Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Grizzly Willy]

You'd also have to wonder about this future point, where the 3d printer is cheap enough and durable enough to allow you to build a stable gun for cheaper than getting a gun elsewhere... why would you be printing off a gun anyway? By then, you can just print out whatever you want, so who are you going to rob?

Have to imagine that, by the time we get to matter compilers, we wouldn't need to worry about material needs because we would be post-scarcity, so the impulse for criminal activity would have evaporated.

[FusedMass]

Better yet, we could take better care of our citizens (especially in the area of mental health) so that they can own guns, and not feel the need to use them for evil.

You do understand, we cannot provide better mental health because republicans will not grant funding. Not every person with a mental illness uses weapons for evil. Its a morality choice. They can understand its wrong but refuse to sway their mind. Again if we had funds for mental health that people keep going on about to fit the system. We could provide better services.

As of right now, we cannot even pass a background check for gun shows. Something that should be simple, basic and common sense to responsible gun owners. What makes you believe they'd be able provide better services, when they fail past the smallest of bills that expands background check in place. To Gun Shows.

Again. You refused to answer some questions of mine, because you failed submit a qualified answer, ignoring it outright because they deem not worthy to respond to. Thats you're own words. I try at least to answer questions provided in a timely manner.

[Gemini Sunrise]

You'd also have to wonder about this future point, where the 3d printer is cheap enough and durable enough to allow you to build a stable gun for cheaper than getting a gun elsewhere... why would you be printing off a gun anyway? By then, you can just print out whatever you want, so who are you going to rob?

Because I can, really. If it is indeed stable, you bet your ass I'm going to be firing them a great deal, and with people firing them comes wear and tear. You're either going to have to buy parts to replace the broken ones or print em off.

[Svifnymr]

Because I can, really. If it is indeed stable, you bet your ass I'm going to be firing them a great deal, and with people firing them comes wear and tear. You're either going to have to buy parts to replace the broken ones or print em off.

Sure, I'm not saying no one will print off guns, just saying that by that point printing off a gun to use in a crime might be a bit redundant.

[PhaelixWW]

Not really, I understood that point quite well. Its fact other countries are smaller than us yet the crime data is higher, it works vice versa. Population means little except for some reason because we have a larger population, we're expected have more deaths

Like I said, you're mixing up "crime rate" (x number of incidents per 100k people) which accounts for population, and the "number of incidents" which doesn't take into account population differences. That's just simple logic.

So because criminals will find another route to guns. We should make all existing routes, legal.

Wow. Nice straw man. In no way did I say that. In fact, it directly ignores the statement I made a few sentences later:

I'm not saying a UBC law wouldn't be worth passing, because, like existing dealer background checks, it will stop some people who shouldn't get firearms from having them.

You said that criminals can easily get guns as gun shows, and that we should stop them by having a UBC law. Then you made the point (accurately) that criminals will take the easiest approach to getting firearms.

I simply said that passing a UBC law wouldn't really do much to stop criminals from getting guns because it's almost just as easy for them to do a straw purchase that will pass a background check. And then I said a UBC law would still be worthwhile, even for the very little benefit it would give.

Nowhere did I advocate "there might as well be no laws!" I did exactly the opposite. Please read my post more completely next time.

It'd make straw buyers a federal crime

Straw purchases are already a federal crime. It's just never enforced.

Yes, I'm painfully aware of gun show loophole.

Did you not pay attention to what I said? Here in California, we already have a universal background check law. And yet a sheriff, of all people, ignored it to trade a gun with a stranger at a gun show. That's not a loophole, that's illegal. And it still happened. It just points out that the existence of a law doesn't necessarily mean that the law is going to be followed. Even by people whose duty it is to enforce the law.

Fenols are not allowed own weapons. A background exists to prevent that. Without that, its very very easy for them to buy a weapon.

Once again, my point was that background checks may stop "casual" criminals, but background checks are so easy to bypass (via straw purchases, not talking about a private party transaction) that "hardened" criminals will still have an easy time getting a gun if they really want one.

You're required to have ID, which is less than what's required to buy a weapon that kills people.

Not at WalMart. Pretty sure you still need to have ID, fill out a form, and do a background check to get a gun at WalMart.

Incorrect. Check the questions. Perhaps a more fulfilling answer then criminals don't follow the law, and more population means more death.

Yeah, sure, that's exactly what I said; I certainly didn't back up what I was saying with logical reasoning and statistics.
/sarcasm

I provided written data that proves what I'm saying.

You provided some data. It didn't prove what you're saying, however.

The number remains in trillions to fund wars to find weapons that never existed. Heaven forbid someone in Iraq. Obtains a weapon, yet they could get them here legally. Like buying candy at a store. This is for a weapon, a gun whos sole purpose is to kill. Shouldn't we at very least provide a background check.

Wow. So I actually backed you up on one point, and you quote my post, write in a mocking manner, and spout the "sole purpose is to kill" bullshit.

Why on earth should I ever post in agreement with anything you say from here on out, if this is the kind of response you give?

Seriously. I'm not responsible for anyone getting an infraction. Nice way shift the blame.

Uh. He was talking about the infractions that you received, for which you are to blame. But I'm not going to discuss infractions any more.

The one in question only had two metal parts, a firing pin spring and a metal nail to serve as the firing pin.

Even the spring was plastic:

The cynic in me says the NRA represents the ideals of gun manufacturers, who would certainly lose market share if "anyone" could make a working inexpensive gun. It would be in their monetary interest to squash that.

Gee thanks, now I'm going to have panic attacks thinking about the NRA merging Devastator-style with the MPAA and the RIAA to combat internet piracy.

Just imagine if there was some massive porn oversight agency that joined the fray. I think the internet would implode.

You'd also have to wonder about this future point, where the 3d printer is cheap enough and durable enough to allow you to build a stable gun for cheaper than getting a gun elsewhere... why would you be printing off a gun anyway? By then, you can just print out whatever you want, so who are you going to rob?

Or... there could be a massive underground black market economy based on weapons-grade plutonium plastic.

You need the guns to steal the plastic to make the guns to steal the...

Gunception?

---------- Post added 2013-05-10 at 07:54 PM ----------

Also, here's an article on CNet about the 3D-printed gun issue:

CNet: Why fear of 3D-printed guns is overblown

...

Despite the increasingly alarmed tone of government response to the latest developments in the race to create 3D printed firearms, there are those who think that the dangers posed by such weapons hardly warrant such worry. And surprisingly, one of the most skeptical voices of all is an ardent anti-gun violence advocate.

"In terms of the implications for guns laws, we think it's incredibly overblown," said Ladd Everitt, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "Could someone considering a terrorist (or criminal) act buy a 3D printer, download the files, experiment [with them] and go through the full process to make one gun, not knowing how many times it will fire? Probably not."

Everitt argued that anyone intending a mass shooting can acquire a gun in a matter of minutes and probably doesn't care too much about whether their purchase is tracked because they're usually suicidal or expect to get caught. But he also said that people have been coming up with ways to make guns at home for quite some time, and that even so, "these guns never turn up in crimes because the fact is, it's so damn easy to get guns."

...

[Kalyyn]

Again. You refused to answer some questions of mine, because you failed submit a qualified answer, ignoring it outright because they deem not worthy to respond to. Thats you're own words. I try at least to answer questions provided in a timely manner.

What questions? I don't remember any. You said like 4 days ago that you were done speaking to me. Is that no longer in effect? If not, then you'll have to repeat the questions, because I don't have time to sift through 2 dozen pages of posts.

I genuinely wasn't trying to ignore you or anything. If you've got a topic you want me to address, I'll gladly do so.

[Poodles]

You do understand, we cannot provide better mental health because republicans will not grant funding. Not every person with a mental illness uses weapons for evil. Its a morality choice. They can understand its wrong but refuse to sway their mind. Again if we had funds for mental health that people keep going on about to fit the system. We could provide better services.

Another thread entirely, but the issue is that current mental health focuses on drug treatment instead of actually fixing the issues with therapy. If one digs deeper, many of the people that do mass shootings were on or had just quit their meds...

Not to mention the stigma associated with it as well, but that's a social issue.



Now, on to the point about 3D printed guns. Since I actually know wtf I'm talking about having messed with these machines before, it's an idiotic thought to think you could print out a full auto gun. Building a full auto gun is quite easily actually, the issue is controlling it (stuck firing pin in say an SKS is a perfect example here). But I digress.

Ok, for starters, the affordable 3D printers are extrusion based printers. These use melted thermoplastics and build in layers. The key point there is thermoplastic. Since they are workable and moldable when hot, they are not suitable for use in a firearm barrel unless maybe the weapon is single shot. Full auto it would melt in no time.

Also, parts made in such a fashion need to be bashed in a solvent to smooth them out generally, and it's then not as exact. These machines are also notoriously finicky.

The only technology that IMHO could be used is granular printing and metal infusing. The machine builds up using granules of stainless steel that are glued together the a jet head. It's built up in layers. The resulting item is very fragile, so then must be infused with another metal through a baking process at high temperature that liquefies the binding metal and it's drawn into the part through capillary action (think of it as a sponge). The main issue here is that the part isn't truly steel, so it's not nearly as strong, and it has a very course finish which wouldn't work for a barrel or any moving parts that need to be smooth.

There may be a laser or photo based system that hardens resins that might be strong enough, but yet again, these aren't the affordable models by any means...

Hope that helps.

[Kalyyn]

Another thread entirely, but the issue is that current mental health focuses on drug treatment instead of actually fixing the issues with therapy. If one digs deeper, many of the people that do mass shootings were on or had just quit their meds...

Not to mention the stigma associated with it as well, but that's a social issue.



Now, on to the point about 3D printed guns. Since I actually know wtf I'm talking about having messed with these machines before, it's an idiotic thought to think you could print out a full auto gun. Building a full auto gun is quite easily actually, the issue is controlling it (stuck firing pin in say an SKS is a perfect example here). But I digress.

Ok, for starters, the affordable 3D printers are extrusion based printers. These use melted thermoplastics and build in layers. The key point there is thermoplastic. Since they are workable and moldable when hot, they are not suitable for use in a firearm barrel unless maybe the weapon is single shot. Full auto it would melt in no time.

Also, parts made in such a fashion need to be bashed in a solvent to smooth them out generally, and it's then not as exact. These machines are also notoriously finicky.

The only technology that IMHO could be used is granular printing and metal infusing. The machine builds up using granules of stainless steel that are glued together the a jet head. It's built up in layers. The resulting item is very fragile, so then must be infused with another metal through a baking process at high temperature that liquefies the binding metal and it's drawn into the part through capillary action (think of it as a sponge). The main issue here is that the part isn't truly steel, so it's not nearly as strong, and it has a very course finish which wouldn't work for a barrel or any moving parts that need to be smooth.

There may be a laser or photo based system that hardens resins that might be strong enough, but yet again, these aren't the affordable models by any means...

Hope that helps.

This is the point that people have been trying to make all along. With these printed guns, you get one shot and you're done. IMO, you're better off just welding a gun together from scrap.

[Elegiac]

This is the point that people have been trying to make all along. With these printed guns, you get one shot and you're done. IMO, you're better off just welding a gun together from scrap.

Or building a crossbow. :P

[Kalyyn]

Or building a crossbow. :P

I do very much admire a man with a crossbow. Bit hard to conceal, though.

[FusedMass]

What questions? I don't remember any. You said like 4 days ago that you were done speaking to me. Is that no longer in effect? If not, then you'll have to repeat the questions, because I don't have time to sift through 2 dozen pages of posts.

I genuinely wasn't trying to ignore you or anything. If you've got a topic you want me to address, I'll gladly do so.

My apologizes, i on accident mistaken you for another poster. Who refused to answer questions because they deemed them not worthy. If I had said that. I'd be flamed two ways from sunday. As for everyone else. Its 5 AM. I'll respond later. I'm only online to make sure 3D vision glasses works, don't have the time for lengthy reply.

[PhaelixWW]

Here's a poignant rebuttal to the poll data Fused posted about Senator approval ratings.

TTAG: Anti-Gun Control Senators Facing Backlash? I Don’t Think So...

Let’s take Arizona’s poll questions for example. The first question is a standard approval poll, and the question is rather innocuous. But after that, it all goes down hill.

Q: Would you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun sales, including gun shows and the internet?

Heck, I would say yes to that question. But as we all know, the devil is in the details, and that’s the reason I cheered as the Senate killed the Machin / Toomey proposal. This question doesn’t ask if the voters supported that SPECIFIC proposal, but instead if they support the idea in general. Which is a far cry from the politicians claiming that 90% of the country wanted to see the current proposed legislation pass.

What’s next?

Q: Does Jeff Flake’s vote against requiring background checks make you more or less likely to support him for re-election, or does it not make a difference?

This question is worded so poorly that it would have the voter think that Jeff Flake voted to eliminate all background checks, not just that he opposed the universal background check legislation. It plants that idea in the caller’s heads, which makes this question a referendum on background checks instead of how Senator Flake specifically acted in this situation. It’s a poorly worded question asked in the wrong sequence that produced very questionable results.

The way to ask this kind of question is, right after the popularity question, to ask people an open ended question like “what most influenced your decision about Senator Flake?” Then you get people’s actual reasons for liking him or not liking him.

Asking about background checks first sets people in that mindset of gun control and colors the following responses, which were so poorly worded that anyone who wasn’t paying close attention to the legislation might think was a proposal to remove all background checks. It leads the survey participants to the answer the polling company wants.

---------- Post added 2013-05-11 at 10:54 AM ----------

And Missouri has sent a bill to the Governor to sign (with enough of a majority to avoid a veto) that bans federal gun control in the state:

TAC: Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control Measures by a Veto-Proof Majority

The bill says, in part:

All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

(2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:
(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;
(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;
(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

[Extrazero8]

And Missouri has sent a bill to the Governor to sign (with enough of a majority to avoid a veto) that bans federal gun control in the state:

TAC: Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control Measures by a Veto-Proof Majority

The bill says, in part:

I didn't think that was an option.

[FusedMass]

Uh. He was talking about the infractions that you received, for which you are to blame. But I'm not going to discuss infractions any more.

Frankly, if he feels, I got an infraction then he complains that..I complain, isn't that exactly what he's telling me not to do. I have dealt with very hostile knee jerk reactions in response to this thread. People said far worse to me and nothing took place. I stayed silent, reporting those who violated the rules. After a pattern of not going have certain people.

Damn right, I complained. Right before my infraction for flame baiting. Which is the exact word, I complained to mods they were doing to me. My original post, in a thread I CREATED was removed. Yet if I made a thread with one sentence question. I would been infracted for non productive.

even though they focused on gun laws, not deaths. I absolutely have a right to complain, considering what you didn't see in appeals section, and what else I did. I don't think you appreciate, how strongly I responded.

In any case. Please stay on topic. I know some people will not answer my questions, they're not deemed worthy. Or some other B.S., however as superior that person may feel over me, telling me to stop complaining. That only fuels my desire to keep it on. Next time. I will consider a lawsuit for emotional distress for those backstage playing politics. The amount of resources I have to use on anything, is stunning.

I never forgive or forget. Ever.

[Gemini Sunrise]

I do very much admire a man with a crossbow. Bit hard to conceal, though.

Eh, you could get a hand one, and that is fairly simple to conceal in the winter time.

[Nadev]

The amount of resources I have to use on anything, is stunning.

I never forgive or forget. Ever.

But I thought you hated your folks because they're big oil Republicans from Texas?

[FusedMass]

Eh, you could get a hand one, and that is fairly simple to conceal in the winter time.

I see I made another person's signature. I take that as flattery. You are correct. I remain calm, and collect but when a nerve is touched. When something is morally corrupt. I will use every option, even if know the outcome. I created the damn thread. I'm one who saw this coming MONTHS before new congress sworn in.

Then six months later, infarcted and removed. Yet Kas praised Simba, and she got promoted to mod. I mean what the hell. I took time to update, find laws and discuss. Now I'm fairly biased. That's why I didn't respond for months. The admin did agree change the OP, but then stopped responding. I felt..wronged.

But I thought you hated your folks because they're big oil Republicans from Texas?

My family works in real estate, they own their own corporation. Their funds are my own. So I'm against big oil still.

[Extrazero8]

In any case. Please stay on topic. I know some people will not answer my questions, they're not deemed worthy. Or some other B.S., however as superior that person may feel over me, telling me to stop complaining. That only fuels my desire to keep it on. Next time. I will consider a lawsuit for emotional distress for those backstage playing politics. The amount of resources I have to use on anything, is stunning.

I never forgive or forget. Ever.

Wow, really?

Sounds like you need to take break from this topic if its going to cause you emotional distress.

More on topic. With Missouri House Bill HB436 passing I wonder if I can make an SBR without having to pay that $200.

[FusedMass]

Wow, really?

Sounds like you need to take break from this topic if its going to cause you emotional distress.

Even when I'm not actively discussing it. The thread is on my mind, not the people in it. Its what took place, and place after that. I'll stop discussing less mods infract me for discussing activity that is better left under a dark cloak, so they can divide and destroy. I mean..information

[Nadev]

My family works in real estate, they own their own corporation. Their funds are my own. So I'm against big oil still.

That's right. The horrible people who voted for Mitt Romney and dare to sit in their air conditioned offices while the serfs slave away. And you want to take their money?