Slashdot Mirror
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.
3D printer prints some parts of a gun, but none of the important bits. Who gives a fuck, seriously?
But wait, 3D printing!!!
It's about gun control, and besides, a 9mm is not for killing people. It's about stopping a threat.
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...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes, but 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. Compare that to being shot with a hunting caliber rifle; that was my comparison.
Will that one work?
"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.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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?
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...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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
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.
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...
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.
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
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.
It's funny because the same sensationalism sells guns too.
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".
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
.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.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
To realize this has nothing to do with the purpose-built "sex-couch" by the same name. And boy, was that a weird moment!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have backups to corrupt.
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.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
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.
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.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Oooh, drama.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
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.
The vast majority of Slashdot readers ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Assholes think any geeky act are done by assholes.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
I frankly do not understand gun control in America. Gun control seems to boil down to
.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.
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
Oh?
"it's coming right for us!" *bang*
That deer was looking awful vicious...
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I rather thought that the actual killer was the actual killer.
Yep - it's an actual killer ..... with a gun! Motive ... and means + hugely enhanced opportunity!
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
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
....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.
Because nobody ever died from a 9mm shot.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Did you have millions of drug addled scum burning down your cities 100 years ago too ?
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
My Swiss Army Knife can kill people too. Although I use it mostly to remove screws from computers.
After which you'll find your embarrassing pictures have suddenly been ported to the internet...
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.
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'.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It might just be me, but that thing looks more like a bulky Tec-9 without the heatshield than it does a Skorpion.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
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.)
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.
The BHP followed the 1911, however, and while JMB only designed bits of the gun, the caliber was already ironed out by then.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Can you read? I wrote 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. That has nothing to do with your statistic.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
"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)
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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.
Time to offend someone
"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.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
And then there are those with UIDs...
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"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.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
They weren't drug-addled, nor scum, but they were black.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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.
Time to offend someone
"Your silly little laws that you believe protect you won't last for long in the face of immigrant violence and economic collapse"
FTFY
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Mostly in five cities. Five.
Which is an indictment of the politicians that both supervise and permit this.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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?
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
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
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
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.
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.
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
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
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)...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
When's that happening in the US and how long would it be before the rebels get bombed by the USAF?
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.
Hint: reading is fundamental. Try it sometime.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
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.
Wir sind geboren, um frei zu sein - Rio Reiser
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.
Redundancy is good And also good.
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/...
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".
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
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.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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/...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
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.
Good-bye
Mod the fuck up...
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/...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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.
The key difference between French fries and assault rifles is that the later's only purpose is to make killing people easier.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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?
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
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.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I read this as meaning design based on the People's Liberation Army (of the People's Republic of China)
Shit, you can get an AR upper in .50 BMG. They make EVERYTHING for the 15.
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.
.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
They already blocked the Liberator's files, not that it removed them from the internet.
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.
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?"
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]
I don't respond to AC's.
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.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
How about unarmed people being shot by the police. Is that 3rd world enough for you? [rolls eyes]
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
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).
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.
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.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
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.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
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.
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?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
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.
Redundancy is good And also good.
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
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.
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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"
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This exactly. One of the very rare ACs that deserve to be modded up.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.)
Stefan Axelsson
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.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
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. .308 and 7.62x63 for 30-06.
30-06 was Springfield.
The dimensions of those cartridges is 7.62x51mm for
Otherwise, your analysis is spot on.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
1986, but close enough for government work.
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Sorry. Brain wedgie on my part. You're correct!
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - 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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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.
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?
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.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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...