Facebook Bans Sites That Host Blueprints of 3D-Printed Guns (cbsnews.com)

Yesterday, Facebook said it's banning websites that host and share blueprints of 3D-printed guns. "Sharing instructions on how to print firearms using 3D printers is not allowed under our Community Standards," said a spokesperson in an email statement. "In line with our policies, we are removing this content from Facebook." BuzzFeed was first to report the news: The move comes amid a rush by states to block these instructions from being posted. A July settlement between the State Department and Defense Distributed, an open-source organization that created the first completely 3D-printed gun, cleared the way for the group to publish the gun code. However, that was stalled when a federal judge on July 31 granted a temporary nationwide injunction that prevented Defense Distributed from uploading the plans. The injunction prevents Defense Distributed from publishing the plans. But the instructions are widely available online, on sites such as CodeIsFreeSpeech.com -- which hosts plans for parts of an AR-15, a Beretta, and Defense Distributed's Liberator. Attempts to post the site on a user's News Feed, through Facebook's Messenger app, or on Instagram (which Facebook owns) produce a variety of error messages. Other sites that host the files can still be posted through Facebook. Specifically, Facebook says that 3D-printed guns violate the regulated goods section of the social giant's community standards, which limits gun sales and exchanges to licensed dealers.

Comments

Yawn.

[Alypius]

More posturing by SJWs who think their opinion is important. The plans have been out for a while now and we hardly need FB's help to find them. Alternatively, we can go to an actual dealer and get blanks to make our own non-novelty gun.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because the only purpose for a gun it’s to commit murder.

Re:Yawn.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Committing murder has never been easier or more convenient

And for all that, the murder rate in the USA is about half what it was 50 years ago....

Re: Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not what Trump says. He said crime, especially murder is rampant, and we need him to save us, because he has the superpower to defeat crime.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

More posturing by SJWs who think their opinion is important.

Which part of this ban screams "social justice"?

The part where Facebook was involved. ;-p

Homemade "guns" are not regulated items, so FB's regulated commerce policy simply does not apply.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the SJW corral. We wait for your pleading moo to know we should open or close the gate to the corral you currently inhabit.

The OP of this thread is correct. You don't understand the entire time you are posturing.

An 80 percent arm (which is a stripped and when delivered an un-usable firearm lower) requires technical know-how and an investment in tools, skills and technologies well beyond the reach/price of a fully-usable lower that you could purchase with a 3-5 day waiting period for (same as a fully functional gun). It is more like a 400% investment beyond purchasing a single lower. Oh.. and yeah.. you have to purchase the other 90 percent of the gun.. to have a gun. We'd all appreciate if you'd go back under the bridge.. and wait at least the law-abiding citizen's gun waiting period before you re-surface and repeat your baseless opinion.

Now please take a few minutes.. and understand the mind of a criminal. They don't care about laws.. because the taking of human life is against the law. They don't care about gun laws.. because they find their firearms not by milling some plastic but by more nefarious means which don't require an in-depth knowledge of metallurgy or weapon assembly. They just do what they want.. or their leaders want... or whatever the F they decide to do and they don't care about the outcome or the eventual application of law.

https://qz.com/1086403/fbi-crime-statistics-us-murders-were-up-in-2016-and-chicago-had-a-lot-to-do-with-it/

Oh.. and since you have no idea what an 80 percent arm is I'll assume you don't know the impact of reckless use of illegally obtained firarms. Let me lead you to a website that shows the massive failure of Rahm Emanuel and his legislation when it comes to dead kids in Chicago (ChiRaq) and in general.. Illinois. I'd bet 0.02 percent or less of the shootings and murders in this state/city were committed by someone that has the means to finalize an 80 percent lower.

https://www.heyjackass.com

Read... understand... then reply.

Peace out.

Re:Yawn.

[ShanghaiBill]

And for all that, the murder rate in the USA is about half what it was 50 years ago....

The murder rate is irrelevant. Gun control is about culture, not "saving lives".

In many ways, gun control is the mirror image of abortion. Liberals are often perplexed when conservatives dismiss their argument that we could save way more babies by sex education, access to contraceptives, better prenatal care, nutrition supplements for pregnant women, and streamlined adoptions, than by banning abortions. That is all true, but is missing the point. It is not about "saving babies" but about a culture of people behaving irresponsibly and then flushing the consequences down the toilet.

Similarly, gun violence dramatically declined over the past few decades mostly because of a big reduction in environmental lead pollution. There is much more we could do: black children still have twice the blood lead levels of white children, and prison inmates have three times the average level. Yet there is WAY more passion about closing the "gun show loophole", something that would have a negligible effect, than about not poisoning kids, which would likely save thousands of lives annually. Likewise, gun control advocates focus on school shootings and "assault weapons", not because these represent a lot of deaths (school shootings are less than 0.05% of gun deaths, and handguns kill a thousand times as many people as assault rifles), but because they represent "gun culture".

Re:Yawn.

[ShanghaiBill]

I remember reading a thread about Venezuela's crime rate going down by a factor of 1000 when they enacted a global ban on private, non police/military gun ownership.

Then something is seriously wrong with either your memory or your critical thinking skills. This never happened, and is so completely implausible that only a fool would believe it.

Re:Yawn.

[penandpaper]

Is Facebook and social media a public neutral forum or are they a publisher of their opinion?

Either they are exercising their right to speak or enabling others their right. In one case they are responsible for the content on their site and the other they are not. FB wants it both ways which is not acceptable. Recent events with social media has demonstrated monopolistic collusion and too many damned fools and useful idiots are willing to promote and defend a culture of censorship and authoritarians. Anyone else notice that /. did not headline any of the articles about social media banning Alex Jones and many others?

Twitter was in part ruled as a public forum for Trumps tweets. If we are to believe that FB and social media can have huge impacts on our election to the point that Russia can buy a few ads to change the results then it is obvious that FB are public forums for political discourse. No entity should be given such disproportionate power over our elections.

Social media has crossed the Rubicon by colluding and using their monopolistic positions to stifle the rights of citizens along partisan lines. Is anyone else concerned about these recent events on social media right before an election?

Re:Yawn.

[Alypius]

If you followed my link, you'd realize that Real Men (TM) prefer the reusable kind. We're environmentally conscious that way.

Re:Yawn.

[BlueStrat]

it's a METAL BLANK that is where the serial number would go on the "legal" firearm you described. It omits that serial #.

It's perfectly legal to make yourself a firearm and there is no legal requirement for a serial number to be applied nor registered. As long as the firearm you manufacture would be legal for you to posses otherwise (not a restricted type like fully-automatic/select-fire, sawed-off shotgun under 18 inches in barrel length,, etc) you are free to make one for personal use without serial numbers or registration of any kind, only rules about who may legally possess apply as long as you don't sell/trade it to another party.

TPTB over the decades have worked to chip away at our educational systems, our mental health systems, our criminal justice system, and our common shared beliefs using propaganda involving the pushing of identity politics and intersectionality that has it's roots in Post-Modernism. This has naturally eventually resulted in a dumbed-down, fractured/divided., frustrated, and angry population. Then TPTB step in to "solve" the problem *they created* by removing liberty and personal freedom.

Don't be their willing tool of your own enslavement.

Strat

Re: Yawn.

[blindseer]

The USA is the only developed nation that has a firearm crime rate equivalent to third world nations or war zones.

But what are the TOTAL crime rates? I keep hearing about "gun crime" but I don't care if people are getting shot, clubbed, stabbed, or throttled to death.

Here's another problem with comparing murder rates in the USA with other nations, the USA is a federation. Like the European Union the USA is a collection of independent states. Each state has their own rules on guns. The USA does have some terrible murder rates, but you can't blame the laws in Utah for crimes in New York. Putting all the states in the same umbrella as an example of "gun crime" is about as sensible as blaming Spain for crime in Germany. Also remember the scale of this, there are more people in US states that a lot of people around the world don't even think about, like North Carolina, than in some European nations, like Sweden. If you want to compare apples to apples then you need to compare individual states within the US to other nations.

The murder rate in New Hampshire is 1/10th that of Louisiana. Go compare the gun laws in both those states. Here's a hint, one state requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and the other does not.

Gun laws have very little to do with crime rates. Look at Missouri, very lax in gun laws and lots of crime. Vermont also has very lax gun laws, but yet 1/4 the murder rate of Missouri. It's almost as if there is no correlation between gun laws and crime rates.

Here's an idea, if you want to stop crime then put criminals in prison. That seems to be working for a lot of places. If gun restrictions stopped murders then Venezuela would be the safest place on Earth.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. It is much easier whenever your victims don't have access to guns of any sort.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

We could save six times as many innocent lives banning alcohol, or three times as many including suicides, yet you seem to not give a shit. 40% of all violent crime has an alcohol component. The majority of domestic violence, assault, battery, DWI, and rapes are attributable to the presence of alcohol. Yet you seem to not care.

This was never about saving lives.

Re:Yawn.

[ShanghaiBill]

Dude, if your "culture" is dependent on schoolchildren being massacred and gang-bangers spraying bullets, you've got a fucked-up culture.

You are missing the point. The culture of urban gang-bangers and rural gun owners couldn't be more different. Gun control advocates are mostly opposed to the latter culture, not the first. Rural whites join the NRA, and are politically active on gun rights. Urban gang-bangers are not.

Do you seriously believe that closing the "gun show loophole" will make a non-negligible difference? Yet it gets way more attention than urban handgun shootings.

It wasn't always thus. You might want to read up on the history on the gun control movement in America. In the 1980s, there was a strong advocacy movement for restrictions on handguns (responsible for 75% of gun homicides and even more gun suicides), and HCI and the Brady Campaign made it clear that they were not after "long guns" used for hunting. Their proposals were sensible. Their influence was growing.

That came to an abrupt end on the morning of January 17th, 1989, when Patrick Purdy walked onto a school playground in Stockton, California, opened fire with an SKS semi-automatic rifle, killing five children and wounding 32 more. The advocates took advantage of the publicity and outrage to completely abandon their assurances of focusing on handguns, and called for bans on "automatic rifles" (already illegal), and "AK-47s" (also already illegal). They got their "assault weapons" ban, but alienated millions of hunters and others that had supported them. The backlash swept dozens of gun control advocates from public office in the 1994 Republican mid-term landslide. The ban expired. NRA membership ballooned. Trust was gone. Willingness to compromise was gone. Any sort of new restriction on gun ownership is unthinkable in today's political climate.

Re:Yawn.

[blindseer]

You planning to water the tree of liberty with the blood of more schoolchildren? I hear that's all the rage with the well-regulated militia these days.

The "well regulated militia" was intended to be a guard against the spilling of children's blood. What we got instead was a ban on good people being armed on school grounds. Now we see children getting murdered unopposed while "the people that keep us safe" cower outside. I don't want armed guards in schools, they cost money and history shows they are not effective. I want armed parents in schools. It costs nothing to do, just tell the parents they have to pay for all the training and background checks. Many states do this already with a concealed weapons permit. If they have one of those then I consider them more qualified to stop children from getting murdered than someone with a badge.

Let the parent's organize it, they'll work out scheduling and such. I'd bet they'd even bring donuts and coffee for the school staff. If someone dares threaten the children in the school then watch out as armed moms and dads take charge. Don't think I don't want the police involved with my comment on them cowering outside, I do want the police there. They do very good jobs of taking reports and locking up bad people. I just want to see children being protected by people that give a damn.

Here's the deal with your comments on "well regulated militia", gun laws will become meaningless very soon. We can't stop people from getting guns any more, this development of 3D printed guns is just the latest means for people to skirt the law. You want to stop schoolkids from being murdered? Then put good guys with guns inside the school before the bad guys with guns get there. Since we don't know when the bad guys will come then that means the good guys with guns get there before the children do every morning, and they don't leave until the last child has left that afternoon.

Re:Yawn.

[Alypius]

Social media sites all began with the precept that ideas could be freely shared. Until some ideas were more free than others.

Re:Yawn.

[PopeRatzo]

The "well regulated militia" was intended to be a guard against the spilling of children's blood.

And yet, look at what it's become. You're very close to an epiphany here.

We can't stop people from getting guns any more, this development of 3D printed guns is just the latest means for people to skirt the law.

You really don't understand what your insistence on unregulated gun ownership is going to cost all of us, do you? You think government can't get more tyrannical? It can, and it will be because people didn't voluntarily understand that reason puts limits on rights. Learning to behave is a necessary part of a free society. Alex Jones didn't learn that, and now we have monstrous giant corporations bringing down the heavy hammer. Because Alex Jones couldn't behave himself/em.

Yes, it's true. A free society is dependent upon citizens fucking learning that there are limits. When enough people forget that, we end up with tyranny. And the gun lobby forgot that decades ago.

Re:Yawn.

[blindseer]

You really don't understand what your insistence on unregulated gun ownership is going to cost all of us, do you?

Do you understand the cost? We now are seeing the government and private companies so scared of unregistered guns that they are willing to violate the most basic rights of the freedom to speak, communicate, and express ourselves. We have TSA agents denying people to board a plane because they have a t-shirt with a picture of a gun on it.

There are laws against certain kinds of people from having guns. People like those with a felony record, illegal aliens, those dishonorably discharged from the military, fugitives from justice, those deemed mentally incompetent by a court, and perhaps a few others. I'm fine with that, on some level at least. Here's what I'm not fine with, taking this to the point that it is infringing on the law abiding citizen to speak freely.

Killing people is bad. Yep. Shooting people so they die is bad. I'm with you. Bad people owning guns is bad. I'm with you so long as we keep "bad people" narrow. Bad people making guns is bad. Sure, and again so long as we keep this definition narrow. Bad people getting plans to make a gun is bad. Um, now we are getting into some real fuzzy territory. Good people can't have plans for a gun because then bad people might get them too. Okay, this is off the deep end. This is so far removed from the intent to keep people safe that it's now potentially illegal for people to even discuss how firearms function.

How do you get children to be safe around cars? Well, you explain to them what they look like and what they can do. How do you make a young adult into a safe driver? You go into further detail on how a car works. To show how to check tire pressure, check oil levels, and change a burnt out indicator light bulb, there must be detailed drawing of these parts to get the point across efficiently. Well, how do you keep children safe around firearms? You show them what they look like and explain how they work. How do you make sure future police, teachers, and medics know how to secure a firearm? You go into detail on how they work. We aren't going to free the world of firearms any more than we are of cars. By banning even drawings of firearms from public distribution we are making the world less safe.

To make this clear, there is a very fine line between a document on how to secure a firearm to keep it safe and a document on how to construct one. If these drawings are of sufficient detail so that a police officer, medic, teacher, parent, or other person can know how to secure a firearm to keep them safe from children then they are detailed enough to make one. Keeping these documents from the public are not keeping anyone safe.

Re:Yawn.

[ShanghaiBill]

We could save six times as many innocent lives banning alcohol

We tried banning alcohol, and deaths went up, not down.

Re:Yawn.

[PopeRatzo]

Do you understand the cost? We now are seeing the government and private companies so scared of unregistered guns that they are willing to violate the most basic rights of the freedom to speak, communicate, and express ourselves. We have TSA agents denying people to board a plane because they have a t-shirt with a picture of a gun on it.

So, you DO understand what your fetishistic "gun culture" is costing all of us? And it's only just begun. It's only going to get worse.

Killing people is bad. Yep. Shooting people so they die is bad. I'm with you.

Yeah, but you know who's not with us? The NRA. When people end up dying in bunches at the hand of some well-regulated militia member, the cash registers and the gun manufacturers all start to ring. And society pays the price because people don't want jackoffs running around with guns. Poll after poll shows the vast majority Americans are in favor of universal background checks and stricter regulations on guns. Even gun owners themselves (like me) want stricter gun laws by a 50-44 margin. Almost 70% of Americans think it's too easy to get a gun.

So you can say you don't want killing and killing is bad, but as long as you support the fiction that the 2nd amendment provides an absolute right of the ownership of weapons, you're not being honest with yourself, and your provoking a situation where you're going to lose more rights.

Re:Yawn.

[blindseer]

I'm now convinced that you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with some construct of your imagination. I already agreed with you that the right of self defense does not mean people can murder without punishment. I'm trying to make it clear to you that gun control in the USA has gone one step too far with these recent blocking of sharing 3D printer files. That's not 2nd Amendment territory any more, this is infringement on the 1st Amendment.

Here's another thing, I'd like to see where you get this idea of an overwhelming dislike of the NRA. I saw a recent fundraiser for a march against the NRA. Go have a look on how much money they raised for the protest.
https://www.gofundme.com/natio...

A whole $70 on a national fundraiser. The NRA likely makes more money on a single order of overpriced t-shirts and "tactical" pants on their website.

I don't care what you say, the National Rifle Association is not the bad guy here. Perhaps you could start understanding this by reading some of the things that the NRA has written. This might be a good place to start:
https://www.nraila.org/article...

Many anti-gun politicians and members of the media have wrongly claimed that 3-D printing technology will allow for the production and widespread proliferation of undetectable plastic firearms. Regardless of what a person may be able to publish on the Internet, undetectable plastic guns have been illegal for 30 years. Federal law passed in 1988, crafted with the NRAâ(TM)s support, makes it unlawful to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive an undetectable firearm.

The NRA supports laws barring people from producing undetectable firearms. It's already illegal to make an undetectable firearm. It's illegal for felons, drug dealers, illegal aliens, and others law breakers like them, to possess any firearm. It's illegal to murder people. It's illegal to threaten people with a firearm. It's illegal to carry a firearm into a school. I don't know what you want because it seems that what so many claim we need in laws restricting gun ownership and use already exists. What I don't want to see is a law barring the posting of drawings on the internet, that's simply a step too far.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

[Muches popcorn and waits for the vein on Dude's forehead to pop.]

Re: Yawn.

[h33t l4x0r]

Vermont also has very lax gun laws, but yet 1/4 the murder rate of Missouri.

Maybe having to walk 40 miles in the snow just to murder someone is a disincentive?

Re:Yawn.

[Alypius]

Thank you for proving my point.

Re:Yawn.

[h33t l4x0r]

Then put good guys with guns inside the school before the bad guys with guns get there

I'm all for this... In Texas. Get more guns into your schools and let's see what happens, it might just be crazy enough to work.

But you red states need to put your children's lives where your mouths are and I don't think you will.

Re: Yawn.

[Megol]

Uphill - both ways.

Re:Yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S. doesn't have gun violence epidemic, Dem cities do

link: https://www.therichlogisshow.com/commentary/u.s.-doesn-t-have-gun-violence-epidemic-dem-cities-do-exclusive-rich-logis-shares-stats-on-top-2

Damn clear facts that totally destroy your puny naive narrative.

Re:Yawn.

[AmiMoJo]

That is all true, but is missing the point. It is not about "saving babies" but about a culture of people behaving irresponsibly and then flushing the consequences down the toilet.

Which is bizarre because by opposing better sex education and access to contraception they are opposing efforts to make people more responsible.

It's like trying to prevent car accidents by removing the airbags and not telling people about safe following distances, and then also banning the emergency services from attending accidents because that will surely make people take responsibility.

Re:Yawn.

[serviscope_minor]

No we're not.

It is not about "saving babies" but about a culture of people behaving irresponsibly and then flushing the consequences down the toilet

Bullshit. It's about using the law enforcing religion by the back dor. This is why I'm not perplexed. Conservative "christians"[*] want to enforce the laws of their spiteful desert god on the world. Oddly they seem less interested in what Jesus had to say most of the time.

[*] It baffles me how anyone conservative can call themselves a Christian. Have they ever actually read the bible? Jesus is protrayed as the most famous radical of all time.

Re: Yawn.

[serviscope_minor]

Here's an idea, if you want to stop crime then put criminals in prison. That seems to be working for a lot of places.

No it really isn't. You're already putting more criminals in prison than anywhere else on earth. And you don't have the lowest crime rate. More incarceration in "the land of the free" a.k.a. "the most heavily incarcerated country on the planet" is not the solution.

Re:Yawn.

[sd4f]

I think it's more because internationally, jurisdictions have outlawed and made possession of said plans illegal. I don't know how many jurisdictions, I know in my state in Australia possession of digital 'blueprints' are illegal and a jailable offense. I think for a platform like FB, they have no interest in this stuff, so blocking it probably best covers them.

Re:Yawn.

[h33t l4x0r]

And just so as we're perfectly clear, the fact that no legislator, even in the deep south, is keen to implement a "more guns in schools" policy, means that they know deep down that it would only end in tragedy.

You pay lip service to your "guns don't kill people" BS, but you have no actual faith in it. I dare you to prove me wrong.

Re: Yawn.

[drinkypoo]

No it really isn't. You're already putting more criminals in prison than anywhere else on earth.

That is caused by criminalizing victimless interactions, especially drug-related offenses which are in fact not offenses against anyone. Since no one is harmed in them, there is no legal justification to making them crimes at all, especially not felonies.

More incarceration in "the land of the free" a.k.a. "the most heavily incarcerated country on the planet" is not the solution.

That's true. It's not about incarcerating more people, it's about incarcerating the correct people. But that alone won't solve the problem, because prison also has to be rehabilitative instead of a rape factory.

Re:Yawn.

[Mashiki]

That's funny, because most of those "rural whites" own rifles the next makeup is what are affectionately known as "granny pistols", and most gangbangers are using illegally modified semi-automatic to automatics, or guns that have been illegally trafficked to Mexico and reslushed through gangs in the US. Hey remember that gun-running scheme by Holder, you know the guy who was Obama's DA? Remember how one of the weapons ended up in fucking France, mowing down a bunch of people? Yeah, lots of people still do.

Re:Yawn.

[Mashiki]

Several states just finished passing laws to allow teachers to have guns in their classroom if they're concealed, and the carrier has a concealed-carry permit. You seem to be very much out-of-step with what's been happening the last couple of years.

Re: Yawn.

[RandomFactor]

Well, yes, "illegal" is pretty much by definition criminal, so no question about that :-p

Of course what is really being said is that they are more likely to commit criminal acts /other/ than just being here illegally.

(Also IMO certainly true since the statement doesn't control for language barriers, economic status, etc.)

Once you start pulling those factors out, I don't know if it is still accurate or not. Be interesting if someone has stats that take such things into account.

Re:Yawn.

[BlueStrat]

TPTB over the decades have worked to chip away at our educational systems, our mental health systems, our criminal justice system, and our common shared beliefs using propaganda involving the pushing of identity politics

What utter bullshit: the problem is entirely people like you. The criminal justice system has many deep problems relating to the lack of funding for public defenders, zero reprecussions for criminal actions by prosecuters (see how many convistions for witholding evidence there have been), a system stacke towards the prosecution, and the entire plea bargaining system.

Yet morons like you whitter on about "identity politics" when the foundations of your country are on fire. And while the politicians realise they can get your vote by demonising the other tribe rather than fixing the actual problems nothing will ever get fixed.

The problems you mentioned are all, every one, simply results and follow-on consequences of the issues I listed.

All you're discussing is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. But yeah, sure, *I'm* the moron, here.

Stop being part of the problem.

Right back at you. Those problems you mention will never be fixed until the cultural and societal problems I talked about are effectively addressed. Until that happens there simply will not be enough informed & educated people who care enough pushing to correct those problems to force a change.

And please, if you don't have any respect for me, at least have enough respect for yourself to refrain from infantile name-calling. It doesn't help your arguments.

Strat

Re: Yawn.

[Highdude702]

Prison rehabilitated me to the point that I would have to be in a really desperate situation to repeat my crime, or really any crime that could put me in prison again. Because fuck prison, and its really not the rape factory its portrayed to be in the movies, well most aren't. There are a few, and even in those you're more likely to get murdered than raped.

Re: Yawn.

[Highdude702]

Chainsaw? Not much of a fighting chance then.

Re: Yawn.

[cayenne8]

The murder rate in New Hampshire is 1/10th that of Louisiana. Go compare the gun laws in both those states. Here's a hint, one state requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and the other does not.

That is absolutely FALSE.

You have to have a carry concealed license in the state of Louisiana to legally carry a concealed firearm.

The thugs committing most of the gun crimes in LA, are in the gangs, mostly in the project areas or immediately surrounding areas, at least here in New Orleans.

And those low lifes aren't going to bother following any new gun laws that seem to only affect the many law abiding citizens that enjoy guns.

Re:Yawn.

[ShanghaiBill]

Bullshit. It's about using the law enforcing religion by the back dor.

Saying it is not culture, but religion, is silly. Religion is culture.

Re:Yawn.

[cayenne8]

An 80 percent arm (which is a stripped and when delivered an un-usable firearm lower) requires technical know-how and an investment in tools, skills and technologies well beyond the reach/price of a fully-usable lower that you could purchase with a 3-5 day waiting period for (same as a fully functional gun).

Wow..where do you live where you have a 3-5 day waiting period to buy a lower or fully functioning firearm?

I walk in the store, show ID, fill out paperwork, they do the instant check on me and in about 15-30 min I'm walking out the door with my shiny new gun.

Milling out an 80% metal lower, isn't rocket surgery.

They send it to you by mail if you want, with jigs and instructions on how to do it.

Lots of videos out there, but you can mill it out using their jigs and power tools most people have laying around the house.

From there (and in the US, say for an AR, the lower is the ONLY piece of a gun that is considered a firearm by the ATF)...you easily buy the upper (fully put together for maybe $300 or so), and a lower parts kit, can be had for about $60 or so....slap it together and you have a fully functioning, unregistered, unserialized AR....perfectly legal and has been for MANY years.

The only things with 3D printing is they're getting to where you can 3D print a lower out of plastic that will hold up for longer periods of time, especially because the lower isn't really catching much of the stress of the gun firing.

Re:Yawn.

[serviscope_minor]

Saying it is not culture, but religion, is silly

Good job I didn't say that then. If you randomly delete 50% of the words from my sentances then you can make it say that, but that sure isn't what I wrote.

Re:Yawn.

[cayenne8]

Yeah, but you know who's not with us? The NRA.

You act like the NRA is some sort of boogy man out there operating against the will of the US public.

The NRA is made up of and funded BY a great many of the US public, the ones that appreciate the 2nd amendment and enjoy safe, legal firearms ownership and use.

The NRA is their lobbying committee, amongst other growing gun's right organizations.

The NRA is simply representing that massive number of legal and responsible gun owners out there IN the US.

Re:Yawn.

[PopeRatzo]

The NRA is simply representing that massive number of legal and responsible gun owners out there IN the US.

The NRA represents fewer than 1 in 10 gun owners.

Is that a "massive number" compared to the general population?

Re: Yawn.

[serviscope_minor]

Fair points.

Re: Yawn.

[serviscope_minor]

Prison rehabilitated me to the point that I would have to be in a really desperate situation to repeat my crime

And now you want to pay it down by "rehabilitating" some burly bearded dudes until they use the ladies toilets, like this dude. I think you're pretty weird, TBH. (btw, no I won't let up until you recant your absurd philosophy)

Anyway the actual point is that regardless of your personal anecdotes, the statistics show that the US is crap at rehabilitation and the reoffending rate is much higher than some other countries.

and its really not the rape factory its portrayed to be in the movies, well most aren't.

Well, that's damning with faint praise!

There are a few, and even in those you're more likely to get murdered than raped.

Erm, yay?

Re:Yawn.

[cayenne8]

Not everyone they represent is a paying member.

But it doesn't negate that they are a lobby group made up of and FOR the rights of all gun owners.

Re:Yawn.

[PopeRatzo]

Not everyone they represent is a paying member.

Now hold on, are you saying that organizations can claim to represent people that don't belong to the organization? So, does Patriot Prayer represent you? They claim to represent all decent white folks. Is that you?

But it doesn't negate that they are a lobby group made up of and FOR the rights of all gun owners.

Especially the Russian ones, apparently. Be real. The NRA represents the gun industry. Period. Whatever makes gun sales go up, they're for. It's why they crank up the machine whenever there is a massacre of schoolkids or innocent people sitting in a church somewhere.

Take the blinders off. I don't know if you're a gun owner, but I am, and the NRA most certainly does not represent me.

Re: Yawn.

[thegarbz]

LOL. That would probably give me the biggest chance of them all. People aren't very good at chasing others while carrying heavy powertools.

Re: Yawn.

[drinkypoo]

Prison rehabilitated me to the point that I would have to be in a really desperate situation to repeat my crime, or really any crime that could put me in prison again.

Prison makes people more likely to be in desperate situations, not least because it makes it harder to get a job.

Re:Yawn.

[blindseer]

The NRA represents fewer than 1 in 10 gun owners.

There are over 300 million people in the USA and about 1/3rd of them own guns.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15...

That's 100 million gun owners. If 1/10th of them are NRA members than that's 10 million NRA members. Recent polling suggests it's closer to 6 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Is that a "massive number" compared to the general population?

The margin of votes between President Trump and Secretary Clinton in 2016 was less than 4 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So, yes, that is a "massive number" compared to the general population.

Re: Yawn.

[Highdude702]

lmao, thank you for the morning laugh. youre a deranged cunt, but im sure you know that.

Re: Yawn.

[Highdude702]

crazy people that are going to chase you with a chainsaw will probably have no issue with this or they would have chosen another weapon. like a gun.. O.o

Re: Yawn.

[Highdude702]

I wasn't saying it works for everybody, but it does work for some. I have a lot of friends that ended up right back there. In my opinion parole is what causes repeat offenders. Also, here in Las Vegas. We have this thing called "drug court" where instead of going to prison they put you through a multi step recovery program. Step 1, you cant have a job because for 6 hours a day during normal working hours they make you run around sitting in rooms waiting in line and at court in line waiting for your daily bullshit, yet they expect you to be able to live without doing crime. They even actually tell you that you can't have a job..... Thats the problem with our legal system.

Re: Yawn.

[serviscope_minor]

You're the one who wants men in women't bathrooms. You've repeatedly refused to give a choerent reason why. The only logical conclusion is you want cover so you can go in. You're not deranged, just really, really creepy.

Re:Yawn.

[ebvwfbw]

If you remove all the Democratic cities with strict gun control, the USA is 189 out of the 193 countries in the world.
More guns, less crime.
It's common sense.

Re: Yawn.

[serviscope_minor]

You've repeatedly refused to give a choerent reason why.

That's what's known as "a lie". I have given reasons repeatedly. I don't want this guy in the ladies toilets:

https://www.gaystarnews.com/wp...

The question is why do you?

Re:Yawn.

[ArylAkamov]

I've had this open for two days, waiting to hear a response from popeasshat. Instead all I see is him reiterating the same insults and non-arguments to everyone else, then run when confronted with facts.
Though I do see people are still modding it down. Must hurt having the facts not align with their worldview.

Re: Yawn.

[thegarbz]

Indeed, which is why guns should be hard to get. Go for the chainsaw man!

Re: Yawn.

[Highdude702]

Because guns are fun. I enjoy shooting guns, and I enjoy all things guns. plus a chainsaw is too damn messy. why the hell do I want to end up covered in the attackers bodily fluids.

Re: Yawn.

[thegarbz]

So do I. I just don't need to own any to enjoy using them. Unless I feel like going on a murder spree.

Re: Yawn.

[Highdude702]

This is why we don't listen to any one person on what their "needs" are, and force that onto others.

Re: Yawn.

[thegarbz]

Yeah I know, land on the free[1]

[1] To get mass murdered due to National Rifle Addiction.

Re: Yawn.

[Highdude702]

Yes, you want to remove the free part because of a few bad actors.

Oh yeah!

[Ol Olsoc]

Sitting back and muching popcorn and a shot of tquila as Slashdot erupts in 3...2....1....

Re:Oh yeah!

[Alypius]

I approve! Though I have homebrewed IPA instead of tequila.

Re:Oh yeah!

[supremebob]

The funny thing is that 90 years ago in the US, that homebrew beer recipe you used probably would have been considered to be more dangerous than the homebrew gun recipe that we’re talking about now.

I can only imagine what the controls of Social Media would look like in a modern country with Prohibition today... it would probably make this story look like a nothingburger in comparison.

Re:Oh yeah!

[Alypius]

Oh God yes. I remember reading The Complete Joy of Homebrewing when I first got into it about ten years ago. The quality of the ingredients available today is simply not comparable to when Papazian wrote his first edition in the 70's. Fast-forward to today, the quality is such that if you have the skills to make orange juice from concentrate, you can make good beer.

Heck, even the equipment is different. Sure, if you want to go pro, you can do the traditional three-vessel approach and can make it as complicated as you (or your wallet) like. I, however, prefer the simple one-vessel "brew-in-a-bag" approach, saving me about $4,700 in equipment costs. YMMV.

Re:Oh yeah!

[blindseer]

50 years ago we saw the Gun Control Act of 1968 get passed into law. Many of the reasons for it passing were because of the Black Panther Party being formed in California a few years earlier. This was spreading quickly and there were bands of armed Black men patrolling the streets to maintain order because the police were not keeping people safe. The police could not arrest someone for carrying a weapon, and they could not stop anyone from buying one, since there was no law against it.

What had been established in previous laws and court cases is that the police couldn't bar a Black person from getting a gun but they could require a person to submit to a background check based on character. The GCA68 alone didn't allow for the disarming of minorities, but it set rules on restricting sales across state lines. State laws then predominated. What happened then is states started passing laws on registering firearms, which until 1968 firearms were not required to have serial numbers and registration was impossible without serial numbers. The states would then not allow someone to register a firearm, and therefore not own one legally, unless they were deemed of the right "character" to do so. This is how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was kept disarmed.

Gun control is racist. The roots of gun control come out of slavery. The earliest gun control laws were meant to keep slaves as slaves, even after slavery was officially abolished. When Blacks started to fight for their equality under the law then states started passing laws restricting gun ownership. One of the first things to go was mail order of guns, because the person making the order might be a Black man. Then gun shops had to be licensed to sell guns, and if their "papers were not in order" then the government could shut them down. I'll let you guess who got checked most often on paperwork violations.

What we are seeing now are politicians so scared of Black men getting guns that they are not only willing to continue these racist laws but veer into the territory of violating the right of the people to speak, communicate, or peaceably assemble.

Yep, 90 years ago alcohol was considered more dangerous than a mail order Thompson submachine gun. Now they are so scared of an unregistered single shot pistol that they are willing to take the right to communicate freely and chuck it in the toilet.

Re:Oh yeah!

[Ol Olsoc]

I approve! Though I have homebrewed IPA instead of tequila.

A great alternative. Prosit!

Facebook does not have 'Sites' it can Ban

[that this is not und]

Facebook does not have 'sites' that it can ban. They might host 'pages' that people are foolish enough to consider their 'sites.'

If you want a host a site, rent a server or a spot on a server and host your site. Facebook has no say in what you host on it.

Re:Facebook does not have 'Sites' it can Ban

[terraformer]

Facebook is actually banning any reference or link to their independently hosted site. It's the Facebook equivalent of nuking them from orbit. People can't even discuss anything about the site, because references to it, including non links and non URL looking text references cause people's posts to get deleted or shadowed. So yeah, this doesn't have anything with third party hosting.

these guys are morons. however...

[Anonymous Coward]

all of us libtards who were up in arms over DeCSS, free speech flag, 'illegal prime numbers', wtc, we have to realize that essentially, a 3d printed gun file is simply a number. in other words, its just another kind of illegal number, along with the Playstation encryption keys or decss code or whatever. at some point we have to face the fact that information in pure form can be deadly , thats what a virus is basically, just DNA inside of a dumb casing. like the flu pandemic that killed tens of millions of people... thats technically just a number, not a very big one, GATCTCTAGC etc etc. its not enough to decry gun nuts as moron wackjobs. we have to deal with the fact that our society has evolved to a point, our species, where it could more easily wipe itself out than ever before. solving nuclear weapons proliferation was not the end. it was the beginning. we have no idea what we are doing and no idea what will happen next.

Re:these guys are morons. however...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't know who modded this negative, but it is exactly on point. Information is just information. What you do with it is up to you. You can't withhold information from people.

Only Children Censor

[UnknownSoldier]

The fact that they are censoring certain sites and not others shows a couple of things:

* They are a bunch of children who think they have the moral right to be the thought police. What gives them the right to decide what is acceptable or not?
* There are FAR worse sites that are allowed to be linked -- why aren't THOSE also removed?

Since corporations are ...

* legal entities
* have the same free speech rights as individuals (2010 ruling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission with a 5-4 decision)
* are covered by the First Amendment

... does that mean they are infringing upon the rights of others when they block OTHER free speech rights?

Is communication on FaceBook's platform considered to be on "private property"?

Is Facebook a "common carrier" or not when they have become a de facto Common / Town Square?

If they acted like adults, why can't they allow the link but ALSO put up a banner saying "We believe this link to be irresponsible" .. and then let the user decide if the link is worth clicking or not?

Slashdot's own moderation system of downvoting, but keeping, unpopular links, is the better way to handle this.

The fact that they are censoring communication that they (politically) disagree with just proves that they are immature and scared and operating under the modus operandi of "CYA".

--
Only children censor.
Adults communicate and even laugh about taboo subjects.

Re:Only Children Censor

[Brett Buck]

It's scummy, anti-American, and highly partisan, but Facebook is a private entity and can do what it pleases with its platform. This is not a First Amendment issue.

Of course, you are also entitled to take your business elsewhere, which I highly recommend.

Re:Only Children Censor

[Known Nutter]

Is Facebook a "common carrier" or not when they have become a de facto Common / Town Square?

Assumes facts not in evidence. When was it determined that Facebook is a de facto Town Square? Who made that determination?

So, no. Facebook is not a common carrier.

* Facebook.com and its 100 or so associated domains are blocked on my network.

Re:Only Children Censor

[wonkey_monkey]

* They are a bunch of children who think they have the moral right to be the thought police. What gives them the right to decide what is acceptable or not?

No, they are a bunch of adults who run their own website and can choose what can and can't be put on there.

So owning Facebook is what gives them the right.

... does that mean they are infringing upon the rights of others when they block OTHER free speech rights?

No, because they're not blocking others' free speech rights, any more than I would be blocking your free speech rights by making you leave my house if you started pontificating on the finer points of Kirk vs. Picard.

Is communication on FaceBook's platform considered to be on "private property"?

Yes.

Is Facebook a "common carrier" or not when they have become a de facto Common / Town Square?

No.

If they acted like adults, why can't they allow the link but ALSO put up a banner saying "We believe this link to be irresponsible" .. and then let the user decide if the link is worth clicking or not?

Because they don't want to, and there is no onus on them to do otherwise. Someone else can do that if they want to.

The fact that they are censoring communication that they (politically) disagree with just proves that they are immature and scared and operating under the modus operandi of "CYA".

Would you say the same about the makers of Roblox kicking people off for what they class as indecent behaviour?

Re:Only Children Censor

[penandpaper]

Yes. It is quickly becoming a first amendment issue because if they censor then it means they are publishing their opinion and that means they are liable for any illegal activity on their site. If they are a public neutral forum then they are not liable.

Even if this wasn't a first amendment issue the entire culture surrounding censorship in SV is disturbing considering how much they can influence our elections because they are the de facto town square of public discourse online. In some instances they have been ruled by the courts to be de jure town squares (hello trump twitter feed). Is it any coincidence that they start banning outright a lot of people and opinions they don't like before an election? FB blames themselves in part for electing Trump and we can't have that now can we. #bluewave is real. #walkaway, what's that?

There is a disconnect between the Bill of Rights and the rights that pre-exist the US Constitution. The right to speak is not something comes from the government. That means that if any monopolistic platform of public discourse stifles that right then it is in effect to the individual as if the government shut it down. It is clear from recent events that social media companies are colluding to shut down speech they don't like before an election. This is dangerous. Anyone that doesn't see the danger of allowing a small cabal of companies able to ban, shut down, and influence political discourse to such a degree is a damned fool.

Re:Only Children Censor

[Brett Buck]

They are not the "town hall" for anything. They are a private sideshow.

        The right to speak freely is a function of natural law, not the constitution. The actual text says "congress shall make no law", which mean it is a prohibition on the government- not that it "permits" an individual from speaking. So in that sense, you are correct.

      Congress has made no law abridging the freedom of speech, therefore, not a first amendment issue.

    Some of the concept behind "hate speech" is verging dangerously close to making laws prohibiting certain types of expression/"speech" and that would be categorically unconstitutional.

Facebook, as a corporation of private individuals providing a service, is doing it, not the law and not the government. They are scumbags, because they do not actually believe in the concept behind freedom of speech, and are making it much harder to exercise your rights (for highly partisan reasons), but it's not illegal.

      However, if someone came to my house or place of business and wanted to spout off about black people, Jews, "white privilege", Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Che Guevera, etc., I would be quite happy yo kick them out on their ass. But if they wanted to do the same on a public street, there's not a damn thing I could do to stop them, aside from arguing or counter-spewing.

     

Re:Only Children Censor

[Megol]

You or another AC have already posted this "argument", doing it repeatedly is spamming/fishing for responses.
Your argument is idiotic, that's why you don't get the responses you want. So please stop.

Re:Only Children Censor

[serviscope_minor]

It's scummy, anti-American,

A massive, powerful, incredbly rich American company is about the most American thing you can get.

There's still some good news

[Patent Lover]

The good news is that you can still see photos of your friends' new babies every day ad nauseum.

Re:Can't withhold information

[lsllll]

Looks to me the pot is calling the kettle black!

I'll wait for the 4D Printed guns

[jfdavis668]

3D is old hat. 4D is the future. Then I will be able to shoot into enclosed spaces without hitting the walls or roof.

Re:I'll wait for the 4D Printed guns

[Noishkel]

Yeah I think I saw that upside of DS9. Some shell shocked Vulcan decided to off people using a rifle with a transporter built into it.

Re:I'll wait for the 4D Printed guns

[Alypius]

Haha yep! I remember that one. Great minds think alike :D

Oh Noes!

[FutureDomain]

Now grandma can't get her copy of a 3D printed gun! How will she ever make that one-shot pistol she's always wanted? Seriously though, Facebook is losing relevance and traffic by the day and parading stuff like this around isn't going to help them. Nobody was going to Facebook to find links to 3D weapons blueprints before, and they still won't now. Short your Facebook stock now while they're still swirling in the toilet.

Steganography

[PPH]

You do know that these are being distributed* embedded in plain old graphics files? Better block all those cute kitten pics right now!

*Just to prove a point. The gun plans have been out there for years.

Re:Steganography

[mark-t]

The best steganography methods work because the uninformed viewer doesn't know what to look for, not because humans are crappy at seing minor anomalies in a data stream. A computer that didn't know what to look for would not do significantly better at finding secret content than a human in that respect.... at best it may be able to identify data streams that are "suspicious", and believed to contain some secret data, but this would be based on on some stastistical probability, and quitte far removed from certain. Even then, it would not be able to identify with any measure of confidence what the alleged secret content actually was, assuming it was even there.

Re:Steganography

[PPH]

I suppose Facebook had better start searching every uploaded image and every linked image for possible steganographic information. And then reject everything that looks like it might contain 3D printing instructions for guns. 3D instructions for chess pieces (for example) are OK, so these must be allowed to pass.

Pound your shovels into swords

[Noishkel]

Armilite pattern rifles are fine, but I'd rather just make an AK pattern out of a shovel blade hammered flat and cut into a receiver. Throw on a parts kit and you've got a working rifle. http://militaryhumor.net/homem...

Rifle is fine!

Answer

[duke_cheetah2003]

We should probably try to create more of those URL shortener redirect thingamajigs. It will really throw a wrench into attempting to censor certain sites/URLs from being shared.

Re:Can't withhold information

[lsllll]

Looks to me the pot is calling the kettle black!

.

And you think you're any different, using a user ID which is obviously not your real name ?

Thanks for the laughs, you imbecile.

Are you demented? I posted as AC because I had modded the topic and still had mod points left. Then, after my mod points were done, when I commented, I used my real account. And I don't even know what you're arguing with. What I said as AC has nothing to do with your reply.

Hmmmm

[Ferretman]

Facebook of course privately owned and can do whatever silly thing it wants, but it's fighting the tide of history here and will not will in the end.

Banning information in any sort is basically censorship, and that never ends up well. Add to that they are trying to engage in prior restraint and I predict a swift decision in the favor of the 3D gun makers once it gets to the Supreme Court.

Ferret

Stop the Moral Panic

[toupsie]

Please folks, let's get back to reality. First, it is completely legal in the United States to build your own firearms ( https://www.quora.com/Is-is-tr... )-- anyone with access to basic machinery tools can do it -- think Zip Guns created by prisoners for the ease of creation. Second, plastic 3D gun are terrible.I would rather have a 1700s musket instead. The 3D printed guns have more in common with ancient firearms than modern firearms. It is cheaper and simpler to buy a fully built AR-15 than it is to "print" your own firearm from files downloaded off the internet. And if you really want to make your own M16 based pistol, Google will provide you detailed plans from their own servers: https://patents.google.com/pat.... You provide the tools and skill, Google will provide the detailed schematics. Will Facebook now block Google?

Re:Stop the Moral Panic

[Anonymous Coward]

Your points are accurate but I think the greater concern is proliferation of weapons that can get past metal detectors and such, not just whether or not someone can get a gun generally speaking.

But absolutely this is much more about FB making a "statement" than actually preventing anyone from getting to the plans.

Re:Stop the Moral Panic

[Patent Lover]

Your points are accurate but I think the greater concern is proliferation of weapons that can get past metal detectors

A gun without metallic ammo is simply going to explode. No ifs ands or buts about it.

Re:Stop the Moral Panic

[Mashiki]

A gun without metallic ammo is simply going to explode. No ifs ands or buts about it.

Hate to tell you this, but a decade ago military's were worried that china was about to start selling ceramic ammo knock-offs of existing ceramic ammo that are already in use. You really want to read up on it? Look up the hearings on X-SAPI which had a large over-discussion/panic because of it.

Re:Stop the Moral Panic

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It may be legal to make your own guns, but it is illegal to make guns out of non-ferrous materials, because of metal detectors.

Re:Stop the Moral Panic

[rpstrong]

The gun needs to be detectable, not made of metal. A fully functional Liberator can be made entirely from plastic, but to keep it legal an utterly non-functional metal plate is epoxied into a slot on the frame. The metal has enough mass to trigger the metal detector.

Re:Stop the Moral Panic

[ebvwfbw]

Hell, you don't even need to go this far. Just order a black powder gun over the internet. They'll send it right to your house. Colt Army, etc. Sure, you have to know how to care and feed a black powder gun, however they work. Wonder if we can call powder black any more or if that's somehow racist. Might make the powder feel bad.

Re:Stop the Moral Panic

[rpstrong]

EDIT: The Liberator can't quite be entirely made of plastic; it needs a nail for a firing pin. But the nail is too small to make the gun legally detectable.

Re:Stop the Moral Panic

[Actually, I do RTFA]

It also needs to be detectable by xray machines with a gun shape. A rectangle is not that shape.

Re:Stop the Moral Panic

[rpstrong]

The four ounce chunk of metal doesn't matter - the entire gun will show up on the x-ray. This article specifically shows the infamous "invisible" Glock 7 in a conventional x-ray; this page shows how to detect metal, plastic, and organic (e.g., explosives) items in a color coded airport x-ray device.

[Other sources do indicate that it is possible to crank the power up and/or modify the sensitivity enough to ignore plastics, but did not supply comparison images. Also, the minimal detection law specifically requires that airport type scanners be used.]

Fuck you

[DogDude]

Fuck you. Have you ever thought that they don't want to contribute to violence? If there's a possibility that one asshole won't get their hands on a gun, it's a good thing. It's called making the world a better place.

Re:Fuck you

[Alypius]

Gun ownership isn't for everyone. Fortunately ownership is voluntary. I'm happy for you that you're self-aware enough to know that it's not for you.

Still, you're not the Arbiter of Truth for the country. There's a lot of places that don't count as downtown SF/LA/NYC.

Re:Fuck you

[drinkypoo]

Fuck you. Have you ever thought that they don't want to contribute to violence?

No.

If there's a possibility that one asshole won't get their hands on a gun, it's a good thing. It's called making the world a better place.

They're doing nothing to keep guns out of the hands of the police, who have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to handle the responsibility.

Re:Fuck you

[Jane Q. Public]

This has always amused me.

These people don't want to get rid of guns. They just want only government to have guns.

What an amazingly stupid idea.

There goes net neutrality

[Tokolosh]

Goodbyeeee

3D Guns are FREE

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is being sold. Facebook doesn't get it either.