Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Were it practical for basically every intended use (let alone were most criminal gun users noted for their DIY ingenuity) from intimidation to violence, then that's what criminals would be doing. But they're not. People run guns all across the map at great personal risk and for large financial upside - so I question how much it actually matters that it's "very easy to make .22 hand guns"
then that's what criminals would be doing. But they're not.
then that's what criminals would be doing. But they're not.
That's the point. These "one-shot wonders" are easy and cheap to make from hardware store junk, and no criminals use them. So it is idiotic for the government to spend tax dollars to "take them off the street."
Sure, I agree. Which is why they're amending the conditions of the program.
If it saves one child's life, no amount of gun laws are too many.
If it saves one child's life, no amount of gun laws are too many.
Really? You realize people also die because they don't have guns when they need them? And there is the high societal cost of imprisonment (specifically a shame in the case where there was no other crime involved). Come on, there is nothing that doesn't come with trade-offs, life and death included.
Nearest gun show... got cash and a felony record? Here's your Saturday Night Special... Have fun.
Nearest gun show... got cash and a felony record? Here's your Saturday Night Special... Have fun.
You still have to pass a background check at gun show just like at a store. You've been lied to about this.
Yes and no. If you are buying from a store with a table at the gunshow, then yes you will follow a background check. That is not true about private sales. In my state for example, I'm not legally even required to record the sale. I just have to 'believe' you are not a criminal or insane.
On top of that, I've personally witnessed vendors legitimately looking the other way at straw purchases. As an example, I saw someone in a gun store buying an AR-15 and the guy behind him said in front of the vendor "Do you want me to give you the money now, or after we get out of the store." The vendor said "stop saying things like that or I can't sell to you". This was an obvious straw purchase and there really isn't shit you can do about it.
I love sport shooting and I own several firearms. The state of the existing laws in this country and the enforcement of them is sad. We agressively go after gas stations and bars for not carding and fine them extensively/shut them down. How often does the ATF pretend to be a straw buyer?
That is not true about private sales. In my state for example, I'm not legally even required to record the sale. I just have to 'believe' you are not a criminal or insane.
I like personal sales JUST for the reason that there is no paper trail.
Less likely to have it confiscated by the govt. if it came down to it like in Australia.
In places where you have to involve a FFL just for private person to person sales, you have to pay the FFL for the service.
One should not have to pay for actively using a "right".
I've purchased two firearms at gunshows that were private sales. Just a guy walking around with a cardboard poster on his chest saying "I'm selling ..." with a list of firearms. I saw he had something I wanted, the price was right. I gave him cash and went home. I've also purchased from dealers at the similar events and have performed a background check.
It's not the private sales that are the issue, it's that they are allowed on the gunshow floor. This makes a easy place to find and purchase firearms for in
If it saves one child's life, no amount of gun laws are too many.
If it saves one child's life, no amount of gun laws are too many.
You couldn't be more wrong. If the same legislative effort and money applied differently would save two children's lives, the buyback program was not just ineffective, but actively harmful, by wasting resources better spent elsewhere.
If it saves one child's life, no amount of gun laws are too many.
If it saves one child's life, no amount of gun laws are too many.
A 20 mph speed limit on all roads would save thousands of children's lives. Why are those children's lives worth so much less when the law that would save them would inconvenience you?
If it saves one child's life, no amount of gun laws are too many.
If it saves one child's life, no amount of gun laws are too many.
The standard logical fallacy brought up by people with no fact-based argument that supports their position. There are already a myriad of laws on the books at the state and local levels regarding guns and in nearly every circumstance involving a shooting spree, there is almost always some aspect of those existing laws that either wasn't enforced due to bureaucratic failure or that there isn't even a way practical to enforce them.
The only thing that matters to people that make these baseless appeals to pity
Why not just buy a real gun at the corner store?
Yes. Before 3d printers and mass hysteria about ghost guns, they were known as "zip guns". Read any book about gangs from the latter half of the 20th century and they'll usually get mentioned at least a couple of times. One of the most expedient ones was to snap off the antenna of a certain model car that was sized just about perfect for a .22, and then use a nut threaded through a rubber band to trigger it. Sort of like a gunpowder powered slingshot. The slamfire pipe shotgun is another common type. At its simplest it's literally two metal pipes, one the size of a shotgun shell and the other a size that'll slide over the first. An endcap goes on the bigger pipe, and you drill and tap a small hole into that to thread a screw through for the firing pin. If I was a gangbanger who didn't give a shit about being a felon, I could walk into a hardware store with a pocket full of 20 gauge shells and build the thing inside the store.
Why not just buy a real gun at the corner store?
Why not just buy a real gun at the corner store?
- They knew they couldn't pass a background check - They didn't want the traceability of a serial number - They didn't want to take the time filing off serial numbers - It's what they had laying around at the time - Cheaper than buying a real gun (legitimately or on the black market) - Can be disassembled and disposed of. It'll just look like random plumbing fittings in the trash can because that's literally what it breaks down to. - Deniability
That is a heavy federal crime if you do that....I could see him printing lower receivers, etc....but those sears are something that will get you 10 years in federal prison REALLY fast plus heavy fines.
I'm surprised the Feds haven't been trying to find this guy for possessing these.
Overall, I like the protest and being innovative to get some govt. $$....
But wow...putting yourself at risk like that, not good.
There's been recent cases of the ATF trying to imprison people for making and selling metal "cards" that just have the sear components outlined on the metal, not even cut out, but outlined...as being full blow illegal machine guns.
This guy with the 3d printed ones needs to be a bit worried I'd think.
These buybacks are usually done in an "amnesty zone" where no one asks for any name or ID.
Auto sears and guns with serial numbers removed are both illegal, yet are both specifically listed as items NY will pay for. That wouldn't work if people couldn't turn them in and receive their money anonymously.
Except he wasn't stockpiling them.
Well, you don't need to.
Possession of even "1" functional auto sear will get you a quick 10 years plus fines in Federal Prison.
Really pretty much with no questions asked.
One thing that stand out to me here is that part about the fully printed out "auto sears". That is a heavy federal crime if you do that....
One thing that stand out to me here is that part about the fully printed out "auto sears". That is a heavy federal crime if you do that....
Perhaps the feds don't care because there is no way a plastic sear will ever work.
Leave it to the DIY community to turn a confiscation program into a new budding industry :-)
Leave it to the DIY community to turn a confiscation program into a new budding industry :-)
Except this wasn't a confiscation program.
This should be the gun-lover's ideal scenario: instead of confiscation, this is a program for people to voluntarily relinquish their handguns, no coercion involved.
Some really good antiques were saved this way at one place I read about.
Pipe guns are easy to make, and they're already quite popular in places like Haiti and the Philippines. But they have similar (or worse) issues than 3D printed guns. They're almost as likely to misfire and blow your hand off, as to send the bullet where you point it. The ammo has to be individually loaded into the barrel like a 16th-century musket.
It's basically impossible to commit a mass shooting with that kind of weapon. Your bodycount tops out at 1 or 2, versus 10 or 20 with a professionally-manufacture
Pipe guns are easy to make, and they're already quite popular in places like Haiti and the Philippines.
Pipe guns are easy to make, and they're already quite popular in places like Haiti and the Philippines.
In the Philippines, they are called Paltiks [wikipedia.org].
Guns are not hard to buy in the Philippines, so people make pipe guns mainly to save money. Many people in the countryside use them to keep the NPA from stealing their chickens.
There are machine shops where you can take any gun, and they will build an exact replica.
Disclaimer: I am currently living and working in the Philippines.
It is very easy to make .22 hand guns from brass plumbing parts with little more than an electric drill and a file.
It is very easy to make .22 hand guns from brass plumbing parts with little more than an electric drill and a file.
Brass? A gun that will fire once, if you're lucky.
A .22 is a pretty low energy cartridge, so it you're going to make a gun out of brass, that's a good choice. But nevertheless there are good reasons you don't make guns out of brass.
If it is playing within the rules, he might have a future as a politician. Reality is the program got updated to address this and similar forms of abuse, and is a better program from the experience.
It's basically the same argument with legal gun ownership as a whole.
The only thing you can influence, perhaps to a degree, is crimes in affect and accidents.
If that was all the reasoning they come up with, I'd have no problem entering that discussion but always, truly always, they list reasons for their laws that just can't be explained away by lack of knowledge or incompetence anymore.
As a gun owner, in Switzerland though, I'd like to see people having to go through basic training courses and have to prove competency like with a car license.
I mean it's already a bit problematic that you can get a license at 18 and then basically never have to prove your skill again until a doctor actively claims you unfit to drive.
Including training in how to manage anger & impulsive behaviour?
Including training in how to manage anger & impulsive behaviour?
Is there any evidence that such training reduces crime?
Is there even any evidence that such training reduces anger and impulsive behavior?
Most gun violence is not from angry and impulsive behavior. You have to be a really high level moron to shoot someone impulsively. Most gun violence is from criminals engaging in criminal activity.
But the idiots in government that are pro-gun confiscation seem to think by outlawing something, god himself goes around with his magic fairy wand and makes these items vanish into the ether.
But the idiots in government that are pro-gun confiscation seem to think by outlawing something, god himself goes around with his magic fairy wand and makes these items vanish into the ether.
Resorting to strawman arguments suggests your argument isn't very strong.
Nobody expects guns to go away completely. If they are not legal to own (except for limited exceptions like farmers who need them for pest control) then they become much more difficult and expensive to obtain, and being caught with one is itself a crime that law enforcement can act upon.
That would make it much harder for disgruntled guys to shoot up schools, for example. Much harder to steal guns for use in crimes too, because there ar
I really like your points, I live in a state where I'd have to take a class just to buy a handgun and at least one more for concealed carry, and probably have to travel out of state not to get ripped off on the purchase. Then I might even have to buy special fugly magazines limited to 10 rounds... I'm a writer, never shot a gun before 2015 but a couple vets took me to the range for starters around the time I got interested in writing a Zombie apocalypse type book, and then I joined a group that goes once
Plenty of other countries have had successful gun buybacks and amnesties. Much of Europe had them after WW2, Australia had one a few years back. They seem to work just fine and had a positive effect on serious crime rates.
The difference in the US is that a decent proportion of the population doesn't want to give up its guns. In other countries removing guns from circulation was seen as a good thing, in the US many people see it as a direct attack on their freedom.
AT the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment, 1791, there were no license and no official training. Gun owners (men, women, children, freemen) were allowed to own firearms their entire lives and without Government intervention. Checking the history books, it worked out well for us. That's the New Standard. Get with these times and the New/old Standard!
AT the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment, 1791, there were no license and no official training. Gun owners (men, women, children, freemen) were allowed to own firearms their entire lives and without Government intervention. Checking the history books, it worked out well for us. That's the New Standard. Get with these times and the New/old Standard!
Things have changed a little [wikipedia.org] since the 18th century 18th century [wikipedia.org]. I'm not sure if the concept of how to operate a gun has become vastly more complicated or that people have just gotten more stupid since the 18th century when Americans emerged from their mother's womb clutching a Charleville musket, a tomahawk clenched between their teeth and loudly yelling “No Taxation Without Representation” !!! ... but training has definitely become a must since the days of the founding fathers: https://youtu. [youtu.be]
"I'd like to see people having to go through basic training courses and have to prove competency like with a car license."
I'm an ardent 2nd amendment advocate, and I completely agree.
The problem is that in the US we have slid so far down into the swamp of politicization.
If someone could GUARANTEE that the qualification process was objective and never potentially politicized/politicizeable, I think most reasonable people would agree with this common sense proposal for a tool that is potentially very dangerou
No, the phrase is there to make it easy to form a well-regulated militia. There's no requirement to be in one, you're just supposed to be ready to provide your own weapon if the governor calls you for militia duty.
As a governor, you might also want to send your political opponents to prison without a trial. That desire doesn't give a governor the authority to do so.
The phrase is there to make it clear that the original intent by the framers was to create this right to prevent the Federal government from interfering with state militias. It wasn't considered a civil/human right, merely something the Federal government shouldn't interfere with for fear of screwing up a State-based defense system.
Unfortunately, one side effect of the Fourteenth amendment was to turn that right, which again wasn't intended to be a civil/human right, to be a right on the state level too. And just to add insult to injury, that original intent, that states provide the defense and the Federal government shouldn't mess that up, became obsolete pretty quickly, well before the passing of the 14th, as the Federal government established standing armies, navies, etc, for the sake of defending them.
So all this "Yeah we should make gun owners join militias!!" "No dumbass, militias are irrelevent, it's a human right!" argument is basically bullshit and misses the point. A well intentioned policy decision was inserted in the original Bill of Rights that subsequently became obsolete, and then accidentally resulted in something utterly weird becoming considered more of a right across the nation than bodily autonomy or "Not being killed by police".
> The phrase is there to make it clear that the original intent by the framers was to create this right to prevent the Federal government from interfering with state militias.
That allegation has no historical or legal support.
> one side effect of the Fourteenth amendment
You mean Cruikshank, an incredibly racist ruling, which came out of the Colfax Massacre.
That is to say, Cruikshank switched it from being an individual to collective right, because whites didn't want blacks to own guns.
See also CA's Mulford Act, also passed by racist whites.
It wasn't considered a civil/human right, merely something the Federal government shouldn't interfere with for fear of screwing up a State-based defense system.
It wasn't considered a civil/human right, merely something the Federal government shouldn't interfere with for fear of screwing up a State-based defense system.
Most of the supporters of the 2a meant it to be an individual right, which we know from assorted other writings and/or actions. Madison was a notable exception, he was very militia-focused. But the senate immediately rewrote his draft twice to explicitly define the militia as being "composed of the body of the people", before then changing it twice more before it became the inconclusive and confusing passage that we have today.
That's literally the function of the 14th amendment and Marbury v Madision, preventing States from passing laws that infringe on civil rights by making them accountable to SCOTUS.
There is no other possible oversight anywhere in any branch of government which can do this.
"Well regulated" means well trained and equipped.
There is no use of "well regulated" anywhere in any law or legislation or court ruling to mean "subject to restrictive laws passed by legislation".
"Regulation" being the result of a "law" passed by the legislature is a relatively modern invention.
I don't think the concept became widespread until the New Deal, and that was a result of executive action, and not legislation.
"Regulated" as "subject to legal regulation" is an even more modern term, iirc anyway.
Isn't the stat that 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide? And a fair number of additional ones are accidents or crimes of passion?
We don't need a solution to be 100% effective. The benchmark for a buyback program doesn't have to be "the shittiest most violent person with a weapon is compelled to turn them in".
I don' know the stats on gun buybacks, and there is obviously an incentive issue with any rewards program. But your argument doesn't hold water.
For guns in general, govt. could tag the gun and test it offsite
If the government wants to play stupid games, it can win stupid prizes. In all seriousness, gun buyback programs do not solve street crime. Criminals do not sell back their guns.
If the government wants to play stupid games, it can win stupid prizes.
In all seriousness, gun buyback programs do not solve street crime. Criminals do not sell back their guns.
As someone who thinks the US has a huge gun problem I briefly looked for evidence on this question and I have to agree with you [pewtrusts.org]:
The study cited research showing buybacks offer too little money, tend to take place in low-crime areas and collect firearms that tend to be older and less functional.
“Who’s choosing to turn their gun in?” Anderson asked. “It’s probably not the person on the margins whose gun we’re trying to get off the street. That gun from Grandpa is not the on
I don't understand what gun buybacks solve. Criminals are not going to sell theirs. If someone needs to dispose of their guns, a firearm shop or pawn shop would give them far more cash than a buyback would. If someone had something illegal, maybe a no-questions-asked buyback, but perhaps that could just be solved by not a buyback... but just a dropbox on the side of a police station?
In all seriousness, gun buyback programs do not solve street crime. Criminals do not sell back their guns.
In all seriousness, gun buyback programs do not solve street crime. Criminals do not sell back their guns.
While I'm a gun nut, I approve of gun buyback programs. Anybody willing to trade a gun for a gift card is probably better off without the gun.
What does bother me is that they typically destroy the guns. Most of them will be junk, but there'll be that person who hands in grandpa's M1 Garand and it goes into the blast furnace with all the junk. They should skim off the collectibles and auction them to people who will take care of them.
There is no support for the claim that private firearm ownership rates are correlated with violent crime rates, unless you deliberately cherry pick your dataset.
There are far more proximate (and direct) causes of violent crime.
It is not illegal to transport unloaded guns across state lines, regardless of quantity.
You are not a dealer unless you buy and sell guns to the public.
There are no special laws that apply to manufacturers transporting guns.
Removing a serial number from a gun is illegal, but possessing a gun that never had a serial number is legal.
Itâ(TM)s the United States. There is this thing called the 2nd amendment and interstate commerce is specifically the federal governmentâ(TM)s domain.
The seller is moving dozens of gun parts across state line.
Gun parts aren't guns...and can move freely about the country.
Now, receivers, the parts that are usually serialized on a commercial gun, that legally are "the gun" might be problematic due to NY's draconian laws.
Then again, with the SCOTUS ruling, maybe it decimated those laws too.
I think the bigger problem is that due to the "no questions asked" policy, they don't even ID people and make sure they're NY residents.
The gun trafficking itself, no problem because they say they are selectively not enforcing that if you are surrendering the weapon. But the whole program is intended for New Yorkers and by not asking any questions at all, they've opened it to the world.
Your proposal is to investigate and arrest someone who turned guns into an amnesty buyback?
Lol. So we're not going to investigate murder weapons, rape weapons, etc. turned in at amnesty buybacks, but someone making money off the government legally, that's unforgivable?
personnel more discretion to determine the value of weapons being handed in, and setting a standard that all 3D-printed guns accepted by the program must be capable of being fired more than once.
personnel more discretion to determine the value of weapons being handed in, and setting a standard that all 3D-printed guns accepted by the program must be capable of being fired more than once.
So the gun buyback programs will need to provide shooting ranges, ammo crates, and people capable of haggling?
I feel like it probably takes quite a bit of setup and regulation to open a shooting range, they will probably have to rent a gun store to accomplish this.
I feel like it probably takes quite a bit of setup and regulation to open a shooting range
I feel like it probably takes quite a bit of setup and regulation to open a shooting range
Less than you might think, depending on where you are. Even in California you just have to have a plan for cleanup, especially if you permit lead. Most of the rifle ranges have disappeared though, which is unfortunate. If you want to shoot a pistol you can find a place to do that pretty much anywhere, even around e.g. SF (actually, there's a rifle range in Richmond... nothing around the Humboldt coast any more, though, where people actually hunt.)
They just paid $21,000 for a handful of 3D-printed plastic parts. Sounds more like a waste of taxpayer money than a legitimate way to protect New York citizens from illegal gun violence.
It makes you wonder what else they're paying money for... odds are that most of the guns that they're collecting aren't even functional anymore. Otherwise, they would have taken them to a pawn shop for real cash instead.
You nailed it. A city (in NY) close to me proudly displayed their 'bought back' guns while claiming how successful the program is. Many of the guns looked like they had been submerged in seawater for a few decades. About 1/3 of them were non-functional replicas. Most of the rest looked like something found while cleaning out grandmas attic. I would say exactly zero of those guns were turned in by violent criminals.
No, sounds like a legitimate to "do something", which is anti-American, and also a case where immediately somebody found a loophole and screwed others over, which is... well, I was going to say "very American"... but in truth it's just very "people". You can't throw out an endeavour just because some people subvert it... that's what jackasses do.
citation needed for evidence that any buyback has reduced violent crime rates
https://www.rand.org/research/... [rand.org]
The NY government literally pays you to destroy a guns serial number before you sell it?
in February 1993 Zimmermann became the formal target of a criminal investigation by the US Government for "munitions export without a license". At the time, cryptosystems using keys larger than 40 bits were considered munitions within the definition of the US export regulations;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Lower end CNC machines are getting cheaper every year. Firearms are not that difficult to make once you've got that bit of kit. The barrels are not quite that easy, but they are not regulated and easy to buy online or at gun shows. Given that the southern border of the US is pretty much wide open to people/drugs/cash/guns moving in both directions, I don't think there's any real chance of any of these buy back programs making any difference whatsoever in the ability of criminals to acquire a gun.
Because these buyback programs usually come with pretty much blanket 'give us the gun and wake away' policies. They are designed to make it easy for people with all sorts of illegal guns to get rid of them for a bit of cash and with the promise of not being prosecuted. The thought here is that lots of people have gun illegally and maybe some of them decide they don't want them anymore. Sometimes people buy a gun illegally when they encounter some sort of life threat and sometimes people inherit weapon
You just have to make the offer enticing enough. Say $500,000 per gun. What the gun buyback programs are trying to do, but wont come out and say, is they are putting a price on human life, it just happens to be insultingly low, which is why these programs fail every time.
I have this great idea for a new TV show. The premise is simple. Just toss a liberal celebrity into the ring with a couple of Marines, and spend about an hour filming him getting the living shit beat out of him. Wouldn't it be great, every night you can turn on your TV and watch some loathsome parasite like Gavin Newsom or Chuck Schumer getting a Front Street Face Lift? If that's not a hit, I don't know what is! Sounds like you have serious anger issues pal.
I have this great idea for a new TV show. The premise is simple. Just toss a liberal celebrity into the ring with a couple of Marines, and spend about an hour filming him getting the living shit beat out of him. Wouldn't it be great, every night you can turn on your TV and watch some loathsome parasite like Gavin Newsom or Chuck Schumer getting a Front Street Face Lift? If that's not a hit, I don't know what is!
I have this great idea for a new TV show. The premise is simple. Just toss a liberal celebrity into the ring with a couple of Marines, and spend about an hour filming him getting the living shit beat out of him. Wouldn't it be great, every night you can turn on your TV and watch some loathsome parasite like Gavin Newsom or Chuck Schumer getting a Front Street Face Lift? If that's not a hit, I don't know what is!
Sounds like you have serious anger issues pal.
Oh, I think he has long since moved way beyond mere anger issues.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Microsoft's Surface Studio 2 Plus Ships With an RTX 3060 for $4,299
Google Reveals 'First Laptops Built For Cloud Gaming' Just After Killing Stadia
I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.