Dan Patrick hitting the airwaves this morning blaming violent video games and wanting to arm teachers because they are part of "our militia." Sigh...

And Ollie North blames Ritalin.

Or simply WWII. Or the Axis Powers.

That particular "indicator" can't reasonably grade as anything more than incomplete based on photos & minor collecting alone.

I mean, hell, I know a lifelong baseball card collector who just killed (via starvation) over a dozen dogs. Pretty sure his card collection wasn't indicative of that eventual behavior.

Looks like a kid shot up his middle school today.

https://www.theindychannel.com/news/...-middle-school

yup in inbanana

Not a school shooting but somewhat related.

I don't know if its my imagination but it seems there's been a couple other recent stories of civilians with weapons taking down a bad guy.

I don't really remember reading much about this happening before (first I remember was the Texas church incident).

I wonder if its the awareness of all these shootings & the ongoing debate that make some civilians more apt to use their weapons nowadays. Per the story below, the 2 guys went to their cars to retrieve their weapons so they purposely wanted to engage the bad guy.

Armed bystanders gun down Oklahoma City restaurant shooter - BBC News

It happens, but the data shows i) that it is rare and ii) that more incidents are contained by individuals without firearms.

While these two can certainly be celebrated in this instance, I think there are several underlying issues. First, vigilante shooters typically put innocent bystanders in more danger either due to lack of training or adding to the confusion of the scene. Second, most people don't want to have to be vigilantes. Quite simply, we don't have to live this way.

I personally think this is reasonable assuming its there continuous/refresher training required and some sort of coordination training with police response. Better than nothing in a worse case.

Alabama Allows Armed Principals In Schools | HuffPost

Interesting story about the resource officer in Florida.

‘It was my job, and I didn’t find him’: Stoneman Douglas resource officer Scot Peterson remains haunted by massacre - The Washington Post

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek article on the gun debate that we here, at FOFC, have experienced.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...gun-ncna886156

That’s cool. We can butt out of those conversations when they exit discussions on climate and the female reproductive system.

Oddly, at least two of those groups of comically gullible participants have a helluva lot of overlap.

The odd thing is that the most promising gun policy legislation, in terms of saving lives, doesn't touch actual guns at all. It is about access and who is allowed to purchase or obtain firearms. I'm not sure why I need to have fired a semi-automatic weapon to think a domestic abuser shouldn't have access to a gun, regardless of type.

#Annapolis is trending

:(

Non-school though...still count?

Yes, unfortunately.

Yeah, there’s gonna be a “count” all right.

County police being advised to not self dispatch to the site. A mess here.

Wonder if this is some wacko from the Trump cult who went to take out media folks:-( NYC police are dispatching officers to area media sites as a precaution.

Ok this is weird.

CBS News has learned alleged gunman damaged his fingertips so law enforcement cannot identify him. https://t.co/eWjaC4dGlq pic.twitter.com/6dMeurgxbc

— CBS News (@CBSNews) June 28, 2018

5 dead. Sigh

Like the congressional softball shooter?

When I used to live in the D.C. area I had reviews of my shows in that paper. God bless all the families and friends of the victims.

Enemy of the People takes a blow from the deliverer of truth!



If I've learned anything from trump, it's that we are to jump to immediate conclusions right away, and make the most obvious leaps in logic to get our point across. Never apologize for what you said in that moment, and stick to your talking point. Therefore---


Enemy of the People takes a blow from the deliverer of truth! A true American has spoken with his 2nd Amendment rights! God bless his soul!

It's sad that political partisans are already making claims about the motives of the gunman in order to score a point for their side.

Honestly, does it really matter any more who says what about anything? The entire message is co-oped before the facts come out anyway. One side or the other. It's total bs, and it's been fostered much more by the person living in the WH than anything else.

This line of thinking is just as bad as the fake news crowd. In fact I would say even worse because you have shown yourself on this board as being intelligent and not sure a lot of the Trump crowd has any intelligence.

How so exactly? I'm the one always calling for patience and caution to wait for the facts to emerge before jumping to conclusions. It seems to me, that the news cycle can no longer wait for anything, and that either side needs to get their point out and across before any information is known. Look at the deep conspiracy theorists out there. They make their decisions, hear the fact, then decide that the facts are wrong and stick by their near sighted, conspiracies that are the only 'truth.'

trump is exactly the same way. Even today, he comes out and defends Russia in the face of massive information. He rails against things he can't see, despite having access to every bit of information and the most powerful weapons and military in the world. His goal has always been to dominate the news cycle, one way or the other. It doesn't matter what the truth is. The only thing that matters is that people are listening to what you're saying. If you can't win the battle for information because people won't listen to the truth, you're only left with fighting for the bits and pieces they will listen to.

Truth and science is more marginalized right now, in favor of feelings and instincts, than ever before. The current administration has done more to foster that than any previous one, but that doesn't mean that previous administrations haven't done it too, it just means this one has completely manipulated it more, for it's own gain, than any other. This is the truth.

Sounds like it might be an individual with a gripe against the paper. He sued them for defamation and lost.

Story seems to go:

- Suspect relentlessly harassed a woman he had went to high school with.
- She called the police and he was charged and plead guilty to harassment.
- Paper wrote a story on it
- He sued the paper and acted as his own attorney
- He lost, appealed, and lost again

It would be yet another shooter with a history against women.

Local buzz is: Guy w grudge

Colleagues and I chatting over dinner about reporters we know, and who might be dead. How fucking sick is that as an actual conversation?

He sued them, so likely appeared in court but thought by cutting off his fingerprints nobody would ever figure out who he was?

I was switching between CNN and WTTG (Fox affiliate in D.C.). The difference in coverage was stark. CNN was speculating endlessly about motivations and the kind of people who do this kind of thing and brought in law enforcement experts and etc. WTTG were sticking to what was known and some of the newscaster's voices were cracking at times as they felt a kinship to the victims.

It's kind of sad how bad CNN has become in the last 18 months.

I'd say it's been longer than 18 months. Cable news has been a cesspool for decades now (at least since 9/11). It's entertainment to them and you can see how giddy they get with excitement whenever a mass shooting breaks out.

Local news is usually just local journalists who's broadcasts come across more as a "public service" than variety show.

Here is the appeal he had.

https://www.mdcourts.gov/sites/defau...15/2281s13.pdf

He also has a Twitter up and it's obvious he's mentally disturbed. Would have been nice for someone to spot that and do something about it.

Here's his Twitter: Jarrod W. Ramos (@EricHartleyFrnd) | Twitter

He made veiled threats to the paper for years. Can't fathom why we'd allow someone like that to buy a gun.

Well played.

How often do we ever take online threats seriously? Rarely

Do we really want LE to take online threats seriously?

I don’t know.

Sean Hannity blames Maxine Waters and of course Obama for the shootings:


Hannity outrageously points finger at Waters, Obama for rhetoric that fed Annapolis Capital Gazette shooting - Baltimore Sun

I rest my case.

The WH responds with this today: At the White House, spokeswoman Lindsay Walters said: "There is no room for violence, and we stick by that. Violence is never tolerated in any form, no matter whom it is against."

Which sounds nice, but is complete and total bullshit because the list is long of trump advocating violence, in many forms, against people, he primarily doesn't agree with.

Has Donald Trump never 'promoted or encouraged violence,' as Sarah Huckabee Sanders said? | PolitiFact

Yep nearly every rally he's calling for violence against the media

If, hypothetically, I had a twitter that I used to rant and rave about TSA and airport security and INS and threatened violence against them I'd be pretty sure I'd be on some kind of list that meant I'd never get on a plane again. At what point do we start to apply that kind of logic to people owning guns?

And to answer the post afterwards, I don't know if we should expect law enforcement to lock people up for online threats, but I do think that this kind of thing should absolutely get your guns taken away. Maybe I don't live in the kind of world where it's normal to threaten physical violence against people on Twitter, I dunno.

We don't. I've lost hope on this, and many other things about our nation. Once a shooting in an elementary school did nothing, why would anything ever change? Enough people in this country believe this is just the cost of freedom, that I have no hope.

Maybe we've gone so far off the rails and left reality with this presidential administration to the point that there will be pushback that actually fixes things, but I have little hope of this. Only sadness.

I've dealt with a lot of wacky pro se litigants. You really do get used to it. Most manage to stop short of specific threats, though I'm sure if someone took me out they'd find all this stuff and wonder why nobody "did anything". A lot of the stuff comes from prisons and I do send along the worst examples to the parole board. But I've also waded through a ton of delusional "Justice for X" type facebook pages from sovereign citizens and others who just feel absolutely wronged due to their misunderstanding of the process and their denial or ignorance about the harm they've caused.

finally, now I know what happened I've been watching CNN for an hour and still don't know what's going on.... CNN likes to talk talk talk about nothing why not go straight to the point and be a newsreader like they supposed to be.

If we can't restrict abusers from owning guns, can we at least take away their ability to own motorcycles and/or oversized pick up trucks?

+1

PS - For the record, like most kids from my era in England - I've fired guns (ranging from rifles to shotguns - pistols weren't common outside of BB guns when I was growing up) and used to be a reasonably decent shot when I was younger.

It's illegal for anyone convicted of domestic violence to purchase or possess a gun, even misdemeanor domestic violence.

So that designation becomes a huge battleground in red state courtrooms. Someone will be charged with domestic battery, they'll agree to plead to simple battery or disturbing the peace, to do jail time, to do 52 weeks of domestic violence counseling, agree to a non-contact order, etc., but if the prosecutor holds firm on a DV charge, they'll insist on a jury trial. And the victim shows up for that only sometimes, and the jury often acquits when there's no evidence of injury (as would be the case with a misdemeanor).

Interesting. Do you know if criminal harassment or stalking would fall under that?

There is a lot of attention on the big mass shootings but there are so many domestic shootings that take place that are ignored. An angry ex kills a family, ex's lover, etc. Many with restraining orders and histories of threats. Have to wonder if we started taking that stuff more seriously if we'd cut down on these kind of murders. When someone says they are going to kill someone and then go purchase a weapon, maybe take them at their word?


Not sure why people got upset about this. The President and governing political party has routinely either called for violence or insinuated such against the media. It's not a stretch to think someone has acted out on that.

Maybe we should. I've always thought it was weird that we decide that threats on the internet are fine but the minute you do it in public it's a different story.

I know the response is "there are so many" but maybe that's a result of it being legal (and encouraged by some social media outlets). A few high profile arrests and I guarantee that behavior changes.

Federal law bans people convicted of felonies and misdemeanor domestic batteries from owning or possessing guns. Criminal harassment and stalking are usually misdemeanors, so they wouldn't be covered by those federal provisions.

And it gets a little tricky when the domestic violence or felony is a state law crime. States have the authority to define their own crimes so they have the power to restore someone's gun rights after the sentence is completed or sometime later. And states vary widely on how they deal with that. But it's generally very difficult and takes many years, even in gun-friendly states.

Unless, of course, you look at the case & realize this guy has a specific beef with that specific newspaper dating back to when the current President was still best known as a TV host / real estate mogul.

I think we’re similar vintage, but never shot anything other than an air rifle at a fairground and a shotgun at a clay shoot. Terrible shot. Absolutely useless!

When travelling through Cambodia i had the opportunity to shoot a bazooka at cows and chickens - didn’t appeal at all. The only person who did was a Canadian lad who thought it was amazing. YMMV.

Not entirely sure what this has to do with anything, but seemed to fit when I started typing.

What is the purpose of firing a bazooka at cows?

I think it was supposed go be gratifying. Seemed kinda cruel to me. Was around $100 from memory

Being perhaps a similar/earlier vintage of Britisher, I've never fired a gun either. I have thrown a golf ball at a cow though.

I have fired shot guns. Im a terrible shot. Though I figured out why.

I have never cow tipped. My biggest regret growing up in Iowa.

I heard this from a colleague that was in the Marines back in the 80's. We were drinking so take it for what its worth.

He told me when he was posted in Hawaii, they went hog/boar hunting one time and killed one with a grenade.

The bazooka beats this though.

So Trump denied a request from Annapolis's mayor to lower American flags to half-staff in respect for the victims of the shootings there:


Attention Required! | Cloudflare

I kind of have to see a video of a cow getting hit with a rocket launcher. It's probably almost as good as that video where they tried to blow up the beached whale

Never mind

Likely fits better here than the Trump Thread, bit of discussion/comments there starting at Post 11290 by AlexB: The Trump Presidency – 2016 - Page 226 - Front Office Football Central

Here's an excerpt, might even be the full segment "Kinderguardians" referenced (not sure as i haven't seen the full episode)

Who Is America? (2018) | First Look | Sacha Baron Cohen SHOWTIME Series - YouTube




And i am sorry, but if in 2018 as a public figure you are too stupid/lazy/gullible to google "Rita Ora", "Blink 182" or "Wiz Khalifa" before claiming those as scientific terms supporting children's suitability to use guns, then that makes two reasons why you shouldn't be in any sort of position of influence.

Also, will people 100 years from now still fall for the "foreigner trying to speak english" act and assume that clever jabs are actually just him not grasping the language ? :D ("This segment would cause heads to explode in this country" /// "Why, because they will be shot ?" )

Looks like that is the whole segment: it certainly starts at the beginning of it, and the Blink 182 references etc were at the end.

Althought tbf, I did think the only shallow part of it was putting in pop culture references and using it to make fun of old dudes. I happened to know the artists referred to, but there’s a hell of a lot of chart artists I’ve never heard of, and I find it very easy to believe that someone with 30-40 years on me wouldn’t have the foggiest who these people were.

They were doing a good enough job of making themselves look like tits without this cheap ‘look they don’t know about Wiz Khalifa!’ aspect being thrown in, it wasn’t necessary, and arguably undermined the rest of the piece, as it showed that these people were prepared to read/endorse anything in front of them if they thought they would get some money for it (which I’m assuming that they were expecting from lobbyists)

My point is more along the lines that you shouldn't agree to speak on camera about a grave issue like this without checking the content, simply because you are so damn eager to further your agenda. I almost never have an issue with someone not knowing something, i do have an issue with people not being bothered to check facts.

Agreed, but throwing that in shifts the focus a little from ‘what these guys won’t do to defend guns’ to ‘what these guys won’t do for money’

I think that entire segment simply shows that NRA shills will do and say LITERALLY anything for the cause - the Blink 182 stuff is meaningless, the fact he willingly held up guns with cuddly toys on them and encouraged kids 4-12 to use them is shocking ...

Incidentally apparently the age range was chosen on purpose because the Gun rights activists killed a bill which would have made it illegal for kids that age to own and use guns.

Viriginian newspaper write up

I'm not shocked in the slightest sadly. Outraged, sure. We're not very far removed from media and politicians on the right attacking students who were survivors of a school shooting for taking a political stance after their experience.

There is nothing that could happen now in this political environment that would shock me anymore. We're so fucked.

I am going to split this conversation to here for this one.



So 3D printing of guns is gonna be a thing now? In my line of work, I'll be honest, this scares the crap out of me. From a public safety standpoint, it's about 3 bridges too far. This in education, where not even metal detectors are gonna work, no registration, no documentation, is just unfathomable.



Email NOW: Stop the Threat of Downloadable Guns | Everytown for Gun Safety



Do-it-yourself, downloadable guns are incredibly dangerous. And a State Department special exemption would allow a company run by a self-proclaimed anarchist to post its gun blueprints online in the form of files that can be sent directly to a 3D printer to print guns on demand.

Even if you 3d print a gun. A polymer based on that passes through all metal detectors...Even if you made it with zero metal internals...which today that tech doesn't exist. But even if it did. What's it going to fire? A plastic bullet in a plastic jacket?

3D guns are supposed to contain at least a single piece of metal so that they do trip metal detectors. Metal detectors aren't really the concern, in my mind. It is again access to guns by people who shouldn't have them and once again find a way to get one around licensed sales.

I get that thought. But...a 3D printer capable of what we are talking is an investment of what, $3k in machine and consumables. Plus learning curve and time etc. When I can walk into any bad neighborhood within 100 miles of me and walk out with 25 guns for the same amount of money.


I just think we are a long way from that being a viable concern. I mean I guessif we are talking rich white kid outcast uses mommys credit card and orders 3d printer, prints gun and shoots up school...maybe in that instance the 3d printer is easier to obtain than black market guns.

I honestly think that's an incredibly near sighted sentiment CU. Thinking only on what the impact may be today clearly misses the possibilities it holds. The guy who runs the company putting these out is an anarchist. It doesn't take much creative thinking into the future to see where this tech goes. From an ethical standpoint, it's giving no concern to ideas that ai or human cloning might be bad for us while tacitly allowing unlimited development to continue.

Im not trying to be short sighted. This is just sensationalism to me. 3D printing is a buzz word and its new and unknown so it makes a great story.


I have a plasma table at my house. Ive had it for 12 years or so since back when I was building my first baja car. Its super easy to make some parts on it that arent mass produced or I didnt like the quality. I have maybe $8k in my plasma table. I can literally, today, download cad based files for numerous gun components or complete plans for assembly. I can walk into any of a dozen scrap metal places within 15 minutes of my house and buy metal and produce my own gun. This has literally been a possibility for 25+ years. This isnt new. Yes its a new process. But its not a new concept.


The truth of the matter is that firearm construction is still a skilled and complex process. I dont care what 3d print file you download. Its a huge leap from producing a resin product that resembles and gun and functions - to one that will actually fire a projectile without blowing up and killing the person holding it.


You may be only now becoming aware that possibility exists, but believe me it isnt a new possibility.

I would think 3D-printed guns would be less of a big deal in a country that already has readily-available guns and a gun culture, and where police and security personnel already have to assume that everyone's carrying a firearm.

But what will the impact be on countries without easy access to regular guns? Where criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill can more easily access weapons in a place where they hadn't before and where the government may not be as prepared to respond?

I think the concern would be a gang buys a 3D printer and just makes guns for everyone in it. These guns are disposable and untraceable.

All it takes is one kid in school who's parents own one for him to create guns for his classmates. And while it might be a hobby for the rich, prices will be coming down.

I do think there is some overreacting in the short term. The real thing is still incredibly easy to acquire and not terribly expensive. Gun trafficking is not a dangerous business as the feds are so lax on it that you'd think they support runners. So I don't see a real high demand for it in the short term.

Long term though, who knows? These machines will get more advanced and the price will drop to a point that most homes can afford them.

Hard resin ammo seems possible if not eventually preferable to metal.

Wired, put together a video about the tech, how it's done, and what they do. It's high level stuff, but again, we're talking about where this goes, not what will happen tomorrow, when it goes live and legal.

https://www.facebook.com/19440638720...5857759293721/

As far as schools go i imagine it isn't exactly impossible to conceive an enterprising 17 year old to figure out how to smuggle bullets into the school and then stash them.


Wait, are you asking people (and lawmakers) to be acting with foresight ? You silly man ;)

Interestingly, there is a 2014 Dok on Netflix (here at least) that details this "3D Gun" dilemma already as part of a more general view at the 3D printing industry and a look at some of the influential people and companies in it. "Print the Legend" it's called.

New and unknown? I work in a pretty low income school district and even our schools have multiple 3D printers. Our school alone has 5 for middle schoolers to use.

There are a lot of libraries now with 3d printers, too. They aren't difficult to find.

LOL, we are 3D printing organs and tissues in my lab. It's a little more than a "buzzword" and unknown.

Right. But the average person hasn't used a 3d printer. That was my point. I know they are out there.

Again plasma tables have been out there for Johnny homeowner for decades but that isn't a cool story.

I think you are incorrect. My daughter's school has one that the kids do STEM projects on (since she was in 2nd grade). You can get a good one super cheap, and anecdotally, I know of about 10 families on my street that have one (since they always ask me for tips). You can go on the internet and download a CAD model for just about anything, especially open source.

My son's high-school has several of the 3D printers too.

I guess my question is - its not just access to 3D printers, there are commerical ones and industrial ones. You also need to proper materials I think. Can a commercial printer really create a pistol/bullets and it be reliable & workable?

I lean more towards worrying about real firearms vs 3D printed ones right now.

It cant produce "bullets" that's a given. Now it could produce casings and tips. But you'd need to add gunpowder and you'd need to own a crimper to seal the casings. You'd also have to buy primers and load them into the printed casings.


There are polymer composite bullets on the market today. They still rely on a brass casing however. They also do not expand like lead so they are "safer" I suppose. They also will destroy (plug) the rifling on a standard gun.


Now it is worth noting that the DOD is using some polymer cased ammo currently. (polymer cased with lead projectile) With the intent being to reduce pack weight of ground troops. It has had mixed reviews and several deaths have been attributed to case failure. These are government contract bullets. Knock offs printed by little Eric in the high school library are likely even more susceptible to this. And again he has to take these composite cases and pour powder and hand seal them.


Ive hand reloaded for years because I enjoy it, again that isnt anything new - every competition target shooter has their own closely guarded secret recipe for accuracy - but its a slow tedious process. The least of my worries is that kids start shooting up more schools because they can hand load bullets and print guns.

But don't you think it would be wise to get out in front of the problem before the technology becomes common, cheaper, and easier to use?

Had we done the same with automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc...perhaps we wouldn't be seeing the mass casualties we are today.

I know little about firearms so I have no idea. I know that you can get some fairly strong plastic polymers that print easily and cheap, but I have no idea if they can withstand the forces needed.

Now in America, it's infinitely easier to go out and buy a gun than to manufacture something with a 3D printer, unless you are too young. If we think other places are not trying to innovate with what can be done and what cannot, I think that is foolish.

I guess I am just missing the correlation.


Bump Stocks werent a hidden thing. They were advertised in every magazine, online forum and gun shop you can imagine. It wasnt a surprise. When they were used for Las Vegas then outrage moved to get them legislated.


Automatic weapons are already blanketly illegal for everyone but a select few with super stringent licensure and background requirement that take ~1 year to complete.


So that I am not arguing the wrong point, what is your proposal?

That all 3d printers be banned since they could potentially produce a gun?


I guess that's what I am missing. Is it possible to 3d print a gun? yes.
It is also possible to cut and assemble one using metal working tools. And has been for decades yet it hasnt been a problem.


I guess its a different audience, more of the computer "gamer" kid crowd that will now have access as opposed to the "shop class" kid crowd. Is that the point of contention?


Please spell it out for me because I guess I am just to dense to read between the lines here.


What is the concern?

That's the point about bump stocks. Had they been legislated with some foresight perhaps the Las Vegas shooting doesn't happen or not to the magnitude it did.

Regarding the automatic weapons debate, it is semantics between what is an automatic weapon and what is semi automatic, etc...and is one the gun enthusiast always deflects to in an attempt to invalidate the argument from the other side. IMO any weapon that can fire multiple rounds in a short period of time needs to be regulated. I realize you do not agree, and never will, so the point is a moot one.

The concern isn't about what can be done with 3d printers today, its where the technology will advance to and the potential it has 5-10-15 years down the line.

As for what can be done, I'm honestly not sure. Perhaps make it illegal to distribute the plans online, obviously there is the dark web, etc...but it would be a start.

The concern is you have more unregistered and untraceable firearms accessible by those who shouldn't have them.

California has a law that requires the registration of homemade guns. That's a good start. Require registration and slap a serial number on a homemade gun.

I know the argument will be that anyone who wants to use it for a nefarious purpose won't register, but we continue to see data on background checks and other gun laws that show that people are either deterred from obtaining a gun or are denied from purchasing a gun due to regulation when they have barriers to entry. If you are a law abiding citizen who wants to make your own gun and register it, ok. Why should this be any different than buying a gun?

This seems like an easy call.

This is already a federal law regulated by the ATF.

It isnt semantics though.

Automatic :: Semi-automatic = Auto Transmission :: Manual Transmission


Here is the problem, as I see it. Its not that complex. Your average high school drafting student can create the files from scratch. I mean some of the high end biometrics grip angle and rise height(for lng guns) etc they might not have exact. But a gun is just as deadly with a 23 degree grip angle as a 90 degree in all but the longest of shots.

I personally agree with most of this. Where we may differ is the degree of regulation. There is definitely room for more registration, restrictions, and background checks.

Also, the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic is important IMO. As said somewhere else, if gun-control proponents can't use the terms properly, it hurts the credibility of the conversation (what other terms won't they use properly). The definition also will define the "scope" of whatever gun legislation there is and hence also important.

In another thread I posted about going shooting with my son. We had a conversation where I could give him the AR-15 and most states don't need a registration. I disagree with this, I do think it should be registered in his name.


I'm like you. I think we know it will eventually be a threat so maybe start thinking about how to mitigate it.

I think my concern is

1) Although 3D printing of guns/bullets is not a problem now
2) I can forsee where it will become a problem in the future (e.g. as technology gets better, as it becomes more mainstream etc.)
3) When this happens, there will be bad and good guys that could create guns that are not traceable, used for crime etc.
4) Therefore, start thinking about how to restrict access/creation of guns with 3D printers

If your question is how to do this ... I don't know but would assume better minds can come up with a good start.

Possibly, the lazy answer may be is let the more gun-control countries (e.g. EU countries) take the lead as I wouldn't be surprised if they have to deal with that issue earlier than us since we have so many readily available conventional weapons already.

As I understand the federal regulation, it only requires registration if there is intent to sell.

Well that's sort of the basis for the discussion. The State Department, as of tomorrow, will allow the publishing of blueprints online for the purpose of distribution and personal manufacture of completely untrackable, untraceable guns. You can't come up with a discussion about it after the fact. Once this cat is approved, and out of the bag, it's going to be exponentially harder to deal with. The threats from it will multiply within a decade and we'll look back and go "well there's nothing we can do now"


As for the first 3d gun. From what I can tell, the entire gun is 3d printed, no metal. It looks to use printed springs to throw the slug out. While it's not a conventional weapon, the fact that it is lethal at all, makes it a threat for all sorts of situations, like my job.

I'm just worried that the next Stephen Paddock type shitbag with a little bit of money will be able to fairly easily convert his AR15s into 3 round burst rifles with a little bit of 3D printing. I know it's not super easy to do but the amount of parts that should become available will spiral out of control. I mean you're never probably going to be able to print a rifled barrel but the trigger mechanism surely could be altered fairly sufficiently with some blueprints

I have mixed feelings about this, honestly. I've seen the documentary about the anarchist, and he makes some pretty compelling arguments (about gun control legislation and money in politics created by a false scarcity...i.e., it's just another way the Man grinds us down).

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of a government banning ideas (or instructions about how to carry out ideas) in the name of public safety. Sure, guns seem like an easy mark...but what about if there was a technology that would let us mass-produce reliable pharmaceuticals or food items or (merely) desirable commodities easily and cheaply. I can foresee lots of folks who would be deeply interested in suppressing those in order to protect wealth mechanisms, and they'd do it in the name of national security (economy).

But then again, I've spent a lot of time reading Charlie Stross, too. I'm not sure the current model of Western democracy as it's currently constituted (and economically entangled) would survive a singularity scenario and the end of need/want.


In the same documentary, referenced above, I believe he'd gotten up to 500 rounds before the printed receiver cracked (in an AR-15 platform). He was disappointed and had decided to move on to printing large capacity magazines as a better way to get his point across. I've got rifles that I've owned for years that don't have 500 rounds through them (or even 100). That's not bad for a couple bucks in print media.

In a world where we're being increasingly told that we can't even presume pronouns and its our responsibility to educate ourselves about these things if we want to participate in the conversation or comment on legislative proposals (to pick just one progressive issue), I agree that it's not just a semantics issue.

I know this outrages demfolk (with whom I largely self-identify, in fact) because it seems like pointless pedantry when *lives of children are on the line!!!!#@$@#*** but dems get almighty stupid about this sort of shit. Precision of language is important or its not. You don't get to pick and choose which issues get to claim precision and which don't.

We (dems) tend not to realize that we sound just as stupid when we dismiss this topic as unworthy of precision as we imagine the small town cowlick sounds when they walk into a Starbucks and moan about people who can't just order coffee. I mean, it's all fucking coffee, you know? Anything else you call it is just semantics.

ETA: Any for anybody who wants to make the point that coffee never killed anybody, so it's an invalid analogy. You, sir, have not seen my fucking prostate, so fuck off. ;)

So, it's a slingshot?

(That's a serious question, btw. The documentary I watched was just printing the lower/receiver on an AR-15 because you can't expect a plastic/polymer to withstand the 20k pounds of pressure in that first fraction of a second generated by modern ammunition. If it's spring driven, then it's not really a firearm. Doesn't mean it's not lethal...but, hell, you can add powerful springs to Nerf guns without 3D printing.)

Sorry for the dolaposts. I'm catching up after a long couple of days.