Gunsmith Uses 3D Printer To Make A Rifle(webpronews.com)
webpronews.com
Gunsmith Uses 3D Printer To Make A Rifle
http://www.webpronews.com/gunsmith-uses-3d-printer-to-make-a-rifle-2012-07
157 comments
> If the United States ever got serious about banning firearms, a massive homebrew industry would grow up overnight.
Do you have any stats or experience to back that up? It might happen, but you are stating as fact something that's not been tested.
Anecdotally, in Australia where gun laws are very strict, it's difficult to get firearms. Yes, serious hardened criminals still get their hands on them, which certainly is a problem. The average angry Joe can not simply legally purchase a semi automatic or handgun to walk around to his antagonists house and shoot them.
With a murder rate twice any other developed country[1], the United States clearly has a serious violence problem, and taking guns out of the hands of the average Joe would surely help reduce it.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...
Using the argument of "Hardened criminals will still get them anyway" is like saying we shouldn't have a law against murder because some people will do it anyway, so it's a waste of time. The point is to deter or make it extremely difficult for as many people as possible.
Do you have any stats or experience to back that up? It might happen, but you are stating as fact something that's not been tested.
Anecdotally, in Australia where gun laws are very strict, it's difficult to get firearms. Yes, serious hardened criminals still get their hands on them, which certainly is a problem. The average angry Joe can not simply legally purchase a semi automatic or handgun to walk around to his antagonists house and shoot them.
With a murder rate twice any other developed country[1], the United States clearly has a serious violence problem, and taking guns out of the hands of the average Joe would surely help reduce it.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...
Using the argument of "Hardened criminals will still get them anyway" is like saying we shouldn't have a law against murder because some people will do it anyway, so it's a waste of time. The point is to deter or make it extremely difficult for as many people as possible.
>With a murder rate twice any other developed country[1], the United States clearly has a serious violence problem, and taking guns out of the hands of the average Joe would surely help reduce it.
How much or our gun violence do you think can be attributed to average Joe killing his neighbor. Ordinary law abiding citizens killing each other is definitely not what makes our gun homicide rate higher than Australia's.
The vast majority of gun violence happens as a direct result of other crimes, usually drug or gang related-- exactly the kind of people who will find a way to make guns.
Additionally America is not Australia, we have more guns than people. If guns were outlawed the vast majority of criminals would still easily be able to get their hands on guns for the next 50 years. The only thing you would accomplish is to take them away from law abiding citizens, who statistics show aren't the problem anyway.
One more difference between America and Australia. If what happened in Australia happened here (anything like government confiscation), there would be riots, and a serious insurgency (I'm dead serious). There would be so much more blood spilled by an attempt to take away American's guns than could possibly be prevented by doing so.
>Do you have any stats or experience to back that up? It might happen, but you are stating as fact something that's not been tested.
After the violence stopped, yeah the people involved would switch right over to manufacturing underground firearms.
If you haven't lived in a rural area of the U.S., you can't possibly know how serious many people here are about their firearms--hell, it's written into our constitution.
How much or our gun violence do you think can be attributed to average Joe killing his neighbor. Ordinary law abiding citizens killing each other is definitely not what makes our gun homicide rate higher than Australia's.
The vast majority of gun violence happens as a direct result of other crimes, usually drug or gang related-- exactly the kind of people who will find a way to make guns.
Additionally America is not Australia, we have more guns than people. If guns were outlawed the vast majority of criminals would still easily be able to get their hands on guns for the next 50 years. The only thing you would accomplish is to take them away from law abiding citizens, who statistics show aren't the problem anyway.
One more difference between America and Australia. If what happened in Australia happened here (anything like government confiscation), there would be riots, and a serious insurgency (I'm dead serious). There would be so much more blood spilled by an attempt to take away American's guns than could possibly be prevented by doing so.
>Do you have any stats or experience to back that up? It might happen, but you are stating as fact something that's not been tested.
After the violence stopped, yeah the people involved would switch right over to manufacturing underground firearms.
If you haven't lived in a rural area of the U.S., you can't possibly know how serious many people here are about their firearms--hell, it's written into our constitution.
With a murder rate twice any other developed country[1], the United States clearly has a serious violence problem, and taking guns out of the hands of the average Joe would surely help reduce it.
The second clause does not follow from the first. Murder in the US is heavily demographically biased, and most gun owners are not murderers. Furthermore, will you be the one going door to door to collect everyone's firearms? It sounds like you are saying, "Surely, we must do something. This is something; therefore, we must do this."
Using the argument of "Hardened criminals will still get them anyway" is like saying we shouldn't have a law against murder because some people will do it anyway, so it's a waste of time. The point is to deter or make it extremely difficult for as many people as possible.
No, no it's not. You are conflating possession of a tool with misuse of the tool to commit a crime. The US has been trying to make it "extremely difficult for as many people as possible" to do a lot of things, and failed spectacularly. Now imagine that same level of failure applied to something protected in the US constitution.
The second clause does not follow from the first. Murder in the US is heavily demographically biased, and most gun owners are not murderers. Furthermore, will you be the one going door to door to collect everyone's firearms? It sounds like you are saying, "Surely, we must do something. This is something; therefore, we must do this."
Using the argument of "Hardened criminals will still get them anyway" is like saying we shouldn't have a law against murder because some people will do it anyway, so it's a waste of time. The point is to deter or make it extremely difficult for as many people as possible.
No, no it's not. You are conflating possession of a tool with misuse of the tool to commit a crime. The US has been trying to make it "extremely difficult for as many people as possible" to do a lot of things, and failed spectacularly. Now imagine that same level of failure applied to something protected in the US constitution.
To be fair, this tool has only one use: it kills things.
Whenever I see arguments about how we should ban cars because they kill more people than guns per year, I always think about that. Cars are good for all kinds of things, and they happen to incidentally cause death. Guns are pretty much only good for killing things.
I live in the U.S. I'm not saying we should uniformly ban all weapons, period; I think the issue is more nuanced than that. But it seems hard to defend the fact that introducing guns into a dangerous situation would do anything other than make it more deadly.
Whenever I see arguments about how we should ban cars because they kill more people than guns per year, I always think about that. Cars are good for all kinds of things, and they happen to incidentally cause death. Guns are pretty much only good for killing things.
I live in the U.S. I'm not saying we should uniformly ban all weapons, period; I think the issue is more nuanced than that. But it seems hard to defend the fact that introducing guns into a dangerous situation would do anything other than make it more deadly.
Sometimes the only way to stop a criminal trying to kill you is to kill him or her first. To do that you'll need a tool designed to kill things.
Have you considered that the criminal usually has no interest in killing people, and may only be armed because he knows that you may have a gun yourself?
No, I have not considered that, because it makes absolutely no sense.
Criminals use guns during crimes because of the power it gives them to subdue and control their victims. Guns also allow them to easily dispose of witnesses after the crime is committed.
If the non-criminal population just decides to give up their guns, in hopes that criminals will do the same, the criminals will simply say "thanks".
Criminals use guns during crimes because of the power it gives them to subdue and control their victims. Guns also allow them to easily dispose of witnesses after the crime is committed.
If the non-criminal population just decides to give up their guns, in hopes that criminals will do the same, the criminals will simply say "thanks".
> To be fair, this tool has only one use: it kills things.
If you ignore all of the other recreational uses, sure; you can also say that motorcycles only have one use: To kill people who ride them and the people those riders hit.
If you ignore all of the other recreational uses, sure; you can also say that motorcycles only have one use: To kill people who ride them and the people those riders hit.
What is the primary, if not only, use for a weapon? That's hurting, killing, and threatening. Goals can be eating, revenge, crime deterrence, whatever. But the primary use of a weapon always did come from its ability to harm and kill.
I bet most pro-gun Americans would agree with me. They want a weapon to defend themselves. How? By threatening to hurt or kill, of course. They're not going to propose a foam sword contest to someone they deem dangerous to their property, their lives, or their families.
Recreational use? It sure counts. But if we suddenly ban weapons in the US, there won't be riots over a hobby. It will be over the ability to threaten with death when you need it for self defence.
I bet most pro-gun Americans would agree with me. They want a weapon to defend themselves. How? By threatening to hurt or kill, of course. They're not going to propose a foam sword contest to someone they deem dangerous to their property, their lives, or their families.
Recreational use? It sure counts. But if we suddenly ban weapons in the US, there won't be riots over a hobby. It will be over the ability to threaten with death when you need it for self defence.
> What is the primary, if not only, use for a weapon?
What is the primary, if not only, use for a really fast motorcycle? Separating morons from any organs that can be salvaged after that final crash.
What is the primary, if not only, use for a really fast motorcycle? Separating morons from any organs that can be salvaged after that final crash.
Are you lobbying for the restriction of vehicles? Or are you making a point by analogy with guns that I'm missing?
My point is, once you try to determine the primary uses of certain things, you come to the conclusion that certain popular items are primarily useless and serve mainly to keep emergency rooms in business.
Well, I was limiting this to guns, but okay, sure.
I'm not sure what your larger point is, though.
I'm not sure what your larger point is, though.
> To be fair, this tool has only one use: it kills things.
I disagree. A gun's primary use for law abiding citizens is that it intimidates things. The most effective way to use a gun is simply to deter crime.
You wouldn't say that the reason the United States and the Soviet Union stockpiled nuclear weapons was because they wanted to level each others' cities. It was simply deterrence.
I disagree. A gun's primary use for law abiding citizens is that it intimidates things. The most effective way to use a gun is simply to deter crime.
You wouldn't say that the reason the United States and the Soviet Union stockpiled nuclear weapons was because they wanted to level each others' cities. It was simply deterrence.
> A gun's primary use for law abiding citizens is that it intimidates things. The most effective way to use a gun is simply to deter crime.
A purpose they are quite clearly failing at. So the question is what, if anything, citizens of the U.S.A. wish to do about the fact that, empirically, legality and availability of guns has not resulted in crime rates comparable to comparable states.
A purpose they are quite clearly failing at. So the question is what, if anything, citizens of the U.S.A. wish to do about the fact that, empirically, legality and availability of guns has not resulted in crime rates comparable to comparable states.
That doesn't follow. There are no comparable states with a comparable history, demography, economy, and culture.
It's possible that gun ownership deters crime, but that something else unique to the U.S. is causing more crime than gun ownership is countering.
The only thing you could possibly do is to compare parts of the US to each other, and in that case you'll find that locations with stricter gun laws have more gun violence.
You could conclude that gun laws cause gun violence, but that would be stupid because many times gun laws exist because of gun violence. What's the difference between my conclusion and yours?
Concluding that guns cause violence without real hard evidence and subsequently banning them is like using the unproven gateway drug theory to justify locking up people for smoking pot.
It's possible that gun ownership deters crime, but that something else unique to the U.S. is causing more crime than gun ownership is countering.
The only thing you could possibly do is to compare parts of the US to each other, and in that case you'll find that locations with stricter gun laws have more gun violence.
You could conclude that gun laws cause gun violence, but that would be stupid because many times gun laws exist because of gun violence. What's the difference between my conclusion and yours?
Concluding that guns cause violence without real hard evidence and subsequently banning them is like using the unproven gateway drug theory to justify locking up people for smoking pot.
> There are no comparable states with a comparable history, demography, economy, and culture.
To be fair, Canada and Australia are pretty comparable on all counts. The main thing that distinguishes the US from them is scale, and scale has qualitative consequences, among which are the incidence and effects of criminal activity.
As a poster above said, much of the gun-related violence in the US is connected with criminal gangs, particularly those involved in drugs. And the scale of the drug market in the US, combined with the aggressiveness employed by state and federal governments in fighting the 'drug war', accounts for a substantial portion of the gun violence that occurs here.
It's worth noting that despite stereotypes, Canada does have a high rate of gun ownership - ranked 13 in the world, compared to the US, ranked first [1] - and the level of violence there isn't proportional.
[1]: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/200... (PDF link)
To be fair, Canada and Australia are pretty comparable on all counts. The main thing that distinguishes the US from them is scale, and scale has qualitative consequences, among which are the incidence and effects of criminal activity.
As a poster above said, much of the gun-related violence in the US is connected with criminal gangs, particularly those involved in drugs. And the scale of the drug market in the US, combined with the aggressiveness employed by state and federal governments in fighting the 'drug war', accounts for a substantial portion of the gun violence that occurs here.
It's worth noting that despite stereotypes, Canada does have a high rate of gun ownership - ranked 13 in the world, compared to the US, ranked first [1] - and the level of violence there isn't proportional.
[1]: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/200... (PDF link)
Good points, I agree that the drug war alone is responsible for a large percent of gun violence.
Also our massively larger per capita prison population probably has something to do with it. I doubt people are coming out of prison less violent.
Just a glance at the link you provided, I can't see a link between high gun ownership and murder rate at all.
>Canada and Australia are pretty comparable on all counts.
--comparable history, demography, economy, and culture.
Ignoring the economy, and population size.
Neither one had to deal with slavery on the scale America did.
Neither fought a war for independence or a civil war (the effect of the Civil War and the * massive* death toll can't be discounted. Not to mention the huge increase in gun ownership after the war).
The demographics of both are completely different.
Australians of European descent make up 93% of Australia, according to wikipedia.
As for Canada, they have more asians, who in the US commit less crimes and make more money than average. And they have significantly fewer blacks and hispanics, who in the US commit far more crimes and make less money than average.
Also our massively larger per capita prison population probably has something to do with it. I doubt people are coming out of prison less violent.
Just a glance at the link you provided, I can't see a link between high gun ownership and murder rate at all.
>Canada and Australia are pretty comparable on all counts.
--comparable history, demography, economy, and culture.
Ignoring the economy, and population size.
Neither one had to deal with slavery on the scale America did.
Neither fought a war for independence or a civil war (the effect of the Civil War and the * massive* death toll can't be discounted. Not to mention the huge increase in gun ownership after the war).
The demographics of both are completely different.
Australians of European descent make up 93% of Australia, according to wikipedia.
As for Canada, they have more asians, who in the US commit less crimes and make more money than average. And they have significantly fewer blacks and hispanics, who in the US commit far more crimes and make less money than average.
Ah, yes, the U.S. exceptionalism. No other country like it! No one else could have an invasive dominant culture, a disadvantaged minority group, large prosperity divides, and a God-given fear of groups of other people (you call it "government").
Oh well. It's no water off my back if you guys are fine with answering my original question with "nothing" and continuing shooting each other up as price of freedom.
Oh well. It's no water off my back if you guys are fine with answering my original question with "nothing" and continuing shooting each other up as price of freedom.
It sounds like the prevalence of gun violence in the US has been significantly overstated in whatever news you have been reading. Taking guns away from communities where violence is rare will not solve the problems with those in which violence is common.
As for US exceptionalism, you left out all the pent up emotional and cultural baggage held by some communities that makes them significantly more violent among themselves than the vast majority.
As for US exceptionalism, you left out all the pent up emotional and cultural baggage held by some communities that makes them significantly more violent among themselves than the vast majority.
>There are no comparable states with a comparable history, demography, economy, and culture.
American exceptionalism refers to the primarily used meaning of exceptional as "unusually good." I never remotely said that.
America is different, not better. I'd also argue that you can't compare Germany to Spain. Does that mean I think Germany is better?
You also didn't answer my argument. Can you point to another country with comparable history, demography, economy, and culture that has passed a gun ban. Or should I just go ahead and hand over my gun, based on your unsupported fears?
American exceptionalism refers to the primarily used meaning of exceptional as "unusually good." I never remotely said that.
America is different, not better. I'd also argue that you can't compare Germany to Spain. Does that mean I think Germany is better?
You also didn't answer my argument. Can you point to another country with comparable history, demography, economy, and culture that has passed a gun ban. Or should I just go ahead and hand over my gun, based on your unsupported fears?
> American exceptionalism refers to the primarily used meaning of exceptional as "unusually good."
I am aware. It's fun to use terms outside of their usual meanings sometimes.
I am not supporting a gun ban in the U.S. I'm asking what y'all wish to do about your crime rate.
I am aware. It's fun to use terms outside of their usual meanings sometimes.
I am not supporting a gun ban in the U.S. I'm asking what y'all wish to do about your crime rate.
Only with open carry.
It's possible that pulling out a gun may defuse a situation, but lots of people seem to think "I'll just wave my gun and it'll stop the people harassing me."
You should only pull out a gun if the situation, at that time, is dangerous enough to warrant pulling the trigger.
It's possible that pulling out a gun may defuse a situation, but lots of people seem to think "I'll just wave my gun and it'll stop the people harassing me."
You should only pull out a gun if the situation, at that time, is dangerous enough to warrant pulling the trigger.
A gun doesn't have to be visible to deter crime. Just the possibility of a victim having a gun is plenty of deterrence. I'd much rather burgle an Australian or English home than one in the US, given how many homes in the US have guns.
This is true. I like people not knowing whether or not I have a gun. It lets me free-ride on other people while greatly reducing the risk of a gun accident in my house.
If you know a home has guns, aren't you just as likely to burgle it while the occupants are out, probably in order to steal the guns?
Yes, but less likely to burgle it while the occupants are at home. Insurance covers stolen possessions, but you can't replace lives lost in a botched burglary or home invasion.
Neither risk can be realistically eliminated regardless of your personal assessment of what they're good for. The question is simply whether or not we've reduced the risk enough that society finds the current level more acceptable than the marginal costs of attempting to reduce it even further. The car argument is saying that the risk of guns is already so much lower than cars that it seems unreasonable to think the former is still at an unacceptable level, but not the latter.
Yes, guns destroy human beings, that is their purpose. And it is difficult for a lot of people to grapple with the idea that such seemingly fundamentally, some would say, evil devices can be used for good.
The comparison with cars is a good one though. Cars are an example of how lethal power exists in the hands of many in society. And that's true to an enormous degree, not just with cars though they are a prime example. Most people have the ability to take the lives of others without a great deal of effort. Imagine what would happen if, say, 1ppm of humanity woke up and decided to do murder that day. There would be a lot of killings. And yet society is still largely peaceful. Because most people can be trusted with the lives of their fellow humans. And it's important to realize how deeply we take that for granted. Something as simple as riding a bus or driving in traffic represents a tremendous trust in our fellow citizens to not murder us, and they trust us not to murder them as well.
Firearms do not represent injecting a unique capability for death and injury into society, they're just make that aspect of daily life more blatantly obvious. But just as with cars, knives, fists, pencils, hammers, bricks, fire, and all that most people can be trusted with firearms most of the time. And indeed when firearms are allowed into the hands of citizens of good intent they can be used to thwart crimes quite often. Many rapes and roberies have been stopped by firearms, often just by the mere presence of a firearm (not even counting the deterrent effects). And in some spectacular cases firearms have been used defensively to stop mass murders in their tracks. But these examples tend to be less dramatic than successful mass shootings, so they tend to be less well known.
On the whole, the point still stands, it is safer for the average person to own a gun than to own a car. And that is a testament to the trustworthiness of the average citizen, and the degree to which many people take gun ownership seriously and solemnly.
The comparison with cars is a good one though. Cars are an example of how lethal power exists in the hands of many in society. And that's true to an enormous degree, not just with cars though they are a prime example. Most people have the ability to take the lives of others without a great deal of effort. Imagine what would happen if, say, 1ppm of humanity woke up and decided to do murder that day. There would be a lot of killings. And yet society is still largely peaceful. Because most people can be trusted with the lives of their fellow humans. And it's important to realize how deeply we take that for granted. Something as simple as riding a bus or driving in traffic represents a tremendous trust in our fellow citizens to not murder us, and they trust us not to murder them as well.
Firearms do not represent injecting a unique capability for death and injury into society, they're just make that aspect of daily life more blatantly obvious. But just as with cars, knives, fists, pencils, hammers, bricks, fire, and all that most people can be trusted with firearms most of the time. And indeed when firearms are allowed into the hands of citizens of good intent they can be used to thwart crimes quite often. Many rapes and roberies have been stopped by firearms, often just by the mere presence of a firearm (not even counting the deterrent effects). And in some spectacular cases firearms have been used defensively to stop mass murders in their tracks. But these examples tend to be less dramatic than successful mass shootings, so they tend to be less well known.
On the whole, the point still stands, it is safer for the average person to own a gun than to own a car. And that is a testament to the trustworthiness of the average citizen, and the degree to which many people take gun ownership seriously and solemnly.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment on a touchy issue.
That is a good point about the comparison with cars. I have been stepping neatly past the trust idea (which applies to computers as well, and I'm a coder). It's a very powerful idea that I haven't thought about enough.
But I think firearms do represent a unique capability: how many bricks per minute can you throw? From how far away could you snipe someone with a pencil? I think it's one of degree: assault weapons, high-powered sniper rifles, semi-autos that can be easily modified for full-auto fire... Those weapons are all over a boundary for me, a boundary that the U.S. is too lax with drawing.
That is a good point about the comparison with cars. I have been stepping neatly past the trust idea (which applies to computers as well, and I'm a coder). It's a very powerful idea that I haven't thought about enough.
But I think firearms do represent a unique capability: how many bricks per minute can you throw? From how far away could you snipe someone with a pencil? I think it's one of degree: assault weapons, high-powered sniper rifles, semi-autos that can be easily modified for full-auto fire... Those weapons are all over a boundary for me, a boundary that the U.S. is too lax with drawing.
Why?
I suspect that you believe that the potential for violence is something that can be separated from a peaceful society, but that isn't the case. More so, I think living within such a worldview is intellectually stunting. In practice we see that private gun ownership is not uniquely dangerous. We see that automobiles are far more dangerous, for example. We see that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are peaceful people, we see that the overwhelming majority of guns are never used for violence. Consider some other statistics as well, if you were a parent would you be afraid of sending your child to a house that contains guns? What about sending your child to a house with a pool? In actuallity the 2nd is about 100 times more dangerous.
More so, taking guns out of the hands of peaceful citizens has consequences. People use guns to defend themselves against others. Indeed, such uses are far more common than gun homicides. Banning guns means allowing rapes, murders, muggings, assaults. How can you be so comfortable with that?
As far as the lethality of mundane objects and activities. Consider how many people can be killed by cars by driving them into a crowd. Consider how many people can, and are, killed by arson. Consider how many people are raped by a perpetrator who has no weapon other than their physical strength. Violence and the potential for violence is part of society. Personally I think society is better served by peaceful individuals growing in maturity and responsibility and learning how to wield firearms in a way that supports a peaceful society by defending it against would be murderers, rapists, and thieves.
I suspect that you believe that the potential for violence is something that can be separated from a peaceful society, but that isn't the case. More so, I think living within such a worldview is intellectually stunting. In practice we see that private gun ownership is not uniquely dangerous. We see that automobiles are far more dangerous, for example. We see that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are peaceful people, we see that the overwhelming majority of guns are never used for violence. Consider some other statistics as well, if you were a parent would you be afraid of sending your child to a house that contains guns? What about sending your child to a house with a pool? In actuallity the 2nd is about 100 times more dangerous.
More so, taking guns out of the hands of peaceful citizens has consequences. People use guns to defend themselves against others. Indeed, such uses are far more common than gun homicides. Banning guns means allowing rapes, murders, muggings, assaults. How can you be so comfortable with that?
As far as the lethality of mundane objects and activities. Consider how many people can be killed by cars by driving them into a crowd. Consider how many people can, and are, killed by arson. Consider how many people are raped by a perpetrator who has no weapon other than their physical strength. Violence and the potential for violence is part of society. Personally I think society is better served by peaceful individuals growing in maturity and responsibility and learning how to wield firearms in a way that supports a peaceful society by defending it against would be murderers, rapists, and thieves.
Thank you for insulting my intelligence. It's funny, I don't feel intellectually stunted. ( =
When I said that the issue was more nuanced, I meant that we shouldn't ban all guns in the U.S. Please do not represent my position as such or assume that I believe that responsible gun owners cannot provide safe play destinations for my children. I grew up in Texas and went on hunting trips every year growing up. Please.
I don't think that it's naive to hope that we can curb our species' trend for violence, and I don't think that the threat of more violence in retribution is that solution long-term. You have a narrative about trusting people with lethal power, but then speak of tides of "murderers, rapists, and thieves" that you want to defend yourself with. It feels like your solution, a well-armed society, is merely stemming the symptom rather than trying to find or address any specific cause. I'm not satisfied with that.
I am not saying that it is guns' fault, by why does the U.S. have one of the highest rates of homicide of any country in the industrialized world?
When I said that the issue was more nuanced, I meant that we shouldn't ban all guns in the U.S. Please do not represent my position as such or assume that I believe that responsible gun owners cannot provide safe play destinations for my children. I grew up in Texas and went on hunting trips every year growing up. Please.
I don't think that it's naive to hope that we can curb our species' trend for violence, and I don't think that the threat of more violence in retribution is that solution long-term. You have a narrative about trusting people with lethal power, but then speak of tides of "murderers, rapists, and thieves" that you want to defend yourself with. It feels like your solution, a well-armed society, is merely stemming the symptom rather than trying to find or address any specific cause. I'm not satisfied with that.
I am not saying that it is guns' fault, by why does the U.S. have one of the highest rates of homicide of any country in the industrialized world?
>Furthermore, will you be the one going door to door to collect everyone's firearms?
Japan made it very difficult to own new firearms after they passed new Swords and Firearms laws. They allowed current gun owners to keep them, but they were not transferrable or inheritable. In other words, there are precendents for "taking away" arms, it's not unheard of. Peopple have figured out how to do this.
Japan made it very difficult to own new firearms after they passed new Swords and Firearms laws. They allowed current gun owners to keep them, but they were not transferrable or inheritable. In other words, there are precendents for "taking away" arms, it's not unheard of. Peopple have figured out how to do this.
Japan had nowhere near the gun culture or level of gun ownership the US has. There are enough unregistered guns in the US to supply the criminal population for decades.
Most criminals steal or buy there guns on the black market. What do you think is going to happen to the hundreds of millions of guns sitting in people's basements when guns are banned?
Also if they passed the exact same law in the US, the result would be violence and insurgency. There are thousands of heavily armed people sitting around waiting for the day the government bans firearms.
Most criminals steal or buy there guns on the black market. What do you think is going to happen to the hundreds of millions of guns sitting in people's basements when guns are banned?
Also if they passed the exact same law in the US, the result would be violence and insurgency. There are thousands of heavily armed people sitting around waiting for the day the government bans firearms.
> Peopple have figured out how to do this.
'This' being 'taking firearms away from people willing to obey the laws in the first place'.
What's the problem with using that logic to take firearms away from criminals?
'This' being 'taking firearms away from people willing to obey the laws in the first place'.
What's the problem with using that logic to take firearms away from criminals?
Because by definition, criminals do not obey the law. If arms were taken out of circulation, there would be none to obtain except via smuggling --which is time consuming, requires connections, is costly, etc. It would certainly require advanced planning to carry out. The criminal could not just go down to Sears and buy one or down to the seedy area of town and then do a stick up later in the day.
Except that soon you'll be able to just print the guns out at home.
People could --but to what degree of success? A gunsmith, yes, but any yobbo at home? They might fire once, they might explode.
That's why I'm putting it more like 20 years out. Eventually there will be printing technology that will provide the tolerances required for a complete gun that doesn't blow up in your face.
And the drugs - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/21/chemputer-that...
And some spare organs in case of accidents involving the guns and the drugs - http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_growing_organs_engine...
And nice little chocolate things - http://www.chocedge.com/
And a new home after you destroy your existing one with the guns after binging out on all the drugs and chocolate - http://www.contourcrafting.org/
And some spare organs in case of accidents involving the guns and the drugs - http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_growing_organs_engine...
And nice little chocolate things - http://www.chocedge.com/
And a new home after you destroy your existing one with the guns after binging out on all the drugs and chocolate - http://www.contourcrafting.org/
This is a very exciting future indeed. There hasn't been something like this since the home computing revolution. It's the 1970s again, and we're still at the Homebrew Computer Club stage.
Tell me about it. I went and bought a reprap. I now have a 3d printer on my desk that's priced well under a grand, that is cheap as hell to run and that is designed from the outset for making replacement and upgraded components for itself. - http://www.reprap.org
Why more people haven't bought one already is more of a mystery to me.
Why more people haven't bought one already is more of a mystery to me.
[deleted]
The difference between Australia and the US is that here in the US, we love our guns. A lot. Look what happened during the alcohol prohibition. Look how well our drug war is going. If you try to take guns away from Americans, especially the midwest, I will guarantee you there will be riots. I don't think some of you realize just how much American's love their guns.
I own exactly zero guns, but I fully support the 2nd amendment.
Using the argument of "Hardened criminals will still get them anyway" is like saying we shouldn't have a law against murder because some people will do it anyway, so it's a waste of time. The point is to deter or make it extremely difficult for as many people as possible
No, it is nothing like saying that. Murder in itself is a very bad thing. Owning a gun isn't a bad thing, it's what the gun can be capable of that is bad. Just like alcohol itself isn't a bad thing, it's what the person is capable of doing when drunk, that is bad. That's why alcohol isn't illegal, but driving drunk is. That's why guns shouldn't be illegal, but using them in an unsafe manner should be.
I own exactly zero guns, but I fully support the 2nd amendment.
Using the argument of "Hardened criminals will still get them anyway" is like saying we shouldn't have a law against murder because some people will do it anyway, so it's a waste of time. The point is to deter or make it extremely difficult for as many people as possible
No, it is nothing like saying that. Murder in itself is a very bad thing. Owning a gun isn't a bad thing, it's what the gun can be capable of that is bad. Just like alcohol itself isn't a bad thing, it's what the person is capable of doing when drunk, that is bad. That's why alcohol isn't illegal, but driving drunk is. That's why guns shouldn't be illegal, but using them in an unsafe manner should be.
> Do you have any stats or experience to back that up? It might happen, but you are stating as fact something that's not been tested.
It's difficult to provide stats and experience for events that haven't happened yet, but we can look at history. The last major prohibition of a product for which there was widespread demand, and has since been abolished, was alcohol in the 1920s. That didn't go so well. We continue to prohibit non-narcotic drugs, such as marijuana, and there is an equally ginormous pile of evidence that this prohibition isn't working out for us either.
It is also difficult to compare the U.S. to other countries with regard to guns because of the difference in environment here in the U.S.. The sheer number of guns and gun owners in the U.S. makes for a different set of conditions compared to somewhere seemingly similar, like Australia.
I don't think it's all that far fetched to believe that a relevant portion of gun owners would seek to make their own, should the government restrict them past a tipping point. I don't know what that tipping point is, but I suspect it exists.
It's difficult to provide stats and experience for events that haven't happened yet, but we can look at history. The last major prohibition of a product for which there was widespread demand, and has since been abolished, was alcohol in the 1920s. That didn't go so well. We continue to prohibit non-narcotic drugs, such as marijuana, and there is an equally ginormous pile of evidence that this prohibition isn't working out for us either.
It is also difficult to compare the U.S. to other countries with regard to guns because of the difference in environment here in the U.S.. The sheer number of guns and gun owners in the U.S. makes for a different set of conditions compared to somewhere seemingly similar, like Australia.
I don't think it's all that far fetched to believe that a relevant portion of gun owners would seek to make their own, should the government restrict them past a tipping point. I don't know what that tipping point is, but I suspect it exists.
I think you're right.
Japan which has a very strict sword and firearms law, afaik, has not seen a "homebrew" industry spruot since they passed the laws back in the '70s. And, it's not as though there are no criminals. The Yak syndicates are not, on principle, against the use of guns --they do occasionally used smuggled guns to settle things.
Now, Japan does allow some kinds of firearms, typically to farmers and such who need to deal with threats/vermin, but the permit process is lengthy and few people obtain them.
Japan which has a very strict sword and firearms law, afaik, has not seen a "homebrew" industry spruot since they passed the laws back in the '70s. And, it's not as though there are no criminals. The Yak syndicates are not, on principle, against the use of guns --they do occasionally used smuggled guns to settle things.
Now, Japan does allow some kinds of firearms, typically to farmers and such who need to deal with threats/vermin, but the permit process is lengthy and few people obtain them.
Japan has a completely different culture from the US (obviously). You can't ignore the effects of such different attitudes towards individualism, income disparity, acceptable levels of violence, and trust in government. Never mind that the US is a multicultural society, whereas Japan isn't really.
True.. but as it regarded homebrew, there is "pent up demand" demostrated by the trickled smuggling by the gokudo syndicates. Yet, there isn't a homebrew industry. Instead, the few illegal arms are smuggled in. My point was that homebrew does not seem to spring up once firearms are made illegal, to any significant extent. Americans own approx 300 firearms. I don't think homebrew would manufacture in that quantity.
Firearms last decades, most of those 300 million firearms are unregistered (indeed the number could be far higher), so there isn't really a feasible way to get rid of even half of them.
Guns last decades to centuries, the underground manufacturers only have to make enough to keep up with criminal population growth to keep the criminals just as supplied with guns as they are today.
It might actually be worse because many of the law abiding citizens who previously left their guns sitting in the basement will be willing to sell on the black market with gun prices rising.
Guns last decades to centuries, the underground manufacturers only have to make enough to keep up with criminal population growth to keep the criminals just as supplied with guns as they are today.
It might actually be worse because many of the law abiding citizens who previously left their guns sitting in the basement will be willing to sell on the black market with gun prices rising.
I'm not the OP, but I do have evidence that a homebrew firearms industry is likely to spring up anywhere with a large number of violent criminals:
http://improguns.blogspot.co.uk/
Most of these are either machine pistols or disguised firearms, both of which are already severely restricted in the US. It seems likely to me that restrictions on firearms in those countries are the reason people are building guns instead of buying them.
Some of these guns came from Brazil and Ecuador, which have significantly higher homicide rates and tighter restrictions on firearms than the United States. This suggests to me that some other factor is likely responsible for the high homicide rates.
http://improguns.blogspot.co.uk/
Most of these are either machine pistols or disguised firearms, both of which are already severely restricted in the US. It seems likely to me that restrictions on firearms in those countries are the reason people are building guns instead of buying them.
Some of these guns came from Brazil and Ecuador, which have significantly higher homicide rates and tighter restrictions on firearms than the United States. This suggests to me that some other factor is likely responsible for the high homicide rates.
The US is different -- the murder rate is a cultural/economic problem, not a guns problem per se.
You are the first person to mention this but it is completely true. We are not a mono culture by any means. As a nation we have deep divisions in our cultures and ideologies. Yet to be politically correct they are almost never discussed.
[deleted]
> People who quite rightly see our drug laws as pointless and ineffective somehow often miss that a gun ban would be no more effective in the United States.
As an outsider, this is one of the most irrational things about American politics to me. Talk about guns, then talk about drugs, and each of the two major parties literally adopts the arguments of the other.
Then again, it's a perfectly rational system from the point of view of extracting maximum donations from supporters, so maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way. Moderation doesn't sell.
As an outsider, this is one of the most irrational things about American politics to me. Talk about guns, then talk about drugs, and each of the two major parties literally adopts the arguments of the other.
Then again, it's a perfectly rational system from the point of view of extracting maximum donations from supporters, so maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way. Moderation doesn't sell.
> Talk about guns, then talk about drugs, and each party literally adopts the arguments of the other.
Except libertarians.
We believe in decriminalization of both.
Except libertarians.
We believe in decriminalization of both.
Most Americans actually believe in the decriminalization of both - you don't need to be a libertarian. It is the parties they vote for that don't.
You're right. I only meant the big two; I went through about five variations of the phrasing and couldn't find one that wasn't awkward.
Fixed for correctness.
Fixed for correctness.
And authoritarians, believing in criminalization of both.
Gun laws reflect a society's general property rights, and drug laws their intellectual freedom.
Gun laws reflect a society's general property rights, and drug laws their intellectual freedom.
What's even more hilarious, about gun laws, is that the same folks who tell you that the entire system is corrupt (that you can't trust the military or the police because they're just a bunch of power hungry savages) are the ones who think that only the police and the military should be able to use guns. Not a very logically consistent worldview.
The infantile level of discourse surrounding gun laws saddens and disgusts me. And no, I don't believe either the military or the police are corrupt. I think that is a pretty anecdotal remark.
>Talk about guns, then talk about drugs, and each of the two major parties literally adopts the arguments of the other.
Not really. Neither party has many elected officials in favor of changing anything about drug laws. And the main argument in favor of legal gun ownership is about the right to defend yourself, which doesn't apply as well to cocaine, for example.
The debate based on personal choice and responsibility versus increased government authority shows up almost exclusively from people of a more libertarian bent, but not necessarily on one side of D/R or the other.
Not really. Neither party has many elected officials in favor of changing anything about drug laws. And the main argument in favor of legal gun ownership is about the right to defend yourself, which doesn't apply as well to cocaine, for example.
The debate based on personal choice and responsibility versus increased government authority shows up almost exclusively from people of a more libertarian bent, but not necessarily on one side of D/R or the other.
Exactly. See my post about making guns by hand. As a 12 year old boy I was making gunpowder from drugstore items and launching rockets made from rolled-up newspaper.
This stuff ain't hard to do!!
This stuff ain't hard to do!!
Of course. Let's pretend Billy Bob is a heated rage because he just found out so-and-so slept with so-and-so (or whatever).
What's more likely?
a) He walks around to so-and-sos house with his legally purchased, unlicensed, unregistered semi automatic assault rifle and 1000+ rounds, and kills the whole family, and anyone else unlucky enough to be nearby.
or
b) He spends days (weeks?) making his own gun, gunpowder and projectile by hand, and is still motivated all those days later to walk around and kill everyone, with a small caliber, (probably) non-semi automatic, (probably) small/no magazine.
Gun control won't stop people killing each other with guns. It will make it many times harder for the average Joe, therefore it will reduce the frequency, and the overall homicide rate.
What's more likely?
a) He walks around to so-and-sos house with his legally purchased, unlicensed, unregistered semi automatic assault rifle and 1000+ rounds, and kills the whole family, and anyone else unlucky enough to be nearby.
or
b) He spends days (weeks?) making his own gun, gunpowder and projectile by hand, and is still motivated all those days later to walk around and kill everyone, with a small caliber, (probably) non-semi automatic, (probably) small/no magazine.
Gun control won't stop people killing each other with guns. It will make it many times harder for the average Joe, therefore it will reduce the frequency, and the overall homicide rate.
I resent your (probably intentional) choice of names. Were you trying to pick on rednecks/hicks?
Anyways, most likely: he does nothing.
Your option A is silly. First, 1000 rounds of .223 is fairly heavy (that's > 30 magazines of normal size). Second, "Unregistered"? "Unlicensed"? What good is paperwork going to do if he decides to shoot someone? We already have ( http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#background ) federal measures regulating gun sales, so we do try not to make things super-easy for felons and the like.
Also, your option B is dumb. Days or weeks, instead of a fast job with some piping to make a really ghetto shotgun? What does small caliber even mean to you? You are correct that it would be non-semiauto, as the mechanics of an open-bolt automatic weapon are simpler than even a bolt-action weapon (compare, say, the M3 greasegun to a Mauser). I could go on.
Lastly, you omit the option where he attacks them with a knife, or makes a simple blackpowder IED, or what not.
You're just being alarmist and ignorant.
Anyways, most likely: he does nothing.
Your option A is silly. First, 1000 rounds of .223 is fairly heavy (that's > 30 magazines of normal size). Second, "Unregistered"? "Unlicensed"? What good is paperwork going to do if he decides to shoot someone? We already have ( http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#background ) federal measures regulating gun sales, so we do try not to make things super-easy for felons and the like.
Also, your option B is dumb. Days or weeks, instead of a fast job with some piping to make a really ghetto shotgun? What does small caliber even mean to you? You are correct that it would be non-semiauto, as the mechanics of an open-bolt automatic weapon are simpler than even a bolt-action weapon (compare, say, the M3 greasegun to a Mauser). I could go on.
Lastly, you omit the option where he attacks them with a knife, or makes a simple blackpowder IED, or what not.
You're just being alarmist and ignorant.
To clarify:
The only firearms in the US (federal level) that are registered are NFA items (machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, etc).
Firearms are not "licensed", people are. And in the US, in a vast majority of the states, there is no required licensing of people wanting to own a weapon. States like Illinois or New York are the exception.
The only firearms in the US (federal level) that are registered are NFA items (machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, etc).
Firearms are not "licensed", people are. And in the US, in a vast majority of the states, there is no required licensing of people wanting to own a weapon. States like Illinois or New York are the exception.
> I resent your (probably intentional) choice of names. Were you trying to pick on rednecks/hicks?
Apologies. I was trying to use a "generic" name.
> Second, "Unregistered"? "Unlicensed"? What good is paperwork going to do if he decides to shoot someone?
I expect he'll be less likely to kill people if he knows the weapon is tied to him. (and he might not have it in the first place, which is the case if I try to buy one in Australia right now)
> What does small caliber even mean to you?
I mean say a .22 instead of a center fire. Less killing power. bolt action also means less killing power (i.e. much slower)
> Lastly, you omit the option where he attacks them with a knife, or makes a simple blackpowder IED, or what not.
knife could harm or kill just a couple of people. IED is in the same range as a homemade gun in that it takes a long time and lots of effort to make.
> You're just being alarmist and ignorant.
Actually, I own a .30-06 and a 12 gauge and regularly go hunting.
Apologies. I was trying to use a "generic" name.
> Second, "Unregistered"? "Unlicensed"? What good is paperwork going to do if he decides to shoot someone?
I expect he'll be less likely to kill people if he knows the weapon is tied to him. (and he might not have it in the first place, which is the case if I try to buy one in Australia right now)
> What does small caliber even mean to you?
I mean say a .22 instead of a center fire. Less killing power. bolt action also means less killing power (i.e. much slower)
> Lastly, you omit the option where he attacks them with a knife, or makes a simple blackpowder IED, or what not.
knife could harm or kill just a couple of people. IED is in the same range as a homemade gun in that it takes a long time and lots of effort to make.
> You're just being alarmist and ignorant.
Actually, I own a .30-06 and a 12 gauge and regularly go hunting.
I expect he'll be less likely to kill people if he knows
the weapon is tied to him.
I mean say a .22 instead of a center fire. Less killing
power. bolt action also means less killing power (i.e.
much slower)
knife could harm or kill just a couple of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
I won't even waste time pointing out how effective a set of box cutters can be.
IED is in the same range as a homemade gun in that it
takes a long time and lots of effort to make.
Actually, I own a .30-06 and a 12 gauge and regularly go
hunting.
> If he's already hot-blooded, it seems reasonable that he won't care.
Good point, he might do it anyway due to "blind rage"
> Ah, okay, but why not something like a 12-gauge shell, or just a blunderbuss? Or just normal/common 9mm/.45 ammunition?
I was making the assumption that any home-made rifle would be crude and small caliber, probably bolt-action (at best). I was assuming it would have less "killing power" because of the time to re-load and crudeness of it all. (I was not commenting on the force of the round itself)
> Mankind has been using knives to kill in great numbers since we discovered the first sharp flint. Even in only the past ten years:
The first incident was 8 children killed (and let's be honest, you can kill 7 and 8 year olds with your hands). The second incident was 3 adults killed. That's a lot different that 12 dead and 70 people shot overall with a semi-auto.
> Cool. What models, out of curiosity?
The .30-06 is a Remington 700 XCR. Up here in Yukon by law you must use a minimum of .30 for bison, so it's good for them (we gone one last year), moose (we got two), caribou (still looking). The season opens next week, can't wait.
Good point, he might do it anyway due to "blind rage"
> Ah, okay, but why not something like a 12-gauge shell, or just a blunderbuss? Or just normal/common 9mm/.45 ammunition?
I was making the assumption that any home-made rifle would be crude and small caliber, probably bolt-action (at best). I was assuming it would have less "killing power" because of the time to re-load and crudeness of it all. (I was not commenting on the force of the round itself)
> Mankind has been using knives to kill in great numbers since we discovered the first sharp flint. Even in only the past ten years:
The first incident was 8 children killed (and let's be honest, you can kill 7 and 8 year olds with your hands). The second incident was 3 adults killed. That's a lot different that 12 dead and 70 people shot overall with a semi-auto.
> Cool. What models, out of curiosity?
The .30-06 is a Remington 700 XCR. Up here in Yukon by law you must use a minimum of .30 for bison, so it's good for them (we gone one last year), moose (we got two), caribou (still looking). The season opens next week, can't wait.
Bolt Action means less killing power? WTF. You claim to be a hunter with an '06, yet you think a .223 is more powerful?
The .30-06 is roughly 3x more powerful than the .223 fired by an AR15 which is really just a glorified varmint round.
I seriously doubt you really shoot/hunt/own weapons based on the statements you just made.
I seriously doubt you really shoot/hunt/own weapons based on the statements you just made.
> Bolt Action means less killing power?
I meant "less" because it's so much slower to reload.
I was not commenting on the "power" of the rifle/round itself.
Obviously, a muzzle loading .50 has lots of "power", but I'd wager you couldn't kill many people in a movie theater with one, as apposed to a semi-auto (of any caliber, really).
I meant "less" because it's so much slower to reload.
I was not commenting on the "power" of the rifle/round itself.
Obviously, a muzzle loading .50 has lots of "power", but I'd wager you couldn't kill many people in a movie theater with one, as apposed to a semi-auto (of any caliber, really).
> I was trying to use a "generic" name.
No, you were not. It was deliberately aimed as a classist swipe.
No, you were not. It was deliberately aimed as a classist swipe.
I think that the problem lies with Billy Bob, not the gun. It's not worth preventing the edge cases if that means reducing the average person's ability to defend themselves. Say that one person of the family had a pistol, and ran and got it while the Billy was busy shooting the others? The family member could then shoot Billy and possibly save a few family members. Guns are a means of personal power, and while loose gun laws mean that an unlawful person can get a gun, it also means that other people can defend themselves against said person, or other, non-gun-related crimes such as burglary.
And for those who say "bah hard to get illegal guns", replace the word "guns" with "drugs" and tell me how hard those are to get.
That's a pretty bigoted comment. When's the last time you heard of a "redneck"/"hick" as you'd probably call them, commit mass murder with a firearm? If anything, I find them generally far more responsible with firearms because they grew up learning about them, not learning about them in violent action movies with ceramic Glocks.
And that's the big question: What percentage of homicides are done spur of the moment by people who would not acquire weapons illegally under a ban?
Why wouldn't he just grab a knife from his kitchen? Or run them down with his car? Or a bat? Or set their house on fire?
Not having a gun isn't going to stop a person who wants to hurt someone else from doing it. It's just a tool.
Not having a gun isn't going to stop a person who wants to hurt someone else from doing it. It's just a tool.
He probably would but the probability of actually killing the victim would be much lower.
You can kill a lot more people more easily and more accidentally with a gun and also with quite a high probability compared to a knife. Guns just require one click to inflict a fatal wound if you know the tinies imaginable bit of knowledge of where to aim.
So you can just shoot another person off the bat but with a knife or another close-range weapon you have someone who realizes that a) you have a knife and b) you intend to fatally use it against him. That means combat.
I don't know which person attacked is more determined or more difficult to stop, a parent with kids or a person who's just running for life but they're both damn fucking hard. You will have to catch your victim first and if you just did, s/he will try nothing but escape again.
Now, with a knife (or a bat or...) you're likely to be able to wound that other person but actually killing him/her always requires an extra mile. All kinds of odds are stacked against not only the victim but the attacker as well, and as stabbing requires an intimate range and takes time, the outcome is far from certain unless you're really, really good.
I'd much rather be attacked by an amateur knifer than an amateur gunner.
You can kill a lot more people more easily and more accidentally with a gun and also with quite a high probability compared to a knife. Guns just require one click to inflict a fatal wound if you know the tinies imaginable bit of knowledge of where to aim.
So you can just shoot another person off the bat but with a knife or another close-range weapon you have someone who realizes that a) you have a knife and b) you intend to fatally use it against him. That means combat.
I don't know which person attacked is more determined or more difficult to stop, a parent with kids or a person who's just running for life but they're both damn fucking hard. You will have to catch your victim first and if you just did, s/he will try nothing but escape again.
Now, with a knife (or a bat or...) you're likely to be able to wound that other person but actually killing him/her always requires an extra mile. All kinds of odds are stacked against not only the victim but the attacker as well, and as stabbing requires an intimate range and takes time, the outcome is far from certain unless you're really, really good.
I'd much rather be attacked by an amateur knifer than an amateur gunner.
This just isn't true. The easiest way to kill a lot of people quickly (or even semi-accidentally) is with arson.
> Why wouldn't he just grab a knife from his kitchen? Or run them down with his car? Or a bat? Or set their house on fire?
How many people would he kill compared to a high-caliber semi-automatic assault rifle with 1000+ rounds of ammo?
> It's just a tool.
A tool that enables the holder to seriously injure or kill many more people than other readily available tools.
How many people would he kill compared to a high-caliber semi-automatic assault rifle with 1000+ rounds of ammo?
> It's just a tool.
A tool that enables the holder to seriously injure or kill many more people than other readily available tools.
Stop saying '1000+ rounds of ammo', as it makes you sound like the alarmist you are.
Point of fact - a loaded magazine for an AR-15 weighs in at approximately one pound. To carry '1000+ rounds of ammo', you would need to carry something like 30 magazines. Try it sometime - that only happens in video games for a reason.
A large truck driven through a crowded market could kill many more people than your average looney with a semi-automatic rifle. These highly publicized events make up only a tiny fraction of the number of homicides we experience per year, most of which only use a few bullets, and not from a 'high-caliber semi-automatic assault rifle'. Calm down.
Point of fact - a loaded magazine for an AR-15 weighs in at approximately one pound. To carry '1000+ rounds of ammo', you would need to carry something like 30 magazines. Try it sometime - that only happens in video games for a reason.
A large truck driven through a crowded market could kill many more people than your average looney with a semi-automatic rifle. These highly publicized events make up only a tiny fraction of the number of homicides we experience per year, most of which only use a few bullets, and not from a 'high-caliber semi-automatic assault rifle'. Calm down.
In this particular example he had a finite list of people he wanted to kill in either case, so if moderately athletic guy who's for-armed himself with a baseball bat and knife I'd expect him to be able to murder a person or small number of people with or without a gun.
As to someone who's really crazy and wants to kill as many people as possible, well, people who use bombs seem be much more deadly than people who use guns, so I'd be nervous about banning guns for fear of channeling them into less visceral but more deadly sorts of mayhem.
As to someone who's really crazy and wants to kill as many people as possible, well, people who use bombs seem be much more deadly than people who use guns, so I'd be nervous about banning guns for fear of channeling them into less visceral but more deadly sorts of mayhem.
What part of "HOMICIDAL MANIAC" do you not understand? Do you think he'll only kill the family and anyone else who gets in his way ONLY if he has a gun? I don't think this is how homicidal maniacs work.
> What part of "HOMICIDAL MANIAC" do you not understand?
I understand we should try to prevent them from getting their hands weapons that can harm or injure tens of people in a matter of seconds.
70 people hit by one person in a movie theater with a semi-auto. How many do you think it would have been with a knife? or even a bolt action?
I understand we should try to prevent them from getting their hands weapons that can harm or injure tens of people in a matter of seconds.
70 people hit by one person in a movie theater with a semi-auto. How many do you think it would have been with a knife? or even a bolt action?
By this logic we should live in a police state. Anything to keep the crime rate down right?
Let's pretend Billy Bob is a heated rage
Using a stereotyped redneck name is ugly.
Next time use first letter of the alphabet, common name. Second person gets second letter, common name and so on.
"Let's pretend Alice is a heated rage because she found out Bob slept with her wife Carol."
Much better, nu?
Using a stereotyped redneck name is ugly.
Next time use first letter of the alphabet, common name. Second person gets second letter, common name and so on.
"Let's pretend Alice is a heated rage because she found out Bob slept with her wife Carol."
Much better, nu?
> Billy Bob
And this kind of simple classist bigotry ("The poor people are dangerous! They aren't like us!") is one reason the people who want to increase firearm regulation have done such a terrible job of it: You can't intelligently impose laws on a culture you have no understanding of, especially if you think it's not important to understand.
And this kind of simple classist bigotry ("The poor people are dangerous! They aren't like us!") is one reason the people who want to increase firearm regulation have done such a terrible job of it: You can't intelligently impose laws on a culture you have no understanding of, especially if you think it's not important to understand.
>Gunpowder is not fundamentally harder to make than methamphetamine.
I think it's actually considerably easier. If you have saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal, there isn't even any chemistry involved, and the only one of those ingredients that is remotely plausible (and I'm stretching the term "remotely plausible" here) to regulate the sale of is saltpeter. And even if they went that far, Wikipedia mentions an old process[1] for synthesizing saltpeter using only wood ash, urine, and straw. And your setup isn't even likely to explode or leak poisonous gas into your home in the process.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_nitrate#From_urine
I think it's actually considerably easier. If you have saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal, there isn't even any chemistry involved, and the only one of those ingredients that is remotely plausible (and I'm stretching the term "remotely plausible" here) to regulate the sale of is saltpeter. And even if they went that far, Wikipedia mentions an old process[1] for synthesizing saltpeter using only wood ash, urine, and straw. And your setup isn't even likely to explode or leak poisonous gas into your home in the process.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_nitrate#From_urine
Not only is prohibition pointless; the actual harm caused by guns is relatively low compared to other causes. More people are harmed by cars than handguns.
As someone with multiple near death experiences under my belt, I can attest to this.
I have almost been shot once (not in the US), but I've have had a little over a half dozen near misses in cars (several countries, as driver, passenger and pedestrian/cyclist) and two near drownings (not in US).
Of all possible dangers I may encounter, cars easily worry me the most.
I have almost been shot once (not in the US), but I've have had a little over a half dozen near misses in cars (several countries, as driver, passenger and pedestrian/cyclist) and two near drownings (not in US).
Of all possible dangers I may encounter, cars easily worry me the most.
True, but cars are good for something other than killing things.
See my other, longer comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4298113
See my other, longer comment here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4298113
> cars are good for something other than killing things
Not all kinds of cars. What legitimate use does a massively overpowered Lamborghini have? Or a massively overpowered motorcycle?
Not all kinds of cars. What legitimate use does a massively overpowered Lamborghini have? Or a massively overpowered motorcycle?
But people need to get to places. People don't need guns for daily survival. Japan annually sees double digit gun-deaths. In the US we see triple digit accidental gun deaths.
There is still a significant number of people in the US who hunt for subsistence, or to supplement their diet. If you live in rural Alaska, you might rely on your gun for daily survival in a very real and immediate sense. Some cynics might say the same for Compton or Detroit.
Of course (I live right near Alaska and hunt).
If you can prove you hunt (permission from a land owner, hunting permit, tags, etc.) you should be allowed to own a couple of weapon. No semi or fully automatics, no handguns, no "assult" shotguns or what-not. Those are not for hunting, and every hunter knows it.
If you can prove you hunt (permission from a land owner, hunting permit, tags, etc.) you should be allowed to own a couple of weapon. No semi or fully automatics, no handguns, no "assult" shotguns or what-not. Those are not for hunting, and every hunter knows it.
Japan's Swords and Firearms laws allow for that. It's a lengthy and involved process. It's not a short process, but if you could prove that it was really necessary -such as life sustaining necessary, you could obtain a shotgun, for example.
No one needs a Hummer, but someone's buying them.
[deleted]
In quite a few countries where weapons are heavily regulated, you can get a permit. The structure obviously depends on the country, but if you have a genuine reason (mostly hunting or sport) and satisfy some basic requirements (no criminal record, mentally sane, etc), getting a reasonable weapon is possible.
[deleted]
Banning guns will require a change in the constitution, and will likely never happen as a result. In addition, even if it did happen, it would likely be unpopular because of the demand side as you mention.
That being said, the argument(s) for mandatory background checks, tracking whose buying what, and assault weapons restrictions are pretty compelling, and while they are supply side solutions, they can hardly be called ineffective and pointless. There are very few instances in which one individual (or a small group) assembling/developing an arsenal of military grade (and/or military quantity) can be considered defensible.
Imagine this: the same way there is a massive public outcry for sexual predators to be outed in their neighborhoods - what if people with assault weapons were also outed in their neighborhoods? Would you be willing to share a wall with someone who had 6k rounds of ammunition?
That being said, the argument(s) for mandatory background checks, tracking whose buying what, and assault weapons restrictions are pretty compelling, and while they are supply side solutions, they can hardly be called ineffective and pointless. There are very few instances in which one individual (or a small group) assembling/developing an arsenal of military grade (and/or military quantity) can be considered defensible.
Imagine this: the same way there is a massive public outcry for sexual predators to be outed in their neighborhoods - what if people with assault weapons were also outed in their neighborhoods? Would you be willing to share a wall with someone who had 6k rounds of ammunition?
What is an "assault weapon"? Oh, did you mean an AR15? The most popular firearm sold in the US for the past few years.
Which Heller specifically protects ("in common use").
Dude, go ahead and out everyone in my neighor hood with an AR15 or other detachable box magazine fed automatic rifle. You know what will happen? Not a damn thing - we all have these things here.
I personally have had well over 6000 rds of ammo at some point. You know what? It didnt go bad, nor did it magically get shot at innocent people. I either buy in bulk, or reload in bulk because its cheaper. WAY cheaper. When you shoot 150+ rounds of ammo a week shooting competition, you can not do otherwise.
As far as arsenels being defensible? WTF does that even mean. I can have an arsenal if I want to. I'm not hurting anyone with it, so what business of it is yours?
Dude, go ahead and out everyone in my neighor hood with an AR15 or other detachable box magazine fed automatic rifle. You know what will happen? Not a damn thing - we all have these things here.
I personally have had well over 6000 rds of ammo at some point. You know what? It didnt go bad, nor did it magically get shot at innocent people. I either buy in bulk, or reload in bulk because its cheaper. WAY cheaper. When you shoot 150+ rounds of ammo a week shooting competition, you can not do otherwise.
As far as arsenels being defensible? WTF does that even mean. I can have an arsenal if I want to. I'm not hurting anyone with it, so what business of it is yours?
Not to mention what good is 6k rounds for a massacre? How are you planning on carrying that much ammo around while firing at people?
what if people with assault weapons were also outed in their neighborhoods?
That would be fun. A list for criminals of 'houses not to rip off'. Also: list of houses to rip off with impunity.
Would you be willing to share a wall with someone who had 6k rounds of ammunition?
6,000 rounds is not lot - a few guys can burn that many off in a weekend.
Sure, why not? What matters is intent.
Also: a prudent gun owner is not going to use a rifle in an apartment building or duplex.
That's what shotguns are for.
(edited: content)
That would be fun. A list for criminals of 'houses not to rip off'. Also: list of houses to rip off with impunity.
Would you be willing to share a wall with someone who had 6k rounds of ammunition?
6,000 rounds is not lot - a few guys can burn that many off in a weekend.
Sure, why not? What matters is intent.
Also: a prudent gun owner is not going to use a rifle in an apartment building or duplex.
That's what shotguns are for.
(edited: content)
6,000 rounds is like 120 boxes. I have that many in my closet and at least as many empties. I don't know why this is getting tossed around as some unreasonably large amount of ammo. If you go to gun shows, you see nice deals all the time and it's kind of hard not to collect that much over a period of a few years.
This idea has been floated around many times. All you would be doing is telling every criminal where guns where. Not a good idea at all.
Also almost 50% of the people in this country own a fire arm. So I am not sure it would have the same "stigmatizing effect" as it isn't illegal or generally thought of as being a terrible act in and of itself.
Please keep in mind most people who shoot buy large amounts of ammo as it is cheaper to do it that way. Shooting 6k rounds a year down a pistol or small caliber rifle is very easy to do and isn't a sign of someone stock piling for Armageddon. So yes I would gladly share a wall with someone who has 6k rounds of ammo.
Also almost 50% of the people in this country own a fire arm. So I am not sure it would have the same "stigmatizing effect" as it isn't illegal or generally thought of as being a terrible act in and of itself.
Please keep in mind most people who shoot buy large amounts of ammo as it is cheaper to do it that way. Shooting 6k rounds a year down a pistol or small caliber rifle is very easy to do and isn't a sign of someone stock piling for Armageddon. So yes I would gladly share a wall with someone who has 6k rounds of ammo.
and higher margins means more incentive for people to get into the business.
Doesn't pass the sniff test.
Chamber pressure in a .22 cal pistol is on the order of 20,000 PSI [1] The tensile strength of thermoplastic at standard temperatures is 1/2 that [2] and it goes down as the temperature goes up (its a thermoplastic for a reason). Firing a .22 caliber round using gunpowder would destroy the barrel on the first firing.
Now I could believe you built the receiver and triggering mechanism on a thermoplastic printer, but not the actual firing chamber.
[1] http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm [2] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/physical-properties-thermo...
Chamber pressure in a .22 cal pistol is on the order of 20,000 PSI [1] The tensile strength of thermoplastic at standard temperatures is 1/2 that [2] and it goes down as the temperature goes up (its a thermoplastic for a reason). Firing a .22 caliber round using gunpowder would destroy the barrel on the first firing.
Now I could believe you built the receiver and triggering mechanism on a thermoplastic printer, but not the actual firing chamber.
[1] http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm [2] http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/physical-properties-thermo...
The part that's 3d printed is the lower receiver. In an AR-15 style design, the lower receiver doesn't handle any pressure at all, it just houses the magazine and hammer/trigger/sear/safety, and connects to the upper receiver/barrel assembly and the buttstock/buffer tube assembly.
People have made lower receivers out of aluminum basically forever. Aluminum could maybe be made to handle .22lr type pressures, but certainly not .223rem or bigger. A plastic lower is completely believable.
EDIT: to clarify, I meant if you wanted to make the whole gun out of aluminum you might be able to get away with it for a .22lr. Aluminum for a lower receiver is absolutely no problem at all. Apologies for not being clear.
People have made lower receivers out of aluminum basically forever. Aluminum could maybe be made to handle .22lr type pressures, but certainly not .223rem or bigger. A plastic lower is completely believable.
EDIT: to clarify, I meant if you wanted to make the whole gun out of aluminum you might be able to get away with it for a .22lr. Aluminum for a lower receiver is absolutely no problem at all. Apologies for not being clear.
The M16/AR15 upper and lowers in milspec form are made from 7075T6 (might be T651 or some other specialized heat treatment, I am not sure off hand). Others have made them from 6061 Al.
The chamber is part of the barrel, which is made of some form of steel. Thus, the upper receiever doesn't contain the chamber pressures. What it does do is control the bolt carrier assembly when it recoils, which is pretty darned vigorous - I wouldnt trust my face to a plastic upper.
Also, note that plastic firearms have been around for YEARS. My dad's first rifle, in the later 50s, was a Remington Nylon '66, which was except for a steel stamping for a cover, a steel bolt, and the steel barrel, made of Zytel.
The chamber is part of the barrel, which is made of some form of steel. Thus, the upper receiever doesn't contain the chamber pressures. What it does do is control the bolt carrier assembly when it recoils, which is pretty darned vigorous - I wouldnt trust my face to a plastic upper.
Also, note that plastic firearms have been around for YEARS. My dad's first rifle, in the later 50s, was a Remington Nylon '66, which was except for a steel stamping for a cover, a steel bolt, and the steel barrel, made of Zytel.
Well there was this story (http://boingboing.net/2011/09/20/3d-printed-ar-15-parts-chal...) on BoingBoing in September of last year that was later determined to be a hoax according to the Makerbot folks at the Makerfaire this year.
If I recall correctly, the lower is also the only part of the assembled weapon that requires registration.
Incorrect. The lower is the only part of the assembled weapon upon which a serial # is applied and a tax is paid. It is also the # that is recorded on the Form 4473 at the dealer when you purchase the weapon.
There is no federal level firearms registration (excepting NFA items), and only a few states that do so as well.
There is no federal level firearms registration (excepting NFA items), and only a few states that do so as well.
Oh, and if you build it yourself (as this person has done), no tax need be paid, no serial # need be applied, and all perfectly legal provided you have not been restricted from purchasing a weapon through normal channels. That is, a felon making a weapon is now a felon-in-possession, where a citizen with full rights making one has not committed a crime.
One of the things we did in my machining class was we built miniature brass cannons. They were .177 caliber (In the US that is a common size of BB). They were fully functional. You put in some gun powder, a bit of wadding, and a BB, then you could fire them by putting a match to the touch hole.
Somewhat difficult to wield in a gun fight though, not that we didn't occasionally imagine the students holding off an attack by firing a broadside from cannon of various quality :-)
Somewhat difficult to wield in a gun fight though, not that we didn't occasionally imagine the students holding off an attack by firing a broadside from cannon of various quality :-)
Aluminum could maybe be made to handle .22lr type
pressures, but certainly not .223rem or bigger.
The Alexander Arms .50 Beowolf lower is made out of aluminum. http://www.gunblast.com/50Beowulf.htm
You can also buy single-shot .50 BMG uppers that bolt right onto regular aluminum AR-15 lowers, though of course you can't feed .50 BMG through a 5.56 magazine well.
He did not "print a rifle", he printed what is known as a "stripped lower receiver," which is only a shell that holds the trigger assembly, magazine, grip, and provides a mount point for the buffer tube and two pin mounts for the upper receiver. The upper receiver and buffer tube/buffer spring are the objects which have the force primarily exerted on them.
In the eyes of the ATF he DID print a gun. The lower receiver is a 'gun' for the purposes of manufacturing. The upper receiver, buffer tube, trigger group, etc. are just parts...
I'm not sure what you're getting at. I think you're trying to be pedantic?
I said he didn't print a "rifle," you say "in the eyes of the ATF, he DID print a gun." I respond with, if you're being pedantic, he printed a "part which the BATFE classifies as a firearm requiring the stamping of a serial number should the manufacturer transfer it to any other individual." A part which, we all know, in and of its self is NOT a rifle.
I said he didn't print a "rifle," you say "in the eyes of the ATF, he DID print a gun." I respond with, if you're being pedantic, he printed a "part which the BATFE classifies as a firearm requiring the stamping of a serial number should the manufacturer transfer it to any other individual." A part which, we all know, in and of its self is NOT a rifle.
During my studies we ssome classes in rapid prototyping. One of our favorites (since prototype car parts or funtional gear boxes aren't simply cool enough) was a fully funtional, for 20 shots or so, (semi?)-automatic rifle. And that was 6-7 years ago. The only non plastic part was the barrel, after the 20 shots the resin and plastics melted so.
I might be reading it wrong, but it looks to me like he printed a receiver and placed all the moving parts and the barrel etc. in it. See "I printed a modified version of the lower from cncguns.com"
The receiver is the only part of the rifle that is controlled. Everything other than the receiver can be bought on the internet without background checks or registering of serial numbers.
Yes, I know that part, I was simply pointing out that he did not necessarily print out a barrel or trigger pin or any of the other many parts needed to make a whole pistol.
A long post on the topic of CNC, printing firearms, and more from a few months back:
http://www.popehat.com/2011/10/06/the-third-wave-cnc-stereol...
http://www.popehat.com/2011/10/06/the-third-wave-cnc-stereol...
To be clear: he made a lower receiver, a very simple part and the one that has the serial number stamped onto it, it is the "gun" part as far as the legal authorities are concerned.
Every other part (upper receiver, barrel, magazine, trigger, hammer, etc) are just "parts" that one can order untracked.
Making an entire functional weapon is still beyond the scope of most inexpensive printers.
http://www.quora.com/3D-Printing/How-much-does-it-cost-today... (my question about this on Quora.)
Every other part (upper receiver, barrel, magazine, trigger, hammer, etc) are just "parts" that one can order untracked.
Making an entire functional weapon is still beyond the scope of most inexpensive printers.
http://www.quora.com/3D-Printing/How-much-does-it-cost-today... (my question about this on Quora.)
I love how HN jumps immediately into a gun control debate and almost completely misses the fact that what he printed is a long way from an AR-15. It's just a piece of metal called the lower receiver. When I say lower receiver, I believe he built just the shell not the trigger assembly or bushings. In addition, the bolt and barrel (the upper) weren't manufactured.
But lets assume for a minute that he printed the entire thing from scratch, how is this any different than the fact that anybody with a good machine shop can produce a full AR-15 by hand?
Well, it's definitely possible to print a silencer, a pistol shouldn't be that much harder. I'm afraid that this would make the governments impose stricter laws on 3D printers, which is not a good thing...
I'd be more scared if they could successfully manufacture lethal ammunition.
There is a whole hobby community of people who manufacture their own ammunition. You can order everything you need to get started over the internet, with no permits (unless you live in a short list of states like Massachusetts, in which case a firearms permit is needed to purchase ammunition components).
Some people do it to save money, some because they're competitive shooters (who want to hand-optimize their loads), and others are survivalist types who want to be "off-the-grid".
Some people do it to save money, some because they're competitive shooters (who want to hand-optimize their loads), and others are survivalist types who want to be "off-the-grid".
(I don't know if this is sarcasm, but I'm answering with the assumption it's not.)
Manufacturing ammunition is simple and requires components and equipment that can be purchased for relatively little money and with (almost) no restrictions.
Buying gunpowder, primers, bullets, and casings is very possible via the internet (though gunpowder and primers are subject to hazardous shipping restrictions). After that, you could in principle make ammo using a 2x4 and a hammer if you really wanted to. A single-stage reloading press and the accoutrements can be obtained for under $200 trivially, and if you want to step up to relatively fast manufacture (hundreds of rounds per hour) you're still only talking a $500ish investment.
Manufacturing ammunition is simple and requires components and equipment that can be purchased for relatively little money and with (almost) no restrictions.
Buying gunpowder, primers, bullets, and casings is very possible via the internet (though gunpowder and primers are subject to hazardous shipping restrictions). After that, you could in principle make ammo using a 2x4 and a hammer if you really wanted to. A single-stage reloading press and the accoutrements can be obtained for under $200 trivially, and if you want to step up to relatively fast manufacture (hundreds of rounds per hour) you're still only talking a $500ish investment.
A suppressor has no moving parts and serves only to baffle the expanding gas and reduce noise. It experiences relatively low heat and gas pressure. The components of a firearm have far tighter tolerances and must withstand significantly higher levels of pressure and heat. It's not even close to the same thing.
People have been building guns for hundreds of years with far inferior tools.
This technology is used to print engine parts for F1 car racing - http://www.eos.info/en/products/systems-equipment/metal-lase...
And it is only going to get cheaper - http://reprap.org/wiki/MetalicaRap
And it is only going to get cheaper - http://reprap.org/wiki/MetalicaRap
Sigh.
I have downloaded complete plans that were created in 1972 to make an entire .22 caliber single shot pistol by hand using a hacksaw, file and drill press. By my estimation, it can be done in one long day of work by a semi-skilled person. An even simpler pistol can be built in an hour or two. It's just not hard to make a basic gun: when I was 11 years old I used to make toy "guns" from old hollow keys, crushed match heads and nails. They worked, but only had about a 10-foot or so range.
Granted, I planned to build the pistol using a (manual) milling machine, not by hand, but is the government going to outlaw saws and files now?
I have downloaded complete plans that were created in 1972 to make an entire .22 caliber single shot pistol by hand using a hacksaw, file and drill press. By my estimation, it can be done in one long day of work by a semi-skilled person. An even simpler pistol can be built in an hour or two. It's just not hard to make a basic gun: when I was 11 years old I used to make toy "guns" from old hollow keys, crushed match heads and nails. They worked, but only had about a 10-foot or so range.
Granted, I planned to build the pistol using a (manual) milling machine, not by hand, but is the government going to outlaw saws and files now?
Yes, but the quality of a good 3D printed gun will be better and it's easier to download the blueprints and literally print them rather than understand and build the gun yourself.
I, too, used to stuff firecrackers down a pipe and shoot steel balls (from bearings) when I was a kid - it was fun, what can I say :-)...
I, too, used to stuff firecrackers down a pipe and shoot steel balls (from bearings) when I was a kid - it was fun, what can I say :-)...
Hah, that sounds like fun. The best I could ever get my hands on was raw corn kernels, party balloons, and a short section of garden hose.
Seriously, what happened to real journalism?
Articles are now being written based on a handful of unverified forum posts. Really?
Articles are now being written based on a handful of unverified forum posts. Really?
1) Betabeat isn't the NY Times.
2) Betabeat only reported that this forum existed and that someone had made these claim, which is indisputably correct. You may think it's not particularly news worthy, but online journalism is a big places and there's plenty of room for everything.
3) Would you rather this article not be written?
2) Betabeat only reported that this forum existed and that someone had made these claim, which is indisputably correct. You may think it's not particularly news worthy, but online journalism is a big places and there's plenty of room for everything.
3) Would you rather this article not be written?
Not to mention the gratuitous editorializing by the author throughout the article.
Are there any technology news sites that are truly journalistic these days? (serious question)
Are there any technology news sites that are truly journalistic these days? (serious question)
Man, they didn't show you that in Star Trek...
edit: to be specific, they glossed over it instead of confronting a scenario where an enemy hijacked a replicator to make whatever physical or chemical weapons they wanted at a moment's notice.
edit: to be specific, they glossed over it instead of confronting a scenario where an enemy hijacked a replicator to make whatever physical or chemical weapons they wanted at a moment's notice.
Actually it was touched on in a number of episodes (which i don't feel like digging up) but in more than once instance they mentioned that the replicators had safety systems that prevented unauthorized creation of at least some dangerous materials, (from what i recall, poisons were mentioned in one, weapons themselves i'm not sure).
TOS they made flintlock rifles in "Balance of Power"
TNG "Samaritain Snare" Geordi is kidnapped by technically unsophisticated, but cunning people that use replicators to reproduce high-tech (including a phasor)
TNG "Samaritain Snare" Geordi is kidnapped by technically unsophisticated, but cunning people that use replicators to reproduce high-tech (including a phasor)
istr a ds9 novel (yes, i read some) where they had to replicate some machine guns to deal with invaders who had perfect shielding, but only against energy weapons. there were security overrides involved, but it had a large collection of projectile weapons to choose from once it was unlocked.
True, but what could be poisonous to one species, could be nutritious to another. The idea that 'poisons' are easily identifiable is pure fantasy.
Everyone on the Enterprise can breath the same air and eaet the same food.
And if something is poison to even just a few of your crew, you forbid it and tell everyone else to eat almonds instead of peanuts. :nerdingout:
And if something is poison to even just a few of your crew, you forbid it and tell everyone else to eat almonds instead of peanuts. :nerdingout:
A lot of things were "forbidden" by social pressures. Alcohol was freely available (or maybe a simple security override, I can't remember) but no one drank real alcohol.
Note that they often invited aliens of unknown origin onto their ship (dignitaries, ambassadors, first contact, etc). This is hardly enforceable.
1.) Blogspam. OP is http://www.webpronews.com/gunsmith-uses-3d-printer-to-make-a...
Does HN have any mods?
2.) Have blue has a blog, he's written two posts about this: http://haveblue.org/?p=1041 http://haveblue.org/?p=1321 It appears to be down right now, though. Cache links: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DlBe32... https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z_5bOF...
3.) He printed a AR-15 lower receiver, which is the part, under US law, considered a "firearm". The high pressure components (barrel, bolt) are all made from conventional manufacturing processes, using steel.
Lowers are typically made out of aluminum, but they don't really experience any great stresses, so it's perfectly possible to make them out of plastic. (There's a number of commercial lowers made out of fiberglass: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=65134 (I'd link directly to the manufacturer's site, but it seems they're better at making guns than they are at securing web servers)) As he notes, people have even carved them from wood.
Does HN have any mods?
2.) Have blue has a blog, he's written two posts about this: http://haveblue.org/?p=1041 http://haveblue.org/?p=1321 It appears to be down right now, though. Cache links: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DlBe32... https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Z_5bOF...
3.) He printed a AR-15 lower receiver, which is the part, under US law, considered a "firearm". The high pressure components (barrel, bolt) are all made from conventional manufacturing processes, using steel.
Lowers are typically made out of aluminum, but they don't really experience any great stresses, so it's perfectly possible to make them out of plastic. (There's a number of commercial lowers made out of fiberglass: http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=65134 (I'd link directly to the manufacturer's site, but it seems they're better at making guns than they are at securing web servers)) As he notes, people have even carved them from wood.
If the United States ever got serious about banning firearms, a massive homebrew industry would grow up overnight. Gunpowder is not fundamentally harder to make than methamphetamine.
People who quite rightly see our drug laws as pointless and ineffective somehow often miss that a gun ban would be no more effective in the United States. If you want there to be less drugs or guns, you have to attack the demand side, not the supply side. Suppressing supply while keeping demand steady just ensures higher margins for the suppliers.