Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[GreatOak]

A lot of info on 3d printed firearms. It's amazing that this will soon be available to all.

[Deadvolcanoes]

To comment to your statement, I'm sure the designer of the folding stock would disagree that it's solely for storage, it was probably more for adjusting the length for comfort. But no, it's not even liable to say it's for concealment.

I don't have enough knowledge to talk about folding/adjustable/collapsable/telescopic stocks accurately, and I shouldn't be.

What I do know, is that increased concealment is not the primary purpose, though it is a result, albeit an unintended one.

Ever try concealing an AR-15 before?

No, but I would imagine its easier with an adjustable stock.

---------- Post added 2013-03-26 at 06:12 PM ----------

A lot of info on 3d printed firearms. It's amazing that this will soon be available to all.

I don't know about "available." It's going to be restricted heavily, as it should be.

[Grizzly Willy]

How would they restrict it?

[Deadvolcanoes]

How would they restrict it?

By making it illegal.

[Tierbook]

By making it illegal.

as my quote said most killings are spur of the moment if people have time to think about such things they are much less likely to do anything

[Grizzly Willy]

By making it illegal.

No duh. Gonna need to enforce it somehow.

[Deadvolcanoes]

as my quote said most killings are spur of the moment if people have time to think about such things they are much less likely to do anything

OK... How does that relate to 3D printed guns?

[Tierbook]

OK... How does that relate to 3D printed guns?

well you have to buy the printer wait a few hours for the parts to print out... probably a few days

[Deadvolcanoes]

No duh. Gonna need to enforce it somehow.

Right. So I guess the question is "how are they going to enforce it?"

I don't know, like any other law. When people break it, you punish them.

We have intellectual property laws, we have federal laws restricting the sale of any firearm manufactured at home without a license. The basis is there.

[GreatOak]

Right. So I guess the question is "how are they going to enforce it?"

I don't know, like any other law. When people break it, you punish them.

We have intellectual property laws, we have federal laws restricting the sale of any firearm manufactured at home without a license. The basis is there.

Are we going to have officers going house to house? They can't even hinder piracy so how would they stop open source printing?

[Grizzly Willy]

Right. So I guess the question is "how are they going to enforce it?"

I don't know, like any other law. When people break it, you punish them.

We have intellectual property laws, we have federal laws restricting the sale of any firearm manufactured at home without a license. The basis is there.

If somebody can torrent a gun schematic and print it out anonymously, there's no way to stop them from using it.

[Deadvolcanoes]

well you have to buy the printer wait a few hours for the parts to print out... probably a few days

So you're saying that because these firearms take a few days to make, they will rarely be used in crime?

Seems like a non sequiter.

[Tierbook]

Right. So I guess the question is "how are they going to enforce it?"

I don't know, like any other law. When people break it, you punish them.

We have intellectual property laws, we have federal laws restricting the sale of any firearm manufactured at home without a license. The basis is there.

funny thing about this... if a person is wanting to kill a person they are most likely a criminal or are setting out to be one, and criminals to follow the laws

---------- Post added 2013-03-26 at 06:30 PM ----------

So you're saying that because these firearms take a few days to make, they will rarely be used in crime?

Seems like a non sequiter.

im saying that most murders are spur of the moment and if they have to wait they will most likely change thier mind

[Deadvolcanoes]

I'm not saying we're going to stop people from doing it. I'm saying we're going to make it illegal and prosecute those that get caught. As we should.

---------- Post added 2013-03-26 at 06:34 PM ----------

funny thing about this... if a person is wanting to kill a person they are most likely a criminal or are setting out to be one, and criminals to (dont?) follow the laws

We've been over this mindset a thousand times. No need to revisit it.

im saying that most murders are spur of the moment and if they have to wait they will most likely change thier mind

Where's the evidence?

[Tierbook]

I'm not saying we're going to stop people from doing it. I'm saying we're going to make it illegal and prosecute those that get caught. As we should.

---------- Post added 2013-03-26 at 06:34 PM ----------



We've been over this mindset a thousand times. No need to revisit it.



Where's the evidence?

well 2/3's of people will think first of the 30k gun deaths in America 20k are suicides leaving just 10k for murder

[Raintola]

The fact that they can still obtain a gun is completely irrelevant when measuring the effectiveness of background checks. You're comparing two completely different things.

And I'll point again to my analogy, because it works quite well:

The point of seat belts is to save lives. The point of background checks is to stop criminals from obtaining firearms.

If someone dies in a car accident, it doesn't mean seat belts are ineffective.

If a criminal obtains a firearms, it doesn't mean background checks are ineffective.




The most recent data suggest that 40% of firearm purchases are sold without background checks. The number is likely much higher now, because when that data was collected, we didn't have a flourishing internet community of private seller, and sites like Armslist.com.

If you are curious as to why criminals are still able to get firearms so easily, blame the lack of universal background checks.

---------- Post added 2013-03-21 at 12:14 PM ----------



It's been explained to him many times over, but he's sticking to absolutes. As long as criminals are able to obtain firearms illegally, background checks will always be effective. Doesn't matter if they've stopped 600k criminals in the past 14 years. They're ineffective.

The 40% figure is also likely completely made up. The only way the government knows you have purchased a firearm is via the background check and the 4473 form that goes along with it. If 40% of gun sales are done without said checks, how would they know about them? This also brings into question the ability to enforce a requirement of private sellers to conduct checks on people, especially since, according to Joe Biden, many discrepancies with current background checks aren't prosecuted.

[Deadvolcanoes]

well 2/3's of people will think first of the 30k gun deaths in America 20k are suicides leaving just 10k for murder

Cracked articles aren't evidence.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that article even supports your conclusion since many, if not the majority, of suicides are planned.

---------- Post added 2013-03-26 at 07:02 PM ----------

The 40% figure is also likely completely made up. The only way the government knows you have purchased a firearm is via the background check and the 4473 form that goes along with it. If 40% of gun sales are done without said checks, how would they know about them? This also brings into question the ability to enforce a requirement of private sellers to conduct checks on people, especially since, according to Joe Biden, many discrepancies with current background checks aren't prosecuted.

The 40% number, as I said, is old and not too reliable. They surveyed something like 2200 households, asked them whether or not they submitted to a background check, and only 270ish houses answered.

The main point is that there are a shit ton of private sales occurring without background checks.

[Tierbook]

I dont think you read and i know you didnt click the links to thier sources

[Raintola]

Cracked articles aren't evidence.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that article even supports your conclusion since many, if not the majority, of suicides are planned.

---------- Post added 2013-03-26 at 07:02 PM ----------



The 40% number, as I said, is old and not too reliable. They surveyed something like 2200 households, asked them whether or not they submitted to a background check, and only 270ish houses answered.

The main point is that there are a shit ton of private sales occurring without background checks.

It isn't reliable in the slightest, so there's not even a point in bringing it up. It's a no-shit assessment that many guns are sold privately. It is also a no-shit assessment that trying to make background checks mandatory for private sales would be like trying to put out a forest fire by pissing on it.

[Svifnymr]

The 40% number, as I said, is old and not too reliable. They surveyed something like 2200 households, asked them whether or not they submitted to a background check, and only 270ish houses answered.

The survey was actually before background checks. The question was something like "did you get your gun from a retail gun store" or somesuch.