If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   In a world of 3-D-printed guns, Chris Rock's "bullet control" makes more sense   (theatlantic.com) divider line 208
    More: Unlikely, shooting sprees, guns  
•       •       •

9555 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2012 at 10:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



208 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-18 10:55:50 AM
FTFA : It doesn't say a single thing about the right to own bullets.

And the first amendment doesn't say anything about the internet, but if you argue "free speech laws do not apply on the internet" then you are an idiot.
 
2012-12-18 10:56:28 AM
Nice weasel words from the author. Go ahead, people will just make their own bullets.
 
2012-12-18 10:56:31 AM

MethylTryp


Ah. That makes much more sense. For a second I thought maybe you were unclear on the concept. Apologies.


No apologies needed! Stuff happens.
 
2012-12-18 10:56:54 AM

Subtle_Canary: meanwhile, the rest of us will figure out that we can use lead slugging pieces to make ad-hoc bullets with our stockpiles of Mosin Nagants....you know, for when the inevitable fading of the trillions of 7.62x54r finally occurs 200 years from now.


I don't know, back before I came to my senses I used to have a SKS. I recall that during the beginnings of the 2nd Iraq war the cost for a bucket of 7.62 skyrocketed to levels that made going out and shooting illegally dumped washing machines and whatnot no longer worth it. Heard lots of grumblings in the local gun shops about it.
 
2012-12-18 10:58:44 AM

JackieRabbit: Gun Control! Gun Control! Boy-howdy but the politicians are making big hay out of the Newtown massacre. Suddenly... Gun control!!!!

Isn't this like closing the barn door after the horses have got out?

The problems is that none of their brilliant plans are going to work. Something akin to Canada's Possession and Acquisition License program may help, but not much. We farked up long ago when we lifted the ban on civilians owning assault weapons. We can't put that genie back in the bottle. Bullets would be even harder to control than the guns that fire them. If someone wants to kill a lot of people, he will be able to get all the guns and bullets he needs, regardless of their legality.

I see no effective way to stop crazy.


This. I've spent a lot of time arguing for reasonable solutions that don't involve bans that would work. Instead, no one listens unless it involves a ban. So you know what? Screw reasonable. My guns are mine. I will own them, and use them as I choose within the framework of the law. I will resist any attempt to punish me for exercising a hobby, in the same way that bans on drugs are resisted and ignored.

Get back to me when you're willing to admit that a gun ban won't be as effective as legalized drugs and a huge revamp of our mental health care system in this country, as well as a change as to how our society sees guns in general, and the attitudes espoused by many.

Because, as I'm sure it's been said, if we had a more comprehensive way to deal with people who are clearly mentally defective, then we may not have the issue everyone's pissing their pannies over right now.
 
2012-12-18 10:59:12 AM

Stone Meadow: Biness: Stone Meadow: ktybear: The argument always made sense.

IIRC the Supremes addressed this argument in one of their rulings...a firearm is not an "arm" without bullets.

otherwise its just decoration

I should have said "ammunition" instead of bullets, of course, but yes...

MethylTryp: Dimensio:]
You are absolutely correct: a mentally unstable individual intent upon killing numerous individuals would be deterred by an additional cost added to ammunition.

Yes. Exactly! Now you're getting it!

So, when do the calls to outlaw kitchen knives start? 22 Kids Slashed in China Elementary School Knife Attack


Yeah it's a real bummer how all 22 of those kids died tragically.... oh wait.
 
2012-12-18 10:59:18 AM
Gun control and regulation is not a practical answer to these problems. There are so many guns out there now it would be like trying to ban cell phones. Imagine if we had to regulate and control cell phones starting tomorrow, how many decades would it take before those controls started to show results? I'm going to guess if we tried it with guns it would be roughly 50 years before guns weren't easily obtainable any more.

Let's look for an actual effective solution that focuses on mental health, better school security, and less sensationalism of the perpetrator in the media.
 
2012-12-18 11:00:47 AM

incendi: MythDragon: Um, sure you can 3D print a lower reciever, but you can't really do that with the upper part (That's the part the bullets come out of for those that don't know). Well, technically you can. It's possible to craft a fully plastic gun that will fire. Once. You may not enjoy having a palm full of plastic shrapnel though.

There are printers that work with materials other than plastic. They're still a bit pricey, but how much does it cost to acquire a fully legal full-auto weapon?


Not cheap. $4-6000 for a piece of crap Sten. $15000 for a Steyr Aug (that costs the government and LEOs under $1000). And I think an original full auto Thompson goes for about $20,000. I've seen other other automatics for around $30,000. Then there is also the $200 tax stamp, and about 6 months of waiting for paperwork to clear. IF it gets approved.
 
2012-12-18 11:01:11 AM

SomeoneDumb: pyrotek85: ...Arms is a broad term and includes not only the guns (or any personal weapon a soldier would be using) but also the things necessary for it, like ammunition...

And this is why we have people like you interpreting law and the constitution.


Except it's not me, the courts interpreted it that way. The 2A wouldn't make sense any other way either. Same with the 'well regulated' bit, regulated meaning well maintained, not lots of laws governing it as in 'regulations'.
 
2012-12-18 11:02:13 AM

Stone Meadow: So, when do the calls to outlaw kitchen knives start? 22 Kids Slashed in China Elementary School Knife Attack


See that's the real rub, if we got rid of all the guns in America, we could reduce the lethality of these incidents. However lets keep in mind that the Colorado theater guy was into bomb making and we had that guy who went out on a bow hunting murder streak.

If we take the guns away it likely does reduce some of the killings in that it is harder. The crazy people without the ability to delay gratification will have the option of grabbing a TEC-9 and going nuts taken away from them. However the people with the ability to delay gratification and dedicate the effort to making a fertilizer bomb or the like are just going to find alternate means. For all we know, if the Lanzas don't own guns maybe crazy prepper mom is teaching her son how to do IEDs for the past 5 years and he blows the school up instead.

Trying to ban 30 round magazines or the like (of course all the pre ban ones will still be in play, accessible at gun shows, or you could just carry three ten round ones, a pair of 15 round ones, etc) is just treating the symptoms, not the cause. The gun ban will let you see fewer symptoms since it will be harder for the crazies to kill, but the root cause is still there.
 
2012-12-18 11:02:19 AM
Also, as a point of order about strict gun control laws stopping mass murder...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting
 
2012-12-18 11:02:20 AM

dennerman: Gun control and regulation is not a practical answer to these problems. There are so many guns out there now it would be like trying to ban cell phones. Imagine if we had to regulate and control cell phones starting tomorrow, how many decades would it take before those controls started to show results? I'm going to guess if we tried it with guns it would be roughly 50 years before guns weren't easily obtainable any more.

Let's look for an actual effective solution that focuses on mental health, better school security, and less sensationalism of the perpetrator in the media.


So it's not worth it that our children's children won't have to worry about this sort of thing? Because the solution isn't immediate it's not worth it? I'd prefer that when I'm 80 I'm not watching this sort of thing while shaking my fist at holographic Fox News.
 
2012-12-18 11:02:53 AM
Not to threadjack (really), but I would laugh if Obama's proposal was to leave guns alone, but expand Obama care to include comprehensive mental health care. The sight of Tea Baggers embracing Obama care as an alternative to oppressive gun control would be luls worthy.
 
2012-12-18 11:03:01 AM
From what I've learned from Sons of Anarchy, all you need to do is hire a mexican family to produce your bullets in their trailer!
 
2012-12-18 11:04:00 AM

Private_Citizen: Not to threadjack (really), but I would laugh if Obama's proposal was to leave guns alone, but expand Obama care to include comprehensive mental health care. The sight of Tea Baggers embracing Obama care as an alternative to oppressive gun control would be luls worthy.


i don't agree with obama on just about anything, but I agree, this would be funny
 
2012-12-18 11:04:42 AM

Private_Citizen: Not to threadjack (really), but I would laugh if Obama's proposal was to leave guns alone, but expand Obama care to include comprehensive mental health care. The sight of Tea Baggers embracing Obama care as an alternative to oppressive gun control would be luls worthy.


Really that's what needs to happen. The NRA seems to just want to go down in flames. While I'm all for opposing Feinstein's bill because it just a cosmetic, feel good legislation, the pro gun lobby needs to come back with ideas of their own about mental health and how it relates to gun regulation.
 
2012-12-18 11:05:22 AM

Private_Citizen: Not to threadjack (really), but I would laugh if Obama's proposal was to leave guns alone, but expand Obama care to include comprehensive mental health care. The sight of Tea Baggers embracing Obama care as an alternative to oppressive gun control would be luls worthy.


I would actually consider this a reasonable compromise. As well as keeping guns away from anyone convicted of a DV, assault, battery or stalking charge.
 
2012-12-18 11:06:07 AM

dennerman: Gun control and regulation is not a practical answer to these problems. There are so many guns out there now it would be like trying to ban cell phones. Imagine if we had to regulate and control cell phones starting tomorrow, how many decades would it take before those controls started to show results? I'm going to guess if we tried it with guns it would be roughly 50 years before guns weren't easily obtainable any more.

Let's look for an actual effective solution that focuses on mental health, better school security, and less sensationalism of the perpetrator in the media.


Cell phones? At 2 years there would be a huge decrease in the number cell phones in the hands of the irresponsible. Do you have any idea how often teenagers break their cell phones?
 
2012-12-18 11:07:28 AM

ha-ha-guy: The real issue is that reloading is not a big thing right now given how cheaply you can get bulk ammo. Between the time to reload and that risks that stem from having a shiatload of gun powder sitting around in a cask, most people prefer just to buy bulk ammo even if it costs more.

If you make bullets harder to get, more people will get into reloading and we'll have a whole cottage industry of selling reloads.

The general issue with expensive bullets is that guns are the most useful when the act of drawing and firing the weapon is muscle memory. It's why the military and police spend so much time on the range. It's also why self defense instructors tell people to practice. The gun is no good against the rapist if you just freeze up. By making bullets more expensive you reduce the range time and expertise of legit gun owners. You can do a lot of the initial training with a CO2 blowback gun that has the same weight and shape as your handgun, but at the end of the day you need to send real rounds down range to get used to the recoil.


The tax could be written to only apply to rounds that leave the range. You want to practice at the range, no tax.
 
2012-12-18 11:07:33 AM

ha-ha-guy: Private_Citizen: Not to threadjack (really), but I would laugh if Obama's proposal was to leave guns alone, but expand Obama care to include comprehensive mental health care. The sight of Tea Baggers embracing Obama care as an alternative to oppressive gun control would be luls worthy.

Really that's what needs to happen. The NRA seems to just want to go down in flames. While I'm all for opposing Feinstein's bill because it just a cosmetic, feel good legislation, the pro gun lobby needs to come back with ideas of their own about mental health and how it relates to gun regulation.


I've been quite surprised by the NRA's lack of response to this. I assumed they'd have an action plan for the scenario. The real issue here is that America has alot of jails, alot of ERs, but not alot of mental health institutions. States used to maintain large asylums. I'm not advocating going back to the lock them all up and throw away the key model, but it did keep crazy people from killing people. Surely there is something that can be done.
 
2012-12-18 11:07:58 AM

MethylTryp: Subtle_Canary: meanwhile, the rest of us will figure out that we can use lead slugging pieces to make ad-hoc bullets with our stockpiles of Mosin Nagants....you know, for when the inevitable fading of the trillions of 7.62x54r finally occurs 200 years from now.

I don't know, back before I came to my senses I used to have a SKS. I recall that during the beginnings of the 2nd Iraq war the cost for a bucket of 7.62 skyrocketed to levels that made going out and shooting illegally dumped washing machines and whatnot no longer worth it. Heard lots of grumblings in the local gun shops about it.


I think the cost of 7.62 soviet has more to do with China, one of the largest producers of the caliber, no longer being allowed to import their product. I basically got out of shooting 7.62 NATO because of the price over runs and diminished surplus market. Surplus is where its at.
 
2012-12-18 11:07:58 AM

wantingout: why don't we just regulate SSRIs instead? They are the main factor in most of these mass shootings anyway.


THIS
 
2012-12-18 11:11:04 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: Itstoearly

MethylTryp: Tax the shiat out of it, like cigarettes. $.30/round. Put that money towards these mental health programs that all the gun people think will magically solve our gun violence problems.

30 cents/round is pretty cheap for some of the larger calibers.


Pay attention: that $.30 would be a tax added to the cost of the round.


I think his point is that there isn't much difference between a $6.00 bullet and $6.30 bullet, some higher caliber rounds are quite expensive as they are. Now a $.30 tax on a mostly non-lethal .22lr round would be insane.
 
2012-12-18 11:11:45 AM

Z-clipped: You could shoot through schools with your 3D printer.



t2.gstatic.com 

Impressed!
 
2012-12-18 11:11:54 AM

Biness: I've been quite surprised by the NRA's lack of response to this. I assumed they'd have an action plan for the scenario. The real issue here is that America has alot of jails, alot of ERs, but not alot of mental health institutions. States used to maintain large asylums. I'm not advocating going back to the lock them all up and throw away the key model, but it did keep crazy people from killing people. Surely there is something that can be done.


Yup. The core of this comes down to mental health which it would be fair for the NRA to say "other groups need to handle". That being said I'd like to see the NRA pushing the idea that the industry needs more self regulation and more concern about mental health. Things like having the guys who run the stores and ranges get some training to potentially spot the crazies and alter the authorities or steer their crazy customers over to airsoft weapons, etc. After every one of these shootings you have guys form the range or gun store saying "Oh yeah I interacted with the shooter once, dude seemed off." The gun owning community needs to start taking peoples to actually do something when they see some dude cackling maniacally as he sends lead down range for hours at a time.
 
2012-12-18 11:12:51 AM

Triumph: vpb: Gun nuts like to point at Switzerland

What's your definition of a "gun nut?" Someone who believes in the Bill of Rights?


That would be someone who thinks the highly regulated ownership of guns in Switzerland is somehow justification for unregulated ownership of guns in the USA. Bill of Rights, check. But then, the Swiss case does not apply, because all of their guns are registered and regulated, or 'infringed' if you will.
 
2012-12-18 11:12:54 AM

Subtle_Canary: MethylTryp: Subtle_Canary: meanwhile, the rest of us will figure out that we can use lead slugging pieces to make ad-hoc bullets with our stockpiles of Mosin Nagants....you know, for when the inevitable fading of the trillions of 7.62x54r finally occurs 200 years from now.

I don't know, back before I came to my senses I used to have a SKS. I recall that during the beginnings of the 2nd Iraq war the cost for a bucket of 7.62 skyrocketed to levels that made going out and shooting illegally dumped washing machines and whatnot no longer worth it. Heard lots of grumblings in the local gun shops about it.

I think the cost of 7.62 soviet has more to do with China, one of the largest producers of the caliber, no longer being allowed to import their product. I basically got out of shooting 7.62 NATO because of the price over runs and diminished surplus market. Surplus is where its at.


More a timeline thing than causation. All of my semi-auto rifles back then were Soviet or Chinese made, so all I had left was my shotgun and little .22 single-shot bolt-action plinker. Not nearly as fun.
 
2012-12-18 11:15:27 AM
There was this show about the history of Israel, and before the close of wwII when Israel was not yet a country and under control of the UK, under a loud laundry machine, was a plant spitting out stens and 9mm ammo.

It can be done, but would require extensive equipment to stamp out those casings.
 
2012-12-18 11:15:53 AM

Biness: verbaltoxin: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Writer doesn't understand what he's quoted.

"Well regulated," can be taken to mean, as Alexander Hamilton argued, and has been interpreted through both legislation and the courts to mean, "arm, train, equip and organize." "Keep and bear arms" was written in the time of the musket. It stands to reason the bullets were part of the equation.

Once again we come back to the "militia being necessary to the security of a free state," and those exist in the form of the Army and Air National Guard, with the separate militia being state defense services, like the Texas State Guard. It is not you and your whacker buddies, with your SUVs clad with ham radio call signs, Skywarn stickers and NRA slogans, with a bunch of surplus gear, playing army. In fact you and your buddies get in the way during real emergencies where real first responders are needed.

Anyway it's not a simple as taking the bullets away, when it can be argued they're a crucial part of bearing arms.

I've maintained that "right to keep and bear arms" wasn't written about muskets. It was written about guns in general. After the boston massacre one of the first things the British tried to do, to quell rebellion, was to attempt to confiscate guns and powder. Thus, the founding fathers knew the value of weaponry in fighting tyranny and maintaining freedom. Debate regulations, fine, but thats the historical context of the 2nd amendment.

source: Link


You're leaving out the part where in the 18th century, armies were commonly raised from men who kept trained on arms privately. When the country was founded and the Constitution being written, there was a strong opinion against having a regular army, and relying on raising troops from the militia. That quickly stopped being the case, for by the mid-19th century the US had a standing army, leaving the "well regulated milita" to be defined as the National Guard later.

By the way, this?

The National Guard cannot possibly be interpreted as the whole constitutional militia encompassed by the Second Amendment; if for no other reason, the fact that guardsmen are prohibited by law from keeping their own military arms. Instead, these firearms are owned and annually inventoried by the Federal government, and are kept in armories under lock and key.

Is wrong. Link

So if you want to be honest about historical context, you need to put all of it in there, not just the parts you like.
 
2012-12-18 11:15:57 AM

dennerman: MythDragon: How long have we hard 'modern' guns? About a 100 years or so. Since the first couple of semi-automatic weapons came out (the 1911 and a few before) guns really haven't changed very much. So we have had 'high power' guns with 'large capacity' magazines for a good century now. If guns were the cause of shootings, where have all the mass school and mall shootings been for the last 90 or so years? It's only been in the past 10 years that we've had crazies walking into a building and start shooting kids. The guns have been around long before that. And restrictions have gotten much tighter since the 1900s. Obviously there is another issue here. We need to look at why people are crazy. Is it too much lead in the water? Antibiotics in the meat? CIA brainscanners not calibrated properly? If people wheren't going on mass public shootings 20 years ago, why has it suddenly become a thing?

I'm going to make the case that the rise of the information age, the internet and 24 hours cable news especially, is what has changed in the last 10 years. Now the disturbed person who is angry at the world knows they can be famous and finally let everyone know how much they were hurting by sharing that hurt. What's more, they'll get the "satisfaction" of knowing that tens of millions of people all over the planet will feel that impact.

What's the solution? That I don't know. I would start by asking that news outlets voluntarily never reveal the name and picture of the perpetrator and focus all coverage on the victims and measures that should be taken in the future to prevent these types of things. If we eliminate the global forum we will hopefully reduce the incentive.


www.priorfatgirl.com
 
2012-12-18 11:17:01 AM
poot_rootbeer

MythDragon: If guns were the cause of shootings, where have all the mass school and mall shootings been for the last 90 or so years? It's only been in the past 10 years that we've had crazies walking into a building and start shooting kids.

This is incorrect.

Agreed
Kent State comes to mind.
 
2012-12-18 11:18:00 AM

Enemabag Jones: There was this show about the history of Israel, and before the close of wwII when Israel was not yet a country and under control of the UK, under a loud laundry machine, was a plant spitting out stens and 9mm ammo.


upload.wikimedia.org
Approves.
 
2012-12-18 11:18:05 AM

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: dennerman: MythDragon: How long have we hard 'modern' guns? About a 100 years or so. Since the first couple of semi-automatic weapons came out (the 1911 and a few before) guns really haven't changed very much. So we have had 'high power' guns with 'large capacity' magazines for a good century now. If guns were the cause of shootings, where have all the mass school and mall shootings been for the last 90 or so years? It's only been in the past 10 years that we've had crazies walking into a building and start shooting kids. The guns have been around long before that. And restrictions have gotten much tighter since the 1900s. Obviously there is another issue here. We need to look at why people are crazy. Is it too much lead in the water? Antibiotics in the meat? CIA brainscanners not calibrated properly? If people wheren't going on mass public shootings 20 years ago, why has it suddenly become a thing?

I'm going to make the case that the rise of the information age, the internet and 24 hours cable news especially, is what has changed in the last 10 years. Now the disturbed person who is angry at the world knows they can be famous and finally let everyone know how much they were hurting by sharing that hurt. What's more, they'll get the "satisfaction" of knowing that tens of millions of people all over the planet will feel that impact.

What's the solution? That I don't know. I would start by asking that news outlets voluntarily never reveal the name and picture of the perpetrator and focus all coverage on the victims and measures that should be taken in the future to prevent these types of things. If we eliminate the global forum we will hopefully reduce the incentive.

[www.priorfatgirl.com image 300x449]


It's only happening in the USA and to white males, so I'm not sure it the draw of celebrity as the cause.
 
2012-12-18 11:20:15 AM
So making guns (and/or ammunition) illegal or harder to obtain will stop gun violence? Maybe someone should also make heroin and meth illegal or harder to obtain too then...

Yup, that's what I thought...

Making weapons more difficult for the average citizen to own will not stop gun violence. Those that want to kill people will always find weapons, whether the government likes it or not.
 
2012-12-18 11:22:24 AM
Gun Control Pussies have about as much sense as a bag of rocks.

Ban guns? Ban bullets? Bwa-hahahaha ... don't you understand about ten days later some wild ass engineering Grad-group at MIT or CalTech or even the backwoods of Arkansas will have created something far far superior to lead throwing projectile weapons?

It's evolution in action, dummies.
 
2012-12-18 11:23:57 AM

Clemkadidlefark: Gun Control Pussies have about as much sense as a bag of rocks.

Ban guns? Ban bullets? Bwa-hahahaha ... don't you understand about ten days later some wild ass engineering Grad-group at MIT or CalTech or even the backwoods of Arkansas will have created something far far superior to lead throwing projectile weapons?

It's evolution in action, dummies.


You're right. I guess dead kindergartners is the price we all pay for having the freedom to stockpile weaponry.

/See I can play this game too.
 
2012-12-18 11:25:13 AM

Private_Citizen: Nah, they use the laser to sinter the powder. Also, some versions use a binder.

/Engineer who uses 3D printers all the time.


Umm... are sintered iron filings going to be strong enough to make firearm out of?
 
2012-12-18 11:26:47 AM

MythDragon: Um, sure you can 3D print a lower reciever, but you can't really do that with the upper part (That's the part the bullets come out of for those that don't know). Well, technically you can. It's possible to craft a fully plastic gun that will fire. Once. You may not enjoy having a palm full of plastic shrapnel though.

How long have we hard 'modern' guns? About a 100 years or so. Since the first couple of semi-automatic weapons came out (the 1911 and a few before) guns really haven't changed very much. So we have had 'high power' guns with 'large capacity' magazines for a good century now. If guns were the cause of shootings, where have all the mass school and mall shootings been for the last 90 or so years? It's only been in the past 10 years that we've had crazies walking into a building and start shooting kids. The guns have been around long before that. And restrictions have gotten much tighter since the 1900s. Obviously there is another issue here. We need to look at why people are crazy. Is it too much lead in the water? Antibiotics in the meat? CIA brainscanners not calibrated properly? If people wheren't going on mass public shootings 20 years ago, why has it suddenly become a thing?


Fascinatin' Retrospect:

pop-up-opening-window.
 
2012-12-18 11:28:18 AM

Triumph: vpb: Gun nuts like to point at Switzerland

What's your definition of a "gun nut?" Someone who believes in the Bill of Rights?


You keep that strawman next to the Christmas tree, they can keep each other company...
 
2012-12-18 11:29:08 AM

Z-clipped: Private_Citizen: Nah, they use the laser to sinter the powder. Also, some versions use a binder.

/Engineer who uses 3D printers all the time.

Umm... are sintered iron filings going to be strong enough to make firearm out of?


A barrel? No. A lower for many modern guns? Certainly.
 
2012-12-18 11:33:43 AM

MythDragon: Um, sure you can 3D print a lower reciever, but you can't really do that with the upper part (That's the part the bullets come out of for those that don't know). Well, technically you can. It's possible to craft a fully plastic gun that will fire. Once. You may not enjoy having a palm full of plastic shrapnel though.

How long have we hard 'modern' guns? About a 100 years or so. Since the first couple of semi-automatic weapons came out (the 1911 and a few before) guns really haven't changed very much. So we have had 'high power' guns with 'large capacity' magazines for a good century now. If guns were the cause of shootings, where have all the mass school and mall shootings been for the last 90 or so years? It's only been in the past 10 years that we've had crazies walking into a building and start shooting kids. The guns have been around long before that. And restrictions have gotten much tighter since the 1900s. Obviously there is another issue here. We need to look at why people are crazy. Is it too much lead in the water? Antibiotics in the meat? CIA brainscanners not calibrated properly? If people wheren't going on mass public shootings 20 years ago, why has it suddenly become a thing?


Whitman was a long time ago, plus there was the McDonald's massacre in the 70's, the Luby's shootup, etc. Before that we either institutionalized or stuck 'em in the military.
 
2012-12-18 11:34:07 AM

Tat'dGreaser: cig-mkr: 3-D printing isn't new by any means, we used to call it "stereolithography" in the early 90's.
Worked in a prototype NASA related machine shop that had one.
hush hush, top secret.

We had two at my college, weird how things change. They're pretty cool devices.


And I'm sure you made a ball within a ball too.
Was cool, could print things that were damn near impossible to machine.
However our liquid became very brittle when finished.
 
2012-12-18 11:37:30 AM
If printing the gun can be done, then the bullet and casing would be cake. Powder and the primer might be the only stumbling block. I'll bet there are plenty of substitutes for those.
 
2012-12-18 11:42:29 AM

cig-mkr: Tat'dGreaser: cig-mkr: 3-D printing isn't new by any means, we used to call it "stereolithography" in the early 90's.
Worked in a prototype NASA related machine shop that had one.
hush hush, top secret.

We had two at my college, weird how things change. They're pretty cool devices.

And I'm sure you made a ball within a ball too.
Was cool, could print things that were damn near impossible to machine.
However our liquid became very brittle when finished.


Some of the early processes used very brittle material. But a modern machine/process like FDM from Stratasys is a whole different ballgame. I've printed power tool housings, pressed in motors and used them for extensive testing - without a failure. A cool demo at tradeshows is for them to print a large crescent wrench and let people turn a huge bolt with it.

I don't think manufacturers are ready to use it, but for a private use receiver, they would work fine.
 
2012-12-18 11:43:05 AM

vpb: It works in other countries. Gun nuts like to point at Switzerland because military members keep their rifles at home. What they don't mention is that they are not allowed to keep ammunition. It isn't allowed to leave the range except for certain authorized units.


Not this shiat again. The army stopped providing ammunition but anyone an walk into a gun store and buy the *exact* same type of ammunition they use in their Army-issued weapons.
 
2012-12-18 11:43:23 AM

Z-clipped: incendi: There are printers that work with materials other than plastic.

If you have a 3D printer with a laser powerful enough to cut an upper receiver out of a big block of steel, WTF do you need a gun for? You could shoot through schools with your 3D printer.


Do you know how I know you're not familiar with the term "printer"?
 
2012-12-18 11:45:54 AM
First off, they aren't bullets, they are catridges or rounds of ammunition. A cartridge is made up of a case, projectile (or bullet), propellant, and a primer for setting the propellant charge off.

stratagos: vpb: stratagos: Because it of course is impossible to make your own bullets

Pretty much. Even re-loaders need supplies.

I'm willing to bet I can get lead, saltpeter, sulfer and charcoal if I set my mind to it


What are you gonna shoot that from? That sounds like a recipe for a muzzleloader and a flintlock at that. Cap locks will still need caps to set them off. Regulating the sale of caps would have the same effect on your recipe and methods as the proposed control of the sale of ammunition as mentioned in the article.
Modern cartridge based firearms require a primer to set the charge off and they use smokeless propellant. The ingredients you describe sound like the makings for black powder. In a modern firearm, ESPECIALLY an AR-15 type where combustion gasses enter the firing chamber, Black powder would be a 3 to 5 shot between cleanings affair. And I mean full dissassembly cleaning too. Ar-15 have very strict powder requirements. It must burn incredibly clean or the residues will jam the action.

I know for a fact that you can get the ingredients you describe without much trouble however the inference that you could use them to supply yourself with ammunition for modern firearms is laughable.
 
2012-12-18 11:52:11 AM

Private_Citizen: A barrel? No. A lower for many modern guns? Certainly.


Well, obviously. You can make the lower out of polymer too. My point was that 3D printing isn't a technology that's going to be capable of producing a complete firearm anytime soon, nor would it be worth the effort if it were. (That's why I specifically said "upper receiver"). A printer capable of slicing parts out of billet steel would be 100 times more dangerous than a handgun. 3D printing is neat, but it's not an efficient way to manufacture anything particularly durable, and it's probably not ever going to be.

Also, I was mostly just trying to make a Johnny Dangerously joke.
 
2012-12-18 11:53:49 AM

IAMTHEINTARWEBS: I know for a fact that you can get the ingredients you describe without much trouble however the inference that you could use them to supply yourself with ammunition for modern firearms is laughable.


Someone will just design a semi auto that can make use of the older style goods available. Revolver action, pump action, lever action, recoil, etc.
 
2012-12-18 11:54:36 AM
How about this: we make it so that you have to buy gun insurance. Premiums will be steep, as insurance companies are pretty good at calculating risk, so their formidable math will provide regulation of the possession and market. People with uninsured guns get the guns confiscated, and have to pay a crazy fine or go to jail. You would have to have an insurance sticker/tag on your gun to use it at a shooting range...
 
Displayed 50 of 208 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report