3D Printed Gun

[Tsukiyumi]

I don't see how you can see inspections to ensure safe storage of weapons as "unreasonable". Does the US have regular mandatory inspections of motor vehicles (which seem to me to count as "effects") to ensure their safety. If so, what's the difference?

If you'd like, I can direct you to a number of Supreme Court cases that define this in more detail. The government can require you to get a vehicle inspected, and get it registered, but they can't search it (or otherwise lay hands on it) unless very specific conditions are met. This goes double for homes.

Again, if someone's such a paranoid fuckwit that they think a basic safety inspection is worth a firefight over, do you think it's a good idea for them to possess firearms?

Said inspection would be a violation of privacy, and personal property rights. If the government decided to ignore the Constitution and start marching into people's homes, the paranoia would be perfectly justified. Try again.

Absolutely. Proper background and mental health checks (of everyone in the household, not just the license-holder) of all owners are at least as important as checking storage arrangements.

Census is voluntary; there's no database of who lives where. I do agree with the principal of the concept, though.

I also have no problem with required safety and tactical training for gun ownership; there's little point owning one if you just blow your own foot off when people break into your house.

[Captain Seafort]

Why does AP ammo keep coming up (in gun discussions in general)? You can't buy that without a Class III license.

Why on Earth would you want AP ammo, short of starting a war?

Basically, the 2nd is there to give the government pause at least when it tries to get oppressive and uppity.

Then its obsolete. If you want to know what happens when someone's private army, even with mortars, SAMs and RPGs, tries to take on a proper military, see Northern Ireland. The Provos got pasted, even with the army taking a softly-softly approach.

Mag limits are asinine.

What use, exactly, is a magazine with 15-20 rounds for personal defence or hunting? If you need to fire that many rounds then you either shouldn't have any weapons, because you can't shoot straight, or you're up against so many people that you're fucked regardless.

So is banning weapons based on cosmetic features; it has no bearing on public safety.

If this is about pistol grips and bayonet lugs, then I agree.

[Captain Seafort]

The government can require you to get a vehicle inspected, and get it registered, but they can't search it.

Then lay down stringent limitations for safety inspections: they can check that the armoury cupboard is approved for the weapons it holds, is properly installed, and is out of casual sight, but that's it. If the fuckwits kick up a real stink, fall back on requiring said storage to be installed by government-approved tradesmen, and require documentation that purchase and installation of appropriate storage has been competed before weapons can be handed over.

If the government decided to ignore the Constitution and start marching into people's homes, the paranoia would be perfectly justified.

Checking that weapons are stored appropriately is no different from ensuring that vehicles are safe to drive.

Census is voluntary; there's no database of who lives where.

Then make it mandatory if they want a firearm

I do agree with the principal of the concept, though.

Out of curiosity, why on Earth do these loopholes for private sales even exist?

[Tsukiyumi]

Why on Earth would you want AP ammo, short of starting a war?

I don't. The dealers that sell it to law enforcement and the military still need to legally possess it, though, or we'd be kinda fucked when a war does start.

Then its obsolete. If you want to know what happens when someone's private army, even with mortars, SAMs and RPGs, tries to take on a proper military, see Northern Ireland. The Provos got pasted, even with the army taking a softly-softly approach.

I'll direct you to Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the current conflict in Syria as a counter-point. The first three ground the US army to a halt, and the citizens of the fantastically awesome and free United States of America are way better armed, trained and have a distinct home field advantage. Keep in mind that many of the nations 80+ million gun owners are ex-military. I don't have figures on hand for just how many, but I'd wager it's a lot. Factor in the massive defection rate of soldiers violating Posse Comitatus by deploying against American citizens on American soil, and... well. Let's say it doesn't end well for Washington DC.

What use, exactly, is a magazine with 15-20 rounds for personal defence or hunting? If you need to fire that many rounds then you either shouldn't have any weapons, because you can't shoot straight, or you're up against so many people that you're fucked regardless.

Nonsense. Did you read my previous post, or just skim it?
A) in a mass shooting scenario, the reload time is irrelevant; makes the point moot.
B) in a home invasion, five unarmed guys could probably beat me to death - If I'm armed and they aren't, 30 rounds equals six rounds per intruder; enough to ensure that they are no longer a threat. People don't die from a single gunshot unless it's extremely well-placed, and under stress, even the best can miss. If they are also armed, we have a shootout in CQ and the odds are good that they'd run for it. Statistically, that seems to be the case. Basically, unarmed = fucked Armed = having a chance.
C) if we don't need it, private security and police don't either, using the same logic. They are civilians as well, and should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

If this is about pistol grips and bayonet lugs, then I agree.

Yes, precisely. The majority of basic functions of the weapon are the same; just because it looks "scary" is not a valid reason to ban it.

[Tsukiyumi]

Then lay down stringent limitations for safety inspections: they can check that the armoury cupboard is approved for the weapons it holds, is properly installed, and is out of casual sight, but that's it. If the fuckwits kick up a real stink, fall back on requiring said storage to be installed by government-approved tradesmen, and require documentation that purchase and installation of appropriate storage has been competed before weapons can be handed over.

Again, I'm chalking this up to a lack of understanding about US law, particularly the Fourth. They can't come into my house to check if I'm storing my cleaning chemicals safely either; if my kid drinks the bleach, that's my fault, and I'd be held to account. I cannot make this any more plain: the government cannot just come into people's homes. They can and do regulate how you can carry or transport firearms in public, but in your own home, you can have them taped under tables, or just have a big damn basket of them sitting in the foyer with "please take one" taped to it. We take our personal privacy very seriously, as well we should.

Checking that weapons are stored appropriately is no different from ensuring that vehicles are safe to drive.

Except that they don't come into your home to do that, as has been pointed out.

Then make it mandatory if they want a firearm

The Census is understaffed and underfunded as is; we do a check every decade for God's sake.
A) where does this money magically come from?
B) the data would be horribly out of date.

Out of curiosity, why on Earth do these loopholes for private sales even exist?

Okay, this one is tricky. Gun shows require dealers to use background checks, but not private sellers for some damn reason. Person-to-person sales should only require one if you aren't selling to your uncle, or a guy you've known for 20 years - but frankly, I'm fine with it if they did. This one is a melon-scratcher even for me, and I think gun ownership and training should be mandatory for the majority of people.

[Captain Seafort]

I don't. The dealers that sell it to law enforcement and the military still need to legally possess it, though, or we'd be kinda fucked when a war does start.

Then take it in-house.

I'll direct you to Vietnam

Won, then fucked off and the North Vietnamese regulars drove in with tanks.

Afghanistan

Winning. Whether the ANSF can keep winning after withdrawal is another matter.

Iraq

Won. Left behind a democracy of dubious quality, but won.

current conflict in Syria as a counter-point

Assad is still in Damascus, and showing no signs of leaving any time soon.

the citizens of the fantastically awesome and free United States of America are way better armed, trained and have a distinct home field advantage.

Really? So current US firearms legislation permits assault rifles, machine guns, mortars and RPGs does it? On top of that, how exactly do you expect a militia even with all that lot to take on Abrams, MLRS and F-22s?

Nonsense. Did you read my previous post, or just skim it?
A) in a mass shooting scenario, the reload time is irrelevant; makes the point moot.

It makes the bugger lug more magazines round with him, and if someone walks into a shop and asks for a dozen magazines I would hope the owner would smell a rat.

B) in a home invasion, five unarmed guys could probably beat me to death - If I'm armed and they aren't, 30 rounds equals six rounds per intruder; enough to ensure that they are no longer a threat. People don't die from a single gunshot unless it's extremely well-placed, and under stress, even the best can miss.

As you say further down, if you start shooting back then they're almost certainly going to run. If they don't, then I don't see how anything short of an automatic weapon is going to make a difference.

If they are also armed, we have a shootout in CQ and the odds are good that they'd run for it. Statistically, that seems to be the case. Basically, unarmed = fucked Armed = having a chance.

I'm not talking about armed vs unarmed here. I'm talking about a revolver vs an extended Glock-19

if we don't need it, private security and police don't either, using the same logic. They are civilians as well, and should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us

Absolutely. Frankly, I'm not much happier about the plod having firearms than I am the general public.

[Captain Seafort]

Again, I'm chalking this up to a lack of understanding about US law, particularly the Fourth. They can't come into my house to check if I'm storing my cleaning chemicals safely either; if my kid drinks the bleach, that's my fault, and I'd be held to account. I cannot make this any more plain: the government cannot just come into people's homes. They can and do regulate how you can carry or transport firearms in public, but in your own home, you can have them taped under tables, or just have a big damn basket of them sitting in the foyer with "please take one" taped to it. We take our personal privacy very seriously, as well we should.

Then you're all bonkers IMNSHO. These aren't cleaning chemicals, they're fucking firearms for Christ's sake. The notion that the government isn't permitted to inspect their storage arrangements to ensure they're under lock and key strikes me as utterly insane.

What about Plan B then? No evidence of proper storage = no gun.

The Census is understaffed and underfunded as is; we do a check every decade for God's sake.
A) where does this money magically come from?
B) the data would be horribly out of date.

Do it as part of the background and medical checks.

Okay, this one is tricky. Gun shows require dealers to use background checks, but not private sellers for some damn reason. Person-to-person sales should only require one if you aren't selling to your uncle, or a guy you've known for 20 years - but frankly, I'm fine with it if they did. This one is a melon-scratcher even for me, and I think gun ownership and training should be mandatory for the majority of people.

Translation: fuck knows. Fair enough.

Any idea why the loonies have been whinging about it?

[McAvoy]

You are stuck with this home inspection thing. Hardly anyone checks peoples homes unless they made a reason for it. Cops do not go into homes without either being invited or they have a warrant. They are the ones with authority. These so called fuckwits are probably the average Joe who just wants a gun for whatever reason and doesn't want someone in his house.

I mean going inside someone's house to inspect something is dangerously close to a police state. What is next? Making sure there are rounded bumpers on every corner? All cleaning supplies are locked? No drugs in the house? If you can create a law that allows a cop or an authority than you just given up your own rights to privacy.

Cars are inspected at a station, not at the home. People take their cars there. It is the most efficient and cost effective way to do that.

Oh and the percent of former military is either 7% or 17%. Can't remember which off hand.

[stitch626]

I think even attempting to ban what is currently legal is not an option

It depends on how you define that. I agree that an outright ban of all firearms is unenforceable, short of a Base Delta Zero from the Rio Grande to the St Lawrence, but banning certain categories (high-capacity magazines, AP ammunition, etc) shouldn't be a problem.

Sorry what I meant is that Congress would never agree on what to do, they have a hard enough time with things they agree on.

Its not an option because of Congress, not because of the effects it will have.

[Captain Seafort]

Sorry what I meant is that Congress would never agree on what to do, they have a hard enough time with things they agree on.

Its not an option because of Congress, not because of the effects it will have.

The BDZ would still solve the problem.

[Tsukiyumi]

I don't. The dealers that sell it to law enforcement and the military still need to legally possess it, though, or we'd be kinda fucked when a war does start.

Then take it in-house.

I actually don't disagree with you on that, but that smacks of so-called "Socialism" and hurts the free market. Political non-starter. Remember, we do vote in our officials over here. Not sure what y'all do.

Vietnam

Won, then fucked off and the North Vietnamese regulars drove in with tanks.

Otherwise known as "American body count was astronomical by the standards of the day, so we gave up, AKA lost"

Afghanistan

Winning. Whether the ANSF can keep winning after withdrawal is another matter.

When we leave, the Taliban just move back in. That is a loss, as in "we did nothing, and failed our main objectives - but at least they have nice road."

Iraq

Won. Left behind a democracy of dubious quality, but won.

We left without accomplishing our nebulous goals. The country is in shambles, and we made no gains either strategic or ideological. Loss.

current conflict in Syria as a counter-point

Assad is still in Damascus, and showing no signs of leaving any time soon.

The Syrians are a bunch of undisciplined, underfunded rabble who had no access to firearms at the start of the conflict. Where'd those come from? Defections and 'battlefield upgrades', as well as outside support.

the citizens of the fantastically awesome and free United States of America are way better armed, trained and have a distinct home field advantage.

Really? So current US firearms legislation permits assault rifles, machine guns, mortars and RPGs does it? On top of that, how exactly do you expect a militia even with all that lot to take on Abrams, MLRS and F-22s?

[/quote]

The sheer amount of guns, ammo and trained operators in the private sector puts the odds squarely in favor of the populace. Where do you think the logistical base for those planes and tanks are? Here. Impossible to effectively guard them from attack 24/7 when you're bombing your own populace. Add mass defections, and IEDs, no. The people still win that fight.

It makes the bugger lug more magazines round with him, and if someone walks into a shop and asks for a dozen magazines I would hope the owner would smell a rat.

Again, I'll forgive your ignorance of firearms, as you live in a country where it is highly unlikely that you've ever used one. Magazines don't weigh that much without the ammo. More magazines = a couple of pounds of weight and a total of a few seconds of delay for reload. If a guy can lug 300 rounds in 10 30-round mags, he can do the same with 30 10-round mags. And, you can just buy them over a longer period of time - no suspicion at all.

As you say further down, if you start shooting back then they're almost certainly going to run. If they don't, then I don't see how anything short of an automatic weapon is going to make a difference.

Because if they don't run, you want the best chance of survival possible. Which would be increased if you have more ammo at hand. Same logic that goes for military pinned down in CQB goes for civilians; more bullets equals a better chance.

I'm not talking about armed vs unarmed here. I'm talking about a revolver vs an extended Glock-19

See above.

Absolutely. Frankly, I'm not much happier about the plod having firearms than I am the general public.

It's a big slippery slope when it comes to the 'arms war' between criminals and cops. I think, and I believe statistics can back me on the concept that fear of immediate death is the best deterrent to crime possible. We may have more gun deaths than you, as a consequence of, well, actually owning guns, but our overall crime rate is much lower per capita.

Question for you, Seafort, as a personal opinion: would you say that the higher street crime rates are the price you have to pay for living in a civilized society with strictly limited gun ownership?

[Tsukiyumi]

Then you're all bonkers IMNSHO. These aren't cleaning chemicals, they're fucking firearms for Christ's sake. The notion that the government isn't permitted to inspect their storage arrangements to ensure they're under lock and key strikes me as utterly insane.

What about Plan B then? No evidence of proper storage = no gun.

Well, most of us think the idea of a government being able to waltz into people's homes to ensure, well, anything, is batshit insane.

Plan B sounds fine, so long as people can just show proof of purchase for a gun lock or safe, and take some pictures or some such. In the end, it's up to the individual to ensure safety of anything from cleaning chemicals to firearms. We also value personal freedom/responsibility. Some of us, anyways.

The Census is understaffed and underfunded as is; we do a check every decade for God's sake.
A) where does this money magically come from?
B) the data would be horribly out of date.

Do it as part of the background and medical checks.

Again, no funding. Our roads and bridges are falling apart from lack of maintenance, just as an example; the funding for such a thing would be much better spent on urgent national priorities.

Okay, this one is tricky. Gun shows require dealers to use background checks, but not private sellers for some damn reason. Person-to-person sales should only require one if you aren't selling to your uncle, or a guy you've known for 20 years - but frankly, I'm fine with it if they did. This one is a melon-scratcher even for me, and I think gun ownership and training should be mandatory for the majority of people.

Translation: fuck knows. Fair enough.

Any idea why the loonies have been whinging about it?

[/quote]

The actual loonies on the right are just using this as a political item, just as the left is doing.

[Deepcrush]

Fair enough. I still say that with competent storage those incidents would never have happened.

Which would require storage laws, very similar to what we have for passenger safety in cars. However the NRA tried twice to put this to vote in the 80's and it was put down.

Every part of this thread where people objected to regulating or restricting private ownership of firearms. The illness is the US obsession with weapons.

Now you're flat out lying. You're statement directly pointed to giving up on treating illnesses. Now, assuming we just go with your doubling back on your own statement again, then treating the issues of firearms vs trying to ban them or just ignore them would be fine. However to the obsession bit, its more likely that the US has an obsession with defense. Seeing how that mentality has saved Europe twice and the whole world once over. Its a rather useful tool to have around.

Rate, stupid.

Rates are effected by population and density there of, ignoring the factors involved turns a comment maker into just another troll. Also, I don't count you as stupid so much as poorly educated and likely a below average intelligence. However that is something that a high school diploma should be able to fix.

So your cops aren't perfect. No-one is. This is not an argument in favour of vigilante justice, but to keep working on LE.

Vigilante justice isn't the problem, the FBI rated that only 6% of all crimes (2011) involving firearms were committed by registered firearms owners. Around 4% of those overall were violent crimes. This according to the FBI oversight conference. Now they stated that there was a 2% margin of error up or down because not everything will be reported or reported correctly. Still it points to an issue of unregistered USERS with and uneducated public and not the firearms themselves.

On top of that, the vast majority of registered users are in low crime areas. Largely because people who are involved in crime would rather not have to risk getting shot. For the average civilian a firearm won't ever save you, in fact you're likely to never draw the weapon in the first place across your life time. But much like how England uses its police force, its not about stopping crime but more of a determent of crime. The existence of the threat is enough to cause the trouble makers to go look for easier targets.

Now lastly is the working on LE part. This would be a great idea, we (in the field of course) would love nothing more then too see a boost in LE. Not just in numbers but in training and equipment and public support. The problem is that the places we get the most support from are generally the areas that need us the least. The areas that need the help, mostly urban or extreme left wing, do all they can to keep LE away. So when you have areas like that which are also pro-crime when it comes to movements of laws there is very little we can do about it. They get what they vote for and part of our oath of service is to provide according to the elected results by the civilian population. If they are happy to just live in that life style, then there's nothing we can do about it. We have to try to be happy by keeping the problems from spreading to the more civilized areas of the country.

[Captain Seafort]

Otherwise known as "American body count was astronomical by the standards of the day, so we gave up, AKA lost"

You failed to support S Vietnam after withdrawing, which led to the N Vietnamese regular army rolling in, but when you withdrew the Viet Cong had been utterly defeated, and didn't come back.

When we leave, the Taliban just move back in.

More likely they'll have de facto control of the south and the Afghan government will have de facto control of the north.

we did nothing, and failed our main objectives

Your main objective was to bring bin Laden to justice. Yes, you failed, but killing him was a pretty good consolation prize.

We left without accomplishing our nebulous goals. The country is in shambles, and we made no gains either strategic or ideological. Loss.

After initial gross incompetence you managed to smash the insurgency and brought violence down to a manageable level.

The Syrians are a bunch of undisciplined, underfunded rabble who had no access to firearms at the start of the conflict. Where'd those come from? Defections and 'battlefield upgrades', as well as outside support.

And despite all that they're showing no signs of getting any further.

The sheer amount of guns, ammo and trained operators in the private sector puts the odds squarely in favor of the populace.

Wrong. The fact that the military has massively superior firepower means they win. Semi automatic rifles cannot compete with air power and MLRS.

Where do you think the logistical base for those planes and tanks are? Here. Impossible to effectively guard them from attack 24/7 when you're bombing your own populace.

Assad is doing well enough even with a far closer balance of available firepower

Add mass defections

Translation: The "overthrow tyranny" view of the second amendment is utter bollocks because any insurgency would rely on the military defecting rather than on mass public ownership of firearms.

Again, I'll forgive your ignorance of firearms, as you live in a country where it is highly unlikely that you've ever used one.

Seven years in the ATC, firing L98A1 and No. 8 regularly.

Because if they don't run, you want the best chance of survival possible. Which would be increased if you have more ammo at hand. Same logic that goes for military pinned down in CQB goes for civilians; more bullets equals a better chance.

And as I said, if they don't run then without an automatic weapon (or something more useful, like a cricket bat), you're fucked.

Question for you, Seafort, as a personal opinion: would you say that the higher street crime rates are the price you have to pay for living in a civilized society with strictly limited gun ownership?

I don't see it as a binary choice at all, but if it were, then yes, with the key added benefit of having a fraction of your murder rate.

[Captain Seafort]

In the end, it's up to the individual to ensure safety of anything from cleaning chemicals to firearms.

Most individuals are idiots. If every car owner is required to produce documentary evidence that a professional has checked their vehicle to ensure it meets minimum standards to drive safely then requiring every gun owner to produce documentary evidence that a professional has checked their storage arrangements to ensure they meet minimum standards to stop any random thief waltzing in and grabbing them should be a shoe-in.

the funding for such a thing would be much better spent on urgent national priorities.

Bringing down your astronomical murder rate is an urgent national priority.