They found 10s of thousands of shells all around the country, in various states and conditions. What they did not find was the super stockpile, or more importantly the ongoing production and development programs.
Actually it does. The carrier is not liable for what it carries if the product is not a hazardous material restricted from transport or requiring special handling. The carrier can't be held liable if the Ginsu knives you orders are then used to butcher your family. Similarly nobody went after the company that delivered the fertilizer Tim McVeigh used to the stores he bought it from. They didn't even go after Ryder Trucks for renting him a truck. The person who planned and or carried out the crime is the one held liable.
As to printing, I ignored that because it's a small irrelevant part of this discussion. We are not talking about a 3-D printer here. This topic is about Cody trying to ship a small CNC mill, something used in workshops and factories around the world every day to produce all kinds of stuff. Yes one that comes pre-programmed for a specific design, but still no different in capabilities (and possibly even reprogrammable for other purposes) than any other CNC Mill of similar size.
And the fact stands that pertinent to the goals of Distributed Defense and Cody Wilson the desires of the Mexican government or any other foreign government are irrelevant at this point. In the future that may change but for now he wants to sell and distribute within the boundaries of this country. And thus that is the shipping requirements he needs to meet.
Actually according to the laws of this land at least the receiver is the firearm. The rest of it is just finishing touches and are not tracked. And that is what I said in my post, you can build a receiver out of a shovel. So my point stands, in the eyes of the government you can build a firearm (the receiver) out of a shovel.
The part that the government cares about and tracks can be and occasionally is blacksmithed out of a shovel. The barrels and other components are not tracked. The government has no idea how many of the other parts anyone has or where they keep, bought or shipped them. The receiver is the key component that you must go through an FFL to buy new. Or to buy across state lines. But the receiver is so simple to build that it can easily be made without any government knowledge of it's existence. The other stuff they don't track so build it your self (with a machine shop) buy it at the local gun shop or order online they don't track the components as they are not considered the firearm.
The response is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the right is reserved to the people not to the states. The Bill of Rights applies to the people, only in the 10th does the rights of the States come into play. The 1st applies to the people, the 2nd to the people, the third to the people, the fourth to the people the 5th to the people, get the drift?
The right protected in the 2nd is the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms just as the freedom of speech and religion is the freedom of the people. It's not a conditional clause, it's an introductory clause explaining why the right of the people must be protected.
Guiliani isn't exactly the biggest friend of the 2nd Amendment either. Nor is Chris Christie who still thinks he has a shot at the R Nomination (he doesn't).
Google it on Youtube (I don't have access at work) the Receiver for an AK-47 can be made out of a shovel with simple blacksmithing skills, videos exist. Search for shovel ak-47. The trigger assembly and chamber and barrel are purchased but the part that is officially the gun is the receiver.
Fine they can have the entire firearm that they are aware of. But since none of the rest of the components require any registration or serialization, I can have a ready stockpile of spare parts. I mill a new lower, put it all together and thus I'm still armed.
Actually it is merely an introductory clause, the second clause does not require any of the first and can stand alone. The first clause establishes one reason for the second and strengthens it but the first clause is not essential to the meaning of the second clause.
To further break it down, regulated has also changed in meaning since the Bill of Rights was drafted. It's meaning back then was to be working or functional. So "A well regulated (meaning functional (or working)) militia (the citizens of the community who respond with their own privately owned arms) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the people are disarmed the militia becomes non-functional, thus the need to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Your example is a failure. Explosives are hazardous materials restricted by law, requiring special handling to ship. The parcel companies are required by law to refuse to ship explosives.
A CNC mill does not fall under any level of hazardous materials. The fact that it can be used to legally complete a legal manufacturing process means they have no grounds to refuse it. They do not as a practice open or inventory packages. If a foreign government bans it, then it gets stopped because it must be identified on the customs shipping label. Still not grounds for a blanket refusal to carry a 100% legal device within this country.
And if someone wants to manufacture guns in a foreign country they'll probably go for the much easier to make AK style weapons (someone with basic blacksmithing skills can build the receiver out of a shovel.)
But ultimately what the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant as he's seeing to ship within the borders of this country, and UPS and FedEx have zero grounds to refuse his shipment of these mills. Of course he can just get around their decision by using a different company name and not mentioning the purpose of the machines being shipped.
Very good point. I try and try and try to get this message out to many of my fellow gun owners. Liberal does not mean gun hater, and conservative does not mean gun lover. Yes the majorities of those two groups are found within the respective political persuasions. But exceptions to the rule are easily found. Bloomberg is or was supposedly a Republican, meanwhile Liberal Vermont just slapped down attempts to impose tighter restrictions and are one of the first constitutional carry states.
Anti-gun folks are found on both sides. Pro-gun folks are found on both sides.
For those that support the right to keep and bear arms we need to keep this in mind and not attack our allies. Without the Liberals who love guns our rights would be at a much greater risk. Thanks from this conservative.
Great points, and as demonstrated in Australia after their firearm ban and confiscation, removing firearms does not remove suicides. After the ban yes firearm suicides nearly vanished. But the overall suicide rate did not drop. In fact it spiked significantly the two years immediately following but then returned to the exact same level and gradual downward trend it had been running at in the years prior to the ban. But now suicide by firearm was a fraction of the occurrence that it had been before the ban and confiscation of most handguns and many rifles.
Guns do not cause suicide. They are a convenient method when available, but if not available those determined to exit this sphere of existence will find a way to do so.
And the even bigger concern that an independent Kurdistan would also include a sizeable chunk of NATO ally Turkey? That is a bigger concern than Iraq. I'd bet we would have carved out an independent Kurdistan in a heartbeat if not for Turkey.
That was still an improvement over Microsoft Guns ME. Where the chamber would overpressure on every fifth shot, destroying the barrel (but not the chamber or trigger mechanism.
Yet your gun and violent crime rates climb every year even as such drops in the US every year. How is your violent crime rate these days. How common are home invasions. Which country was it that a soldier was beheaded in broad daylight in the middle of the street? Which country is doing it's best to achieve the total surveillance regime of 1984.
Which country did we wisely give the boot to more than 200 years ago.
Please cite me one example of the wild crossfire you dream of? Millions of Americans carry every day, yet not one single such instance can be found.
I suggest YOU turn off the TV because your view of firearms is purely Hollywood and TV made, rather than from the real world, one where millions own and bear arms safely and responsibly. Where deaths by firearm declines every year even as more and more firearms are sold.
You are so right. The revolutionary war just legitimized the British Rule over the Colonies. The French just legitimized the rule of the French monarchy, ok so it took a bad turn but eventually they ended up with democracy. Then the Germans tried to take it away, twice, and both times the armed French resistance just legitimized the oppressive regimes didn't they. More recently revolutionaries just legitimized Momar' Qadaffi's regime. And armed resistance has legitimized the oppressive government in Egypt, yes first a radical muslim group took over but the people recognized this mistake and have now legitimized that regime as well. And Syria is seeing mixed results, but it's looking more and more like Assad is soon going to be legitimized out of a job.
An armed resistance against an oppressive regime is very possible. In the US the government would fall in weeks were a national movement to rise against it. I didn't agree with the Bundy's but armed citizens stood down the heavily armed BLM.
It's not a dream, it's not a fantasy, and it's not an RPG. It is real, and it is possible. Do I think it's just around the corner? Nope, we are nowhere near that point. But if we don't get some of the policies and laws of the last couple administrations (Clinton, Bush and Obama) repealed, it is going to get closer to that point.
The FBI does not include Suicide in their Homicide stats. Technically in the pure definition of the word yes you are right. But not as the statistics are tracked. The FBI tracks Homicides, broken down by method of killing.
The CDC tracks deaths by method, and that includes the death by firearm statistics that include suicides.
Actually the FBI does not include suicide in their Homicide stats. The CDC includes them in their Firearm deaths records, but Homicides do not by definition include Suicide (at least not in the official statistics that track homicides.)
But your cite is countering Kleck's original study from 1992/3. The prior cite, not only referred to the original study but continued studies of the topic by Kleck and by others even as recent as 2009. Yes there were flaws in the 1993 study, and the VAPC did point them out. But Kleck and others have continued to study and try to account for the difficult to quantify occurrence of DGU and if anything the numbers are increasing. As shown by some of the other cites on the pro-kleck citation. Can you come up with anything more recent than the VAPC counter argument from 1993. And even if that counter is correct, that's still a 4:1 ratio at the 65,000 the NCVS came up with. 4 crimes discouraged for every firearm homicide.
Most likely the number is substantially higher than the NCVS yet also substantially lower than Kleck's numbers. But we have a low of 65,000 and a high of 2,500,000 per year. Versus just over 14k firearm homicides last year. Even with the lower number we come out ahead. If we bump it up to 1 million DGU's (still less than half what Kleck claimed) it's an even far better picture. Take a look at the recent stories coming out of Detroit. When the chief of police said our budgets have been cut back so far, it is on the people to defend themselves, and they did. There's the mother who fought off four attackers (at least one of whom was armed) with her firearm. And several similar stories. Sorry but your VAPC cite fails to counter the reality that DGU is real and far more common than firearm homicides.
How to decide. Well as the 2nd Amendment gives no qualifiers and simply states shall not be infringed. I would posit, that if a person is considered safe enough to walk the streets. Then they should be able to exercise their right to carry. If they are too mentally unstable or criminally minded to be allowed to carry then they should be locked up, either at a mental health treatment facility for the mentally unstable, or prison for the criminals. Psychological treatment alone is not grounds for stripping a right. It must be those adjudicated in a legal proceeding to be unsafe. No more allowing the VA to strip veterans of their rights simply because they aren't good at managing their money, leading the VA to appoint a fiscal manager over their funds.
At what age? The age when one is no longer legally considered a child in the US, age 18, plain and simple, but I'd allow a waiver down to 17 for anyone who has enlisted in the military. Not that I trust them that much more (though after 20 years in the Army I do), but if they can be allowed to put their lives on the line, then they damn well can carry a firearm at home if they choose.
Should they be allowed in all buildings? No not all buildings, some buildings do have a need for higher security. In my state those are identified as jails, prisons, courts, and secure mental facilities. And of course the secure areas of airports, post offices and anywhere else the Feds have deemed off limits (I do disagree with many "federal facilities" that get the protection, but congress just made an overreaching blanket protection). I would like to see the Post office ban removed and a case is moving through the courts that is likely to do just that, so far the initial ruling is against the Post Office. And in my state those previously mentioned secure facilities are required to provide a location to securely store your weapons as well as a clear demarcation that you are in fact crossing into the secure area. I do note that the courts in the state (Utah) ignore that law, saying they set their own rules and they will just charge anyone who attempts to pass beyond the security checkpoints with contempt of court, yet they provide no storage areas.
What about schools you ask. Well thanks to the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act, for most citizens schools in the k-12 range are off limits, and so are colleges and Universities. But the GFSZ act does allow for the state to permit carry. And so with a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit, we can ignore the Federal law and carry into our schools, and we have been able to for nearly two decades now. Similarly our Public colleges and Universities are open to any with a CFP.
At any given time an unknown number of Teachers, administrators and visiting parents are carrying within our k-12 schools. Good luck trying a Sandyhook when our teachers can do more than just be the first victim. Not all do carry, I'd guess most do not, but enough educators have attended free CFP classes to indicate that few if any schools are ever gun free. So other than the four off limits places and the federal restricted areas, everywhere else should be open. It's not quite that way as there are a couple ways that churches can also prohibit carry (without any requirement to provide secure storage). Otherwise no "NO GUNS" sign posted in this state has any strength of law and that's how it should be. You can ask me to leave if you don't like my firearm (assuming you even know I have it since I usually conceal) and if I refuse then you can trespass me and prosecute for trespassing, but not for having a firearm.
Planes I would allow, just require passengers to declare that they have frangible rounds in the weapon. Let's see a terrorist try and hijack a plane when a sizable fraction of the passengers are armed. Train/bus/etc absolutely. Unlike a plain that has special considerations regarding the potential of a weapon being discharged (decompression). There is nothing special about those. Except that they have the potential of p
In a fair fight with a Grizzly we humans lose. They have size, strength, speed and weapons (sharp teeth and claws) on us. But we don't have to fight fair, we are humans, we can use tools and weapons to ensure our survival in a negative encounter with an almost apex hunter. If we're fighting fair we've screwed up and deserve to be bear droppings. Most people who wander around the wilds of Alaska don't go hunting bears. But good luck finding one who isn't armed with a decent caliber weapon. Why, because stumble across the path of a bear and you are likely to die, if you don't have a way to fight unfairly.
A firearm is a tool, nothing more. In the vast majority of uses it is used defensively with rarely a shot fired. A smaller number of uses are by criminals. Again do you wish to fight a criminal who has no regard for the law fairly, or unfairly. He's going for unfair. I choose to not play fair either. He is a coward and looks for the easiest targets. Criminals hate trying to work in areas where they know the populace might be armed and fight back.
It's the ammo used. The Brits used 9mm or similar caliber ammunition. Most if not all 3D printed guns fired successfully in the US and Canada used.22LR. Not an ideal caliber for defense, but far better than nothing. The plastics currently in common used simply can't take the pressure of standard hangun calibers. But as a last ditch single shot weapon a.22 is better than nothing.
This video is pure propaganda. Trying to scare off people from printing their own untraceable undetectable guns. Perhaps.22 LR isn't readily available in the UK? But this does not prove these are not viable. Just that the British authorities are so worried about losing control over the serf's abilities to defend themselves that they have taken to making propaganda vids to scare them into remaining helpless.
Slashdot Mirror
They found 10s of thousands of shells all around the country, in various states and conditions. What they did not find was the super stockpile, or more importantly the ongoing production and development programs.
Actually it does. The carrier is not liable for what it carries if the product is not a hazardous material restricted from transport or requiring special handling. The carrier can't be held liable if the Ginsu knives you orders are then used to butcher your family. Similarly nobody went after the company that delivered the fertilizer Tim McVeigh used to the stores he bought it from. They didn't even go after Ryder Trucks for renting him a truck. The person who planned and or carried out the crime is the one held liable.
As to printing, I ignored that because it's a small irrelevant part of this discussion. We are not talking about a 3-D printer here. This topic is about Cody trying to ship a small CNC mill, something used in workshops and factories around the world every day to produce all kinds of stuff. Yes one that comes pre-programmed for a specific design, but still no different in capabilities (and possibly even reprogrammable for other purposes) than any other CNC Mill of similar size.
And the fact stands that pertinent to the goals of Distributed Defense and Cody Wilson the desires of the Mexican government or any other foreign government are irrelevant at this point. In the future that may change but for now he wants to sell and distribute within the boundaries of this country. And thus that is the shipping requirements he needs to meet.
Actually according to the laws of this land at least the receiver is the firearm. The rest of it is just finishing touches and are not tracked. And that is what I said in my post, you can build a receiver out of a shovel. So my point stands, in the eyes of the government you can build a firearm (the receiver) out of a shovel.
The part that the government cares about and tracks can be and occasionally is blacksmithed out of a shovel. The barrels and other components are not tracked. The government has no idea how many of the other parts anyone has or where they keep, bought or shipped them. The receiver is the key component that you must go through an FFL to buy new. Or to buy across state lines. But the receiver is so simple to build that it can easily be made without any government knowledge of it's existence. The other stuff they don't track so build it your self (with a machine shop) buy it at the local gun shop or order online they don't track the components as they are not considered the firearm.
The response is that the Supreme Court has ruled that the right is reserved to the people not to the states. The Bill of Rights applies to the people, only in the 10th does the rights of the States come into play. The 1st applies to the people, the 2nd to the people, the third to the people, the fourth to the people the 5th to the people, get the drift?
The right protected in the 2nd is the inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms just as the freedom of speech and religion is the freedom of the people. It's not a conditional clause, it's an introductory clause explaining why the right of the people must be protected.
Guiliani isn't exactly the biggest friend of the 2nd Amendment either. Nor is Chris Christie who still thinks he has a shot at the R Nomination (he doesn't).
Google it on Youtube (I don't have access at work) the Receiver for an AK-47 can be made out of a shovel with simple blacksmithing skills, videos exist. Search for shovel ak-47. The trigger assembly and chamber and barrel are purchased but the part that is officially the gun is the receiver.
Yet they do collect the stats. And publish them annually. And So does the FBI who also publishes the stats annually for all to find via google.
Your claim is false. Collecting stats is different from studying.
Fine they can have the entire firearm that they are aware of. But since none of the rest of the components require any registration or serialization, I can have a ready stockpile of spare parts. I mill a new lower, put it all together and thus I'm still armed.
Actually it is merely an introductory clause, the second clause does not require any of the first and can stand alone. The first clause establishes one reason for the second and strengthens it but the first clause is not essential to the meaning of the second clause.
To further break it down, regulated has also changed in meaning since the Bill of Rights was drafted. It's meaning back then was to be working or functional. So "A well regulated (meaning functional (or working)) militia (the citizens of the community who respond with their own privately owned arms) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If the people are disarmed the militia becomes non-functional, thus the need to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Your example is a failure. Explosives are hazardous materials restricted by law, requiring special handling to ship. The parcel companies are required by law to refuse to ship explosives.
A CNC mill does not fall under any level of hazardous materials. The fact that it can be used to legally complete a legal manufacturing process means they have no grounds to refuse it. They do not as a practice open or inventory packages. If a foreign government bans it, then it gets stopped because it must be identified on the customs shipping label. Still not grounds for a blanket refusal to carry a 100% legal device within this country.
And if someone wants to manufacture guns in a foreign country they'll probably go for the much easier to make AK style weapons (someone with basic blacksmithing skills can build the receiver out of a shovel.)
But ultimately what the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant as he's seeing to ship within the borders of this country, and UPS and FedEx have zero grounds to refuse his shipment of these mills. Of course he can just get around their decision by using a different company name and not mentioning the purpose of the machines being shipped.
One name: Bloomberg!
Very good point. I try and try and try to get this message out to many of my fellow gun owners. Liberal does not mean gun hater, and conservative does not mean gun lover. Yes the majorities of those two groups are found within the respective political persuasions. But exceptions to the rule are easily found. Bloomberg is or was supposedly a Republican, meanwhile Liberal Vermont just slapped down attempts to impose tighter restrictions and are one of the first constitutional carry states.
Anti-gun folks are found on both sides.
Pro-gun folks are found on both sides.
For those that support the right to keep and bear arms we need to keep this in mind and not attack our allies. Without the Liberals who love guns our rights would be at a much greater risk. Thanks from this conservative.
Great points, and as demonstrated in Australia after their firearm ban and confiscation, removing firearms does not remove suicides. After the ban yes firearm suicides nearly vanished. But the overall suicide rate did not drop. In fact it spiked significantly the two years immediately following but then returned to the exact same level and gradual downward trend it had been running at in the years prior to the ban. But now suicide by firearm was a fraction of the occurrence that it had been before the ban and confiscation of most handguns and many rifles.
Guns do not cause suicide. They are a convenient method when available, but if not available those determined to exit this sphere of existence will find a way to do so.
And the even bigger concern that an independent Kurdistan would also include a sizeable chunk of NATO ally Turkey? That is a bigger concern than Iraq. I'd bet we would have carved out an independent Kurdistan in a heartbeat if not for Turkey.
That was still an improvement over Microsoft Guns ME. Where the chamber would overpressure on every fifth shot, destroying the barrel (but not the chamber or trigger mechanism.
Maxim 29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less. (Schlock Mercenary)
Yet your gun and violent crime rates climb every year even as such drops in the US every year. How is your violent crime rate these days. How common are home invasions. Which country was it that a soldier was beheaded in broad daylight in the middle of the street? Which country is doing it's best to achieve the total surveillance regime of 1984.
Which country did we wisely give the boot to more than 200 years ago.
Please cite me one example of the wild crossfire you dream of? Millions of Americans carry every day, yet not one single such instance can be found.
I suggest YOU turn off the TV because your view of firearms is purely Hollywood and TV made, rather than from the real world, one where millions own and bear arms safely and responsibly. Where deaths by firearm declines every year even as more and more firearms are sold.
You are so right. The revolutionary war just legitimized the British Rule over the Colonies. The French just legitimized the rule of the French monarchy, ok so it took a bad turn but eventually they ended up with democracy. Then the Germans tried to take it away, twice, and both times the armed French resistance just legitimized the oppressive regimes didn't they. More recently revolutionaries just legitimized Momar' Qadaffi's regime. And armed resistance has legitimized the oppressive government in Egypt, yes first a radical muslim group took over but the people recognized this mistake and have now legitimized that regime as well. And Syria is seeing mixed results, but it's looking more and more like Assad is soon going to be legitimized out of a job.
An armed resistance against an oppressive regime is very possible. In the US the government would fall in weeks were a national movement to rise against it. I didn't agree with the Bundy's but armed citizens stood down the heavily armed BLM.
It's not a dream, it's not a fantasy, and it's not an RPG. It is real, and it is possible. Do I think it's just around the corner? Nope, we are nowhere near that point. But if we don't get some of the policies and laws of the last couple administrations (Clinton, Bush and Obama) repealed, it is going to get closer to that point.
The FBI does not include Suicide in their Homicide stats. Technically in the pure definition of the word yes you are right. But not as the statistics are tracked. The FBI tracks Homicides, broken down by method of killing.
The CDC tracks deaths by method, and that includes the death by firearm statistics that include suicides.
Actually the FBI does not include suicide in their Homicide stats. The CDC includes them in their Firearm deaths records, but Homicides do not by definition include Suicide (at least not in the official statistics that track homicides.)
But your cite is countering Kleck's original study from 1992/3. The prior cite, not only referred to the original study but continued studies of the topic by Kleck and by others even as recent as 2009. Yes there were flaws in the 1993 study, and the VAPC did point them out. But Kleck and others have continued to study and try to account for the difficult to quantify occurrence of DGU and if anything the numbers are increasing. As shown by some of the other cites on the pro-kleck citation. Can you come up with anything more recent than the VAPC counter argument from 1993. And even if that counter is correct, that's still a 4:1 ratio at the 65,000 the NCVS came up with. 4 crimes discouraged for every firearm homicide.
Most likely the number is substantially higher than the NCVS yet also substantially lower than Kleck's numbers. But we have a low of 65,000 and a high of 2,500,000 per year. Versus just over 14k firearm homicides last year. Even with the lower number we come out ahead. If we bump it up to 1 million DGU's (still less than half what Kleck claimed) it's an even far better picture. Take a look at the recent stories coming out of Detroit. When the chief of police said our budgets have been cut back so far, it is on the people to defend themselves, and they did. There's the mother who fought off four attackers (at least one of whom was armed) with her firearm. And several similar stories. Sorry but your VAPC cite fails to counter the reality that DGU is real and far more common than firearm homicides.
How to decide. Well as the 2nd Amendment gives no qualifiers and simply states shall not be infringed. I would posit, that if a person is considered safe enough to walk the streets. Then they should be able to exercise their right to carry. If they are too mentally unstable or criminally minded to be allowed to carry then they should be locked up, either at a mental health treatment facility for the mentally unstable, or prison for the criminals. Psychological treatment alone is not grounds for stripping a right. It must be those adjudicated in a legal proceeding to be unsafe. No more allowing the VA to strip veterans of their rights simply because they aren't good at managing their money, leading the VA to appoint a fiscal manager over their funds.
At what age? The age when one is no longer legally considered a child in the US, age 18, plain and simple, but I'd allow a waiver down to 17 for anyone who has enlisted in the military. Not that I trust them that much more (though after 20 years in the Army I do), but if they can be allowed to put their lives on the line, then they damn well can carry a firearm at home if they choose.
Should they be allowed in all buildings? No not all buildings, some buildings do have a need for higher security. In my state those are identified as jails, prisons, courts, and secure mental facilities. And of course the secure areas of airports, post offices and anywhere else the Feds have deemed off limits (I do disagree with many "federal facilities" that get the protection, but congress just made an overreaching blanket protection). I would like to see the Post office ban removed and a case is moving through the courts that is likely to do just that, so far the initial ruling is against the Post Office. And in my state those previously mentioned secure facilities are required to provide a location to securely store your weapons as well as a clear demarcation that you are in fact crossing into the secure area. I do note that the courts in the state (Utah) ignore that law, saying they set their own rules and they will just charge anyone who attempts to pass beyond the security checkpoints with contempt of court, yet they provide no storage areas.
What about schools you ask. Well thanks to the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act, for most citizens schools in the k-12 range are off limits, and so are colleges and Universities. But the GFSZ act does allow for the state to permit carry. And so with a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit, we can ignore the Federal law and carry into our schools, and we have been able to for nearly two decades now. Similarly our Public colleges and Universities are open to any with a CFP.
At any given time an unknown number of Teachers, administrators and visiting parents are carrying within our k-12 schools. Good luck trying a Sandyhook when our teachers can do more than just be the first victim. Not all do carry, I'd guess most do not, but enough educators have attended free CFP classes to indicate that few if any schools are ever gun free. So other than the four off limits places and the federal restricted areas, everywhere else should be open. It's not quite that way as there are a couple ways that churches can also prohibit carry (without any requirement to provide secure storage). Otherwise no "NO GUNS" sign posted in this state has any strength of law and that's how it should be. You can ask me to leave if you don't like my firearm (assuming you even know I have it since I usually conceal) and if I refuse then you can trespass me and prosecute for trespassing, but not for having a firearm.
Planes I would allow, just require passengers to declare that they have frangible rounds in the weapon. Let's see a terrorist try and hijack a plane when a sizable fraction of the passengers are armed. Train/bus/etc absolutely. Unlike a plain that has special considerations regarding the potential of a weapon being discharged (decompression). There is nothing special about those. Except that they have the potential of p
In a fair fight with a Grizzly we humans lose. They have size, strength, speed and weapons (sharp teeth and claws) on us. But we don't have to fight fair, we are humans, we can use tools and weapons to ensure our survival in a negative encounter with an almost apex hunter. If we're fighting fair we've screwed up and deserve to be bear droppings. Most people who wander around the wilds of Alaska don't go hunting bears. But good luck finding one who isn't armed with a decent caliber weapon. Why, because stumble across the path of a bear and you are likely to die, if you don't have a way to fight unfairly.
A firearm is a tool, nothing more. In the vast majority of uses it is used defensively with rarely a shot fired. A smaller number of uses are by criminals. Again do you wish to fight a criminal who has no regard for the law fairly, or unfairly. He's going for unfair. I choose to not play fair either. He is a coward and looks for the easiest targets. Criminals hate trying to work in areas where they know the populace might be armed and fight back.
It's the ammo used. The Brits used 9mm or similar caliber ammunition. Most if not all 3D printed guns fired successfully in the US and Canada used .22LR. Not an ideal caliber for defense, but far better than nothing. The plastics currently in common used simply can't take the pressure of standard hangun calibers. But as a last ditch single shot weapon a .22 is better than nothing.
.22 LR isn't readily available in the UK? But this does not prove these are not viable. Just that the British authorities are so worried about losing control over the serf's abilities to defend themselves that they have taken to making propaganda vids to scare them into remaining helpless.
This video is pure propaganda. Trying to scare off people from printing their own untraceable undetectable guns. Perhaps