welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The gun violence thread.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17600
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Mon Jun 02, 2014 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
That'll learn 'em. We don't have enough nonviolent offenders in jail anyhow.


so hit them with a massive fine, and confiscate all their unregistered guns. and if you _really_ want to get nasty, take away their drivers' licenses.

all kinds of potential legal penalties that get people's attention.

and remember, the majority of americans, including the majority of gun-owners support a national gun registry. so getting people to register their guns is not necessarily a huge uphill climb. the people who already support registration will register; a chunk of people who don't support registration but figure they have to follow the law whether they like it or not will register; you will basically be left with the criminals and the extremists.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1212
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
I don't understand why people think it's so unreasonable that we impose legal punishment on people that refuse to cooperate with gun laws. If a national registry and database is created, but your right to gun ownership is unrestricted, then I don't see any constitutional complaint, and neither do a whole host of constitutional lawyers. Failing that, it's just a collection of people refusing to obey a law that was designed properly within the legal framework of the country, a law that was designed for the public good.

Obey it, or face the consequences.
Except all too often once a national registry is in place it becomes easier to target firearms owners with bans or restrictions. It all seems like a good idea until the police are suddenly seizing $2.7 million worth of $1,500 rifles with no compensation because they decided to reclassify it from non-restricted to prohibited.
OklahomaSun wrote:
Well, it would be helpful if you did a bit more than "just saying" since the current situation is not great and I disagree that registries don't work.
You haven't provided any sources to your own arguments any better than essentially "just saying so". I'll cite my argument as best I can, but calling me out for not citing any relevant data then perhaps you should link some of your own relevant data.
Quote:
You cannot stop gun violence by having a gun registry and a ballistics database, but you can track where the guns go. There won't be any more cash sales without legal penalties being enforced, and you can sort out some of the tens of thousands of unsolved gun crimes in America each year.
Except you can't enforce legal penalties very well at all. As soon as that registry goes through, you'll see gun thefts go through the roof. For example, here in Canada, the number one domestic source of firearms is residential and commercial theft. A lot won't even be real thefts; just false reports to police of a stolen firearm that was actually sold on the black market. That or there'll be a rash of unfortunate individuals losing firearms in rivers that can't be recovered. How convenient. This is the kind of shit that happens. Hell, it's not uncommon for people up here to just bury guns when they get reclassified to prohibited and report them lost because then there's at least the possibility of them being reclassified back to non-prohib, rather than just handing them over and having them destroyed. There are tons of loopholes in firearm registration that can't be closed without doing stuff that would generally be considered unconstitutional, like making stolen firearms the responsibility of the original owner.
OklahomaSun wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean regarding the publicly available ballistics information, unless you mean the general characteristics of weapons. That much is public, to be sure, but each recoverable round does have individual characteristics which can usually be tied to a gun if the gun is recovered or previously typed. I've also consulted the FBI faq and some other individuals I know within the barrel making community and both sources indicate that polygonal rifling also still produces individual markings microscopically on the bullets, so I'd have to disagree on your ballistics registry claim as well.
The most important ballistics tracing information - number, shape, and twist of the lands in the barrel, muzzle velocities, firing pin shapes and positions, ejector locations, etc are readily available to the public in specifications from most major firearm manufacturers. Also, there are already law enforcement databases of ballistics information - Drugfire is an FBI run example, but there are others. As for polygonal rifling, compared to traditional land-and-groove rifling, leaves less consistent striations, making matching between different polygonal barrels difficult (It still leaves marks, but matching the marks to a specific barrel is difficult). Actually here, take this: Ballistic Imaging. It's a study done in part by the Committee to Assess the Feasibility, Accuracy and Technical Capability of a National Ballistics Database (well doesn't that sound familiar). Page 46 (which is available to read on Google Books) specifically states that "generally speaking, it is possible, although extremely difficult, to match bullets from polygonally rifled barrels". Hell, Google "Polygonal Rifling Striations" and you'll get a bunch of results, the overwhelming majority of which will tell you it is much, much more difficult to reliably match bullets fired out of guns with polygonally rifled barrels. As such, I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement.
OklahomaSun wrote:
I find it hard to accept that a national gun registry that documents the ownership of each weapon and each sale will have no effect on gun crime, considering the current state of untracked private sales which the FBI and ATF point to as one of the major distribution points of guns to criminals. I also find it hard to believe that with tens of thousands of gun crimes unsolved, a statistic attributed to the ATF and to several larger police departments like the LAPD, that a ballistics registry would be no assistance going forward.
Oh, it will have an effect, I never said it wouldn't. However, it's effect, especially in a country so overly saturated with unregistered firearms already, will be outweighed by the potential negative consequences - cost, bureaucracy, and the potential for abuse of such a registry. Not to mention, states like California have very restrictive gun controls already - but that doesn't stop CA from having a firearm murder rate well above the national average (3.25 in CA vs 2.75 overall in the US, per 100,000, taken from here) As for ballistics, see my above paragraph. A national database already exists and is maintained by the FBI.
OklahomaSun wrote:
You also can't point to your ( I have no idea where you live) long gun registry as proof of why it failed, considering that long guns are used in a ludicrously tiny fraction of gun crimes. A rough analogy might be that you're saying there's no point in licence plating vehicles because the twelve times people used a Ferrari to get away from a crime the police weren't able to read the licence plate.
For the record, I live in Canada. So, if you feel like long guns are used in a 'ludicrously tiny' fraction of gun crimes, then why do legislators focus so much on 'assault rifles', which are invariably long guns, rather than handguns? Perhaps because legislators don't know what they're talking about? Also, if you read carefully, you'd notice how I said that we have a handgun registry that is still operational - all handguns must be registered in a national database, paperwork must be filled out when they are transferred from owner to owner, and permits are required to simply transport them to and from the range. However, handguns still make up for two thirds of the firearms used in homicides in Canada. In fact, two thirds of the firearms recovered by RCMP in crimes were never registered - and in the remaining third that were registered, 55% of them were reported stolen. And on top of that, a Tory MP studied import and export data for firearms in Canada and estimated that there are about 16.5-21 million guns in Canada - of which only 7.5 million or so are registered. This is in a country with stringent gun laws, a third of the guns per capita vs the US, a purported 66% support behind the now-deceased long gun registry, a much smaller population to deal with, and the penalty of jail time if you're caught with unregistered firearms. What happens when you scale figures like that up to match the number of firearms floating around in the US, and the size of the US population? It would seem like there'd be a good chance that the vast majority of firearms wouldn't be registered.



Heretical Rants wrote:
There is a one in ten thousand chance that I will one day drown in my bathtub.

I still use my bathtub.


'course, I'm about 50 times more likely to die by gun than by bathtub...

Although there's an almost equal chance you'll die from a car accident, or a greater chance you'll die from poisoning (?!) or drug poisoning.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just said I still use my bathtub.
I make every practical effort I can to avoid cars.

...which seemingly goes against the point I was making to Ennis. Hmmm...
_________________
butts


Last edited by Heretical Rants on Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10660
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

#1, by a good margin, poisoning death cause in the US is acetaminophen (Tylenol) and alcohol.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm pretty sure I've never taken a Tylenol (maybe once as a child for a fever?), and it's been years since I've gotten drunk.

so there ya go
_________________
butts


Last edited by Heretical Rants on Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:00 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1907
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mouse wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
That'll learn 'em. We don't have enough nonviolent offenders in jail anyhow.


so hit them with a massive fine, and confiscate all their unregistered guns. and if you _really_ want to get nasty, take away their drivers' licenses.

all kinds of potential legal penalties that get people's attention.


It's worked wonder for prohibition and the War on Drugs.

Quote:
and remember, the majority of americans, including the majority of gun-owners support a national gun registry. so getting people to register their guns is not necessarily a huge uphill climb.


You mean the majority of respondents to polls that website chose to cite. There are other polls with different results.

Quote:
the people who already support registration will register; a chunk of people who don't support registration but figure they have to follow the law whether they like it or not will register; you will basically be left with the criminals and the extremists.


And the conscientious objectors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

fritterdonut wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
I don't understand why people think it's so unreasonable that we impose legal punishment on people that refuse to cooperate with gun laws. If a national registry and database is created, but your right to gun ownership is unrestricted, then I don't see any constitutional complaint, and neither do a whole host of constitutional lawyers. Failing that, it's just a collection of people refusing to obey a law that was designed properly within the legal framework of the country, a law that was designed for the public good.

Obey it, or face the consequences.
Except all too often once a national registry is in place it becomes easier to target firearms owners with bans or restrictions. It all seems like a good idea until the police are suddenly seizing $2.7 million worth of $1,500 rifles with no compensation because they decided to reclassify it from non-restricted to prohibited.
OklahomaSun wrote:
Well, it would be helpful if you did a bit more than "just saying" since the current situation is not great and I disagree that registries don't work.
You haven't provided any sources to your own arguments any better than essentially "just saying so". I'll cite my argument as best I can, but calling me out for not citing any relevant data then perhaps you should link some of your own relevant data.
Quote:
You cannot stop gun violence by having a gun registry and a ballistics database, but you can track where the guns go. There won't be any more cash sales without legal penalties being enforced, and you can sort out some of the tens of thousands of unsolved gun crimes in America each year.
Except you can't enforce legal penalties very well at all. As soon as that registry goes through, you'll see gun thefts go through the roof. For example, here in Canada, the number one domestic source of firearms is residential and commercial theft. A lot won't even be real thefts; just false reports to police of a stolen firearm that was actually sold on the black market. That or there'll be a rash of unfortunate individuals losing firearms in rivers that can't be recovered. How convenient. This is the kind of shit that happens. Hell, it's not uncommon for people up here to just bury guns when they get reclassified to prohibited and report them lost because then there's at least the possibility of them being reclassified back to non-prohib, rather than just handing them over and having them destroyed. There are tons of loopholes in firearm registration that can't be closed without doing stuff that would generally be considered unconstitutional, like making stolen firearms the responsibility of the original owner.
OklahomaSun wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean regarding the publicly available ballistics information, unless you mean the general characteristics of weapons. That much is public, to be sure, but each recoverable round does have individual characteristics which can usually be tied to a gun if the gun is recovered or previously typed. I've also consulted the FBI faq and some other individuals I know within the barrel making community and both sources indicate that polygonal rifling also still produces individual markings microscopically on the bullets, so I'd have to disagree on your ballistics registry claim as well.
The most important ballistics tracing information - number, shape, and twist of the lands in the barrel, muzzle velocities, firing pin shapes and positions, ejector locations, etc are readily available to the public in specifications from most major firearm manufacturers. Also, there are already law enforcement databases of ballistics information - Drugfire is an FBI run example, but there are others. As for polygonal rifling, compared to traditional land-and-groove rifling, leaves less consistent striations, making matching between different polygonal barrels difficult (It still leaves marks, but matching the marks to a specific barrel is difficult). Actually here, take this: Ballistic Imaging. It's a study done in part by the Committee to Assess the Feasibility, Accuracy and Technical Capability of a National Ballistics Database (well doesn't that sound familiar). Page 46 (which is available to read on Google Books) specifically states that "generally speaking, it is possible, although extremely difficult, to match bullets from polygonally rifled barrels". Hell, Google "Polygonal Rifling Striations" and you'll get a bunch of results, the overwhelming majority of which will tell you it is much, much more difficult to reliably match bullets fired out of guns with polygonally rifled barrels. As such, I'm going to have to disagree with your disagreement.
OklahomaSun wrote:
I find it hard to accept that a national gun registry that documents the ownership of each weapon and each sale will have no effect on gun crime, considering the current state of untracked private sales which the FBI and ATF point to as one of the major distribution points of guns to criminals. I also find it hard to believe that with tens of thousands of gun crimes unsolved, a statistic attributed to the ATF and to several larger police departments like the LAPD, that a ballistics registry would be no assistance going forward.
Oh, it will have an effect, I never said it wouldn't. However, it's effect, especially in a country so overly saturated with unregistered firearms already, will be outweighed by the potential negative consequences - cost, bureaucracy, and the potential for abuse of such a registry. Not to mention, states like California have very restrictive gun controls already - but that doesn't stop CA from having a firearm murder rate well above the national average (3.25 in CA vs 2.75 overall in the US, per 100,000, taken from here) As for ballistics, see my above paragraph. A national database already exists and is maintained by the FBI.
OklahomaSun wrote:
You also can't point to your ( I have no idea where you live) long gun registry as proof of why it failed, considering that long guns are used in a ludicrously tiny fraction of gun crimes. A rough analogy might be that you're saying there's no point in licence plating vehicles because the twelve times people used a Ferrari to get away from a crime the police weren't able to read the licence plate.
For the record, I live in Canada. So, if you feel like long guns are used in a 'ludicrously tiny' fraction of gun crimes, then why do legislators focus so much on 'assault rifles', which are invariably long guns, rather than handguns? Perhaps because legislators don't know what they're talking about? Also, if you read carefully, you'd notice how I said that we have a handgun registry that is still operational - all handguns must be registered in a national database, paperwork must be filled out when they are transferred from owner to owner, and permits are required to simply transport them to and from the range. However, handguns still make up for two thirds of the firearms used in homicides in Canada. In fact, two thirds of the firearms recovered by RCMP in crimes were never registered - and in the remaining third that were registered, 55% of them were reported stolen. And on top of that, a Tory MP studied import and export data for firearms in Canada and estimated that there are about 16.5-21 million guns in Canada - of which only 7.5 million or so are registered. This is in a country with stringent gun laws, a third of the guns per capita vs the US, a purported 66% support behind the now-deceased long gun registry, a much smaller population to deal with, and the penalty of jail time if you're caught with unregistered firearms. What happens when you scale figures like that up to match the number of firearms floating around in the US, and the size of the US population? It would seem like there'd be a good chance that the vast majority of firearms wouldn't be registered.



Heretical Rants wrote:
There is a one in ten thousand chance that I will one day drown in my bathtub.

I still use my bathtub.


'course, I'm about 50 times more likely to die by gun than by bathtub...

Although there's an almost equal chance you'll die from a car accident, or a greater chance you'll die from poisoning (?!) or drug poisoning.


Fuck it then.

I guess this is the only solution.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtD3OJ-_Es
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In seriousness though, you say that it won't work, but what you mean is it won't work entirely.

I'll briefly address some of your rebuttals since I'm pressed for time today.

* You say that the registry has in the past been used for gun seizures. Yes, and that's unfortunate but that's what the courts are for. Since that event, the courts have strongly ruled where gun protections exist. I would seek remedy in the courts and buy a handgun in the mean time. You'll be able to afford it when you win the lawsuit against the government.

* You say that gun thefts go through the roof once the registry is in effect. This is one of my favourite arguments. I thought that guns were the best thing you can have to protect against a robbery, now they're the thing that's actually putting you in danger. My jocular response is "just shoot them." My real response is that you mentioned part of that report without mentioning the whole report. The last sentence of the paragraph says "Firearms used by members of criminal organizations must be acquired through illegal means as Canada’s current legal acquisition and possession controls have been largely successful in preventing members of organized crime from purchasing legal weapons." Again, I mentioned that in America, a country with 300 million weapons, this was never going to work perfectly, but it would place limits on availability.

You then go on to mention that a lot of gun owners are simply lying and either hiding their guns or selling them on the black market. That's unconscionable social irresponsibility. Those people are making an active decision to defy laws made in their own country by the elected officials for the public good. They should be punished significantly. If people want the right to own a firearm in a country where more than 10,000 people are murdered and more than 30,000 are killed and more than 300,000 are wounded a year, then they can either shoulder responsibility for the weapon or face stiff penalties. If people are proven to have "lost" their gun they should be barred from future ownership, jailed, and fined. If you make examples out of a few people, they'll learn. Or, they can learn just how useless their gun is against government forces. That is one of the gun rights arguments in America, you know. That their Sig Sauer pistol is somehow going to be effective against an MRAP armored vehicle.

* I've read the report on the national ballistics registry. As you say, it mentions that it's possible. It's also true that polygonal barrels are still rare, so you're putting up a bit of a red herring here anyway. As for the rest, yes, the twists and other general characteristics are already public knowledge, but the striations matched to individual guns are not, which is what a national registry would do. You've not really put up any argument here other than it would be "hard" sometimes to match a bullet. So what? It's pretty hard to keep someone alive with ten bullet holes in him, but paramedics are trying to do that every day. I see no legitimate reason why a few bullets fired into a water barrel and then documented in a national registry is going to have any major negative impact, and you haven't mentioned any.

* As for your argument about the negative aspects, I guess we just disagree. The cost and bureaucracy is negligible in the face of more than 100,000 deaths a decade, in my estimation. My personal favourite of all your rebuttals, is your California argument. I already said that current gun control measures are pointless because they are regional in a country that has no border measures between states. Areas of the country that do have gun control measures just have guns pour in from unrestricted areas.

* As to why legislators focus on assault rifles even though they're used in a tiny percentage of cases, it's essentially because the public is stupid and focuses on perception rather than reality. There was a discussion somewhere on this thread, backed up by some solid peer reviewed research that shows without proper critical thinking training and understanding, we're just not hotwired for rational assessment of risk. Couple that with politician's self interest, and you get the kowtowing to the fear that creates useless gun control legislation. As I already said, I don't favour gun control that bans specific weapons, those are essentially pointless.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1907
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Question: What do you do when people have 3D printers and can just make their own guns whenever they want?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
Question: What do you do when people have 3D printers and can just make their own guns whenever they want?


Yeah, uhhhh, that's not really a real thing at the moment. Right now those guns are essentially a joke. You can fire a few rounds through them, but that's about it. The 3D printer the guy used also costs a few thousand dollars at a minimum.

When it happens, it will be dealt with. Most likely there will be laws put in place to require people to register as a firearm manufacturer if the technology advances to such a point. We're quite a ways off from anyone 3D printing a proper gun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let me just give you a personal example.

Some people know that I live in the UK now, but I'm an American. When I was in the States, I did own a gun. I owned a Sig Sauer P226 and three 20 round magazines. I bought it from an FFL licenced dealer. I obviously couldn't take it to the UK with me so I had to sell it, but no worries, because my state permits private sales without documentation. I sold it to a friend of mine for 400 dollars. That was a few years ago.

I was talking to him a couple months ago and he traded it to some guy for his PS4 and some games. So that gun has now traveled two people past the only person who ever went through a background check to own it, and there's no record of who owns it now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1907
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
Question: What do you do when people have 3D printers and can just make their own guns whenever they want?


Yeah, uhhhh, that's not really a real thing at the moment. Right now those guns are essentially a joke. You can fire a few rounds through them, but that's about it. The 3D printer the guy used also costs a few thousand dollars at a minimum.

When it happens, it will be dealt with. Most likely there will be laws put in place to require people to register as a firearm manufacturer if the technology advances to such a point. We're quite a ways off from anyone 3D printing a proper gun.


The guns made are not really terrible weapons for criminal purposes -- small, easily concealable, deadly at close range, and ultimately disposable. The technology is expensive right now, but the Brick cost $4000 when it came out, and now cell phones are everywhere.

If/when the technology gets cheap enough, it'll probably be tough to regulate. Are you going to make everyone who walks into Staples to buy a 3D printer pass a background check and register as a firearms manufacturer in case they might use it to make a gun that later might be used in a crime? We don't do that for shovels.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
OklahomanSun



Joined: 16 Mar 2014
Posts: 383

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
Mindslicer wrote:
Question: What do you do when people have 3D printers and can just make their own guns whenever they want?


Yeah, uhhhh, that's not really a real thing at the moment. Right now those guns are essentially a joke. You can fire a few rounds through them, but that's about it. The 3D printer the guy used also costs a few thousand dollars at a minimum.

When it happens, it will be dealt with. Most likely there will be laws put in place to require people to register as a firearm manufacturer if the technology advances to such a point. We're quite a ways off from anyone 3D printing a proper gun.


The guns made are not really terrible weapons for criminal purposes -- small, easily concealable, deadly at close range, and ultimately disposable. The technology is expensive right now, but the Brick cost $4000 when it came out, and now cell phones are everywhere.

If/when the technology gets cheap enough, it'll probably be tough to regulate. Are you going to make everyone who walks into Staples to buy a 3D printer pass a background check and register as a firearms manufacturer in case they might use it to make a gun that later might be used in a crime? We don't do that for shovels.


This is an example of the misperception people have about guns and crime. Most crimes that take place with a gun involved, the gun is intended as an intimidation device. Certainly there are shootings, but the vast vast vast majority of gun involved crimes in America don't have a shot fired. If the criminal has a gun that doesn't look like a traditional gun, people may not recognise it as a gun and not respond the way they want.

We don't have any information on this yet as the weapons don't even exist, but I would expect to see criminals be among the last of the people buying 3D printers and making guns. The people who are looking into this are the nut jobs who think that their guns can protect them against the government. That ship has sailed. An armed civilian populace could stand up to the government when they had muskets and the government had muskets. Now the civilians have rifles and handguns and the government has tanks. Oh, and drones. Oh, and railgun armed stealth destroyers. Oh, and strategic bombers. You get my point.

As to your continuing discussion about what we'll do in the future with 3D printers, I would say yes, if we are able to enact what I consider sensible gun registries and then in the future there is an explosion of 3D printed guns, I think there will be some registration and documentation of 3D printing.

These things kill people. It's not a joke. Over 10,000 murders a year, more than 30,000 total deaths when you lump in suicides. There's no reason not to enact the registries, it doesn't limit people's ownership of the weapons, so there's not a legitimate constitutional challenge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mindslicer



Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1907
Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OklahomanSun wrote:
An armed civilian populace could stand up to the government when they had muskets and the government had muskets. Now the civilians have rifles and handguns and the government has tanks. Oh, and drones. Oh, and railgun armed stealth destroyers. Oh, and strategic bombers. You get my point.


You're over in the UK so you may not have heard about it, but there was recently a bit of a standoff between armed civilians and various law enforcement personnel regarding a rancher in Nevada and ultimately the government decided it wouldn't be in their best interests to mow armed protesters over with tanks or drone strike them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3352

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mindslicer wrote:
OklahomanSun wrote:
An armed civilian populace could stand up to the government when they had muskets and the government had muskets. Now the civilians have rifles and handguns and the government has tanks. Oh, and drones. Oh, and railgun armed stealth destroyers. Oh, and strategic bombers. You get my point.


You're over in the UK so you may not have heard about it, but there was recently a bit of a standoff between armed civilians and various law enforcement personnel regarding a rancher in Nevada and ultimately the government decided it wouldn't be in their best interests to mow armed protesters over with tanks or drone strike them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff


Yes and im sure that's the last we'll hear of the situation too. Rolling Eyes
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 10 of 12

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group