451–460 of 491 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look up the WW2 FP-45 Liberator. A bad gun you could use to get a better gun. Theoretically you only need to use it once. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
I highly doubt that anyone who 3d prints a lower does so to “use” it (I.e. shoot someone) in order to procure a better firearm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> California legislators haven't met a bad gun law that they don't like. California and New York have been done more for gun rights than anyone else by passing absurd laws that get struck down by the judiciary, setting precedent.
Tell that to the milllions of people in states like this that have spent most/all their life having their rights infringed upon.
However, due to the adversarial nature of the judiciary system, opposition is required to set precedent. It'd be great if the overstepping didn't ever happen but we don't know what is overstepping until SCOTUS rules.
California and New York have played a pivotal role in defining the edges of the second amendment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And wtf do you need a gun for anyway? One of the reasons that Switzerland, a country te size of Bay Area, with 9M current population, has not been overrun by the many wars in Europe for last 200 years is that every citizen is expected to fight back, without formally joining a military force for that. All men have to serve in the military for a couple of months to get the basic training, obtain and master a small ar…
> has not been overrun by the many wars in Europe for last 200 years is that every citizen is expected to fight back Lol this is so gun-brained, even for an American. Switzerland has not been "overrun" because they are in the freaking mountains. Gun or not, good luck invading mountain cliffs.
But it's of course not limited to small arms distributed among the population. There are many more preparations done in advance, like rocks prepared to block roads if an explosive charge is detonated. Same with various bridges and railroad choke points. There's a large network of shelters and bunkers, kept in a good shape. Etc, etc.
The point is not that a huge army (like Hitler's in 1940) would not be able to overrun Swiss resistance. The point is that the cost of such an invasion would be prohibitively high. It serves as a good deterrent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So that law would also diminish the glorification of weapons in pop culture then. I guess that would be seen as positive side effect for the people supporting this ban.
I really want to highlight this comment to everyone who's on the fence on gun rights or still believes that compromise is possible. This is the position of hardline anti-gun people, their billionaire funded NGOs, and the politicians they finance. It's not about reducing excess death, it's not about gun violence, it's about abolishing all civilian firearms ownership and removing any positive association of firearms or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What are bullets and shell casings made out of again? Usually non-ferrous metals like brass, lead, and copper unless you live closer to Russia, then you may end up with steel-case. That's besides the point though, the barrel of the gun will be steel.
Ferrous metals aren't required for any modern security-screening metal detectors: these materials are still highly electrically conductive, and therefore easily-detectable eddy currents are still inducible.
For some reason I hear "metal detector" and my brain goes right to magnetism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they don't give a shit about 3D printing, especially in CA. It's not like you're competing with a glock19 type hand gun and cornering this market.
3D gun printing has come a long way in a short amount of time. 3D printed lower receivers can weather several hundred rounds of 7.62 at this point
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Range shooting is not what they're trying to legislate though. It's the thing gun manufacturers are selling to their customer base though. The theory was they were lobbying for this to prevent competition, but it's not good enough to actually compete with them. > Whoever killed that healthcare CEO didn't need a hundred rounds. Luigi Mangione didn't have a criminal record. Given his apparent political alignment, he…
Luigi Mangione wasn't trying to get caught. Maybe he was worried buying and using a real gun would link him back to the murder.
One, you succeed in never being identified or apprehended. Consequently you, rather than the police, have the gun you used, and you can file off the serial number and throw it into the sea or whatever. They don't know who you are so they never come looking for the gun you no longer have and it's just one of millions that were sold to random people that year.
Two, you get caught before you do the murder. Some cop thinks you look too nervous or you get into a car accident on the way there etc. and they find the gun. Having one without a serial number at this point means you're in trouble when you otherwise wouldn't be. It's a disadvantage.
Three, they catch you in the act or figure out who you are because your face got caught on camera somewhere after you took off your mask etc. At this point it's extremely likely you're going to jail. This is even more likely if the weapon is still in your possession because then they can do forensics on it, and it not having a serial number at that point is once again even worse for you. This is apparently the one that actually happened.
Whereas the theory for it allowing you to get caught would have to be something like, they don't know who you are but they have a list of people who bought a gun (which, depending on the state, they might not even have) so they can look on it to find you. But that's like half the US population and doesn't really narrow it down at all.
There is no criminal benefit in doing it so that leaves the remaining options which are either trolling or stupidity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, I can imagine any number of motives and Rube Goldberg mechanisms for procuring a firearm to service that motive. My point is that if someone who is desperate to get a firearm has to 3D print one they’re going to pick a simple pistol lower. Not something for a rifle that fires a higher power cartridge. Most rifles that fire 7.62 are not in the AR format.
You don't think someone like Oswald exists in the present day?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Range shooting is not what they're trying to legislate though. It's the thing gun manufacturers are selling to their customer base though. The theory was they were lobbying for this to prevent competition, but it's not good enough to actually compete with them. > Whoever killed that healthcare CEO didn't need a hundred rounds. Luigi Mangione didn't have a criminal record. Given his apparent political alignment, he…
>It's the thing gun manufacturers are selling to their customer base though. The theory was they were lobbying for this to prevent competition Does anyone actually believe this? Is there any funds for this theory? Seems to be too far fetched to be even worth sitting. >Luigi Mangione didn't have a criminal record That really isn't the point (he still doesn't have a criminal record, by the way). The point was that the…
I guess the counterpoint is that it's not actually useful to criminals either, so there is no incentive for any non-fool to want laws like this and then all incentive arguments are weak because foolishness can be attributed to anyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Guns are much more likely to kill their owners than anyone else [0] That article says no such thing, despite people often claiming it does.
What do you think it says then?
Second, you can just take it from the horse's mouth, since papers give you an abstract stating their findings. An even briefer snippet of what they say themselves there is:
> Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns
> in the home of dying from a homicide in the home. They were also at greater risk
> of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person
> was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in
> the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in
> the home. Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from
> suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different
> method.
The first half of that regarding homicide says nothing about being killed by your own gun, only about being a homicide victim in your own home. It _could_ and likely does include some of that, but it's not captured or quantified, all we see is total homicide numbers. Nor does it have any statistics about anyone else killed, either outside the home, or someone else killed in your home, so there's no basis for comparison there.
The second half only claims to be true for males in the first place, not everyone. It also explicitly acknowledges that it doesn't deal with the likely confounder of people who don't have a means of suicide in the home committing suicide _outside_ the home, and thus not being included in their numbers.