the first 3-D printed firearm is out.

[Anarchist420]

Link.

I think it's one of the few good breakthroughs of the 21st century.

I do worry that the police state will try to prohibit or regulate 3D printing, through more IP legislation and other things.

Your thoughts?

 

[nextJin]

Your on ignore but this news has got to make the gun grabbers pull their hair out.

 

[davmat787]

Your on ignore but this news has got to make the gun grabbers pull their hair out.

I am sure you are right, but one can hope this news will instead share the hilarity and futility of the gun grabber argument. Lol, I know, but still one can hope.

And before anyone wants to "ban this", how is this different, other than reliability, than using a lathe and CNC machinery to make a better gun?

 

[irishScott]

Good. They were starting to get a handle on proper AR-15 terminology. We needed something new to fill their brains with angry spittle for 10 more years.

 

[blankslate]

And before anyone wants to "ban this", how is this different, other than reliability, than using a lathe and CNC machinery to make a better gun?

The obvious answer is that there is a degree of training and costs required for the user of CNC equipment and lathes.
Additionally CNC equipment and lathes are fairly mature having been available to the public for reasonably affordable prices for longer than 3-D printers have.

Their costs probably won't come down very much. Although CNC machinery may have more decreases in price because of open source software availability. But then 3d printers have that advantage too.

3-D printers are fairly new and the market for consumer level products is also immature, one can expect more rapid decreases in costs than the options mentioned above.
3-D printers have also caught the attention of a certain segment of the population and any reasonably intelligent computer literate person who can afford a 3-D printer will likely find it easier to get into 3-D printing than learning how to use a lathe or CNC milling machines.

Good. They were starting to get a handle on proper AR-15 terminology. We needed something new to fill their brains with angry spittle for 10 more years.

There are people who aren't ignorant of firearms who supported expanding background checks.

 

[glenn1]

Link.

I think it's one of the few good breakthroughs of the 21st century.

I do worry that the police state will try to prohibit or regulate 3D printing, through more IP legislation and other things.

Your thoughts?

It's not black and doesn't have a bayonet lug or barrel shroud so it should be A-OK.

 

[irishScott]

There are people who aren't ignorant of firearms who supported expanding background checks.

No, those are just people ignorant of firearm law.

In theory I support expanded background checks, I (and many others) just don't think it will stop there. New York, California, and others are prime examples of what would come next, whether next year or next decade.

Remember, the discussion only became about background checks because the gun control crowd was dragged down, kicking and screaming, from bans, magazine limits and registration. So long as there's a non-marginal minority that desires such extreme measures, we need a buffer zone lest one round of voting give them total control, like what's happening in California.

 

[PokerGuy]

The march of technology is inevitable, and in this case the idiot gun grabbers are fighting a losing battle. The irrational grabbers are willing to throw out all rights to gain some illusion of security and safety, but this technology is going to turn all the gun grabbing activities upside down.

 

[nextJin]

The march of technology is inevitable, and in this case the idiot gun grabbers are fighting a losing battle. The irrational grabbers are willing to throw out all rights to gain some illusion of security and safety, but this technology is going to turn all the gun grabbing activities upside down.

And eventually we will be able to have home abortion kits (37 weeks or below only)

 

[momeNt]

Your on ignore but this news has got to make the gun grabbers pull their hair out.

You're... You are... NOT YOUR!

He's one of the worst people to have on ignore also. Any ignores are bad as they can only lead to bigotry and general closed-mindedness, so I advice you to lift the ignore and learn from other viewpoints.

 

[blankslate]

No, those are just people ignorant of firearm law.

In theory I support expanded background checks, I (and many others) just don't think it will stop there. New York, California, and others are prime examples of what would come next, whether next year or next decade.

Remember, the discussion only became about background checks because the gun control crowd was dragged down, kicking and screaming, from bans, magazine limits and registration. So long as there's a non-marginal minority that desires such extreme measures, we need a buffer zone lest one round of voting give them total control, like what's happening in California.

I disagree with the italicized part.

According to a Fox News poll http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...-manhunt-6-percent-voters-want-gun/(releasted on April 23rd 2013) households with firearms owners responded to question number

40. Do you favor or oppose expanding background checks on gun buyers? with 77% of them saying "favor".

they answered question
41. Would you be more likely or less likely to support a political candidate who voted IN FAVOR OF expanding background checks on gun buyers?
with gun households responding "more likely" 60% to vote for the candidate

gun households also answered question
42. Would you be more likely or less likely to support a political candidate who voted AGAINST expanding background checks on gun buyers?
with 55% saying "less likely"

I guess a majority of gun owning households could be considered ignorant if judged by the standard implied by your post.

 

[BoberFett]

I disagree with the italicized part.

According to a Fox News poll http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...-manhunt-6-percent-voters-want-gun/(releasted on April 23rd 2013) households with firearms owners responded to question number

40. Do you favor or oppose expanding background checks on gun buyers? with 77% of them saying "favor".

they answered question
41. Would you be more likely or less likely to support a political candidate who voted IN FAVOR OF expanding background checks on gun buyers?
with gun households responding "more likely" 60% to vote for the candidate

gun households also answered question
42. Would you be more likely or less likely to support a political candidate who voted AGAINST expanding background checks on gun buyers?
with 55% saying "less likely"

I guess a majority of gun owning households could be considered ignorant if judged by the standard implied by your post.

Does that poll take into account the number of people who are completely ignorant and actually believe that a "gun show loophole" exists?

 

[RampantAndroid]

The obvious answer is that there is a degree of training and costs required for the user of CNC equipment and lathes.

80% lower + drill press. No skill needed.

 

[irishScott]

I disagree with the italicized part.

According to a Fox News poll http://www.foxnews.com/politics/int...-manhunt-6-percent-voters-want-gun/(releasted on April 23rd 2013) households with firearms owners responded to question number

40. Do you favor or oppose expanding background checks on gun buyers? with 77% of them saying "favor".

they answered question
41. Would you be more likely or less likely to support a political candidate who voted IN FAVOR OF expanding background checks on gun buyers?
with gun households responding "more likely" 60% to vote for the candidate

gun households also answered question
42. Would you be more likely or less likely to support a political candidate who voted AGAINST expanding background checks on gun buyers?
with 55% saying "less likely"

I guess a majority of gun owning households could be considered ignorant if judged by the standard implied by your post.

Meanwhile, at the Washington Post, we have:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...about-the-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/

So it would appear the majority, including non-gun owners, are either happy it died or don't give a shit.

Here's some irony though, you're posting a Fox News poll in favor of gun control, and I'm posting a Washington Post/Pew poll against.


And yes, I've met many short-sighted gun owners who only have the most basic understanding of gun law and it's history.

 

[blankslate]

Here's some irony though, you're posting a Fox News poll in favor of gun control, and I'm posting a Washington Post/Pew poll against.

Yes irony is... ironic sometimes.

And yes, I've met many short-sighted gun owners who only have the most basic understanding of gun law and it's history.

I would argue that it's shortsighted and irresponsible firearms owners who provide the motivation for some advocates of gun control...

For example the parents of the 5 year old who manslaughtered his 2 year old sister because the parents were horribly (perhaps criminally imo) negligent. Even people who should be responsible, such as police officers have been similarly negligent.

80% lower + drill press. No skill needed.

Even less skill will be needed for a 3-D printer and less cost as well in a few years.

Soon people will be able to buy a 3-D printer for about $1,300 people with a little more know how or willingness to learn can build their own as well.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33809_7-57582723/staples-to-carry-3d-systems-new-cube-3d-printer/

3D printers have typically been sold directly from their makers or through online hobby shops. Today they get wider consumer exposure with Staples' announcement that it will begin selling the new 3D Systems Cube 3D printer.

 

[Doppel]

Does that poll take into account the number of people who are completely ignorant and actually believe that a "gun show loophole" exists?

130% of guns are bought without a background check.

 

[irishScott]

Yes irony is... ironic sometimes.



I would argue that it's shortsighted and irresponsible firearms owners who provide the motivation for some advocates of gun control...

For example the parents of the 5 year old who manslaughtered his 2 year old sister because the parents were horribly (perhaps criminally imo) negligent. Even people who should be responsible, such as police officers have been similarly negligent.


Even less skill will be needed for a 3-D printer and less cost as well in a few years.

Soon people will be able to buy a 3-D printer for about $1,300 people with a little more know how or willingness to learn can build their own as well.
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33809_7-57582723/staples-to-carry-3d-systems-new-cube-3d-printer/

If that's the case, then why aren't this and other accidents/negligence the poster children for gun control? Why do they always use massacres, and then try to pass laws that they admit won't even stop the massacres?

Gun Control advocates need to stop with the fixation on guns and go after the causes of gun crime itself. Attacking supply has never been shown to work in the US.

 

[blankslate]

If that's the case, then why aren't this and other accidents/negligence the poster children for gun control? Why do they always use massacres, and then try to pass laws that they admit won't even stop the massacres?

Because they're the most sensational instances of tragedies involving firearms, however if you're going to discount tragedies involving negligent parents contributing to children's deaths from firearms then go ahead.

Gun Control advocates need to stop with the fixation on guns and go after the causes of gun crime itself. Attacking supply has never been shown to work in the US.

Maybe if the Senate allowed the nominee for the head of ATF to have hearings then the organization would be better able to go after illegal gun traffickers and find more quickly people who use bombs.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...94_1_boston-marathon-fertilizer-plant-marines

Despite its expertise, ATF has long gotten short shrift in Washington. In January, President Obama nominated B. Todd Jones, the acting, part-time director, to be the permanent head of ATF. But the Senate has not scheduled a confirmation hearing. Since 2006, when the ATF director was first required to gain Senate approval, the gun lobby has blocked the nominees, law enforcement officials said.

Despite its $1.1 billion budget, ATF has fewer agents than it did nearly four decades ago, about 2,360. For the past several years, the agency has been buffeted by criticism on Capitol Hill over a botched operation to track guns from U.S. dealers to Mexican drug traffickers.

For all the political turmoil, ATF has remained central to major investigations of bombings and explosions in the United States.

 

[Doppel]

why aren't this and other accidents/negligence the poster children for gun control?

People are stupid. The other night TWENTY people were shot in Chicago in one evening, 3 killed, and yet the nation is fixated on a single half-white guy who shot a black kid. This is why people suck at self-rule.

 

[blankslate]

Does that poll take into account the number of people who are completely ignorant and actually believe that a "gun show loophole" exists?

Yeah it's a myth alright. If the conservative leaning blogs and opinion sites repeat the lie often enough it'll be truth in some people's minds.
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0707/final.pdf

From fiscal year (FY) 2004 through FY 2006, ATF opened
approximately 6,233 firearms trafficking investigations. During this
3-year period, ATF Special Agents conducted 202 operations at 195 gun
shows, or 3.3 percent of the estimated 6,000 gun shows held during this
period.
ATF's operations at these gun shows led to 121 arrests resulting in 83 convictions. (Some cases are still pending, so their final dispostions are still unknown.) Addtionally, ATF siezed 5,345 firearms during investigative operations related to these shows.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/240499/what-i-learned-at-the-gun-show

Most states exercise this right. In 33 states, private gun owners can sell their wares at guns shows — and buyers are not required to undergo background checks. That's why in a prior column, I mentioned Omar Samaha. The Virginia man, whose sister was murdered in the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech, went to a 2009 gun show on behalf of ABC News, and with $5,000, was able to buy 10 guns in an hour — no questions asked.

Licensed dealers have to do background checks at gunshows while private sellers do not in 33 states.
If that is not a loophole then when females fart, shart, or go take a dump it smells like cherry blossoms or roses.

 

[irishScott]

Because they're the most sensational instances of tragedies involving firearms, however if you're going to discount tragedies involving negligent parents contributing to children's deaths from firearms then go ahead.

Maybe if the Senate allowed the nominee for the head of ATF to have hearings then the organization would be better able to go after illegal gun traffickers and find more quickly people who use bombs.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...94_1_boston-marathon-fertilizer-plant-marines

I'm just saying that it's interesting gun control only gains ANY legislative traction after massacres; and then 90% of everything proposed is a feel-good measure when looked at with any logic. I'm sure negligence and accidents lend to some peoples' motivations, but they don't seem to have much effect on the masses.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the ATF going after gun traffickers and bomb-makers. The problem is that isn't all they do, and Obama's last attempted appointee for their directorship was right up there with Feinstein.

Granted the pro-gun lobby is hardly moderate, but more often than not they're on the right side of the issue.

I'd also like to point out that the gun control crowd created the modern gun lobby. The NRA couldn't resist the Clinton AWB, so they went back to the state-level and built up their strength. At the same time, the Clinton AWB galvanized gun owners behind the NRA, much like the recent attempts at instating an even stricter ban have done.

Purely as a result of stupid gun control legislation, the NRA now has close to 5 million members, most of whom will vote over the issue. Meanwhile, state-level gun control advocates are busy providing perfect examples of the slippery slope.

If gun control advocates want to get somewhere, if they want background checks, maybe they should stop with the ban/registration/confiscation rhetoric made of pure stupid; and the NRA wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[blankslate]

If gun control advocates want to get somewhere, if they want background checks, maybe they should stop with the ban/registration/confiscation rhetoric made of pure stupid; and the NRA wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

By the same token if gun guys (and gals) want to have a reasonable conversation with people who advocate gun control they need to police the irresponsible, the insane who argue that anything less than 20 round magazines for pistols are inadequate for self defense and that 30 round magazines for rifles are barely adequate for the same and realize that the NRA mainly serves firearms manufacturers more than they do firearms owners now.

*edit*

In fact the expansion of background checks law that failed actually included a clause that specifically said that the creation of a firearms registry would be illegal.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/11/the-national-rifle-associations-slippery-slope-strategy/

To be clear, there is no national gun registry. The federal government keeps no records from background checks that could be used to create a gun registry. In fact, federal law prohibits the creation of a national gun registry, and the bipartisan agreement to expand background checks specifically states that it is a crime to create a gun registry. So why all the concern about mandatory gun registration?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/national-gun-registry_n_3060625.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

The background check compromise set to be introduced on Thursday will explicitly bar public officials from creating a national gun registry, penalizing those who do with a felony charge carrying a prison sentence of up to 15 years.

 

[irishScott]

By the same token if gun guys (and gals) want to have a reasonable conversation with people who advocate gun control they need to police the irresponsible, the insane who argue that anything less than 20 round magazines for pistols are inadequate for self defense and that 30 round magazines for rifles are barely adequate for the same and realize that the NRA mainly serves firearms manufacturers more than they do firearms owners now.

*edit*

In fact the expansion of background checks law that failed actually included a clause that specifically said that the creation of a firearms registry would be illegal.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/11/the-national-rifle-associations-slippery-slope-strategy/



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/national-gun-registry_n_3060625.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

And by the same token gun control advocates need to show some numbers on whether restricting magazines to 10 rounds will do any good. Right now all they have is "well, the bad guy might fumble and someone might be close enough to do something about it". Meanwhile, the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns, of 10 and 15 round capacity respectively. He carried 19 reloads. With this "less deadly" "arsenal" he set the historical mass-shooting casualty record.

I was aware of that provision, but it's a nearly worthless legal pinky swear. If it had passed, whenever the next mass shooting happened the debate would no doubt have included the prospect of repealing it.

 

[blankslate]

Meanwhile, the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns, of 10 and 15 round capacity respectively. He carried 19 reloads. With this "less deadly" "arsenal" he set the historical mass-shooting casualty record.

Or perhaps people should come up with numbers that show that magazines beyond the standard ones that come with pistols (7, 10, 13, 15, 20 or whatever odd number) aren't more dangerous.

We're just not going to agree because what you call a legal pinky swear was imo a show of good faith on the part of people involved in the crafting of the bill. What is wrong with increasing background checks which would increase the chances of catching some (though not all) people who shouldn't have firearms other than some moral harm/slippery slope argument? Nothing really.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Even less skill will be needed for a 3-D printer and less cost as well in a few years.

And your point is what? I can just as easily buy a knife. It remains legal to make a gun but not sell it (no jurisdiction on me making a gun, or a knife or anything else.) Moreover, a 3D printed gun isn't going to be very reliable or durable until we get to doing 3D printing with metals. An 80% lower remains the best method to get a gun if you can't legally buy one. The idea of everyone 3D printing a gun...doesn't scare me in slightest.