Not so much. Since it has been VERY clearly demonstrated over the years that most trained soldiers cannot hit the broad side of a barn with full-auto fire under the best of circumstances, it isn't very reasonable to expect your average criminal with a stolen gun and no practice to do so.
"Additional firepower" is no advantage if you can't hit your target with it.
" Class III refers to the type of tax (Special Occupation Tax) a Type 1 FFL pays to also be able to deal in Title 2 NFA firearms (machine guns, destructive devices, short barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, and any other weapons)."
Technically it is Title II, but they are often referred to as Class III firearms because of the tax. People who would actually do this already understand what I mean.
You are correct, however, that since 1986 it does take a different form for a "machinegun" as defined by the law. Still, they are not prohibited and may still be purchased, if they were manufactured before May 19, 1986.
"First, you have to fill out the form and gain approval thru both the ATF and the Chief of the county law enforcement for each purchase and pay the $200 tax."
The ATF does have to approve, but unless you have some kind of red flags on your name, it's pretty much a rubber stamp. Yes, the FIRST time you do it, you will have to supply additional information to the ATF, such as fingerprints and pictures. But once you are approved as a Class III (often referred to as Title II) owner, you don't have to go through that again.
And as the other responder mentioned, if it is a corporation buying it, those restrictions don't apply, and the approval is usually faster.
As for the "county law enforcement" approval, that's not part of the Federal law at all. It must be a state law where you're from. It doesn't exist here.
And as for the each purchase part, I stated that myself.
"Another moron who repeats things without understanding them."
Yep. You sure are.
Almost this entire article was explaining that while cell phone use is correlated with automobile accidents, it is not the cause of the accidents.
Correlation does not imply causation. That what that means. So YOU are the one who doesn't understand. And decided to call others names out of ignorance.
"So there is a causation, it's just the other way round."
Of course there is A causation. But it has nothing to do with the correlation to cell phones. Get a f*ing clue.
"Cellphone usage is apparently acting as a marker to identify shit drivers."
You don't understand the slightest thing about how this actually works. And yet you call people who do understand morons. Wow. Talk about Dunning-Kruger.
What I meant was: the statistics do not link gun ownership to higher crime or accident rates. The real statistics have been saying the opposite: gun ownership has gone up. Crime and accidents have gone down.
"I think the aim here is to have a workable gun: accurate within reasonable limits (say, 75-100 meters), and lethal, or the very least, damaging."
No, to be honest here, I think the immediate goal is more like 75-100 inches, when it comes to accuracy.
You aren't going to be starting out with rifle bullets. Those generate FAR too much pressure for an experiment of this sort. No, it will be small-caliber pistol bullets, which means close range.
"The problem I see is, my risk of being harmed by those with criminal or evil intent is far far smaller than the risk I have of being harmed by the honest, hard-working salt of the earth guy down the block who has the best of intentions and makes just one mistake, because there are thousands of the latter for every one of the former."
Except: that's not the way the math really works out. Your proportions are off, so it's a false fear. Americans of recent generations really have been pretty terrible at actual risk-assessment.
We already know, statistically, that in the U.S., firearms are used legally to prevent crime vastly more often than they are by criminals to injure or kill average citizens. (The statistics might be different if you are another criminal, because that's where the large majority of shootings occur: between criminals.) "Preventing a crime" includes when the attacker turns and runs at the mere sight of a gun in the defender's hands. And those are just the reported cases.
More statistics: for almost 30 years now, major crime (felony theft, burglaries, rapes, murders, etc.) has been going steadily down. Not just a little, but a lot! (Tragically, according to polls, people say they feel less safe today then they did 30 years ago, which is completely the opposite of what the actual statistics say. You can thank your government and news media for that.)
However, during that same time period, per-capita gun ownership in the United States has been going steadily up! This information (except for the polls) comes straight from the Department of Justice.
Believe it or not, mass shootings like Columbine and the recent theater shooting are DOWN from what they were decades ago. School shootings in particular are also DOWN from what they were before.
The difference is that then, when something happened, you'd read about it in the paper 2 days later on page 4. Today, it's splashed all over the television and internet within the hour.
No wonder people feel less safe. But it's not true. They are much, much safer than they were 30 years ago. And guns have nothing to do with it.
Usiz are underpowered and sloppy. They are good for 2 things only: (1) making other people duck so you can go from here to there, and (2) crowd control.
"10 thousand rounds is not hard right now, just have 10,000 barrels, each one preloaded with a single shot, fired electrically, no need to strike anything, just a couple of wires. Have this configured as a wearable vest, covered up lightly."
It would be completely useless. In order to be wearable, in both size and weight, the barrels would have to be so short the bullets would have no velocity. You might as well be shooting blanks.
"A increase rate of fire gives advantage to the attacking parte, who can shot more before anyone can react. Also, the attacker needs way less precission, making quick attacks (with less exporsure for the attacker) more feasible (think of drive-thru shooting, would you like a semi-auto or a full auto for that)."
Actually, warfare has shown that not to be true, in general.
Adding full-auto fire into the mix generates thousands of wasted rounds for every target that is hit.
Full-auto fire is best used to keep other people's heads down, while you move.
What he said. You can fire it from a board, but there is so little pressure, the bullet probably would not penetrate another board. That kind of defeats the purpose.
You need to have something that will take not just the heat, but enough pressure to fire a bullet effectively. The latter is really the bigger problem.
"... it's even used in some expensive Japanese chef's knives..."
I have some PSZ cutlery and it's not very good. It may keep an edge for half of forever; but you can't put a very good edge on it in the first place.
It won't hold an edge at the same small angle that a good steel blade will. They have to be sharpened at a larger angle (they come that way)... which means you just paid a fortune for a perpetually semi-dull knife.
I don't want to exaggerate. They're okay. But they just don't cut like good steel.
I should have added that with most of them, if there are parts that are not easily available commercially, like custom-molded plastic parts: you just print your own spares and store them away for a rainy day.
"If you just want to build weapons in general, it would be absolutely trivial to make an effective stabbing weapon with a 3D printer. You cold even make one out of water-soluble PVA plastic and dump it in the river when you're done!"
" I can buy a muzzleloader over the counter with no documentation at all. It's a gun,not a great one for mass murder, but it does do a number on deer. They even make some muzzleloaders with interchangeable barrells, but you have to apply to own it just like a "regular" handgun or rifle."
Those are mostly state laws, not federal. Here, under some circumstances I can buy ANY gun, without any kind of documentation. Except, of course, for anything that's Class III (fully auto, grenades, etc.). Those do require a federal form.
"However, if you build the part, cast a mold around it, and then use some stronger material in the mold (molten metal, fiberglass, tougher plastic, cellophane, etc) then that should work."
If you're going to to to all that trouble, why not just use a thin steel sleeve in the barrel?
"There are other split receiver rifles where the serialized part is the upper receiver. For example the SIG/SAN 550 series. The lower still holds the pistol grip, trigger, and magazine but the upper is serialized."
The lower receiver is still considered to be the "the gun" according to ATF. When a gun easily separates into parts, the "frame" or "receiver" is the "gun". When there is an upper and lower receiver, the lower receiver is considered "the gun" because the lower receiver is where the main action is (trigger assembly, selective fire mechanism, etc.).
"You can build a mortar if you fill out the right paper work for a Destructive Device. It's a Form 1. Prior to 1986 you could do machine guns on that form as well."
All you need to do is fill out a Federal Class III Firearms form. It's a standard form and there is a $200 tax for each "Class III" item. For example (I won't say what state it's in) I know of a Class III Firearms shop. You can walk in there quite freely -- and legally -- and walk out with a case of grenades. As long as you are not disqualified (like felony convictions for example) and you can afford the $200 tax for each grenade.
Exactly the same holds true for "machine guns". Just fill out a Class III form and fork over your $200.
A lot of people don't believe it, but yes it's really that easy.
"...the concerns about Google and privacy have next to nothing to do with what hackers might do with the data Google collects on you, rather than what Google will do with it."
Yes. It isn't privacy "vulnerabilities" we should care about so much with Google, but the privacy losses that are inherent in their business model.
This is one of those cases in which correlation really does not imply causation. And never did, no matter how "obvious" the connection seemed to most people.
I have been aware of this situation for some time, due to some other statistics with which I became familiar.
But despite it being something of a cliche on Slashdot, it had to be said. Everybody said that it was "obvious" that cell phones caused accidents. But the correlation between accidents and cell phones has little or nothing to do with any actual cause.
The statistics have been telling us for a long time that the people who get into accidents while using cell phones tend to be distracted drivers, who would likely get into accidents anyway, distracted by something else, if a cell phone were not available.
Slashdot Mirror
"In my defense, I was viewing this in light of the printed AR-15 lower receiver, and thinking of ways to go from there."
That's a good point also. But it was my understanding that they were talking here about building pretty much an entire gun.
"You are comparing apples and oranges."
Not so much. Since it has been VERY clearly demonstrated over the years that most trained soldiers cannot hit the broad side of a barn with full-auto fire under the best of circumstances, it isn't very reasonable to expect your average criminal with a stolen gun and no practice to do so.
"Additional firepower" is no advantage if you can't hit your target with it.
" Class III refers to the type of tax (Special Occupation Tax) a Type 1 FFL pays to also be able to deal in Title 2 NFA firearms (machine guns, destructive devices, short barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, and any other weapons)."
Technically it is Title II, but they are often referred to as Class III firearms because of the tax. People who would actually do this already understand what I mean.
You are correct, however, that since 1986 it does take a different form for a "machinegun" as defined by the law. Still, they are not prohibited and may still be purchased, if they were manufactured before May 19, 1986.
"First, you have to fill out the form and gain approval thru both the ATF and the Chief of the county law enforcement for each purchase and pay the $200 tax."
The ATF does have to approve, but unless you have some kind of red flags on your name, it's pretty much a rubber stamp. Yes, the FIRST time you do it, you will have to supply additional information to the ATF, such as fingerprints and pictures. But once you are approved as a Class III (often referred to as Title II) owner, you don't have to go through that again.
And as the other responder mentioned, if it is a corporation buying it, those restrictions don't apply, and the approval is usually faster.
As for the "county law enforcement" approval, that's not part of the Federal law at all. It must be a state law where you're from. It doesn't exist here.
And as for the each purchase part, I stated that myself.
"Another moron who repeats things without understanding them."
Yep. You sure are.
Almost this entire article was explaining that while cell phone use is correlated with automobile accidents, it is not the cause of the accidents.
Correlation does not imply causation. That what that means. So YOU are the one who doesn't understand. And decided to call others names out of ignorance.
"So there is a causation, it's just the other way round."
Of course there is A causation. But it has nothing to do with the correlation to cell phones. Get a f*ing clue.
"Cellphone usage is apparently acting as a marker to identify shit drivers."
You don't understand the slightest thing about how this actually works. And yet you call people who do understand morons. Wow. Talk about Dunning-Kruger.
"And guns have nothing to do with it."
What I meant was: the statistics do not link gun ownership to higher crime or accident rates. The real statistics have been saying the opposite: gun ownership has gone up. Crime and accidents have gone down.
"I think the aim here is to have a workable gun: accurate within reasonable limits (say, 75-100 meters), and lethal, or the very least, damaging."
No, to be honest here, I think the immediate goal is more like 75-100 inches, when it comes to accuracy.
You aren't going to be starting out with rifle bullets. Those generate FAR too much pressure for an experiment of this sort. No, it will be small-caliber pistol bullets, which means close range.
"The problem I see is, my risk of being harmed by those with criminal or evil intent is far far smaller than the risk I have of being harmed by the honest, hard-working salt of the earth guy down the block who has the best of intentions and makes just one mistake, because there are thousands of the latter for every one of the former."
Except: that's not the way the math really works out. Your proportions are off, so it's a false fear. Americans of recent generations really have been pretty terrible at actual risk-assessment.
We already know, statistically, that in the U.S., firearms are used legally to prevent crime vastly more often than they are by criminals to injure or kill average citizens. (The statistics might be different if you are another criminal, because that's where the large majority of shootings occur: between criminals.) "Preventing a crime" includes when the attacker turns and runs at the mere sight of a gun in the defender's hands. And those are just the reported cases.
More statistics: for almost 30 years now, major crime (felony theft, burglaries, rapes, murders, etc.) has been going steadily down. Not just a little, but a lot! (Tragically, according to polls, people say they feel less safe today then they did 30 years ago, which is completely the opposite of what the actual statistics say. You can thank your government and news media for that.)
However, during that same time period, per-capita gun ownership in the United States has been going steadily up! This information (except for the polls) comes straight from the Department of Justice.
Believe it or not, mass shootings like Columbine and the recent theater shooting are DOWN from what they were decades ago. School shootings in particular are also DOWN from what they were before.
The difference is that then, when something happened, you'd read about it in the paper 2 days later on page 4. Today, it's splashed all over the television and internet within the hour.
No wonder people feel less safe. But it's not true. They are much, much safer than they were 30 years ago. And guns have nothing to do with it.
This.
Usiz are underpowered and sloppy. They are good for 2 things only: (1) making other people duck so you can go from here to there, and (2) crowd control.
That's it.
"10 thousand rounds is not hard right now, just have 10,000 barrels, each one preloaded with a single shot, fired electrically, no need to strike anything, just a couple of wires. Have this configured as a wearable vest, covered up lightly."
It would be completely useless. In order to be wearable, in both size and weight, the barrels would have to be so short the bullets would have no velocity. You might as well be shooting blanks.
By the way: that is why full-auto has been removed from most U.S. military small arms.
"A increase rate of fire gives advantage to the attacking parte, who can shot more before anyone can react. Also, the attacker needs way less precission, making quick attacks (with less exporsure for the attacker) more feasible (think of drive-thru shooting, would you like a semi-auto or a full auto for that)."
Actually, warfare has shown that not to be true, in general.
Adding full-auto fire into the mix generates thousands of wasted rounds for every target that is hit.
Full-auto fire is best used to keep other people's heads down, while you move.
"We all know that home 3d printers are just a matter of time"
No, we don't.
They've been available for home use for years now. Now, however, they're starting to get cheap.
What he said. You can fire it from a board, but there is so little pressure, the bullet probably would not penetrate another board. That kind of defeats the purpose.
You need to have something that will take not just the heat, but enough pressure to fire a bullet effectively. The latter is really the bigger problem.
"... it's even used in some expensive Japanese chef's knives..."
I have some PSZ cutlery and it's not very good. It may keep an edge for half of forever; but you can't put a very good edge on it in the first place.
It won't hold an edge at the same small angle that a good steel blade will. They have to be sharpened at a larger angle (they come that way)... which means you just paid a fortune for a perpetually semi-dull knife.
I don't want to exaggerate. They're okay. But they just don't cut like good steel.
I should have added that with most of them, if there are parts that are not easily available commercially, like custom-molded plastic parts: you just print your own spares and store them away for a rainy day.
"They are not at all ideal for self-sustainability since you need a lot of other resources to build and operate them."
Nonsense. They are available pre-assembled for under $500, are made from readily-available commercial parts if they break, and the raw plastic is pretty cheap if you know where to look.
"If you just want to build weapons in general, it would be absolutely trivial to make an effective stabbing weapon with a 3D printer. You cold even make one out of water-soluble PVA plastic and dump it in the river when you're done!"
They've been for sale commercially for over 30 years.
" I can buy a muzzleloader over the counter with no documentation at all. It's a gun,not a great one for mass murder, but it does do a number on deer. They even make some muzzleloaders with interchangeable barrells, but you have to apply to own it just like a "regular" handgun or rifle."
Those are mostly state laws, not federal. Here, under some circumstances I can buy ANY gun, without any kind of documentation. Except, of course, for anything that's Class III (fully auto, grenades, etc.). Those do require a federal form.
"However, if you build the part, cast a mold around it, and then use some stronger material in the mold (molten metal, fiberglass, tougher plastic, cellophane, etc) then that should work."
If you're going to to to all that trouble, why not just use a thin steel sleeve in the barrel?
"There are other split receiver rifles where the serialized part is the upper receiver. For example the SIG/SAN 550 series. The lower still holds the pistol grip, trigger, and magazine but the upper is serialized."
The lower receiver is still considered to be the "the gun" according to ATF. When a gun easily separates into parts, the "frame" or "receiver" is the "gun". When there is an upper and lower receiver, the lower receiver is considered "the gun" because the lower receiver is where the main action is (trigger assembly, selective fire mechanism, etc.).
"You can build a mortar if you fill out the right paper work for a Destructive Device. It's a Form 1. Prior to 1986 you could do machine guns on that form as well."
All you need to do is fill out a Federal Class III Firearms form. It's a standard form and there is a $200 tax for each "Class III" item. For example (I won't say what state it's in) I know of a Class III Firearms shop. You can walk in there quite freely -- and legally -- and walk out with a case of grenades. As long as you are not disqualified (like felony convictions for example) and you can afford the $200 tax for each grenade.
Exactly the same holds true for "machine guns". Just fill out a Class III form and fork over your $200.
A lot of people don't believe it, but yes it's really that easy.
Well, pardon me for violating my claim that I was done with this exchange, but after this I genuinely am.
The fact that you did not understand my argument does not equal a "win" on your part. Get a f*ing clue.
"...the concerns about Google and privacy have next to nothing to do with what hackers might do with the data Google collects on you, rather than what Google will do with it."
Yes. It isn't privacy "vulnerabilities" we should care about so much with Google, but the privacy losses that are inherent in their business model.
This is one of those cases in which correlation really does not imply causation. And never did, no matter how "obvious" the connection seemed to most people.
I have been aware of this situation for some time, due to some other statistics with which I became familiar.
But despite it being something of a cliche on Slashdot, it had to be said. Everybody said that it was "obvious" that cell phones caused accidents. But the correlation between accidents and cell phones has little or nothing to do with any actual cause.
The statistics have been telling us for a long time that the people who get into accidents while using cell phones tend to be distracted drivers, who would likely get into accidents anyway, distracted by something else, if a cell phone were not available.