Yet another shooting thread

[bilby]

But it's too late for even that. Now all ya need for your crime spree are a few shaped pieces of metal and a 3d printer.

3D printed guns are shit, and not a notable threat.

Note what he said--a few shaped pieces of metal.

Note who you are adressing. I used to be a gunsmith. I have made guns (legal, proofed firearms), from scratch.

Your popular mechanics grasp of the topic doesn't grant you the qualifications to contradict me, without appearing absurd.

A fully printed gun is as you say junk. It could possibly make sense as an assassination weapon as the whole thing can be non-ferrous and thus only react very weakly to a metal detector.

Yeah, nah. MI6 could do a LOT better than anything off a 3D printer.

There's no other use, though. (Same as despite all the steps they take about keeping metal out of the MRI they didn't care one bit about my wedding ring because it's gold. The magnet showed no interest in it.)

Lovely anecdote. Irrelevant, but lovely.

What the real danger is is machined guns. CNC milling has moved far enough down the scale that an advanced home workshop can turn out a fully operational gun.

CNC milling is completely unnecessary. A wise man once said:

"A reasonably skilled amateur with a lathe and a drill-press can make a better gun"

A highly skilled machinist (with no firearms experience, but with access to the Internet) could make a high quality gun with just the tools found in many suburban sheds.

Guns aren't particularly high-tech. some of the best ones ever crafted were made before computers even existed. I rather doubt that James Purdey Jr. had access to a CNC machine in the 1880s.

And most of the parts could be printed albeit at a decrease in performance.

Sure, if by "decrease in performance" you mean "will blow your fucking hand off, despite being not much cheaper or easier to make than one which won't".

 

[bilby]

Which would take a long time. A low range estimate is there are 300 million guns in private hands.

Meh. 300 million gun crimes? How long could it take? In America?
I think long guns would probably be the last to go down. Derec can confirm: just getting all the handguns would take a huge bite out of crime. Probably swallow it whole in fact, other than a few mass murders here and there using rifles. So we can ignore those, leaving … according to an AI that I just consulted, only 145 million handguns.
You’re right though - even if we seized half of them every year, we’d never get there.
Woe is us, right?

Europe was awash with guns in the 1940s. It's not anymore. Because almost nobody in Europe wants a gun.

The problem isn't the existence of guns; It's the desire to have one.

 

[Gospel]

A law that's just going to be broken is worse than not having a law.

Which is why we should legalise armed robbery.

I guarantee you that there will continue to be armed robberies, despite any legal measures to try to eliminate them.

The point is laws should actually accomplish something. A law that's not meaningfully enforceable doesn't matter.

Sounds like you agree that armed robbery should be legalized.

No, I recognize that armed robbery is already illegal. And it typically triggers the use-a-gun minimum sentencing. Making it triply illegal rather than doubly illegal isn't going to change things.

There would be far more robberies if robbery weren't illegal.

 

[Elixir]

Guns aren't particularly high-tech.

So true. My little brother and I made one when I was about 12. There was a range where we would go pore through the casings looking for live rounds. We saved the .22 short rounds and tried to make them work in the thing we carved out of aluminum! Never tried to fire it but I am confident it would have set off the round. Not sure what would have happened next; we chickened out.
Anyhow criminals don’t need something that works real well, just something scary-looking enough and maybe capable of going bang once or twice.

 

[bilby]

just something scary-looking enough

A knife is scary enough.

Well, usually.



Less chance of it going off accidentally; It's quieter if you do decide to use it; It is unlikely to hit a bystander if you miss with it; And (in most of the world) you will get in a LOT less trouble if you are caught carrying it, or if it is found in your home during a search.

In the absence of a culture where guns are ubiquitous, a knife is a superior weapon.

Of course, in a civilised culture, the general absence of weapons of any kind is a defining feature.

Most of America's gun problem isn't a gun problem; It's a Hollywood problem. In Hollywood - and consequently, America - a gun is a twentieth century magical artifact that renders the holder both immortal and invincible.

Even America didn't have this gun problem before the advent of cinema. In the real Wild West, guns were tools, and towns banned carrying of them within the town limits. They weren't used to scare "bad guys".

 

[Gospel]

That scene always cracks me up, not because of the knife part, but because nobody in the hood would be wearing a Michael Jackson jacket while trying to rob someone. Even back during the height of his career.

Edit: In fact, you'd probably be the one getting robbed for assaulting our eyes with that ridiculous outfit.

 

[laughing dog]

A law that's just going to be broken is worse than not having a law.

Which is why we should legalise armed robbery.

I guarantee you that there will continue to be armed robberies, despite any legal measures to try to eliminate them.

The point is laws should actually accomplish something. A law that's not meaningfully enforceable doesn't matter.

Sounds like you agree that armed robbery should be legalized.

No, I recognize that armed robbery is already illegal. And it typically triggers the use-a-gun minimum sentencing. Making it triply illegal rather than doubly illegal isn't going to change things.

So unenforceable laws do matter.

 

[Gospel]

I believe Loren is arguing that there's already a law against robbery, so increasing the penalty, for gun laws, won't make a difference. The risk-reward calculation for criminals wouldn't change, and it wouldn't matter because Loren knows everyone's hearts and minds. However, I might be wrong about the argument being made.

 

[laughing dog]

I believe Loren is arguing that there's already a law against robbery, so increasing the penalty, for gun laws, won't make a difference. The risk-reward calculation for criminals wouldn't change, and it wouldn't matter because Loren knows everyone's hearts and minds. However, I might be wrong about the argument being made.

Well that makes more sense but it is s shift from “ a law that is not meaningful enforceable doesn’t matter.”

 

[Shadowy Man]

Loren knows everyone's hearts and minds.

It's hard to argue against that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Which would take a long time. A low range estimate is there are 300 million guns in private hands.

Meh. 300 million gun crimes? How long could it take? In America?

Where do you get that idea??

Criminals only need to ditch a gun if they leave forensic information that can tie the gun to the crime. Revolvers do not leave casings, the very things that make for good terminal ballistics in a round also tend to destroy any marking the gun might leave on the bullet. And they don't even need to destroy it. You fired that gun? Trade it for like with someone in a distant city. Completely untraceable and actually it might be an advantage to you--if you are caught with a gun it will not match the previous one and thus put you lower in the suspect list. It's not like fingerprints where you can have a national database.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what you are talking about are things that are already very illegal.

You obviously don't know what I am talking about, if that's what you think I am talking about.

The guns are seen when they're used in crime--and said crime is already illegal.

You want it to work, that doesn't mean it will.

You have hypotheses; I have data.

It's not hypothetical; UK style gun control does work. Despite illegal guns being cheap and fairly easy to obtain, UK criminals rarely have guns.

That's not something I want; It's an observation of the factual situation.

You want it not to be, but that doesn't mean it isn't.

That's far more a culture issue than a gun regulation issue.

You haven't addressed the fact that the Australia gun law change can't be detected in the broad picture. There's a blip around the change followed by a return to baseline. It's a declining baseline, the gun grabbers take credit for what was going to happen anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it's too late for even that. Now all ya need for your crime spree are a few shaped pieces of metal and a 3d printer.

3D printed guns are shit, and not a notable threat.

Note what he said--a few shaped pieces of metal.

Note who you are adressing. I used to be a gunsmith. I have made guns (legal, proofed firearms), from scratch.

Your popular mechanics grasp of the topic doesn't grant you the qualifications to contradict me, without appearing absurd.

I was interpreting "a few shaped pieces of metal" as being the stuff that actually contains the cartridge as it's being fired. They only need to be approximate, they can be worked to their exact shape. A printed barrel is obviously a smoothbore but rarely is that going to be important.

There's no other use, though. (Same as despite all the steps they take about keeping metal out of the MRI they didn't care one bit about my wedding ring because it's gold. The magnet showed no interest in it.)

Lovely anecdote. Irrelevant, but lovely.

Relevant in that I have seen people say that the printed guns are still detectable because the cartridge is metal. I was simply using it as an illustration of the fact that not all metal is the same.

What the real danger is is machined guns. CNC milling has moved far enough down the scale that an advanced home workshop can turn out a fully operational gun.

CNC milling is completely unnecessary. A wise man once said:

"A reasonably skilled amateur with a lathe and a drill-press can make a better gun"

A highly skilled machinist (with no firearms experience, but with access to the Internet) could make a high quality gun with just the tools found in many suburban sheds.

What the CNC stuff has done is greatly reduced the required skill level.

And most of the parts could be printed albeit at a decrease in performance.

Sure, if by "decrease in performance" you mean "will blow your fucking hand off, despite being not much cheaper or easier to make than one which won't".

The chamber needs to be good metal. He said a few pieces of metal. I'm talking about the other stuff. There's little else that needs to be metal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe Loren is arguing that there's already a law against robbery, so increasing the penalty, for gun laws, won't make a difference. The risk-reward calculation for criminals wouldn't change, and it wouldn't matter because Loren knows everyone's hearts and minds. However, I might be wrong about the argument being made.

Well that makes more sense but it is s shift from “ a law that is not meaningful enforceable doesn’t matter.”

You're both missing the target.

What I'm saying is that the proposed law will realistically only be enforceable when the person is caught doing other serious misdeeds. You can't walk down the street with a hidden gun means nothing if the cops can't see the hidden gun.

It's like some places have passed laws about allowing guns to be easily stolen from vehicles--but the only people who would get caught are those who confess as part of reporting their gun being stolen. Thus it catches nobody, just makes them either not report or lie about the details.

What is the scenario where they currently get away with it but would be caught if this change were made??

(And if you want to change the risk-reward calculation you can change the penalties without having to create a new law.)

 

[ZiprHead]

That's far more a culture issue than a gun regulation issue.

Nope.

 

[laughing dog]

I believe Loren is arguing that there's already a law against robbery, so increasing the penalty, for gun laws, won't make a difference. The risk-reward calculation for criminals wouldn't change, and it wouldn't matter because Loren knows everyone's hearts and minds. However, I might be wrong about the argument being made.

Well that makes more sense but it is s shift from “ a law that is not meaningful enforceable doesn’t matter.”

You're both missing the target.

What I'm saying is that the proposed law will realistically only be enforceable when the person is caught doing other serious misdeeds. You can't walk down the street with a hidden gun means nothing if the cops can't see the hidden gun.

It's like some places have passed laws about allowing guns to be easily stolen from vehicles--but the only people who would get caught are those who confess as part of reporting their gun being stolen. Thus it catches nobody, just makes them either not report or lie about the details.

What is the scenario where they currently get away with it but would be caught if this change were made??

(And if you want to change the risk-reward calculation you can change the penalties without having to create a new law.)

Laws don’t catch, prosecute or imprison people: people do that. Laws define unacceptable behavior and the potential consequences of such behavior. Laws provide guidance.

Laws do not prevent crime a priori. Laws deter crime a priori.

Hence your analysis is based on a flawed conception of the legal system.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Perhaps you had a beneficial effect on mass shootings, but a look at US data says defensive uses clearly exceed mass shootings.

please point me to the statistics that show that AR-15s are used more for defensive uses than mass shootings. I’m interested in seeing that. Thanks!

Please quit taking things out of context.

Do you see "AR-15" in the quoted words? Do you even see "rifle"?

I said civilian self defense deaths exceed mass shooting deaths. I said nothing about the weapon in either case.

no, I didn’t see “AR-15” in your quote.but I am still curious about whether AR-15s are used more for self defense than mass shootings. Some of us want to restrict AR-15s but not all guns. Every time any of us mention some amount of gun control or bans you seem to assume we are for complete and total gun bans.

I am not for banning handguns and you’ll not find a quote of me saying that on this board.

If AR-15s have no valid protective use but are still the number one choice of mass shooters there is a reasonable argument to be had for banning them.

You always seem to present as an “all or nothing” approach but there’s tons of room for nuanced negotiations in gun control.

AR-15s and similar guns make very poor self defense weapons.
Their bullets can penetrate numerous walls and cause innocent deaths far away from the crime scene. Blasting away with such a weapon might get one in trouble if an innocent person gets hit by a stray bullet.

 

[bilby]

That's far more a culture issue than a gun regulation issue.

Gun regulation IS a culture issue.

The objective of effective gun laws is a change in culture.

The objective is NOT the elimination of all guns, or even of all illegal guns, or even of most illegal guns.

The objective is a massive reduction in violence, particularly (but not only) lethal violence. And that reduction can ONLY be achieved by a change of culture; And one of the most effective ways to change that culture is the kind of regulation you dismiss because it won't eliminate all illegal guns.

Which is a stupid reason to dismiss that regulation, because you don't need or want to eliminate all illegal guns.

But it's an excellent way to excuse yourself for doing nothing.

 

[bilby]

You haven't addressed the fact that the Australia gun law change can't be detected in the broad picture.

You haven't demonstrated that the Australia gun law change can't be detected in the broad picture.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Particularly as it is completely irrelevant to the topic under discussion, which is US gun culture.

Australia's laws were changed in response to a single tragic event, in the context of that event being unique and novel. The purpose was to avoid a recurrence; That purpose has so far been completely achieved.

The US response to a similarly tragic event is to shrug and say "Is it Tuesday again already?".

Before you can start on the road to recovery, first you must accept that you have a problem. But you are still deep in denial, and every time another mass shooting occurs, you utterly fail to do anything at all. See you next Tuesday.

 

[bilby]

Relevant in that I have seen people say that the printed guns are still detectable because the cartridge is metal. I was simply using it as an illustration of the fact that not all metal is the same.

I don't know why I am bothering to continue to engage you, given that:

a) You haven't got a clue; and
b) You have demonstrated an astonishing resistance to getting a clue, even when you have access to a person with actual and relevant experience

But this is stupidity even by the standards of your ongoing Dunning-Kruger masterclass. So try to understand:

Metal detectors don't only detect ferromagnetic metals. Metal detectors are NOTHING like MRI machines. Metal detectors are routinely (and successfully) used to search for gold; They can also detect brass, bronze, copper, and other non-magnetic metals and alloys.

Leaving aside the bizarre derail that assumes (baselessly) that undetectable guns are an important threat to anything, or are in any way significant to the illegal manufacture of guns*; It is absolutely false to assert that metal detectors would have difficulty in detecting brass cartridge shells (or lead bullets, or jacketed bullets, for that matter).








*An idea that appears to originate in the fevered imaginations of people who read to many Fleming or Clancy novels, without grasping that they are entertainment, and not news