The Gun Debate That Will Happen Whether You Like It Or Not

[Jagdpanzer]

You are so full of it bless ya. Just for reference there is this thing called google and you should probably try it before writing or speaking in future.

Lol, read your own sources before you post them. They only confirm what he said. Printed lower receiver combined with off-the-shelf metal parts (barrel and chamber).

[Denny Crane!]

Lol, read your own sources before you post them. They only confirm what he said. Printed lower receiver combined with off-the-shelf metal parts (barrel and chamber).

First source, yes. Now try the rest of them.

And I'll await the retraction. My GOD MAN READ THE LINKS TITLE IF NOT THE CONTENT!

Basic reading comprehension always a boon.

[Denny Crane!]

I'll concede I too made a specious argument. Not my finest post, granted.

Still an awesome poster and still love you more than porn (ok maybe not).

I don't suppose that stating it's 11pm here, the wife and I finally have gotten both kids to sleep, and we've been trying to sell our apartment doesn't cut me some slack does it?

Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

I still stand that Arch's "guns prevent tyrannical government" is specious as there is no way to either prove or disprove it.

Oh yeah its just silly.

Lol, read your own sources before you post them. They only confirm what he said. Printed lower receiver combined with off-the-shelf metal parts (barrel and chamber).

Accidentally quoted this on but hey man they've recently done a house(granted looked ) but they did it pipes and all, how much do you want to keep the luddite thing going and really think you are holding a valid argument, because even if you were right you'd just look like a naive fool within what? A month, a year? How long would you wait to look like a fool?

Wow great comparison. The colonials stood against an Empire overstretched and an ocean away. The Empire was fighting a guerrilla war in the colonies... they could of easily won. But once France got involved... well it was over. You think the Empire is going to send more men to the Colonies when France is staring them down from across the channel? Please.

Colonials stood against the British Empire so that means modern day Americans can successfully resist a government in Washington with modern day weapons.

Well the case is that they quite clearly can actually. Are you seriously going to contend it? For the USA to remain remotely as a democracy and not a genocidal machine then conventional machines and weapons would indeed work.

[xcorps]

You are so full of it bless ya. Just for reference there is this thing called google and you should probably try it before writing or speaking in future.


http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...3d-printed-gun

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07...assault_rifle/
http://www.newser.com/story/159720/t...nted-guns.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/fu...part-1C7404226
http://gizmodo.com/5970483/theres-a-...ed-gun-designs

Testing a PLASTIC EXISTING GUN TO DESTRUCTION:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuDCW...ature=youtu.be

So yes please, please learn to google...everything.

Really? Your going to post useless prototypes as a rebuttal? Get over yourself. Actually read what's posted. How many plastic guns have been manufactured? ZERO.

[Raubritter]

Really? Your going to post useless prototypes as a rebuttal? Get over yourself. Actually read what's posted. How many plastic guns have been manufactured? ZERO.

How many guns were build in prisons? Quite a lot i can tell you.

[xcorps]

How many guns were build in prisons? Quite a lot i can tell you.

And I can tell you that the long list of retarded posts you make is capped by this one.

[Raubritter]

And I can tell you that the long list of retarded posts you make is capped by this one.

Haha, yeah sure whatever.

You can't reverse the invention of blackpowder.
Government can't ban guns and drugs even in prisons, gun control can't work. Never ever. And even if guns would disapear from the planet from one day to another, than its realy the rule of brute force.

[Jagdpanzer]

First source, yes. Now try the rest of them.

And I'll await the retraction. My GOD MAN READ THE LINKS TITLE IF NOT THE CONTENT!

Basic reading comprehension always a boon.

All sources are basically about the same gun. And like I said they only managed to print some parts. All sources confirm that they only managed to create some plastic parts and still needed off-the-shelf metal parts.

http://defcad.org/

Accidentally quoted this on but hey man they've recently done a house(granted looked ) but they did it pipes and all, how much do you want to keep the luddite thing going and really think you are holding a valid argument, because even if you were right you'd just look like a naive fool within what? A month, a year? How long would you wait to look like a fool?

I was arguing that all plastic guns don't exist. Not that it's impossible to make a self-built gun. You were trying to rebuke XCORPS' argument that all-plastic guns don't exist.

How many guns were build in prisons? Quite a lot i can tell you.

XCORPS was arguing that all-plastic guns are impossible to make, not that self-made guns don't exist.

[grinder]

You elected? I don't go to vote since i'am old enough to vote, i always cancel my ballots.

But why you people don't get, that a armed population will defend every standing army? You always talk stuff about "buhu they have tanks", but you don't understand that these things ain't that powerfull as you see on TV about Abrahams tanks. The Minutemen stod also against the worlds biggest and undefeated Army.

People in the US own AT Guns and Flamethrowers, there is no way to conquer this country for anyone.


READ People, READ. READ Books!

Interesting. Now it is hard for me to decide if your posting here or your outing as a truther in the other thread is more embarrassing to read.

[Ciabhán]

First source, yes. Now try the rest of them.

And I'll await the retraction. My GOD MAN READ THE LINKS TITLE IF NOT THE CONTENT!

Basic reading comprehension always a boon.

I just read through them and all of them are based on the idea of printing the part that by legal definition makes ita weapon, the lower receiver, and using purchased metal parts for the rest. All the attempts were based off the supposedly successful first one by the fella in the first link.

[Astaroth]

My most "favorite" of all the pro-gun arguments has to be the "bans only affect law-abiding citizens since criminals don't follow the laws anyway" one.

First of all, going by that logic would render lots of laws obsolete. Why have speed limits when all reasonable citizens would drive without endangering anyone anyway? After all, people who drive in a reckless manner aren't stopped by laws.
Some types of behavior or items are simply so dangerous that nobody should have access to them, period.

Secondly, dividing people into categories of "law-abiding citizens" and "criminals" makes no sense. Becoming criminal is not an inherent trait that some people have while others do not. Everyone can become a "criminal" under certain circumstances. Some people steal for their whole life yet never kill or seriously harm anyone. Others live as perfect "law-abiding citizens" for 50 years, then they suddenly go mental and kill their whole family and themselves with their gun. Who of the two is a criminal?

Thirdly, if criminals don't obey the laws anyway, why have laws that apply specifically to criminals? E.g., why even bother not allowing felons to buy weapons at stores? After all, criminals can get weapons anyway. So you could as well let them buy guns at a store.

Fourthly, while criminals might not care about bans on (a certain type of) guns per se, that's not the point. The point is that banning a certain type of guns will make it less available in a country. Criminals won't be able to get those guns as easily by stealing them from other gun owners.

Furthermore, there is another major benefit to banning guns that directly applies to criminals: if you are caught with a gun, you are a criminal. That makes it much easier to differentiate between "law-abiding citizens" and others. If you have a gun, the cops could already arrest you based on that and then figure out if you are also responsible for other crimes.

So yeah, the whole "criminals don't follow the laws" argument is just incredibly silly and ignores the whole point of gun bans.

[Ludicus]

So yeah, the whole "criminals don't follow the laws" argument is just incredibly silly and ignores the whole point of gun bans.

Good post, Astaroth, but the multi billion dollar gun industry disagrees.

The top NRA benefactor Larry Potterfield explains, stating on the company's website:

"By 1987, we were doing about $5 million in business, selling mostly to dealers. The product lines were bulk components and cartridge boxes. The Volkmer-McClure [sic] law was enacted in October 1987, which removed the restriction of shipping brass and bullets to FFL holders only. Midway immediately began selling directly to consumers, in addition to selling to dealers"

Potterfield's contributions represent just a portion of the millions of dollars the NRA receives from the gun industry,
Source,
NRA Reaps Profits From the Internet Ammo Sales

[Menelik_I]

Does the statistics of gun lump people killed by Law Enforcement as "Gun violence victims" ?

The number is basically high around 532 people killed by police officers in the USA in 2011 aprox

Good post, Astaroth, but the multi billion dollar gun industry disagrees.

The top NRA benefactor Larry Potterfield explains, stating on the company's website:

"By 1987, we were doing about $5 million in business, selling mostly to dealers. The product lines were bulk components and cartridge boxes. The Volkmer-McClure [sic] law was enacted in October 1987, which removed the restriction of shipping brass and bullets to FFL holders only. Midway immediately began selling directly to consumers, in addition to selling to dealers"

Potterfield's contributions represent just a portion of the millions of dollars the NRA receives from the gun industry,
Source,
NRA Reaps Profits From the Internet Ammo Sales

Nice way of making this about "evil gun companies" because Gun Control ultimate goal is registry and confiscation like in the UK. The point is that this is a an undue restriction on people rights.

This is like complaining that the NYT is making millions off of the first Amendment, even though completely abridging it will go beyond closing a newspaper and would be censure of private citizens.

[Gelgoog]

Are you for serious? Is this guy for serious? Read your own wiki link there, the first paragraph has more "alleged"s and "[Citation Needed]"s than big foots wiki page. It isn't "part of Japanese culture", it is legend, that is all. It is like if we said all englishmen know how to slay dragons.

And yet the famous japanese suicide forest is a renowned spot for that happening.

I am by no means a Japanese Culture expert, but somebody who honestly believed the Japanese threw their elderly off cliffs or that Japan is a "police state" probably doesn't even know where Japan is on a map.

The japanese seem to believe it.

Also the abuses of the police, their court systems unwilling to acknowledge wide use of torture, inhumane conditions of incarceration and almost no rights to privacy or protections against search and seizure are all well documentation. They do not even allow you to know the charges against you when they force you to sign a confession.

What is this, I don't even? Are you implying that people who access illegal guns and substances plan on killing themselves afterwards, or something? I can't tell.

You read way to much into that comment. Laws do not stop anyone if they want something bad enough.

Perhaps I should be more clear: all-plastic guns are not buyable in the US. You can't get them legally, and it is very very difficult to get them illegally (I am assuming, I have heard any cases involved all-plastic guns). If you are going to buy a gun in the US, it has to have a certain amount of metal in it (enough to trip off any old metal detector), it can't be entirely plastic.

A) there is no law, there was a scare in the 80s when glocks first came out that they could pass metal detectors but that was proven false almost immediately. That is why you have that silly phrase in some 80s movies when arms dealers try to pass off a gun as being "immune to metal detectors".

B) You can not make a gun entirely out of plastic without it blowing up in your face the first time you fire it. All firearms have to have metal at critical stress points.

You don't see how having the most powerful military in the world siding with its Government is relevant to your claim that a having an armed populace is preventing tyranny?

If the US Government decided that it wanted to become a dictatorship, and the US Military decided to support the Government in that action, do you really think a few million rifle-weilding people spread across a country the size of the US would have any bearing on that goal at all?

Any you have still not explained how the US government would wage a war on its own soil when there are 21.5 million vets with combat experience. Do you not understand the concepts of asymetrical warfare? The US army for as large as it is, would require the rest of the world's military to occupy a country the size of the US.

Tell me how has the US done in Iraq and Afghanistan with a huge international coalition? Remind how large those two nations are?

You are so full of it bless ya. Just for reference there is this thing called google and you should probably try it before writing or speaking in future.


http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/1...3d-printed-gun

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07...assault_rifle/
http://www.newser.com/story/159720/t...nted-guns.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/fu...part-1C7404226
http://gizmodo.com/5970483/theres-a-...ed-gun-designs

Testing a PLASTIC EXISTING GUN TO DESTRUCTION:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuDCW...ature=youtu.be

So yes please, please learn to google...everything.

So much fail. 3D plastic printed AR15 plastic lower does not make it an entirely plastic gun. You can make a lower out of plastic because it is not a stress points. Notice that even in your own articles it say first 3D partially made gun. Still tons of metal in that gun.



does that look like an entirely made out of plastic gun?

[Arch]

Congratulations you successfully read and comprehended what I wrote. Muskets were indeed for defense against bandits, wild boar and ING INDIANS.

What makes "ING INDIANS" worse than a tyrannical government? Why should one deserve to defend himself only to the former but not the later?

Yeah I suppose in some fantasy land it is for defense against a tyrannical government as well... sure. Havnt had a tyrannical government yet though. And guns wont help you otherwise.

I'm pretty sure the US is having one right know, especially since the Patriot Act. Considering how polarized American politics have become and the fact that something like Guantanamo still exist are quite obvious indicators.

Didnt help the Jews, the Germans, the Poles, or the Russians. Hell didnt even help the French. How are you going to stop the government with your AR-15? But you want your AR-15 and you dont care how many sick mothers also get an AR-15 to shoot up movie theaters?

It helped the Russians, the French, every nazi-occupied nation during WW2, every nation fighting for independence during the Jugoslavic wars, the Afghans during the sovjet invasion, the Iraqis during the American invasion, the Vietnamese during the american invasion etc.

The conclusion is that automatic rifles has hard an significant impact on the world and has aided revolutions and insurgencies pretty much everywhere.

Yes, indeed. So that would mean the second amendment isnt for people to rebel.

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government."
-IX THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE para. 2 (U.S. 1776).

"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing."
-Thomas Jefferson

So that would be.. yes it is.

[Gelgoog]

My most "favorite" of all the pro-gun arguments has to be the "bans only affect law-abiding citizens since criminals don't follow the laws anyway" one.

First of all, going by that logic would render lots of laws obsolete. Why have speed limits when all reasonable citizens would drive without endangering anyone anyway? After all, people who drive in a reckless manner aren't stopped by laws.
Some types of behavior or items are simply so dangerous that nobody should have access to them, period.

Secondly, dividing people into categories of "law-abiding citizens" and "criminals" makes no sense. Becoming criminal is not an inherent trait that some people have while others do not. Everyone can become a "criminal" under certain circumstances. Some people steal for their whole life yet never kill or seriously harm anyone. Others live as perfect "law-abiding citizens" for 50 years, then they suddenly go mental and kill their whole family and themselves with their gun. Who of the two is a criminal?

Thirdly, if criminals don't obey the laws anyway, why have laws that apply specifically to criminals? E.g., why even bother not allowing felons to buy weapons at stores? After all, criminals can get weapons anyway. So you could as well let them buy guns at a store.

Fourthly, while criminals might not care about bans on (a certain type of) guns per se, that's not the point. The point is that banning a certain type of guns will make it less available in a country. Criminals won't be able to get those guns as easily by stealing them from other gun owners.

Furthermore, there is another major benefit to banning guns that directly applies to criminals: if you are caught with a gun, you are a criminal. That makes it much easier to differentiate between "law-abiding citizens" and others. If you have a gun, the cops could already arrest you based on that and then figure out if you are also responsible for other crimes.

So yeah, the whole "criminals don't follow the laws" argument is just incredibly silly and ignores the whole point of gun bans.

No government has ever been able to legislate away crime. Laws are designed to keep honest men honest and give the government a means to punish those who are not.

Also good ideas on massively increasing our incarcerated population, because we need more of a tax burden on the people by locking up millions of gun owners now branded criminals.

[Surgeon]

My most "favorite" of all the pro-gun arguments has to be the "bans only affect law-abiding citizens since criminals don't follow the laws anyway" one.

First of all, going by that logic would render lots of laws obsolete. Why have speed limits when all reasonable citizens would drive without endangering anyone anyway? After all, people who drive in a reckless manner aren't stopped by laws.
Some types of behavior or items are simply so dangerous that nobody should have access to them, period.

Derp. How about you answer your own question about speed limits? You have evidence that if you removed them you'd get more reckless drivers? Or is it like one of those "common sense" things gun control advocates advise that isn't backed up by reality?

Secondly, dividing people into categories of "law-abiding citizens" and "criminals" makes no sense. Becoming criminal is not an inherent trait that some people have while others do not. Everyone can become a "criminal" under certain circumstances. Some people steal for their whole life yet never kill or seriously harm anyone. Others live as perfect "law-abiding citizens" for 50 years, then they suddenly go mental and kill their whole family and themselves with their gun. Who of the two is a criminal?

Failing to see what this has to do with guns. It applies to absolutely any crime. People all have the potential to break the law at some point, ergo... punish everyone?

Thirdly, if criminals don't obey the laws anyway, why have laws that apply specifically to criminals? E.g., why even bother not allowing felons to buy weapons at stores? After all, criminals can get weapons anyway. So you could as well let them buy guns at a store.

Good question, care to answer it? Why shouldn't a felon be allowed to buy a gun? Is he a reformed citizen or not, now that he's served his time? Why doesn't he have right to protect himself? If he's not to be trusted to be among the rest of society then, here's an idea, don't let him out.

Fourthly, while criminals might not care about bans on (a certain type of) guns per se, that's not the point. The point is that banning a certain type of guns will make it less available in a country. Criminals won't be able to get those guns as easily by stealing them from other gun owners.

This theory seems to rely on magicking away all guns in the entire world to prove true in any capacity. Where have gun bans managed to limit their availability to criminals?

Furthermore, there is another major benefit to banning guns that directly applies to criminals: if you are caught with a gun, you are a criminal. That makes it much easier to differentiate between "law-abiding citizens" and others. If you have a gun, the cops could already arrest you based on that and then figure out if you are also responsible for other crimes.

So yeah, the whole "criminals don't follow the laws" argument is just incredibly silly and ignores the whole point of gun bans.

Yes because in the places where you have the most crime and guns are banned (large cities) this isn't what's already taking place. What would it accomplish exactly? Law-abiding citizens... wouldn't have guns on them if it was against the law.

So yeah, I don't think you quite thought this through.

[MathiasOfAthens]

What makes "ING INDIANS" worse than a tyrannical government? Why should one deserve to defend himself only to the former but not the later?

One was hypothetical and the other an every day threat. And government has checks and balances. The people vote. If suddenly one day voting was repealed you think people would find a way to rebel and get guns, hey maybe the military made up of citizens when revolt as well. Why dont you just claim you have guns to resist an alien invasion. You have as much success at resisting martians than you do Washington.

[HissingNewt]

One was hypothetical and the other an every day threat. And government has checks and balances. The people vote. If suddenly one day voting was repealed you think people would find a way to rebel and get guns, hey maybe the military made up of citizens when revolt as well. Why dont you just claim you have guns to resist an alien invasion. You have as much success at resisting martians than you do Washington.

Hypothetical threat directly after a war against the previously ruling government?

[Astaroth]

Derp. How about you answer your own question about speed limits? You have evidence that if you removed them you'd get more reckless drivers? Or is it like one of those "common sense" things gun control advocates advise that isn't backed up by reality?

Swing and miss. The point - which you quite obviously have missed - is that certain types of behavior and certain items seriously endanger other people. Some of these items or types of behavior need to be banned. Ie. driving over a certain speed limit, drunk driving (regardless of whether you actually hit anyone) or owning a gun. Of course these laws do not make criminals disappear on their own. But they have other benefits: they encourage less dangerous behavior.
As for speed limits: if I'm a reckless driver who insists driving at 200 miles per hour, then I will most likely hit someone eventually. Sure, I would get punished for that, but I would probably have seriously injured or killed others. Speeding limits make that less likely to happen. Because I will either have to adjust my driving behavior or my license will be taken away. Either way, the chance of harming others has been reduced.

Failing to see what this has to do with guns. It applies to absolutely any crime. People all have the potential to break the law at some point, ergo... punish everyone?

It's not about punishment. The point is that "law-abiding citizens" can just as well suddenly go on a rampage (or their children, see Newtown). That means that guns are too deadly for anyone to have, no matter whether you have been a "law-abiding citizen" in the past.

Good question, care to answer it? Why shouldn't a felon be allowed to buy a gun? Is he a reformed citizen or not, now that he's served his time? Why doesn't he have right to protect himself? If he's not to be trusted to be among the rest of society then, here's an idea, don't let him out.

That's not my view, that's what the NRA et al. say. But if you want to propose the idea that someone who has been convincted multiple times of assault etc. gets a gun at a store, feel free.

This theory seems to rely on magicking away all guns in the entire world to prove true in any capacity. Where have gun bans managed to limit their availability to criminals?

Lol. Gun bans make it harder to get access to guns. That's a fact. When there are essentially no privately owned or sold guns, where are you going to get a gun? Either from the police (pretty hard) or from outside the country. Sure, guns won't disappear, but it'll make it harder to get them. Illegal guns also make them more expensive, which means normal run of the mill criminals couldn't afford them.

Yes because in the places where you have the most crime and guns are banned (large cities) this isn't what's already taking place. What would it accomplish exactly? Law-abiding citizens... wouldn't have guns on them if it was against the law.

Large cities do not have borders to the rest of the country (unlike the country's actual borders). They have no way of stopping guns from getting in. Also, large cities have more crime than the countryside by default. More crims means more guns. Yet if guns were banned, criminals couldn't get them as easily or cheaply. It's one thing to buy some guns and drive 1 hour to a big city where they are banned without any controls. It's something completely else to get guns in Mexico, smuggle them across the border and drive 10 hours to some metropolis.