addled scum burning down your cities" if these drugs were not banned. Just a thought. It appears that there are at least some people that agree with me given that a number of states in the USA have legalized marijuana with no real threats to society to show for it.

Also, how does banning possession of a handgun supposed to prevent "drug addled scum" from setting the city on fire? I do know that even drug addled scum have a nearly instinctual fear of getting shot if they threaten to burn down someone's home or business. It would seem to follow that by removing the handguns, and therefore diminish the homeowner's ability to defend their home, would embolden the scum to burn the world down.

Gun control is not crime control. You control crime by controlling the criminals.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[johanw]

You can't fire just a "lower", you need other parts for that too. That some US law defines that to be the defining part of a firearm doesn't change the physics.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[johanw]

My Swiss Army Knife can kill people too. Although I use it mostly to remove screws from computers.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[johanw]

After which you'll find your embarrassing pictures have suddenly been ported to the internet...

Re: Militant Slashdot

[He Who Has No Name]

Actually, nations with lawfully armed populaces that are subjected to such social engineering for political desires by the ruling elites... tend to shoot the ruling elites and elect or coronate new ones.

That is the true fear at the root of politicians advocating civilian disarmament: that their desired policies would ultimately be so repulsive to their subjects that they can't risk what they see as a high likelihood of being defied or overthrown by armed force. They are scared their desires will provoke their own doom, unless their subjects have been denied any choice except compliance.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[drinkypoo]

Yes, but 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. Compare that to being shot with a hunting caliber rifle; that was my comparison.

Handguns are used in over 80% of all gun murders. Besides, The .22 is plenty deadly. (I linked that particular page to forestall anyone linking pages about how the .22 supposedly does the most killin'.)

Re:Militant Slashdot

[jafiwam]

It's about gun control, and besides, a 9mm is not for killing people. It's about stopping a threat.

9mm is almost as lethal as a .45 ACP, according to the charts. Not quite, but damned close. Hence the BHP in 9mm following the 1911...

It is if you use a modern expanding hollow point bullet with a decent weight and charge. Though, I'd be surprised if this thing could handle P+ or +P+ charges for long.

There is an outfit selling 80% Glock-clone lowers now too... which will turn out to be a FAR better firearm.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[jafiwam]

That's a false comparison. Nobody carries around a hunting rifle to, in your own words, "stop a threat."

If you're claiming hand-guns are somehow a "soft" method of defending yourself, then you are sorely mistaken.

You should try to get out of the city occasionally.

The line between "pistol" and "rifle" is a fake one defined by the ATF where "designed to be fired with one hand" and "designed to be set to the shoulder to fire" is the definition. Caliber and ballistic capabilities are not included in the distinction. Then there are dimensions and other stuff tacked onto those definitions, firearms that fall out of those dimensions are AOWs (Any Other Weapon) or SBS or SBRs.

So it IS quite possible to be using a "pistol" that's basically a rifle with rifle-like ballistic results but with pistol legality (whatever that happens to be at that location.)

Re:Militant Slashdot

[rfengr]

Yes, but 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. Compare that to being shot with a hunting caliber rifle; that was my comparison.

That's a false comparison. Nobody carries around a hunting rifle to, in your own words, "stop a threat."

If you're claiming hand-guns are somehow a "soft" method of defending yourself, then you are sorely mistaken.

No, a handgun is not a optimal weapon for defending yourself. If someone is breaking into my house, I will grab the handgun beside my bed and go get my 12 gauge, which is optimal for my home.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[drinkypoo]

The BHP followed the 1911, however, and while JMB only designed bits of the gun, the caliber was already ironed out by then.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[drinkypoo]

There is an outfit selling 80% Glock-clone lowers now too... which will turn out to be a FAR better firearm.

Can't stand the trigger, not even a little bit. Can't hit shit with a glock. With a 1911 it's ding, ding, ding. Still looking for the next thing, hopefully something less fiddly than the 1911.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[rfengr]

Can you read? I wrote 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. That has nothing to do with your statistic.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[AmiMoJo]

That's a rather elaborate conspiracy theory to explain something that is actually rather simple and obvious.

People keep shooting up schools and other public places with automatic weapons. Such weapons are not that useful for hunting, and of somewhat dubious value for self defence... In fact, outside of the military and police, their only real purpose seems to be for killing lots of people efficiently. Plus they didn't exist when the constitution was written, and the right to bear arms clearly has some limits (no nukes, no cluster bombs etc.). Banning them seems both reasonable, legal and unlikely to cause any real harm to hunters and shooting enthusiasts.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

"a number of states in the USA have legalized marijuana with no real threats to society to show for it."

As someone living in Colorado, not only no real threat to society, but apparently a lot of tax revenue. Apparently 2015 saw over a billion dollars worth of sales, taxed at I believe 15% (I don't use marijuana personally, so I'm not actually certain what the tax rate is)

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Karmashock]

It ends the gun control debate. The debate shouldn't have even happened. We have a second amendment. What about that do people not understand? Don't like it... vote to change it through the regular process and repeal the second amendment.

Absent that, this is a hostile action to subvert our democracy. And actions taken to subvert the government's ability to enact illegal legislation are all to the good.

This ends the debate. You can't stop the guns now. And this won't stop at the US now... it will go global. Gun regulations from pole to pole will be so much paper.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I have no fantasies about "shooting a bad guy". I just enjoy putting rounds down range. Usually at a piece of paper, trying to see how close I can get all the holes together. I can't explain why I find it fun, I just do. But I don't see a problem with that, because I have a friend who finds shopping fun, I don't understand it, she doesn't really understand it, she just finds it fun.

If you don't get why it'd be fun, that's fine, but please try to understand that there are people who do find it fun, and you should try to not get your panties in a wad and just let it go. And if you're going to say anything about endangering people, if you don't personally own a gun, you aren't a gang member engaged in the illegal drug trade and you don't regularly threaten the police, the odds of some jackass killing you while driving down the road talking on a cell phone is at least an order of magnitude larger than you ever being injured by a firearm of any kind.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[rickb928]

AR-15s are becoming popular for game hunting, despite the limitations. A lighter load than some other calibers/'energy': .22 LR HV - 152 .223/5.56x45 - 1254 (typical AR-15 load) .22-250 - 1624 (varmint rifle) .30-30 Win - 1888 (my favorite deer rifle in Maine) .300 Savage - 2280 (My mom's favorite deer rifle, model 99) .308 Win/7.62 - 2617 (AK-47 IIRC, also a modern sniper round) .300-06 Springfield - 2920 (Still an excellent sniper round)

It would seem an AR-15 is a poor choice for a deer rifle, but swap out the FMJ for Hell, the M885A1 looks suspiciously like my mom's favorite round,the bronze point. I wonder if it is available for civilians. But rechamber the AR-15 in 300AAC (7.62) and get a very serviceable hunting rifle. Trivially easy to do, and converting back simple. I would not load the clip more than 5 rounds. as deer rarely stick around after the first two reports, so you're shooting them in the butt which is undesirable. So you either shoot accurately or chase them through the brush. Your choice.

So indeed, an AR-15 could be a 'hunting rifle', and the occasional id10t^H^H^H^H^H patriot carries one here in Arizona, just because they can.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Well unlike most of Europe there are large predators in the US. That is why some times I carry a large handgun, but then I only carry when I am out in the woods as there are things like bears, wolves, cougars, and bobcats for large predators there. Also my handgun would not be a good choice for home defense or regular carry as it is huge (hard to conceal) and very powerful (will make a very big hole in the target). Also my healthy fear of the large predators isn't unfounded I have had a good number of close encounters with the large predators in the north woods of Minnesota and haven't had to shoot any of the critters as a single shot into a tree has scared them off but if it didn't the next would kill them. I also try to stay clear of them as I generally know where they are but they do move around so you never know for sure. It sucks being stalked by wolves, coming around a corner to see bear trying to get something in a hollow log, having a cougar walk up to your deer stand with you in it, seeing a mamma bear send her cubs up a tree, or getting back to camp and see a bobcat trying to get into your trunk to get the half a pack of bacon left in the cooler in there.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[rickb928]

"I love the mental gymnastics Americans perform in order to justify why they are entitled to carry a weapon that kills people."

Actually, I understood this in 5th grade, when the Second Amendment was read in its entirety. Two years later I carried a .410 shotgun to hunt with my family, two years after that graduating to the .30-30. Then, a year later, my American History teacher indulged us in a deeper study of the Second Amendment, which left no doubt in my mind of the intent and effect of that Amendment, and the radical nature of our Constitution. People from other nations have largely been taught nothing about that, for what should be obvious reasons.

The world hates freedom.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[rickb928]

And then there are those with UIDs...

Re: Militant Slashdot

[rickb928]

"What I find interesting about these advancements in 3D printing is that it makes all those laws irrelevant."

What I find inevitable is that as the government (and those who oppose my rights) realize that I can actually do what I was always permitted to, they must find a way to prevent that, as if I should never have been permitted to ever.

It has been legal to manufacture your own firearm for your own personal use in the U.S. You cannot legally sell it, nor even give it way,without being licensed etc. And you cannot accept such a weapon from someone, though I do not k now off hand what happens if, for example, one is bequeathed to you on the death of the maker.

The gun control advocates understand entirely that desktop fabrication is a huge risk to the success of their campaign to deny Americans the ownership of guns. They will try to ban the distribution of files and descriptions necessary to fabricate these guns, which would have the effect of also banning any number of books etc on conventional gunsmithing and desktop fabrication, and then we will also have a First Amendment case to argue.

This has happened before, for instance when courts put public records online, permitting common citizens easy access to these public records... Yup, pressure mounted to reclassify these as not public when it became practical for your neighbor to actually access them...

Do not trust your government.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[rickb928]

They weren't drug-addled, nor scum, but they were black.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Bob the Super Hamste]

People keep shooting up schools and other public places with automatic weapons.

I don't think anyone has used a fully automatic weapon to shoot up a school. Granted the San Bernardino shooters had a fully auto weapon (maybe 2) but that was illegally modified so it isn't like they just went down to the store and picked one up.

Such weapons are not that useful for hunting, and of somewhat dubious value for self defense

What weapons, fully auto machine guns that no one has used in a school shooting or semi automatic weapons? I assume you mean semi automatic ones which are very effective for hunting. They have been used for years. My grandfather used a semi automatic Remington 11-48 for pheasant, duck, and goose hunting for years from about 1950 until he gave up hunting in the late 70s. For years I deer hunted with a Romanian SKS as the SKS basically replaced the lever action .30-30 as the bare bones entry level deer rifle. Lots of people use to hunt with old M1 Garands that they got through the CMP and I wouldn't mind using one for deer hunting. The .223 AR15 type weapons are a very popular and effective varmint rifle for things like packs of coyotes, and prairie dogs.

I can't speak to the self defense aspect but a semi auto shotgun seems like it would be pretty good for home defense. Also I don't think may people are carrying around a long gun for self defense, most people prefer a much smaller handgun.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[chmod a x mojo]

1: No automatic weapons were used in any of the shootings from Columbine on. As far as I'm aware there were no shootings of the general public with automatic weapons since the valentines day massacre in Chicago, and that was mobster on mobster.

2: Again, no one hunts with automatic weapons.

3: By your reasoning there should not be any freedom of the press on the internet since there was no internet when that particular amendment was written, only printing presses. Kind of silly to judge that evolved technology is completely different than the base, isn't it?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

This is indeed what happens.
I would add that there are environments where having a firearm is ok - countryside and hunting come to mind.
There are also places where guns are not really needed and become a nuisance and tools of destruction, especial automatic variety of guns are a problem - cities with functioning police force do not really need citizens arming themselves. You remove one of these things out of the equation and you may need a gun - in wildness of Alaska a rifle may be a must or at least a useful tool. In a German city overrun by so called refugees it may be that population must arm itself because police is just looking scared and do not act even if people are being beaten up and raped.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Karmashock, I thought you knew better. Saying a debate should never have happened is censorship, of the worst kind. Namely, that driven by alleged virtue. It isn't though, as the truth is that you just find it frustrating to deal with those you perceive to be so grossly in error. You would rather shut them up, or shut them out. But if you can truly stand for an ideal, you should be willing to do so, and convince others of your position rather than just declare it out of bounds in order to spare yourself effort.

Especially since your approach is going to come across as highhanded and arrogant itself. Something you should also reflect upon since it bothers you when you are subjected to it.

In any case, there are various aspects of this to debate that you should consider even beyond the immediate control issue. What level of safety is required to produce such a gun? Not all production issues in conventional manufacture are obvious to the eye, 3d printers may be even worse. Where will the liability fall? What happens when one of these guns fails, and injures the user, or even a bystander? How will it be determined if the issue is design or production? Whatever safeties will a 3d printer require? What happens when you print up a gun and hand it to somebody else? Do you even have to know their name?

The debate isn't over. Rather, it goes to new places. Thinking it is over just gets you out of thinking it over.

I thought you had higher standards.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one instance where automatic weapons were used in mass killing spree in the US please.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[ValentineMSmith]

I'm going to hope that this is just an unintentional lack of knowledge on your end. If you're actually open to reading facts, please keep reading. Otherwise, feel free to ignore this.

First, in response to the comment about people that keep "shooting up schools and other public places with automatic weapons." This is incorrect. The phrase "automatic weapon" refers to a weapon that can discharge more than one projectile due to a single action (pulling a trigger or actuating some other mechanism). As far as crimes with automatic weapons go, they are so low as to be lost in the underflow of the number of other assaults. In 1934, the National Firearms Act regulated automatic weapons, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and "other weapons". Since that date, you have to pay a $200 tax just to be allowed to purchase the weapon. You also have to undergo a background check even more thorough than most class 3 Federal Firearms Dealers. The automatic weapon must be registered and kept at a known location at all times, and the Feds can knock on your door at any time of the day or night and demand that you produce that weapon immediately for their inspection. If you can't, it's a federal felony.

Since 1934, there have been 2 murders committed with registered automatic weapons. As far as unregistered automatic weapons go, numbers vary, but are again so low as to be statistically insignificant. According to GunCite ( http://www.guncite.com/gun_con... ), 4 police officers were killed between 1983 and 1992. And even when targeting groups that are thought to have large numbers of automatic weapons, virtually none of the firearms recovered in raids on drug houses, gangs, and so on were automatic. For all intents and purposes, automatic weapons are not used in crime.

And, since 1986 when the NFA was amended, only automatic weapons made before that date are now available for purchase by the public. This amendment ended out pricing most automatic weapons out of the reach of the standard consumer, and for those that do buy them, they're usually purchased as investments not, not with the intent to shoot them.

As far as the second half of your comment goes, I'm going to assume you're talking about so called "assault weapons", or what are more accurately termed modern sporting rifles (MSRs). And when people think of an MSR, they think generally of an AR-15 variant (go Google what the AR in AR-15 stands for. Hint: it does NOT stand for Automatic Rifle). What is so bad about them?

1: You say "their only real purpose seems to be for killing lots of people efficiently." First, the caliber of most AR-15 variants (5.56x45 NATO, or .223 Remington (and yes, the specs are not completely equivalent between those to calibers, but for the sake of argument, we'll assume they are)) is small enough (and fast enough) that the rounds tend to not do all that much damage to a man-sized target. In fact, in many states, it's illegal to hunt deer with a .223, as it's likely to only wound and not kill it. So, no, an AR-15 is not a particularly efficient killing machine. If you don't believe me on this, go find an Iraq/Afghanistan vet. If they're willing to talk to you about their experiences, ask them about how effective the M-4 was at killing the enemy. Or use Google. The stories are out there. The only reason the US Military uses 5.56x45 instead of 7.62x54 (the old .308 Springfield cartridge that got your (great)grandfather through World War II) is that you can carry 70% more 5.56 than you can 7.62 for the same weight and size of package.

2: Because the AR-15 platform is so modular, my wife and I can shoot the same rifle. My arms are a little shorter than hers. I can adjust the stock. Because it has a pistol grip, I can hold it more comfortably. If you take a look at the definition of an assault rifle from the 1994 US ban, it involved a rifle that could accept a detachable

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

An apparently inevitable result of ego boost from shooting guns frequently is the mistaken impression that an armed uprising against the government with your legally obtained gun stash will be of any consequence at all. Maybe you could defend your cult compound from the local police, but any taking the fight to them is laughable. In fact, you would be portrayed by the media as a nutjob afterwards, and it would push people further towards gun control!
The politicians are not afraid of you. Any gun/anti gun stance of politicians are made to appeal to the populace polarized due to sensationalized news, probably produced for that exact effect.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[mr_mischief]

You can buy AR-platform rifles not only in .300 Blackout but also readily in .308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO. There's an upper/lower kit from some company meant for the back woods which swaps out parts from .22 LR to .50 Beowulf. Armalite also carries a .338 Lapua AR-30 so that's a popular large--game hunting (and sniper) round.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[mr_mischief]

The Browning HiPower is a pistol that uses 9mm ammunition. It is not the round. The Colt Model 1911 is a pistol that uses .45 ACP ammunition and is not the round. The 1911 was a longtime military sidearm for US forces and was replaced not with the HiPower, though, but by another 9mm known as the Beretta M9 which is basically a military version of their 92FS. That barely beat the Sig P226.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[danaris]

Actually, nations with lawfully armed populaces that are subjected to such social engineering for political desires by the ruling elites... tend to shoot the ruling elites and elect or coronate new ones.

You appear to have missed the part about the governments that attempt to enact such social engineering having tanks and planes to kill you with before your guns have a chance to mean a damn thing.

So it's more or less necessary, in such a situation, to have the army (or at least a substantial part of it) on your side. At which point having a lawfully armed populace becomes redundant, because you've got the bloody army on your side.

Dan Aris

Re: Militant Slashdot

[AmiMoJo]

Okay, I don't live in the US, most of my gun knowledge comes from Call of Duty, so I got the terminology wrong. Whatever the kinds of guns they use are, I'm told "assault rifle" is wrong too. But honestly, if the best argument you can come up with against a ban is that someone used the incorrect name (when the meaning was obvious)...

Re: Militant Slashdot

[cyber-vandal]

When's that happening in the US and how long would it be before the rebels get bombed by the USAF?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[mr_mischief]

And unionists... and the Pinkertons hired to beat and kill the unionists... and bootleggers... and mafia members buying from the bootleggers... and ... Prohibitions and other forms of oppression are why we have a Second Amendment in the first place.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[msauve]

Hint: reading is fundamental. Try it sometime.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Golddess]

Saying a debate should never have happened is censorship, of the worst kind.

It can be, but in this case, no it isn't.

the truth is that you just find it frustrating to deal with those you perceive to be so grossly in error. You would rather shut them up, or shut them out.

If Karmashock wanted to shut them up, why would they say "Don't like it... vote to change it through the regular process and repeal the second amendment."? It seems clear to me that Karmashock isn't trying to shut anyone up. What they want, is to have a discussion where actual legal change can occur. Trying to ban guns without changing the constitution is unconstitutional.

And no, I abhor guns. But backdoors are wrong, whether they are for encryption, or law.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

People do hunt with automatic weapons in Texas. The feral hog problem is so bad that the state authorized people to hunt hogs from helicopters firing fully automatic firearms.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Okay, I don't live in the US, most of my gun knowledge comes from Call of Duty, so I got the terminology wrong. Whatever the kinds of guns they use are, I'm told "assault rifle" is wrong too. But honestly, if the best argument you can come up with against a ban is that someone used the incorrect name (when the meaning was obvious)...

The argument against the ban is not, "someone used the incorrect name," it's that the people calling for the ban are doing so from a position of ignorance. I don't blame you for this - as with most political issues, there's a lot of disinformation thrown around. In his last speech on gun control, Obama gave indications that he doesn't understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, complaining that people can buy automatic weapons at a gun show without going through a background check.

Just for your own education: Automatic weapon - pull the trigger, the gun keeps firing until you let go or run out of ammo. Semi-automatic - pull the trigger, the gun fires once. Then there are pump-action shotguns and lever- or bolt-action rifles, where you fire, then cycle the action to chamber the next round.

Reading calls for gun control from people who know nothing about guns is like reading about calls for banning encryption from people who know nothing about how computers work. To bring the analogy back to the actual article linked: in the same way that you can't eliminate backdoor-free encryption because there is already open-source encryption software available, home workshop gun production means that gun control will never eliminate guns.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[mr_mischief]

There's a difference between a "mass shooting" and a "mass killing spree".

Not fully automatic, but the high cyclic rate Gatling was used to subjugate the indigenous peoples. It was also used in a civil war against both regulars and militia on both sides. It was used to intimidate anti-draft protestors in New York.

The St. Valentine's Day Massacre was a mass shooting by FBI standards and featured shotguns and at least one Thompson machine gun. That was gang-on-gang violence, which is what much handgun violence is today. The Thompson was a well-known weapon and well-known to be popular with crime syndicates in New York and Chicago. I can't think of a specific other incident in which 4 or more people were killed with one.

Clyde Barrow used a BAR and killed a number of people. He and Bonnie Parker and their associates were certainly killers on a spree, but I'm not sure they ever killed four people at one time. They also were firing during gang robberies and getaways, not at targeted pockets of civilians looking to make a statement or raise their body count.

Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns at all. http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying a debate should never have happened is censorship, of the worst kind.

It can be, but in this case, no it isn't.

Ok, then let's see why you think it's not.

the truth is that you just find it frustrating to deal with those you perceive to be so grossly in error. You would rather shut them up, or shut them out.

If Karmashock wanted to shut them up, why would they say "Don't like it... vote to change it through the regular process and repeal the second amendment."?

You're assuming that's a genuine suggestion, which I personally doubt, for two reasons.

The most immediate problem with that particular suggestion is that we can't vote in that way, we can only vote for legislators, as the federal government makes no provision for public plebiscites or referendums. There isn't even the possibility of a recall for a politician.

There is no process, except for politicians, acting as they wish. Not for me, the voter. When it comes down to it, in terms of public participation, the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed.

However, I didn't see going over that detail as especially productive, for reasons related to this subject that I will go into shortly, in the next paragraph of quotes.

But also for a general reason, that perhaps you may find hard to fathom or swallow, but is more fundamental in its sense. Namely the Constitution is just a piece of paper. It could, and has, been used to justify and defend immoral action as entirely legal, so as such, I have little regard for those who say "We must follow the Constitution" as they remind me of religious fundamentalists.

Doing what's right may require following process. Or it might require rejecting a flawed process. A complicated discussion to be sure, and hard for many to understand, but from my perspective, a lot of what people arguement over what people think is the right way to do things is just going over tedium.

It seems clear to me that Karmashock isn't trying to shut anyone up. What they want, is to have a discussion where actual legal change can occur. Trying to ban guns without changing the constitution is unconstitutional.

See, this is the problem. I don't believe that discussion would occur in genuine terms. Perhaps it would be more believable, had Karmashock not opened the remarks with "It ends the gun control debate. The debate shouldn't have even happened. We have a second amendment." instead of some more moderate expression. But Karmashock Then followed it with "This ends the debate. You can't stop the guns now. And this won't stop at the US now... it will go global. Gun regulations from pole to pole will be so much paper." I'm sorry, but what is clear to me is that Karmashock isn't interested in discussions of process or method.

Which would have to start with a more general subject anyway, as the flaws in the Constitution of the United States in that regard are as I stated above, and even then, it's not just a problem for the US, so it becomes a discussion of a multitude of international methods.

I doubt it'd be worth going over all that, as it'd be silliness to absurdity.

And no, I abhor guns. But backdoors are wrong, whether they are for encryption, or law.

I wouldn't say there are backdoors being used, just a system that works within certain parameters in a flawed manner.

And if Karmashock was focused on fixing those flaws, perhaps that'd be a moderately interesting subject for discussion. Tedious to me though, as I would consider it simply working with what people expect, and probably not addressing any real fundamentals. But I suspect even if the subject was brought up, Karmashock would just blow it off, and we'd never even get into the necessary mechanisms for addressing guns anyway.

So rather than discuss that issue, as it would ultimately be a distraction anyway, I tried to foc

Re: Militant Slashdot

[AmiMoJo]

Okay, thanks for explaining, but can you address the actual arguments being put forward? Particularly the point about the kinds of weapons used in those crimes not being particularly useful for self defence or hunting or even sport, and thus banning them not being too burdensome. Also the bit about what the limit is on the constitutional right, i.e. where the line is between "pea shooter" and "nuke".

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume the military would side with a tyrannical government, which is questionable... especially when the socio-cultural-economic groups most likely to be in revolt make up a strong proportion of the total military body.
There is the matter of military discipline, yes, but the prospect of oppressing your fellow citizens is a bit erosive to morale.
And it's one thing to stand guard or patrol in a city, populated by people from outside your cultural identity group, but to be ordered to go out and shoot at people who fly your country's flag without a sense of irony is a completely different thing.

Personally I think military would follow orders. But desertion, mutiny, and 'suspiciously organized incompetence' would be rampant, and that's not to speak of the rather large number of veterans and reservists that are in the general population, many of whom feel disenfranchised and betrayed by their government's post-service system.
There is also the fact that planes, tanks, etc., need POL, ammunition, spares, and skilled (often civilian) maintenance, even in CONUS, and all of the above are trucked in. Along remarkably long public highways, and through large communities.

Insurgencies aren't fought with decisive standup fights like a napoleonic battle.
And any insurgency is bound to cripple and destroy a nation's identity and economy for decades or centuries to come...

So, tell me again, how irrelevant the value of a well regulated militia is to balance against a government that would LOVE to oppress the people, but at least for now would really like to have a functioning society and economy to siphon off of?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[ValentineMSmith]

No worries from our end. And that's why I wrote what I did in the way that I did: I've given this talk several times to people, and they typically fall into one of two categories:

1: They're so invested in civilian disarmament that they just stick their fingers in their ears until they can't hear me any more.

2: As in your case, they're not USian, so they don't have the cultural background for the debate.

Having said all that though, speaking as a combat veteran myself: Call of Duty is not an accurate model of reality. If you're interested, here's a paper where the US Army itself discusses the lethality of the 5.56 NATO round: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Mi... Depending on the ammunition issued, the 5.56 NATO round either is too fast to do more than make a tiny hole going in and a tiny hole going out (if you're close to the bad guy), or it won't reach the bad guy at all.

I wish I could find it (my Google skills are weak today, I guess) but I remember seeing a helmet video of a US soldier engaging an enemy in an alley somewhere in Afghanistan, I think it was. The soldier hits his enemy something like 4 times with his M-4, and is then killed by the enemy with one shot from his AK.

Note that there were some folks up-thread that brought up alternate calibers (things like .300 AAC, 6.5 Grendel, and so on). Modifying a standard M-4 to accept one of these other calibers can be as simple as just swapping out the barrel (in the case of the .300 AAC), or swapping out the barrel and bolt (6.5 Grendel). These are much more effective, but they're also much more expensive, and they're still pretty hard to come by.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Coren22]

The second amendment to the constitution guarantees all US citizens the right to carry firearms. You can debate all you like the moral implications of it, but until the second amendment is repealed, it is the right of every US citizen to carry firearms.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Karmashock]

Coward that won't even use a fake name presumes to sockpuppet out some stupid response... no need... others already dealt with you before I even noticed your stupid response. Also, nice to know you're following me around the forum now.

I don't follow you around... I don't care about you. But you... you seem to think I'm worth following.

Seems someone matters more to one than the other. Another win for me.

Tootles.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Coren22]

Maybe next you should ban french fries. They kill far more people than guns, and they are allowed to be sold in school!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

most of my gun knowledge comes from Call of Duty

Which is the problem. People who don't know about a thing trying to regulate the thing.

Can you explain why a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle is considered a "hunting rifle" and an AR-15 is considered a "assault weapon"? What makes one deadlier than the other as to require a ban?

After all, both rifles shoot the exact same round the exact same way: it's a .223 round fired semi-automatically from a detachable magazine. So why should one only be for police and military?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus they didn't exist when the constitution was written

Would it surprise you to learn that before the constitution was written there was a repeating rifle with a 20 round magazine?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Coren22]

An automatic rifle (machine gun) fires as long as the trigger is held. These are very expensive to buy due to regulations, and you can only buy ones manufactured before 1934 (not sure, but what I found in Google)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Semiautomatic rifles fire once for every pull of the trigger, these are the type of many firearms used in mass shootings around the US. They ARE commonly used for hunting, as the ability to fire two or more shots at a deer quickly is desired as the first might not actually drop the deer.

Assault rifle is a made up term for a "scarey gun", the best and most common example of this is an AR-15. AR-15s are a semiautomatic rifle with rails that allow the mounting of accessories such as scopes, lights, lasers, grips, or frankly whatever. They also allow for larger magazines to be used with them, but most magazine weapons can use large magazines.

https://www.washingtonpost.com... (the first picture)

The problem that many US citizens have, is that according to the constitution which is the highest law of the land, ALL gun regulation is banned. Yet, a very uncommon form of death is being fought like it is the top way people die.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastat...

Murder doesn't even break the top ten, it is so rare that you are more likely to die from eating fatty/oily foods. So, lets focus on ending heart disease, fighting cancer, banning or improving help for smokers, fighting alzheimer's and diabetes, ending the flu, stopping whatever the hell Nephritis is, and maybe getting help for those considering suicide, rather than taking guns away from those who don't commit crimes, while leaving the criminals heavily armed as they can just steal guns, or buy them anywhere.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Coren22]

nd you can only buy ones manufactured before 1934 (not sure, but what I found in Google)

I am wrong, it is 1984.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Funny how a gun control act was passed in 1984, something that causes 1984 to be one step closer.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Coren22]

Funny thing, but the US Military is forbidden from fighting within the US, for that it has to be national guard or militias called up from the armed populus.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[spire3661]

Thankfully we dont have to justify it to you or anyone. We believe it is a CREATOR granted right for free men to own weaponry. We have fashioned our government to reflect that belief, going as far as outright banning our government from interfering with gun ownership on a very fundamental level. It doesnt matter what you think about it, thats the entire point of the 2nd Amendment. Its a right whether you agree with it or not.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Type44Q]

Mod the fuck up...

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Coren22]

1. Automatic rifles are extremely rare. You lack of knowledge on this calls you out as not having enough knowledge to form an opinion. Go read a little bit.

2. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. The police in the US are LITERALLY not required to stop a crime in progress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06...

The police investigate crime after the fact, they are not required to stop someone intent on murdering you, stealing all your stuff, or raping you. So, good luck relying on those police, there have been many instances where they didn't even stop a crime after being notified of a crime being in progress.
http://insider.foxnews.com/201...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not the best argument that one can come up with. It is the first one, and one we constantly repeat with those ill-informed. Because it first shows you do not know what you're talking about, but it takes that to first get you to admit you don't know what you're talking about.

People keep shooting up schools and other public places with automatic weapons.

So others have dealt with that. Not automatic, and for the most part not the weapons you thought you were referring to. And on top of that, thanks to police misinformation most of those shootings do not occur with the weapons you think they do.

Such weapons are not that useful for hunting, and of somewhat dubious value for self defence... In fact, outside of the military and police, their only real purpose seems to be for killing lots of people efficiently.

You already admit you don't know enough about the weapons concerned, and therefore wouldn't know how useful for hunting or self-defense they are.
I'd disagree with the poster above about 5.56 ammunition. Poster was right that it's wrong for deer. But it is IMVHO a superior ammunition for small game. My brother in law goes to a couple of annual prairie dog shoots, and AR-15s are the preferred weapon according to him.
An AR-15 is also, IMVHO, about the most fun target shooting rifle to use.
While I don't have one personally and it does not fit my self-defense profile, it does for many and in many situations. If I owned my own storefront it would likely be my under-counter choice over a shotgun.
But I do agree with the above: The AR-15 is the wrong choice for killing lots of people efficiently. Wounding them, sure. But there are better mass-killing rifle platforms. Pardon making such an easy refutation for you, but I am not going to elucidate further. Suffice to say anyone who studies it can quickly learn what would be better.

Plus they didn't exist when the constitution was written, and the right to bear arms clearly has some limits (no nukes, no cluster bombs etc.). Banning them seems both reasonable, legal and unlikely to cause any real harm to hunters and shooting enthusiasts.

Well, some would argue that the right to bear arms should not have the limits as you think of, as like what was written above about cannons. But if you honestly want to live your life with only that which existed in the late 18th century I'll let you have the point that semi-auto rifles weren't commonly around when the constitution was written. Even though I'm personally on the side that believes the citizenry should be armed just as well as the police and military are.
(By the way, one thing that really pisses many of us gun enthusiasts off is that for the most part every person who wants gun control thinks it is obvious what types of guns should be controlled. But when pressed it almost always comes down to, "It can shoot 'a lot' and looks scary," which covers a lot more ground then the person knows.)

And, in the end, here's the crux of the problem: What seems "reasonable" to you, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama is NOT reasonable to enough of the rest of us. Not when it finally gets down to specifics. It is not legal in our eyes nor should it be, aside from those laws which already exist and are not efficiently enforced. And yes, it does cause "real harm" to we legal hunters and shooting enthusiasts, who are the ones who already own the vast VAST majority of those weapons you want to see banned.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Karmashock, that you keep peremptorily declaring victory is a hallmark of yours. But a consistent pattern to be sure, in the emptiness of those claims. Your words stand on their own.

You claim another poster responded to me, in some manner you represent as effective. I found it less so, perhaps because they did not understand you, or your manner, perhaps because they did not look at your post deeply enough. They certainly didn't look at mine.

Yet for all I know, the other poster is your creation as well.

What is apparent though, is you do not want to look into the issue enough to have a discussion and will take any avenue you can to avoid it. You would much rather not have to think. Especially about your own logic and reasoning.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[mr_mischief]

Actually, rereading drinkypoo's post I think he's specifically talking about the BHP following the 1911 closely in charts about bullet impact and momentum at the target. It still has nothing to do with the years in which the cartridges were first released.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[AmiMoJo]

The key difference between French fries and assault rifles is that the later's only purpose is to make killing people easier.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[moeinvt]

Take a few minutes to read a couple of papers: "The Changing Face of War" and "Understanding Fourth Generation Warfare" by William Lind.
For further reference read "The War of the Flea" by Robert Tabor.

All the high tech tanks and planes of the USA military proved useless against a determined insurgency in Vietnam. The Russians encountered the same thing in Afghanistan, as did the Israelis in their occupation of Lebanon.

Now consider the fact that the longest war in the history of the USA has been in Afghanistan where the vaunted USA military has spent 14 years trying to defeat a small insurgency armed only with rifles and improvised explosives. If the USA government can't defeat a few thousand lightly armed insurgents in a country the size of Afghanistan, how are they going to fight a few million similarly armed U.S. citizens in a country 12x (lower 48 states) the size?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Karmashock]

I have hallmarks because i'm not an AC shithead that hides his history.

You have nothing because you hides his history.

Thus like most AC shitheads you presume to use my lack of cowardice against me yet of course when I point out your lack of a record you're going to feel that is unfair somehow.

On any issue that regards me as a person or a poster you can eat every dick in the universe. You have no right to do that absent at least logging in.

As to who responded to whom...there were people below you that responded to you. Your inability to read is not my problem.

Anyway... as I said, someone else already dealt with you in this thread. You can continue with me but since you're such a degenerate piece of shit I'm just going to use those opportunities to shit talk.

If you want a real discussion... log in. If you don't, and you start opening your stupid posts with something like "oh here is something I know about this poster because he logs in unlike me"... I'm going to assume you just want to shitpost. Which is fine. I can shit post right back at you.

If you want to be serious... be serious. If you want to be treated like a rampant fuckwit...then carry on as you are now.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[harrkev]

Yeah, government oppression NEVER happens [rolls eyes].

Tell you what. Go to ANY local store and buy a Blu-Ray player. Pop in a BBC disc (say, a recent Doctor Who), and try to skip the previews. Just try it. Guess what? The government FORCES companies to make DVD players to not allow certain bits to be skipped. Yeah, that is for the good of you and I, sure. [rolls eyes].

Now, have you EVER heard of this group called the "NSA?" They actually got the metadata from most (if not all) cell phone calls for a while (and maybe they still are). Yup, no warrant, like the 4th Amendment says they have to get. Get this... the government went after an honest person who told the American citizens how their own government was breaking the law. They are trying to accuse Snowden of treason. Treason is helping the enemy. I guess the government considers the common people to be the enemy. [rolls eyes]

Oh, our government has actually targeted journalists with surveillance, and even sent the IRS after people and groups based on their political stance. Yeah, that is OK, right? [rolls eyes]

If you trust the government, then you have not been paying attention. Stop being ignorant -- you have only yourself to blame.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[msauve]

It was a total non-sequitur. It would have made more sense to mention the M9 which was the military successor to the 1911, but then that would bring up the uncomfortable fact that the US Army is exploring higher power rounds to replace that.

Charts and ballistic gel results are fine in theory, but real world results are more telling.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they can't, because your argument doesn't make any sense. Fully automatic weapons are typically not used in spree shootings, and are either illegal or require a great effort to obtain legally. You're asking them to argue why we shouldn't ban Chevys to stop mass murder, it's been explained to you why this doesn't make sense, you admit you know nothing about this subject, yet you continue on.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Coren22]

As I replied to you elsewhere in this thread, assault rifle is a made up category of rifle that is defined by "it looks scarey". They do not make killing people any easier than any other semi-automatic rifle, so no, its only purpose is not this.

AR-15 rifles are used for hunting very commonly, they are actually terrible for self defense as they are too long and cannot be used effectively in most hallways. If you want a self defense firearm, you are much better with a handgun (which most are semi-automatic as well) or a Mossberg 500 tactical loaded with birdshot or rock salt
http://www.mossberg.com/catego...
The Mossberg works best as birdshot and rock salt is stopped by a couple layers of drywall and the sound of a Mossberg being chambered is enough to make most burglars run in fear.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[fredgiblet]

Shit, you can get an AR upper in .50 BMG. They make EVERYTHING for the 15.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[fredgiblet]

Legally it does, since every part can be sold to anyone with no restrictions. Therefore a law that, for instance, bans "assault weapons" can be circumvented by 3D printing your lower and buying the rest of the parts.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[fredgiblet]

.357 magnum is the most lethal of the handgun calibers

U wot m8? .357 isn't in the top 10. Even if you restrict yourself to commercially successful calibers there's still a bunch of more powerful rounds available.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[fredgiblet]

Handgun control is obviously the best way to reduce crime and, if I had the option to set the gun laws, would be the primary focus. The fact that it is rarely brought up should make you wonder about the motivations of those pushing the laws.

My basic suspicion is that the hoplophobic politicians know exactly what's going on. They're aware that an "assault weapons" ban will do literally nothing to reduce crime, but that's not the point. The goal is disarmament, but that can't be achieved as long as there's a large group of shooting enthusiasts that are willing and able to politically and physically resist confiscation. So the goal isn't to implement laws that will actually reduce crime, it's to introduce crime that will make gun ownership more difficult and less appealing, long-term result being the reduction of gun owners as a voting bloc to a size that they can ignore and implement any laws they wish.

That being said Hanlon's Razor certainly COULD apply, but it seems like it's been going on too long to be simple stupidity.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[fredgiblet]

Semi-auto weapons are the BEST for each of the things you listed. Self defense practically requires semi-auto as manually operated weapons can leave you in a much worse place if your first shot doesn't work. Semi-auto weapons are ideal for hunting because they allow rapid follow-up shots in case the first shot doesn't work as well. For sport they're far and beyond the best for anything short of ultra-long range shooting because it's a lot more fun to shoot semi-auto. Though to be fair there IS something to be said for working the action of a bolt or lever gun too.

Can you explain why semi-auto WOULDN'T be the best choice for any of those things?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[fredgiblet]

Correction: Assault RIFLE is a legitimate term, Assault WEAPON is not. Assault Rifle comes from the SturmGewehr rifle from WW2 and has a specific definition that includes "selective-fire" which semi-auto guns are not.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[fredgiblet]

As a point of order both of the civilian uses there were pre-NFA, since the NFA automatic weapons haven't been popular with criminals.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[fredgiblet]

They already blocked the Liberator's files, not that it removed them from the internet.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[DogDude]

The government FORCES companies to make DVD players to not allow certain bits to be skipped.

Good luck with your First World problems. Sure does sound like you have it tough. [rolls eyes]

Re: Militant Slashdot

[chihowa]

You appear to have missed the part about the governments that attempt to enact such social engineering having tanks and planes to kill you with before your guns have a chance to mean a damn thing.

Assuming that your only interface with the enemy will be through your strongest and most defensible position is the sort of idiocy that has permeated the arrogant US military since at least as early as Vietnam. It's especially idiotic when the 'enemy' lives in your own country and is indistinguishable from yourself. A rebellion would likely involve very little shooting at tanks and planes with .22 rifles. However, the supply chain that keeps those tanks and planes functioning is enormous, intertwined with civilian infrastructure, and extremely difficult to protect from within.

I'm not weighing in on the whole "we have guns to use against the government" debate... I'm just pointing out that your tired old argument doesn't reflect reality very well. I mean, supply chain issues aside... history tells us that bombing and shelling cities full of your own civilians doesn't exactly instill a sense of gratitude and acceptance toward the government. Quelling an urban guerrilla rebellion is more of a police action and would primarily use small arms.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[harrkev]

How about unarmed people being shot by the police. Is that 3rd world enough for you? [rolls eyes]

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

The moment that the US military bombs a US city would mark the quick and inevitable end of the US government. If people heard on the new that {insert US city} was bombed because it "contained rebels", would they really just go about their day?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Viewsonic]

One thing you failed to mention, AR-15s are incredibly easy to turn into automatic. I know, i've seen it done and used one. It takes all of a few minutes to change it from legal to illegal destroy that spare fridge and mod it back to legal again. I'm not sure how easy it is for other guns like this, but I was pretty amazed to see this in person. As a small kid at the time, it was the coolest thing ever. As an adult, it's the most terrifying thing ever.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[chihowa]

Automatic weapons like a belt-fed .50 machine gun are terrifying because they are mounted and can sustain fire for long enough to mow a bunch of people down. If you actually fired that modified AR-15, you probably emptied the magazine pretty quickly, hit the target a couple of times and spewed the rest of the rounds up above the target.

Fully automatic fire, especially from a light hand-held rifle with a magazine filled with so-so .223 rounds, is pretty crappy at actually hitting anything. It was used for suppressing fire until the military decided that it was nothing but wasteful and changed it to burst-fire. If all of the criminals made their little pistols fully automatic, the homicide rate would probably go down and they would go broke buying ammunition.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Karmashock, I wouldn't use your lack of cowardice against you. It would be a hard argument to make, for two reasons. One, cowardice is usually considered a bad thing, while bravery is a virtue. Hard to make a case there. Two, among your other faults, I actually do think you are a coward. You cravenly avoid a lot of discussion of your faults and seek to conceal your errors under a lot of thunder and lightning.

I don't think you lack cowardice any more than I think you lack arrogance.

But no, other than yours, there is one other reply to my post that contained reply to yours. Any other replies to my posts, whatever they may be, wont change that. And both you and they ignored some of the important questions asked. I would actually say that at best Golddess tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but gave no response that conflicted or challenged mine, they even failed to address the matters I brought up for you to examine in a real debate. I might credit them with no particular malice on that last, assuming they are a real person and not your sockpuppet, a possibility I cannot dismiss as of yet, but your lack was deliberate and willfull, with stated reasons that say a lot more about you than me. We'll see if they have a further reply, and if it even approaches the reasonable though. If they don't respond, it won't mean much though, there are other explanations, but it is possible to learn a lot if they do choose to respond. You, however, have responded in a manner sufficient to show that I was correct, that you don't want a debate of any kind.

Still, I did learn from your choice of replies, it is a practice of yours, not hard to spot as it is repeated. Not have I noticed a paucity of other anonymous persons behaving the same way. Such patterns are not themselves uncommon, and the character of them does not depend overmuch on having an account behind it or not.

Frankly, what would be unusual is you, or anyone else, taking the time to think about this subject without following the path you consistently choose where you don't actually show much thought or consideration yet portray yourself as if you were supremely correct to the point where no debate should even have happened.

You should know better though. But if you want to prove yourself better, then just take the time to go over some of the questions I did ask without your usual histrionics.

Show some real thought. Because you know what? That could show you do care, rather than incessantly proclaiming your indifference. But it is really fear you show. Fear of thinking. So like an animal you try for a bold display of aggression. A common tactic.

Too bad for you that doesn't work all the time. But you could at least see when it fails. If you opened your brain.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing, but the US Military is forbidden from fighting within the US, for that it has to be national guard or militias called up from the armed populus.

I think you may be somewhat in error here. First, the Posse Comitatus Act, to which I believe you are referring (and if not, please do tell me what you think does apply), does not entirely prohibit the US Military from fighting within the US, it merely provides that such must be done with the approval of Congress, or within the authority of the Constitution. However, you will note that the US military still swears "against all enemies, foreign and domestic” so it is still their sworn duty. Even the provision that Congress can override it is near meaningless, as courts have long held that Congress cannot bind its own hands. What one Congress can do, another can undo.

Further, a bit of examination of the times shows that the Act, had a more than a little questionable purpose, as it was put forth right after Reconstruction, and was basically allowing the Southern governments to continue to be repressive and discriminatory, under what was a putatively noble guise of preventing federal suppression. But the reality was that it let the white supremacists of the South free to oppress while being unchecked. Given that the Democratic Party at the time was pandering to those white supremacists in order to keep their Congressional Majority, it should be no surprise either. The only oddity was that it was a Republican president who signed off on it, probably because he sought his own interests over those of his party, or even moral rectitude. I will at least give him credit for not allowing the Enforcement Acts to be repealed, but it amounted to little, since Congress refused to fund the required marshals. So net result, at best, a hollow victory. That meant no way to stop a multitude of abuses.

So instead, we got decades of Segregation, and even now, people refuse to see its pernicious grasp today.

Huzzah. What a wonderful world we live in. God is just, but our laws are the works of Man.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[blindseer]

The term "assault rifle" is a military designation for a type of small arm. An assault rifle is a rifle chambered in a cartridge with a range and/or power less than a "battle rifle" but greater than a typical handgun. Such weapons typically have a selector switch that enables semi-auto or three round burst functions. Some early weapons of this type were capable of switching between full-auto and semi-auto but this is rare today. Some common cartridges for such weapons are 5.56 NATO, .30 Carbine, and 7.62x39mm.

For clarity a "battle rifle" is a relatively large caliber rifle, typically about .30 caliber, with semi-auto capability. A "machine gun" is both a military designation and a BATFE legal designation with slightly different meanings. In the military a machine gun is a weapon capable of firing battle rifle cartridges in fully automatic mode. Military machine guns may have a burst or semi-auto feature but this is rare. As defined by the BATFE a machine gun is any firearm capable of firing more than one cartridge by a single action of a trigger. To the BATFE a worn out double barrel shotgun that fires both barrels with one trigger pull is a "machine gun", as is any military designated "assault rifle" due to the three round burst feature. To the BATFE the caliber of the weapon is not part of the machine gun definition, any cartridge will do.

The term "assault weapon" (as opposed to assault RIFLE) is a nearly meaningless term. It's definition varies from state to state and from time to time. All it really means is "what we want to ban today". The weapon used at Sandy Hook did not meet the definition of "assault weapon" in Connecticut law even though it may have met that definition if it were in California. Some common features to the definition to an "assault weapon" are some rather silly features like bayonet lugs (because drive by stabbings is a problem I guess) or threaded barrel ends (used to attach safety devices like report suppressors and flash hiders but the powers that be focus on the ability to attach a grenade launcher).

To add further silliness to all of this is the term "personal defense weapon". This is a term that also has several meanings depending on who you ask. In the military a PDW would be something like a P90, a weapon that fires pistol caliber cartridges in three round burst or semi-auto and comes standard with a 50 round magazine. To the Department of Homeland Security a commonly used PDW is the M4 Carbine. To the military the M4 Carbine is an assault rifle. To the BATFE the M4 Carbine is a "machine gun" if capable of three round burst, or a "short barreled rifle" if semi-auto only. Of course most every state in the USA would classify this as an "assault weapon".

Interesting isn't it? The same weapon, in this case the M4 Carbine, gets different designations not based solely on who is holding it at the time. In the hands of a Marine it's an "assault rifle". In the hands of a DHS agent it's a "personal defense weapon". In the hands of the people that pay their salary with taxes it can be a "machine gun", "assault weapon", "short barreled rifle", or (my favorite) an "offensive weapon".

What is an "offensive weapon"? Hell if I know. Best I can tell is that it is something that some politicians decided offended their sensibilities at some point in the past, therefore they banned their possession by anyone not earning a government paycheck. The term "offensive weapon" has just about the same meaning as "assault weapon". I expect that given time the term "assault weapon" will be discredited enough that the term "offensive weapon" will regain popularity with the powers that be that wish to disarm us.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[erapert]

The key difference between French fries and assault rifles is that the later's only purpose is to make killing people easier.

How does this change the fact that more people die from being fat (French Fries) than from being shot?
It doesn't.
So your sad attempt at moving the goal posts or changing the topic is... sad.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[drinkypoo]

Why did 3D printing turn Slashdot into a haven for militant gun nuts? What about 3D printed things that aren't designed to kill people?

It's about gun control, and besides, a 9mm is not for killing people. It's about stopping a threat.

9mm is almost as lethal as a .45 ACP, according to the charts. Not quite, but damned close. Hence the BHP in 9mm following the 1911...

Yes, but 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. Compare that to being shot with a hunting caliber rifle; that was my comparison.

Handguns are used in over 80% of all gun murders. Besides, The .22 is plenty deadly.

Can you read? I wrote 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. That has nothing to do with your statistic.

It doesn't? My statistic shows that you're attempting to use an insignificant statistic to make a point; you can't make a significant point that way. It doesn't matter how many handgun shootings are lethal if your goal is to prove whether handguns are lethal. What matters is how many murders are completed with handguns, and the answer is both "plenty" and "most of them". You said that a 9mm was not for killing people; my response was that most people get killed with handguns, and that the ordinary average legacy 9mm parabellum round is perfectly good at that, almost as good as bigger bullets that we think of as being more deadly like the .45 ACP. You said fuck-all about rifle rounds until later. You failed to quote to attempt to hide the fact. Want to try again, or will you shake your fist and scowl instead?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[SNRatio]

The ideology of civilian disarmament depends on constantly keeping people terrified of sensationalized emotional and irrational fallacies. That's not a behavior pattern frequently found in hardcore tech folks.

Now that's really, really funny. Irrational fallacy? objective thinking? Violent crime has been steadily decreasing, yet slashdotters continually yammer on about how much they need guns to protect themselves. And no, violent crime isn't decreasing because everyone is defending themselves with guns: the percentage of homes with guns has actually been decreasing for 40 years. Also - who exactly are the victims of violent crimes? Most common: criminals. Second most common: young black males. Third most common: older black males. What percentage of slashdotters talking about how they are going to defend themselves with guns fall into those categories? Much more likely that they fall into the socioeconomic categories where their family is at a very low risk of victimization from outside the home - low enough so that spousal violence, child suicide, and other family based tragedies are at least as significant a risk. And quite a few seem to have delusions of persecution about the gubmint coming for their guns at least as deep as those of the the black helicopter crowd.

How about this: People enjoy gear of all sorts, and enjoy talking about it: from guns to bikes to gaming PCs. People also enjoy fantasizing about being badasses. All well and good, and I have no objections to people responsibly owning and using guns. But people also prefer feeling safe and feeling they are in control - and when something gives them those feelings they don't always take an actuarial approach to risk analysis to see if those feelings are justified. And I think most folks' claims that they are safer with a gun than without one are hogwash.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Okay, thanks for explaining, but can you address the actual arguments being put forward? Particularly the point about the kinds of weapons used in those crimes not being particularly useful for self defence or hunting or even sport, and thus banning them not being too burdensome. Also the bit about what the limit is on the constitutional right, i.e. where the line is between "pea shooter" and "nuke".

OK, let me see:

People keep shooting up schools and other public places with automatic weapons.

No they don't. Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance.

Such weapons are not that useful for hunting,

I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've never been hunting. If I go by what you actually said, yes, automatic weapons wouldn't be all that useful for hunting. Semi-automatic weapons are very useful for hunting. If you're hunting migratory birds like geese or ducks, a semi-auto shotgun is much better, because, when you have an entire flock of birds coming in on your blind, you want to be able to get your shots off as quickly as possible. Same thing with varmint hunting like prairie dogs. Even with bigger game like deer, a semi-auto allows for a quicker follow-up shot if you miss with the first.

and of somewhat dubious value for self defence...

As said below, self-defense practically requires semi-auto. For home defense against a single attacker, a pump-action shotgun might suffice, but even then, semi-auto would be preferable.

Addressing your actual arguments is rather difficult, because your arguments are based around "Nobody needs automatic weapons - they're just used for shooting up schools." You make an argument based on ignorance and falsehoods, and then point out that I didn't address your points.

As for drawing the line somewhere between pea shooters and nukes - that line should be drawn by someone who actually knows what they're talking about - in other words, not you.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Tom]

All the high tech tanks and planes of the USA military proved useless against a determined insurgency in Vietnam. The Russians encountered the same thing in Afghanistan, as did the Israelis in their occupation of Lebanon.

I don't need a book to know that.

Now look at Vietnam, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Would you like to live there? The Vietnam war ended around the time I was born, and they still are suffering through its aftermath. Afghanistan and Lebanon will not be rebuilt for at least two generations.

If the USA government can't defeat a few thousand lightly armed insurgents in a country the size of Afghanistan, how are they going to fight a few million similarly armed U.S. citizens in a country 12x (lower 48 states) the size?

If you seriously think that lazy americans who freak out completely when 3000 people die in a terror attack would stand 10% of an Afghan war equivalent, you are seriously deluded.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Tom]

Actually, nations with lawfully armed populaces that are subjected to such social engineering for political desires by the ruling elites... tend to shoot the ruling elites and elect or coronate new ones.

Bwuahahahahahahaha... Huahahaha.... omg.... hihihih... bwuahahhhahahaa

In which fantasy world?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Tom]

history tells us that bombing and shelling cities full of your own civilians doesn't exactly instill a sense of gratitude and acceptance toward the government.

Even the most oppressive and tyrannical governments on the planet very, very rarely need to do that.

Look at tyrannies around the globe. You don't see tanks on every corner. You just need to have them, and bring them in once a decade to remind people.

Rebellions rarely have a whole city rising up in unison. They usually start small and if the government can ROFLstomp the whole thing before it has more than a hundred or so people in it - remember Waco? They probably thought the rest of the US would rally in their support, defend their freedoms and get out the guns. What makes you think your "freedom fighters" group will be different?

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Tom]

You assume the military would side with a tyrannical government, which is questionable

But you assume the situation would be "US military vs. US citizen".

In reality, it would be "Police and FBI supported by military specialists are rooting out a cell of terrorists"

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Tom]

This exactly. One of the very rare ACs that deserve to be modded up.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Nope, it's not "incredibly" easy to convert a AR-15 to fully automatic.

Older receivers were easier but still required permanent modifications that made the receiver a "machine gun" in the eyes of the law, with no way to restore it, short of welding (and welding aluminium is tricky).

Modern receivers require machining and quite a number of different small parts to become fully automatic. Now, is that machining particularly difficult? No, but then again, if you have the tools and knowledge to do that, building a fully automatic firearm from scratch is "easy", as it's not particularly difficult to do without such knowledge and tools (the Sten only cost a quid or two to manufacture during WWII for a reason).

So, yes, as an adult you should be terrified as the difference between a semi auto receiver and non registered fully automatic one is ten years in jail and a $100,000 fine. As others have already mentioned, a fully automatic assault rifle isn't measurably more dangerous in trained hands than a semi auto one. The fully automatic fire is only really effective in the assault, to basically provide your own covering fire, and since that tactic a) haven't been popular with infantry forces in the past several decades, and b) is only useful against an armed and prepared opponent anyway (i.e. it's superflous/not applicable in most civilian settings), there isn't really much extra effect to be had from fully automatic capability. (The one semi recent such shooting we've had in Sweden with an assault rifle, the perpetrator didn't actually use the fully automatic capability much. In the more recent Norwegian case, the weapon didn't have any fully automatic capability, and that of course had no discernible bearing on the outcome.

That's of course not to say that its a good thing that crazy people have easy access to capable firearms, but whether your efforts should be aimed at the "capable firearm" or "crazy" that's not at all clear. We have very strict weapons regulations in Sweden, and that obviously haven't had one bit of effect on the recent spree of shootings; with fully automatic AK-47 type rifles that were fired on automatic in one case even. But again it's not clear that the automatic fire had any effect that the same volume of semi automatic fire wouldn't have had. It's as others have said, probably the other way around. (And in China petrol and knives have been used in lieu of a firearm, so there's no simple solution, like the people so singularly set on banning guns would have you believe.)

Re: Militant Slashdot

[chihowa]

You appear to be in vigorous agreement with me. I was responding to a post which claimed that the government would use tanks and planes against the citizenry, making small arms useless. I was claiming that any government action would be more police-like in reality.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Lord Kano]

While I agree with most of it, I have a small nit to pick with your comment.

The only reason the US Military uses 5.56x45 instead of 7.62x54 (the old .308 Springfield cartridge that got your (great)grandfather through World War II)

.308 is .308 Winchester, not Springfield.
30-06 was Springfield.
The dimensions of those cartridges is 7.62x51mm for .308 and 7.62x63 for 30-06.

Otherwise, your analysis is spot on.

LK

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Lord Kano]

1986, but close enough for government work.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[ValentineMSmith]

Sorry. Brain wedgie on my part. You're correct!

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Lord Kano]

There is an outfit selling 80% Glock-clone lowers now too... which will turn out to be a FAR better firearm.

I'm seriously considering buying one of these. I wasn't aware of them before I saw your post.

I estimate that for around $500, one could build their own Glock clone. That's not bad at all.

LK

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Lord Kano]

I love the mental gymnastics Americans perform in order to justify why they are entitled to carry a weapon that kills people.

Mental gymnastics?

Because I want to is all the reason I need.

LK

Re: Militant Slashdot

[mr_mischief]

There have been isolated incidents of the MAC-10, TEC-9, the Skorpion, and the Kalishnikov being used in LA by gangs. Those I'm not sure end up with four or more shot and they're gang-related rather than the "targeted facility" mass shootings people keep worrying about. It's definitely the exception, I think even before the NFA.

Re:Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I lived and worked in bear country doing maintenance on logging equipment in a previous life, and yes I did carry a hunting rifle...fired it twice to scare away bears.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a rather elaborate conspiracy theory to explain something that is actually rather simple and obvious.

Civilian disarmament has been one of the goals of a certain influential segment within US politics for decades. They've just wised up and now use less obvious language, with a few exceptions like Sen. Feinstein, who has an effective lock on reelection.

Such weapons...didn't exist when the constitution was written, and the right to bear arms clearly has some limits (no nukes, no cluster bombs etc.). Banning them seems both reasonable, legal and unlikely to cause any real harm to hunters and shooting enthusiasts.

This idea comes up here repeatedly despite being easily refuted. First, simply reading the writings of those involved in discussion about the 2nd amendment around the time of ratification is enough to clearly establish that the civilian populace was expected to have parity with a typical infantry soldier. The practical rationale for that includes easing transition into, and interoperability with, a standing army. This is the basis for the term "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment. Note that standard issue for a foot soldier does not not include nukes, cluster bombs, nor even grenades (those are typically issued based on a mission).

Second, the idea that any natural right explicitly affirmed within the Bill of Rights should only apply to that which existed at the time is fundamentally flawed. By this reasoning, 4th Amendment rights against warrantless search should not apply to your laptop or smart phone. Additionally, 3rd Amendment rights against quartering troops should not apply to federal marshals or FBI agents, as they are neither "troops" as it was understood at the time, nor did they exist at the time. It's ridiculously easy to find further examples of just how broken this aspect of your position is.

Thirdly, the intent of the 2nd Amendment doesn't involve the "right to track and take game". My largest gripe with the NRA is that for many years they focused on "hunting rights" due to political expedience, to the detriment of the general problem of the natural right to keep and bear arms. This meme now persists in the language of anti-gun politicians like Martin O'Malley who recently touted Maryland gun restriction legislation that didn't interfere with hunters.

Finally, there is a means for us to achieve your desired end described within the Constitution itself - amend it. It's quite difficult to do so, and that is mercifully by design.

- T

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Particularly the point about the kinds of weapons used in those crimes not being particularly useful for self defence or hunting or even sport, and thus banning them not being too burdensome.

First, the kinds of weapons used in those crimes (from prior posts, meaning mass shootings), includes semi-automatic handguns, as in the VA Tech mass shooting, which was one of the deadliest with 32 fatalities (plus the shooter). One of the two handguns used by that shooter can utilize 15-round magazines (and he had at least one of those), and the other handgun used 10-round magazines, but no analysis I've seen has found that low-capacity magazines would have reduced the carnage (and I didn't see how it would, either, when I had examined the events back then). So the "kinds of weapons" you'd have to eliminate would leave law-abiding civilians with nothing more than manually cycled long guns (e.g., lever-action rifles, pump-action shotguns, and so on) and (maybe) revolvers.

Second, other posters have ably refuted the position that such firearms have little value with respect to hunting, sport, and self defense. However, I would say that's almost moot. The bar for a government banning anything should be high (being outside the US, you might see it differently). Moreover, the bar for banning something intrinsic to a natural right, and especially a right explicitly affirmed in the Constitution, should be extremely high. The combination of "dangerous item" and "not a burdensome ban" doesn't even come close to clearing the merely high bar, in my opinion.

Third, although mass shootings with "assault weapons" tend to get overwhelming media coverage, US fatalities from all long guns (not just AR-15s and the like) are a small percentage of US gun fatalities. Also, an AR-15 (or similar firearm) is actually a sub-optimal tactical choice for attack on large undefended soft targets. Such weapons are chosen because of similarity to the M-16 and M-4, because of inertia (due to media coverage, the prior malcontents seem to favor them), and because most of these shooters get their firearms knowledge from video games or Hollywood movies. So, the focus on such firearms is misguided, at best.

Also the bit about what the limit is on the constitutional right, i.e. where the line is between "pea shooter" and "nuke".

I addressed this in a different response to you, but in a nutshell, the approximate intent was parity with an infantryman.

- T

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Karmashock]

I know it is a good thing but you do anyway. You use the fact that I have a record against me while of course be shielded from counter claims against your own record because you are a coward.

No ad hominem from you will be accepted. We're going to skip over any other reference to me or you because neither is relevant to the discussion. And even if they were, you are personally unable to make any argument of that nature being an AC. End of story. ... reading through your post to see if you have anything to say that isn't an ad hominem... nothing.

Your post is null. Try again.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Tanks are planes are not as effective as one would think. Look at our last couple of wars if you want examples....

Re: Militant Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. It happens, just like people getting killed by baseball bats happens, but it's not something that's common enough to really worry about.

Re: Militant Slashdot

[mr_mischief]

Actually baseball bats are more commonly used in assaults than rifles.

Most firearms homicides are with pistols of some sort, not rifles or shotguns.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/c...

Further, most firearms deaths are suicides.:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

Further, homicides are a poor indicator of how many crimes are committed with different weapons:
http://blogs.theadvocate.com/b...

Ah well.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's gotta be a good thing, enabling more Americans to kill each other, I'm not seeing a downside.

Re:Ah well.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, you must be one of those European dipshits. Americans can already buy guns, so 3D printed guns are an engineering challenge, not a tool for murderers.

It's you stupid non-Americans that should fear the 3D printed gun. Your silly little laws that you believe protect you won't last for long in the face of homemade weapons.

Re:Ah well.

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out the "and Americans are already killing each other in droves" part.

--American dipshit living in Europe.

Re:Ah well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars, medicine and alcohol-tobacco are killing hundreds of thousands of people every year in US. Gun deaths is miniscule. Even knive stabbings kill more people.

Re:Ah well.

[rickb928]

"Your silly little laws that you believe protect you won't last for long in the face of immigrant violence and economic collapse"

FTFY

Re:Ah well.

[rickb928]

Mostly in five cities. Five.

Which is an indictment of the politicians that both supervise and permit this.

Re:Ah well.

[Anonymous Coward]

You left out the "and Americans are already killing each other in droves" part.

Except we're not. Pay more attention to what's happening, and less attention to what's being constantly hyped in the news, and you'll realize that.

Re:Ah well.

[fredgiblet]

There was a spike in 2015, but before that we were at the lowest murder rate since the late 60s. I'd hazard a guess that most people in the US literally don't know a single person that's been murdered, I sure don't, though admittedly I'm not very social. I know one person that committed suicide and another that almost certainly did the same, no one that was murdered. The reality is that we are safer than we've been in decades, but since we've got 350+ million people there's still enough going on to fill the news, and since fear sells that what they put on.

How is this newsworthy?

[Jack Griffin]

3D printer prints some parts of a gun, but none of the important bits. Who gives a fuck, seriously?
But wait, 3D printing!!!

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess when someone releases a good design for an open source 3D printed suicide vest that will be newsworthy.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[gman003]

Well, which parts are "important"?

For someone trying to make an all-3d-printed gun (perhaps to prove or improve the technology), it's the barrel, chamber, firing pin, and so on, the functional bits that are placed under the most stress. For them, using metal, particularly finely-machined metal parts, quite defeats the purpose. The only parts they might even consider making out of metal would be the ones plastic is literally unable to do, like the firing pin or springs - and even then, they'd try to make it out of some simple, readily-available part you can find at Home Depot.

For someone trying to bypass firearms laws, the important part is whichever one is legally deemed the "firearm", usually the receiver. You can buy barrels, recoil springs, magazines, grips, sights, and all sorts of other fiddly bits as spare parts, which are legally no different than a spare tire for your car. If you designed a 3d-printed receiver that worked with existing spare parts, you've worked around those pesky laws. (I personally find that law, at least, to be quite reasonable, but some people seem to want to work around it as a matter of principle).

And of course, to the person who's actually interested in shooting guns, rather than writing angry comments about them on the internet, the important part is whatever breaks most readily on your particular gun and needs replacement. I expect historical firearms shooters would be quite interested in being able to print parts once considered disposable, or which frequently are damaged, like clips. Or better yet, print brass casings for all those guns whose cartridges are no longer produced. There are many, many guns in collections that can't be fired not because they are old or damaged, but because the ammunition is so scarce. (There are many more problems than just forming the brass, obviously, and I don't think 3D-printing is a particularly good solution for it, but maybe I'm wrong and 3D printing will eventually help).

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[i.r.id10t]

For someone trying to bypass firearms laws, the important part is whichever one is legally deemed the "firearm", usually the receiver. You can buy barrels, recoil springs, magazines, grips, sights, and all sorts of other fiddly bits as spare parts, which are legally no different than a spare tire for your car. If you designed a 3d-printed receiver that worked with existing spare parts, you've worked around those pesky laws. (I personally find that law, at least, to be quite reasonable, but some people seem to want to work around it as a matter of principle).

How is followign the law trying to bypass a firearm law? While making for your own self is legal, it is NOT legal if you are a "prohibited person" when it comes to firearm ownership.

And of course, to the person who's actually interested in shooting guns, rather than writing angry comments about them on the internet, the important part is whatever breaks most readily on your particular gun and needs replacement. I expect historical firearms shooters would be quite interested in being able to print parts once considered disposable, or which frequently are damaged, like clips. Or better yet, print brass casings for all those guns whose cartridges are no longer produced. There are many, many guns in collections that can't be fired not because they are old or damaged, but because the ammunition is so scarce. (There are many more problems than just forming the brass, obviously, and I don't think 3D-printing is a particularly good solution for it, but maybe I'm wrong and 3D printing will eventually help).

Forming brass is trivial if there is a suitable parent case. Suitable can mean "same diameter rim and case head size and perfectly straight". Of course you need accurate case dimensions but you can cast the chamber and take measurements if you have something totally unknown, and then have a custom set of forming and reloading dies made. Unfortunately, the really weird stuff is primer dependent - the various obsolete rimfire rounds (44 rimfire for old Henry rifles, etc) or pinfire rounds.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, however, for countries that ban guns, or strongly limit ownership of them, limiting metal parts to items that typically bear no relation to firearms is an important goal. By doing so, such countries either have to update their backwards laws or face a black market very much supplying to criminals (with dangerous intent) first.

In other words, Canadians are getting closer daily to simply printing an easily built illegal gun. Perhaps in 20 years we will be at the point every robber in Canada will be armed with these and the government will have little choice but to give us the right to bear any arms.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[ScentCone]

we will be at the point every robber in Canada will be armed with these and the government will have little choice but to give us the right to bear any arms

Governments don't give rights, they either protect them, or they infringe upon them. What you're looking for is the Canadian government ceasing to infringe on that right.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[melted]

The important bit there is the barrel, by far the hardest thing to make by hand. The barrel is not considered to be "the gun", and you can buy it online without any regulation. If you can then print a decent lower at home, you have your own firearm.

Not that there's anything wrong with having a firearm, of course. If you really want one, you can build a shotgun out of $30 worth of parts from your local Home Depot.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[localman]

Yes, but oftentimes they protect some people's rights by infringing on other people's rights. It's only as simple as you make it sound when there's no conflicting interests. Which there are lots and lots of in any decent sized and reasonably diverse group.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[LifesABeach]

Could the Derwood make a piezoelectric motor?

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[amiga3D]

I can literally buy a real gun for less than the price of a 3d printer any time I want one. The people that like to do these designs do it mainly for the cool factor or just to piss off all the anti-gun people. Maye both reasons for some.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[dbIII]

For someone trying to make an all-3d-printed gun

Also known as a hand grenade, with a slight difference to the usual meaning of the term in it blowing up the hard of the person firing it. ABS plastic is a worse choice than many types of wood for the bits that have to deal with high pressure gas.
Laser metal sintering is looking like a different story since it's getting close to zero porosity - so none of those holes that plagued cannon builders over the ages. Any gun small enough has been made out of forged metal for a reason.

Or better yet, print brass casings for all those guns whose cartridges are no longer produced

Brass is very easy to work even with hand tools and a 3D printed replacement would have to be something different to the original since most of the strength comes from working the brass. I used to work with a guy that made his own cartridges from lengths of brass tube. I think you've hit a situation where 3D printing adds complications and expense instead of reducing it.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[ScentCone]

You're missing the point. Rights exist, naturally. They are not "given to you" by a government. A society may indeed gather together and write a constitution that decides that they will, as a group, choose to infringe on certain liberties (say, the liberty to ship goods without being taxed) ... but that's the government infringing on rights (though with the approval of the legislature/citizens, as ratified in a constitution or other charter).

Whether or not there are conflicting interests doesn't change the fact that the rights don't originate with the government.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

You make a solid point, and I completely agree. Though with just how ridiculous the number of laws are that we have to deal with every day, one quickly loses sight of the this fact.

I returned from a long trip in the US to Ontario and, despite rather silly liquor laws in the US, that living in Ontario still means not really being free. What reminded me of this?

The latest "freedom" here is being able to buy 6-pack beers (no other sizes) in a supermarket (Yes "a", not the, because maybe one in twenty were so graciously given the right to sell), which have to be checked out at just one checkout (not any). Sigh. And I thought it was frustrating figuring out what phase of the moon each state was going by as to when a grocery store could sell you beer (at any checkout, even the self checkout, and in any size or number). I won't even get into the "prescription medicine" 190 proof swill I brought back with me (The clerks at Spec's laughed their asses off when I mentioned it), except to say that it really does require a signed prescription from a doctor to buy here.

I suppose firearms are just another nail in the coffin of freedom here.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, your comment didn't include any references to Bitcoin.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[slashdot_commentator]

Firearm law avoidance, like tax avoidance, is not illegal activity.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

> but that's the government infringing on rights (though with the approval of the legislature/citizens, as ratified in a constitution or other charter).

Do you really think it makes sense that even a majority of the people in a society can decide that it's alright to tax everyone? If it actually worked that way, governments wouldn't have to threaten people with imprisonment to get their money. That's how you can tell there is no consent. It's all horseshit.

If governments were such a great deal for us, they wouldn't have to force us to fund them. Your average neighbourhood mafia has to force people to give them money too.

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[dunkelfalke]

Wrong. The only right that exists naturally is "might is right". Everything else comes from a society.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

The important bit there is the barrel, by far the hardest thing to make

I find this highly unlikely.

by hand.

Oh, yea... but you can make a barrel for a handgun on even the smallest lathe you can buy for $549.99 at Harbor Freight. Drill a hole through a piece of steel bar smaller than the calibre, line-bore it to calibre, bore out the breach, and you've got yourself a barrel; an illegal barrel mind you, until you rifle it, and rifling it is the hardest and least necessary part if you just want to make yourself an illegal firearm.

I'm sure I could even figure out how to rifle a barrel on my lathe, but I'd need to build something to move the carriage as there's no way the lead screw is spinning that fast relative the spindle.

Sadly, much as I'd like to build myself a handgun, for the challenge and intricacy of it, I don't live in a country as liberal as the US, and it's a line I'm not willing to cross. I'll just have to stick to making clocks and scientific instruments. I have no idea how I'd go about drilling and line-boring a rifle barrel, which is the only sort of firearm we're allowed to own in these parts. It piques my curiosity though, as other times I've tried to drill similarly crazy aspect ratios as a rifle barrel, it's been impossible to maintain any sort of concentricity.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[jandersen]

Governments don't give rights...

I think you would be taken more serious if you didn't simply issue this kind of dogmatic crap. Basically, you only have a 'right' to something if you are able to hold on to it; if you want to live in a society - or any group - your right are limited by what that group allows you. You can leave the group if that doesn't suit you; but to be part of the group and enjoy the benefits of it, you have to accept the limits imposed by the relationship with the group. You may think that picking up arms is a way to take more rights from the group, but I don't think it is a fruitful strategy in the long run, since you will have to be on your guard 24x7; and your actual freedom will less than what you would have had otherwise.

But you are right - governments don't give rights - society does. You can call it 'infringement' if you like, but it isn't, really, it is simply part of the price you pay for being in a given group. It is of course very reasonable to argue for changes to the rules - it has obvious benefits for the group that its members do so, but dogmatic arguments are weak. It would be better to argue in a way that people can relate to intelligently.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Not everyone can; in most European countries guns are strictly regulated. But it sure looks like 3d printed guns are improving; I expect that they will soon be more reliable than what a regular person can cobble together himself. Not reliable enough to fire 100 rounds at the range every week, and certainly not better than real guns, but better than a baseball bat for home defense in countries where you're not allowed to have a firearm of any kind.

Of course for this design you'll still need a barrel, which is a strictly controlled part in such countries, and which can't be 3d-printed reliably even for .22lr rounds. Oh, and you'll need ammo. Not easy to get either. Unless you manage to convince that Romanian bloke in the pub down the road. And in that case he'll probably sell you a perfectly good "real" firearm as well.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but oftentimes they protect some people's rights by infringing on other people's rights. It's only as simple as you make it sound when there's no conflicting interests. Which there are lots and lots of in any decent sized and reasonably diverse group.

What 'conflicting interest' is there in my Right to bear arms?

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[drinkypoo]

Or better yet, print brass casings for all those guns whose cartridges are no longer produced.

But we're nowhere near being able to do that cost-effectively. For any significant number of casings it would literally be cheaper to go back into production on them. That will be true for the foreseeable future since 3d printers physically do not make the kind of structures wanted.

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[drinkypoo]

Wrong. The only right that exists naturally is "might is right". Everything else comes from a society.

Amen! The idea of "natural rights" is a stupid one. There are no such things, precisely as you say. That's why society is important, but this escapes many people who think they are an island and thus that socialism is a bad word.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

We have the right to bear arms. Just like we have the right to drive cars. We just to it not insanely i.e. require a license.

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[drinkypoo]

Are you insane. Plenty rights are natural. I use the "alone in a forest" test. Is it something you can do when you're alone in the forest? Yes, it's a natural right and the only way you don't have it is if somebody stops you from doing it.

That's not a right, that's just physics. Don't get it twisted. Rights are conventions that humans have invented. Physics just happens.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

License was first only for the professional truck and autobus drivers.
Only afterwards the greedy politicians put "tax" on the "driving right", and now we all have to own a "drivers licence".

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[rickb928]

You, my anonymous friend, are on the way to enlightenment. Stay the course.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[rickb928]

I will be making one for two reasons:

0. Because I can, as an intellectual exercise.

1. So that I can do it again, if needed, lest my government believe it can actually oppress me even further than it does now, and personally so.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is the neolithic need to hunt and to defend yourself, your family or tribe against others. In a modern society arms are useless.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitutions are the point, not the governments and the possibility to change the governments without a war. When was the last time that some gave you money without beeing forced to?

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[cyber-vandal]

If you have a better way to fund a developed nation with all the advantages you take for granted feel free to offer an alternative.

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[cyber-vandal]

Have you ever driven in a country where most drivers haven't had to pass a test? It's very scary.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[amiga3D]

I've noticed that a lot of criminals in European countries have little trouble finding firearms. If you don't give a shit about the law and have the cash you can get almost anything. You have to figure that if a person wants to murder someone he's not going to worry much about getting in trouble for having a pistol.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Hognoxious]

Rights exist, naturally. They are not "given to you" by a government.

So chimps, whales and baobab trees have the same ones as you do?

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[Jane Q. Public]

Amen! The idea of "natural rights" is a stupid one. There are no such things, precisely as you say. That's why society is important

This completely sidesteps the point. Would you rather live in a society that defines such rights as "natural rights" untouchable by government, or one that would allow government give or take away "rights" as it pleases?

Socialism, by and large, is a bad word. Even in those countries which have made a modicum of "socialism" actually work, like the Scandinavian countries, are not as "socialist" as many Americans seem to think. Look up Sweden, Denmark, and Norway in the Economic Freedom Index. In many ways they're more capitalist than the present United States.

Further, those countries have relatively small populations (smaller than many U.S. states and even some American metropolitan areas), and they have different historical social norms than the United States.

Further yet, in the 1990s, Sweden saw that even its modest amount of "socialism" was too much, and began to reverse course, moving toward LESS of a "welfare state". In the 20-some years they had been experimenting with it, they went from world's 4th per capita GDP to 14th. Now that they have further limited their taxation and "entitlement" programs, they are way back up again.

Denmark has had similar difficulties, and has taken some of the same steps toward solution (i.e., a bit back toward capitalism).

20 years ago, socialist Russia and China were dying. They were on the verge of mass starvation again. The only thing that has saved them -- and brought them back onstage as world-class economies -- was the adoption of more capitalism.

So yeah... socialism is a bad word. It has caused more misery and killed more people than capitalism ever has. Only a few countries have ever made much of it work, and even some of those have backtracked on it. Get on Twitter and ask Garry Kasparov. He'd be happy to tell you all about it.

And p-l-e-a-s-e don't try to tell me that "Democratic Socialism" is different. Tell that to the Greeks.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[fredgiblet]

If, for example, an "assault weapons" ban was passed then manufacturing and possibly possessing one would be illegal, so printing a lower for one would be breaking the law.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[fredgiblet]

We don't actually have a right to drive cars. Unless I missed an amendment to the Constitution or unless your state's one mentions it.

I wouldn't, in principle, be opposed to the idea of gun licenses as long as they were on a "shall issue" basis with actual USEFUL training and disqualifiers. The problem is that anti-gun people aren't interested in those things, and even if they were they've proven they can't be trusted. So giving a law that can be twisted is extraordinarily dangerous.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[chihowa]

Of course they do. Were you trying to employ a reductio ad absurdum argument?

We casually infringe on their natural rights because we want to and they (often) can't stop us. That we infringe on their natural rights doesn't mean that they don't exist, any more than it does when our government infringes on ours. We do the same thing to humans who live in different nations, and the established premise is that humans have natural rights.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[mattventura]

Since at least some government-provided services are non-excludable, then it's unfair to the people who DO choose to pay for them if the people who choose not to pay can just freeload.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Jack Griffin]

You're missing the point. Rights exist, naturally. They are not "given to you" by a government.

What a load of shit.
Without a government, you have no rights. Go live in a jungle sometime if you need a real world example. Animals rape, murder and steal from other animals whenever they feel like it, and none of them have rights.
Without a government, a society, a rule of law, etc there is no such thing as 'rights'.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Jack Griffin]

I'm not worried about the 3D gun printing, I'm more worried about the Slashdot submission editing.
I think we all know how 3D printing works now, do you we need be constantly reminded every fucking week? Is Slashdot owned by someone with financial interest in a 3D printing cartel or something?

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[drinkypoo]

This completely sidesteps the point. Would you rather live in a society that defines such rights as "natural rights" untouchable by government, or one that would allow government give or take away "rights" as it pleases?

They all do that. The only difference is the justification.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Jack Griffin]

Well, which parts are "important"?

The bullet :)

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[gman003]

I never claimed that it was. However, if a law is just, violating the spirit of the law while obeying the letter of it is unjust (and so for the inverse - following the spirit of a just law, while violating the letter, is just).

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[gman003]

I did a check of firearms law in Canada. There are very, very few guns that are wholly illegal there:
Machine guns or any other fully-automatic firearm
Pistols with a barrel under four inches
Long guns with a modified barrel under 18 inches, or under 26 inches length overall
Handguns in .25 or .32 caliber
Various other weapons specifically prohibited

#1 is completely sensible. There is no practical use for automatic weapons outside of the military. Even police do not have an actual need for them. Now, the American model of civilian machine-gun ownership (register, inspect and tax the crap out of) seems to be working just fine, and I could even get behind a repeal of the Hughes Amendment, but on the whole, a blanket ban on automatic guns is not a problem.

#2 and #3 are debatable. The purpose is obvious - to prohibit guns that are used chiefly for criminal activity, which requires that they be readily concealable. Their limit on pistol sizes seems rather low - even some 1911s would not meet this, and those are pretty beefy handguns. And they did seem to recognize that carbines have practical use, so they sensibly banned only modified short-barreled rifles/shotguns. There's room to argue over the specific definitions, but this is at least a sensible law in pursuit of a sensible goal.

#4 seems very peculiar to me. Those are very weak pistol cartridges, not something I would use for self-defense. At the same time, I don't expect they would be very popular with criminals - although, perhaps their low power makes them easier to produce for cheap, and criminals tend to favor cheap guns. If you don't have to actually shoot someone (eg. a mugging), it doesn't matter how lethal it actually is. So I'm not going to judge this one either way until I can find out what the rationale behind it it.

#5 is eminently sensible. Whenever you have laws like this, covering technical aspects, you need to be able to both cover the cases you couldn't think of (like taser-dart projectiles), and hold back the law where it would overreach (US laws allow weapons to be exempted from NFA Title II restrictions, not sure if Canada has similar means). A quick glance at the list of guns banned by name did reveal some surprises (all Kalashnikov-pattern rifles?), but many of them were sensible (Barrett M82).

Also noteworthy are some guns that were specifically placed on the "Restricted" list instead of the "Prohibited" list. Namely, any semi-automatic variant of the AR-15 - which means, with a license that seems easier to obtain than a passport, you can own several guns that were banned in the United States, at least until the AWB expired.

There's also the Non-Restricted class, which contains most long guns, and AFAICT requires no license. Considering a shotgun is by far the best weapon for home defense, this seems like a pretty easy way to defend yourself legally with almost no hassle.

So in other words, it seems the government of Canada does indeed respect your right to bear arms. I actually found more to be concerned with in their laws on melee weapons, many of which were pointless or mystifying.

PS: With the rampant availability of guns just south of the border, I have a very hard time believing that criminals will have substantially better access once 3D printing becomes commonplace. I'm sure any serious crook who wants a gun has made a trip down south to buy one, then smuggled it in. And with the quality of current printed guns, by making 3D-printed guns plentiful you would probably take more stupid crooks off the street (and into the hospital) than you would enable to commit crimes.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Hognoxious]

Do you know what they call a right that can't be practically enforced?

A wish.

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

This completely sidesteps the point. Would you rather live in a society that defines such rights as "natural rights" untouchable by government, or one that would allow government give or take away "rights" as it pleases?

Would I rather live in a society that has to answer to itself, for the consequences of its actions, or one that can pretend some external source is the one that bears responsibility? The latter is what too many on the natural rights side end up doing, the same with the "strict" Constitutionalists in the US. They use it to avoid dealing with an unjust situation. To make a problem into a responsibility outside themselves.

So no, speaking for myself, I detest the idea of natural rights as it manifests into a far more despicable practice.

Socialism, by and large, is a bad word.

Most -isms are, as they become windmills to joust against, rather than specific and clear things that can be discussed on their own merits.

Even in those countries which have made a modicum of "socialism" actually work, like the Scandinavian countries, are not as "socialist" as many Americans seem to think.

The thinking of most Americans tends to make you wonder if they ever seek to know anything beyond what they've been indoctrinated to believe, the same as many Russians and Chinese under "Communism" when that was their authoritarian ruler's banner.

Further yet, in the 1990s, Sweden saw that even its modest amount of "socialism" was too much, and began to reverse course, moving toward LESS of a "welfare state". In the 20-some years they had been experimenting with it, they went from world's 4th per capita GDP to 14th. Now that they have further limited their taxation and "entitlement" programs, they are way back up again.

Funny, I'm seeing Sweden at 16th-20th here.

Do you have some OTHER source? If so, what? (That isn't looking into tracking, just their current state, mind you...but if you want, I can dig up an Almanac.)

Not that I'd consider many of the other states ones to emulate, or even compare. Hong Kong, Monaco, Singapore, right out. And Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar? Pass on them too.

They are still high on the Where to be Born Index though. Of course, whatever their status, you'd need to back it up with specific actions and reactions on their part.

Of course, the ultimate problem is that you're just posting conjecture and opinion conclusions without facts. Was your math teacher remiss in teaching you to show your work? Did you not think that showing your work applies elsewhere?

It's a good lesson to learn.

20 years ago, socialist Russia and China were dying. They were on the verge of mass starvation again. The only thing that has saved them -- and brought them back onstage as world-class economies -- was the adoption of more capitalism.

Let's see, today is 2016. That means 20 years ago was 1996, right? At that point, the USSR had already dissolved, they were even competed separately in the Olympic Games, and China, well I don't recall any particular food crises there either. Or any evidence they were dying. The Japanese Recession, yes, I can find out about that. They call it the Lost Decade. What do you call what happened in China?

And Russia, well, giving up their empire was disruptive, and not just in the USSR, they let go of Eastern European interests as well. Not that it was the wrong thing to do, but it did have a severe price. Just giving up their military production was severe in its consequences.

Not that I'd favor either place all that greatly today, get on Twitter and ask Garry Kasparov yourself if Putin is a nice guy, or some of the Chinese dissents imprisoned in that country. Oh wait, scratch that latter.

Whatever they've done, no, I wouldn't say it has made the wor

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't actually have a right to drive cars. Unless I missed an amendment to the Constitution or unless your state's one mentions it.

I think you've missed the basic point of the GP, that governments don't grant rights. With respect to the original US Constitution with the Bill of Rights, there are some amendments which explicitly affirm some of the most important natural rights, as determined at the time.

Let's use a silly, yet illustrative, example: Do you have the natural right to pick your nose? That won't be found explicitly affirmed in the US Constitution, and I'm sure (without looking) that it is also absent from any of the state constitutions. However, because governments have legitimate (not to be confused with usurped) powers to infringe natural rights only to the extent that the people have granted such powers to the government, you do indeed have a natural right to pick your nose, as trivial as that may be.

You have the right to drive a car. You do NOT have a recognized right to drive it on public roadways where your abilities and the condition of the vehicle might endanger others using that shared resource, so there is licensing, registration, and so on. That does restrict the usefulness of a vehicle for unlicensed would-be drivers, but in most states if you have a large enough property (think farm/ranch), you can drive any vehicle on it without a license. You'll still need to title and possibly register the vehicle, but that is mostly for property taxes, not public safety.

I almost agree with your second paragraph. Just change gun license to bearer license. The problems aren't so much arising from the devices, but rather from some users. Just like with cars, we license the drivers, not the vehicles (though we sometimes use the term licensing as a synonym for registering a vehicle). That said, I'm firmly against registering firearms as we do vehicles, for all the obvious reasons.

- T

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[ScentCone]

What a load of shit. Without a government, you have no rights. Go live in a jungle sometime...

Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.

So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and chant something they think is important (you know ... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves? The other 90 people who aren't even paying attention to them? The trees? No. These are perfect examples of "natural rights." If some of the other 90 people decide to get together and force those 10 people to no longer gather, or no longer speak their minds, they are infringing on their freedom to assemble and speak.

The US constitution recognizes this, and its first amendment explicitly says that the government can't infringe on that right. There's no place in the constitution that defines the right to assemble or speak ... those are a given. They are self-evident, natural freedoms that can only be limited by other people or groups. Those 10 people don't need the other 90 to do anything in order for their group of 10 to be able to gather and speak. They can do that without any action or permission from anybody. If someone decides to take action shut them up, that's infringement of that right.

Without a government, a society, a rule of law, etc there is no such thing as 'rights'.

Nonsense. Without rule of law, there is no protection of rights. You really think that your right to speak comes from the government? You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[ScentCone]

In a modern society arms are useless.

Really? Then why does every single political leader - across the spectrum, including flaming lefty tyrants, eastern European strongmen, laid-back Scandinavian royalty and elected officials, mayors of cities, etc. - have armed protection at their disposal?

Why do police departments train in the use of arms? Why do militaries, even strictly defensive ones, understand the need to be able to use arms?

It's nice for you that you live in a fantasy world where there is no need for a 90-pound woman to ever defend herself against a man three times her size. Where is it, exactly, that you live that there are absolutely no violent people, no robberies, no rapes, no crimes that endanger lives? Please be specific, and if you would, please link to some reports that show your zero crime rate. Not that you will, of course, because you're full of it, and you know it.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Jack Griffin]

Wow, you really haven't thought this through, have you? You should.

Or maybe it is you that needs to think a bit harder?

So, you and another 100 people are in the jungle. 10 of you decide to get together in a group (you know, assembling) and ...

And I murder the other 9, yeah carry on...

chant something they think is important (you know ... speaking). Who is giving them the perfectly natural behavioral elbow room to assemble and express themselves?

They have no rights because they are all dead. I killed them all!

You truly don't understand that it's the government's job to prevent other people (and those same government institutions) from forcibly shutting you up?

You have no rights if you are dead, which is what you would be if there was no government. Do you get that?

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[ScentCone]

So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?

If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live. You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's. That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally. If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people, then you have waived your own right to your life. Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Jack Griffin]

So you think that just because you decided to kill them, they didn't have the right to live? That's really your take on things?

Exactly, because in the jungle there are no rights. Just ask a Lion or Zebra all about it next time you see one.

If you initiate violence, you are giving up your OWN claim on your right to live.

There are no rights, don't you get that? Everyone tries to kill everyone, that is how the jungle works.

You have the right up until you infringe on someone else's.

Says who? Who does the Zebra speak to about infringements of these rights?

That's simple, rational stuff. If you can't use reason in your world view, then you are by definition looking at things irrationally.

You appear to not understand what these words mean.

If you act irrationally, and it results in you doing something like killing those 9 people,

Oh it's quite rational, because in the jungle it's kill or be killed. Or do you think all animals in the Jungle are also irrational and should maybe all just gather around the fire and sing kumbaya together?

then you have waived your own right to your life.

There are no rights. That is my point.

Do you get that? You don't need a government to tell you that. But if you can't figure it out without a government telling you that, please do the rest of us a favor and don't do anything dangerous like voting.

I don't need it, but I need a government to tell others that. Which is why I support the idea of a strong government. It helps keep me and my family alive (among a host of many other things)

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[ScentCone]

Exactly, because in the jungle there are no rights

Oh, I get it now. You think that human beings aren't any different in their cognitive abilities, capacity for reason, and ability to think abstractly and communicate than are, say, tigers or lemurs.

I don't need it, but I need a government to tell others that.

No, you can tell them yourself, and if they are too irrational to digest the concept, and you're too weak to defend against violent, irrational people, then you need a government to help you protect your rights.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Jack Griffin]

Oh, I get it now. You think that human beings aren't any different in their cognitive abilities, capacity for reason, and ability to think abstractly and communicate than are, say, tigers or lemurs.

None of that give you special rules or rights when you are facing raw nature. A tiger won't stop and check your cognitive ability before eating you, because in the jungle nobody has rights. Do you get that now?

No, you can tell them yourself, and if they are too irrational to digest the concept, and you're too weak to defend against violent, irrational people, then you need a government to help you protect your rights.

Yes Rambo, and so do you. We all do, because no matter how tough you think you are, or how many movies you've watched, there is always someone tougher waiting around the corner.
I suggest you get out form behind the keyboard and expose yourself to the real world sometime. You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down. These right aren't natural, they are constructed by the organised societies we create specifically for this purpose.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[ScentCone]

You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.

You'll find that your idea of "rights" disappears quite quickly as soon as any functioning society breaks down.

My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point. Irrational people do indeed look to take advantage circumstances in which they feel willing to take the chance that their use of violence will go unchallenged because of unpleasant or unexpected circumstances. Which doesn't change the fact that they lose their claim to life when they deny you yours. That's the right you naturally have: to use (or have used on your behalf) the violence necessary to defend your life. Why? Because rational people don't kill other people except in self defense. Those who initiate the violence waive their rights to live in peace.

You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Jack Griffin]

You don't have any natural rights to be free from tigers or from gravity. But you DO have the natural expectation that another rational being will understand that if they attack you, they are waiving their own claim on living peacefully. That you don't grasp this is pretty amazing, really.

They aren't waiving anything because they don't exist at that point in time. If you need examples, take every warzone, riot, revolution ever in human history. Hint, there wasn't much kumbaya, but there was lots of killing and oppression. Where are your examples?

My "idea" of rights exists at any scale and under any circumstances. That's the entire point.

Yes your idea, not some universal law of nature. That is my point.

You're confusing having a right with happening to have the power to defend it at some particular time. These are not the same thing.

No confusion. 'Rights' are a concept explicitly used in the context of rules or law. None of that exist without a society and someone to govern it and enforce it.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[ScentCone]

Yup, you still don't understand that having a right and having it successfully defended are not the same thing. Stop back by when you understand the difference.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Jack Griffin]

Yup, you still don't understand that having a right and having it successfully defended are not the same thing. Stop back by when you understand the difference.

I understand that you think that, but that's the thing with real life, it doesn't care what you think. If you need examples, ask every victim of every revolution or warzone who suddenly had saw their rights disappear when the men with guns showed up.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[ScentCone]

If you need examples, ask every victim of every revolution or warzone who suddenly had saw their rights disappear when the men with guns showed up.

Their rights didn't disappear, their rights were denied. Infringed. Interfered with.

Governments don't give rights. Governments impose limits on them, or protect against that happening. But they don't create them. Hopefully you're not confusing rights with entitlements like so many people do.

Re:How is this newsworthy?

[Jack Griffin]

Their rights didn't disappear, their rights were denied. Infringed. Interfered with.

According to whom?

Governments don't give rights.

Yes they do.

Governments impose limits on them,

They do that too.

or protect against that happening.

And that as well

But they don't create them.

So at what point did primitive humans magically get rights created from nature? Did Australopithecus have rights? Homo Erectus? Do other primates have rights or just Homo Sapien? You seem to agree that animals don't have rights, so at some point in human evolution rights, must have been created by some force of nature? When did this occur exactly and by what force?
It's all starting to sound a bit religious now...

Hopefully you're not confusing rights with entitlements like so many people do.

You really are grasping at straws now...

Re: How is this newsworthy?

[Jane Q. Public]

I have some great answers for your points.

But I'm not going to bother responding at length to an Anonymous Coward.

Get an account.

Of course fro west virgina

[Anonymous Coward]

Those people are so violent.

Re: Of course fro west virgina

[Anonymous Coward]

People that own those things always are.

Re: Of course fro west virgina

[Anonymous Coward]

It's how they be.

Re: Of course fro west virgina

[Anonymous Coward]

They might vote democrat, but there so stupid there republicans.

Re: Of course fro west virgina

[Anonymous Coward]

They might vote democrat, but there so stupid there republicans.

Oh, the irony.

Re: FIRST POST

[Anonymous Coward]

And dropping syslog, stderr, and exit statuses!

Re: FIRST POST

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are all out of date concepts. systemd is correct in dropping that old cruft.

Re: FIRST POST

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of us that manage servers still need those things!

In the Line of Fire

[Joe_Dragon]

Will that one work?

Re:In the Line of Fire

[Anonymous Coward]

In the video he links to another video shoving him firing one magazines worth w/o issues. States he's fired 600 rounds through it. Advises to let it cool down after firing 2 magazines worth in rapid fire.

Re: FIRST POST

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as Linux remains focused on servers, we'll never make progress on the desktop. Lennart is correct to remove that old cruft.

Boy oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

3D printing has turned into the biggest letdown in the last decade, seems to me. From the initial hope, to the mindless hype, now to the boring repetitive stunts like a Down's waving for more pudding.

Re:Boy oh boy

[TWX]

Of course it has. It's very limited in materials. Designs do not come out smooth. Because the material is applied at standard temperature and pressure, there are real fundamental limits as to how the material turns out.

This is why subtractive technologies, extrusion technologies, and other mass technologies still win-out. You can do things to the material before you ever start machining it to give it strength characteristics and other traits that you want. That's why sub-$1000 mass-produced pistols can be stress-tested with 2000 rounds through them as fast as the tester can fire and reload and continue to work properly, compared to a 3d-printed pistol basically melting from the heat.

This is most important

[Anonymous Coward]

I will never obey a law that endangers my family. This is more important data than the lives of the police in my neighbourhood. Live free and let the oppression die.

Re:This is most important

[Zontar The Mindless]

Oooh, drama.

If you wanted to get 3D printing regulated

[dbIII]

If you wanted to get 3D printing regulated then making a lot of attention seeking noise about how people can make zip guns using it is a good way to do it.

You can't even do the barrel and ABS plastic is far less suitable for the other parts than even most hardwoods so it's stirring up hysteria over nothing IMHO.

Will we see fuss about dremel made guns next?

ITAR

[chromaexcursion]

International Traffic in Arms Regulations.
Posting the files is a federal crime.
Second Amendment does not apply.
Certain federal agencies may have already paid a visit

Re:ITAR

[Anonymous Coward]

We've been through this rodeo before. How long until the files get converted in to poetry or stylized artistic images? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDiSYp_51iY

Re:ITAR

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully he blows them and you away (since you also oppose men marrying female children).

EVERYTHING A man might want to do is regulated or banned in the Democracies. EVERYTHING.

The european(and-decendant) feminist police states need to be pulled down and the rulers and enforcers there killed in a cruel manner.

They deny men the right to marry female children.

The right men had until feminism.

Re:ITAR

[Anonymous Coward]

Please kill yourself pedophile scum.

Here's the thing...

[cirby]

We keep hearing about these interesting 3D-printed firearms, and the limitation is always along the lines of "everything works except the barrel, which blows up after X number of shots." The Shuty in the article uses a Glock barrel and other parts to get around this.

It seems that the obvious thing to do would be to design a firearm kit - a series of parts that you could combine with a standard item or two (a steel tube that you could buy anywhere and convert to a barrel with minimal work, plus a breech). Include a simple rifling jig in the plans, and you have a real firearm, instead of an "almost" gun. It might take a custom cartridge (if you can't find a suitable steel tube off the shelf). Or leave it smoothbore and make a shotgun.

Heck, you could make a modern Gyrojet if you could get the ammo, and the only steel you'd need would be the firing pin...

Guns save lives

[zapadnik]

Guns save lives - Thomas Sowell
http://www.creators.com/opinio...

Summary: in the US, where there are around 300 million personal firearms.
There are around 30,000 firearms deaths per year. 20,000 firearms deaths are self-inflicted (suicide) and would occur whether firearms were available for self-defense or not. of other the 10,000 firearms deaths, many are gang violence. However, set against the 10,000 non-suicide gun deaths is around 100,000 violence crimes prevented by citizens. In many cases the firearm is not discharged, the mere presentation is enough to deter the crime.

In cases such as a string 26-year old male attacker who waited for the family to go out the only defense a 12-year old girl had against rape and possibly murder at the hands of the much-stronger attacker was the pink rifle her father had given her. She was able to stop the attacker in her home and drive him off. And there are many, many similar cases like this.

Whether or not you believe citizens have a right to self-defense - or if you think it is somehow morally superior' to be defenseless and slaughtered like sheep either by criminals that don't obey gun control laws; or by any of the mass-murdering Governments (National Socialism, Soviet Socialism, Chinese Socialism, North Korean Socialism, Cuban Socialism, Vietnamese Socialism, East German Socialism, Ba'athist Socialism, and various Islamist regimes) that murdered over 200 million of their *own* citizens in peacetime - then the statistics are clear: GUNS SAVE LIVES.

The best defense against a bad guy/jihadi with a gun really is good guys with guns. This is proven over and over and over again.

Now if you don't like firearms then please don't obtain and learn how to use one - but it is illogical and immoral to say that competent individuals cannot have access to firearms for self-defense. Even Europeans are slowly starting to grok this (shotguns are pretty much sold out in Austria as their country buckles under invasion of a large number of unruly youths who don't share European cultural norms about not stealing, not raping and not trashing the joint). I wish this were not the reality of today's world, but unfortunately it is.

Re:Guns save lives

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't disagree with your main point, but saying the suicides would have succeeded anyways may be a stretch. There are a lot of failed suicide attempts, so guns may be saving lives of people who want to live AND saving money from the medical issues of failed suicide attempts.

Re:Guns save lives

[slashdot_commentator]

Also, what people sadly don't understand about suicide that its genetically predisposed, and an impulsive act. Its much more effective to use a firearm to kill yourself, than a knife. As a public health issue, its not unreasonable to make it more difficult for the suicidally predisposed to own handguns, just as firearm possession is banned for felons. (Nothing in the CotUS that suggests its lawful to keep firearms away from citizen felons.)

Re:Guns save lives

[drinkypoo]

Also, what people sadly don't understand about suicide that its genetically predisposed, and an impulsive act.

If people are genetically predisposed to suicide, how do we still have suicide? Should be a self-solving problem. Perhaps that's really not the driving factor.

Re:Guns save lives

[jafiwam]

The number of personal firearms is north of 360 ~ 450 million now.

There were something like 5 million NICS checks in January 2016. Rates have been ramping up since 2008 and records broken each month. There isn't a one to one translation for NICS to "firearms bought" but it is ballpark.

That "300 million" number has been tossed around a long time and the number is stale.

Re:Guns save lives

[Jesrad]

Also, what people sadly don't understand about suicide that its genetically predisposed

That does not make any evolutionary sense. Source ?

Re:Guns save lives

[zapadnik]

Thanks for the update. The curious thing is that as the number of personal firearms has gone up, the number of violent crimes (including gun crimes) has dropped significantly. My personal theory on this is that video games (and porn) have decreased the boredom of young males that would otherwise engage in violent crime for kicks (or rape). Perhaps I'm wrong in this, but it is my current working hypothesis. It also seems that guns (as in, the right of citizens to armed self-defense) does save lives.

Re:Guns save lives

[MrNiceguy_KS]

When Australia had a near-total ban on private firearm ownership, the firearm suicide rate plummeted, but the overall suicide rate stayed level.

Re:Guns save lives

[harrkev]

I have heard two better hypothesis. Maybe one or the other, or both, are true.

1) Lead in the environment. No more lead in gas and paint. Lead, if I recall correctly, has been shown to increase violent behavior.

2) Abortion becoming legal. With more abortion, you have less criminals.

Note that NEITHER of these are my theories, and I don't have any personal opinions on either one. I am just parroting what I have heard elsewhere.

Re:Guns save lives

[fredgiblet]

Same thing happened with homicide from what I saw. Guns dropped immediately, overall numbers stayed level for at least 5 years.

Re:Guns save lives

[fredgiblet]

I see you too have read Freakonomics. Good book, though I've heard counterarguments.

Re:Guns save lives

[fredgiblet]

I've had that thought as well. Additionally the ability to take out your violent or sexual impulses in controlled environments likely helps too.

Re:Guns save lives

[karmatic]

Genetics doesn't work that way.

Hint: If you have a child, and then commit suicide, your genes still get passed on.

Re:Guns save lives

[slashdot_commentator]

That does not make any evolutionary sense. Source ?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=suicide+g...

American blindspot re guns don't kill, people do

[Craggles]

I wish every american would watch this. The world and the states would be a safer place.. And things like this wouldn't get posted to slashdot.
Jim Jefferies (aussie commedian) -- Gun Control

Re: FIRST POST

[TWX]

I've found it a lot more difficult to deal with the issues affecting my various Linux desktops since Lennart started Poettering around with things.

not new

[slashmydots]

A quick release valve on a pressure cylinder + a pipe and some kind of dart or other metal projectile can easily kill a human. Redneck home brews like this are not exactly new. People are just all excited because you can practically buy a 3D printer, download the mode, hit print, and you've got a gun. That's so much harder than basic pneumatic/plumbing knowledge...or the ability to follow directions on the internet with difficulty on par with baking cupcakes or building an ikea chair.

Gun crazyness

[Nicopa]

Posts like these helps us, the rest of the world, be amused at US crazyness about guns. And, of course, the gun in this one is called "liberator".

Re: Gun crazyness

[Anonymous Coward]

Some context about the original ' liberator ', the namesake of the plastic pistol... It was a clandestinely designed and produced, extremely cheap single shot pistol thought up to help win France back from the Nazis, while American men were dying trying to do the same. So, yeah fuck all of those Americans and their fucking guns, right?

Re:Gun crazyness

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm actually surprised that after the recent Shake-Up, Timothy is still around.
3D fabricated Guns is His Thing. Relentlessly, and Remorselessly... His Thing. He never even responds to comments about his own inadequacies on Editorial matters, or any other matters, for that matter. (Too many Matters?)
Timothy is King... make that Queen, in his own Mind.

Many others, most especially those freely flying outside of his Libertarian Hive, consider him an absolute Wanker.
Hey, Whipslash- put Timothy out of our collective misery.

Re: Gun crazyness

[Anonymous Coward]

"... while American men were dying trying to do the same. So, yeah fuck all of those Americans and their fucking guns, right?"
Yup.

Grow the fuck up.

John Wayne, and Ronald Reagan- And all of those stalwarts of Right Wing Republicanism, and those champions of Guns For All, for decades... rode that War out, on their ample cowardly buttocks, far away from the Fronts. See George Dubya Bush...
And Glenn Miller died.

Again:
Grow the fuck up.

Re: Gun crazyness

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure I read Reagan was in the Army Reserve and wasn't allowed to go oversees due to poor vision. When he was called up for active duty he was already president of the screen actors guild and when he found out he could only do limited service he transferred to the PR division of the military to help make promotional and documentary films. I'm lazy otherwise I'd look for a link.

Re: Gun crazyness

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I decided it wouldn't be hard to find.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/196677/president-ronald-reagan.aspx

One article, that didn't seem as credible said he actually had to "cheat" on his second eye exam attempt to go active duty at all.

Re:American blindspot re guns don't kill, people d

[Anonymous Coward]

If only we followed Mexico's lead on gun control, I'm sure we could become just as peaceful!

It took me a moment..

[subk]

To realize this has nothing to do with the purpose-built "sex-couch" by the same name. And boy, was that a weird moment!

Re: FIRST POST

[subk]

I've found it a lot more difficult to deal with the issues affecting my various Linux desktops since Lennart started Poettering around with things.

# systemctl start redhot-poker@myeyes.service

Re:American blindspot re guns don't kill, people d

[khallow]

Ok, I count nine mass killings since 1996, including four involving firearms. So even the starting assertion that mass killings have stopped in Australia is wrong.

metal guide rod

[roc97007]

The guide rod doesn't have to be metal. The stock Glock guide rod is plastic, although Glock owners often replace it with steel or tungsten.

Re:metal guide rod

[Nidi62]

The guide rod doesn't have to be metal. The stock Glock guide rod is plastic, although Glock owners often replace it with steel or tungsten.

My Sig has plastic guide rod as well. Plastic is fine as long as you aren't putting thousands of round through the gun.

Re: American blindspot re guns don't kill, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Mexico' gun control laws, dipshit, would be a whole lot more effective if the world's largest producer of guns weren't right next door and doing everything it coild do to make sure that firearms are widely available and completely uncontrolled. In short, it is the lack of U.S. gun laws that allow criminals to get guns, both in the U.S. and in Mexico, into which they freely flow, facilitated by government policies and private business strategies designed to do just that. Hell, if Trump somehow did succeed in building his fantasy fence, it would be more effective than anything else at reducing gun violence in Mexico, since Cilt, SÃW, and Glickman would have a much tougher time supplying the black market they have worked so hard to create there.

Re: American blindspot re guns don't kill, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty funny stuff. He admits that he isn't changing minds, just pointing out his opinion. The mindset that firearms are a good solution to fear is not going to change soon. My hope is that the fear goes away and people can be free to own guns responsibly. Like the guy said; "It is reasonable to like guns"

This is why we can't have nice things

[goombah99]

assholes print guns. No doubt hackers will reprogram google cars to kill people.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[slashdot_commentator]

Assholes think any geeky act are done by assholes.

Re:This is why we can't have nice things

[Coren22]

You know, gunsmithing is a perfectly legal and unregulated activity? You can buy a AR-15 lower, and machine it into a working gun without anyone having any record that you own that firearm! Sales of guns are regulated, making your own is not, whether it is with a plastic printer, metal sintering printer, or a steel milling machine.

Re: FIRST POST

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. There's a systemd command to replace everything you need from that old load of crap that is the outdated UNIX.

Re: American blindspot re guns don't kill, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, we watched it... Then we laughed and shook our heads. Australians with their bans on everything including games.

you are all pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Real men don't need guns.

Re:you are all pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Real men use swords? Or knives or fisticuffs?

Ah, but you are the person, who thinks that the pen and talk is mightier than arms... Tell that to some lowlife robber who will rob you in some dark street corner.

Re:you are all pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

Real men don't give a flying fuck about "real men dos/don'ts".

Why you should care about 3D printed handguns

[blindseer]

I've read a lot of posts of people exclaiming 3D printed handguns a waste of time, or an effort to expand one's "manhood" by building weapons. I've read an article on 3D printed handguns before where the creator was asked why they chose to print a handgun of all things. In this case it was a 3D printed Model 1911, printed using a number of direct printing metal techniques but the answer to this question stuck with me and I believe answers the question quite well.

The creator of this 3D printed handgun explained the choice of printing a handgun this way. People understand what a handgun does and what it is used for. People understand that a handgun is a device with many intricate parts placed under considerable wear, pressures, and so forth. Whatever a handgun is made from must be durable. A handgun built with poor tolerances is not likely to function. A handgun is an expensive machine, not something one can typically purchase on a whim. It is also something that can be manufactured within the size limits of their machines.

Someone could 3D print a clock, for example, to show how a useful item can be built with amazing precision with a 3D printer. To show how a 3D printer can make something that is durable could mean printing a carpenter hammer, or anvil. Perhaps building an adjustable wrench, socket set, or any of a number of tools that need to hold up to extreme stresses and tight tolerances would show the capabilities of a 3D printer. Those are also rather mundane and perhaps a number of people that do not use tools regularly will not understand the difficulty in building such a tool with a 3D printer. These are also tools that do not have much value since people can buy these items relatively cheaply most anywhere.

People choose to 3D print a handgun because it is hard to do. Someone successful in this has then demonstrated their ability to build any of a number of more common and mundane items we use every day. It also doesn't hurt that 3D printed handguns makes politicians nervous and gets clicks on the internet.

Go print a clock and see how many clicks you get on your website, then print an anvil and do the same. Now print a handgun and hope that you've got enough bandwidth to handle the load.

Re:Why you should care about 3D printed handguns

[Anonymous Coward]

That's some fucking retarded reasoning

Re:Why you should care about 3D printed handguns

[blindseer]

That's some fucking retarded reasoning

It's no different then the reasoning on why the President said we should go to the moon. We did it because it was hard. Making a handgun is not hard, many people do it. Making a handgun by 3D printing is hard, and is as suitable of a test of the technology as building any of a number of items.

Perhaps you would like to expand on why you think this reasoning is "fucking retarded"? Perhaps you could also propose a more suitable item to manufacture as a test of 3D printing technology?

Re:Why you should care about 3D printed handguns

[Nidi62]

A handgun is an expensive machine, not something one can typically purchase on a whim.

Really?

Granted, those are crap guns and basically are new Saturday Night Specials, but are easily affordable and legal to purchase. With the right connections you could easily get a sub-$100 gun on the street illegally, or even legally on the internet/in person with patience and no scruples regarding quality or condition.

Re:Why you should care about 3D printed handguns

[blindseer]

I meant "expensive" in a relative sense. Other items that would need similar precision to function, like a clock or socket wrench, do not have as many moving parts and therefore can be obtained with what someone might consider pocket change. It is a tool that requires a relatively high level of precision to function as intended but since it is made in such high quantity the price is quite low.

A $100,000 machine that can print out a $30 socket set or wall clock is not very impressive. If that same machine can print out a Model 1911 pistol that can fetch easily $1000 on the open market then you will get people's attention. If that device can print out a shiny new M1911 in a week then it will pay for itself in a few years. If it can print one out in a day then it can pay for itself in months.

Re:Why you should care about 3D printed handguns

[erapert]

The specific gun that blindseer was referring to was, if I recall, a 1911 printed using sintered metal. A 1911 costs considerably more than a hi-point.

Re:American blindspot re guns don't kill, people d

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh....I see you're a simpleton.

Number of mass shootings (defined as four or more victims) since 1996 = ZERO.

See, readin' ain't that hard boy...yeehawww...

Re: American blindspot re guns don't kill, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh.....poor third world Americans.......

Such a violent shithole they inhabit.

Skorpion?

[Nidi62]

It might just be me, but that thing looks more like a bulky Tec-9 without the heatshield than it does a Skorpion.

Re: FIRST POST

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of us that manage servers still need those things!

Wrong! You're an ungrateful lout. The systemd world is perfect! You VILL use binary logging and you will LIKE IT!

And besides, if you bend your knees backward, insert your left elbow in your ear and stand on your head, you can get text logs. But the binary logs will still be turned on and filling your disks to capacity.

Re: American blindspot re guns don't kill, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminals get the guns always. The get them in England, Canada, Italy, north-korea, everywhere.
They buy them from cops, military personell, government employees, from manufacturer (without serial-numbers).
It has nothing to do with "gun laws". It is the law of the money. If you have money, the guestion is only - how much?.
Gun laws only prohibit Law Abiding Citizens from obratining a gun.

You have nothing to lose.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you just build one and kill some of your rulers?

They won't let you marry a cute young girl anyway, what do you have to lose.

They are your enemy.

Terry Nation's estate is going to sue somebody

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberator gun? Scorpion sub machine gun? If a Dalek gun pops up, It will be clear all of these things were named after ships from Blake's 7. Daleks in Doctor Who were creations of the creator of that TV series and he was Sue-happy as George Lucas used to be before he died.. we almost didn't have Daleks in the 2005 Doctor Who series because his estate was playing legal games. I laugh because I file this under "Geeks Gone Wild!"

Re:American blindspot re guns don't kill, people d

[mwehle]

Ahhh....I see you're a simpleton.

Number of mass shootings (defined as four or more victims) since 1996 = ZERO.

See, readin' ain't that hard boy...yeehawww...

How do you categorize the 2014 Hunt family murders? That would seem to include four victims and the perpetrator, all shot with a shotgun.

Re: American blindspot re guns don't kill, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Mexico' gun control laws, dipshit, would be a whole lot more effective if the world's largest producer of guns weren't right next door and doing everything it coild do to make sure that firearms are widely available and completely uncontrolled. In short, it is the lack of U.S. gun laws that allow criminals to get guns, both in the U.S. and in Mexico, into which they freely flow, facilitated by government policies and private business strategies designed to do just that.

Mexican drug cartels have drug labs, tunnels and other elaborate smuggling schemes, and their own telecommunications infrastructure. Why do you think setting up a modest machine shop to produce guns would be beyond them?

Re:American blindspot re guns don't kill, people d

[moeinvt]

The anti-gun crowd conveniently changes their definition of "mass shooting" to claim that mass murders by firearm never happen outside the USA, and then change the definition again to conclude that there were over 300 in the USA last year (including an incident where four kids were "shot" with pellet guns)

No shootings in Australia with four or more victims since 1996? LOL

Seven shot @ Monash University in 2002 (OMG! School Shooting!!!!!) Seven shot in Hectorville in 2011. A family of five shot to death in Lockhart, NSW in 2014.

Search engines are your friend, you lying sack of urbanite excrement.

PLA-based design

[Lorens]

I read this as meaning design based on the People's Liberation Army (of the People's Republic of China)

Re:American blindspot re guns don't kill, people d

[fredgiblet]

Yep, it's 3 or more people shot when it's the US, then when it's somewhere else it's "Did it hit international news?"

WHY?

[ArylAkamov]

I could buy a 3d printer and make a weak plastic gun.

Or I could use some hand tools (Or a mill if I wanted to get fancy) and produce a gun out of metal.

I think I'll stick to the second method. It hasn't exploded in my face (Yet).

Re:American blindspot re guns don't kill, people d

[Craggles]

It's a DAILY event in America -- There is no where else in the world that isn't a war zone that is like this. It seems Americans have been living with daily mass shootings for so long, it seems normal to you guys...

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

Re:American blindspot re guns don't kill, people d

[khallow]

It's a DAILY event in America

One such mass shooting (remember by the Australian definition it has to kill more than five people other than the shooter!) since the beginning of the year. It's not a DAILY event.

Re: American blindspot re guns don't kill, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, NO! Most of the guns Mexican gangs use come from overseas up through South America.

Too many guns already

[MoarSauce123]

In the past ten years more people were shot in the US than in the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq wars combined. Each year more people in the US die through guns than in vehicle accidents. Is there really a need to 3D print more guns and post articles about it?