California at it again: Seeks to regulate homemade guns and plastic 3D Printer guns

[Cerpin Taxt]

I have to leave to take service calls a couple hours away. I'll have to get back to this later.

 

[rudeguy]

I have to leave to take service calls a couple hours away. I'll have to get back to this later.

drive safe! I am enjoying the debate. Thanks man

 

[Pray To Jesus]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/guns_dont_kill_people_democrats_kill_people.html

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Lets say you are in a shopping mall with 500 other people. Do you really think a bad guy is going to come in with a shotgun and start shooting? No. He knows that the chances are almost 100% that he will get killed before he fires one shot.

How are chances 100% that he will get killed before he fires a single shot? Are you saying that just because he happens to be suspicious looking, someone else will shoot him? He hasn't done anything yet except bring a gun somewhere where everyone else also has a gun. Stopping mass shootings is a noble goal, but I don't want it based on the precognition abilities of random members of the public. I mean, sure, after he starts firing, take him down, but let's not jump the gun (no pun intended) and assume he'll be killed before getting off a shot.

Incidentally, if everyone is armed and someone starts firing, how do the rest of the public know which one is the bad guy? You see a few people taking cover and taking shots at each other, who do you help? This just seems like chaos waiting to happen. Granted, mass shootings are already fairly chaotic, but this notion that the public is ready to leap into action and take down armed assailants reads like something out of a rejected Die Hard script, not the makings of sound gun policy. I'm in favor of the Second Amendment and people's right to own guns, but let's not go crazy with our hypotheticals and completely abandon reality in the process.

 

[rudeguy]

How are chances 100% that he will get killed before he fires a single shot? Are you saying that just because he happens to be suspicious looking, someone else will shoot him? He hasn't done anything yet except bring a gun somewhere where everyone else also has a gun. Stopping mass shootings is a noble goal, but I don't want it based on the precognition abilities of random members of the public. I mean, sure, after he starts firing, take him down, but let's not jump the gun (no pun intended) and assume he'll be killed before getting off a shot.

Incidentally, if everyone is armed and someone starts firing, how do the rest of the public know which one is the bad guy? You see a few people taking cover and taking shots at each other, who do you help? This just seems like chaos waiting to happen. Granted, mass shootings are already fairly chaotic, but this notion that the public is ready to leap into action and take down armed assailants reads like something out of a rejected Die Hard script, not the makings of sound gun policy. I'm in favor of the Second Amendment and people's right to own guns, but let's not go crazy with our hypotheticals and completely abandon reality in the process.

OK...I'll admit it.

I have a man crush on Bruce Willis.

 

[moonbogg]

Repeal the 2nd, ban guns completely, or SHUT THE FUCK UP and leave us ALONE.

 

[bshole]

Repeal the 2nd, ban guns completely, or SHUT THE FUCK UP and leave us ALONE.

It has to be done incrementally, America won't it allow it to be done all at once. There is no other way to do it and succeed.

 

[rudeguy]

It has to be done incrementally, America won't it allow it to be done all at once. There is no other way to do it and succeed.

Lets pretend. Lets pretend that you do repeal the 2nd amendment. Do you think gun violence will stop?

 

[bshole]

Lets pretend. Lets pretend that you do repeal the 2nd amendment. Do you think gun violence will stop?

Doubt it. It would take a whole lot more than that. It would take a thriving economy, a cultural change ala Japan's, extreme enforcement, etc....

 

[rudeguy]

Doubt it. It would take a whole lot more than that. It would take a thriving economy, a cultural change ala Japan's, extreme enforcement, etc....

Then why repeal it?

 

[bshole]

Then why repeal it?

To piss off conservatives.... does there need to be another reason?

 

[rudeguy]

To piss off conservatives.... does there need to be another reason?

I fucking love honesty.

I award you 3 internets and 2 cookies.

 

[TerryMathews]

To piss off conservatives.... does there need to be another reason?

I love your adult reasoning. :hi5:

 

[SP33Demon]

Doubt it. It would take a whole lot more than that. It would take a thriving economy, a cultural change ala Japan's, extreme enforcement, etc....

England agrees.

 

[mizzou]

if you can regulate gunsmithing with traditional means, why not regulate the modern means? I don't understand the outrage.

granted, i did not read the bill. but i would assume the regulations would be similar across the board.

 

[TerryMathews]

if you can regulate gunsmithing with traditional means, why not regulate the modern means? I don't understand the outrage.

granted, i did not read the bill. but i would assume the regulations would be similar across the board.

Its perfectly legal for you or me to build my own pistol or rifle from scratch. Doesn't even have to be from scratch. Google 80% lower.

So no, not the same across the board.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

And what trivial precaution would that be? I'm very curious. We are talking real world here. What precaution could the bad guy take?

Concealment, surprise and armor leap to mind. Frankly I'm flabbergasted that you seem to actually believe that a determined shooter could not get his shots off before someone else 1.) had the presence of mind to recognize the circumstance, 2.) had the impetus to draw and shoot on the shooter instead of retreating to safety, and 3.) could fire an accurate shot that would disable the shooter.

Nope. You don't need to be a perfect marksman to hit a man at 7 yards.

This again seems to ignore a litany of real-world situations. How can you be sure there will be someone within 7 yards of the shooter? How can you be sure that every person within a 100 yard radius doesn't decide to draw and fire simultaneously? What happens to all those bullets flying through the air? How is person A going to be sure that person B isn't the "bad guy" shooting, but really a shooter trying to shoot the "bad guy'?

Nice hyperbole.

You said "arm the population." Are 1st graders not part of the population? They are counted among the population in the decennial census.

However if every teacher and admin were armed, school shooters would not have the success they currently do.

By your own words you believe that they would have *NO* success. Which is it?

Sandy Hook would have ended before a single innocent person was harmed.

Baseless conjecture.

This is a much better plan than Obama and his cronies pitched and tried to force through. Their plan would not have saved a single life, yet they still used Sandy Hook as a reason for it.

More baseless conjecture.

I don't recall saying that.

Its implicit in your claims. By your logic nobody would ever shoot at a police officer because the "bad guys" know the cops have guns.

They irrational acts are what call for irregular solutions.

If shooters aren't rational, then how can you suggest that they would rationally decide not to rob a gun owner?

ok
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/10/concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-one.html
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Art...holders-commit-less-than-1-of-the-crimes.html
http://hhshootingsports.com/WireShots/archives/2225
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/keeping-track-of-killings_b_360572.html
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...-statistics-to-promote-anti-gun-agenda-again/

Maybe it's because I stepped away from this debate for so long, but I'm not really clear what alleged fact you think that these articles manage to rebut.

At that point they turn into a bad guy and the good guys handle it.

Isn't it a little late by then?

Right now, libtards want us to rely on the police when that happens.

Do the police generally agree? Are the police a bunch of "libtards"?

I don't know if you happen to know this, but people get murdered every single day before the police can come to help them. Most don't even get a chance to dial 911.

That is very unfortunate. What does it have to do with anything? Do you think nobody would be murdered if everyone had a gun?

No once again, please explain to me how it is ok for libtards to use the names of innocent people who have been killed to push an agenda that would not have saved a single one of those people?

Have I advocated or defended such a thing?

Let me ask you: In these so-called "gun-free zones," do you think that at all times there are literally zero persons carrying firearms?

 

[bradly1101]

I don't understand how this is a "solution." Perhaps it would be a good idea to clearly state what the problem is, in this case.

My general impression is that your so-called "solution" presents a very naive understanding of people, that they might be so easily segregated between "good guys" and "bad guys." It seems to me that every guy could be a good guy right up until he's not. You want to be certain that guy has a gun?

And what if a bad guy is a family member of a good guy with a gun and has access? We've seen and mourned the result.

 

[Fenixgoon]

And what if a bad guy is a family member of a good guy with a gun and has access? We've seen and mourned the result.

and if the bad guy is hanging around other bad guys? we've seen and not mourned the results because inner city violence has become an accepted fact of life.

the rare instances of mall shootings, etc are dwarfed by the amount of violence going on in large cities.

less than 1% of all firearm homicides are the result of a mass-shooting

if people really, truly cared about taking on gun crime, they'd address the war on drugs, release of violent criminals (and punishment vs. rehabilitation since people apparently come out better criminals than when they went in), and poverty/lack of economic opportunity.

address those, and you will massively address violent crime in general. but let's not have facts and logic stand in the way of policy...

 

[SP33Demon]

and if the bad guy is hanging around other bad guys? we've seen and not mourned the results because inner city violence has become an accepted fact of life.

the rare instances of mall shootings, etc are dwarfed by the amount of violence going on in large cities.

less than 1% of all firearm homicides are the result of a mass-shooting

if people really, truly cared about taking on gun crime, they'd address the war on drugs, release of violent criminals (and punishment vs. rehabilitation since people apparently come out better criminals than when they went in), and poverty/lack of economic opportunity.

address those, and you will massively address violent crime in general. but let's not have facts and logic stand in the way of policy...

I agree. Also, the facts show that violent crime, including guns, has already decreased for the past 2 decades. It's been theorized that the internet and mobile revolution and information superhighway has really pacified the masses and people are happier in general. As population continues to increase, of course there will be more conflict but as a general percent gun violence and violent crime overall are in a decreasing trend. It's funny that nobody ever mentions this to the idiots like CA Sen. de Leon and anti-gun crowd. Oddly enough, neutered societies like England = violent crime is up. However, I haven't researched where we rank statistically to them as a whole, on the trends.

 

[TROJAN4EVR]

A gun is a gun. They should be regulated.

And people who get their hands on illegal weapons are generally not the smartest.

"A gun is a gun"...but this law pertains to preventing the current right of a "non prohibited" CA resident to build a firearm from an "80% Receiver"...which is NOT a gun. It's merely an 80% finished/machined piece of metal. Currently there is no law preventing a CA resident from manufacturing a firearm that is CA/Federally compliant for their own personal use/posessio(can't be sold or given, lent to anyone). The manufactured firearm is not required to be serialized or marked in any way.

SO lawmakers can pass all the laws they want in CA to prevent a person from manufacturing a legal firearm for their personal use....BUT no law will stop a non-complying person from manufacturing their own firearm by acquiring an "80% receiver"(a chunk of metal) that's currently legal to purchase anywhere without restrictions!!!

Sad fact is that NO law will succeed in compelling a non-complying person(a criminal the instance they proceed to do something illegal) from doing anything illegal once they've put their mind to it.

 

[Zodiark1593]

To piss off conservatives.... does there need to be another reason?

Well, since a flat out repeal of the 2nd amendment still leaves the neigh impossible task of rounding up the millions of guns already in civilian and criminal hands, there's really no other reason to do so except to troll the other side.

 

[SP33Demon]

TROJAN4EVR = mine

 

[SP33Demon]

"A gun is a gun"...but this law pertains to preventing the current right of a "non prohibited" CA resident to build a firearm from an "80% Receiver"...which is NOT a gun. It's merely an 80% finished/machined piece of metal. Currently there is no law preventing a CA resident from manufacturing a firearm that is CA/Federally compliant for their own personal use/posessio(can't be sold or given, lent to anyone). The manufactured firearm is not required to be serialized or marked in any way.

SO lawmakers can pass all the laws they want in CA to prevent a person from manufacturing a legal firearm for their personal use....BUT no law will stop a non-complying person from manufacturing their own firearm by acquiring an "80% receiver"(a chunk of metal) that's currently legal to purchase anywhere without restrictions!!!

Sad fact is that NO law will succeed in compelling a non-complying person(a criminal the instance they proceed to do something illegal) from doing anything illegal once they've put their mind to it.

This is true if the person makes it by themselves, but most normal people will have to go to a machine shop and you know CA is going to get them there with the serial number. Also, purchasing the 80% receiver, if this legislation goes through, would require an application first if you live in CA (which would be BS).