Beyond the Liberator: A 3D-Printed Plastic 9mm Semi-Auto Pistol 295
Profiled at Ars Technica is the (mostly) 3D-printed semi-auto pistol design from a West Virginia maker known as Derwood. The PLA-based design, which Derwood calls the Shuty MP-1, isn't quite all-plastic; like others that are roughly similar, it utilizes metal for a few parts that aren't practical in plastic. (Ars says just the barrel and springs, but it looks like metal is used for the guide rod and an internal plate, as well as for the screws that hold the whole thing together.) The core of the gun is a lower that bears a strong resemblance to an AR-15's, but the assembled gun looks to me more like a Skorpion submachine gun. Unlike Cody Wilson's single-shot Liberator pistol (mentioned here a few times before), the design files are not available for download -- at least not yet: "Not long," Derwood writes in a comment on a YouTube video of the pistol's assembly.
How is this newsworthy? (Score:5, Insightful)
But wait, 3D printing!!!
Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, which parts are "important"?
For someone trying to make an all-3d-printed gun (perhaps to prove or improve the technology), it's the barrel, chamber, firing pin, and so on, the functional bits that are placed under the most stress. For them, using metal, particularly finely-machined metal parts, quite defeats the purpose. The only parts they might even consider making out of metal would be the ones plastic is literally unable to do, like the firing pin or springs - and even then, they'd try to make it out of some simple, readily-available part you can find at Home Depot.
For someone trying to bypass firearms laws, the important part is whichever one is legally deemed the "firearm", usually the receiver. You can buy barrels, recoil springs, magazines, grips, sights, and all sorts of other fiddly bits as spare parts, which are legally no different than a spare tire for your car. If you designed a 3d-printed receiver that worked with existing spare parts, you've worked around those pesky laws. (I personally find that law, at least, to be quite reasonable, but some people seem to want to work around it as a matter of principle).
And of course, to the person who's actually interested in shooting guns, rather than writing angry comments about them on the internet, the important part is whatever breaks most readily on your particular gun and needs replacement. I expect historical firearms shooters would be quite interested in being able to print parts once considered disposable, or which frequently are damaged, like clips. Or better yet, print brass casings for all those guns whose cartridges are no longer produced. There are many, many guns in collections that can't be fired not because they are old or damaged, but because the ammunition is so scarce. (There are many more problems than just forming the brass, obviously, and I don't think 3D-printing is a particularly good solution for it, but maybe I'm wrong and 3D printing will eventually help).
Re: (Score:3)
For someone trying to bypass firearms laws, the important part is whichever one is legally deemed the "firearm", usually the receiver. You can buy barrels, recoil springs, magazines, grips, sights, and all sorts of other fiddly bits as spare parts, which are legally no different than a spare tire for your car. If you designed a 3d-printed receiver that worked with existing spare parts, you've worked around those pesky laws. (I personally find that law, at least, to be quite reasonable, but some people seem to want to work around it as a matter of principle).
How is followign the law trying to bypass a firearm law? While making for your own self is legal, it is NOT legal if you are a "prohibited person" when it comes to firearm ownership.
And of course, to the person who's actually interested in shooting guns, rather than writing angry comments about them on the internet, the important part is whatever breaks most readily on your particular gun and needs replacement. I expect historical firearms shooters would be quite interested in being able to print parts once considered disposable, or which frequently are damaged, like clips. Or better yet, print brass casings for all those guns whose cartridges are no longer produced. There are many, many guns in collections that can't be fired not because they are old or damaged, but because the ammunition is so scarce. (There are many more problems than just forming the brass, obviously, and I don't think 3D-printing is a particularly good solution for it, but maybe I'm wrong and 3D printing will eventually help).
Forming brass is trivial if there is a suitable parent case. Suitable can mean "same diameter rim and case head size and perfectly straight". Of course you need accurate case dimensions but you can cast the chamber and take measurements if you have something totally unknown, and then have a custom set of forming and reloading
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also known as a hand grenade, with a slight difference to the usual meaning of the term in it blowing up the hard of the person firing it. ABS plastic is a worse choice than many types of wood for the bits that have to deal with high pressure gas.
Laser metal sintering is looking like a different story since it's getting close to zero porosity - so none of those holes that plagued cannon builders over the ages. Any gun small enough has been made out of forged
Re: (Score:3)
Firearm law avoidance, like tax avoidance, is not illegal activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Or better yet, print brass casings for all those guns whose cartridges are no longer produced.
But we're nowhere near being able to do that cost-effectively. For any significant number of casings it would literally be cheaper to go back into production on them. That will be true for the foreseeable future since 3d printers physically do not make the kind of structures wanted.
Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score:5, Informative)
we will be at the point every robber in Canada will be armed with these and the government will have little choice but to give us the right to bear any arms
Governments don't give rights, they either protect them, or they infringe upon them. What you're looking for is the Canadian government ceasing to infringe on that right.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but oftentimes they protect some people's rights by infringing on other people's rights. It's only as simple as you make it sound when there's no conflicting interests. Which there are lots and lots of in any decent sized and reasonably diverse group.
Re:How is this newsworthy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not there are conflicting interests doesn't change the fact that the rights don't originate with the government.
Re: How is this newsworthy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. The only right that exists naturally is "might is right". Everything else comes from a society.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. The only right that exists naturally is "might is right". Everything else comes from a society.
Amen! The idea of "natural rights" is a stupid one. There are no such things, precisely as you say. That's why society is important, but this escapes many people who think they are an island and thus that socialism is a bad word.
Re: (Score:3)
Amen! The idea of "natural rights" is a stupid one. There are no such things, precisely as you say. That's why society is important
This completely sidesteps the point. Would you rather live in a society that defines such rights as "natural rights" untouchable by government, or one that would allow government give or take away "rights" as it pleases?
Socialism, by and large, is a bad word. Even in those countries which have made a modicum of "socialism" actually work, like the Scandinavian countries, are not as "socialist" as many Americans seem to think. Look up Sweden, Denmark, and Norway in the Economic Freedom Index. In many ways
Re: (Score:3)
Are you insane. Plenty rights are natural. I use the "alone in a forest" test. Is it something you can do when you're alone in the forest? Yes, it's a natural right and the only way you don't have it is if somebody stops you from doing it.
That's not a right, that's just physics. Don't get it twisted. Rights are conventions that humans have invented. Physics just happens.
Re: (Score:2)
You, my anonymous friend, are on the way to enlightenment. Stay the course.
Re: How is this newsworthy? (Score:2)
If you have a better way to fund a developed nation with all the advantages you take for granted feel free to offer an alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments don't give rights...
I think you would be taken more serious if you didn't simply issue this kind of dogmatic crap. Basically, you only have a 'right' to something if you are able to hold on to it; if you want to live in a society - or any group - your right are limited by what that group allows you. You can leave the group if that doesn't suit you; but to be part of the group and enjoy the benefits of it, you have to accept the limits imposed by the relationship with the group. You may think that picking up arms is a way to ta
Re: How is this newsworthy? (Score:2)
Have you ever driven in a country where most drivers haven't had to pass a test? It's very scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Oooh, drama.
Re: (Score:3)
The important bit there is the barrel, by far the hardest thing to make by hand. The barrel is not considered to be "the gun", and you can buy it online without any regulation. If you can then print a decent lower at home, you have your own firearm.
Not that there's anything wrong with having a firearm, of course. If you really want one, you can build a shotgun out of $30 worth of parts from your local Home Depot.
Re: (Score:2)
I can literally buy a real gun for less than the price of a 3d printer any time I want one. The people that like to do these designs do it mainly for the cool factor or just to piss off all the anti-gun people. Maye both reasons for some.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course for this design you'll still need a barrel, wh
Re: (Score:2)
I will be making one for two reasons:
0. Because I can, as an intellectual exercise.
1. So that I can do it again, if needed, lest my government believe it can actually oppress me even further than it does now, and personally so.
In the Line of Fire (Score:2)
Will that one work?
If you wanted to get 3D printing regulated (Score:3)
You can't even do the barrel and ABS plastic is far less suitable for the other parts than even most hardwoods so it's stirring up hysteria over nothing IMHO.
Will we see fuss about dremel made guns next?
ITAR (Score:2)
Posting the files is a federal crime.
Second Amendment does not apply.
Certain federal agencies may have already paid a visit
Here's the thing... (Score:2)
We keep hearing about these interesting 3D-printed firearms, and the limitation is always along the lines of "everything works except the barrel, which blows up after X number of shots." The Shuty in the article uses a Glock barrel and other parts to get around this.
It seems that the obvious thing to do would be to design a firearm kit - a series of parts that you could combine with a standard item or two (a steel tube that you could buy anywhere and convert to a barrel with minimal work, plus a breech). In
Guns save lives (Score:3, Insightful)
Guns save lives - Thomas Sowell
http://www.creators.com/opinio... [creators.com]
Summary: in the US, where there are around 300 million personal firearms.
There are around 30,000 firearms deaths per year. 20,000 firearms deaths are self-inflicted (suicide) and would occur whether firearms were available for self-defense or not. of other the 10,000 firearms deaths, many are gang violence. However, set against the 10,000 non-suicide gun deaths is around 100,000 violence crimes prevented by citizens. In many cases the firearm is not discharged, the mere presentation is enough to deter the crime.
In cases such as a string 26-year old male attacker who waited for the family to go out the only defense a 12-year old girl had against rape and possibly murder at the hands of the much-stronger attacker was the pink rifle her father had given her. She was able to stop the attacker in her home and drive him off. And there are many, many similar cases like this.
Whether or not you believe citizens have a right to self-defense - or if you think it is somehow morally superior' to be defenseless and slaughtered like sheep either by criminals that don't obey gun control laws; or by any of the mass-murdering Governments (National Socialism, Soviet Socialism, Chinese Socialism, North Korean Socialism, Cuban Socialism, Vietnamese Socialism, East German Socialism, Ba'athist Socialism, and various Islamist regimes) that murdered over 200 million of their *own* citizens in peacetime - then the statistics are clear: GUNS SAVE LIVES.
The best defense against a bad guy/jihadi with a gun really is good guys with guns. This is proven over and over and over again.
Now if you don't like firearms then please don't obtain and learn how to use one - but it is illogical and immoral to say that competent individuals cannot have access to firearms for self-defense. Even Europeans are slowly starting to grok this (shotguns are pretty much sold out in Austria as their country buckles under invasion of a large number of unruly youths who don't share European cultural norms about not stealing, not raping and not trashing the joint). I wish this were not the reality of today's world, but unfortunately it is.
Re: (Score:2)
The number of personal firearms is north of 360 ~ 450 million now.
There were something like 5 million NICS checks in January 2016. Rates have been ramping up since 2008 and records broken each month. There isn't a one to one translation for NICS to "firearms bought" but it is ballpark.
That "300 million" number has been tossed around a long time and the number is stale.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, what people sadly don't understand about suicide that its genetically predisposed, and an impulsive act. Its much more effective to use a firearm to kill yourself, than a knife. As a public health issue, its not unreasonable to make it more difficult for the suicidally predisposed to own handguns, just as firearm possession is banned for felons. (Nothing in the CotUS that suggests its lawful to keep firearms away from citizen felons.)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, what people sadly don't understand about suicide that its genetically predisposed, and an impulsive act.
If people are genetically predisposed to suicide, how do we still have suicide? Should be a self-solving problem. Perhaps that's really not the driving factor.
Re: (Score:2)
That does not make any evolutionary sense. Source ?
not new (Score:2)
Gun crazyness (Score:2)
Posts like these helps us, the rest of the world, be amused at US crazyness about guns. And, of course, the gun in this one is called "liberator".
metal guide rod (Score:5)
The guide rod doesn't have to be metal. The stock Glock guide rod is plastic, although Glock owners often replace it with steel or tungsten.
Re: (Score:2)
The guide rod doesn't have to be metal. The stock Glock guide rod is plastic, although Glock owners often replace it with steel or tungsten.
My Sig has plastic guide rod as well. Plastic is fine as long as you aren't putting thousands of round through the gun.
Why you should care about 3D printed handguns (Score:3)
I've read a lot of posts of people exclaiming 3D printed handguns a waste of time, or an effort to expand one's "manhood" by building weapons. I've read an article on 3D printed handguns before where the creator was asked why they chose to print a handgun of all things. In this case it was a 3D printed Model 1911, printed using a number of direct printing metal techniques but the answer to this question stuck with me and I believe answers the question quite well.
The creator of this 3D printed handgun explained the choice of printing a handgun this way. People understand what a handgun does and what it is used for. People understand that a handgun is a device with many intricate parts placed under considerable wear, pressures, and so forth. Whatever a handgun is made from must be durable. A handgun built with poor tolerances is not likely to function. A handgun is an expensive machine, not something one can typically purchase on a whim. It is also something that can be manufactured within the size limits of their machines.
Someone could 3D print a clock, for example, to show how a useful item can be built with amazing precision with a 3D printer. To show how a 3D printer can make something that is durable could mean printing a carpenter hammer, or anvil. Perhaps building an adjustable wrench, socket set, or any of a number of tools that need to hold up to extreme stresses and tight tolerances would show the capabilities of a 3D printer. Those are also rather mundane and perhaps a number of people that do not use tools regularly will not understand the difficulty in building such a tool with a 3D printer. These are also tools that do not have much value since people can buy these items relatively cheaply most anywhere.
People choose to 3D print a handgun because it is hard to do. Someone successful in this has then demonstrated their ability to build any of a number of more common and mundane items we use every day. It also doesn't hurt that 3D printed handguns makes politicians nervous and gets clicks on the internet.
Go print a clock and see how many clicks you get on your website, then print an anvil and do the same. Now print a handgun and hope that you've got enough bandwidth to handle the load.
Re: (Score:2)
A handgun is an expensive machine, not something one can typically purchase on a whim.
Really? [hi-pointfirearms.com]
Granted, those are crap guns and basically are new Saturday Night Specials, but are easily affordable and legal to purchase. With the right connections you could easily get a sub-$100 gun on the street illegally, or even legally on the internet/in person with patience and no scruples regarding quality or condition.
Re: (Score:2)
That's some fucking retarded reasoning
It's no different then the reasoning on why the President said we should go to the moon. We did it because it was hard. Making a handgun is not hard, many people do it. Making a handgun by 3D printing is hard, and is as suitable of a test of the technology as building any of a number of items.
Perhaps you would like to expand on why you think this reasoning is "fucking retarded"? Perhaps you could also propose a more suitable item to manufacture as a test of 3D printing technology?
Skorpion? (Score:2)
Re:Militant Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's about gun control, and besides, a 9mm is not for killing people. It's about stopping a threat.
9mm is almost as lethal as a .45 ACP, according to the charts. Not quite, but damned close. Hence the BHP in 9mm following the 1911...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. Compare that to being shot with a hunting caliber rifle; that was my comparison.
Handguns are used in over 80% of all gun murders. Besides, The .22 is plenty deadly [blogspot.com]. (I linked that particular page to forestall anyone linking pages about how the .22 supposedly does the most killin'.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Militant Slashdot (Score:4, Funny)
Oh?
"it's coming right for us!" *bang*
That deer was looking awful vicious...
Re:Militant Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
That's a false comparison. Nobody carries around a hunting rifle to, in your own words, "stop a threat."
If you're claiming hand-guns are somehow a "soft" method of defending yourself, then you are sorely mistaken.
You should try to get out of the city occasionally.
The line between "pistol" and "rifle" is a fake one defined by the ATF where "designed to be fired with one hand" and "designed to be set to the shoulder to fire" is the definition. Caliber and ballistic capabilities are not included in the distinction. Then there are dimensions and other stuff tacked onto those definitions, firearms that fall out of those dimensions are AOWs (Any Other Weapon) or SBS or SBRs.
So it IS quite possible to be using a "pistol" that's basically a rifle with rifle-like ballistic results but with pistol legality (whatever that happens to be at that location.)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. Compare that to being shot with a hunting caliber rifle; that was my comparison.
That's a false comparison. Nobody carries around a hunting rifle to, in your own words, "stop a threat."
If you're claiming hand-guns are somehow a "soft" method of defending yourself, then you are sorely mistaken.
No, a handgun is not a optimal weapon for defending yourself. If someone is breaking into my house, I will grab the handgun beside my bed and go get my 12 gauge, which is optimal for my home.
Re: (Score:3)
AR-15s are becoming popular for game hunting, despite the limitations. A lighter load than some other calibers/'energy': .22 LR HV - 152 .223/5.56x45 - 1254 (typical AR-15 load) .22-250 - 1624 (varmint rifle) .30-30 Win - 1888 (my favorite deer rifle in Maine) .300 Savage - 2280 (My mom's favorite deer rifle, model 99) .308 Win/7.62 - 2617 (AK-47 IIRC, also a modern sniper round) .300-06 Springfield - 2920 (Still an excellent sniper round)
It would seem an AR-15 is a poor choice for a deer rifle, but swap o
Re: (Score:3)
You can buy AR-platform rifles not only in .300 Blackout but also readily in .308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO. There's an upper/lower kit from some company meant for the back woods which swaps out parts from .22 LR to .50 Beowulf. Armalite also carries a .338 Lapua AR-30 so that's a popular large--game hunting (and sniper) round.
Re: (Score:2)
Except for the fact that the 9mm (Luger) was introduce in 1902, two years before the 45acp used by the 1911.
Re: (Score:2)
I think better phrasing would be that the 9mm supplanted the .45 ACP in the US for military and police use. Nearly as lethal and able to have a much larger store of ammunition. A double tap beats a larger round any day, whether you're a good shot or not.
Re: (Score:2)
45acp dates back to 1904, the M1911 only reached production in 1911. Thanks for trying to look up dates though, but not the meaning of BHP (aka Browning Hi-Power [wikipedia.org]), or when it went into service... 1935 > 1911.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The BHP followed the 1911, however, and while JMB only designed bits of the gun, the caliber was already ironed out by then.
Re: (Score:2)
The Browning HiPower is a pistol that uses 9mm ammunition. It is not the round. The Colt Model 1911 is a pistol that uses .45 ACP ammunition and is not the round. The 1911 was a longtime military sidearm for US forces and was replaced not with the HiPower, though, but by another 9mm known as the Beretta M9 which is basically a military version of their 92FS. That barely beat the Sig P226.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
.357 magnum is the most lethal of the handgun calibers but, I don't see them designing ones out of PVC or other base plastics. Maybe one day with either multi-material systems or metal fabrication systems they can. The scary part is when high powered rifle rounds will be able to be used on a 3D printed gun. I'm not thrilled about the prospect but, I'm realistic enough that I know there's no stopping it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't fire just a "lower", you need other parts for that too. That some US law defines that to be the defining part of a firearm doesn't change the physics.
Re: (Score:3)
It's about gun control, and besides, a 9mm is not for killing people. It's about stopping a threat.
9mm is almost as lethal as a .45 ACP, according to the charts. Not quite, but damned close. Hence the BHP in 9mm following the 1911...
It is if you use a modern expanding hollow point bullet with a decent weight and charge. Though, I'd be surprised if this thing could handle P+ or +P+ charges for long.
There is an outfit selling 80% Glock-clone lowers now too... which will turn out to be a FAR better firearm.
Re: (Score:2)
There is an outfit selling 80% Glock-clone lowers now too... which will turn out to be a FAR better firearm.
Can't stand the trigger, not even a little bit. Can't hit shit with a glock. With a 1911 it's ding, ding, ding. Still looking for the next thing, hopefully something less fiddly than the 1911.
Re: (Score:2)
Because nobody ever died from a 9mm shot.
Re:Militant Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
My Swiss Army Knife can kill people too. Although I use it mostly to remove screws from computers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Militant Slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
"I love the mental gymnastics Americans perform in order to justify why they are entitled to carry a weapon that kills people."
Actually, I understood this in 5th grade, when the Second Amendment was read in its entirety. Two years later I carried a .410 shotgun to hunt with my family, two years after that graduating to the .30-30. Then, a year later, my American History teacher indulged us in a deeper study of the Second Amendment, which left no doubt in my mind of the intent and effect of that Amendment, and the radical nature of our Constitution. People from other nations have largely been taught nothing about that, for what should be obvious reasons.
The world hates [economist.com] freedom.
Re: (Score:3)
The second amendment to the constitution guarantees all US citizens the right to carry firearms. You can debate all you like the moral implications of it, but until the second amendment is repealed, it is the right of every US citizen to carry firearms.
Re: Militant Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
You miss the point. Nobody who wants a good gun wants a 3D-printed gun in 2016 (check back in a decade). The issue is always the government oppression that arises from such happenings. Free Speech still falls under 'stuff that matters'. Maybe you weren't around for CryptoWar I when we illegally wore T-shirts with the RSA algorithm on it to trade shows.
http://www.cypherspace.org/ada... [cypherspace.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It ends the gun control debate. The debate shouldn't have even happened. We have a second amendment. What about that do people not understand? Don't like it... vote to change it through the regular process and repeal the second amendment.
Absent that, this is a hostile action to subvert our democracy. And actions taken to subvert the government's ability to enact illegal legislation are all to the good.
This ends the debate. You can't stop the guns now. And this won't stop at the US now... it will go global.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying a debate should never have happened is censorship, of the worst kind.
It can be, but in this case, no it isn't.
the truth is that you just find it frustrating to deal with those you perceive to be so grossly in error. You would rather shut them up, or shut them out.
If Karmashock wanted to shut them up, why would they say "Don't like it... vote to change it through the regular process and repeal the second amendment."? It seems clear to me that Karmashock isn't trying to shut anyone up. What they want, is to have a discussion where actual legal change can occur. Trying to ban guns without changing the constitution is unconstitutional.
And no, I abhor guns. But backdoors are wrong, whether they are for encryption, or law.
Re: (Score:2)
Coward that won't even use a fake name presumes to sockpuppet out some stupid response... no need... others already dealt with you before I even noticed your stupid response. Also, nice to know you're following me around the forum now.
I don't follow you around... I don't care about you. But you... you seem to think I'm worth following.
Seems someone matters more to one than the other. Another win for me.
Tootles.
Re: Militant Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
The vast majority of Slashdot readers are also objective thinkers and (generally) less prone to emotional-hysterics-on-command, which tends to make them balk at the core structure of gun control ideology.
The ideology of civilian disarmament depends on constantly keeping people terrified of sensationalized emotional and irrational fallacies. That's not a behavior pattern frequently found in hardcore tech folks.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The vast majority of Slashdot readers ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I rather thought that the actual killer was the actual killer.
Re: Militant Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason you don't understand this is because you are ignorant (perhaps willingly so) of how the people that want to ban weapons have thought out their plan. These people know that banning handguns, or most any weapon really, is the goal but they also know that banning handguns is difficult politically.
To understand this best we must go back in time by nearly a century. The National Firearms Act of 1934 placed a prohibitively high tax on a number of weapons, among them were machine guns, firearm report suppressors ("silencers"), "destructive devices" (grenades, landmines, large bore ammunition, etc.), the curious catch-all "any other weapon", and the also curious "short barreled" rifles and shotguns.
Let's talk about that "short barrel" category. The 1934 NFA originally had the intent to ban handguns and to prevent people from making handgun analogs from the not banned rifles and shotguns they made sure that people would not be allowed to shorten the barrels on these "long guns". Because of resistance from a number of powerful groups the ban on handguns went away but the "short barrel" designation remained. This law created the distinction among "handguns", "long guns", and "short barrel" arms where none existed before.
Forty years later the group Handgun Control Incorporated was created, with the (obvious) intent to ban handguns. Again this was met with resistance politically, few people in politics wanted to be associated with a group of that name. In 1981 James Brady was seriously injured in the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. HCI found themselves a new "mascot" and renamed themselves to the Brady Campaign. James Brady was shot with a .22 caliber revolver, which seems like a perfect mascot for an organization that wanted to ban handguns.
At about 1989 HCI renamed themselves Brady Campaign but still kept their original intent on banning handguns. The difference now is that they didn't wear this intent on their sleeves. It was now more politically acceptable to be an advocate for those injured by "gun violence" in general, leaving out that the ultimate goal is still banning handguns if not all firearms.
As the decades passed the banning of handguns became even less politically viable. People wanted personal defense weapons and a handgun makes a reasonable weapon for this task. The people today that call for "reasonable" gun control can draw a direct lineage to those people that wanted to ban handguns nearly a century ago. Given the age of many of these politicians and public figures I have to wonder if these aren't the same people that signed the 1934 National Firearms Act into law.
These bans on "assault weapons", magazine limitations, and background checks are all part of the boiling the frog, oiling up that slippery slope, or what have you that will lead us to banning handguns. These people have tried for over a century now to ban handguns but the majority of the people won't have it. They are still working on sharpening the point of the wedge between people and their personal defense arms. They think that by creating the idea that limits on some arms should bring us down the path to limits on all arms. That once we create the idea that the government should be able to dictate with what tools we are permitted to defend ourselves that at some future point in time the government would be able to dictate that the people cannot have any tools of self defense.
This has been going on for a long time in the USA, the best that they've been able to do is place some rather trivial limits on the people's ability to arm themselves. What I find interesting about these advancements in 3D printing is that it makes all those laws irrelevant. They can make it illegal to manufacture these weapons but the people that feel the government should not be able to dictate how the people may arm themselves will find these bans exceedingly difficult to enforce.
This is a question I've asked myself many times, is a law really a law if the govern
Re: (Score:3)
"What I find interesting about these advancements in 3D printing is that it makes all those laws irrelevant."
What I find inevitable is that as the government (and those who oppose my rights) realize that I can actually do what I was always permitted to, they must find a way to prevent that, as if I should never have been permitted to ever.
It has been legal to manufacture your own firearm for your own personal use in the U.S. You cannot legally sell it, nor even give it way,without being licensed etc. And
Re: Militant Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently so since much of the desire to ban these weapons was the result of gang warfare during Prohibition.
Funny that, history repeating itself. Alcohol prohibition resulted in violence not seen before it's implementation. Now today people don't shoot each other over alcohol because it is available at nearly every convenience store with nothing more than proving you are an adult and have the ability to pay for it.
Perhaps we would not have "drug addled scum burning down your cities" if these drugs were not banned. Just a thought. It appears that there are at least some people that agree with me given that a number of states in the USA have legalized marijuana with no real threats to society to show for it.
Also, how does banning possession of a handgun supposed to prevent "drug addled scum" from setting the city on fire? I do know that even drug addled scum have a nearly instinctual fear of getting shot if they threaten to burn down someone's home or business. It would seem to follow that by removing the handguns, and therefore diminish the homeowner's ability to defend their home, would embolden the scum to burn the world down.
Gun control is not crime control. You control crime by controlling the criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
They weren't drug-addled, nor scum, but they were black [loc.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
And unionists... and the Pinkertons hired to beat and kill the unionists... and bootleggers... and mafia members buying from the bootleggers... and ... Prohibitions and other forms of oppression are why we have a Second Amendment in the first place.
Re: Militant Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
People keep shooting up schools and other public places with automatic weapons.
I don't think anyone has used a fully automatic weapon to shoot up a school. Granted the San Bernardino shooters had a fully auto weapon (maybe 2) but that was illegally modified so it isn't like they just went down to the store and picked one up.
Such weapons are not that useful for hunting, and of somewhat dubious value for self defense
What weapons, fully auto machine guns that no one has used in a school shooting or semi automatic weapons? I assume you mean semi automatic ones which are very effective for hunting. They have been used for years. My grandfather used a semi automatic Remington 11-48 for pheasant, duck, and goose hunting for years from about 1950 until he gave up hunting in the late 70s. For years I deer hunted with a Romanian SKS as the SKS basically replaced the lever action .30-30 as the bare bones entry level deer rifle. Lots of people use to hunt with old M1 Garands that they got through the CMP and I wouldn't mind using one for deer hunting. The .223 AR15 type weapons are a very popular and effective varmint rifle for things like packs of coyotes, and prairie dogs.
I can't speak to the self defense aspect but a semi auto shotgun seems like it would be pretty good for home defense. Also I don't think may people are carrying around a long gun for self defense, most people prefer a much smaller handgun.
Re: (Score:3)
1: No automatic weapons were used in any of the shootings from Columbine on. As far as I'm aware there were no shootings of the general public with automatic weapons since the valentines day massacre in Chicago, and that was mobster on mobster.
2: Again, no one hunts with automatic weapons.
3: By your reasoning there should not be any freedom of the press on the internet since there was no internet when that particular amendment was written, only printing presses. Kind of silly to judge that evolved technolo
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I don't live in the US, most of my gun knowledge comes from Call of Duty, so I got the terminology wrong. Whatever the kinds of guns they use are, I'm told "assault rifle" is wrong too. But honestly, if the best argument you can come up with against a ban is that someone used the incorrect name (when the meaning was obvious)...
Re: (Score:2)
No worries from our end. And that's why I wrote what I did in the way that I did: I've given this talk several times to people, and they typically fall into one of two categories:
1: They're so invested in civilian disarmament that they just stick their fingers in their ears until they can't hear me any more.
2: As in your case, they're not USian, so they don't have the cultural background for the debate.
Having said all that though, speaking as a combat veteran myself: Call of Duty is not an accurate model o
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, thanks for explaining, but can you address the actual arguments being put forward? Particularly the point about the kinds of weapons used in those crimes not being particularly useful for self defence or hunting or even sport, and thus banning them not being too burdensome. Also the bit about what the limit is on the constitutional right, i.e. where the line is between "pea shooter" and "nuke".
Re: Militant Slashdot (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to hope that this is just an unintentional lack of knowledge on your end. If you're actually open to reading facts, please keep reading. Otherwise, feel free to ignore this.
First, in response to the comment about people that keep "shooting up schools and other public places with automatic weapons." This is incorrect. The phrase "automatic weapon" refers to a weapon that can discharge more than one projectile due to a single action (pulling a trigger or actuating some other mechanism). As far as crimes with automatic weapons go, they are so low as to be lost in the underflow of the number of other assaults. In 1934, the National Firearms Act regulated automatic weapons, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and "other weapons". Since that date, you have to pay a $200 tax just to be allowed to purchase the weapon. You also have to undergo a background check even more thorough than most class 3 Federal Firearms Dealers. The automatic weapon must be registered and kept at a known location at all times, and the Feds can knock on your door at any time of the day or night and demand that you produce that weapon immediately for their inspection. If you can't, it's a federal felony.
Since 1934, there have been 2 murders committed with registered automatic weapons. As far as unregistered automatic weapons go, numbers vary, but are again so low as to be statistically insignificant. According to GunCite ( http://www.guncite.com/gun_con... [guncite.com] ), 4 police officers were killed between 1983 and 1992. And even when targeting groups that are thought to have large numbers of automatic weapons, virtually none of the firearms recovered in raids on drug houses, gangs, and so on were automatic. For all intents and purposes, automatic weapons are not used in crime.
And, since 1986 when the NFA was amended, only automatic weapons made before that date are now available for purchase by the public. This amendment ended out pricing most automatic weapons out of the reach of the standard consumer, and for those that do buy them, they're usually purchased as investments not, not with the intent to shoot them.
As far as the second half of your comment goes, I'm going to assume you're talking about so called "assault weapons", or what are more accurately termed modern sporting rifles (MSRs). And when people think of an MSR, they think generally of an AR-15 variant (go Google what the AR in AR-15 stands for. Hint: it does NOT stand for Automatic Rifle). What is so bad about them?
1: You say "their only real purpose seems to be for killing lots of people efficiently." First, the caliber of most AR-15 variants (5.56x45 NATO, or .223 Remington (and yes, the specs are not completely equivalent between those to calibers, but for the sake of argument, we'll assume they are)) is small enough (and fast enough) that the rounds tend to not do all that much damage to a man-sized target. In fact, in many states, it's illegal to hunt deer with a .223, as it's likely to only wound and not kill it. So, no, an AR-15 is not a particularly efficient killing machine. If you don't believe me on this, go find an Iraq/Afghanistan vet. If they're willing to talk to you about their experiences, ask them about how effective the M-4 was at killing the enemy. Or use Google. The stories are out there. The only reason the US Military uses 5.56x45 instead of 7.62x54 (the old .308 Springfield cartridge that got your (great)grandfather through World War II) is that you can carry 70% more 5.56 than you can 7.62 for the same weight and size of package.
2: Because the AR-15 platform is so modular, my wife and I can shoot the same rifle. My arms are a little shorter than hers. I can adjust the stock. Because it has a pistol grip, I can hold it more comfortably. If you take a look at the definition of an assault rifle from the 1994 US ban, it involved a rifle that could accept a detachable
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between a "mass shooting" and a "mass killing spree".
Not fully automatic, but the high cyclic rate Gatling was used to subjugate the indigenous peoples. It was also used in a civil war against both regulars and militia on both sides. It was used to intimidate anti-draft protestors in New York.
The St. Valentine's Day Massacre was a mass shooting by FBI standards and featured shotguns and at least one Thompson machine gun. That was gang-on-gang violence, which is what much handgun violenc
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Militant Slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
The ideology of civilian disarmament depends on constantly keeping people terrified of sensationalized emotional and irrational fallacies.
Nonsense. The ideology of political control depends on that, with or without guns. Just look around the world, and you see governments using this very strategy in all countries, all government types and irrespective of gun controls or not.
The only difference is that people without guns react with demonstrations and civil unrest, while people with guns react with mass shootings and conspiracy theories.
Meanwhile the government doesn't care because if it comes to it, you have your guns, but they have tanks and planes.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, nations with lawfully armed populaces that are subjected to such social engineering for political desires by the ruling elites... tend to shoot the ruling elites and elect or coronate new ones.
That is the true fear at the root of politicians advocating civilian disarmament: that their desired policies would ultimately be so repulsive to their subjects that they can't risk what they see as a high likelihood of being defied or overthrown by armed force. They are scared their desires will provoke t
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, nations with lawfully armed populaces that are subjected to such social engineering for political desires by the ruling elites... tend to shoot the ruling elites and elect or coronate new ones.
You appear to have missed the part about the governments that attempt to enact such social engineering having tanks and planes to kill you with before your guns have a chance to mean a damn thing.
So it's more or less necessary, in such a situation, to have the army (or at least a substantial part of it) on your side. At which point having a lawfully armed populace becomes redundant, because you've got the bloody army on your side.
Dan Aris
Re: Militant Slashdot (Score:2)
When's that happening in the US and how long would it be before the rebels get bombed by the USAF?
Re: (Score:2)
After which you'll find your embarrassing pictures have suddenly been ported to the internet...
Re: (Score:2)
And then there are those with UIDs...
Re: (Score:2)
Assholes think any geeky act are done by assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why subtractive technologies, extrusion technologies, and other mass technologies still win-out. You can do things to the material before you ever start machining it to give it strength characteristics and other traits that you want. That's why sub-$1000 mass-produced pistols
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh....I see you're a simpleton.
Number of mass shootings (defined as four or more victims) since 1996 = ZERO.
See, readin' ain't that hard boy...yeehawww...
How do you categorize the 2014 Hunt family murders? That would seem to include four victims and the perpetrator, all shot with a shotgun.
Re: (Score:2)
"Your silly little laws that you believe protect you won't last for long in the face of immigrant violence and economic collapse"
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly in five cities. Five.
Which is an indictment of the politicians that both supervise and permit this.
Re: (Score:3)