Angry Minnesotans Take 3D Printer Away From Gunmaker

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Angry Minnesotans Take 3D Printer Away From Gunmaker

Would-be plastic gunsmiths fight for the right to create printable pistols.

The engineers out there may know what Minnesota-based Stratasys makes: 3D printer technology, used to create functional parts and prototypes that work just like the final product. 'Just like, you say?' thought the folks at Defense Distributed. 'Why not print out a working gun, then?' It was this entrepreneurial spirit that inspired Stratasys to pull its printer out of Defense Distributed's clutches just as quickly as it could.

Defense Distributed claims that its campaign wasn't intended to sell guns to anyone. The idea was to create CAD blueprints, which would be freely distributed so anyone could print their own plastic pistols. "WikiWep is about challenging gun control and regulation," says its FAQ. "We look to inspire and defend those who live (and are threatened to live) under politically oppressive regimes. Firearm Rights are Human Rights."

Stratasys wasn't keen to get into a legal debate with Defense Distributed. "It is the policy of Stratasys not to knowingly allow its printers to be used for illegal purposes," its legal representatives said in a letter to Defense Distributed. "Therefore, please be advised that your lease of the Stratasys uPrint is cancelled at this time and Stratasys is making arrangements to pick up the printer." The WikiWep developers response was to comment, "Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to stand in the way of an innovation," but presumably a website snark isn't going to stop Stratasys from taking its printer back.

As 3D printer technology is so new, the law really hasn't caught up with the implications of its use. In America there are various forms you have to send to the ATF before you can make some kinds of firearm, and of course different states have different gun control regulations. "It's what this old world of legal hierarchy requires," said Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed. "I have to go through a legal process just to try something."

Well, that and get funding. This isn't the first time Defense Distributed has frightened the bejeezus out of people; when it tried to crowdfund its project through Indiegogo, the folks at Indiegogo booted Defense Distributed from its site. Fortunately - or unfortunately, depending on your point of view - in September Defense Distributed was able to raise the funding it needed from other internet donors. "I think it shows they really believe in a future where the gun is inalienable," said Wilson at the time, "a kind of faith in American individualism, the sovereignty of the individual."

Source: Guardian, Forbes

Permalink

As awful as their idea and plans may have been, I can't help but admire their simplistic approach. Plastic guns that have all the working parts of a regular gun? Would be an interesting experiment. I can't imagine such an item would be very durable, what with the heat and forces involved, but still. It might be functional for a couple of shots, I suppose.

Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?

Frontastic:
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?

Little bit of optimization required maybe but I imagine you could get a couple shots off before it broke completely (depending on the quality of the stuff printed). It'll be interesting to see how long it takes us to enter the era of disposable guns though lol

If only Defense Distributor had real guns, they could have stopped them!
Damn Liberals!

NightHawk21:

Frontastic:
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?

Little bit of optimization required maybe but I imagine you could get a couple shots off before it broke completely (depending on the quality of the stuff printed). It'll be interesting to see how long it takes us to enter the era of disposable guns though lol

They have only been printing the lower receivers by now. Not entire guns. The question as to how far the technology can be pushed is interesting, though.

While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo

No way all plastic guns would work for more than 2 or 3 shots. That said, pretty interesting idea.

In America there are various forms you have to send to the ATF before you can make some kinds of firearm

Sorry Adam, but this is very, very wrong. Unless it is an NFA weapon or a full auto, no paperwork is needed. And for NFA weapons you just fill out the Form 1 on the BATFE's site and 200 dollars later you can make one. Can't make full-auto's though.

In any case, a single shot .22lr pistol, what they were trying to make, needs no paperwork. The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.

Also, I would like to point out that Stratasys is the functional equivalent of a cross between the worst DRM and vendor lockdown attributes of Apple and Microsoft put together in the 3D printer world.

Reminds me of Balls of Fury...

Having a cheap plastic gun that looks identical to a real one may create serious problems. I am against using the tech for this purpose.

Angry Minnesotans sounds like an iPhone/Android game. MAKE IT SO!

Frontastic:
Plastic guns... would that even work? Like yeah BB guns etc are fine but if we're talking real, dangerous guns wouldn't plastic ones just shatter when fired?

Maybe if we were in the 50s. Glock would kind of like a word with you.

There hasn't been a truly plastic-only gun yet to my knowledge, but the novel part of this is printing on demand.

Zombie_Moogle:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo

Honestly, I have to wonder how much it actually would help. I mean, if we're talking about countries with extremely oppressive regimes, the main issue would be getting the 3D printers in to begin with (since the defense company was just interested in creating freely distributed schematics), and if the oppressed people of said country could get a hold of something like a 3D printer, certainly the regime could as well.

In more backwards areas like central Africa... it could *maybe* help some. Where its just men w/guns against men w/guns. But in a place like Iran, where the regime does have a modern military they'd basically be useless. That's not even getting into the question of just how viable an all-plastic firearm is to begin with and how its performance would stack up to traditional firearms.

Potential good intentions aside, I just don't like the vibe I get from Defense Distributed. I support the right for people to have guns, but I am of the mindset that it should be a more regulated right than it is, not less (limit the number of bullets in a clip, make extended clips and mags illegal and so on). My personal opinion is that the potential risks of letting this particular genie out of the bottle outweigh the benefits. The last thing we need in the US is *more* guns floating around, completely unregulated guns that someone with sufficient funds to get a hold of a digital printer could manufacture en masse and pass out with zero documentation or oversight. Guns that could get past metal detectors as well.

ravenshrike:

In America there are various forms you have to send to the ATF before you can make some kinds of firearm

Sorry Adam, but this is very, very wrong. Unless it is an NFA weapon or a full auto, no paperwork is needed. And for NFA weapons you just fill out the Form 1 on the BATFE's site and 200 dollars later you can make one. Can't make full-auto's though.

In any case, a single shot .22lr pistol, what they were trying to make, needs no paperwork. The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.

Do you have anything to back that up, just out of curiosity? From my understanding, you need a license (or maybe it was just the tax stamp) to "manufacture" a weapon. For example, I have one of these:

And it is illegal for me to put a vertical grip on it without getting a tax stamp since it is manufacturing a weapon.

The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.

Well, of course. No lease could possibly have terms in it dictating use.

Maybe they should print up some single-shot .22s to defend themselves from the tyranny of oppressive leases!

DD didn't think this through too well. The damned thing is untraceable; it's a perfect disposable weapon suited for criminals. However it's utterly useless for home defense or "militia" stuff.

In a way I hope they do sue Stratasys, so DD's list of donors can be called for in discovery and we can see whose bright idea this was.

-- Steve

I think the idea is stupid, mostly because damn thing got lot of chance to explode in your hand, due to heat deforming the barrel and other element around the chamber combined with the pressure created by firing.

But just for simple gun modeling I don't see anything wrong with it, has long has you remember to put a orange tip in the barrel if someone gonna yield it in public (else they might get shot by police for thinking they yield a real gun =p)

For those of you saying plastic is not a usable material in gun production, I would like to point out that there are already hardened plastics used to make guns.

Wiki excerpt:
"The Glock's frame, magazine body and several other components are made from a high-strength nylon-based polymer invented by Gaston Glock and called Polymer 2.[31] This plastic was specially formulated to provide increased durability and is more resilient than carbon steel and most steel alloys. Polymer 2 is resistant to shock, caustic liquids and temperature extremes where traditional steel/alloy frames would warp and become brittle.[31] The injection molded frame contains 4 hardened steel guide rails for the slide: two at the rear of the frame, and the remaining pair above and in front of the trigger guard."

Granted, there are still metal parts, but given time and money, I'm sure someone could come up with plastic variants of those.

As for the article?
Yeah, every army in the world is surely thrilled that any civilian and therefore any nutjob would be able to print himself working light support machine gun! Right?

let that be a lesson to people who get those 3d printers but dont own them, lease them for a company that does nothing with them, then use them with your real company.

Would have been an interesting project

It was either this headline or 6 months down the road "handless milita sues 3d printer company"

I have great respect for Stratasys for not allowing these gun-toting loons to make this world an even more dangerous place.

Let the gun control debate now begin!

Zombie_Moogle:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo

It would just lead to more violence and blood-shed, if not all-out anarchy. Believe it or not, easy access to guns does not automatically make a place safe.

image

Zachary Amaranth:

The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.

Well, of course. No lease could possibly have terms in it dictating use.

Maybe they should print up some single-shot .22s to defend themselves from the tyranny of oppressive leases!

The terms of the lease that they cited upon revocation explicitly required illegal action to have taken place. Since nothing was even built yet, let alone anything illegal, the revocation of the lease was invalid.

Assassin Xaero:

Do you have anything to back that up, just out of curiosity? From my understanding, you need a license (or maybe it was just the tax stamp) to "manufacture" a weapon. For example, I have one of these:

And it is illegal for me to put a vertical grip on it without getting a tax stamp since it is manufacturing a weapon.

Because the BATFE needs to be slapped upside the head. Basically, putting a foregrip on a pistol makes it an NFA item according to the BATFE. You can thank the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA for that, most of the latter of which was quite literally cribbed from Nazi Germany's gun regulations. It's where the whole line about sporting purposes comes from, among other bullshit.

dangoball:
For those of you saying plastic is not a usable material in gun production, I would like to point out that there are already hardened plastics used to make guns.

Wiki excerpt:
"The Glock's frame, magazine body and several other components are made from a high-strength nylon-based polymer invented by Gaston Glock and called Polymer 2.[31] This plastic was specially formulated to provide increased durability and is more resilient than carbon steel and most steel alloys. Polymer 2 is resistant to shock, caustic liquids and temperature extremes where traditional steel/alloy frames would warp and become brittle.[31] The injection molded frame contains 4 hardened steel guide rails for the slide: two at the rear of the frame, and the remaining pair above and in front of the trigger guard."

Granted, there are still metal parts, but given time and money, I'm sure someone could come up with plastic variants of those.

As for the article?
Yeah, every army in the world is surely thrilled that any civilian and therefore any nutjob would be able to print himself working light support machine gun! Right?

Yes, but 3D printing make thing in layer, plastic in real gun is made by injection or pressure, way more solid.

rcs619:

Zombie_Moogle:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo

Honestly, I have to wonder how much it actually would help. I mean, if we're talking about countries with extremely oppressive regimes, the main issue would be getting the 3D printers in to begin with (since the defense company was just interested in creating freely distributed schematics), and if the oppressed people of said country could get a hold of something like a 3D printer, certainly the regime could as well.

In more backwards areas like central Africa... it could *maybe* help some. Where its just men w/guns against men w/guns. But in a place like Iran, where the regime does have a modern military they'd basically be useless. That's not even getting into the question of just how viable an all-plastic firearm is to begin with and how its performance would stack up to traditional firearms.

Potential good intentions aside, I just don't like the vibe I get from Defense Distributed. I support the right for people to have guns, but I am of the mindset that it should be a more regulated right than it is, not less (limit the number of bullets in a clip, make extended clips and mags illegal and so on). My personal opinion is that the potential risks of letting this particular genie out of the bottle outweigh the benefits. The last thing we need in the US is *more* guns floating around, completely unregulated guns that someone with sufficient funds to get a hold of a digital printer could manufacture en masse and pass out with zero documentation or oversight. Guns that could get past metal detectors as well.

It's worth taking into account the extreme poverty of many oppressed nations, as it's not so much men "w/guns against men w/guns" as it is men w/lots of guns against men w/barely even food. Even in more developed nations like Iran, an boon to the people underfoot is noteworthy

As far as regulation, I'm torn; while regulation has it's reasonably arguable pros and cons, it's essentially a moot debate, because, well... it's not hard to get firearms illegally. At all. It's easier than getting them legally, really. We could put every limit on them we can think of, we could ban them outright, but what would it matter when anyone with cash can get an AK-47 on the street?
(Before anyone jumps on me for that comment, I'm not against the ownership of assault weapons)

Well, 3d printers are becoming more widely available as time goes on. So someone is going to have to (have to/want to? It's really just another tool to replace existing tools people can get their hands on already) set a policy when people use them to make weapons. I imagine there's people with private metal shops who can make weapons without any particular oversight as well.

It's not like without the gun you need a weapons license to use common household chemicals to make a bomb/incendiary device, or drive a car (may require an auto license! :p ) into a crowded intersection, or casually walk up to someone and stab them with a sharp anything.

The company that wants to use the printer to make gun parts is already making guns via other methods as well, right?

Anton P. Nym:
DD didn't think this through too well. The damned thing is untraceable; it's a perfect disposable weapon suited for criminals. However it's utterly useless for home defense or "militia" stuff.

-- Steve

That's pretty much what I thought, and it's kind of sad that that point seems to be getting lost in this thread.

This technology does nothing for those who want to own guns, but it is a criminal's best friend.

The Plunk:
I have great respect for Stratasys for not allowing these gun-toting loons to make this world an even more dangerous place.

Let the gun control debate now begin!

Zombie_Moogle:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo

It would just lead to more violence and blood-shed, if not all-out anarchy. Believe it or not, easy access to guns does not automatically make a place safe.

image

That image right there is the perfect argument in favor of Defense Distributed. Smart money says the next village that group rolls into will wish it had the means to better arm itself.
For better or worse, guns exist. People, in our species-old tradition of self-destruction, like to kill each other & will do so for fun or profit. All we've done in our history is go from "the biggest caveman gets w/e he wants" to "the best armed guy gets what he wants". Sad but true. While I truly wish it were not so, the only way we as humans have of redressing this is to match it.
What else can I say? Humans are nuts. Gotta do what you gotta do to survive

While I agree with the point on innovation, I do NOT agree that firearm rights are human rights. Just...how much bullshit is that statement alone? Guys, I am being forced to live without my human rights. The United Kingdom is an oppressive regime! I can't shoot at police officers, therefore they've created an invincible, tyrannical army that can ARREST us!!!! Open your eyes, people! Everybody should have a gun! Then nobody can be arrested anymore!

THEY MAY TAKE OUR GUNS, BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!

A plastic gun, in fact, a printed plastic gun (because it wouldn't even be as strong as plastic) would tear itself to shreds on the first shot.

It's stupid, was stupid then, and it's stupid now, and now the printer manufacturer is absorbing some stupid as well... the guys who should really know better.

Anyone stupid enough to print out a gun, put a bullet in it, and fire it, deserves to have the fingers or hand or face blown off. It's the new natural selection, our evolution as a species requires that those incapable of staying alive should be allowed to die. Anyone with a fraction of a clue could make a more stable and dangerous firearm out of scrap.

It is a shame, that things like custom stocks can't be developed because of a handful of stupidity.

I've never seen such reckless criminal regard for the consequences of your actions as these people. Forget about the gun debate, he believes he's so right, he honours guns above all else ('"I think it shows they really believe in a future where the gun is inalienable," said Wilson at the time, "a kind of faith in American individualism, the sovereignty of the individual." I mean shouldn't we be trying to sort out inequality, racism, starvation, malnutrition, aren't the things to strive for, safety, freedom, expression, the ability to guide your life and control it, rather than any one means of doing that (or making it worse)) but he wants that so much and he believes he's so right he;s willing to force that on the entirety of the world? What does that say about self expression.

What about Britain, we have 50 gun deaths a year compared to 15 000 in the US. Our police don't even need to carry guns. More people die a year from obscure workplace accidents than guns. Our crime rate is positively comparable with the US, so we don't need guns for self defence. Our whole system and country operates because it's just hard to get hold of a gun in the UK.

And one man wnats to make it so any schmo with access to a digital printer can make guns? He believes in 0 gun control, that giving criminals the chance to produce weaponry is a divine right?

Let him bear the burden of the 3000 lives every year he will take for his arrogance

EDIT: I can't get over him

This tool:
"This is the legal regime we exist in," said Wilson. "It's what this old world of legal hierarchy requires. I have to go thorough a legal process just to try something."

Oh gee, the government makes you go through a legal process before developing a way to mass produce firearms. Oh no they are so oppressive and old fashioned.

Zombie_Moogle:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo

Sorry, you feel the problem of violence in parts of developing nations is the lack of access to weapons??

Okay the sarcasm gose to far, but here is the problem, in a gun fight, the people with the training and the numbers are going to win right? So as long as some Warlord still has his minions and child soldiers, he can still push through a village, kill who he likes take what he likes (this is assuming that the impoverished village has access to a digital printer) because in a gun battle he's going to lose less people, and he doesn't care about preserving the lives of his child soldiers or shooting and torturing people because they stood up to him. Any deaths to his soldiers just make the need greater to create more child soldiers.

So the only way to win is to have an organised trained force counter-acting that, but the proliferation of guns doesn't help with that, because anyone with the knowledge and training can get their hands on guns anyway, we're not exactly starving Africa of AKs. But there's no reason that people with knowledge and training are going to be nice and try to do it nicely, and they'll still probably lose out to the people who are like them, but without morals.

Equally, Iran isn't a destable regime and if the people were persuaded to overthrow their government, they probably would be able to do it. And if we look at places like Syria, it's easy to turn the place into a war, but plastic guns probably wouldn't be able to end the fight much quicker either way when the government has access to planes and tanks.

It's a good idea, but I don't believe it would work and the point still stands that places with access to digital printers are the parts of the civilised world.

So wait Tediore exists now?

BrotherRool:
I've never seen such reckless criminal regard for the consequences of your actions as these people. Forget about the gun debate, he believes he's so right, he honours guns above all else ('"I think it shows they really believe in a future where the gun is inalienable," said Wilson at the time, "a kind of faith in American individualism, the sovereignty of the individual." I mean shouldn't we be trying to sort out inequality, racism, starvation, malnutrition, aren't the things to strive for, safety, freedom, expression, the ability to guide your life and control it, rather than any one means of doing that (or making it worse)) but he wants that so much and he believes he's so right he;s willing to force that on the entirety of the world? What does that say about self expression.

What about Britain, we have 50 gun deaths a year compared to 15 000 in the US. Our police don't even need to carry guns. More people die a year from obscure workplace accidents than guns. Our crime rate is positively comparable with the US, so we don't need guns for self defence. Our whole system and country operates because it's just hard to get hold of a gun in the UK.

And one man wnats to make it so any schmo with access to a digital printer can make guns? He believes in 0 gun control, that giving criminals the chance to produce weaponry is a divine right?

Let him bear the burden of the 3000 lives every year he will take for his arrogance

Zombie_Moogle:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo

Sorry, you feel the problem of violence in parts of developing nations is the lack of access to weapons??

Okay the sarcasm gose to far, but here is the problem, in a gun fight, the people with the training and the numbers are going to win right? So as long as some Warlord still has his minions and child soldiers, he can still push through a village, kill who he likes take what he likes (this is assuming that the impoverished village has access to a digital printer) because in a gun battle he's going to lose less people, and he doesn't care about preserving the lives of his child soldiers or shooting and torturing people because they stood up to him. Any deaths to his soldiers just make the need greater to create more child soldiers.

So the only way to win is to have an organised trained force counter-acting that, but the proliferation of guns doesn't help with that, because anyone with the knowledge and training can get their hands on guns anyway, we're not exactly starving Africa of AKs. But there's no reason that people with knowledge and training are going to be nice and try to do it nicely, and they'll still probably lose out to the people who are like them, but without morals.

Equally, Iran isn't a destable regime and if the people were persuaded to overthrow their government, they probably would be able to do it. And if we look at places like Syria, it's easy to turn the place into a war, but plastic guns probably wouldn't be able to end the fight much quicker either way when the government has access to planes and tanks.

It's a good idea, but I don't believe it would work and the point still stands that places with access to digital printers are the parts of the civilised world.

Excellent points, but a few counters for the sake of discussion

African militia groups are well armed & sociopathic, yes; but by no stretch do they outnumber the countries they reside in, or even the population of villages they plunder. They are simply better equipped.
Johannesburg is a modern metropolis & it wouldn't be terribly difficult to set up shop or ship from there, if we're just talking logistic. A stretch perhaps, but plausible.
& I have to disagree with you that Iran is stable. Massive protest within the nation are frequent & met with attacks from horse-mounted government thugs, but that discussion that could fill a thread in & of itself, so I'm reluctant to even bring it up for fear of further fragmenting this thread.

(All in all, great posts in here so far. Much less flaming than I expected :D )

Zombie_Moogle:

It's worth taking into account the extreme poverty of many oppressed nations, as it's not so much men "w/guns against men w/guns" as it is men w/lots of guns against men w/barely even food. Even in more developed nations like Iran, an boon to the people underfoot is noteworthy

As far as regulation, I'm torn; while regulation has it's reasonably arguable pros and cons, it's essentially a moot debate, because, well... it's not hard to get firearms illegally. At all. It's easier than getting them legally, really. We could put every limit on them we can think of, we could ban them outright, but what would it matter when anyone with cash can get an AK-47 on the street?
(Before anyone jumps on me for that comment, I'm not against the ownership of assault weapons)

What I meant was, in central Africa, the people there wouldn't be going up against an organized, modern military like those in Iran would. Iran has tanks and planes and other modern things, and those severely limit and/or nullify lightly-armed civilian resistance.

The "well it's not hard to get" argument isn't really valid, in my opinion. It isn't hard to get illegal hard-drugs like meth or heroine and current laws certainly don't stop people from making and distributing them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pass laws to attempt to control their spread and make it as difficult as possible to procure them.

Like I said, I'm in favor of gun-ownership, but I do think some things need to happen. We need to make extended clips and magazines illegal, first of all. No one needs a handgun with 30 rounds, or a semi-automatic rifle with 100. The gun-show loophole needs to finally be dealt with, and there needs to be some new regulations to finally catch up with internet gun sales.

I'm torn on assault rifles, and while an assault rifle ban probably wouldn't be a bad thing, such weapons have become so pervasive in the US that I don't know if it isn't already too late for that (Unless the gun show loophole was closed, any kind of assault weapons ban would be laughable weak as well).

Basically, the two reasons anyone needs to own a gun in the US is for self-defense, and for hunting/recreation shooting. You don't need extended mags for either of those (I'd argue that no one needs an assault rifle for either of those either, but that goes back to the above point). Let's not forget the fact that most of the random, massacre style shootings in this country are committed by people using *legally* bought and purchased firearms, magazines and ammo that they owned prior to shooting up a place, or bought legally for the occasion (statistics also show that the vast majority of those instances are done with assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns, both of which would be the most impacted by limitations in clip/magazine capacity).

Not doing something because "It probably wouldn't do anything anyway" is never a good thing. It is complacency, and all it accomplishes is letting the problem get worse. In my opinion of course.

I lost the second I considered posting in a gun thread, but let's do this for the hell of it anyways:
the content of this thread is and always will be:
- >50% of all people from the US talking about freedom, needs more guns, and various absurd "that wouldn't have happened with more guns" scenarios
- reasonable people that get shot down (heh) by the other party.
none of them will ever listen to the other side, leading to a never ending discussion for and against the greatest US stereotype.
Well done people, we once more have proven our superiority through stubbornness and inability to learn.
Maybe one day people will see that those with guns will always shoot first at those who carry guns as well.
Being harmelss and uninteresting is what secures survival, not being a threat to everything around you (especially not other threats).
/rant

rcs619:

Zombie_Moogle:

It's worth taking into account the extreme poverty of many oppressed nations, as it's not so much men "w/guns against men w/guns" as it is men w/lots of guns against men w/barely even food. Even in more developed nations like Iran, an boon to the people underfoot is noteworthy

As far as regulation, I'm torn; while regulation has it's reasonably arguable pros and cons, it's essentially a moot debate, because, well... it's not hard to get firearms illegally. At all. It's easier than getting them legally, really. We could put every limit on them we can think of, we could ban them outright, but what would it matter when anyone with cash can get an AK-47 on the street?
(Before anyone jumps on me for that comment, I'm not against the ownership of assault weapons)

What I meant was, in central Africa, the people there wouldn't be going up against an organized, modern military like those in Iran would. Iran has tanks and planes and other modern things, and those severely limit and/or nullify lightly-armed civilian resistance.

The "well it's not hard to get" argument isn't really valid, in my opinion. It isn't hard to get illegal hard-drugs like meth or heroine, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pass laws to attempt to control their spread and make it as difficult as possible to procure them.

Like I said, I'm in favor of gun-ownership, but I do think some things need to happen. We need to make extended clips and magazines illegal, first of all. No one needs a handgun with 30 rounds, or a semi-automatic rifle with 100. The gun-show loophole needs to finally be dealt with, and there needs to be some new regulations to finally catch up with internet gun sales.

I'm torn on assault rifles, and while an assault rifle ban probably wouldn't be a bad thing, such weapons have become so pervasive in the US that I don't know if it isn't already too late for that (Unless the gun show loophole was closed, any kind of assault weapons ban would be laughable weak as well).

Basically, the two reasons anyone needs to own a gun in the US is for self-defense, and for hunting/recreation shooting. You don't need extended mags for either of those (I'd argue that no one needs an assault rifle for either of those either, but that goes back to the above point). Let's not forget the fact that most of the random, massacre style shootings in this country are committed by people using *legally* bought and purchased firearms, magazines and ammo that they owned prior to shooting up a place, or bought legally for the occasion (statistics also show that the vast majority of those instances are done with assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns, both of which would be the most impacted by limitations in clip/magazine capacity).

Not doing something because "It probably wouldn't do anything anyway" is never a good thing. It is complacency, and all it accomplishes is letting the problem get worse. In my opinion of course.

I think we're disagreeing to agree here. My comment about illegal weapons being easy to acquire wasn't an argument for no regulation, as much as an argument for effective regulation. I don't personally think limiting clip size or banning particular types of weapons would solve anything. I do think that controlling the importation and sale of unregistered weapons would.
Now the real question is: how do we go about that without strapping on the jackboots? I'm honestly not sure

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here