Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Build Your Rights Online

3D Printable Ammo Clip Skirts New Proposed Gun Laws 1862

Posted by timothy
from the they'll-3d-print-you-a-fine-and-a-cell-door dept.
Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Over the past weekend, Defense Distributed successfully 3D-printed and tested a magazine for an AR semi-automatic rifle, loading and firing 86 rounds from the 30-round clip. That homemade chunk of curved plastic holds special significance: Between 1994 and 2004, so-called 'high capacity magazines' capable of holding more than 10 bullets were banned from sale. And a new gun control bill proposed by California Senator Dianne Feinstein in the wake of recent shootings would ban those larger ammo clips again. President Obama has also voiced support for the magazine restrictions. Defense Distributed says it hopes to preempt any high capacity magazine ban by showing how impossible it has become to prevent the creation of a simple spring-loaded box in the age of cheap 3D printing. It's posted the 3D-printable magazine blueprints on its website, Defcad.org, and gun enthusiasts have already downloaded files related to the ammo holders more than 2,200 times." Update: 01/15 23:15 GMT by T : Mea culpa; please blame my flu for mistakenly letting through that headline with "clip" where it should say "magazine." I know the difference — and I don't own any clips.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

3D Printable Ammo Clip Skirts New Proposed Gun Laws

Comments Filter:
  • Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:11AM (#42591153)
    Could people stop using that word? It's almost as bad as technobable on the idiot box.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:11AM (#42591155)

    You know how you stop a bad guy with a gun?

    A good guy with a gun. Anything else is handwaving bullshit.

    Where's the school shooting going to happen? At the school with the "Gun Free Zone" sign, or at the school with the "Protected by Armed Guards" sign?

  • Hair-splitting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tripleevenfall (1990004) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:12AM (#42591171)

    For one thing, these are not called "clips", they are magazines. And magazines hold rounds, not "bullets", which are part of a round. Seeing these terms used clues the reader in that the author knows little to nothing about firearms.

    In a larger sense, I don't think we need printer control in response to this, because (a) not a single one of the new regulations being proposed would have stopped any of these mass shootings, and (b) because I can't see these plastic magazines working exceptionally well.

  • by exabrial (818005) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:14AM (#42591185)
    How does this keep schools safer?
  • by krovisser (1056294) * on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:17AM (#42591225)
    In the same way that an unenforced "Gun Free Zone" does.


    It doesn't.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:19AM (#42591247)

    Good point. That is to say, you and every other Slashdork is all gung-ho about "technology misuse" when it comes to, say, pirated software or movie or music distribution or breaking DRM, but when it comes to printing a sodding plastic box, we get "omfg, technology misuse" and Slashdot turns into a cesspool of whiny moralising dweebs.

  • by nschubach (922175) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:19AM (#42591249) Journal

    It's stated in the article. They assume that since some previous gun incidents have been stopped when the gunman had to reload that limiting the amount you can fire off will allow someone to be a hero and tackle the gunman.

    Horwitz points out that Tucson shooter Jared Loughner was tackled while attempting to reload a new magazine into his Glock handgun. And police say that Newtown, Connecticut shooter Adam Lanza may have allowed some of his victims to escape while he reloaded his smaller clips.

  • by thelovebus (264467) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:20AM (#42591261)

    That our esteemed legislators say to themselves
    "Well, that's that, then! I guess it's pointless to ban high-capacity magazines."
    or
    "This is insidious! Alongside a high-capacity magazine ban, we should also ban 3D printing! Clearly it's a technology that will only be used by TERRORISTS!"

    I think something like the latter is more likely, and I'm not even one of /.'s famed government-hating libertarian fundamentalists!

  • Re:Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mumblestheclown (569987) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:22AM (#42591279)

    Here's a better one: why don't we focus on the underlying issues rather than basically meaningless terminology that everybody involved understands what is meant anyway.

  • Re:Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kissing Crimson (197314) <jonesy@nOSpaM.crimsonshade.com> on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:24AM (#42591317) Homepage

    Thank you!

    Maybe we should allow Senator Feinstein to ban 30 round "clips," thus protecting the sale of 20 and 30 round magazines.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:24AM (#42591319) Journal

    That's why Columbine was an epic failure, right? And why the so-called 'green on blue' attacks on NATO servicemen aren't even close to being a weekly occurrence?

  • by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:27AM (#42591369) Homepage

    " Defense Distributed says it hopes to preempt any high capacity magazine ban by showing how impossible it has become to prevent the creation of a simple spring-loaded box in the age of cheap 3D printing"

    They are much more likely to inspire legislation banning 3D printing.

  • by TWX (665546) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:29AM (#42591397)
    Last time I checked, another way to stop a bad guy with a gun was to catch him when he was reloading because he exhausted the ammunition in his firearm. That worked in Tucson.

    I would like to see documented cases where an otherwise-innocent civilian with no connection to the military, to law enforcement, or to private security needed more than ten rounds, or was harmed for running out of ammunition over ten rounds...
  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:31AM (#42591427)
    I can reload a new, full pistol mag in under 1.5 seconds consistently. So, what's the point of that law? And what's to stop a crazy person from walking into a school with a machete, taser, and body armor? Good luck stopping that combo without a weapon. And what's going to stop someone from carrying bleach with chlorine into a crowded place and mixing it, making mustard gas (if I remember correctly). That's like a gun x10.

    You either toddler-proof the entire world or you realize you're not going to stop a crazy person from doing stupid shit. There is no solution to mass shooting problems unless you go get some oracles and put them in a pool and form a precrime division...and even that didn't work out, lol.

    I'm from Wisconsin where we FINALLY become the 49th state to have a conceiled weapons permit available about a year ago. Now every store that's run by a dumbass has a sign that says "Only criminals are allowed to carry weapons in this store." It actually says "no guns or weapons allowed" but since criminals won't read or respect that, I translated it.

    For the record, I don't own a gun. I only carry LTL weapons because they work better at disabling a target and the court case would go a lot better if someone who tries to rob me isn't dead. Also it's easier to get financial compensation from them, lol.

    If they think 20 bullets per mag is going to stop someone from going on a shooting spree or that 20 less dead people is acceptable, they're dreaming. I mean I know not one single politician actually believe any of this gun law BS, it's all just for show, but still.
  • by Culture20 (968837) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:32AM (#42591453)

    Yet there are numerous restrictions and bans on them. Or using alcohol. Is there any law which is going to stop a person who is bound and determined to drink and drive?

    The real reason for laws and regulations isn't absolute prohibition or removal, just reduction.

    You're talking about laws that reduce poor judgment or carelessness. They enforce proper action in good-hearted people. But murder is different. It requires evil intent. There are already laws against murder. Once someone decides that (mass)murder is their goal, there aren't a whole lot of laws that will stop them. Maybe serve as a bar by which to judge and punish the murderer, yes, but precious few laws create an environment which will stop them.

  • by kimvette (919543) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:33AM (#42591457) Homepage Journal

    I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.

    The purpose of the second amendment is not for sporting, hunting, or even home defense. It is there to prevent the government from disarming the people and instituting tyranny and/or fascism. We have the second amendment to preserve our natural right to shoot tyrants and fascists should our system of checks and balances fail and they come into power.

  • by MightyYar (622222) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:33AM (#42591465)

    You can also stop a high percentage of the bad guys from getting guns in the first place. This isn't a pipe dream - most of the developed world has something on the order of 100x fewer gun homicides.

    Of course, assault rifles are objectively not a big problem. Handguns are. But the path of least resistance for Obama is to score some easy points by going after the big easy target. And because he's going after something that isn't a problem, it gives the other side an easy out as well. Everyone wins, ain't politics great? Oh, sure, we still have something like 8000 handgun homicides at the end, but whatever.

  • by Bigby (659157) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:33AM (#42591469)

    The citizens do not have an explicit right for guns for sporting, hunting, and home defense. They have a right for the purpose of fighting back from an oppressive government. If I see sporting/hunting with regard to gun rights again, I am going to ...

    And don't be naive with regard to how the US government could turn on its citizens enough to warrant such use of guns. If the citizens cannot fight back, the oppression WILL happen. It would just be a matter of time.

    And no, our military power couldn't stop an armed populace. The military wouldn't have a chance...unless they wanted to just kill everyone. But then who do you exercise power over at that point?

  • by heefeneet (2709235) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:33AM (#42591479)

    You know how you stop a bad guy with a gun?

    A good guy with a gun.

    Excellent. Now all we need is a way to tell the two guys apart before the shooting starts.

  • by Shivetya (243324) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:34AM (#42591493) Homepage Journal

    Would have prevented Sandy Hook or Aurora?

    The simple fact is politicians are going for low hanging fruit because they do not want to admit we live in a world with dysfunctional people and the money that could be spent to treat them does not buy sufficient votes for those in power.

  • by bit trollent (824666) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:35AM (#42591503) Homepage

    Oh yeah,

    Well another woman was killed by her own AR-15 assault rifle, and then had her gun used to murder 20 children.

    28 people were killed by guns yesterday, and most of them probably didn't deserve to die.

    28 more will die tomorrow. And the next day. Just like every day for the past decade.

    Anecdotes prove nothing. Statistics should be analyzed intelligently and acted upon.

    28 gun deaths per day is a steep price for our society's inability to distinguish between anecdotes and statistics.

  • Re:Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Napkintosh (140126) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:35AM (#42591509) Homepage

    Sometimes it undermines credibility when you display ignorance like that. If he created a sprocket and called it a spring, I'd expect the same criticism.

  • by quietwalker (969769) <pdughi@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:36AM (#42591519)

    Waaay back when, I hit the Bureau of Crime Statistics, the Dept of Justice, and the FBI websites to see all the data relating to violent crimes, gun crimes, and so on.

    According to our own records, automatic or high-capacity weapons are used so infrequently to perpetrate crimes that they don't even have their own separate breakdown - they're sloshed into the 'other' bucket with weapons like 'talking billy bass animated fish sculpture'. The most popular weapon for crime appears to be cheap semiautomatic pistols. The cheaper the better.

    If your goal is to reduce gun crime, it seems like focusing on automatic rifles and other scary-sounding guns is dumb. Even if they had the potential for greater harm, the smaller guns have actually realized their potential. Of course, if the goal is not just myopically focused on guns, and instead it's meant to reduce suffering, to save lives, and so on - why does no one look at the statistics that say there's more than twice the number of suicides by gun in a year than murders in the US? If we're going to spend money, why not focus on the sectors with the biggest benefits?

    (as an amusing aside, check out the violent crime breakdowns by race. What if it was politically correct acknowledge the groups that are outliers by several orders of magnitude, and try to focus on fixing the cultural problems that cause it?).

  • Re:Clip (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TWX (665546) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:38AM (#42591551)
    Be careful, depending on the courts, "clip" could refer to any structure capable of holding ammunition and designed to be a module of the firearm.

    And framing the debate in these terms is not going to help you if they decide to propose legislation that requires all civilian magazines for rifles with a capcity of 10 rounds must be unloaded except when in use at licensed firearms ranges, and for handguns with magazines in excess of ten rounds, the remaining capacity must be filled with dummy rounds if carried off one one's own property or outside of a licensed firearms range...

    My point is that attempting to stonewall the debate instead of participating in it will probably result in something at least at stringent as the previous assault weapons ban, and could result in something even more strict. If firearms enthusiasts take a good look at the ills that come from firearms ownership and themselves suggest limits, then they can craft what happens. And one can rant and rave about the Second Amendment all one wants, the court has ruled that previous restrictions are in fact legal, and would very likely continue to do so as long as restrictions do not outright prohibit any kind of firearm.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:39AM (#42591557)

    Statement 1: Stop the bad guy when he is reloading

    Statement 2: No good guy ever get's stopped while he is reloading

    what are you trying to say?

  • by amiga3D (567632) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:39AM (#42591567)

    Let us be clear here. Ownership of firearms has never really been about hunting or really even about home defense. It's about the right of the citizenry to have the means to protect themselves from tyranny. The government may not trust us with our guns but really we don't trust them much with their guns. There is always a certain level of paranoia about government control anyway and any attempt to limit weapons at all directly reinforces that paranoia. In short, Americans really don't trust their leadership and if you sit and listen to CSPAN for a few hours it's easy to understand why.

  • Re:Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:44AM (#42591643)

    You do realize that you guys lost that war at least 35 years ago? I was raised in the 1960s and 1970s, around lots of cops and other heavy users of firearms, who all called their handgun magazines "clips". I don't think I even heard the word "magazine" used for such things until I was an adult.

    In language, actual usage always wins. If the general public uses a word a certain way, and even a lot of people relatively well acquainted with the subject use it that way, then the desires of a microscopic minority of obsessive pedants are just going to have to give way.

    You may, of course, feel free to maintain the distinction in professional discussions among gunsmiths. But it's just stupid to expect anybody else to care.

    Same applies to "hacker", by the way. Battle lost. Give up.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:45AM (#42591673)

    28 gun deaths per day is a steep price for our society's inability to distinguish between anecdotes and statistics.

    28 gun deaths per day is a cheap price for our society's continued freedom from government tyranny. That's what the second amendment is about. Not self defense, not hunting, not skeet shooting. Protection from tyranny. It's a recognized right for the people to possess the means to revolt should they choose.

  • Re:Clip (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geminidomino (614729) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:48AM (#42591709) Journal

    OT, but curiosity compels me since you brought it up.

    What, exactly, is the distinction between a "sprocket" and a "gear"?

    It's one of those little things that's always bothered me that I've been ignorant of, but googling doesn't help much since they seem to be incorrectly used interchangeably (much like "magazine" vs. "clip") on the intarwebz.

  • by LynnwoodRooster (966895) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:49AM (#42591713) Journal

    We need to wake up and realize that guns are a privilege not a right.

    The 2nd Amendment says otherwise. Unless you want to claim all other amendments are just privileges and not rights?

  • by Isaac Remuant (1891806) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:49AM (#42591721)

    And no, our military power couldn't stop an armed populace. The military wouldn't have a chance...unless they wanted to just kill everyone.

    They don't have to. Applying the massive surveillance networks built with the purpose of "fighting terrorism" to the homeland the government can effectively destroy any glimpse of uprising or movement that tries to organize a rebellion.

    The only way an uprising would work in USA would be if it happened spontaneously everywhere at the same time and if most personnel belonging to the armed/security forces joined in as well.

    It's the old "Those who don't move, don't notice their chains"

  • by ageoffri (723674) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:49AM (#42591723)
    How about you compare apples to apples? You start out by giving a single statistic about handguns and then move to banning AK-47's. Also with your statistics you leave out the number of reported incidents of self-defense especially those which don't result in a discharge of a firearm. And don't forget that the key word there is reported, there is no way to know the number of unreported but it is surely higher.

    Next you want to ban AK-47's, but I'm sure you don't know that effectively AK-47's, M16's and every other type of machine gun is already banned. The ban does not allow the transfer of any new machine guns to regular citizens that have been manufactured since 1984. Since this calls into the effect the laws of economics the supply is very limited and it costs around $20,000 to buy a M16 in addition to the background check and $200 tax stamp that one must go through with the BATF. Go look up crime statistics and you will find that the number of crimes committed with machine guns is either zero every year or in single digits.

    An assault weapon is one that is capable of firing more then one round when the trigger is pulled and they are all tightly controlled by current regulation.

    The three AR-15's in my gun safe are all semi-auto only and one of these days I'll pick up an AK clone that is also semi-auto only. These are amazing target rifles, low recoil, semi-auto, accurate. Yet at the same time my fiancee bolt-action 30-06 is much more powerful, has greater effective range and is far more lethal.

    The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of sporting, self-defense, or other criteria that gun banners attribute to the 2nd Amendment. AR-15's are used in sporting purposes all the time. 3-gun matches are growing in popularity and an AR-15 is one of the best choices for this sporting competition.

  • by fredrated (639554) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:51AM (#42591761) Journal

    So how do you explain the current government tyranny? According to you there should be none.

  • Re:Clip (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:52AM (#42591779)

    Here's a better one: why don't we focus on the underlying issues rather than basically meaningless terminology that everybody involved understands what is meant anyway.

    Because distorting terms is how the left is lying about what really is going on? The disarmament of the subjects in the United States.

    If you want to prevent gun crime, ban the people that do it by putting them in jail.

  • Re:Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:54AM (#42591805)
    If somebody wanted to pass a whole bunch of stupid laws relating to software, and then they started calling things by wrong terms and demonstrating they don't understand anything about the field they're proposing to make binding laws for, would you respect them? I sure as hell wouldn't. I thought Ted Stevens and others like him were completely unqualified to legislate on internet related matters, and I think that many of the congresspersons and lobbyists who wouldn't know DA from SA if their life depended on it are completely unqualified to legislate on issues upon which other people's lives do depend.
  • by tgibbs (83782) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:56AM (#42591821)

    With a question like this, anecdotes are pretty much worthless, just a way of distracting people from thinking rationally about the real issues of risk and benefit. For every anecdote of somebody whose life or the life of a loved one was saved because a gun was in the house, there is another anecdote of somebody who died in an accidental shooting or shot a loved one by mistake. There are examples of people who survived an auto accident only because they were thrown from the car, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't fasten your seat belt--we know that because we have actual statistics that show that [I]on the average[/I], seat belts save lives.

    So if you want to make a real case, forget the anecdotes and cite some real numbers.

  • Re:Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pla (258480) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:57AM (#42591841) Journal
    Here's a better one: why don't we focus on the underlying issues rather than basically meaningless terminology that everybody involved understands what is meant anyway.

    I know, right? We all know what it means, who cares about the pedantic "right" word?

    Now as long as I have your attention... Would you mind giving me a hand upgrading the RAM in my hard drive? I can't seem to get the case off the monitor...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @11:58AM (#42591849)

    And yet, the risk of actually being killed by a firearm in Norway is significantly smaller than in the US.

    Even in the light of the Utöya massacre, you'll have to look hard to find a single Norwegian that actually want more relaxed gun laws.

  • by Culture20 (968837) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:00PM (#42591873)

    I would like to see documented cases where an otherwise-innocent civilian with no connection to the military, to law enforcement, or to private security needed more than ten rounds, or was harmed for running out of ammunition over ten rounds...

    Not to go all Godwin on you, but I'm sure there are plenty of cases in Nazi Germany, Russia, China, etc. And that ties in better with the Second Amendment better than self defense arguments anyway.

  • Re:Hair-splitting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MBGMorden (803437) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:00PM (#42591875)

    and (b) because I can't see these plastic magazines working exceptionally well.

    And therein lies the irony. I'd bet that these would make it through an initial 30-round run fine. Probably wouldn't stand up to repeated firings though.

    Think about that though: in a crime, or a shooting spree, the perp only needs to blast through the magazine once and then its dropped and discarded. The people who care about durability and reuse of magazines are typically competition and target shooters.

    So effectively, legislation is likely to affect the completely legitimate uses of the magazines, while technology remains so that all the illegal uses people might want to use them for are still doable.

  • by saider (177166) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:01PM (#42591903)

    If law enforcement or private security need them, then society in general needs them. Not everyone can afford private security, and law enforcement is many minutes away in most places.

    You cannot argue that an item is simultaneously required for police use but unnecessary for the individual. If there are people in society that are threatening enough that the police force needs assault rifles, then individuals need access to the same weapons to effectively defend themselves and their family.

    The only way I would accept an assault weapon ban is if the police were held to the same restrictions.

  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:02PM (#42591913) Homepage

    Just to add on to your point: This is why this is really difficult issue. Limiting the size of clips would minimize the impact of assaults like this. But it would also limit the effectiveness of armed resistance against a tyrannical government.

    What do you think of kaws requiring people to lock guns instead of laws limiting magazines? Locking guns would not significantly limit one's ability to resist the government, but would prevent psychologically damaged people from easily stealing them. Every gun owner I know has their gun(s) locked in the kind of case that would resist a rocket launcher anyway. I don't understand why that wasn't the case with Sandy Hook.

  • by MBGMorden (803437) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:03PM (#42591919)

    So what you're saying is that you want to prioritize fighting against events that take a few dozen lives at once versus several thousand that happen to occur one or two at a time?

    That right there proves that the whole fiasco is more about publicity and feel good measures rather than actually trying to save lives.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:03PM (#42591929)
    With what? A whistle?
  • by FlopEJoe (784551) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:03PM (#42591931)
    If "9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns" a year, why do you want to take away AK-47s?
  • Re:Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by h4rr4r (612664) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:08PM (#42591993)

    In the 60s and 70s they would have used revolvers and actual moon or half moon clips.

    No one well acquainted with the topic uses the terminology that way.

  • by MBGMorden (803437) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:08PM (#42592005)

    unless they can afford preban magazines, which will undoubtedly be more expensive

    At no time during the previous ban did pre-ban magazines go above about $100 each, and I was able to find 30-rnd pre-ban magazines for one of my handguns during the middle of the last AWB for $25.

    Now at this point, every magazine made for law enforcement use during that 1994 to 2004 period is now legal (and many have been surplused to the public). We also have had nearly 10 years of time when civilian production of normal capacity magazines resumed, and the companies right now are cranking them out and a maddening pace due to the public being afraid of another ban. There are enough on the market now to keep the shooting public going for probably close to a century. Prices will be higher, but not unattainable.

    Now think: do you think anybody who's planning on committing a mass shooting followed by a suicide really cares how much the magazines cost? They'll throw 5 or 6 on their credit card bill that they're never going to pay again and then go off on their rampage.

    Its stupid. It won't prevent anything, but it does force the average gun owner who ISN'T planning a suicide run to pay more for pre-ban magazines.

  • by Sparticus789 (2625955) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:12PM (#42592057) Journal

    A quick search has not revealed any successful incidents of civilians stopping mass-shootings with their own guns. Off-duty police and military have, but I can't find evidence of civilians without military or police training doing it.

    Because those are the people most likely to run towards gun fire (former military myself). But despite the fact that I am well-trained in firearms, I still have to go through the same buying process as any other civilian. The CCW process is identical for us, as it is for civilians. Law Enforcement is another story, as current/former cops can get CCW's without a problem. But nobody is talking about exceptions for LE/military, they are talking about blanket bans on cosmetic features of firearms. In 1995, former military could not purchase 30-round clips or AR-15s, despite the fact that they knew exactly how to use/store them.

    I'm fine with preventing Joe Psychopath from having a gun. But don't take them away from those of us with experience and the capability to handle them with care and respect.

  • Re:Clip (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:15PM (#42592119)

    Your ENTIRE POST says it. You're CONTINUING to whine about the use of incorrect terminology and have ZERO interest in talking about the issues at hand.

    I'm going to conclude that you either have an antisocial personality disorder that makes you an asshole or you are some kind of paid/institutional troll who's job is to derail discussions about substantive issues so as to stifle debate and political opposition.

  • Re:Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by interkin3tic (1469267) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:18PM (#42592179)
    No, that depends on your stance in relation to whoever you're judging. Had Ted Stevens been saying "The internet is like a series of tubes, like sewers. And like sewers, we don't allow companies to treat some sewage differently and have other sewage back up in your house. So we must enact strong net neutrality laws!" We'd all be puzzled, but we'd be okay with it.

    You only mock someone for using the wrong terminology when you dislike what they are saying and try to discredit them. Same as here. If you dislike gun control, argue against gun control. Don't get hung up on the words your opponents are using. Unless... opposition to limiting bullet-holder-thingies isn't limited to "You're using the wrong words" is it? There ARE other arguments against it, right?
  • Re:Clip (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fche (36607) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:21PM (#42592235)

    One supposes the deterrent effect is there.
    OTOH, there is no way to "prevent gun crime", period, short of the place becoming a police state.

  • by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:22PM (#42592255)
    Disingenuous as always. You know the US is not a monolith? Utah which is full of guns has a lower murder rate than Luxembourg. New Hampshire has a lower murder rate than France. And where is the most murder in the US? In the places with the most gun control, like Chicago. Places like New Hampshire prove unequivocally that you can have freedom and low murder rates at the same time. The problem of violence is not one of tools (guns, knives, hammers or plain old hands and feet) but one of economy. The most violence happens in the poorest places, this is UNIVERSALLY true, in every city, state and nation. It doesn't matter if the homicides are gun-induced or not.
  • by darkmeridian (119044) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (gnauhc.mailliw)> on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:23PM (#42592277) Homepage

    I never understood the basic inconsistently with gun supporters regarding magazine sizes or assault rifles. They claim that limiting magazine sizes or assault rifles would not be effective in stopping bad guys from slaughtering tons of people, but then they also demand unlimited magazine sizes and an unassailable right to buy assault rifles because they are required for effective personal defense. In other words, assault rifles are not that dangerous when you're talking about killing some schoolkids, but when talking about saving their own skin, then they need the extra killing power of an assault rifle.

    More fundamentally, gun supporters tacitly assume that nothing should be done regarding guns unless it is a perfect solution, and that nothing should be done regarding guns until we have resolved all other more dangerous things, such as car deaths, swimming pools, and medical malpractice. That is just not how the world works.

    Your argument is basically this: we shouldn't ban hand grenades or rocket propelled grenades because some asshole can always make some sarin or fly an airplane into a building using a box cutter.

    You also argue that some asshole can be just as lethal with a machete. You forget that on the same day as the Newtown shooting, some asshole with a knife walked into a school in China and stabbed two dozen or so children. None of the children died. Furthermore, the asshole was subdued by teachers using chairs. Try to do that against a guy with an assault rifle; two teachers at Newtown tried, and they were both shot in the head.

  • by Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:24PM (#42592291) Homepage
    Well the place where the AK suffers is in accuracy when compared to something like a lever action .30-30 other than that the 7.62x39 round is an effective deer cartridge is is very comparable to the .30-30. I have used a SKS for deer hunting which shoots the same round as the AK and accuracy wise tends to be better than an AK but still not a good as a proper hunting rifle. Now for medium and big game hunting I mostly use an old Russian sniper rifle (M91/30) as it is more powerful (comparable to the .30-06) and is more accurate than the SKS, but if I am out shooting coyote the SKS (and your AK as well) is an excellent firearm for that task.
  • by Pecisk (688001) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:25PM (#42592299)

    Looking from outside in my opinion problem isn't with gun control. Problem is that civil war hasn't ended. South still things they can legimitely take back what they have lost during that war. They think 2nd admentment legally allows them to do that when they finally goes in official minority (now they have tweaked House of Represatives, but they will ran out of these tricks too). Therefore they are very touchy. No one wants to ban all arms. But there's arms who are really meant for utter destruction than real protection of your property or your pulse. But most people who oppose this are mostly freakishly obsessed with assault guns. If they could buy and shoot a tank - they would do it.

    Just my two cents,
    Peter.

  • Re:Hair-splitting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by corbettw (214229) <corbettw.yahoo@com> on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:26PM (#42592317) Journal

    The Virginia Tech shooter only had 10-round magazines and he did plenty of damage before killing himself. So no, these rules would have zero effect on killers but would serve to disarm lawful gun owners.

    This about this: there are something like 200 million semiauto weapons in this country, owned by something like 50 million people. Out of that huge number, we have a few mass shootings. Statistically that means mass shootings don't even happen. I'm not making light of the carnage crazy people inflict or the pain people have gone through, far from it. I'm just pointing out that infringing the rights of literally millions of people for the false hope of safety won't work and is a complete waste of time.

  • by ducomputergeek (595742) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:30PM (#42592379)

    I've looked at the statistics, unfortunately most of the studies on defensive gun use were done back in the 1990's and many are 20 years old at this point. The National Crime Victimization Survey circa 1993 was the lowest of the lot citing an estimated 108,000 Defensive Gun Uses per year. The Kleck studies put that number higher at between 650k - and 2.5M per year. The Kleck piece is Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevelance and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun", Journal of
    Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1

    If you don't like the Kleck study(s) for whatever reason he the National Insitute of Justice that came up with 1.5M defensive uses of firearms per year: Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," NIJ Research in Brief (May 1997).

    The flip side of those studies being that old now is there are all of critical reviews of their data and methodology at this point.

    Even if we take the lowest number of defensive gun uses at an average of 108,000 per years, the number of times a firearm was used to stop a crime was still over 3 times the total number of gun deaths. And depending on the defition of defensive gun use, oftentimes "using a firearm" means drawing and presenting the gun is enough to stop the crime or potential crime without a shot being fired.

    An incident that happened to me a couple years ago. It was a hot muggy July day and I was sitting in city traffic. I had the windows rolled down as my car was old and starting to overheat so I wasn't running A/C. Some guy opened my car door, got in, and started to tell me where to drive until he looked over and saw the barrel of the revolver I had on me at the time. His eyes got large and he promptly got out of my car and walked off. To this day I have no idea why he got in my car. Did he mean me harm? I don't know. All I know is that I didn't know him, he wasn't supposed to be there, and my revolver ended the situation and no shots were fired.

    Now if you want to look at statistics consider this: violent crime in the US has dropped over 50% of it's 1992 levels. The reasons are likely many, many factors. I'm sure economy, more forrms of electronic entertainment, more people allowed to carry concealed all factor into that. The violent crime rate last year for England and Wales was 4x that of the US. In fact it was almost TWICE the the 1992 US rate of violent crime.

    If you break down the homicide rates in the US, as the Justice Statistics has, with the latest report I found being from 2008, amoung whites, the murder rate is a little higher at around 1.6/100k, but still within the same rates as most of Western Europe. But amoung the black population it was 8.6/100k and 8.2/100k in the hispanic population increasing the overall homicide rate in the US to around 4 - 5/100k. Sucide rates didn't look much different between the US and Europe. Yes more people used guns to commit sucicide, but it suggests that if guns were not used they would have found another way.

    Personally the 28 guns deaths vs the 100 or more crimes that were prevented by guns per day is a price that I can live with.

  • by terraformer (617565) <tpb@pervici.com> on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:31PM (#42592401) Journal

    A: Regulated meant disciplined in 1780s America.
    B: Mexico and Brazil have virtually no legal civilian gun ownership and their murder rates (including those with firearms) are orders of magnitude higher than ours.
    C: States and Cities in the US with strict gun control regimes are some of the most dangerous places to be in this country. The stats you are swallowing whole include suicides in them to make the rural areas look dangerous.
    D: You know nothing about this topic and are simply seeking information to confirm your biases.
    Good day to you sir.

  • Re:Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bmo (77928) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:32PM (#42592423)

    The point is how many fucking bullets you fucking gun nuts want to put in your fucking guns: or in other words, how many children you can kill in a single burst.

    Thousands. All of us who shoot really want to go out some day in a blaze of glory shooting preschoolers with grenade launchers, leaving nothing but a thin red mist of former preschoolers in our wake.

    Or, you know, the nut here is you.

    --
    BMO

  • Re:Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Golddess (1361003) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:40PM (#42592549)

    So you'd rather focus on an irrelevant distinction than talk about the underlying issues.

    Is it an irrelevant distinction if lawmakers were discussing a law which would restrict "memory" (RAM) to, say, 256MB sticks, when they actually meant flash cards and/or USB flash drives? I'd give a car analogy, but I am afraid I am not knowledgeable enough in commonly confused car terms.

    Discussing how to address the underlying issues is great. But when pig-headed politicians are looking to ram something through that they have no idea wtf it actually means, then you cannot just ignore it.

  • by PoolOfThought (1492445) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @12:58PM (#42592901)
    Every time I hear someone break out into song about how the 2nd amendment was written at a time of muskets being the norm and that they (the founders) would not have meant for it to cover the weaponry of today I get more confused. I've never really been able to put my finger on exactly why I get confused, but it's always just seemed so ridiculous to me that someone would think that the amendments are not designed to keep pace with the world and its advances. Let me just ask this question - maybe it will help me to understand where certain people, those who believe as you do, are coming from.

    It seems that the logical extension of your stance on the 2nd amendment would beg the following questions. Since we didn't have the internet back then does that mean that the 1st amendment shouldn't apply to speech on the internet? I mean, come now, no way they saw that coming and frankly they could have never expected radical, potentially dangerous ideas to be able to spread so quickly. For that matter, since we didn't have automobiles does that mean that the 4th amendment shouldn't apply to your new SUV or, if you're lucky enough to have one, your own airplane? I mean, how could they gave intended to cover those things when they didn't even exist?

    As a rule we take for granted and get all "up in arms" when the man infringes on one of the other rights protected (not granted - protected) by the constitution. We PAINSTAKINGLY point out how everything new is actually old (there is nothing new under the sun) and that the constitutionally protected rights should extend to this or that situation. But guns get different treatment and the 2nd amendment is treated differently. Why? And does it actually make sense to treat it differently or is it a purely emotional subject?
  • by PraiseBob (1923958) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:01PM (#42592957)
    So if we can restrict school shootings to only a dozen victims at a time, that is an acceptable loss?

    The point is, the "good guy with a gun" did not prevent the shooting, nor could he stop the shooting when it was taking place, despite seeing and engaging the shooter. No matter what the NRA wants people to believe, the evidence in this case is pretty straightforward that armed guards aren't effective at stopping a mass shooting.
  • by JWW (79176) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:19PM (#42593255)

    Wow. Saving "dozens of lives" is turned into "didn't help too much."

    THAT is what is wrong with this debate. One side is insisting that ALL killing be stopped no matter what. They conveniently leave out the part the in order to keep everyone perfectly safe they will have to perfectly monitor (as in constant and unescapable) everyone as well.

  • by gtbritishskull (1435843) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:28PM (#42593411)
    I was not a big fan of gun control. I figure that people kill people, not guns and that humans naturally do not want to go on shooting sprees. So, I thought our biggest problem was that we don't have effective systems to provide the help to people with mental health problems. That was until a few days after the shooting when I heard what the NRA and people like you have to say. Then I realized that the biggest proponent of guns is full of people who are paranoid and possibly delusional. And it seems not very intelligent as well ("You may have drones and smart bombs but I have my assault rifle with a high capacity magazine. BRING IT ON!!!"). Then I began to start thinking that maybe we have the mental health problems in this country BECAUSE of the gun lobby that thrives on and encourages paranoid and delusional thinking. I am not afraid of the average American owning a gun. I am afraid of people in the NRA owning guns.
  • by sandytaru (1158959) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:37PM (#42593587) Journal
    Tyranny is the crap going on in Syria right now, where the government is indiscriminately blasting civilian neighborhoods in retaliation for assisting rebels. 150 civilians are dying daily there because of attacks from government forces.

    There is a lot of bad stuff going on in the world right now, including here in the US, but very little falls under the formal realm of tyranny. When the Army sets fire to your home because your neighbor is printing magazine clips from a 3D printer, you have the right to start calling it tyranny.
  • by Ksevio (865461) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:52PM (#42593813) Homepage
    B. Tens of thousands of guns end up in Mexico from the US. Mexico is actually pleading with the US to restrict sales so that a kid can't go in and buy 20 heavy weapons to smuggle across the border.
    C. The guns are coming from the surrounding areas, they would be just as dangerous (or more) if they allowed guns. A (geographically) broader ban on guns would bring down the gun deaths.
  • Re:Clip (Score:4, Insightful)

    by flayzernax (1060680) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @01:53PM (#42593829)

    Its not the question, its the manner and tone in which he stated it. Making assumptions that everyone who owns guns is nuts, then proceeding to ask how many bullets they want is irrational and completely an emotional response.

    GP is not using their minds to rationally debate logical statistics, facts, and information. Gun nuts are not a major killer in todays world in any country, even countries in an actual state of war.

  • Re:Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 1u3hr (530656) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @02:17PM (#42594201)

    But YOU wanting to control OUR guns is bullshit. Thats like me wanting to control your driving.

    Preach it brother. No commie faggot is going to tell me what side of the road to drive on. How fast I can drive in a school zone. Make me have working brakes.

  • Re:Clip (Score:1, Insightful)

    by BasilBrush (643681) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @02:20PM (#42594245)

    But YOU wanting to control OUR guns is bullshit.

    Lets be clear, I want to eliminate your guns.

    Thats like me wanting to control your driving.

    There are roughly the same number of road deaths as gun deaths in the USA each year. Yet road transport has has practical, important use for most people every single day.

    The only excuses for guns are the hobbies of hunting and target shooting. It's not worth it.

  • Re:Clip (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday January 15, 2013 @06:04PM (#42597061)
    Mod up.

    "Some of the confusion comes from the fact that we don't really have free markets for many things, instead we have protectionist markets."

    Mod up. Many people today seem to confuse crony corporatism with "capitalism", when they are not even remotely the same things. Our economic woes have not been due to capitalism at all... but rather to the lack of same.

"Indecision is the basis of flexibility" -- button at a Science Fiction convention.

Working...