How would you do that?
If you are planning on using them to create some sort of injection mold, you could have done that from an original gun in the first place. And an injection mold isn’t going to be all that much more durable than a 3-d printed part.
To make a gun using traditional materials requires machining and milling.
A lathe, or a lot of time and a file and a vice.
A knee mill and a lathe are far better for this task than 3D printers BTW.
But from scratch production of firearms and ammunition has been happening across the world for a long time without many resources. Even machine guns are 1800’s technology.
But the cost of importing would probably be less anyways. And this is why I have been trying to get people to focus on the causes of crime and violence vs. try to ban the unbannable. Really it would have required an amendment before this and prohibition has never really reduced the availability of items like meth or pot.
While this change in SCOTUS terrifies me, maybe it will help my side target more effective and obtainable policy directions.
Once again, I am not pro gun but it is a loosing battle with the realities in the country and this has been true for a long time.
I do want to be 100% clear, had my side not been focused on Gun control, which is not likely to reduce the availability of firearms in the near future or in the long run Trump would have most likely lost the election.
Many rural voters will never vote for a Democrat because they believe the truth, that they want to pass gun control. The cost of being hard line on this is probably a regression in personal freedoms through actions like Roe v. Wade being overturned.
I understand the passion but gun control really wouldn’t have saved lives like people think it would for 100’s of reasons, but by focusing on this topic the election was handed to the Republicans. Just as the AWB, which did nothing played a part in the Democrats losing control in the legislative branch.
Yep, I was going to say the same thing. Forget about 3d printed firearms. Anyone so motivated could set themselves up with knee mill and lathe and probably only be out ~$5,000 or so (or possibly much less if they bought used equipment). And then they’d be good to go to make an actual firearm from metals instead of polymers.
Indeed, in fact Kalishnikov specifically designed his firearms such that they could be easily manufactured from rudimentary machining equipment.
And as far as controlling ammunition, bear in mind the basic recipe for black powder is sulfur, potassium nitrate, and charcoal … all easily obtainable things.
There’s no way to completely stop the sufficiently dedicated. Were we to embark on such an approach (which we won’t) the goal would be to stop the 99.999% who are too lazy/poorly supplied/incompetent to become machinists and chemists in order to make their weapons.
There’d probably be fewer school shootings if the kids had to pass chemistry first.
Meth addicts don’t make their own drugs, and if there isn’t a legitimate market a blackmarket will rise to meet demand. But do you have hard numbers that say that they just won’t move to torching or bombings if they don’t have access to firearms.
While I don’t think that the presence of firearms is a positive thing it seems a bit optimistic to believe that someone who is bent on committing mass murder wouldn’t use other means.
Sure focusing on the causes and not the implements is more challenging, but some of the largest mass murders in this country have been committed with a can of gasoline. I keep waiting for evidence on why the US is so exceptional that bombing wouldn’t just simply replace firearms, or that cheap machine guns wouldn’t be smuggled in to meet the demand.
The black market price for a AK47 world wide is about 1/10th the price of a legal AR15 or around $150.
On the other hand, we’re pretty quickly approaching the point where the ease of manufacture of any particular thing becomes easier than going out to a store to buy one.
Technological progress, she just keep chugging along.
If you have a machine shop that can make the more durable part, why do you need the printed part in the first place?
Any machine shop can be used to manufacture firearms. The specifications for firearms are not secret. This has been true for hundreds of years.
However, homemade firearms are not really much of a problem in places with strict gun control laws. If you’re in the UK and really wanna massacre a bunch of people, are you going to buy yourself a lathe and make yourself a crappy AK-47? Or are you going to drive your car through a crowd of pedestrians? Or rob someone with a shotgun certificate?
Gun control doesn’t make it impossible for criminals, maniacs, idiots, and hotheads from getting their hands on guns. It just makes it harder, the same way that seatbelts don’t prevent all car crash fatalities.
The real problem is that the United States has made it illegal to collect information about gun deaths, and immunized gun manufacturers from liability for the use of their products.
We don’t need to repeal the 2nd Amendment to start collecting information on gun fatalities, the same way we do for automobile and aviation accidents. But of course, this information is the one thing that the NRA cannot allow, because collecting the information means an eventual desire to do something with the information. And if toddlers can’t get their tiny fingers on unsecured loaded firearms, then what’s the point of America?
I stand by that statement. 3D printers are continually improving. They’re cheaper now than they’ve ever been, and easier to use, and produce higher-quality products, and all of those trends can be expected to continue. It may well be that, in 2068, it will be easier to print a gun than it is to mill one in 2018.
But machine tools are also continually improving. And so, in 2068, even if it’s easy to print a gun, it’ll be even easier to machine it. Just like it is now.
Ya, the issue has escalated, but comparing these rates is difficult with issues with ignoring the cause too.
IN the UK things have been quiet for a while, but where did the UVF and the UDA get their firearms? I know that the PIRA bought rocket-propelled grenades, flamethrowers, and even surface-to-air missiles from Libya. Would Colombian drug lords do the same if there was a market?
Both political parties like to use this divisive subject to rouse their voting base but neither side is having a rational discussion about solving the problem. One side is just using fear to dehumanize and ‘other’ their opponents to ensure they are elected, and the same is happening in reverse.
As most of the electorate is probably closer to the middle but using this wedge it becomes pretty easy to keep the factions on their side.
If you think that having to make bombs or smuggle guns in wouldn’t reduce the total number of deaths, then you’re (let’s be charitable) very, very mistaken. Even if we completely ignore the fact that most gun deaths aren’t premeditated terrorist attacks, then it’s still way easier to shoot people with a gun than make and set bombs all over a school/plaza/stadium. If it weren’t then terrorists wouldn’t use guns!
And this isn’t even talking about suicides, accidents, and petty criminals. Why yes, gangbangers are totally going to engage in drive-by bombings, throwing homemade hand grenades at each other, that makes total sense. And the most common form of suicide is suddenly going to be sending your entire house up in a giant fireball. Hell, that actually sounds like a cool way to go!
Feel free to move the goal post, but a median mortality rate of 0.000058 per 100K for ‘mass shootings’ which was your previous debate was on wouldn’t improve the suicide rate.
But if you want to move to the global picture, what are the impacts of Trumps trade war, how many women and babies will die due to a lack of prenatal care because of abortion?
How many suicides and murder suicides are going to happen with the existing firearms which already outnumber the population by a lot? Or are you suggesting a door to door search to confiscate firearms. If so how does that relate to our other rights and does that require us to accept a model of morality related to fascism?
Are you willing to cede control of congress and the executive for decades because people are outraged when white kids are shot but hand wave away those minorities deaths like you did with gang violence. And on that subject most of those gang deaths are due to a black market produced by banned substances which had the exact same justifications. What is the to life due to an increased debasement of minorities and decreased access to services?
You are willing to build a straw man, but yet you still can’t justify your initial claim.
And yes, I have known people who have been bombed, and fire bombed, this is not theory for me.
The same people mentioned in that article (but not the actor in that failed event) are DIRECTLY tied to the same actors behind the alt-right and they have even used bombs in the past. But that was before the rise of the internet, and easy access to info. While also anecdote I debated Richard Girnt Butler directly and the escalation to this level was his state intent if there was a total firearm ban (I debated him during the era of the original AWB)
The same tools and methods to make biodiesel can make explosives.
This same group of individuals like Harold Covington inspired Dylann Roof to murder. This is not some myth.
As his account was finally removed from Twitter, here is what those type of people are thinking.
And a link to show that Richard Spencer and the alt-right cheering on a race war.
Are you actually claiming that Dylann Roof would have walked away because he couldn’t buy a new rifle?
According to Covington said Dylann Roof’s shooting was “a preview of coming attractions”
My “previous debate” made a single passing reference to school shooters at the end after a paragraph pointing out that you make it harder to get guns, fewer people would have guns. This would of course include criminals, collectors, target shooters, hunters, people imagining guns make you safer, and various others in addition to school shooters and other terrorists.
In fact I think you can make an extremely strong claim that the other classes will be even more strongly effected than terrorists will. I mean, sure, grenades are fun to use while hunting and target shooting, and would be awesome for home defense, but how many of those people are going to roll their own?
If I’m moving the goalpost, I’m putting it back. This thread is about how (allegedly) easy home manufacturing of guns would make gun control efforts ineffective. Nothing about that refers to terrorists only.
On the subject of strawmen, what the hell are you rambling about? Yes, some people would switch to using bombs instead of guns. Some would even do so successfully. Some people would still die. What’s your point?
That most people argue for gun control because of their own fears, or the missguided idea that making the object illegal is the best method of preventing deaths. The political costs is high, and the practical impact is low.
But as you made a claim about suicides, can you show the direct correlation of any banned substance and suicide rates when those attempts are not accidentally deadly during attempts by individuals who were not highly committed to die by typical standards.
Coal gas is the typical example, but by the time you feel effects you are already dead and cannot revert. It is an ugly subject but most even successful suicides will be preceded by several near attempts. As an example a person suffering from suicidal thoughts may hold a pistol up to their heads many times before they pull the trigger. With coal gas you lose that option of backing out at the last moment.
What suicide need is services and significant cultural changes to destigmatize help seeking and other complicated subjects.
While in some cases it is very practical to remove the means (fences on bridges) in other cases it means that by trying to remove the means of suicide vs addressing the causes of suicide that we elect someone like Trump who will start trade wars, reduce access to services and actually probably ultimately increase the suicide rate.
It is very problematic when people oversimplify complex problems so that they can push policy to address their personal fears while ignoring the entire problem.
We live in a society where for good or bad firearms are legal, and the only effective way of actually removing them from society will have huge impacts across the entirety of government. When arguments try to co-opt these real problems with no discussion about what the actual costs/benefits are and how those amortize over time it just produces faction on wedge issues.
Especially when those arguments tend to debase the victims in a way that reinforces the very real problem of stigma blocking help seeking with suicide.
To be clear, gun-control fears is one of the major reasons Trump is president, and the only effective way to reduce the number of firearms is to pass an amendment and then invoke confiscation as firearms are durable and will last for a century with no problem.
I am not baiting you, but sell me on how you are going to get an amendment passed, and how you are going to remove firearms from circulation. As I said before I think that they are a net negative on the world, but so is booze and we already know how banning that worked out.
The data doesn’t support moving forward and alienating swing voters when you can’t even show that it will be effective, or that it will even be possible.
I can be sold, but not by rhetoric and fear. Show me the value vs the cost. (personal fear doesn’t count for much here btw)
I believe I’ve been quite explicit in this very thread that I think banning and removing guns in america hasn’t a chance in hell of happening.
TLDR; mass shootings and suicides are indicators of deeper underling issues, and while there are various options that will help some will help more then others.
Stigmatizing mental health, or mental illness with legislation like national mental health records and disqualification (which people suffer from are more likely to be victims and less likely to be perpetrators of) is actually counter productive because the stigma on help seeking is a far larger issue.
Those discussions will never happen when ‘mental illness’ is used as a tool for people who want to pass less effective laws that primarily have the advantage of making them feel safer without improving that safety by a significant margin. Add to this that conservatives truly believe in the slippery slope argument, which is being confirmed by the Democrats right now and people will dig in deeper and no solutions are implemented.
At the same time the Alt-right repackaged fascism and bigotry in a more attractive package, and it is flying off the shelves.
Yeah, but now you’ve upped the infrastructure needed from “a 3D printer” to “a 3D printer, some metalworking experience, molding and steelworking machinery…” and suddenly the “everybody” part of “everybody can do it !” starts looking fairly damn narrow.
As for making one’s own bullets : same caveats apply, and also you can’t buy *fertilizer *in the US without coming under ATF scrutiny… because apparently **one **mass fertilizing incident turned out to be dramatic enough to enact some fertilizer control doublequick. Tim McVey should have blown up a school or a cinema, if he’d known what was good for him :p. But I digress, and the point is : good luck procuring large amounts of gunpowder on the sly to make your own free range, organic, gluten free bullets with if ammo purchases somehow became controlled.
And if the answer is “oh but black market and criminals” : I don’t even know who I could score weed from, let alone illegal firepower. Do you ?
A 3D printer is only needed for pretty firearms that are in vogue. The method being used is just new and makes new outlets money. And you only need less then 5 grains for an effective bullet when there are 7000 grains in a pound.
If you ignore fads only minor welding will get you what you need.
A 3D printer is a very complicated way of reaching the end goal if function is the primary need.
Only lazy Americans would use 3D printers to make guns. Even a milling machine would seem like a tool for wussies to these guys.
