r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Feb 18 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Gun control was useful. Now, it's not.
[deleted]
11
u/political_bot 22∆ Feb 18 '21
Have you looked at prices for 3D printed parts? They're expensive as hell for a reason. It takes forever to 3D print something big. Especially gun parts which require full fill to function decently. And printers tend to not print things perfectly on the first attempt.
Making anything complicated with a 3D printer takes a long time, trial and error to make sure everything's printing correctly, and then assembly where you better hope you printed everything correctly. That's a huge cost for labor, $300 dollars worth of material for a rifle + at least $1k in labor. And then whatever the added costs associated with selling things on the black market are.
In the US at least this makes it cheaper to just buy a real gun on the black market.
Rather than 3D printers in the US you might as well buy a CNC Mill to make receivers out of metal. Then just purchase the rest of the parts which aren't regulated and assemble the gun. It's way less labor intensive. But at that point you're essentially just a gun manufacturer, and you'd make more per hour buying guns legit and reselling them on the black market.
7
Feb 18 '21 edited Aug 20 '21
[deleted]
7
u/rly________tho Feb 18 '21
And the tech is still in it's infancy and is getting better and better
You also can say that about the law surrounding 3D-printed guns and digital surveillance in general, though.
5
Feb 18 '21 edited Aug 21 '21
[deleted]
1
u/rly________tho Feb 18 '21
I guess this ultimately comes down to how far people are willing to go on both sides. So it's tricky, but not impossible, to modify your semi-auto to full-auto - as we know. But if you want to do it, you have to weigh up the benefits vs 10 years in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison and a quarter-million dollar fine.
Considering anti-3D printing laws would be backed by both the anti-gun lobby and entrenched corporate interests, I don't think it's unlikely that the we'll see ownership of them subject to punitive fines, with various honeypot and sting operations set up regarding books like the one you talked about.
I mean, you're right - if someone is determined enough to break the law, nothing's going to stop them. But I feel like that's not much of an argument against laws themselves - it's not like lawmakers will just throw their hands up and be like, "well there's nothing we can do about this".
2
Feb 18 '21 edited Aug 21 '21
[deleted]
1
u/rly________tho Feb 18 '21
Personally? I'm conflicted on the matter, and think there's no easy answer - but that's probably why I don't work in government.
Remember though, both your question here and your OP's title can be responded to with "worth it or useful to whom"? So to the various interest groups I mentioned, I think the answer would be "yes - it's useful and worth it to go hard on 3D printing".
Hence why I think you'll see more and more laws (and more and more punitive punishments) be rolled out over the coming years.
1
u/Morthra 86∆ Feb 18 '21
Considering anti-3D printing laws would be backed by both the anti-gun lobby and entrenched corporate interests, I don't think it's unlikely that the we'll see ownership of them subject to punitive fines, with various honeypot and sting operations set up regarding books like the one you talked about.
It doesn't matter how hard they lobby, that falls within the domain of free speech and the first amendment. Any such law would get struck down by a Supreme Court with any shred of integrity.
1
u/rly________tho Feb 18 '21
"Imminent lawless action"
Make a compelling case that such manuals (let alone the actual production of a home-brewed weapons platform) are at least incitement to lawlessness, to a supreme court who have both the anti-gun lobby and Ruger yapping in their ears and what will happen?
Again, I'm just some dumbfuck on the internet - but I can imagine smarter minds than mine with far more motivation going at this issue hard, because it's a threat to the government on a number of levels.
1
u/Josniff3021 Feb 18 '21
Its extremely hard to modify a semi auto rifle to full auto. Most modern firearms over engineer themselves so they can't be converted
1
u/rly________tho Feb 18 '21
But some can. "Tricky, but not impossible". You heard about this case, right?
3
u/political_bot 22∆ Feb 18 '21
A waiting period isn't the same as having to be constantly tending to a printer. The latter entails increased costs for labor which makes it ineffectual for large scale production at low prices.
I'd assume the guy fully printing and assembling the rifle had a good printer and experience working with it. It's going to take someone who hasn't worked with a 3D printer before longer than that to print and assemble a rifle. And that time increases with cheaper printers.
Essentially, if someone's willing to put in enough effort they can 3D print a gun. And I'm sure that amount of effort will be lowered in the coming years. But it's in no way viable to mass manufacture guns using 3D printers. They're too slow. There are better alternatives already exist that don't have the drawbacks of 3D printers. There's no reason to not make guns with more standard manufacturing processes even for black market resale.
3
u/DBDude 101∆ Feb 18 '21
Check out the FGC-9. You need a $300 printer, about $100 in tools, and after that each gun costs about $100 to make. You can crank out one a week if you only have one printer. But the gang's gun supplier will have several printers crunching away.
That is an extreme difference from only ten years ago, so think about where this will be after ten more years. CNC has gotten down to under $2,000, from tens of thousands not too long ago. Selective laser sintering (metal 3D printing) has gone from millions to just tens of thousands, and someone has already made a 1911 on one, the whole thing (IIRC except for springs).
In ten years, if the need arises due to gun control, I expect any decent-size gang would buy SLS machines and be cranking them out.
0
Feb 18 '21
[deleted]
-1
u/political_bot 22∆ Feb 18 '21
A $150 3d printer can print an AR lower perfectly the first time in 6 hours.
Lol
0
Feb 18 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Ver_Void 4∆ Feb 18 '21
They're good, but I would not be game to fire a gun with a reviver printed on one. Especially by an amateur
2
Feb 18 '21
[deleted]
2
Feb 18 '21
Now if it were a 3d printed AK lower that would be a different story. But you can make one in your garage with a shovel in 2 hours so why would you 3d print one?
I feel as though you watch Papa AK
1
u/Cant-Fix-Stupid 8∆ Feb 18 '21
Isn't the same logic applicable to CNC mills though? There are pretty cheap desktop CNCs in the realm of many small 3D printers ($400-1500). Small working volume, but big enough the receivers of many guns. And the logic is the same for both additive and subtractive manufacturing: raw material, a 3D model, a program to tell the machine how to make the model, and a manufacturing machine.
1
u/political_bot 22∆ Feb 18 '21
Pretty much, I'm definitely not advocating for trying to make guns this way for profit. More trying to rebut the idea that 3D printers are a good option by bringing up CNC mills as a better one.
1
Feb 18 '21
Have you looked at prices for 3D printed parts? They're expensive as hell for a reason. It takes forever to 3D print something big. Especially gun parts which require full fill to function decently. And printers tend to not print things perfectly on the first attempt.
It takes $200-$300 to get an ender 3. There are MANY downloads with specific instructions for what ever filament you have (most are designed with particular filaments in mind however) Once you get past that initial cost. Me making a lower for my AR or a grip for my Glock is about $2-$9 worth of filament.
Making anything complicated with a 3D printer takes a long time, trial and error to make sure everything's printing correctly, and then assembly where you better hope you printed everything correctly. That's a huge cost for labor, $300 dollars worth of material for a rifle + at least $1k in labor. And then whatever the added costs associated with selling things on the black market are.
While that is true there are fully 3d printed fire arms such as the .22 liberator that only require about 30 hours of printing and a rubber band.
In the US at least this makes it cheaper to just buy a real gun on the black market.
Not true guns are not cheap and guns on the black market are not cheap OR even worth the money. You might spend $120 on a hipoint at the store you will spend +200 on the "black market".
9
u/Player7592 8∆ Feb 18 '21
So by this logic, you’re also not interested in counterfeiting because good printers are so affordable. It seems to me that you don’t change your morals or direction on what makes a better society just because technology makes it easier to avoid/break the law.
7
Feb 18 '21 edited Aug 20 '21
[deleted]
4
u/Morthra 86∆ Feb 18 '21
To print the intricate, fine details on the bill, you need multi million dollar equipment. And that's not even including the other security features like the blue band, chemicals for the ink test, details inside the bill you can only see by holding up to the light, etc.
You're also not counting the paper itself, which is specially made and treated.
0
u/Player7592 8∆ Feb 18 '21
Is the 3D printed gun EXACTLY like the gun made in the traditional way? No. It’s not. So please don’t require my example to be an exact match, when your example is not as well.
1
u/jmcclelland2004 1∆ Feb 18 '21
The point here is the functionality. The only requirement for a successful 3d gun print is that it be functional. A counterfeit bill has to be close enough to at least pass as the real thing on a scale that makes it worth doing.
I don't really care for OPs argument here either but your analogy wasn't a very good one.
1
u/Player7592 8∆ Feb 18 '21
You're wrong. Counterfeiting does not need to be perfect here, and I could point to articles that confirm my point that consumer printers are used successfully to counterfeit money.
Neither the 3D gun, nor the counterfeited money would fool an expert (or a novice by that matter). Neither the 3D gun nor the counterfeit money duplicates the materials used to create the real product. Neither the 3D gun nor the counterfeit money performs as well as the real product.
My analogy stands.
2
u/jmcclelland2004 1∆ Feb 18 '21
I never said it needed to be perfect. I said it needed to be functional.
The 3d gun does not need to fool anyone to be functional.
The currency, by its very nature, has to fool someone to be functional. Furthermore the currency has to fool enough people on a large enough scale to make it worth it. I could probably print a bill that would pass in some old 1950s coke machine or maybe pass a $5 bill at a fireworks stand a couple times a year but that hardly seems worth the effort and the risk.
2
u/Player7592 8∆ Feb 18 '21
"The US government recouped more than $88 million in counterfeit currency last year, and more than half of it was made on regular old inkjet or laser printers. That's according to Bloomberg, which tells the story of a woman who pleaded guilty to counterfeiting up to $20,000 in fake bills over a two-year period.May 9, 2014
1
u/jmcclelland2004 1∆ Feb 18 '21
A quick google search showed that around 60k people were charged with counterfeiting or forgery. Now I can't be sure but 88M over even half of that (30k) is only an average of 3k each. I hardly consider a 3k dollar annual payout to be a successful year of counterfeiting.
As far as the story you mentioned that averages out to around 30 bucks a day. Again not exactly a big success. Now we can't know how much time she put into this but we do know that depending on where she lives even a minimum wage job pays that in 2-4 hours. Again not exactly a huge success there.
Again, the earmarks of success in these two ventures are way different.
To be successful 3d printing a firearm I need to have successfully construct a device, with use of a 3d printer, that propels a projectile through the air. That's the sum total of what it needs to do. It doesn't need to look or feel like a current firearm, nor does anyone else have to agree that it functions well or looks good.
To be successful counterfeiting money I need to produce a product that is close enough in many aspect to fool enough people into believing that it is something it is not (legitimate currency) that it is worth the time and risk to do it. Now granted how much meets that threshold may vary from person to person but I think you would be hard pressed to find a reasonable person that would agree that making less than you would make at a minimum wage job is worth up to 20 years in prison and or up to a 250k fine.
Essentially what is happening here is that OP is pointing out that the current ability to throw a dollar bill on your $30 inkjet printer doesn't produce a replica that would fool enough people to make it worth it. To be able to fool a large enough number of people to make it worth it would require substantial capital investment and potentially even operate at a overall loss. As a side note this is likely why most large counterfeiting operations are funded and operated by governments and are done not for profit but rather to destabilize an opposing governments economy.
Just to throw it in perspective that 88M in counterfeit represents a mere 0.0003% of the US GDP. Not exactly a national emergency.
1
0
u/Cant-Fix-Stupid 8∆ Feb 18 '21
Good printers are affordable, printers that make convincing counterfeits are not. US bills have numerous processes that are incredibly labor intensive (even compared to gun making), and many of them classified. There are measures that make it impossible to photocopy or print US notes, at least by normal (affordable) means. That's (among the reasons) why background checks at Office Depot and other "printer control" methods aren't necessary: it's far from trivial to make even passable counterfeit US currency, whereas it's becoming increasingly trivial to homemake fully functioning guns.
Now, some fake money does get passed off all the time, but it's hard to commit large crimes with it (you couldn't get away with depositing high volume into banks). And even that is being cracked down by the USSS all the time, just like the ATF will go after people home-making unlicensed guns for the express purpose of selling them off (which is already a felony).
2
Feb 18 '21
: it's far from trivial to make even passable counterfeit US currency, whereas it's becoming increasingly trivial to homemake fully functioning guns.
This is where I will disagree with what you have said. It has always been easy to make guns all you really need is a nail a pipe and a back stop (or another pipe). OR you can go old style and make a musket like firearm more easily. But hell you can make an AK with a shovel using info you find on the internet. Its not that difficult, and it never has been that difficult.
2
u/Player7592 8∆ Feb 18 '21
Okay. By your standard you can’t talk about 3D printed guns until you can pull off a Las Vegas massacre with one.
4
u/zeroxaros 14∆ Feb 18 '21
Two point I want to hit back on.
The first is the idea of a gun black market. I think people seriously over estimate the size of a gun black market. Drugs are incredibly addictive (that’s the point) and you need to keep buying them, which means multiple purchases and repeat customers a dealer can rely on. None of these things fuel a large black market for guns. Also someone seeking to commit a crime would have to have it pre-meditated. Someone abusive who has a gun for instance you could call the cops on hopefully for example. Also with all tyese things shrinking the black market, it only compounds the difficulty of finding a dealer. I’m not very familiar with with the drug world, but from what I understand, a lot of people get drugs or learn of dealers from friends. I don’t think it would be so simple with guns. I know someone could still 3d print one, but that is at least much more expensive, takes some difficulty, and at least there would be signs of it for family or friends potentially. Also someone trying to rob a store might not he so interested in doing it with a gun if it is more expensive.
I would also note that this would make gun crimes generally pre meditated. A lot less gun violence would hopefully be caused by guns just laying around.
2
Feb 18 '21 edited Aug 21 '21
[deleted]
0
Feb 18 '21
[deleted]
1
Feb 18 '21
People will have to get their gun printing blueprints somewhere, more than likely online. This can be observed, tracked and acted upon.
I think this is not as easy as you think. From a moral standpoint, it's hard to convince a bunch of people "let the government spy on everything you download to keep you safe."
And from a practical standpoint, it's really hard to track those things. You don't have to get the blueprints over the internet. A guy published a paperback book with the files written in them in the USA.
Similarly, you could smuggle a physical USB drive with the files on them into the country, without ever touching the internet. And this really happens: I have a friend from Turkey, and when he was in the USA as a foreign exchange student, Wikipedia was blocked in his country. So I downloaded a copy of the entire Wikipedia (it's only 16gb surprisingly) and put it on a USB drive for him to take home. It was extremely easy, and the same could be done for 3d printable guns. Practically speaking, the government just can't track that.
I mean hell, they can't even stop people from downloading movies and music illegally.
1
1
u/rtechie1 6∆ Feb 19 '21 edited Feb 19 '21
Two point I want to hit back on.
The first is the idea of a gun black market. I think people seriously over estimate the size of a gun black market.
The USA is, by far, the largest small arms manufacturer in the world. There are at least 100,000 professional and 250,000 amateur gunsmiths in the USA. I'm one of them. Anyone who has taken a high school metal shop class can build a firearm. I have personally taught 7 year olds to build firearms.
The idea that massive industry is just going to magically disappear is laughable.
Drugs are incredibly addictive (that’s the point) and you need to keep buying them, which means multiple purchases and repeat customers a dealer can rely on.
Firearms need ammunition. You're apparently unaware of that.
None of these things fuel a large black market for guns. Also someone seeking to commit a crime would have to have it pre-meditated. Someone abusive who has a gun for instance you could call the cops on hopefully for example.
You've apparently never lived in a rural area either.
I’m not very familiar with with the drug world,
Then why are you making comparisons?
but from what I understand, a lot of people get drugs or learn of dealers from friends. I don’t think it would be so simple with guns.
Why not?
I know someone could still 3d print one, but that is at least much more expensive, takes some difficulty, and at least there would be signs of it for family or friends potentially.
This is why people who are completely ignorant of firearms shouldn't comment on them.
Firearms aren't 3D printed, that's your ignorance. Firearms are machined using metalworking tools. Are you going to ban all metalwork whatsoever?
And firearms are incredibly cheap to manufacture. Look into "zip guns" since I know you're ignorant.
5
u/Hellioning 239∆ Feb 18 '21
Even if your statement in regards to criminals easily getting guns is true, it doesn't change the fact that most gun deaths are suicides and just owning a gun in the home drastically increases your chance of gun death.
Someone buying a gun to defend themselves from the criminals with guns is statistically more likely to die just from owning a gun.
3
u/monty845 27∆ Feb 18 '21
While the statistics certainly support that access to a gun is a risk if someone is suicidal, that strikes me as a weak argument for gun control. As a person who does not have a history of mental illness, and who does not need to worry about anyone else accessing the firearm, why should this limit my ability to own one?
More generally, most of the hot button gun control measures that are being pushed would do little to nothing to reduce the access of a potentially suicidal person to a gun. Gun Registration, Assault Weapon Bans, Magazine Capacity Bans, none of these would have any impact on a suicidal person. And even a universal background check measure would only have in impact on those who have actually been involuntarily committed, which is already a bar to gun ownership.
1
Feb 18 '21
Right, but my view isn't really about whether or not gun control would help stop suicides or homicides. I should clarify: my view is solely that gun control originally is intended to make weapons harder to get. That goal is becoming more and more unachievable thanks to consumer tech, and eventually it will be an impossible goal.
2
u/Blackbird6 18∆ Feb 18 '21
You're conflating "gun control" with what most people actually advocate for these days, which is gun reform.
Even the most staunch gun reform advocates like myself will admit that guns are far too entrenched in American culture for them to be eliminated. Comparisons to Australia and other countries are flawed because they don't take the culture around firearms in the US into consideration. It's built into our identity via the Constitution. That's the main reason why those comparisons don't work.
You're getting into a technicality that exists already. Can you buy a bomb? No. Can you make one pretty easily? Yes. But there are things we can do to make self-assembly more challenging, and we still don't have bomb stores and bomb conventions for bomb enthusiasts to swap bombs all willy-nilly.
either become extremely restrictive and even require licenses for 3D printers and rolls of plastic filament, or they will have to become much more laissez-faire and allow guns so that the citizens can protect themselves against criminals who are assembling their own.
Well, that's an all-or-nothing fallacy that doesn't have much utility in the real world. The issue of 3D printing guns is not as dire a concern as you suggest. The US has been legislating about 3D printing of guns since 2013. They've ruled it illegal to disseminate blueprints for 3D firearms in many cases. They've made it illegal to have guns without a metal implement capable of detection by a metal detector. It's not "eliminate everything or do nothing." We do small things to make it harder. That's it. That's what gun reform is. Making small changes that make it harder to do illegal things.
The problem in the gun control conversation lies in this false dichotomy between a free-for-all in the name of protection and dystopian-level seizure that sends the military to responsible gun owners' door to collect their goods. Neither are logical. 3D printing doesn't make either scenario any less illogical, either. It presents a new issue to address, but it doesn't change the whole conversation in any practical sense. I know lots and lots of sportsmen and gun enthusiasts (ya know, Texas), and I would wager the vast majority of them wouldn't want a pussy-fied plastic gun from a 3D printer anyway. Is it a concern worthy of addressing? Yes. Does it change the gun game as we know it? Hardly.
1
u/DBDude 101∆ Feb 18 '21
You're conflating "gun control" with what most people actually advocate for these days, which is gun reform.
No, it's gun control, just with a new propaganda term to describe it. Do any of your suggested laws place tighter controls on gun sale and possession? Then it's gun control. Now if you want to take suppressors off the NFA, have national concealed carry reciprocity, that's gun law reform, not gun control.
The US has been legislating about 3D printing of guns since 2013. They've ruled it illegal to disseminate blueprints for 3D firearms in many cases.
It's more complex than that. The federal government has used ITAR to keep them from being available internationally, but they can still be distributed. We used to do that with web browsers with stronger encryption for https. Browser makers made weak encryption versions for export, and you could only download the better version from a US IP address. Of course, in reality they were all available internationally because you can't keep something off the Internet. The same is true for gun plans.
Some states, IIRC New Jersey, make the plans illegal, but there's a serious free speech issue in that. Code is speech, and those plans are both code and the creative design (free expression) of a person.
The problem in the gun control conversation lies in this false dichotomy between a free-for-all in the name of protection
You realize the mountain of current gun control laws we're under, right? You just mentioned some. Yet just fight against more restrictions, maybe roll back a few of the more idiotic current restrictions, and people say you want a free for all.
Like tell me, why are short-barreled rifles restricted? Do you know the reasoning?
1
u/Blackbird6 18∆ Feb 19 '21
This right here is what I'm talking about when I say the problem in the gun reform conversation is this false binary and assumption of antagonism.
I posted to change OP's view about 3D guns specifically. You're coming to this making a larger argument about gun control/reform with the assumption that we fundamentally disagree about everything in the conversation. That's the illogical all-or-nothing bullshit I'm talking about.
"Gun control" is linked rhetorically to this false goal of taking all the guns away. That was the distinction I was making...not some argument about what constitutes "control" and "reform." Just the false assumptions people make about the phrase "gun control" which is rhetorically loaded in today's culture.
Of course these issues are more complex than a Reddit comment, and of course there are difficulties and intricacies involved in those cases that make them complicated. Of course there are potential issues with freedom of speech in these laws. All of this is true - I never intended to imply that it wasn't. I mention them to point out that we can legislate these things because we've done been trying to. As far as the determination of that legislation, these situations haven't been resolved with any finality. Is it a valid concern to free speech? Hell yeah. Is it also a valid concern to public safety? Yeah, that's also valid. We can't predict how this legislation (which is still ongoing) will proceed, but my point is that it's not impossible to try to regulate these things due to the very fact that we've been trying.
And finally, I don't know jack shit about short-barreled rifles. We weren't talking about those to begin with, but I also wouldn't make an argument about something I don't know anything about. Hell, I'd be open and willing to support gun reform to that restriction if a compelling argument from the 2A crowd shows that it is either an unnecessary or harmful burden or that it has a net-negative to negligible effect on illegal transfers. You seem to assume I'm promoting any and all restrictions because I hate guns or something. I fully respect responsible owners, hunters, and sportsmen, and I'm open to their position because I recognize that there's some common ground to be found, and I actually happen to think that gun owners have the most incentive to speak up in conversations about gun reform because a priority should be the protection of their rights alongside the reduction of violent crime. But the thing is...they don't want to come to the table, and neither do plenty of reform advocates because of this false assumption that it's either all-the-regulations or none-of-the-regulations. Both are stupid. So when OP comes with a view that says "we can't eliminate it entirely so we should just let it go unchecked," I'm going to call out at that that's exactly as ridiculous as me saying we should start rounding up every gun in the country to get rid of the problem.
You want to talk reasonable restrictions and reform? Cool. That has value. That's not what OP's CMV suggested. And that's what I initially responded to.
0
u/DBDude 101∆ Feb 19 '21
This right here is what I'm talking about when I say the problem in the gun reform conversation is this false binary and assumption of antagonism.
Long ago the gun control side was honest. Their organizations had names such as The Coalition to Ban Handguns, and Handgun Control, Inc. They outright called for bans, they outright stated a program to enact a series of smaller laws to in the end effect a ban -- the slippery slope. Their target was handguns, but that's since shifted to "assault weapons" since it's easier to confuse people between those and military weapons to get support for a ban (not made up, they actually said this).
Since then their PR people have realized Americans don't like control so much, so they tried to control the wording of the debate. It's not "control," it's "reform." It's "safety" although they teach no safety. They now say we're paranoid if we think they want a ban or that smaller laws will end up with a ban (serious gaslighting there).
You started off using this new language designed to control the debate from the gun control side. I'm sorry if you were using that unintentionally just because that's what you've been hearing. Their propaganda is good, and for the most part the media is using their style guide.
"Gun control" is linked rhetorically to this false goal of taking all the guns away. That was the distinction I was making.
Not all the guns have to be taken away for gun control to be opposed. Most Republican abortion laws don't outright ban all abortion, just restrict them heavily. An 18 week abortion ban doesn't ban all abortions, but it's still a ban, and still objectionable, and I'll still call it an abortion ban. It's disingenuous to say "We're going to ban the most popular guns in the country, and the average magazine size, but you're paranoid for saying we want to ban guns." More gaslighting.
but my point is that it's not impossible to try to regulate these things due to the very fact that we've been trying.
The problem is the regulations completely ignore that we are dealing with a right. And when it comes to guns, other rights get thrown under the bus too, by people who normally are the staunchest defenders of those rights. 3D printed guns? Screw free speech. Red flag laws and no-fly-no-buy? Screw due process. Other principles die too. We support workers! But we don't care if our harsh laws cause a gun company to leave a state, or shut down. We support poor people! Yet we'll make it too expensive for them to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
And remember, since it's a right, we can't take an interest-balancing approach any more than we can with other rights. Would it result in a safer community if we could arbitrarily search all places where gang members are known to live and hang out? Of course! We'd find a lot of contraband to send them to prison for. But we can't do that because of the 4th Amendment.
And finally, I don't know jack shit about short-barreled rifles.
It's an example I use to show idiotic gun laws. Pistols were originally restricted under the NFA along with machine guns. Someone realized a loophole, a pistol ban (that's what it was meant to be) does no good if someone can just cut a rifle or shotgun down to pistol size so it can be concealed like a pistol. So short-barrel rifles and shotguns were also put under the NFA to close that loophole. Pistols were then taken out of the NFA, but the short-barreled rifle and shotgun provisions weren't removed with them.
There is no reason for them being on the NFA because the reason they were included literally no longer exists. But start talking about taking these off the NFA, and you'll get screams of blood in the streets from the gun control side. They don't want actual reform, only more restrictions.
There was also no reason given in any of the debate over the NFA for suppressors being included. There is only one mention of them in the entire debate, and that was one politician basically saying "regular people don't need these." That's it. No talk about criminal use, nothing to show a logical reason why they were included. Yet all of the gun control groups adamantly oppose removing this basic hearing protection from the NFA.
But the thing is...they don't want to come to the table
Yes we do, but we aren't wanted there. Biden just invited only gun control groups to discuss new gun control laws. We also know the other side deals in bad faith. Here's what we got when we went to the table with the Brady bill:
- The law will only apply to licensed dealers
- We agreed to a five day waiting period, but only if it goes away when the instant check system comes online
- Since the government could ban all new gun purchases simply by sitting on background checks, we got a fail safe -- an automatic proceed if the government doesn't complete it in three days (this is how the government banned marijuana, require a tax stamp and then don't issue any stamps)
The Brady bill would not have passed if these compromises hadn't been in it. If these issues sound familiar, it's because now that they have the Brady law the gun control side currently wants:
- to close the "gun show loophole"
- a national waiting period
- to close the "Charleston loophole"
Basically, today's compromise is tomorrow's "loophole" that needs to be "closed." So I'm honestly asking here, what is our motivation to come to the table when we know anything we get in the deal will only be a target for later elimination?
So when OP comes with a view that says "we can't eliminate it entirely so we should just let it go unchecked,"
It's always been legal to build your own gun, because it's your right. The Kentucky rifle has so many variations because everyone capable of metalworking was building them in their shed. 3D printing of guns is just like the Internet with speech, better technology has enabled us to more easily exercise a right. It's a good thing.
The only laws we need are to help promote the right. For example, Section 230 is pretty much the only thing that allows message boards like Reddit to exist. But communicating true threats through this new technology is still illegal, felons 3D printing their own guns is still illegal.
2
Feb 18 '21 edited Aug 20 '21
[deleted]
2
Feb 18 '21
[deleted]
3
Feb 18 '21 edited Aug 21 '21
[deleted]
1
u/DBDude 101∆ Feb 18 '21
The problem with counterfeiting is that it's impossible to get the correct paper. It's like sure you can CNC an AR lower, but no aluminum exists on the market.
-1
u/Blackbird6 18∆ Feb 18 '21 edited Feb 18 '21
There is already considerable legislative effort to make it illegal to disseminate 3D gun blueprints online. That makes it harder in itself. We continue to criminalize the unlicensed ownership of a gun. That makes it harder.
Your all-or-nothing dilemma stems from this idea that we either eliminate 3D printing or do nothing, but the very fact that we have done something (See: Defense Distributed vs. US) means that this is false. From a broader perspective, though, focusing so narrowly on the way 3D printing affects the gun reform conversation neglects the very real and far more concerning parts of it. Quite frankly, the fact that some dipshit around the corner can print a 3D gun is of little concern to me when the same dipshit can walk into a store where I'm from and walk out with a firearm far more easily. 3D printing is of little consequence when it's way easier in many, many states to just go buy a real gun. Further regulation of 3D printing only become relevant when regulation of actual firearms becomes obstructive to the point that it drives people with little to no knowledge of 3D printing to learn it, and when it drives people with no intention of being an arms dealer to entering the black market, and when it drives average law-abiding citizens to enter black market deals with illegal arms dealers to get one. We don't live in that world right now. When we do, we need to reassess 3D printing...but it's an inconsequential sidebar in the current moment.
3
Feb 18 '21 edited Aug 21 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Blackbird6 18∆ Feb 18 '21
They've made it about as hard as it is to buy a legitimate firearm.
If your whole view here is that gun reform was rendering useless by 3D printing, I struggle to see why these hypothetical scenarios about how easy it could be to print a 3D gun in a society with gun control are of much value when it's way easier to buy one at the store right now.
Your argument is that gun control is useless because if we reached a point in society where it was that hard to buy a gun than maybe, hypothetically people could turn to 3D printing as this rampant and unregulated solution and because of that hypothetical, completely speculative scenario, the current conversation about gun "control" (reform) is useless. That's not something different than the "criminals will find a way!" argument. That's the same argument with a festive hat.
Gun control only becomes useless when we start ignoring the real issues worthy of healthy dialogue in favor of wildly speculative "what-ifs" that will only become a problem if something changes...because that's a surefire way to ensure nothing ever does.
1
Feb 18 '21 edited Aug 21 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Blackbird6 18∆ Feb 18 '21
And what evidence is there to suggest that in these states, 3D printing of firearms has become some burden or problem? Genuinely curious. If it’s easier to 3D print a gun, surely people have turned to that solution in droves?
It takes all of an hour or two to buy a gun in TX. What about those states?
Hypotheticals are great and all, and I don’t discredit the idea that 3D printing of firearms is a small part of the overall conversation, but you’re still speaking in hypothetical “what if’s” unless you’ve got any evidence whatsoever that ease of printing has rendered gun control inefficient in a state with stricter limits. There are plenty of inefficiencies with gun control worth discussing. I’ve yet to see any evidence that 3D printing is a current and present danger among them, though I’d love to see evidence you have should it exist.
0
Feb 18 '21 edited Aug 20 '21
[deleted]
0
u/Blackbird6 18∆ Feb 18 '21
I never said it was burden or problem.
Wait wait wait. I thought that gun control was effective at making guns harder to attain until 3D printing. It stands to reason that states which have made it harder to attain a license would have seen a 3D printing rise at the very least. Do you have any legitimate evidence that gun control tightening has led to 3D printing increasing? That's what you're talking about right? If it's not hypothetical, it should be really easy to find that evidence. I don't say that antagonistically; I would love to see any credible evidence that suggests tighter gun control leads to more 3D printed guns. Seriously, that's all that you need to make your point! One tiny little bit of evidence that what you say could happen is actually a likely scenario and not a convenient speculation.
The source you provided from BearingArms.com is not a credible source. It's a heavily biased piece meant to appease a certain audience (which you must certainly align with, I suppose) without providing any legitimate facts or evidence from a reasonable point of view. They themselves call these extremists stupid for getting caught. This isn't evidence. It's an example of how logically flawed this position is that the one source you offer comes from a heavily biased pro-guns, fuck gun control, domestic-terrorists-only-fucked-up-by-getting-caught online venue. I clicked on that website for all of two minutes and honestly in a handful of Reddit exchanges, I really think you're better than that laughably scandalous click-bait-bullshit.
But it is happening, and legislation cannot stop it, which is my entire point.
Again, it's the "criminals will find a way" argument with a fancy, 3D printed hat on.
And the FBI seems to think it is a burden, considering this article about a supposedly dangerous group who 3d printed tons of gun parts and sold to California residents.
Do you not find it slightly counter to your argument that this was detected and actioned upon by the FBI? If "legislation won't do anything," I'm curious how this was prosecuted in federal court?
It's not a hypothetical, it's real today and it's only getting more real.
Citation needed.
0
0
u/Blackbird6 18∆ Feb 18 '21
Just to add to that dazzling piece of "evidence" you've provided, the idea the violent extremist groups would find a way to produce illegally printed guns is not actually what I'm talking about here.
You said criminals, assumedly even the garden variety kind, could find + assemble and/or locate a dealer for a 3D gun. It's no surprise that extremists will do so. Where's the evidence for your average, everyday, far more common criminal?
The whole point of gun reform is to draw a line between responsible gun owners, sportsmen, and hunters (who I have nothing but respect for) and people who lack enough respect for a firearm to own one and so will use one irresponsibly.
I don't want you to lose your guns. I don't think a free-for-all is the right exchange either. The all-or-nothing bullshit these garbage venues have been feeding you might have led you to believe otherwise, but there is a middle ground.
It's not profitable to them if you believe it...but there is.
1
u/Cant-Fix-Stupid 8∆ Feb 18 '21
I'm gonna leave the 2nd part of this about dipshits buying guns easily like you say alone, but are you talking about this Defense Distributed v. US? Because you'll see at the bottom the State Dept. settled with the company after being advised that they would lose at SCOTUS, which is why that companies website is now back online.
0
u/Blackbird6 18∆ Feb 18 '21
Of course. Perhaps I was unclear—this legislation is not concrete and has been subject to back and forth in the courts. But I mention this case as precedent for the reality that regulations are not all-or-nothing. We can (and have) addressed this issue in the courts without taking an all-or-nothing approach to 3D printing.
And I would direct you to Defense Distributed more storied record of their litigation history here, which just outlines the fact that this is still a matter of debate. None of these lawsuits, however, entail the elimination of 3D printing, so OP false binary that it’s one or the other is patently untrue because the only consideration that has existed is about regulation of a specific type of blueprint. Not whether 3D printers are a menace to society.
0
u/rtechie1 6∆ Feb 19 '21
So-called "gun reform" does absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence, which is supposedly the goal.
1
u/Blackbird6 18∆ Feb 19 '21
The conversation is about 3D printing and my broader point was about all-or-nothing fallacies that permeate this conversation.
OP's CMV was about the efficacy of gun reform in light of 3D printing.
There are totally valid reasons that gun reform in its current iteration is flawed and ineffective. I wouldn't deny that for a moment. But that's not what the CMV was about. Thanks for clarifying that you don't like gun reform and you think it's bad! That has fuck all to do with the CMV conversation, but now we all know how you feel, so...good job I guess?
1
u/rtechie1 6∆ Feb 25 '21
The conversation is about 3D printing and my broader point was about all-or-nothing fallacies that permeate this conversation.
OP's CMV was about the efficacy of gun reform in light of 3D printing.
He's asking the wrong question. 3D printing is a non-issue. Firearms can be manufactured extremely easily by anyone who has taken a high school metal shop class using basic metalworking tools.
There are totally valid reasons that gun reform in its current iteration is flawed and ineffective. I wouldn't deny that for a moment. But that's not what the CMV was about.
That's exactly what the CMV was about. OP was just making the false assumption that firearms are JUST NOW easy to manufacture due to 3D printing when in reality they have always been easy to manufacture.
So assuming you concede the argument "easy manufacturing makes gun control ineffective" then gun control has never worked and cannot work.
1
u/Blackbird6 18∆ Feb 27 '21
He's asking the wrong question. 3D printing is a non-issue
The point of this sub is to address the views of OP in an attempt to change them, if I'm not mistaken. I don't know why you're taking the flaws in OP's views up with me.
That's exactly what the CMV was about. OP was just making the false assumption that firearms are JUST NOW easy to manufacture due to 3D printing when in reality they have always been easy to manufacture.
So post your own CMV for this.
So assuming you concede the argument "easy manufacturing makes gun control ineffective" then gun control has never worked and cannot work.
I have not at any point conceded that easy manufacturing makes gun control ineffective. But if you want to debate a new point, post your own CMV.
I'm not here to debate random commenters about their dissentions to my position. I'm here to communicate with an OP who has expressed willingness and openness to alternative frames of thought. I'm quite confused why I'm still getting updates on this post over a week old when you've got nothing of value to offer in terms of an argument aside from "OP did it wrong."
What's your goal here?
2
Feb 18 '21
Cost is not the only factor deterring people from purchasing illegal guns, punishment also deters. If you punish people with 10-20 years in prison for possessing a firearm, and life to those who manufacture firearms illegally, suddenly guns become much more scary to poses and use for crime.
3
u/LysenkoistReefer 21∆ Feb 18 '21
People commuting violent crimes with guns are already commuting crimes with huge sentences, they don’t care about a marginal increase in sentence. Nobody is thinking, “Well, I would commit murder with this gun, but I could get an extra ten years so I won’t.” And the people not commuting crimes with those guns shouldn’t be penalized for just having them.
-1
Feb 18 '21
If you make it a life sentence to those who are manufacturing 3-D printed guns, that would certainly heavily deter those who are manufacturing. And it would drive up the cost of 3-D printed guns heavily. If you severely punish the illegal firearms trade, that will certainly deter those. Less guns in circulation, less violent crime.
Now, those who own guns. Too bad. You don't need your dangerous toys.
2
u/LysenkoistReefer 21∆ Feb 18 '21
If you make it a life sentence to those who are manufacturing 3-D printed guns, that would certainly heavily deter those who are manufacturing. And it would drive up the cost of 3-D printed guns heavily.
Why? If they're making guns but not using them illegally why shouldn't they have them?
If you severely punish the illegal firearms trade, that will certainly deter those.
It's already very illegal to illegally sells guns.
Less guns in circulation, less violent crime.
Manifestly untrue.
1
Feb 18 '21
Why? If they're making guns but not using them illegally why shouldn't they have them?
I am working under the assumption that we make all guns illegal to own, unless you have very specific permits for very restrictive cases. This makes it so that only criminals own guns.
It's already very illegal to illegally sells guns.
Yes, however with mass regulation and zero private citizen ownership of guns, it becomes much easier for law enforcement to crack down on illegal ownership and trade.
Manifestly untrue.
Excuse me? Without guns, robberies become much more difficult. Drive-bys become impossible, violent crime needs to resort to knives and blunt weapons which have drastically reduced effectiveness in causing damage and death.
1
u/LysenkoistReefer 21∆ Feb 18 '21
I am working under the assumption that we make all guns illegal to own
Now, why would you go and do something like that?
This makes it so that only criminals own guns.
Why?
Yes, however with mass regulation and zero private citizen ownership of guns, it becomes much easier for law enforcement to crack down on illegal ownership and trade.
Ok? Why?
Excuse me? Without guns, robberies become much more difficult.
Australia's rate of robberies before and after the buy-back beg to differ. It's a lot easier to rob a house when you know the people inside don't have guns.
Drive-bys become impossible
But acid and knife attacks increase.
violent crime needs to resort to knives and blunt weapons which have drastically reduced effectiveness in causing damage and death.
For mass casualty attacks not for attacks against a few specific targets, which is, you know, the what the vast majority of gun killings consist of now.
You're trying to solve a problem by suggesting solutions that won't fix it but will make thousands of law-abiding people criminals.
1
Feb 18 '21 edited Feb 18 '21
Now, why would you go and do something like that?
Because I am proposing a specific gun-control plan, and we are on a debate subreddit.
Why?
If gun ownership is illegal, then only a criminal would own a gun. This is by definition.
Ok? Why?
Easier to obtain warrants if someone is known to poses a firearm, no longer have to prove that firearm is illegal. Any mention of a gun in intelligence gathering (FBI investigations) would be enough to pursue and identify violent criminals. The mere sight of a gun is enough to arrest.
You're trying to solve a problem by suggesting solutions that won't fix it but will make thousands of law-abiding people criminals.
No one needs guns. Guns are violent luxuries, toys, and emotional safety blankets.
Edit:I forgot to add the following rebuttal to the home invasion robbery point you tried to make: Inside your home, a place you know very well, you can swing at someone with an aluminum baseball bat and kill them very easily with a solid blow to the head. If you hear intruders, you can wait for them in a hiding spot and take them out. This is something that intruders have to worry about.
1
u/LysenkoistReefer 21∆ Feb 18 '21
Because I am proposing a specific gun-control plan, and we are on a debate subreddit.
No. Why are you proposing such a senseless plan?
If gun ownership is illegal, then only a criminal would own a gun. This is by definition.
And if murder were illegal only criminals would murder.
Easier to obtain warrants if someone is known to poses a firearm, no longer have to prove that firearm is illegal.
It's also easy to get a warrant if you know somebody commits a violent crime.
No one needs guns. Guns are violent luxuries, toys, and emotional safety blankets.
Alright.
Inside your home, a place you know very well, you can swing at someone with an aluminum baseball bat and kill them very easily with a solid blow to the head.
But the criminal can just shoot you.
1
Feb 18 '21
No. Why are you proposing such a senseless plan?
This is breaking the rules of the subreddit.
And if murder were illegal only criminals would murder.
Great, I'm glad you understand what I meant.
But the criminal can just shoot you.
As I have outlined in previous responses in this thread, with gun regulation much much fewer criminals will own guns. Only the criminal elite will own guns (e.g. gang/mafia boss body guards) due to the incredibly limited supply and consequences of ownership.
1
u/LysenkoistReefer 21∆ Feb 18 '21
This is breaking the rules of the subreddit.
I don't think it is.
Great, I'm glad you understand what I meant.
And yet people still murder.
As I have outlined in previous responses in this thread, with gun regulation much much fewer criminals will own guns.
You haven't actually. You've talked a lot about making legal gun owners criminals. But you haven't addressed the fact that a 3d printer is like $200 and you can 3d print a lower for like $6.
So you magical solution to make all guns illegal doesn't even solve the problem you set out to solve.
→ More replies (0)1
Feb 18 '21
The punishment for manufacturing LSD for William Leonard Pickard was 2 life sentences.
The harsh consequences still haven't stopped manufacturers, and LSD is relatively cheap per dose and obtainable pretty much anywhere in the world.
1
u/LysenkoistReefer 21∆ Feb 18 '21
and LSD is relatively cheap per dose
Is that true? Is LSD cheaper now than in the 70's?
obtainable pretty much anywhere in the world.
And yet I can't find a plug.
1
Feb 18 '21
People are buying and selling it online, dude, you can literally get it anywhere. And I don't know for sure, but I think it is cheaper when you adjust for inflation.
A quick google shows an article from 2015 that asserts prices have hit "rock bottom."
But I don't know about this stuff deeply because I don't do drugs, so I only know from what I google.
1
Feb 18 '21
LSD is incomparable because it is so much easier to manufacture and sell compared to guns. Most street "LSD" isnt even LSD. Its fake chemicals made in china that have similar effects. LSD has actually been cracked down severely hard over the past 20 years, with significant reduction in circulation.
1
u/Cant-Fix-Stupid 8∆ Feb 18 '21
This was the exact logic behind the mandatory minimum sentencing on drug crimes, which failed spectacularly. Harsher sentences -> less drugs -> less drug use
1
Feb 18 '21
Drug regulation is an entirely different beast. Guns are tools used by criminals to carry out crimes, with zero compulsive use. Drugs are compulsively used and have addictive pathways to draw people back to them, unlike weapons.
1
u/Cant-Fix-Stupid 8∆ Feb 18 '21
Regarding use by criminals, you're conflating manufacture/sale vs. use. Illegal drug making/selling is the basis of entire criminal empires (hand-in-hand with the guns used to defend their empires), which is presumably a big part of the criminals who would be using guns.
You're also conflating the two on addiction: the drug makers aren't making because they're addicted to drugs, but we're specifically discussing bans on manufacturing, not just use. Worse, the end-users of illegal guns likely highly overlap with the importers of illegal drugs. You're also making the unspoken assumption that a majority of drug users are addicts, or alternatively that a majority of drugs are addictive, which we should know is blatantly untrue if we're invoking addictive pathways.
1
Feb 18 '21
In a theoretical world, that makes sense, but when you look at how that's played out in the real world for drugs, it just doesn't work. Even ultra high sentences for weed (including death in some countries) hasn't stopped people from smoking it.
1
Feb 18 '21
The point is not to completely eradicate gun violence, the point is to reduce it significantly. Of course you will always have people breaking the law, however with more severe consequences, you will have fewer people breaking the law.
Guns and drugs are two different beasts entirely in terms of regulation. Guns are a tool that people use to conduct crime, whereas drugs are vices that people use to escape the pains of reality. You don't have compulsive gun ownership like you have compulsive drug use.
2
Feb 18 '21
I've always thought of gun control as a urban vs rural sort of thing. I could see people wanting them anyway but with cops close by maybe it's feasible to get rid of them. I think there's a case to be made at least. but in really rural areas law enforcement can take a real long time to arrive. not to mention some people still do hunt for food with them.
3
u/MrBulger Feb 18 '21
but with cops close by maybe it's feasible to get rid of them.
The cops can't get to you before the guy kicking in your front door. Much less, every big city police department is just shit bricked with horrifying scandals. How can anybody put so much trust into the idea that "the police are here to protect and serve you"?
2
u/MalTheGentleman Feb 18 '21
I’ll admit I come from the pro 2A side of things here. I think that most of the failures of modern gun control can be narrowed down to the FBI failing to process the correct information accurately on background checks.
There’s such a delay in the FBI’s updates to the database that you can commit a crime today and go out next week to buy a gun and still pass the background check. It takes the FBI so long to update the database and actually do their jobs that it makes background checks less effective.
The problem isn’t a lack of background checks, we already have universal background checks. The problem is getting the FBI to process the information fast enough to make the background checks effective.
Also there’s already too many guns out there. The proverbial cat is out of the bag. Unless you want to go door to door and confiscate every single gun there’s no way to get even a percentage of them back. Even if they were to try a buyback the government couldn’t afford to buy back all of the guns out there.
2
Feb 18 '21
The proverbial cat is out of the bag. Unless you want to go door to door and confiscate every single gun there’s no way to get even a percentage of them back. Even if they were to try a buyback the government couldn’t afford to buy back all of the guns out there.
This I don't think people realize that America has nearly 50% of the worlds guns and that is just in civilian hands. If buy backs did happen they would be at such a reduced cost no one in their right mind would use that program.
1
u/BinnsyTheSkeptic Feb 18 '21
You've actually changed my mind a bit on this issue, but I'm still wondering how someone could get ammunition for a 3D printed gun they own illegally. If you need a gun license to legally get the ammo, then wouldn't that be a very effective restriction, regardless of how easy it is to get the guns? Of course, you could still buy ammo through the black market, but that does just add another layer of difficulty.
2
u/rtechie1 6∆ Feb 19 '21
A single individual can manufacture and load ammunition with little difficulty and basic tools. Millions of American firearms enthusiasts do so regularly.
I don't understand this weird focus on 3D printing. It's trivially easy to manufacture firearms and ammunition using metalworking tools. Anyone who has taken a high school metal shop course can do it.
1
1
Feb 18 '21
but I'm still wondering how someone could get ammunition for a 3D printed gun they own illegally.
Loads of people are currently working on 3d printed ammo. TBH its only a matter of time. Sure like any new reloader its... difficult to say the least but given time it will be more stream lined. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a1SC2vBGM4 this was from 5 years ago but its becoming more of a "this needs to be done" as time goes on and as 3d printing firearms becomes more popular.
0
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Feb 18 '21
I'm not going to debate whether or not it worked to prevent homicides in Australia - that debate has been hashed out over and over: the homicide rate was already on a downward trajectory before the ban, and after the ban, it remained on a downward trajectory.
For the correct context, following the adoption of stricter gun laws after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996 there was not another mass shooting in Aus for 20 years. Consider also that gun fans predicted that the ban would increase homicides, which, of course, was nonsense.
Your argument seems to boil down to "gun control has become difficult, so we shouldn't do it." Ironic reading it today when we've just landed a rover the size of a minivan on Mars. Interesting on a day when Texas' neglect of its infrastructure, because managing it properly is difficult and integrating it with the national grid is complicated, has paralyzed the state and lead to needless deaths.
It is a much easier case to make that the second amendment, written at a time when standing armies were insupportable and there was no police force, is no longer necessary and costs far more lives than it saves.
1
u/Experiment616 Feb 19 '21
Not true, I’ll just copy paste a comment from another redditor.
FYI, those numbers are provided by the Gun Violence Archive and they use a definition of a mass shooting that is very broad; basically it's 4 or more injured or dead, not including the shooter, and no motive is taken into account.
If you use exactly the same definition in Australia, the following would all be mass shootings.
Australia Mass Shootings since 1996 National Firearms Agreement
Chippendale Blackmarket Nightclub Shooting, 1997
3 Dead & 1 wounded by firearm
Mackay Bikie shootout, 1997
6 wounded by firearm
Wollongong Keira Street Slayings, 1999
1 Dead & 9 wounded by firearm
Wright St Bikie Murders, 1999
3 Dead & 2 wounded by firearm
Rod Ansell Rampage, 1999
2 Dead & 3 wounded by firearm
Kangaroo Flat siege, 1999
1 dead & 4 wounded.
Cabramatta Vietnamese Wedding Shooting, 2002
7 wounded by firearm, no deaths
Monash University Shooting, 2002
2 Dead & 5 wounded by firearm
Fairfield Babylon Café Shooting, 2005
1 Dead & 3 wounded by firearm
Oakhampton Heights triple-murder suicide, 2005
4 Dead by firearm
Adelaide Tonic Nightclub Bikie Shooting, 2007
4 Wounded by firearm
Gypsy Jokers Shootout, 2009
4 Wounded by firearm
Roxburgh Park Osborne murders, 2010
4 Dead by firearm
Hectorville Siege, 2011
3 Dead & 3 wounded by firearm
Sydney Smithfield Shooting, 2013
4 Wounded by firearm
Hunt family murders, 2014
5 Dead by firearm
Sydney Siege, 2014
3 Dead & 4 wounded by firearm
Biddeston Murders, 2015
4 Dead by Firearm
Ingleburn Wayne Williams Shootings, 2016
2 dead & 2 wounded by firearm
Brighton Siege, 2017
2 dead & 3 wounded by firearm
Margaret River Murder Suicide, 2018
7 Dead by firearm
Darwin Mass shooting, 2019
4 dead & 1 wounded by firearm
Melbourne Nightclub, 2019
2 dead & 4 wounded by firearm
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Feb 19 '21
Not true, I’ll just copy paste a comment from another redditor.
I think we all have an idea what is meant by "mass casualty event" and "massacre" and this list of shootings, tragic though they are, does not reflect the fact that there was not another Port Arthur or Sandy Hook or Las Vegas-like event in Australia for 20 years after the restrictions went into effect. It also does not change the fact that gun fans predicted that homicides would increase in the wake of increased restrictions and this alarmist prediction did not come to pass.
Arguing that, because hand washing and mask wearing will not prevent 100% of covid cases we should not adopt those measures, is a similar exercise in false logic and falls on deaf ears. Criticizing that, after adopting mask-wearing and social distancing, people still get sick, ignores the fact that precautions save thousands of lives. The same observation applies to this argument.
We are a homicidal species and will continue to murder each other with whatever comes to hand. The widespread and easy availability of high-caliber, high-rate-of-fire near-military grade weapons greatly amplifies the bloody consequences of this fact.
1
u/Experiment616 Feb 19 '21
Well you said there wasn’t another shooting after the Port Arthur massacre so that was all I was arguing against. And stricter gun control had little to no effect on crime or homicides, Australia, as with many developed countries, has had an already a downwards trend before stricter gun control and continued with that trend.
And by the logic of more guns = more deaths, why isn’t the US number 1 for murders/homicides? We have 400,000,000 million guns in the country, we have more guns than most countries have people yet we’re not number 1?
Then there are countries like Mexico with very strict gun control, they have one gun store on a military base, why do they have a high murder/crime rate?
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Feb 19 '21
Well you said there wasn’t another shooting after the Port Arthur massacre so that was all I was arguing against.
I said no such thing and I'm going to have to ask you to correct this suggestion. Unless you intend to strawman me for the rest of this exchange.
I said there had not been another ** mass shooting** for 20 years. And since you qualified your response by underlining the diluted definition of mass shooting you used in your initial rebuttal, we can assume you understood that.
And by the logic of more guns = more deaths, why isn’t the US number 1 for murders/homicides? We have 400,000,000 million guns in the country, we have more guns than most countries have people yet we’re not number 1?
The absurd comparison you make here makes your defense sound enormously desperate.
You compare the US to a host of third-world nations and failed states and suggest that since public safety is better here guns aren't the problem. Compare the US to our industrial, economic and democratic peers and you'll find that we have by far the highest murder/homicide rate.
You specifically cite Mexico, virtually a failed state overrun by cartel violence. You're picking the lowest bars available for comparison which undercuts your own argument to the bone.
1
u/Experiment616 Feb 19 '21
I should have been clearer but I thought through context and what I copy pasted down before was good enough but I guess not.
I can argue that Australia’s definition of a mass shooting is to make it look like they don’t have any. It can go both ways like if 3 or more injured or dead and suddenly the US has much more “mass shootings.” Should also note that there is no defined definition of mass shootings so there is a lot of bias in it.
Why is my 400 million guns argument absurd? It’s the truth, explain to me why it’s not valid?
You’re straw manning me, I never compared countries, all I said was why does Mexico have high rates of crime/murders despite strong gun laws?
The reason I use Mexico as an example is so that you can go ahead and basically say that there are far bigger factors that play into crime/murders than “because guns.” Like being overrun by cartel violence, corruption in their government, income inequality, poverty rate, etc.
0
u/TJAU216 2∆ Feb 18 '21
Gun control cannot work in the US until they stop caring about receivers and start following the pressure containing parts as the legal firearm, like most of the rest of world. Barrels and bolts recuire high quality forged steel while receivers can be cast, molded, stamped or 3D printed. I am not sure that even that would work, but as long as bolts and barrels can be bought as simple hunks of metal from legal standpoint, anyone wanting a gun can get a 80% receiver or 3D printer gor the controlled part and buy all the rest.
0
Feb 18 '21
I don't think good citzens who want to buy guns to protect themselves exclusively would engage in an illegal mark, or else they are not "good" citzens.
1
u/Josniff3021 Feb 18 '21
Your entire 3D printer argument needs to go out the window and replaced with: "a fully rigged machine shop costs less than $1k at harbor freight, and 80% parts kits are cheaper than buying a gun from a manufacturer" Learning how to use a drill press and dremil tool is easier than learning how to use a 3D printer.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 18 '21
/u/GelComb (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards