Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Ballistics Scientists: 3D-Printed Guns Are 'of No Use To Anyone'

Soulskill posted about 5 months ago | from the might-hurt-if-you-throw-them-at-somebody dept.

United Kingdom 490

New submitter graveyardjohn writes: "The BBC has a short video about why the U.K.'s National Ballistics Intelligence Service thinks 3D-printed guns are 'of no use to anyone.' They show a 3D-printed gun being fired in a test chamber. The barrel explodes and the bullet flops forward a few feet. They say, 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130675)

I'm fucking sick of seeing 3D printers associated with guns.

Re:Good (-1, Troll)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#47130689)

And I'm sick of gun people thinking of guns as a great equalizer that anyone can make without substantial engineering expertise. But somehow I suspect neither group is going to respect the results of this research.

Re:Good (0)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 5 months ago | (#47130775)

I imagine the wizards at IBM in the 1960s said the same thing about computers in the homes of the unwashed masses.

Re:Good (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#47131311)

Right, because computers are something you can make in your back yard. Don't be dense.

The vast majority of people lack the expertise to build or program computers which would be the actual parallel in this bizarre metaphor you've drawn up.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131521)

As loathe as I am to defend the troll gandhi_2, I believe he was comparing the unwashed masses (sic) using computers in their homes with using a printer to make a gun.

gandhi_2 is still a troll, but this comparison isn't 100% invalid.

Can't the Brits get it right? (3, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 5 months ago | (#47132307)

There has already been videos out showing how in the US there are viable 3D printed guns, that fire just fine.

Why can't the UK just download those plans and do it right?

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132643)

Cause they want to show them exploding.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 5 months ago | (#47143717)

To be fair, the tone of the video seems to indicate that they're trying to warn off 3D printing enthusiasts in the hope that they won't injure themselves. A lot of early adopters do tend to rush into things, and I think there may be an actual danger to the public here that they'll try to make something that is potentially quite dangerous to themselves.

The video actually shows some footage from May 2013 with the same model of 3D printed gun being used successfully when printed with a better printer, and it also shows other 3D printed guns working fine as well. If the intent was to convince people that this stuff clearly doesn't work and shouldn't be bothered with, they wouldn't have included that footage, nor would they have included statements at the end regarding the fact that 3D printed weapons are becoming more viable as the technology improves, and that they may soon have to start dealing with them as criminals or others use them to circumvent the law or importation restrictions.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (2)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#47132815)

I suspect they did download one of the working plans. When we see examples of these guns working, they tend to be made on non-consumer grade printers and we have no idea how many were printed and failed before they got a good video.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 months ago | (#47134809)

What I wonder is why all these people don't simply print out the shapes and use them to form molds for casting something (brass, bronze?). It still removes a significant portion of work, namely crafting the models.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#47135631)

Probably because the push for these devices is political rather then functional. As others have pointed out there are other ways of building cheap unregistered firearms (i.e. zip guns) that require much less fancy equipment and materials. Using the 3d parts to build a mold could lead to a more functional firearm, but then it would not be '3d printed' anymore, and it is the method that is getting people worked up, not the end result.

For the price of a good (since the tolerances on these firearms are pretty tight, thus the predicted high failure rate) printer you could probably by all the tools needed to fabricate an all metal gun from scratch.

You mean the "lost wax" technique? (1)

mmell (832646) | about 5 months ago | (#47136343)

A technique which is centuries (perhaps millenia) old. Not bad.

I personally prefer printing the gun from a metallic substance instead of a plastic one. Increases the cost, but decreases the difficulty. You might want to mill the weapon's bore to ensure reliability, but that's trivial once you've cast the parts.

Re:You mean the "lost wax" technique? (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 5 months ago | (#47136509)

Not necessarily lost wax, although it could serve as an intermediary. I suppose ABS itself wouldn't work nearly as well as wax would, and you'd have to re-print it every time, which doesn't make sense to me.

Considering ABS is not as strong as wood (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#47133903)

Considering ABS is not as strong as wood why bother? What they have done makes the point that the material sucks utterly for this purpose.
Personally I think the printed gun people are just attention seekers that don't give a shit if their games cause governments to regulate 3D printing and fuck us all around when there are printers available that can produce more suitable materials for that purpose.

Also why so much fuss about printed guns? A few weeks ago a group of researchers printed a working chunk of human kidney - that's a vast amount more interesting than trying to get a very crappy zip gun to work.

Untraceable (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | about 5 months ago | (#47134061)

In the states and around the world guns are pretty easy to trace. A lot of crimes are solved on ballistic evidence. 3D Printed guns do away with that.

Re:Untraceable (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#47134219)

Hobby built guns are all over the place so it changes nothing.

Re:Untraceable (1)

rikkards (98006) | about 5 months ago | (#47134973)

Hobby built implies that you find someone with the talent and expertise to do the required fabrication.
3d Printed implies you find someone who can work a mouse and download a plan from a website.

Whole different paradigm

Re: Untraceable (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 5 months ago | (#47135323)

No, definitely it does not. If you can work a Dremel, you can fabricate an AR-15 lower from a $50 unregistered blank and a parts kit.

Takes about an hour, no skill or expertise involved.

For the cost of a good 3D printer, you can get a used CNC, and just like with 3D printers, you can download the milling programs for free, and mill an aluminum lower in less than 10 mins.

The 3D printing thing was just a moral panic to begin with. It didn't actually add any capability. The fact that this can be done anywhere in the world with existing technology demonstrates pretty well that the danger of it is really a non-issue.

Re:Untraceable (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 5 months ago | (#47138365)

In the states and around the world guns are pretty easy to trace. A lot of crimes are solved on ballistic evidence. 3D Printed guns do away with that.

No ballistic evidence would not go away.
A printed barrel or receiver would still have unique "tool marks".
Same for the firing pin.

Matching a weapon to a spent round would be the same
with the interesting bit that the weapon is so fragile that
the ballistics experts would want a much longer string
to fire the device for a reference projectile.

Re: Untraceable (1)

ravenshrike (808508) | about 5 months ago | (#47142311)

Wow you're an idiot who wanted entirely too much NCIS. Tracing a gun is generally useless, and ballistic fingerprinting databases have not once been instrumental in solving a crime. Not to mention the science itself is almost certainly hogwash.

Re:Considering ABS is not as strong as wood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47134749)

If governments regulate 3D printers, the fault lies with those governments.

Re: Considering ABS is not as strong as wood (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47136133)

Yeah, the people who are building guns should bear no responsibility for their actions. That's very reassuring.

Re:Considering ABS is not as strong as wood (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#47138797)

Or the people who are stirring up a huge attention seeking fuss about impractical guns. Enough fuss and governments act.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

dwillden (521345) | about 5 months ago | (#47134599)

It's the ammo used. The Brits used 9mm or similar caliber ammunition. Most if not all 3D printed guns fired successfully in the US and Canada used .22LR. Not an ideal caliber for defense, but far better than nothing. The plastics currently in common used simply can't take the pressure of standard hangun calibers. But as a last ditch single shot weapon a .22 is better than nothing.

This video is pure propaganda. Trying to scare off people from printing their own untraceable undetectable guns. Perhaps .22 LR isn't readily available in the UK? But this does not prove these are not viable. Just that the British authorities are so worried about losing control over the serf's abilities to defend themselves that they have taken to making propaganda vids to scare them into remaining helpless.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47135085)

Why in the hell would you use a 3D printed single-shot gun as a defensive weapon instead of, I don't know, buying a real handgun?

Trying to scare off people from printing their own untraceable undetectable guns.

You don't say? I can't imagine why anyone would do such a thing. Hell, governments around the world should be running these things off in the millions and handing them out for free!

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 5 months ago | (#47136631)

Just that the British authorities are so worried about losing control over the serf's abilities to defend themselves that they have taken to making propaganda vids to scare them into remaining helpless.

Indeed. The British government knows full well that unarmed people can't overcome it [wikipedia.org] .

Armed resistance is a godsent (devilsent?) for oppressive regimes, since it justifies tightening the "security" measures ever more. The US milking the War on Terror (and the War on Drugs, and the War on Whatever) for all its worth is a good example. Nonviolent resistance, on the other hand, is impossible to deal with. Sure, you can kill the protesters, but you'll also kill your own legitimacy. That's why every regime ever tries to pain its victims as violent extremists. And even if you win a violent revolution, chances are that you're replacing a Tzar with a Stalin.

The people who dream of taking down an oppressive regime with a violent uprising are in reality legitimazing that very regime by justifying its oppression as a sad necessity to ensure "security", rather than an inexcusible intrusion upon people's personal and collective rights. Stop being a tool to the system. Even if you don't have the guts to fight effectively, at the very least you can stop giving it excuses.

Alternatively, of course, you aren't being oppressed and are simply role-playing Red Dawn or something. In that case, could you please switch to D&D, just in case we ever do get an oppressive regime? Old habits die hard, after all, so why pick some that actually do leave you helpless.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

dwillden (521345) | about 5 months ago | (#47137139)

You are so right. The revolutionary war just legitimized the British Rule over the Colonies. The French just legitimized the rule of the French monarchy, ok so it took a bad turn but eventually they ended up with democracy. Then the Germans tried to take it away, twice, and both times the armed French resistance just legitimized the oppressive regimes didn't they. More recently revolutionaries just legitimized Momar' Qadaffi's regime. And armed resistance has legitimized the oppressive government in Egypt, yes first a radical muslim group took over but the people recognized this mistake and have now legitimized that regime as well. And Syria is seeing mixed results, but it's looking more and more like Assad is soon going to be legitimized out of a job.

An armed resistance against an oppressive regime is very possible. In the US the government would fall in weeks were a national movement to rise against it. I didn't agree with the Bundy's but armed citizens stood down the heavily armed BLM.

It's not a dream, it's not a fantasy, and it's not an RPG. It is real, and it is possible. Do I think it's just around the corner? Nope, we are nowhere near that point. But if we don't get some of the policies and laws of the last couple administrations (Clinton, Bush and Obama) repealed, it is going to get closer to that point.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 5 months ago | (#47138125)

The revolutionary war just legitimized the British Rule over the Colonies.

Did most people notice [wikipedia.org] a [wikipedia.org] difference [wikipedia.org] ?

Yes, King George lost the colonies. No, the new rulers weren't any better.

The French just legitimized the rule of the French monarchy, ok so it took a bad turn but eventually they ended up with democracy.

They replaced an incompetent tool with Robespierre, who's rule earned the endearing nickname The Reign of Terror [wikipedia.org] . Then he was replaced with Napoleon.

Then the Germans tried to take it away, twice, and both times the armed French resistance just legitimized the oppressive regimes didn't they.

So did French Resistance oust the Nazis? Of course not. How could it? The Nazis were experts in violence, and far stronger. Confronting them with violence was attacking a superior enemy at its strongest point. You can't out-evil the devil. You have to hit the weak point for maximum damage - in other words, don't blow up the tracks, but tell everyone in the train industry to get a cold simultaneously. Which is how you'd fight a civil war succesfully, BTW.

An armed resistance against an oppressive regime is very possible. In the US the government would fall in weeks were a national movement to rise against it.

Tzar's government in Russia fell to armed revolution. Would you say Comrade Stalin was an improvement? Because that's my point: it doesn't matter who's wearing the jackboot, it only matters that it's stomping on your face. Armed revolutions tend to favour people who aren't shy on using violence, thus the end result is almost always some form of military dictatorship that'll murder people en masse.

It's not a dream, it's not a fantasy, and it's not an RPG. It is real, and it is possible. Do I think it's just around the corner? Nope, we are nowhere near that point. But if we don't get some of the policies and laws of the last couple administrations (Clinton, Bush and Obama) repealed, it is going to get closer to that point.

And for all that, Snowden and Manning have actually done something towards overturning those, both through nonviolent means, while the militias have done nothing but posture.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

Gareth Iwan Fairclough (2831535) | about 5 months ago | (#47136673)

It's the ammo used. The Brits used 9mm or similar caliber ammunition. Most if not all 3D printed guns fired successfully in the US and Canada used .22LR. Not an ideal caliber for defense, but far better than nothing. The plastics currently in common used simply can't take the pressure of standard hangun calibers. But as a last ditch single shot weapon a .22 is better than nothing. This video is pure propaganda. Trying to scare off people from printing their own untraceable undetectable guns. Perhaps .22 LR isn't readily available in the UK? But this does not prove these are not viable. Just that the British authorities are so worried about losing control over the serf's abilities to defend themselves that they have taken to making propaganda vids to scare them into remaining helpless.

Guns and ammo are very difficult to get hold of legally in the UK. Even .22LR. In fact, outside of a military base I haven't seen a gun of any kind in the UK for years.

It's possible to get one or two types of gun, like say a double barrel shotgun, but that's about it. It's also a huge pain in the arse to get the necessary permits from the police who also have the right to pull short notice "inspections" of your property where the weapons are stored and often revoke permits on the spot for the silliest little thing that the officer inspecting perceives as "wrong".

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 5 months ago | (#47141195)

Perhaps .22 LR isn't readily available in the UK?

No ammunition is readily available in the UK. Because almost nobody owns guns.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

Xest (935314) | about 5 months ago | (#47145355)

That's not actually true, in fact gun ownership in the UK is around 9% so just short of 1 in 10. Shotguns and hunting rifles are perfectly legal.

It's just easily concealed weapons like handguns and also military grade assault rifles and the like that aren't legal. You can acquire .22 ammunition and rifles easily and legally.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 5 months ago | (#47154831)

9% of people own guns, or the number of registered guns in the country is 9% of the population (which would be a bit shy of 6 million)?

Thinking around all my various friends and family, I can only think of two who own weapons - one of whom was in the shooting club at university and still owns his couple of target guns, which he keeps at it's registered address, some 300 miles from where he lives with his wife and children. They haven't been fired for a decade or so. The other person was a competitor in the last-but-one (or two?) Olympic biathlon and also has several weapons at her university's gun club too - which is a different 300 miles from her home.

There is probably a farm worker or two with a rat-blasting gun or two at home.

"Hunting" : the only two variants that happen in this country are fishing and fox-hunting, and neither requires guns (fishermen's catapults for scattering bait on the water are also classified as offensive weapons and can get you jail time if used as weapons ; though if you're lugging your fishing kit about with the catapult in the bag, you'll probably not get done for it ; same logic for gutting knives etc ; they have "legitimate other uses" than as weapons).

You're probably including starting pistols and air rifles in the count too. If it were 9% of people owning a gun, then I'd know in the order of a dozen people who currently own a gun. Adding up including a couple of people I knew in school who had air rifles 35 years ago and I still can't get up to a dozen people I've ever known to own a gun. Not even counting decommissioned antiques.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

Xest (935314) | about 5 months ago | (#47155721)

""Hunting" : the only two variants that happen in this country are fishing and fox-hunting"

Rabbits, pidgeons, squirrels, pheasants, grouse amongst others are all commonly hunted with guns also.

Some common gun owners:

- Farmers

- Animal control (badgers were recently hunted in trials with contracted hunters)

- Army/Navy/Airforce cadet leaders (.22 rifles are commonly used in weekly meets)

- Private hunters hunting for personal reasons

- Competition shooters

- Clay pidgeon shooters

- Vets

- Zookeepers

You don't see them often in the UK because we don't have a problem with insecurity about our ability to defend ourselves without a firearm like Americans do, coupled with the fact it's illegal to just walk around with one in public places anyway.

I don't know where you live, but I live in a rural area of England, and I regularly walk into people with guns whilst walking the dogs so whilst the stat may be surprising for a city slicker it's probably less so if you live and walk rurally.

Gun ownership laws are actually pretty lax when it comes to shotguns and hunting rifles, that's why crackpots like Derrick Bird and Raoul Moat were able to get hold of them (though I believe the one Raoul used had an illegal modification to make it a sawn off shotgun so although he didn't acquire it legally it was originally acquired legally by a friend).

Another fact people are often unaware of are the age requirements, I believe that you can, or at least until very recently could own a gun at a very young age too - I believe there are records of even 6 year olds owning guns.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 5 months ago | (#47156311)

Your list does a lot of double-counting. What is the difference between a clay pigeon shooter and a competition shooter on which basis you count them separately? Rabbits etc (extremely rare) versus your amorphous "private hunters" class. (To be honest, I think you're skirting around saying "poachers" ; I bloody well wish there were more poachers, because I've been trying to find a supply of bunny for the pot for years. No butchers in the city can get rabbit, or has been able to get it for years.)

I live in Scotland and though I'm not a country bumpkin, I'm not a city slicker either. Rabbit with the guts in as well as the lead shot would suit me fine. The wife would up-chuck, probably, so I'd have dress it out in the yard before she gets back form work.

Most of the rabbits; I've eaten have been ferreted, not shot (poachers like it quiet). Pheasants ... mostly shot by twats from some bank who rent guns for their posturing (IME ; yours may vary, particularly if you're getting your pheasant by night). Grouse likewise. Pigeons and squirrels I've never heard of someone hunting with guns - but using poisons as pest control, yes. Got to be careful with the poisons these days - there are landlords facing jail for the raptors found dead on their property.

Farmers I covered ; a good number have one or two guns ; many don't have any, but do have a friend. Farmers don't make up anything like 9% of the population (the last figure I had for the entire agricultural workforce was substantially less than 1%). Remembering that in the region of 80% of the population live in towns of 20,000 or more inhabitants, and people who live in the "country" are decidedly the exception to the norm, then your personal sample may be well off the average.

Vets : maybe use a gun, maybe a humane killer that uses shotgun cartridges - are they licensed as guns (probably - that's a group I hadn't considered - along with the zoo keepers)? And how many are there in the countries of the UK? A thousand perhaps (for 20 per county)?

Army cadets? One of my friends (well, guy I shared an apartment with) was put on a charge at the OTC for not returning his weapon to the lockers properly. So you're implying that their younger colleagues are allowed (or even required) to own guns at home? That stretches my credibility, a long, long way. Besides, even if every member of the armed forces were to possess a weapon at home (very, very dubious ; the only member of the forces I've known at all closely have been medics of various grades, but that's a biased sample too), that would only net you around 85,000 (and declining) to add to your tally.

Besides, I thought we were talking about personal weapons, not ones owned by the army, navy, police, or other organisation as part of their job.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

Xest (935314) | about 5 months ago | (#47166305)

"Your list does a lot of double-counting. What is the difference between a clay pigeon shooter and a competition shooter on which basis you count them separately?"

Because clay pidgeon shooting is not always about competition, sometimes it's just the fun of blowing things out the sky. Competition shooting can involve static or popup target shooting and not clay pidgeons. They're often not the same thing, the overlap is minimal.

"Rabbits etc (extremely rare)"

Sorry, I'm confused, are you saying rabbit hunting is extremely rare? are you actually serious? have you ever ventured into the British country side? You couldn't manage an hour walk without spotting someone whose been hunting rabbits. I could go for a walk from my house right now and find you someone hunting or returning from hunting rabbit. Most people who hunt rabbit do so either because it's one of the easiest animals to find that can be legally shot under the guise of pest control and they enjoy hunting live animals rather than target shooting or because they simply want rabbit for themselves. I agree there are few companies who hunt rabbit on a commercial scale, but there are hundreds of thousands of people who hunt rabbit for private use or enjoyment.

"Farmers I covered ; a good number have one or two guns ; many don't have any, but do have a friend."

Actually just about every farmer with livestock, and even the farm hands will have at least one gun, because it's the quickest way to put down a fatally injured animal without having it suffer until a vet can turn up.

"So you're implying that their younger colleagues are allowed (or even required) to own guns at home?"

No I'm saying some cadet hall staff will bring private rifles to let the cadets have a go at shooting. That's not the same as not returning an army owned L98 or similar (I don't even know if the military own any .22 calibre rifles directly, possibly for training, but that'd be it). I purposely left off military and police owned firearms as they're not under private ownership. Many cadet leaders aren't even in the military, some never even were, so I don't know why you'd even try and tally them against military personnel.

It sounds more than anything like you really don't know much about countryside life in your own country as much as anything. Perhaps when you do venture into it you just drive through it? Try going for a walk in the countryside sometime, you'll be surprised. If you're not doing that you're oblivious to guns because as I said, having them out on display would be an offence. It's an offence to have them out even on public footpaths but given that the police rarely venture out of urban areas or suburbia it's routinely done.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 5 months ago | (#47180731)

I do plenty of walking in the country, just not in England - which may be "my country" in terms of birth address, but one which I only visit for the purposes of visiting family. I choose to live in Scotland, and do it to go into the mountains not potter around on farmland.

You may be right that there are lots of people in the country who have guns. But it would have to be pretty much EVERY person who lives in the countryside, and with "countryside" defined as towns of under 10,000 (approx., the size of London in the Middle Ages) for you to approach your claimed figure of about 6 million guns. (I actually grew up in a village of 3000 people, but with overspill from London escapees had grown to nearly 10,000 by the time I left to move to Scotland.)

That thing about "cadet hall staff" ... are you implying that people are allowed near kids with guns, and not being employed by the armed forces. Well, I can see that lasting about 30 seconds after the "someone think of the children" brigade hearing about it. Adults with guns and an interest in kids? Yeah, that's not going to last. Good thing too.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

Xest (935314) | about 4 months ago | (#47200907)

"You may be right that there are lots of people in the country who have guns. But it would have to be pretty much EVERY person who lives in the countryside, and with "countryside" defined as towns of under 10,000 (approx., the size of London in the Middle Ages) for you to approach your claimed figure of about 6 million guns."

What an arbitrary made up figure. Countryside is anything that isn't city or some other type of terrain like mountains. That's the vast majority of the country. Urban areas make up less than 7% of the UK's land mass, and whilst they contain (including suburbia) 80% of the UK's population, that still leaves 12.8million people living in the actual countryside. Given that many in suburbia also hunt in the countryside, (and even some in the city) I don't know what you find so awkward to believe about it.

"That thing about "cadet hall staff" ... are you implying that people are allowed near kids with guns, and not being employed by the armed forces."

Yes exactly. Most are at least ex military to be fair though. There are plenty of CRB checks nowadays though so I don't see what the problem would be. What you should be more concerned about is the poor enforcement of gun licensing such that people who have been flagged as a risk like Derrick Bird can still get shotguns and hunting rifles.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 4 months ago | (#47221701)

To be honest, if Ihad my way on gun licensing laws, people like Derek Bird wouldn't be getting guns either. Nobody else would either, without a really, really good reason. Which is the only real point on which we differ.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 4 months ago | (#47208259)

people do own guns, particularly long guns, in the UK. 22 rimfire is in fact the one legally permitted semiauto caliber

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 4 months ago | (#47208295)

more to the point, there are currently certificates for 1.8 million "firearms and shotguns" in the UK, with the bulk being 1.3 million shotguns

https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | about 4 months ago | (#47221755)

Xest thinks, upthread, that it's around 9% of people, which would be around 6 million weapons. I suspect your figure is more likely to be accurate- in the several hundred people I've known, I include a couple of poachers (probably long dead) and a couple of gamekeepers (also poachers, at different times), for whom a shotgun was a working tool. And a couple of people who did target shooting at uni (but only one of them still has a gun, because she's still shooting). Which would make around 2-3% of people, closer to your figure than Xest's.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

Xest (935314) | about 5 months ago | (#47145361)

"Just that the British authorities are so worried about losing control over the serf's abilities to defend themselves that they have taken to making propaganda vids to scare them into remaining helpless."

Yes, that's right, it's all about government control. That's why the citizens of Syria, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt were completely unable to rise up against their governments, because they didn't have firearms.

Oh wait. You're completely wrong.

Ever consider the real reason we don't have widespread gun ownership of any kind of gun in the UK is because we just don't want to live in a society that's plagued by gun crime like the US? Ever consider that we're not paranoid about our government trying to keep us down because we're not a bunch of whining pussies like Americans are and know full well that if it ever came to that, that we needed violent resistance against government that we could rise up anyway? Just like the people of Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc. did?

Maybe you'll now go down the usual line of telling me how it's not true because our government is already doing bad things and we're not rising up right? I've heard it all before we're not rising up because we still have at least some degree of faith in the ballot box - in contrast how's it working out for you? your government is doing far worse things, you have your guns yet you too are in the same position as us.

Long story short. Stop talking nonsense.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

dwillden (521345) | about 5 months ago | (#47150251)

Yet your gun and violent crime rates climb every year even as such drops in the US every year. How is your violent crime rate these days. How common are home invasions. Which country was it that a soldier was beheaded in broad daylight in the middle of the street? Which country is doing it's best to achieve the total surveillance regime of 1984.

Which country did we wisely give the boot to more than 200 years ago.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

Xest (935314) | about 5 months ago | (#47152935)

Um no, that's the exact opposite of reality. British crime and violence rates have been falling for years, and they're now at their lowest point in recorded history. So you'd have had a good argument if your underlying premise wasn't completely wrong:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-... [theguardian.com]

"Which country was it that a soldier was beheaded in broad daylight in the middle of the street?"

Not the one whose marathon runners were blown to bits at least and who had thousands of civilians killed by airliners being flown into a building. Nor the one where school children and university students are often gunned down. No that's the country where people just get their face eaten in broad daylight instead:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t... [google.com]

"Which country is doing it's best to achieve the total surveillance regime of 1984."

America, why? Did you miss the Snowden revelations or something? Oh you're talking about that long out of date report on the number of CCTV cameras in the UK? Don't you know that places in America with high population density actually have more cameras per head of population than equivalent places in the UK? The only reason America as a whole has less is because vast swathes of America are redneck towns where there's nothing worth stealing anyway. That doesn't stop the NSA harvesting every bit of information available there anyway though.

"Which country did we wisely give the boot to more than 200 years ago."

Who knows, it can't have been Britain given that we have a better education system, a better healthcare system, less crime, less violent crime, less murders, and higher levels of personal happiness.

Well, I suppose it could've been Britain if you're a criminal who likes being sick with a high chance of being beaten or murdered and is poorly educated and consistently unhappy. I suppose that would explain the high level of ignorance and falsehoods you've just managed to post in only a handful of sentences.

But I guess when you live in a country with as many problems as America you've got to try and justify your inaction somehow. It's okay I guess if it makes you feel better, keep telling yourself everything is okay as if that'll somehow fix the problem. Of course, in doing this you've missed the most important questions I asked. How exactly is widespread gun ownership in the US protecting your freedoms given their clear erosion? How did countries like Libya where citizens were banned from having guns rise up and overthrow their dictator if they didn't have guns? Both these things conflict directly with your argument and show how completely wrong it is, but you've avoided answering them instead going off on a rant about the UK because you know that these questions highlight the more simple fact that you are wrong to equate guns with freedom.

Re:Can't the Brits get it right? (1)

stoatwblr (2650359) | about 5 months ago | (#47161549)

There are a number of disguised zip guns (usually as mobile phones, soimetimes as lighters) which use .22LR circulating in the EU and UK. .22LR seems readily available but in the UK you need a permit to even possess ammunition. Not that it stops anyone who wants an illegal handgun from obtaining one.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132503)

unwashed masses (sic)

That is how masses is spelt you know. Methinks that word "sic" does not mean what you think it does.

Re: Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133365)

*spelled

Re: Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133915)

British spelling.

Re:Good (1)

slashdot_commentator (444053) | about 5 months ago | (#47134437)

No its not, especially if you're old enough to have seen the history firsthand.

There certainly was sort of an odd chauvinism among the mainframe/minicomputer group against personal computing. Luckily, the newbs to the industry didn't even bother listening to the "professionals".

Ironically, I'd have to agree with the Beeb on this one, even if it may be a propaganda newscast. They're absolutely right; if you don't know enough about 3D materials & basic firearms, you could end up blinding yourself, or damaging you hand. I could definitely see a teenager trying this, using their parents/brother's/friend's 3D printer.

But we all know the march of technology is inexorable.

Re:Good (1)

xvan (2935999) | about 5 months ago | (#47131555)

Wasn't in that conditions that the first mac was made, or am I mistaken?

Re:Good (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 5 months ago | (#47131841)

It seems like the comparison includes the limitation of "without substantial engineering expertise". That situation doesn't apply with Wozniak (assuming you're talking about the Apple I, not the Macintosh, which wasn't made in a garage or back yard). i kan read also hedged their claim by saying "The vast majority of people lack the expertise to build or program computers[...]".

Of course, ikr could've phrased their comments better to eliminate the confusion.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131571)

Sure, why not?

Not from zero, of course, but "making computers in your back yard" is how Apple started and how many in (ex-)USSR got their first computers.

There were dozens of ZX-Spectrum clones in USSR with schematics available and firms selling PCBs and core components to build one.

Right now you can build a viable computer at home with a cheap FPGA and evaluation board.

Re:Good (1)

jythie (914043) | about 5 months ago | (#47132835)

Yeah, but to a degree that is not building a computer, it is buying one and putting it together. Very few people start with a spool or block of raw material and can produce a usable computer out of it.

Re:Good (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about 5 months ago | (#47131857)

Uhm, I don't think you understood his post.

He was obviously trying to say that the process for printint guns with 3d printers will become easier over time and the guns will increase in quality.

I understand logic often flys out the window when talking about guns, but take a sec and breath.

Re:Good (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about 5 months ago | (#47132001)

I promise you that an idiot with a computer and an internet connection is capable of far more destruction, death and mayhem than any idiot with a 3D printer and ammo. You cant print anthrax, TNT or C4. But you can sure as hell look up how to produce them and obtain the materials to do so.

Re:Good (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#47133001)

Getting the materials for those is very difficult.

If you want an explosive anyone can make in bulk, look at the fertiliser bomb. There's a reason it's long been a favorite of terrorists. It's not the most powerful explosive, but you can compensate for that through sheer quantity - fill a whole truck with it. All you need is common agricultural fertiliser, diesel fuel, and a small quantity of high explosive to act as a detonator - and with some creativity, you can manage without that.

Re:Good (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#47133937)

You cant print anthrax, TNT or C4. But you can sure as hell look up how to produce them and obtain the materials to do so.

Lower the bar to something as incredibly simple as gun cotton and you'll see that even then it's not so easy to get the stuff unless you are associated with a place that consumes a lot of industrial chemicals. Even anfo would not be so easy unless you've already got access to ammonium nitrate or fill out a shitload of forms, presumably with waiting times and identity checks - and then you've got to have some way to detonate it.
Of course there are plenty of other ways but that presumes the person is more than "an idiot with a computer and an internet connection". Breaking Bad showed a similar situation well - the shopping list is just the start.

Re:Good (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#47132053)

Right, because computers are something you can make in your back yard. Don't be dense.

The vast majority of people lack the expertise to build or program computers which would be the actual parallel in this bizarre metaphor you've drawn up.

Not a very apt comparison, is it?

While (back in the day, and even now) building a computer from scratch requires at least an EE level of education plus a crap-ton of actual CS experience, making a working firearm requires a whole lot less.

After all, humanity has been making the things with crap technology since what, the 13th Century or so (counting cannons)?

The whole idea behind a homemade firearm boils down to materials (that can handle upwards of 40,000 psi or more), tight tolerances (so the gases are directed towards pushing the bullet out instead of leaking back through the receiver or blowing past the bullet out the barrel), and a bit of mechanical engineering (so you can build a reliable trigger, a reliable extraction mechanism, prevent jams, etc).

It's something like a whole order of magnitude less complex than building a whole computer from, say, Mouser/RadioShack parts.Hell, zip guns [wikipedia.org] have been around for years, and it doesn't take any specialized kind of rocket science to 3D-print a firearm that allows a metal sleeve for the barrel (or has the facility to screw a barrel into it), or make one sufficiently useful for one shot.

Re:Good (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 5 months ago | (#47138341)

Right, because computers are something you can make in your back yard. Don't be dense.

The vast majority of people lack the expertise to build or program computers which would be the actual parallel in this bizarre metaphor you've drawn up.

Not a very apt comparison, is it?

While (back in the day, and even now) building a computer from scratch requires at least an EE level of education plus a crap-ton of actual CS experience,.......

Not exactly... One has to study and apply some brain power but if you have
a copy of the manual for a Motorola MC14500B you have all you need to
get started and you do not need the Motorola MC14500B if you have an
extra 3"x4" on your board.

Starting with a 6502 or a Z80 you have a serious leg up on building
a working machine.

Today $50 gets a working machine to brag on ... Raspberry-Pi or Beaglebone Black
are my favorites this year. Two years back it was the pandaboard. My personal web server
local name server, local NTP master (level 2-3) all run on these inexpensive credit card
computers. One has a 1TB USB disk for photo backups with better economics
than most cloud services.

These new 3D printers are astounding and seriously change the economics
of 3D modeling... The physical strength of the plastics they use limits the results
but does change things.. Some are using a spool of steel wire and a spark-arc
welding process to build up very hard and strong parts.

Re: Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133773)

Most people are not able to do programming... They were right. They just didn't predict Siri when staring at mainframe.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130833)

And I'm sick of gun people thinking of guns as a great equalizer that anyone can make without substantial engineering expertise. But somehow I suspect neither group is going to respect the results of this research.

Tell that to the guy who made an AK out of a shovel.

Re:Good (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 5 months ago | (#47130909)

Techinically he used a shovel, a barrel blank, and a parts kit, but that thing was still pretty damn cool.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131109)

I looked up some pictures of "AK Shovel." Looks to me like he simply replaced the stalk with the handle from a shovel. I fail to see how this is innovative or interesting.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131429)

He also forged the barrel in a furnace.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131483)

This guy made a receiver out of a shovel, it is rather challenging metalwork, and very clever. Now for those that say he made the AK out of a shovel *and* a bunch of parts, that is wrong. The "gun" that you register with the state, the part that has a serial number and is controlled is the receiver, there is no gun without one. This is the part that the state considers to be "a gun" and he made one out of a shovel. It's pretty cool, and definatly innovative and interesting. Oh yea, and he says it was also very accurate.

And it's a stock.

Re:Good (1)

Guy From V (1453391) | about 5 months ago | (#47131725)

Actually in the US, if one manufactures their own firearm from scratch, or at least 80% of the lower receiver is incomplete as a starting point, as long as you do not intend to transfer ownership to another and you are legally able to own a firearm, no serial number is required. The media, BATFE and congress FUDmakers have recently taken the tack of calling them "ghost guns". This has been lawful for a great deal of time.

Re:Good (1)

Guy From V (1453391) | about 5 months ago | (#47131771)

Sorry, my above was meant to say " 80% of the lower receiver is complete"

Re:Good (1)

rpstrong (1659205) | about 5 months ago | (#47136711)

??? If "80% of the lower receiver is complete" is acceptable, then a complete receiver would qualify. Is your correction wrong?

Re:Good (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 5 months ago | (#47131903)

The one guy I've posted on here a few times used the handle for a butt stock, and used the metal from the shovel blade to forge into the frame of the receiver. He used a barrel blank and milled it out for the barrel and used a parts kit for the bolt, trigger assembly, and furniture like the wooden handguards. But it looked bad ass and very post-apocalyptic nonetheless.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132331)

I looked up some pictures of "AK Shovel." Looks to me like... hold on, there's a knock at the door.

FTFY.

Re:Good (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 5 months ago | (#47133075)

You need to read the article instead of just looking at the pictures.

He turned the shovel blade into the receiver.

It is an impressive build.

LK

Re:Good (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#47131325)

Oh, you mean an expert in manufacture of firearms? Tell him that expertise is required to manufacture firearms?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130839)

Seriously. Guns are for pussies and cowards who are too frightened to settle things face to face.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 5 months ago | (#47130853)

I'd really rather not wrestle a moose.

Re:Good (2)

PoisOnouS (710605) | about 5 months ago | (#47131227)

A Møøse once bit my sister....

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131387)

Poor moose

Re:Good (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 5 months ago | (#47131749)

That will teach the broad not to karve her initials on the møøse.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131815)

A Møøse once bit my sister....

If I were a Møøse I would probably bite your sister too!

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131881)

No realli!

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47136913)

Møøse bites can be quite nasty...

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130877)

And for people who don't want to get shot by the aforementioned cowards with guns.

Re:Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130923)

Niggers, you mean.

Re:Good (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 5 months ago | (#47133345)

Not sure how having a gun would help you - unless the gun somehow deflects the incoming bullet. You'd be better off with a vest or similar if being shot is of real concern.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130967)

and you know people who like to eat wild game, and dont like to be eaten by other wild game

Re:Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130969)

And women. Bunch of pussies.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131209)

Seriously. Guns are for pussies and cowards who are too frightened to settle things face to face.

like the police.
and the army.
and the secret service.
and bodyguards.
and all the other "special groups" that people like you think it's "ok" to have guns while us poor plebeian mortals shouldn't need them.

Re:Good (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about 5 months ago | (#47132035)

Says the anonymous coward...

Re:Good (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 5 months ago | (#47132387)

Yeah, I'd love to see you take on an angry Grizzly bear with your bare hands, face to face.

Re: Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132767)

I would use my bear hands for that

Re:Good (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 5 months ago | (#47134509)

it would be fairer, fighting hand to hand than being shot from a distance to 100 yards

Re:Good (1)

dwillden (521345) | about 5 months ago | (#47134623)

In a fair fight with a Grizzly we humans lose. They have size, strength, speed and weapons (sharp teeth and claws) on us. But we don't have to fight fair, we are humans, we can use tools and weapons to ensure our survival in a negative encounter with an almost apex hunter. If we're fighting fair we've screwed up and deserve to be bear droppings. Most people who wander around the wilds of Alaska don't go hunting bears. But good luck finding one who isn't armed with a decent caliber weapon. Why, because stumble across the path of a bear and you are likely to die, if you don't have a way to fight unfairly.

A firearm is a tool, nothing more. In the vast majority of uses it is used defensively with rarely a shot fired. A smaller number of uses are by criminals. Again do you wish to fight a criminal who has no regard for the law fairly, or unfairly. He's going for unfair. I choose to not play fair either. He is a coward and looks for the easiest targets. Criminals hate trying to work in areas where they know the populace might be armed and fight back.

Re:Good (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 5 months ago | (#47134947)

You certainly would lose against a grizzly and using a gun does not equalise the odds, just keep out of their territory and you'll be fine. most grizzly hunters call it a sport when it blatantly isn't.

Re: Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133905)

Or for the intelligent folks who know they're no ninja wanna be who thinks they can take on three attackers at once.

Or a drunken idiot ( or group of them ).

Or the 250 pound asshole who is trying to impose his will on your 130 pound wife.

Or the dipshit redneck who is mad as hell he didn't make his exit because YOU were in the way when he tried to cut four lanes of traffic and is climbing out of his truck with a baseball bat to inform you of your error. ( Yup, true story. My Glock > his bat. He changed his mind when he spotted it, got back in his truck and drove off without incident )

There are many reasons to own / carry a firearm. You just haven't paid enough attention to figure that out yet.

Re:Good (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130859)

Apparently, Phillipean barrios are full of people with substantial engineering expertise.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/04/08/backyard-gun-shops-in-the-philippines/

Re:Good (0)

jedidiah (1196) | about 5 months ago | (#47131051)

Some of these designs are 50 to 150 years old. Many of them are specifically intended with ease of manufacture in mind.

What kind of "engineering" does it really take to pull off replicating something that's been around so long that the original examples would be considered antiques by anyone's standards?

Re: Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131281)

Watch the first episode of Vice on HBO (season 1) where they go to a backyard gunsmith. The fit and finish of the guns made from old ship metal is impressive.

You're also neglecting the fact that gun are generally simple devices. So there's a strong diminishing return on advanced engineering.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131677)

does it hurl lead very fast? can it be reloaded? then it's not obsolete.

Re:Good (2)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 5 months ago | (#47131705)

"What kind of "engineering" does it really take to pull off ...."

I dunno, but I doubt if they have to sit in meetings all afternoon. Which means that, correct, they're nothing like what's considered a modern engineer.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133709)

It doesn't matter what you call it. It is impressive non the less considering shop, time frame and cost of the gun.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132105)

Production engineer is a legitimate professional engineer title in the vast majority of the professionals engineers associations around the world. Therefore the engineering it take is the skills required to make one in the first place, then to scale it up byt doing it it batch.

Re:Good (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#47132115)

Err, it's "Filipino".

But yeah - I think they were talking about 3D-printed guns w/ no added parts, not zip guns.

Re:Good (3, Funny)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 5 months ago | (#47133335)

I thought he was referring to the ancient people of the city of Phillipi, but was confused because the Epistle to the Philippians never mentioned 3D printers.

Re:Good (1)

gzuckier (1155781) | about 5 months ago | (#47136219)

Apparently, Phillipean barrios are full of people with substantial engineering expertise.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2013/04/08/backyard-gun-shops-in-the-philippines/

Thank God metal tubing is so hard to procure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131065)

Probably because douchebags like yourself keep bringing it up.

Re:Good (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#47131341)

Oh riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's me that constantly brings up the socially equalizing force of guns, and not literally every pro-gun organization within the US. Do you have any other completely uninformed insights to share?

Re:Good (0)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#47132139)

Oh riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. It's me that constantly brings up the socially equalizing force of guns...

Then again, even the biggest, burliest, and most methed-up biker dude is going to at least stop and think before trying to tackle a 98-lb weakling pointing a loaded pistol in his direction, no? Minus the gun, what other incentive would stop a larger dude with bad intent?

Re:Good (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 5 months ago | (#47133013)

An effective police force that makes sure the biker dude knows in advance that if he uses violence then there is a significent chance he will face jail time.

Re:Good (2)

DoubleJ1024 (1287512) | about 5 months ago | (#47133333)

Do you realize that some biker dudes consider jail time to be a badge of honor? Or that they just plain don't give a care about going to jail because they know that they will be out in a couple of years? I thought not.

Re:Good (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#47133781)

Then again, even the biggest, burliest, and most methed-up biker dude is going to at least stop and think

You must be new here.

Re:Good (2)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 5 months ago | (#47134171)

Damn it. Just as I was about to get in the shower, the internet rings.

Yes? Hello? What do you want? I'm kinda in the middle of something.
Can I post you right back in a few minutes? Thanks, bu-bye.

Re:Good (2)

Barsteward (969998) | about 5 months ago | (#47134515)

the 98-lb weakling should use common sense and get out of there because that methed-up biker dude might also have a gun.

Re:Good (4, Interesting)

pla (258480) | about 5 months ago | (#47131225)

And I'm sick of gun people thinking of guns as a great equalizer that anyone can make without substantial engineering expertise. But somehow I suspect neither group is going to respect the results of this research.

Do you have access to a steel pipe with a reducing coupling, a spring, and a nail? Then yes, you can make something capable of more-or-less safely firing most lower pressure rounds. By "more or less", I mean I wouldn't touch one with a 10 foot firing pin, but it would work just fine 99 times out of 100.

For the 3d printed guns we hear the most about, keep in mind that they have the goal of a "pure" implementation, using just 3d printed parts. Your local street punks probably don't care about the "purity" of their finished product... So, remove that constraint and add a trivial metal part or two (a chamber and at least the throat of the barrel - just a plain ol' dumb metal tube, in essence - would single-handedly solve the "blows up on firing" problem), and even your local wannabe-thugs could manage to print and assemble a fairly effective DIY gun.

Re:Good (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 5 months ago | (#47132005)

I remember an episode of the A-team where they created a firearm No one got hit by it that time either. Maybe the sights were off.

Re:Good (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 5 months ago | (#47133929)

I remember an episode of the A-team where they created a firearm No one got hit by it that time either. Maybe the sights were off.

Haven't you seen Die Hard 2? The A-Team is a false flag operation giving cover to the Bad Guys.

Re:Good (1)

gizmo2199 (458329) | about 5 months ago | (#47134247)

It can just be a metal tube. Aluminum would be terrible for instance, and it would have to be rifled, to give the bullet spin so it doesn't tumble through the air.

Re:Good (1)

pla (258480) | about 5 months ago | (#47135263)

It can just be a metal tube. Aluminum would be terrible for instance, and it would have to be rifled, to give the bullet spin so it doesn't tumble through the air.

Again, not talking about making a competition-grade firearm here... Just something compact and capable of firing without risk of blowing up in the user's face. Rifling doesn't much matter at 10ft.

That said, I mentioned you would just need the metal for the chamber and throat of the barrel. Pressure and heat drops fast after ignition; you could still print 2/3rds of the barrel with the rifling needed for at least basic on-axis stabilization.

Re:Good (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 4 months ago | (#47208239)

pressure builds until bullet leaves the barrel, otherwise you've either undercharged or overcharged the round. the barrel has to be able to take the pressure same as the brass which is supported by chamber. when the bullet leaves the pressure drops. the bullet spins faster and faster as it travels through a rifled barrel, rifling only at the beginning would leave insufficient RPM for stabilization; the last ten percent of the barrel has the most important rifling.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47136087)

Do you have access to a steel pipe with a reducing coupling, a spring, and a nail? Then yes, you can make something capable of more-or-less safely firing most lower pressure rounds. By "more or less", I mean I wouldn't touch one with a 10 foot firing pin, but it would work just fine 99 times out of 100.

The slightly more advanced version of the butter knife brigade. You send them out with this crap, and if they come back with a real weapon, great, you might have somebody worth keeping. If they don't come back? Meh, all you lost was a butter knife, or this loose collection of parts.

Re:Good (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#47131603)

And I'm sick of gun people thinking of guns as a great equalizer that anyone can make without substantial engineering expertise. But somehow I suspect neither group is going to respect the results of this research.

But they are. I've built them from scratch for years. You need no special engineer expertise other than being generally handy with tools. I've never had one "Explode" and to be honest it would be extremely difficult for that to happen. The car you drive to work every day is by far and a way more dangerous than any gun you could make or buy. It's also far more likely to accidentally kill someone. I still don't understand why "Getting to work quickly" is somehow a more noble goal than self defense. If you want to save the most people, ban cars. There's no constitutional amendment giving you the right to own a car. It should be a slam dunk.

Re:Good (0)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 5 months ago | (#47132485)

Your argument is sound, but people only want to ban things that they are not involved with. The benefits of the ban are only a nice incentive. They primarily don't like a group of people they are not involved with and want to penalize them and ban something.

Re:Good (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 5 months ago | (#47132347)

People managed to make highly functional guns back in the 1500s and 1600s, and they sure didn't have "substantial engineering expertise" back then. Guns aren't that hard to make, the problem is trying to 3D-print them out of plastic. If you abandon that, and switch to metals and machine tools, it's quite doable.

Re: Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133607)

Nope. Just people who had spent all their lives as blacksmiths, clock and lock makers. *shrug*

Re:Good (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 5 months ago | (#47132617)

It is amazingly easy to make a functioning firearm. it can be done with very few tools, several of which can be homemade. No 3d printer required. Just because YOU lack the ability to identify that it is simple does not mean that it requires "substantial engineering expertise"

Anyone can turn a barrel on a Lathe. it may not be the best but it will function.
After that, you can turn your shovel into an AK.

Exhibit A: http://thebrigade.thechive.com... [thechive.com]

Re: Good (2)

Bartles (1198017) | about 5 months ago | (#47133647)

As someone who works in the firearms industry, yes it takes someone with engineering expertise to design an elegant solution. But any bubba can make something that is capable of killing someone in his garage.

Re:Good (2)

flyneye (84093) | about 5 months ago | (#47133979)

Leave the gun equalization to Col. Colt.
Think of cabbage as humanitys great equalizer. It is on every continent, every culture eats it. Agitating people makes them gassy.
Conduct yourself peacefully in the world or smell the consequences.

Re:Good (4, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#47130803)

At this point it's still cheaper to buy a gun than a 3-D printer

Re:Good (0)

c6gunner (950153) | about 5 months ago | (#47130823)

It's also cheaper to buy a book than a normal printer.

Re:Good (3, Informative)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 5 months ago | (#47131617)

Not necessarily. Volume 1 of Knuth is over fifty bucks. You can get a cheap inkspray printer for less than that and it's considered a normal printer.

Re:Good (1)

c6gunner (950153) | about 5 months ago | (#47141761)

Sure, and a .50 Cal sniper rifle will set you back a hell of a lot more than a 3D printer. Either way the original point is stupid.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132079)

I've gotten normal printers free with computers before. Never gotten 3D printers free with anything.

Re:Good (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 5 months ago | (#47137143)

It's also cheaper to buy a book than a normal printer.

And a library card is cheaper yet. Libraries are one investment
that pays great rewards to local towns.

Seriously in rural Kentucky and Tennessee (USA) a study was
made and a mobile home with a printer+binder machine was
found to be sufficiently inexpensive that the books could be
given away. Apparently authors of pK-12 books were happy to work out
terms but publishers were not.

The nice thing is books would get traded between neighbors
and would wear out.. No need for expensive library binding
services. No need to house and store... If I recall this was
classic black and white typeset books not glossy color books.

The inability to share books is one of the true evils of Kindles.
A child struggling to learn will not finish a book in the standard
Kindle loan it time frame and the need for a reader and internet
connectivity in places where cell and internet connectivity stink
all conspire to further isolate the isolated.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130973)

Probably not the case in the UK, but even getting ammo there would be tricky. But yeah, here in the US you can get a serviceable 9mm semi auto pistol for under $200 or an AK style semi auto for $650.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47136325)

Thank goodness. I was worried there for a minute. Now, when I lose my cool, I can kill someone instead of punching them. Excellent.

Oh, right. I forgot that gun owners are steely-eyed, cold-blooded, trained 'shooters' who are never panicky, never frightened without reason, and are our only bulwark against the dusky hordes, whose stinky cooking and noisy lovemaking lower our precious, god-given real-estate values. Besides, those said dusky hordes live like animals and breed like flies. And are taking away our jobs, of course.

To quote my old Granny, "oy vey."

Re:Good (1)

Sketchly (1354369) | about 5 months ago | (#47133237)

At this point it's still cheaper to buy a gun than a 3-D printer

and if you have a gun, it's fairly easy to acquire a 3-D printer

Re:Good (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#47133305)

lol

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47135421)

Cheaper to buy milk than buy a cow

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47138765)

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/179192-DIY-Shovel-AK-photo-tsunami-warning! or hammer one from a shit shovel.

Re:Good (-1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#47131031)

And we are sick of pinheads like you.

Re:Good (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#47131221)

"Oh look what a cogent statement about the viability of firearms as a mechanism of social equality"
--Me, in an alternate universe where gun-nuts actually back up their stupid beliefs.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about 5 months ago | (#47132055)

"Oh look what a cogent statement about the viability of firearms as a mechanism of social equality" --Me, in an alternate universe where gun-nuts actually back up their stupid beliefs.

Only those who wish to force their beliefs on others have an obligation to back them up.

Well that works both ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133871)

Both groups want to force something on the other.

The anti-gun groups wants to force all civilians to relinquish their guns and never own them again.
The pro-gun groups wants to force all civilians to live among neighbors who might own guns.

Both groups force members of the other to accept something they don't want. Both groups need to justify their position to the other.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47137357)

I appreciate there are some in the US who view access to firearms they can use and handle in any way they see fit as an inviolable right, but really, your statement worries me.

Maybe it's true that you only need to back up (justify) beliefs you wish to force upon others, but what if others do not wish you to exercise a belief in their prescence? It seems to me your options then are to back down, justify and engage in constructive debate or ride roughshod over the beliefs of others, sure in the sacrosanct nature of your own 'rights'.

Which would you choose? Or will you simply run away and find spurious grounds to cry 'bullshit' on this, like an emotionally immature child?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47145345)

How is advocating a position where society is moulded such that psycopaths can get easy access to firearms and go on killing sprees not forcing something on people?

By advocating lax gun laws that's exactly what you're forcing on people. It's not a one way street.

Re:Good (1)

Meski (774546) | about 5 months ago | (#47139871)

DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!

Re:Good (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 5 months ago | (#47131049)

IM not because it forces people to confront the edge-case uses of this tech. Better now than later.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131165)

If, at the beginning, the first general use of the Internet had been porn sites featuring beastiality, rape, etc. then you can be sure it would not be around today.

Leave a technology alone when it's young so that it has time to becomes ubiquitous and then try your fringe uses with it.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131683)

You were not around for the start of the internet i see.

Re:Good (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 5 months ago | (#47131741)

how do you know that after "hello world" the rest of it was not ASCII pr0n?? THATS why the terminal crashed for real

Re:Good (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about 5 months ago | (#47132081)

Long before there were websites there were Usenet groups filled with porn chat.

Re:Good (3, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 5 months ago | (#47132151)

If, at the beginning, the first general use of the Internet had been porn sites featuring beastiality, rape, etc. then you can be sure it would not be around today.

You've never ever heard of alt.binaries.*, have you?

Re:Good (1)

rpstrong (1659205) | about 5 months ago | (#47136051)

Brings back mammaries . . .

Re:Good (1)

Meski (774546) | about 5 months ago | (#47139859)

I'd say 'fido' - but that's going to get mis-interpreted.

Re:Good (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 5 months ago | (#47132649)

Not that we have much choice about that but if you can see with relative clarity what side effects a technology can have then it is good to think about those consequences so that in case they are clearly negative we can do something about that more effectively. This goes for instance for what some call internet security which means any issue associated with use pipes that can have detrimental effects on person's well being due to malicious activity of third party. You could not prevent all of it of course but maybe we would have to deal with less problems or maybe different ones. Still I would like to have benefits of current technology without for instance being made transparent to anybody with money and power etc.

in other words dealing with problems after they became real although one could see them coming is just silly.

Re:Good (1)

ultranova (717540) | about 5 months ago | (#47136201)

IM not because it forces people to confront the edge-case uses of this tech. Better now than later.

The problem is that this can lead to comparing only edge cases, rather than typical cases. This can lead to situations like Germany choosing coal over nuclear in the name of environment: they compared wind power in optimal conditions to nuclear meltdown, then when real world was less than optimal defaulted to coal. Similarly, 3D printers could end up being banned due to the possibility of printing (crappy) guns with no regard to the typical case of printing artworks, spare parts or rapid prototypes.

Re:Good (1)

niftymitch (1625721) | about 5 months ago | (#47137209)

IM not because it forces people to confront the edge-case uses of this tech. Better now than later.

The problem is that this can lead to comparing only edge cases, rather than typical cases. This can lead to situations like Germany choosing coal over nuclear in the name of environment: they compared wind power in optimal conditions to nuclear meltdown, then when real world was less than optimal defaulted to coal. Similarly, 3D printers could end up being banned due to the possibility of printing (crappy) guns with no regard to the typical case of printing artworks, spare parts or rapid prototypes.

If you look at the technology associated with steel and guns you will see the same evolution
from crappy to modern sophistication.... and who knows what future sophisticated making
technology might make. We are seeing modern weapons with new targeting technology
that permits snipers to be effective to astounding ranges by near novices. Once the target is
identified the weapon fires itself after compensation for range and other variables.

Any modern NC milling machine or lathe can build a serious weapon.

Cutting knives are still constrained by the ability to heat treat steel more
than shaping the steel.

News at 11:00 but my money is on protectionist motives and generic FUD.
3d printing is just fine with me.

Actually, a gun is a useful machine (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | about 5 months ago | (#47131099)

As the company Solid Concepts discovered, 3D printing metal guns demonstrates the ability to create fined machine parts that are also durable.

Re:Actually, a gun is a useful machine (2)

beelsebob (529313) | about 5 months ago | (#47131849)

Similarly, Koninsegg 3D printing the entire gearbox (gears included, already printed inside), and turbo housing (again, turbo fans and compressors already included inside the housing) for the new One:1 car. Also showing that 3D printed materials can indeed stand up to repeated high temperatures and pressures.

Re:Actually, a gun is a useful machine (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 5 months ago | (#47133355)

Not easily available or affordable technology for the average person though. Not the sort of thing someone's going to use in order to circumvent gun laws.

Re:Actually, a gun is a useful machine (1)

HappyPsycho (1724746) | about 5 months ago | (#47145675)

True, for now...

Re:Actually, a gun is a useful machine (1)

fuzzywig (208937) | about 5 months ago | (#47145339)

And the thrusters on the new Dragon 2 capsule are 3d printed using laser sintering. To be fair though, that sort of printer must cost way more than buying a gun, and more than a CNC machine which you could also use to make a gun.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131343)

But apparently no one on slashdot is sick of reading or posting about it. Dice can just forget about "beta" and just post gun articles all the time. For the past year every gun story I've seen gets 500-1000 posts. In a few years, every "this day on slashdot" article will be gun stories. The only think I can think of is the NRA has a mailing list that lets every member know when a gun story is posted on any internet forum.

Do us nerds really care so much more about 3D guns or smart guns than net neutrality? WTF?

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131351)

I cant wait until we see them for printing penises.

Re:Good (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about 5 months ago | (#47132093)

Winner !

Re:Good (1)

Neil Boekend (1854906) | about 5 months ago | (#47145775)

I hesitate to google that at work, but I am sure it has been done.

Re:Good (1)

drainbramage (588291) | about 5 months ago | (#47131703)

Are people afraid that criminals will stop using their cheapo stolen guns and start buying 3D printers so they can manufacture their own weapons?
--
Sounds like the UK thugs are way ahead of the U.S. thugs in technical and computer expertise.
Perhaps this is part of the difference, in the UK they are waiting to get a good 3D print while the lazy US thug just 'borrows' a gun and gets to doing what he does best.
USA! USA!
Probably the wrong cheer, more like Chicago! Chicago!

Re:Good (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 5 months ago | (#47131717)

good, let them keep thinking this. Take the heat off of us who find this to be a very interesting time and case study.

Re:Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131803)

Oh, go cry in your fucking pillow, douchebag.

Re:Good (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 5 months ago | (#47133963)

Gunsmithing really needs to go back to the machine shop realm. Every material has a purpose. Plastic is good for annoying people. I think printers could actually help spud guns. Steel is for when you need a tool.

Re:Good (1)

Ottawakismet (2798639) | about 5 months ago | (#47135179)

Why do they make plastic guns from 3-D printers? aren't there metal printers that would do it?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47136049)

They're gonna keep trying. Anyone who has anything economically to lose on 3d home printing will try.

But... (3, Insightful)

Richy_T (111409) | about 5 months ago | (#47130677)

But we're always being told the criminals will grab the guns and use them against us.

So this is a win.

Re:But... (2)

timeOday (582209) | about 5 months ago | (#47131047)

But we're always being told the criminals will grab the guns and use them against us.

What gun? This is the UK where guns are more restricted. Their firearm-related death rate [wikipedia.org] is 0.25, vs. 10.3 for the US. That is, our death rate from guns is 41 times higher. Printed guns mean something entirely different in a nation that isn't already awash with them, where you can't just go to walmart and buy one.

Re:But... (2, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 months ago | (#47131159)

http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]

When you start comparing crime rates, violent crime rates, gun deaths, or any other socially important data, you really need to pay careful attention to terminology. It matters little that the UK may experience only 1% of our gun deaths, if they also experience 800% of our violent crime rate. After you are mutilated or dead, is it really going to matter to you that you were killed with a gun, or a knife, or a stone, or you were choked to death? Violent crime is violent crime.

Given the choice, I think I'd rather be shot to death, than bludgeoned to death. The suffering is likely to end much, much sooner.

BOTTOM LINE: liberals, progressives, and socialists always want to disarm the public. But, disarming the public never makes the public any safer. It only makes it safer for GOVERNMENT TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE!!

Ask any number of infamous people, starting with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao tse Tung.

Re:But... (-1, Flamebait)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#47131389)

http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]

When you start comparing crime rates, violent crime rates, gun deaths, or any other socially important data, you really need to pay careful attention to terminology. It matters little that the UK may experience only 1% of our gun deaths, if they also experience 800% of our violent crime rate. After you are mutilated or dead, is it really going to matter to you that you were killed with a gun, or a knife, or a stone, or you were choked to death? Violent crime is violent crime.

Given the choice, I think I'd rather be shot to death, than bludgeoned to death. The suffering is likely to end much, much sooner.

BOTTOM LINE: liberals, progressives, and socialists always want to disarm the public. But, disarming the public never makes the public any safer. It only makes it safer for GOVERNMENT TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE!!

Ask any number of infamous people, starting with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao tse Tung.

Liberals don't tolerate facts.

Re:But... (3, Funny)

Hategrin (3579025) | about 5 months ago | (#47131511)

I used to think this was flamebait, but they don't. Even when the doctor tells them "it's a girl/boy" they think "oh well maybe, she/he's not old enough to decide."

Re:But... (1)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 5 months ago | (#47131525)

Just like (whatever non-liberal ideology you subscribe to) apparently doesn't tolerate reading comprehension or critical thought. I suggest you actually read the politifact link.

Re:But... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#47132539)

Just like (whatever non-liberal ideology you subscribe to) apparently doesn't tolerate reading comprehension or critical thought. I suggest you actually read the politifact link.

You make a compelling argument, sir, but I think it is you that needs to put on the thinking cap.

Re:But... (2)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 5 months ago | (#47132839)

From the politifact link:

"The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by an arm of the United Nations most recently in 2005, shows the difference between reported crime and all crimes committed by conducting polls that ask people if they've been victims of specific crimes. Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of "assaults and threats" per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher -- 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales. So this data set doesn’t support the thrust of the meme, either."

"We rate the claim False."

But ya, you're totally right. The irony in posting a debunking of a political ideology propaganda meme in support of the message of the propaganda, and then using the mistaken post to support the claim that is intolerant of facts... is pretty awesome actually. The debunking of a meme gets assimilated by the meme, and used to further spread the meme, in the hopes that none of the meme's targets actually read the debunking. Could make an interesting psychological virology thesis.

Re:But... (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 5 months ago | (#47132667)

Yeah, naa, you're a cunt.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47143109)

Science actually shows that conservatives ignore facts, and use negative emotions for their decisions more than anything, while liberals are more likely to use logic, which depends on facts. The fact that you're trying to claim otherwise proves it.

Geocentrists, creationists, anti-vaxers, etc, are all conservatives; coincidence? Far from it.

Re:But... (1)

fredrated (639554) | about 5 months ago | (#47131439)

So where are the statistics you tout? They must not be favorable to your position or you would have included them rather than write a post based completely on speculation.

Re:But... (0)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about 5 months ago | (#47132157)

Asks the German citizens who were told to register their firearms, but not to worry at all about the government ever showing up to collect them. Then the government showed up to collect them....

Re:But... (1)

crunchygranola (1954152) | about 5 months ago | (#47133083)

Asks the German citizens who were told to register their firearms, but not to worry at all about the government ever showing up to collect them. Then the government showed up to collect them....

Now if only this were true rather than what it is - a lie [salon.com] .

Hitler actually relaxed gun laws, making them much easier to get.

Re:But... (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 5 months ago | (#47134213)

As long as the person wanting a gun for self defense was not Jewish.

So, what is the real lie?

Re:But... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 4 months ago | (#47208387)

not a lie that the Nazis did this in other countries, registration first then confiscation.

Jews were not allowed to own *any* dangerous weapons including guns, lookie what happened to them

Re:But... (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 5 months ago | (#47131471)

Violent crime is violent crime.

Baloney. Every nation defines it differently, just as your link states, which is what makes it convenient for spinning fanciful narratives like yours.

Try comparing something more clear-cut: murder rates [wikipedia.org] : it is 4x higher in the US. So you tell me, if you believe your fictional statistic about 8x the violent crime in the UK, but only 1/4 as many people die, that means "violent" crime is 1/32 as lethal in the UK vs the US. I.e., their "violent crime" is 97% less lethal than ours. And then you use that to argue the type of weapon doesn't matter, or that guns reduce suffering. Please.

Re:But... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131639)

Statistics show that you are more likely to be shot to death in the USA than in England. However, statistics show that you are more likely to be beaten to death with fists and boots in the USA than in England. In fact more people are beaten to death per year in the USA than are murdered by all weapons in England. (That's not adjusted for population size, of course; many more people in the USA than in England.)

There is a book called The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy [amazon.com] . It's worth reading, but I can summarize it: violence correlates well with cultural factors and does not correlate well with regulation of weapons. England had low crime rates, then they banned guns, then they had low crime rates. Anti-gunners point to England as a "success story" but it isn't.

And, in the decades since England banned guns, violent crime has gotten much worse. Did banning guns lead to increased crime? Can't say because correlation does not prove causation. But definitely we can't say that banning guns made England less violent.

And the majority of states in the USA now allow concealed carry of firearms. Violent crime has not increased; it has decreased. Again, we cannot prove that concealed carry caused the decrease; but we can trivially disprove the claims by the anti-gunners that letting people carry firearms will lead to horrible bloodbaths of violence. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14859-florida-update-concealed-carry-permits-up-violent-crime-down [thenewamerican.com]

The perfect world would have all the bad guys disarmed, and all the good guys well-protected somehow. The real world shows that the bad guys are all armed, no matter what, full stop. Thus you have your choice: bad guys armed and good guys disarmed, or everybody armed. I'll take the latter, thank you. Statistics show that ordinary citizens are not likely to misuse firearms, and do in fact use them to stop crime (often without anyone being hurt; bad guys would rather surrender and have the police take them away, than be shot).

The best we can do, as a society, is to provide a robust economy full of opportunity, combined with locking up those few who are violent repeat offenders. The vast majority of people, including the poor and including minorities, are decent people who don't commit crimes. There are a few people who cause a great deal of havoc and the best we can do is to lock them up.

But we absolutely should allow the law-abiding to protect themselves. Not only is it common sense, but the Second Amendment protects that right in the USA. (If you are going to claim that the Second Amendment is limited to things like the National Guard, I will ask you why it is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that doesn't protect an individual right, and why you think your opinion carries more weight than the Supreme Court's opinion [wikipedia.org] .)

Re:But... (1)

quantaman (517394) | about 5 months ago | (#47132091)

And, in the decades since England banned guns, violent crime has gotten much worse. Did banning guns lead to increased crime? Can't say because correlation does not prove causation. But definitely we can't say that banning guns made England less violent.

I was curious about this so checked out the homicide rates.

First hit was a pro-gun site [crimepreve...center.org] with a really damning looking set of graphs. Knowing how easy it is to play with numbers I dug a little deeper.

This site [justfacts.com] looks a little more unbiased. Long story short the homicide rate had been increasing for decades, after guns were banned the rate continued to increase. Maybe the increase is slowing down but there's too much noise in the data.

Re:But... (1)

Euler (31942) | about 4 months ago | (#47201711)

justfacts is pretty good. We would be a much less ignorant people if people just got a reality check from sites like this after watching the evening news.

But it would also be good if schools made curricula such as 'logical reasoning', 'critical thinking', and 'statistical analysis' mandatory for all students. You don't have to be a math genius to understand these things. Perhaps people would be less gullible to politically motivated dialogs. But I'm not sure if schools are intended to produce critical-thinkers...

I wish more people asked questions like: "why do those stats look cherry-picked, what is the selection criteria?", or "how does the evening news choose stories, do they proportionally represent reality?", "What is the best investment strategy that will actually serve me and not Wall Street?", "Is a vote for politician A or B a false dichotomy?"

who decides who is responsible enough? (1)

Chirs (87576) | about 5 months ago | (#47132859)

Thus you have your choice: bad guys armed and good guys disarmed, or everybody armed. I'll take the latter, thank you. Statistics show that ordinary citizens are not likely to misuse firearms, and do in fact use them to stop crime (often without anyone being hurt; bad guys would rather surrender and have the police take them away, than be shot).

How would you propose to decide who is responsible enough to own a firearm? Can crazy people own them? What about clinically depressed people? What about people under psychological treatment generally? At what age should someone be able to carry a firearm? Should they be allowed in all buildings? Should businesses be allowed to deny entrance to people carrying weapons? What about on a plane/train/bus/etc.?

Re:who decides who is responsible enough? (1)

dwillden (521345) | about 5 months ago | (#47134733)

How to decide. Well as the 2nd Amendment gives no qualifiers and simply states shall not be infringed. I would posit, that if a person is considered safe enough to walk the streets. Then they should be able to exercise their right to carry. If they are too mentally unstable or criminally minded to be allowed to carry then they should be locked up, either at a mental health treatment facility for the mentally unstable, or prison for the criminals. Psychological treatment alone is not grounds for stripping a right. It must be those adjudicated in a legal proceeding to be unsafe. No more allowing the VA to strip veterans of their rights simply because they aren't good at managing their money, leading the VA to appoint a fiscal manager over their funds.

At what age? The age when one is no longer legally considered a child in the US, age 18, plain and simple, but I'd allow a waiver down to 17 for anyone who has enlisted in the military. Not that I trust them that much more (though after 20 years in the Army I do), but if they can be allowed to put their lives on the line, then they damn well can carry a firearm at home if they choose.

Should they be allowed in all buildings? No not all buildings, some buildings do have a need for higher security. In my state those are identified as jails, prisons, courts, and secure mental facilities. And of course the secure areas of airports, post offices and anywhere else the Feds have deemed off limits (I do disagree with many "federal facilities" that get the protection, but congress just made an overreaching blanket protection). I would like to see the Post office ban removed and a case is moving through the courts that is likely to do just that, so far the initial ruling is against the Post Office. And in my state those previously mentioned secure facilities are required to provide a location to securely store your weapons as well as a clear demarcation that you are in fact crossing into the secure area. I do note that the courts in the state (Utah) ignore that law, saying they set their own rules and they will just charge anyone who attempts to pass beyond the security checkpoints with contempt of court, yet they provide no storage areas.

What about schools you ask. Well thanks to the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act, for most citizens schools in the k-12 range are off limits, and so are colleges and Universities. But the GFSZ act does allow for the state to permit carry. And so with a Utah Concealed Firearm Permit, we can ignore the Federal law and carry into our schools, and we have been able to for nearly two decades now. Similarly our Public colleges and Universities are open to any with a CFP.

At any given time an unknown number of Teachers, administrators and visiting parents are carrying within our k-12 schools. Good luck trying a Sandyhook when our teachers can do more than just be the first victim. Not all do carry, I'd guess most do not, but enough educators have attended free CFP classes to indicate that few if any schools are ever gun free. So other than the four off limits places and the federal restricted areas, everywhere else should be open. It's not quite that way as there are a couple ways that churches can also prohibit carry (without any requirement to provide secure storage). Otherwise no "NO GUNS" sign posted in this state has any strength of law and that's how it should be. You can ask me to leave if you don't like my firearm (assuming you even know I have it since I usually conceal) and if I refuse then you can trespass me and prosecute for trespassing, but not for having a firearm.

Planes I would allow, just require passengers to declare that they have frangible rounds in the weapon. Let's see a terrorist try and hijack a plane when a sizable fraction of the passengers are armed. Train/bus/etc absolutely. Unlike a plain that has special considerations regarding the potential of a weapon being discharged (decompression). There is nothing special about those. Except that they have the potential of putting you in close proximity with low life scum who wish to do you or others harm.

Now others will come back and claim that if we were to allow such, we would have planes falling from the sky, and blood running in the streets. Except that every time relaxed firearm laws are proposed those doomsday predictions are trotted out, but such predictions never come true. Instead as firearms laws have been relaxed across the country over the last couple decades all violent crimes have decreased.

In fact studies tracking those who have obtained concealed carry permits show that such citizens are 4 times less likely than police officers to commit crimes. And in defensive gun use after defensive gun use, innocent bystanders are not getting hit by stray bullets. Why not? Because we who carry know we have to pick our shots, we will be criminally and civilly liable for every bullet we fire.

The police on the other hand are protected by qualified immunity and the blue wall. So we see the police in times square injure nine bystanders taking down a single armed criminal, who didn't fire a shot. Or we have the Police in LA shooting up a truck, of the wrong color and make with two female occupants, because its within a few blocks of a potential victim/target of their cop-killing ex-cop suspect who was a male. The city just paid out a big settlement to those two ladies who luckily survived, but those officers are back at work.

Now find me an example of a citizen shooting gone bad resulting in innocent bystanders being injured. I won't say they don't happen but they are very rare. And Trayvon was not such an event. Right or wrong, one shot was fired and it did its intended job, no innocent bystanders were injured.

Instead we find events like we saw two days before the Sandyhook shooting. At the the Clackamas (sp?) mall shooting, where an armed citizen drew down on the shooter, who was clearing a jam in his AR-15 but contrary to all the doomsday predictions of shootout at the OK Corral, he did not fire randomly, in fact he choose not to fire because there were innocents beyond the shooter, so the citizen withdrew moving his family to better cover and safety, ready to defend but not firing when he knew he couldn't do so safely. Now it can't be proved this stopped the shooting. But he did make eye contact with the shooter, who then ran off and put a bullet from one of his two handguns into his own brain ending the event. Maybe he quit and ran because he couldn't clear the jam, but he did have two handguns and could have kept on killing. But he didn't, it is suspected that once the shooter realized there was armed opposition he did what most such shooters did, killed himself. We saw this at Sandy Hook and have seen it time and again. They shoot and kill until they get the first hint of opposition and then they either kill themselves or they surrender.

Sorry about the Epistle. Hope I gave you something to consider.

Re:who decides who is responsible enough? (1)

mark_reh (2015546) | about 5 months ago | (#47145591)

Yes, that's exactly what we want- every plane, bus, school, shopping mall, theater, etc., full of amateurs ready to pull the trigger on anyone they think is a threat. I guess we can chalk up the deaths from crossfire as having "bravely given their lives" in defense of the 2nd amendment. Yeah, sure, I can get behind THAT...

You've been watching too much TV. I suggest you turn off the tube and try socializing with people who haven't been so programmed. Here's a hint- don't make every conversation about guns.

Re:who decides who is responsible enough? (1)

dwillden (521345) | about 5 months ago | (#47150213)

Please cite me one example of the wild crossfire you dream of? Millions of Americans carry every day, yet not one single such instance can be found.

I suggest YOU turn off the TV because your view of firearms is purely Hollywood and TV made, rather than from the real world, one where millions own and bear arms safely and responsibly. Where deaths by firearm declines every year even as more and more firearms are sold.

Re:But... (1)

jeremyp (130771) | about 5 months ago | (#47136607)

And, in the decades since England banned guns, violent crime has gotten much worse.

This is false. Violent crime is on a downward trend in the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/new... [theguardian.com]

You are arguing that the USA is more violent than the UK for cultural reasons and yet you think the answer is to make lethal weapons more available in this violent society. That doesn't make sense at all.

Ban guns, or at least put restrictions on where they can be carried and how they must be stored and you will at least see several hundred fewer people being shot accidentally each year.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47139551)

This is false. Violent crime is on a downward trend in the UK.

Not false; you just can't seem to understand simple statements. The original claim is: "in the decades since England banned guns, violent crime has gotten much worse."

The big gun ban in the UK was passed in 1968. Violent crime has risen greatly since the ban. Another law was passed in 1988, and crime continued to increase. Violence in the UK peaked a few years ago and is on a downward trend now, but no gun bans have been passed recently. Conclusion: it would be stupid to claim that gun bans caused a decrease in crime in the UK... correlation does not prove causation, and you don't even have correlation on your side.

Look at the graphs in the link you yourself posted: do you seriously want to claim that this shows that crime went down after the gun control law was passed in 1968?

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/feb/13/violent-sexual-crime-statistics-england-wales-2013 [theguardian.com]

You are arguing that the USA is more violent than the UK for cultural reasons

Yes... maybe you can understand simple sentences?

and yet you think the answer is to make lethal weapons more available in this violent society. That doesn't make sense at all.

Nope, false alarm, you aren't tracking after all.

Let's try again. The bad guys will be armed no matter what you do. We can't even stop druggies from buying drugs every week, hell, maybe every few days. Unless you can wipe all drugs from the streets, I'll never believe that you can get all the guns off the streets. Thus, the bad guys will be armed.

So yes, I think "the answer" as you put it is to let the law-abiding have guns as well. I would hate to see the bad guys armed and the good guys disarmed and helpless.

Citizens with legal firearms use them defensively up to two million times per year, usually with nobody even harmed. Do you want the crimes that were prevented by this to occur? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html [guncite.com]

Ban guns, or at least put restrictions on where they can be carried and how they must be stored and you will at least see several hundred fewer people being shot accidentally each year.

According to this link [responsivemanagement.com] , accidental gun deaths are at an all-time low. The most recent year in this paper, 2001, had only 800 accidental firearms deaths; cars are 51 times more likely to kill you accidentally than firearms.

So let's ban cars, yeah? Or at least make it much harder to get them and drive them, yeah?

Swimming pool accidents are also much more likely to kill you than firearms accidents. You want to ban swimming pools? No-one really "needs" a swimming pool.

Re:But... (0)

ganjadude (952775) | about 5 months ago | (#47131793)

Murder rate in the US also includes suicides, So that number cant even be apples to apples

Re:But... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131925)

You're ignorant. Suicide is included in murder statistics everywhere. Fact of the day for you: In many languages the term for suicide is "self-murder".

Re:But... (1)

Sciath (3433615) | about 5 months ago | (#47137625)

According to the 2010 FBI crime reports, suicide is not included in the statistics for "murder". http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cj... [fbi.gov]

Re:But... (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 5 months ago | (#47143595)

You're ignorant. Suicide is included in murder statistics everywhere. Fact of the day for you: In many languages the term for suicide is "self-murder".

Fun fact for you: you're plain wrong. Suicide is generally included in most homicide statistics, and in some places it is also regarded as a form of murder, as you said, but by no means is your suggestion that it always included in the murder statistics correct. For instance, in the US, homicide is usually the sum total of unintentional deaths, suicides, and murders, each of which is tabulated separately, though various studies by various organizations will handle those definitions and values differently.

Even so, the person before you had it wrong too, since suicides are generally not included in murder statistics in the US, but are rather broken out as a separate statistic. As for the rest of the world, I don't pretend to speak for them, which is something you might consider doing as well, considering your "everywhere" clearer doesn't include the US.

Re:But... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132211)

from http://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/data.html :
Intentional homicide is defined as unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person
Intentional homicide count and rate per 100,000 population, by country/territory (2000-2012)
CAN 1,6 1,81,7 1,7 1,7 1,8 1,7 1,6 1,7 1,6 1,4 1,5 1,6
UK 1,7 1,8 2,0 1,7 1,6 1,5 1,4 1,4 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,0
US 5,5 6,6 5,6 5,6 5,5 5,6 5,8 5,6 5,4 5,0 4,7 4,7 4,7

Re:But... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47132271)

Suicide is a homicide (as is an accidental traffic crash with no prosecution). "murder" is a deliberate homicide with other constraints.

Re:But... (1)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#47132535)

Try comparing something more clear-cut: murder rates: it is 4x higher in the US.

The US murder rate was 9X the UK's before the UK banned guns. It's not the guns, it's the culture.

Re:But... (1)

Nonesuch (90847) | about 5 months ago | (#47133361)

Try comparing something more clear-cut: murder rates [wikipedia.org] : it is 4x higher in the US. So you tell me, if you believe your fictional statistic about 8x the violent crime in the UK, but only 1/4 as many people die, that means "violent" crime is 1/32 as lethal in the UK vs the US..

You also have to correct for other oddities, like the distinction between "Manslaughter" and "Murder" in some countries but not others, or how England and Wales primarily publish their "solved" homicide (convictions and similar) rate. If you kill somebody and get away with it, that death doesn't count in the UK [blogspot.com] .

The USA is not uniform, my home state has a lower homicide rate than the UK. And while America is touted as being socially and economically advanced, there are large areas which lag behind in these areas. If you don't discuss the violent crime rates of the European Union as a unified whole, why do so for the United States? Also, many US states have a higher non-firearm homicide rate than other nation's total homicide rate; even without guns, Americans manage to kill one another at a higher rate than in other countries.

Re:But... (3, Insightful)

DamnOregonian (963763) | about 5 months ago | (#47131513)

You didn't actually read that politifact link, did you?

You missed the big blaring "false" thingy on the meter.

Re:But... (1)

gzuckier (1155781) | about 5 months ago | (#47137609)

You didn't actually read that politifact link, did you? You missed the big blaring "false" thingy on the meter.

rightwing thought-like behavior.

Re:But... (3, Insightful)

flyingsquid (813711) | about 5 months ago | (#47131587)

When you start comparing crime rates, violent crime rates, gun deaths, or any other socially important data, you really need to pay careful attention to terminology. It matters little that the UK may experience only 1% of our gun deaths, if they also experience 800% of our violent crime rate.

That's not true. The homicide rate in the United Kingdom is 1.2 per 100,000. The homicide rate in Canada is 1.6. The homicide rate in Australia is 1.0 And the homicide rate for the US is 4.8 per 100,000. You can look it up on Wikipedia if you're so inclined ("List of Countries By Intentional Homicide Rate") but it's clear you've already made up your mind and are simply going to ignore any facts that don't support your preconceptions. Yes, the human tendency to murder other humans is a powerful force, and so a certain percentage of people who would otherwise be murdered by guns in the UK are murdered with knives, poison, or cricket bats, because those guns aren't available. But the end result of strict gun control is a per-capita homicide rate that is around 25% of the U.S. rate in the UK and 33% in Canada and 20% in Australia. The statistics don't lie, gun control saves lives.

I think it's time to start talking about real gun control in the United States. I'm not talking about banning a few models of assault rifles; I think the end goal of gun-control should be keeping rapid-fire weapons out of the public hands, which means requiring licensing for or simply banning all revolvers, semiautomatic pistols and semiautomatic rifles, creating something similar to the gun control laws seen in the UK. We've tried letting things run wild and all it's gotten us is thousands of deaths a year and an endless series of mass shootings. The next logical step is implementing the kinds of firearms controls seen in Canada and the United Kingdom, and I think the left needs to start pushing this seriously. No, Obama isn't out to get your guns... and it's a shame, because dammit, he SHOULD be. And if that takes a constitutional amendment, then we should pass a constitutional amendment- I'll line up to vote for that. Yes, it's in the constitution, but so was slavery, and we outgrew that. Times change, and a law written for muzzle-loaders is no longer useful in an age of machine guns. I'm tired of seeing thousands of people senselessly slaughtered every year because the political debate is held hostage by a handful of extremists. For too long we've played it the NRA's way and refused to talk about gun control. We need to start talking about gun control again, and nothing should be off the table.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131655)

So the 200,000-2,000,000 lives saved by defensive gun use are just not worth it?

Re:But... (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 5 months ago | (#47131999)

So the 200,000-2,000,000 lives saved by defensive gun use are just not worth it?

Citation needed

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132411)

Okay, you asked for a citation and here it is. From GunCite.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html [guncite.com]

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133017)

Okay, you cited a pro-gun site, here's the counterargument from an anti-gun site:

http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck [vacps.org]

Re:But... (1)

dwillden (521345) | about 5 months ago | (#47134775)

But your cite is countering Kleck's original study from 1992/3. The prior cite, not only referred to the original study but continued studies of the topic by Kleck and by others even as recent as 2009. Yes there were flaws in the 1993 study, and the VAPC did point them out. But Kleck and others have continued to study and try to account for the difficult to quantify occurrence of DGU and if anything the numbers are increasing. As shown by some of the other cites on the pro-kleck citation. Can you come up with anything more recent than the VAPC counter argument from 1993. And even if that counter is correct, that's still a 4:1 ratio at the 65,000 the NCVS came up with. 4 crimes discouraged for every firearm homicide.

Most likely the number is substantially higher than the NCVS yet also substantially lower than Kleck's numbers. But we have a low of 65,000 and a high of 2,500,000 per year. Versus just over 14k firearm homicides last year. Even with the lower number we come out ahead. If we bump it up to 1 million DGU's (still less than half what Kleck claimed) it's an even far better picture. Take a look at the recent stories coming out of Detroit. When the chief of police said our budgets have been cut back so far, it is on the people to defend themselves, and they did. There's the mother who fought off four attackers (at least one of whom was armed) with her firearm. And several similar stories. Sorry but your VAPC cite fails to counter the reality that DGU is real and far more common than firearm homicides.

Re: But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131709)

Fewer than 10 counties in the US represent something like 60-70 of deaths involving firearms, and a substantial part of the general national violent crime rate. Without them we'd be much closer to other industrialized countries, but with freedom and shit. But let's ignore that, and blame everything on the NRA.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131747)

Why do you attribute the difference in the homicide rate solely to strict gun control? Are there no other variables that could have an impact?

Re:But... (2, Informative)

Dan East (318230) | about 5 months ago | (#47131755)

The GP did not say murder rates. He said violent crime rates. Even the most conservative comparisons I can find, which attempt to compare like types of crimes in UK and USA (because they are classified differently), shows at least 200% more violent crime in the UK compared to the USA.

http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com]
http://blog.skepticallibertari... [skepticallibertarian.com]
etc, etc.

Re:But... (0)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47132325)

Part of the problem is that the laws are different. In some places, pointing with your finger like it's a gun is a "violent crime". And if it's like rape when I was in college in the US, the rates are low because people who come forward are discouraged from filing a formal complaint. It makes it look like a "safer" place when there are fewer reports of rape.

Re:But... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132353)

Again, the Politifact link has a huge "FALSE" against it. Can't people please read what they're linking to?

Re:But... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132379)

There is no other way to put this. You are a giant IDIOT!

The entire point of the politifact article is that it is in fact extremely hard to compare crime rates between countries.
Ie, that what is violent crime in the UK, is often classified differently in the US and hence almost impossible to compare.

Hence rendering your entire point moot.

Only an idiot would link to a source that directly undercuts their primary thesis.

Re:But... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132781)

Dude - both of your links state that the 200% claim is bogus and that the violent crime rates in UK/US are closer than thought.

I understand why you've failed to grasp this - you only skimmed the headline - but both articles aim to discuss that claim, and both end up refuting it.

Thanks for arguing our case for us though.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133289)

yea its crazy. Just the other day someone cited an article that they claimed "broccoli has more protein per pound then beef".
it was modded +5 informative
From glancing at one column it did look like it had more protein but when you actually took into account the weight from the another column it was much less.

Re:But... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133377)

The politifact link says the 400% claim is bogus but that 200% is correct.

Re:But... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132857)

Did you even read that first link!!!???? It contradicts what you're saying!

Read it closely: their conclusion is that the meme was wrong, not that their back-of-the-envelope calculation was correct. Their 200% was intended to show that it was easy to dispute the meme on even a half-assed attempt to compare apples-to-apples.

Reading comprehension FAIL!

Re:But... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#47131801)

I think it's time to start talking about real gun control in the United States. I'm not talking about banning a few models of assault rifles; I think the end goal of gun-control should be keeping rapid-fire weapons out of the public hands, which means requiring licensing for or simply banning all revolvers, semiautomatic pistols and semiautomatic rifles, creating something similar to the gun control laws seen in the UK.

You win points for making a proposal that would actually make a difference. Too many people would oppose it in our democracy, but at least you seem aware that most gun crimes are committed with hand guns, and cosmetic differences don't matter.

Re:But... (0)

swv3752 (187722) | about 5 months ago | (#47131819)

OK, then maybe we should go the other extreme. Lets take Kennesaw, GA- http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... [freerepublic.com] or http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/411... [wnd.com]

Every head of household is required to own a gun. Their crime rates, including murder, are down across the board. Morton, IL that took the opposite route banned all Guns, and has had increased crime rates.

Then there is Switzerland, with the majority of households owning a gun. They have a murder rate of .7 (.52 for murder by guns).

So maybe the answer is to have everyone trained and own a gun. After all, everything is on the table.

Or maybe we should look into curing our social ills. Removing guns from law abiding citizens does not remove them from criminals and case studies show that it emboldens criminals. I agree, we need to do something, taking away guns is not the answer.

Re:But... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47132375)

In Switzerland you must have permission to buy a gun. And failure to train in a government approved center will result in revoking your permit.

If you are advocating a national permit before buying a gun, and taking guns away if you don't train in a government approved manner. Oh, and ammunition is regulated. Sounds like more gun control than the USA, not less.

Re:But... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 months ago | (#47133845)

You are somewhat correct. Swiss laws are rather complex, but when you get down to the bottom line - Switzerland has near universal conscription, and all conscripts are required to maintain their weapons, in their own homes. Much like Israel. So, the fact is, the Swiss are armed.

Misplace a box of ammo, and you're in deep doo-doo there, but you DO HAVE THE WEAPON! In a dire emergency, you can defend yourself, or the old lady next door, or the church congregation down the street.

Re:But... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47134083)

It's not just the military gun that has the ammo tracked, but *all* ammo in the country is tracked.

Re:But... (1)

swillden (191260) | about 5 months ago | (#47132571)

The US murder rate was 9X the UK murder rate when the UK banned guns. Since then, the gap has narrowed, not widened. If gun control were the answer, shouldn't it have gone the other direction, with guns becoming less available in the UK and remaining essentially unchanged (if not increasing) in the US?

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132723)

which means requiring licensing for or simply banning all revolvers, semiautomatic pistols and semiautomatic rifles, creating something similar to the gun control laws seen in the UK

Surely licensing is the way the control is done in the whole of US just like it's done elsewhere? Those semiautomatic weapons are the norm what comes to small hand guns everywhere. The option would be a single shot, or traditional black powder guns, like those some of the more enthusiastic hobbyists like to shoot. We have to present a provable and acceptable cause, like a membership in a hunting society or work related reason and a proof of training for getting the license from the police. The system is probably somewhat opposite by default to the license situation in the US. Perhaps a gun owner from the US could enlighten the requirements for a gun license in a US state of choice.

Re:But... (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 5 months ago | (#47132979)

Gun license? Not in these parts.

Re:But... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 5 months ago | (#47133809)

Perhaps a gun owner from the US could enlighten the requirements for a gun license in a US state of choice.

Breathing. Occasionally a pulse.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132803)

Russia has a homicide rate almost 3x that of the United States, much of that occurring with handguns. And yet hand guns are _illegal_ in Russia.

If you look at maps which correlate gun prevalence with homicides, there's no reliable correlation. Guns deaths are reduced, but that's because most gun deaths are suicide; overall suicides, however, don't decline, nor does homicide generally.

The U.S. has a violence problem, not a gun problem. We need to deal with our extensive social problems directly. Gun laws are a distraction for the left, and an excuse to do nothing on the right. Put away your fear of guns and focus on the indisputable facts.

Personally, I think we need more consistent gun regulations, but not stricter laws, per se. There are two elephants in the room: mental health and racism. More consistent gun laws would help keep firearms out of people with mental health issues. (Overall suicides don't decline, they just shift to other methods, so that's really a different issue entirely). The other issue is racism. White people use gun control as a proxy for their fear of a black criminal with a gun. Black people use gun control as a proxy for being forced to live in crime-ridden neighborhoods with lots of violence in general. But the root of both of these issues is pervasive structural segregation, and focusing on guns doesn't do anything to fix these things, and in any event most of the guns in these contexts are illegal anyhow.

Ironically, for rural whites the issue is almost identical for urban whites: an irrational fear a black man with a gun. Whenever I hear some white guy railing on about how we need stricter gun control, I know that he's driven by the same kind of fear that drives the country red neck to sleep with one under his pillow.

I don't own a gun. I grew up with guns, though, and have used all kinds of guns. I know the responsibility involved, and am too lazy to bother with it. But I also know this is all a side show. Guns aren't the issue. Violence is the issue. Take guns away and the violence will remain all the same. Keep guns, but enforce the law in a more equitable fashion and address underlying racism and inequality, and things will improve all the same. Ban the guns... well, in America that's a non-starter, and all you're doing is ensuring you'll spend most of your time fighting a losing battle. Guns are a religion in for a large portion of white Americans. Just deal with it. It's inconsequential, anyhow.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133329)

And if that takes a constitutional amendment, then we should pass a constitutional amendment- I'll line up to vote for that. Yes, it's in the constitution, but so was slavery, and we outgrew that.

Couldn't agree more, except I don't think we've outgrown slavery. The problems are still with us today even if explicit slavery is not.

Speaking of which... did you know that the Second Amendment was intimately tied to the entire slavery / "state's rights" issue? That the gun nutter narrative about the intent of the Second makes no sense whatsoever in historical context?

Our original try at a federal government (the Articles of Confederation) was a dismal failure. Southern plantation owners insisted on it being toothless and weak so that it could not have enough power to act against slavery. When it became evident (even to the Southerners) that a stronger federal government was needed, the slavery issue still loomed over and influenced nearly everything about the process of drafting the Constitution.

The 2nd, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, was being drafted even before the Constitution was ratified -- they wanted to get the base system in place before finishing up the details. One of the main Southern concerns with the pre-BoR Constitution was that, in their mind, it left the door open for the North to undermine slavery without actually banning it. You see, far from being happy and content under their supposedly wise and benevolent masters (as evil fuckers like Cliven Bundy would have us believe), slaves tried to escape and revolt whenever they got a chance. The Southern slave empire brutally repressed slave revolts with irregular militias rather than formal standing armies. Freemen (mostly, poor whites who were one step above slaves in the feudalistic Southern system) were expected to participate in these militias, and what use is an irregular militiaman who cannot "keep and bear arms"?

So that's where the Second came from. Southerners were worried that, without explicit protection, the Constitution would permit the North to ban this system, and then they'd be overrun by revolting slaves. That's why the Second has that strange (to modern ears) language. A "well-regulated militia" was "necessary to the security of a free state" because, at the time, everyone implicitly understood they were talking about the "freedom" of whites to completely subjugate blacks in the slave states. (Yes, there is correspondence between various Founders indicating that this was the intent of the Second.)

It's long past time to drop this childish right-wing insistence that the Constitution was a perfect system thought up by the greatest men in history, and that any step away from a "literalist" interpretation is a step towards tyranny. Despite its merits in some areas, the Constitution embraced tyranny. Built it into the bones of this nation. "Literalism" and "state's rights" and so on are almost always explicit or implicit promotion of those old, bad, never-extinguished tyrannical values.

Re: But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47135177)

We have not outgrown slavery? -- There is a black man in the White House!

Re:But... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 months ago | (#47133811)

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47134535)

... it's clear you've already made up your mind and are simply going to ignore any facts that don't support your preconceptions. ... But the end result of strict gun control is a per-capita homicide rate that is around 25% of the U.S. rate in the UK and 33% in Canada and 20% in Australia. The statistics don't lie, gun control saves lives.

There are factors that influence the crime rate other than the legality of guns. Given that, if you are being honest you must conclude that the statistics you cite are insufficient to support your conclusion. Lets see if you live up to your own standards of open mindedness.

Re:But... (1)

Waccoon (1186667) | about 5 months ago | (#47134615)

Only 4.8 per 100,000? I'm not sure that justifies talks about gun control. It might, however, justify talks about how to get rid of the slums that breed so many violent people in the first place.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47134687)

Except I'm a legal gun owner in Canada. The criminals here have more guns per capita than us. Your argument is fucking retarded if you think gun control prevents criminals from getting guns and therefore reduce gun crime. What it does do is prevent people from defending themselves from those criminals. Your self-righteous filth of an argument is a distortion of truth that only someone who is just as out of touch as you would appreciate.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47144007)

Ok, what are you bringing to the table then? If you want me to give up one of my constitutional rights, which one are you going to give up?
When you say everything is on the table you are blowing smoke up my ass and I don't like that. How about this, if you want me to give up my 2nd amendment are you willing to give up your 1st?
Sound reasonable? I give up my guns and every time you say something I don't like I tell you to "Shut up", and you HAVE to do it.
4.7999 percent of your statistic comes from cities where the left has already implemented draconian gun policies. How's Chicago doing lately?
You and people like you have never brought anything to the table to negotiate with, when you're willing to bring something substantial I'll consider your position, until then I'll rub your nose in your shit.

Re:But... (1)

Euler (31942) | about 4 months ago | (#47209107)

Does gun control save lives in Mexico, Russia, or dozens of other places it is on the law books? Statistics do lie if you cherry pick the results you prefer. I'd promote gun control if I thought it had a strong correlation to reducing violence. But it doesn't, the results are lost in the statistical noise. I'd prefer to look at the issues of poverty, inequality, education, abuse, mental health, addiction, etc.

The USA is not and analogue to Canada, UK, or Australia. We have massive social problems more like a 3rd world country. We also like to make laws and then not follow them.

There may be innovative approaches to gun control, but simple bans, license, or registration are constantly ignored on the black market by criminals.

Re:But... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131591)

The intentional murder rate in the UK is 1/4 that of the US (1.2 per 100,000 vs 4.8) but as you point out in your links the differences in overall violent crime are way less. Which makes sense to me, having lived in both places. The UK certainly doesn't have 800% of the US's violent crime rate.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131611)

BOTTOM LINE: liberals, progressives, and socialists always want to disarm the public. But, disarming the public never makes the public any safer. It only makes it safer for GOVERNMENT TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE!!

Ask any number of infamous people, starting with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao tse Tung.

Small problem with your misinformation. I am a liberal and I own guns. My uncles all own guns and hunt, my grandparents on both sides of the family all own guns and have hunted or hunt, they are also Democrats. Many of my friends of various political and economic persuasions own firearms, hunt, shoot trap, etc. To say that liberals always want to disarm the public in patently ignorant.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132237)

Unless you're a state or federal politician your input really means crap to the conversation since you have no power to enact gun confiscation.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132319)

Birds always dive bomb my car. That doesn't mean all birds do it, it just means that there are always some birds who do. Just like with GP's statement regarding "liberals" and gun rights. They believe in liberal creation of gun restrictions.

Re:But... (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 5 months ago | (#47134705)

The problem for them is that liberals can think for themselves and others and that frightens people who can't so they do their best to denigrate liberals by making such stupid statements.

Re:But... (1)

dmatos (232892) | about 5 months ago | (#47131735)

Jesus Christ, American! You've got guns, and it's not stopping your government from oppressing you.

Pick up some of your goddamn arsenal and do what you keep telling us you're going to do! Put up or shut up!

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132647)

Were you not watching Nevada a few weeks ago? Government sent goons with guns (whether or not this show of force was justified is not relevant to the point), so community met them with goons with guns. Government backed their goons off.
 
    That is one counterclaim to your irrational hoplophobia and unerring trust of your government. If you say that was only once or not good enough then I ask you if we should stop incarcerating criminals because some get away.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133421)

The "goons" in Nevada are the right-wing assholes advocating violent revolution just because a filthy-rich welfare mooch might actually have to pay the people their legal due (*). The government backed off because for some reason it didn't want to trigger another Waco -- because it is fundamentally more rational and humanitarian and pro-freedom than the racist wingnuts on the other side.

But we cannot continue to appease these terrorists forever. I sincerely hope we find a way to lock them up and take away their precious guns without having to kill any of them.

I say this as someone who used to be convinced (as you are) that all gun control advocacy was "irrational hoplophobia": Get real. You are on another planet. I was, and I'm ashamed of it now. I wasn't even close to actually engaging with what the other side was saying, I was just jerking my knee any time the topic of firearms came up.

* - one of the supreme ironies in all this is that wingers of the sort collected in Nevada always go on and on and on about the threat which government handouts pose to our nation, yet see nothing wrong with Bundy mooching from the public by paying virtually nothing for grazing his cattle on public-owned land...

Re:But... (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 5 months ago | (#47134707)

yeah, but it worked well in Waco, didn't it...

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47135057)

yeah, but it worked well in Waco, didn't it...

At Waco, nobody showed up to shoot the police officers in the back. In 1993 when the Waco siege happened there was no Twitter or Facebook to let everybody know instantly.

Now days, police have to worry about that stuff. The Clive Bundy incident illustrated pretty clearly it can take as little time as it takes for the guy the next county over to throw an AK in the trunk and drive over for heavily armed, anti-government backup to show up.

Please note, Bundy is an idiot law-breaker and deserves to go to trial, have all his assets seized as payment for what he took, and ultimately, I think jail.

The feds and locals are going going to have to change to be much more subtle, and they won't be able to get after people with sympathetic support anymore at all, without you know, actually going after them for a real crime instead of bullshit IRS audits done as political payback. Showing up with federal snipers at Bundy's house was a very bad move. How hard is it for a local sheriff to lead an arrest warrant knock?

The rules have changed. The government changed them. The people have changed them again.

Re:But... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 months ago | (#47133861)

Naturally, you probably didn't notice AC's response. Remember the Bundy ranch? A relatively small number of people did make the government back down.

The other AC's response paints Bundy as a "welfare mooch" - but if you dig deeper into the issue, you may very well conclude that the real welfare mooches were trying to shut Bundy down for their own profit.

Re:But... (1)

mark_reh (2015546) | about 5 months ago | (#47145601)

You don't think that whole thing is done because he showed his gun and waved a flag- the flag of the government that he says doesn't exist? The feds stood down because they wanted to avoid a bloodbath in which a lot of people would have been killed for simply trying to seize Bundy's cattle to pay a debt he owes. The debt is still there and it will get paid. I'd say the feds showed remarkable restraint. The armed people who came to Bundy's defense showed themselves to be exactly what they are- dangerously violent people who should not be allowed to possess guns.

Re:But... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 months ago | (#47145621)

I take the opposite view. The government is dangerous, not the people with the guns.

Re:But... (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 5 months ago | (#47131775)

And to add: "gun deaths"(such a stupid artificial line item because i dont care if someone kills me with a gun a knife or a shark with lazers, im still dead) in america also include suicides where as they are not counted ass gun deaths in the UK. So take away all suicides by gun in the US

also gang violence, does anyone really care if a gang member takes out another?

Re:But... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47132405)

Homicides are higher in the US than the UK. Yes, that includes suicide, as suicides are a homicide. "violent crimes" are higher in the UK, but deaths from them are much lower. Many things aren't crimes in the US, or aren't "violent", but are elsewhere. I haven't read the laws of the UK in enough detail, but some "hate speech" crimes and assaults are illegal in the UK as violent crimes and legal in the US. So yes, when the laws don't match, the rates don't match. Dead is an easier and more objective measure. Even if they don't lean your preferred way.

Re:But... (1)

dwillden (521345) | about 5 months ago | (#47134783)

Actually the FBI does not include suicide in their Homicide stats. The CDC includes them in their Firearm deaths records, but Homicides do not by definition include Suicide (at least not in the official statistics that track homicides.)

Re:But... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#47131787)

Specifically, when discussing gun death rates, a common tactic is to include suicide rates. When someone does that, you know that they are either trying to trick you or don't know anything about statistics (a common problem among politician, who always use this kind of statistical data).

Re:But... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47132431)

Suicide is a homicide. Most statistics don't try to classify all the types of homicide. So the most accurate numbers will include suicide. All others are the subjective numbers pushed by those with an agenda.

Re:But... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#47132495)

OK, you need to wake up or something, because that's about the most retarded comment I've ever seen you write. Dunk your head under water, drink some coffee, or whatever, because you aren't thinking clearly today.

Re:But... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47132619)

Homo-cide means person-death. It's come to mean unnatural death. Accidental deaths are usually counted as homicides, because "cause unknown - likely accident" and "cause unknown - likely murder" would allow a great amount of subjectivity in classification. So all violent deaths are counted, regardless of whether they are accidents or suicide.

That's the raw number collected by most places, count all violent deaths, regardless of cause, as cause is often not known for certain. Then the people with a cause to champion like you step in and "exclude" the inconvenient numbers to get the desired result.

Funny how the conservatives want every individual counted, and no estimations done at all for the census, and want to make up numbers for homicide, without regard to the actual complete count. Why is it that estimation is "best" for one and hated for the other? Is consistency too much to ask for?

Re:But... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#47132953)

Seriously? You're still having trouble with this? Are you one of those people who is purposely trying to cloud the issue, or would you like to really understand what problems are caused by guns (and could be fixed by getting rid of guns)?

Re:But... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47133253)

No. I'm trying to get the "best" objective number. Your subjective numbers tainted. We can extrapolate and interpolate from that. But the *only* objective number does (And should) include suicide. How do you separate out a gun cleaning accident from a suicide? How do you separate out criminal negligent homicide from non-criminal homicide? You count the dead. Worry about motivations later. That's the *only* objective measure.

You whine constantly when I point this out, but aside from general objection, you can't voice any improvements.

Re:But... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#47137027)

You whine constantly when I point this out, but aside from general objection, you can't voice any improvements.

lol most politicians use this number because it is impressive, they are trying to shock people, saying, "look at this great reason we have for getting rid of guns!" They are hiding the fact that even if guns were removed, many of those people would still kill themselves.

The only question remaining is what kind of person are you: are you trying to use data to conceal like a bad politician? Or are you just a geek, interested in the numbers but failing to understand their social application?

Re:But... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47137631)

The only question remaining is what kind of person are you: are you trying to use data to conceal like a bad politician? Or are you just a geek, interested in the numbers but failing to understand their social application?

Accuracy over use. I don't care what you think they imply, or what the politicians think they imply. The only number collected consistently internationally is homicide (including suicide). Thus it's the *only* valid number to start international comparisons from. When not comparing internationally, there may be better numbers, but that wasn't the topic.

Or are you just a geek, interested in the numbers but failing to understand their social application?

One can understand the social application and not care. The purity of the numbers is more important than the agenda of those that don't like the implications of the most correct numbers.

Re:But... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#47137943)

One can understand the social application and not care.

LOL

Re:But... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 months ago | (#47133877)

Your failure is that you are not recognizing that the people who collect statistics manipulate the definitions of the numbers they collect. Not every nation includes suicide with their murder rates. And, we are back to my original post - YOU MUST PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO THE SOURCE OF THOSE NUMBERS AS WELL AS THE METHODS BEING USED TO MANIPULATE THOSE NUMBERS.

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Re:But... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47134113)

"murder" has an inconsistent definition around the world. "homicide" is relatively static. That's why homicide is the preferred comparative.

That's why it's the least manipulated number. After those are collected, we "correct" for numbers we don't like (like removing suicides or whatever the manipulator wants to correct for).

Re:But... (1)

dwillden (521345) | about 5 months ago | (#47134785)

The FBI does not include Suicide in their Homicide stats. Technically in the pure definition of the word yes you are right. But not as the statistics are tracked. The FBI tracks Homicides, broken down by method of killing.

The CDC tracks deaths by method, and that includes the death by firearm statistics that include suicides.

Re:But... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47137699)

The FBI does not include Suicide in their Homicide stats.

Do they include traffic crashes? More places track homicide to what someone would think of "violent death" or "non-natural" death. And what do they do about Kurt Kobain's death or Michael Jackson's? Self-administered accidental death could go to either suicide or homicide. To avoid such questions and subjective assignment, many countries just count all homicides together. It's more accurate that way.

is it actually wrong to remove them? (1)

Chirs (87576) | about 5 months ago | (#47132879)

If someone is considering offing themselves, it might be simpler to take their gun and blow their head off instead of trying to hang themselves, jump off a building/bridge, slice their wrists, etc.

To the person doing the act, shooting themselves in the head is probably going to seem less painful and more convenient then most other options.

If that's the case, then removing the gun might reduce the chances of actually carrying through on a suicide attempt.

Re:is it actually wrong to remove them? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#47132957)

Interesting question, how is the suicide rate in the US, where there are lots of guns, compared to Japan, where there are few guns? Or other places...

Re:But... (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 5 months ago | (#47131943)

Given the choice, I think I'd rather be shot to death, than bludgeoned to death. The suffering is likely to end much, much sooner.

Contrary to popular belief, most gunshot victims will survive, thanks to trauma units and medevac flights.
But... they might end up permanently paralyzed, crippled, or brain damaged.

/And the people most likely to get shot are the least likely afford the kind of extensive rehab necessary to regain function.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132683)

I would say the people MOST likely to get shot deserve to get shot (we have serious inner-city gang problems in this country and a very high percentage of gun crime is gang or drug activity). It is indeed unfortunate that their aim usually so horrible that they also threaten everybody around them too.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132199)

from http://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/data.html :
Intentional homicide is defined as unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person
Intentional homicide count and rate per 100,000 population, by country/territory (2000-2012)
CAN 1,6 1,8 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,8 1,7 1,6 1,7 1,6 1,4 1,5 1,6
UK 1,7 1,8 2,0 1,7 1,6 1,5 1,4 1,4 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,0
US 5,5 6,6 5,6 5,6 5,5 5,6 5,8 5,6 5,4 5,0 4,7 4,7 4,7

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132253)

So there's eight times as much violent crime, but you're 100 times less likely to be shot to death.

You do realize that 8 100, right?

Oh, sorry, I'm a socialist progressive liberal, and I'm trying to disarm the public to...something...something that I couldn't do if they had guns. Live in a society where people don't kill other people they know?

Because, let's be fucking honest here, you usually don't have to worry about some random guy on the street bludgeoning you to death. That's the kind of thing your husband, or brother, or best friend do. Being bludgeoned to death is kind of a "I want you dead, and I want you dead painfully" thing. Not the kind of thing that happens out of the blue.

It's also harder to build up to than, "fuck it, boom."

Buy some fucking perspective you paranoid jackass.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132279)

There should be a "double left angle bracket" between 8 and 100 there. Slashdot ate it.

"8 much less than 100".

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47134039)

The problem is before the uk enacted gun control, there was only 4 times as much violent crime as the us and you were 200 times less likely to be shot there. Gun control actually increased both violent crime AND gun crime.

Re:But... (1)

Whiternoise (1408981) | about 5 months ago | (#47132363)

Unfortunately, your source is the Daily Mail. A rag which serves the simple purpose of scaring the populace into thinking that Eastern Europe is dying to hop over our borders, that everything both causes and prevents cancer and that while Pedos Are Bad, it's OK to judge celebrities' daughters on the skimpiness of their bikinis.

Your first article is better, and it actually goes against your argument if you read it. The conclusion is:

The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False.

Basically, as you might expect, it's impossible to tell. Violent crime includes incidents where no one was hurt which muddies things further. The first article mentions that most violent crime is aggravated assault, which most often doesn't end in injury. Note that US aggravated assault is called battery in the UK. America also has a habit of locking people away - almost half of the worlds' imprisoned people are in America. It's such a high number that it's almost equal to Russia and China combined, 0.7% or about 2 million people. The UK isn't much better, at around 0.4%, but in absolute numbers it's not many Source is the ICPS (http://www.prisonstudies.org/research-publications?shs_term_node_tid_depth=27).

On the upside, both violent crime and homicides have decreased by almost a third in the UK since that story was released. Not sure about the US figures, but they've probably decreased too.

Your point stands - if you're gonna die, you're gonna die and most would rather it was a quick death. However I don't think that's necessarily true unless you're shot in the head. If you're bludgeoned to death, odds are you'll be unconscious for most of it. I would wager that you're more likely to get accidentally killed in the US, from firearm misuse, than you are in the UK from any other cause except being run over.

In either case, it's unlikely that anyone reading this will be the victim of violent assault, particularly once you've corrected for personal wealth and location. Where I live, violent crime is so low that recently someone was mugged (i.e. their phone was stolen) and it made local headlines. Similarly where I work, in a different country, crime is so low that a few years ago the burglary rate increased massively: one person had their house broken into. These aren't low population regions (Surrey/Kent respectively), they're just among the most affluent; the majority are retired or commute to London to work in the City.

People need to watch Bowling for Columbine, methinks. Both America and the UK are deeply paranoid countries, it's interesting that the UK dealt with the problem by spying on them and the US dealt with it by arming everyone and then spying on them.

Re:But... (4, Insightful)

locust (6639) | about 5 months ago | (#47132713)

Your guns are going to mean precious little in a few years. Ask any Afghan. Almost everyone has an AK-47. Predator drones don't care. It will be the same here in the good old US of A. Drones will be used in police actions internally in the US because they are cheaper to replace & train than en-vivo police officers.

Today, arming the population, means teaching them math, science, technical skills, and the civics to know when to put them to use against the government of the day.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47134797)

Look again at Afghanistan. Where the fighters who mentally live in the 18th century have fought the powers of the world for over a decade, with no end in sight. Yes they fear the drones, except that they can hear the flying lawnmowers overhead, and often watch them circle for hours before getting permission to fire. A big part of the reason why despite all the hellfire's they've fired over the last 13 years, only a few have actually managed to bag someone important.

Meanwhile a few pounds of fertilizer, some fuel oil and a blasting cap still kill our troops almost daily. No organized military has ever withstood an organized underground resistance.

Further don't expect the military to be so quick to fire on their fellow citizens, many of whom are veterans with knowledge and knowhow far exceeding what even the greatest Afghan fighter can do. We can print guns, or make zip guns in our garages. Or we can make better firearms. Should they be needed, don't doubt for a second that far more substantial weapons would start funneling through the drug trafficking channels into the US. We have the money the Afghans do not. We can buy or build our own weapons to take out those slow noisy predators, or we can jam them, or blind them. How many geeks have those powerful green lasers. Guess what one of those will do to the sensitive seeker cameras of a drone?

Equating our use of drones in Afghanistan as a reason to toss out any idea of resisting a tyrannical government is a very big mistake.

Re:But... (1)

umghhh (965931) | about 5 months ago | (#47132719)

yes you can misinterpret your data as we know gun lovers often do.

This and your government already oppresses your and other people - so how your guns stopped that? Maybe I missed that in the news - I lately cannot stand all the shit that is being 'reported' - but organized militia regularly fails to show up, when people are killed while SWAT teams invade their homes. Somehow I have a feeling that if your militia did show up then it would have to be really well organized not to directly die in a storm of fire. Care to explain this?

Re:But... (1)

ProfBooty (172603) | about 5 months ago | (#47133505)

Bundy ranch?

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132865)

If someone just pushes you slightly that is assault and a violent crime in the UK. In the USA you have to be pretty much murdered, raped or maimed to count as a violent crime.

Re:But... (1)

melchoir55 (218842) | about 5 months ago | (#47132973)

BOTTOM LINE: liberals, progressives, and socialists always want to disarm the public. But, disarming the public never makes the public any safer. It only makes it safer for GOVERNMENT TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE!!

Gun ownership falls perfectly in line with liberal, progressive, and socialist philosophy. I encourage you to present axioms required by any of those positions which also require gun ownership be restricted. Democrats in the USA have made it their cause to restrict gun ownership. That group is neither liberal, progressive, nor socialist. They are blatantly conservative.

Conservatives prefer to restrict gun ownership because conservative interests are the interests of the existing power base (the wealthy, political elite, etc.) and because an armed population is a threat to existing power bases. That republican politicians cry foul is theater.

Re:But... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 months ago | (#47133895)

I offer half an apology. This IS an international forum, so I should probably have gone to the effort to define my terms. I used those terms as they apply to US politics today. Democrats have more or less taken ownership of the terms liberal and progressive, and republicans apply the term socialist to the democrats.

I do realize that the political spectrum is much, MUCH larger and diverse than US politics, but my comments are directed at Americans more than toward the world.

Re:But... (0)

Tom (822) | about 5 months ago | (#47133119)

BOTTOM LINE: liberals, progressives, and socialists always want to disarm the public. But, disarming the public never makes the public any safer. It only makes it safer for GOVERNMENT TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE!!

Then what else is it that makes the US the homicide capital of the civilized world? If it's not guns, what else is it?

And you do, of course, realize that both can be true, yes? Making the public safer and making the people easier to oppress are not mutually exclusive.

Finally, don't forget that the idea of people with guns fighting off the government is 50 years outdated. Look at the footage from China's Tianamen square. Do you think pistols and rifles would've made a difference? When the government can come to get you in tanks, it doesn't really matter if you have a gun at home or not.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47135073)

BOTTOM LINE: liberals, progressives, and socialists always want to disarm the public. But, disarming the public never makes the public any safer. It only makes it safer for GOVERNMENT TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE!!

Then what else is it that makes the US the homicide capital of the civilized world? If it's not guns, what else is it?

And you do, of course, realize that both can be true, yes? Making the public safer and making the people easier to oppress are not mutually exclusive.

Finally, don't forget that the idea of people with guns fighting off the government is 50 years outdated. Look at the footage from China's Tianamen square. Do you think pistols and rifles would've made a difference? When the government can come to get you in tanks, it doesn't really matter if you have a gun at home or not.

Poor, uneducated, inner city blacks and the culture they perpetuate on themselves. Gun violence in the US is black-on-black young black males doing almost all of it, and nearly the same ratio of victims are the same; black, male, young, (Though they do miss once in a while and shoot the little girl next door in the head during the crossfire.)

Some of that is the war on drugs, some of that is entirely internal to the community causes, and some of it is popular media (music, movies, TV) that perpetuates it.

The FBI has all the raw data you need on their web site, feel free to run the numbers yourselves. Isolate out the big inner city violence and the overall violence of the REST of the US drops to right around EU levels or lower. While those same folks, own 80% of the guns (and certainly bought 99% of them, legally I might add).

LEGAL gun purchases by non-inner city folk are NOT the problem. What the inner city folk do to themselves is the problem. Fix that and the "gun problem" goes away.

Re:But... (1)

Tom (822) | about 5 months ago | (#47135379)

Gun violence in the US is black-on-black young black males doing almost all of it

Except, of course, for the school shootings and mass shootings that happen more often than in the rest of the western world combined. (they're not unheard of elsewhere, but most other countries have had a few since the end of WW2, not a few every fucking year).

I agree that internal gang violence is the main element, though. It's just not the only. And we're only talking about gun violence here, not accidents, which also add a couple dead bodies every year.

Please don't drink the kool-aid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133229)

http://www.politifact.com/trut... [politifact.com] [politifact.com]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk] [dailymail.co.uk]

When you start comparing crime rates, violent crime rates, gun deaths, or any other socially important data, you really need to pay careful attention to terminology. It matters little that the UK may experience only 1% of our gun deaths, if they also experience 800% of our violent crime rate. After you are mutilated or dead, is it really going to matter to you that you were killed with a gun, or a knife, or a stone, or you were choked to death? Violent crime is violent crime.

Given the choice, I think I'd rather be shot to death, than bludgeoned to death. The suffering is likely to end much, much sooner.

BOTTOM LINE: liberals, progressives, and socialists always want to disarm the public. But, disarming the public never makes the public any safer. It only makes it safer for GOVERNMENT TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE!!

Ask any number of infamous people, starting with Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao tse Tung.

Do you /really/ think that a punch in the face, a rape and a mass shooting are all the same thing? They're all violent crime...

Keep in mind that the statistics aren't derived the same way in the two countries. The UK includes a much wider array of crimes as "violent crimes", while the US doesn't - it's rate is effectively lower because there are crimes that it puts in other categories. ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/ )

Also, you're probably more likely to be bludgeoned to death in the US than in the UK. The murder rate is far higher in the US after all.

If somebody is going to commit a violent crime against me, I'd much rather it involve a fist than a bullet. You're welcome to feel otherwise.

Re:But... (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about 5 months ago | (#47134571)

" disarming the public never makes the public any safer." thats complete bollox as i feel a lot safer in a country where there are no gun toting cowboys on the street thinking there is a problem around each corner - perhaps its an issue just where you live

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47136221)

And the guns did a helluva lot of good for your fine crazies of Waco and Ruby Ridge, didn't they?

Guns don't kill people - stupid gun-toting neanderthals kill people.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47136413)

Is that the case, that the UK experiences 800% of our violent crime rate? Really? In fact, once you correct for very different definitions of "violent crime", you get a different (still awful) figure of about 200%. Here's the link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/24/blog-posting/social-media-post-says-uk-has-far-higher-violent-c/
In the PolitiFact article, even the most inflated comparison, without correcting for different definitions of crime, is about 400%. So I can only suppose that the 800% figure is intended to be shocking and frightening, rather than any attempt at real. I guess it's like people citing "the vast majority," when, like the poster, they have no actual idea, but just want to cow the other people in the discussion, and pull a number out of a dark, low place, which is usually involved in the end stages of digestion.
As far as guns vs no guns, there was an instance lately of a crazy kid on a stabbing spree in a school, as opposed to a shooting spree. He hurt a lot of people, but nobody died. Here's the link: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/school-stabbing-spree
Nothing can prevent idiots and crazies from hurting people, but in a gun-soaked culture, that will result in a lot more deaths. Which is, I can only suppose, what the dear, loving God intended when He wrote the 2nd amendment.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47138529)

Sure they experience more crime. Antisocial behaviour is a crime in the UK. It's called the Republican party in the US...

Re:But... (1)

Bogtha (906264) | about 5 months ago | (#47141329)

When you start comparing crime rates, violent crime rates, gun deaths, or any other socially important data, you really need to pay careful attention to terminology. It matters little that the UK may experience only 1% of our gun deaths, if they also experience 800% of our violent crime rate. After you are mutilated or dead, is it really going to matter to you that you were killed with a gun, or a knife, or a stone, or you were choked to death? Violent crime is violent crime.

You're half right. You are right in that you really need to pay attention to terminology. You are wrong when you say "violent crime is violent crime". Why? Terminology.

"Violent crime" in UK stats is a very wide term that covers a lot of things. "Violent crime" in USA stats is a very narrow term that doesn't cover a lot of things. The terminology means different things in the two countries, so what is being measured is different.

Read this [wordpress.com] for more details, including links to the definitions being used. The fact is that the UK is less violent than the USA once you look at what's being measured instead of assuming "violent crime" means the same thing in both cases.

Re:But... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 months ago | (#47141439)

I'll give that guy his due - he did some digging and came up with some more meaningful answers than I have read. But - burglary and auto theft are "violent" offenses? I'm afraid that he missed the point. Violence is often dished out for little or no reason, other than the desire to hurt someone. Unless the domicile is actually occupied during a burglary, then burglary isn't a violent crime. Likewise with an auto theft - it would only count as a violent crime if the car were taken at gunpoint - or knifepoint, or at least while in possession of a dangerous blunt instrument.

On this, however, he and I agree:
"In sum, it becomes clear that an objective comparison between any two countries types of offenses is a difficult and time consuming endeavour. In order for it to be done properly, matching definitions need to be found, and umbrella terms that group large numbers of what one country may class as offenses and the other not, must be avoided. Statistics must be broken down to their bare bones and compared accurately and objectively if any meaningful parallels are to be found. I hope that above,"

So - my own summary would have to be something like this: Seems like a lot of people who are full of feces have been spreading half-truths, and I believed some of them. I'm not real sure what to think about our comparative crime rates. But, I am real sure of the contents of this PDF, if you care to read it:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/stu... [harvard.edu]

Re:But... (1)

Xest (935314) | about 5 months ago | (#47145373)

Why oh why do people like you insist on linking that Daily Mail article? It's such a pathetic act of desperation. Ignoring the fact The Daily Mail was wrong in the first place in it's interpretation of the stats (which is basically par for the course of ever Daily Mail article referencing stats) and giving you the benefit of doubt for the moment, that article is from 2001, that's more than 10 years old. Violent crime in the UK has been in free fall over this period and year on year keeps finding itself at the lowest point it's ever been in recorded history.

" But, disarming the public never makes the public any safer. It only makes it safer for GOVERNMENT TO OPPRESS THE PEOPLE!!"

Well again you're wrong, and demonstrably so, but ignoring that for the moment the flip side of your argument is that you're implying that arming people makes the public more free. Are you saying that with a straight face given the revelations by Snowden that you're the most invasively surveilled and profiled state on the planet? with secret courts? detention without trial? summary executions? Are you really actually serious?

Compare that to countries like Egypt, Libya, and Syria where gun ownership was banned by the dictators but they still managed to rise up and free themselves and you'll surely begin to realise how stupid your argument actually is.

Re:But... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 months ago | (#47145471)

http://www.law.harvard.edu/stu... [harvard.edu]

Those secret courts, 24/7 surveillance, and detention without trial are the things that most justify arming the populace. The government is out of control. If it cannot be brought under control peacefully, then it must be brought under control by force of arms. Give EVERYONE a weapon, I say. Actually, that's rather socialistic, don't give them weapons, SELL THEM WEAPONS!!

Re:But... (1)

Xest (935314) | about 5 months ago | (#47145555)

Right but that's my point isn't it?

You all have that right in America, to go out and arm yourself, but you're not are you? In contrast, countries like the UK with strong gun control laws have actually become more liberal without any hint of an armed uprising - this government has actually decreased surveillance powers (through changes to RIPA) and ended up blocking secret courts and so forth There's still a hell of a long way to go but the point is this - the trend is reversing here without easy access to guns, if guns bring freedom why is America in such an unstoppable downward spiral? why is the UK in reverse back towards a more liberal culture?

If guns are necessary for freedom how did the Libyans break rise up against Gaddaffi? the Syrian's against Assad? none of these societies allowed people to be armed but it didn't stop them.

So at the end of the day, the cry of guns and freedom is complete nonsense. Gun control law has nothing to do with freedom as you have some of the lax gun controls in the world coupled with a population more easily able to afford them and with easy access to them but it's not helped you in the slightest has it? You can gain greater freedom without widespread gun ownership, and widespread gun ownership doesn't in any way give you freedom, so why even make that argument? It's obviously wrong and we have the case studies to prove it.

Re:But... (1)

mark_reh (2015546) | about 5 months ago | (#47145567)

You're a fool if you think that any gun you can get a Walmart is going to be a match for a soldier's weapon. If the government wants to oppress you they'll bring the heavy stuff and oppress the crap out of you. Your use of a gun merely guarantees that the situation will escalate and that you will end up dead.

This is one serious problem with people in the US in general and especially gun nutz -they have a very tenuous grasp on reality. Too much violent fantasy programming on TV and movies has people thinking that the threat of gun violence can solve any problem. It's a ridiculous idea that gets repeated over and over. Lenin would be proud of the NRA and Hollywood. The lie they have told has become reality.

Re:But... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 months ago | (#47145617)

A fool, huh? Really? Then, why does guerilla warfare work so well? How many set-piece battles has our army won in recent years? Perhaps it is your own grasp of reality that should be questioned. In Viet Nam, we had EVERYTHING going for us, except that we had a much longer logistics train than the enemy had. We lost. Pretty much the same in Afghanistan - and we have failed to win. We haven't really "lost" as badly as in Viet Nam, but the Taliban are coming out of the wood work, to take over again when we abandon the stage. Iraq? Hmmm - we won, I guess. Of course, the Iraqi people are still paying one hellaciously expensive bill for our "victory". And, we didn't even get the oil! Study some history. http://www.law.harvard.edu/stu... [harvard.edu]

Ask yourself, "What is the ultimate weapon?"

The Marines have always known the answer to that question.

You do make something of a point though. If you rely on WalMart for your weapons, then you are left seriously lacking.

Re:But... (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 5 months ago | (#47132943)

(Points up). The, uh, 3d printed gun?

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47136823)

Well the UK printers are going to have to sort this out because it will be the only way to get weapons in the coming Lebanonization of the UK as the Mucking Fuslims try to take over and set up the British Caliphate in 2035 with King Charles - the Royal Wingnut - in charge.

Re:But... (1)

fuzzywig (208937) | about 5 months ago | (#47145341)

Bloody hard to buy ammunition here though, even if you do get hold of a gun. (without a license anyway)

Re:But... (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | about 5 months ago | (#47132149)

But we're always being told the criminals will grab the guns and use them against us.

So this is a win.

They will eventually, unless we can find a way to vote the entire lot out of office and start fresh with a team that does not involve either side of "The Party."

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47134131)

But we're always being told the criminals will grab the guns and use them against us.

So this is a win.

That is a dumb statement..

Can you say UK propaganda boys and girls. PROPAGANDA YEEAAHHHHH!! Very good..

Why is it Propaganda? Mr. Smith. Because the UK government doesn't want its citizens or criminals randomly printing guns, thus they hope and pray making statements and false videos will deter people from doing it.

Re:But... (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 5 months ago | (#47135721)

Yes it's dumb. That's the way that kind of joke works.

Yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130699)

Yet...

Not a very thorough evaluation (2)

schwit1 (797399) | about 5 months ago | (#47130705)

3D printed guns are in their infancy and already quite capable according to these tests in Wired [wired.com] .

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130797)

Not really tests there.... More like video linking...

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (5, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 5 months ago | (#47130811)

Why even bother printing guns when you can just buy a legally unregulated upper, a trigger assembly, and an 80% lower reciever blank then just mill the blank and assemble a fully working, untraceable and unserialed AR-15?

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 5 months ago | (#47130921)

And when you can't buy a legally unregulated upper, a trigger assembly, and an 80% lower reciever blank then just mill the blank and assemble a fully working, untraceable and unserialed AR-15?

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 5 months ago | (#47130935)

umm, because the things you listed are hard, while anybody can download a file to make a gun and print one out? that's why it's called 3-D printing?

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

Meski (774546) | about 5 months ago | (#47139877)

Damn, another raft that didn't stick. :)

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

FuegoFuerte (247200) | about 5 months ago | (#47130943)

First off, because most of us don't have milling machines. Second, because we can. Third, because most of the world doesn't have such things as legally unregulated uppers or trigger assemblies.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 5 months ago | (#47130991)

First off, because most of us don't have milling machines.

Most of us don't have 3-D printers either.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

FuegoFuerte (247200) | about 5 months ago | (#47132067)

But they're a lot less expensive (and more compact) than a decent milling machine. Most of us *could* have a 3D printer if we so desired.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47132451)

And with maker spaces, many people have access to one. Like all the people who object to "Internet required" were told to shut up and go to the library.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133743)

But they're a lot less expensive (and more compact) than a decent milling machine. Most of us *could* have a 3D printer if we so desired.

Your assumption that CNC machines are inherently larger and more expensive is wrong. In the end, they're both just 3-axis systems. Their size is a function of the size of the objects you need to make.

The only relevant difference is that there hasn't been a huge amateur "maker" fad centered around CNC. There are already small and cheap CNC machines sold for industrial purposes. They just don't get all the hype, or Kickstarters aimed at producing extra-cheap and slightly shitty ones for hobbyists. But if you really want to, you can buy parts off ebay and make one yourself for somewhere around $1K, and you'd get much better quality output than a $1K 3D printer. They're not complicated machines.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#47133977)

Personally (and I'm someone that first wrote a G-code CNC program in 1987 - a lot like LOGO really) I think that operating a machine tool by hand for simple operations is a shitload easier than operating a CNC machine when you've never been near one. Lathes are not difficult things to operate. Milling machines are not much harder if you are not doing something complicated. You don't need CNC to make a simple gun, just some instructions, a gun drill if you want rifling, and maybe a weekend to get slightly familiar with low end machine tools.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (2)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | about 5 months ago | (#47131011)

Those of you who live by government permission slip will also not have access to 3d printers that can make guns.

The BATFE designated a shoe lace as a machinegun because they can. Your government will do whatever it wants to take from you whatever it wants. 3d printing included.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131175)

You can mill them out with a $500 end mill from Harbor Freight. Or a $120 drill press from Harbor Freight with a little more further effort and a little more further care. Or a $15 drill and a $20 rotary tool from Harbor Freight with a little more further effort and a little more further care. Or a $15 drill and a $5 file set from Harbor Freight with a little more further effort and a little more further care.

You don't need to use a $3000 CNC mill to mill out an AR-15 80% lower. And we're not even talking about the ease with which an AK blank can be nibbled and bent to spec.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 5 months ago | (#47133087)

I machined an AR receiver from an aluminum casting using just a drill press.

I'm no machinist. Just a well informed hobbyist and amateur gunsmith.

LK

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

jafiwam (310805) | about 5 months ago | (#47135079)

First off, because most of us don't have milling machines. Second, because we can. Third, because most of the world doesn't have such things as legally unregulated uppers or trigger assemblies.

AR-15 lowers have been made out of wood. Oak works fine as the lower doesn't take most of the force, the upper does.

Sure they look goofy and are big in a bunch of places where metal would be small. A drill press and a block of good wood is all that is needed.

The 3D guys are after something that takes zero artisan skill rather than what all the other "low-tech" methods require.

PS, for you eurotrash in the audience, making an AR out of a block of wood is perfectly legal in most states in the US as long as the intent is to use / have it rather than sell it at the time it was made.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

amxcoder (1466081) | about 5 months ago | (#47136277)

You don't even need a true milling machine, you can get buy with a drill press in most cases. I'm sure there are more people out there that own, or have access to a drill press than they do a 3d printer.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131015)

You used to be able to buy a 100% lower receiver. That was change.

BATFE can easily change it again where the lower receiver or the frame has to have a serial number with a signing of a pen.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen. The 2A people are scrambling for the hills right now, especially with "The Senator's Daughter" movie coming out that entirely debunks the NRA and the entire "gun culture" and the 50 million that Bloomberg handed out.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131945)

The 2A people are scrambling for the hills right now, especially with "The Senator's Daughter" movie coming out that entirely debunks the NRA and the entire "gun culture" and the 50 million that Bloomberg handed out.

I'm far from being a cheerleader for the NRA, but somehow I doubt that a movie, no matter how good the cinematic values and presentation are, will scare the wing-nuts overly much. If you think otherwise then you are delusional. Unfortunately, it is going to take far more than a movie and a few tens of millions of dollars to scare them into running for the hills.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47135091)

The 2A people are scrambling for the hills right now, especially with "The Senator's Daughter" movie coming out that entirely debunks the NRA and the entire "gun culture" and the 50 million that Bloomberg handed out.

I'm far from being a cheerleader for the NRA, but somehow I doubt that a movie, no matter how good the cinematic values and presentation are, will scare the wing-nuts overly much. If you think otherwise then you are delusional. Unfortunately, it is going to take far more than a movie and a few tens of millions of dollars to scare them into running for the hills.

The NRA is now quoting 3 million members.

They are on track to have 4 million in a couple of years.

This, after hovering between 1 and 2 million for many decades.

The political climate and the response of the lefties after Sandy Hook was an incredible boon to the firearm industry. There are now approximately 50% more AR-15 platform rifles in existence in the US than there was 2 years ago. Ammunition of all types is being bought up like crazy.

Nobody is running. Don't think that just because nobody is shooting at the moment that they aren't preparing for war.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#47131095)

Why do that when you can buy a blob of raw aluminum and make it all from scratch? Or ever better, recycle the aluminum from scrap in a furnace. I can do it, why not you?

Once you figure out the answer to that question you will understand why your statement was ludicrous, and bordering on trolling.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 5 months ago | (#47131455)

Once you figure out the answer to that question you will understand why your statement was ludicrous, and bordering on trolling.

So it's borderline trolling to assume that someone with the income and the inclination to get in on 3-D printing at the hobbyist stage and who also is interested in manufacturing their own firearms cannot afford or learn how to use a milling or CNC machine?

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#47131551)

Yes. For 2 reasons:

1 - CNC is on the order of a magnitude more expensive than additive 3D printing, which will only go down further in cost as technology advances. CNC, well, its already advanced to the point i dont see any reduction in costs. Non CNC hardware would be less costly, but would require an even higher investment in education ( see point #2 )

2 - 3D printing requires no special skill or knowledge, unlike subtractive machining. You load it with plastic or resin ( a simple operation ) and hit the print button then walk away for a few hours. When you come back you have a object.

Next question?

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 5 months ago | (#47131869)

Yes. For 2 reasons:

1 - CNC is on the order of a magnitude more expensive than additive 3D printing, which will only go down further in cost as technology advances. CNC, well, its already advanced to the point i dont see any reduction in costs. Non CNC hardware would be less costly, but would require an even higher investment in education ( see point #2 )

Manual, used milling machines can be had for around $1000, if not cheaper.

2 - 3D printing requires no special skill or knowledge, unlike subtractive machining. You load it with plastic or resin ( a simple operation ) and hit the print button then walk away for a few hours. When you come back you have a object.

Next question?

Odds are, anyone making the investment and effort to first buy a 3-D printer and then look for and print firearm blueprints isn't just going to be plugging the machine in, hitting print, and walking away. They are going to be tinkering, playing with it, learning how the printer works. If they can do that, they can learn how to use a manual milling machine.

Oh, and Booth (assuming you mean the Civil War Booth) was an idiot driven by ego who thought he could be a hero, not a patriot. Lee and Jackson were patriots. And I say that as a Southerner.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#47132029)

Your reading comprehension, and grasp on reality are pathetic. Increase those to normal levels and try again. Until then, stop bothering the rest of us.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 5 months ago | (#47132075)

Having to resort to personal attacks never helps you in an argument, as it shows you have run out of counterpoints or evidence. It's nothing to be ashamed of, really.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#47132389)

i only state facts, if you feel that is a personal attack by stating the truth, it only proves my point further.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132891)

"Lee and Jackson were patriots. And I say that as a Southerner."

Who else but a Southerner would say those men were patriots? That's like saying, "I love Mt. Dew and VT-100 consoles. And I say that as a programmer."

General Lee is a man to be respected. But he was a patriot to the Commonwealth of Virginia, not the United States of America. Lee was a patriot like General Vo Nguyen Giap was a patriot.

General Giap was the man who defeated the U.S. in Vietnam, although Lee deserves far more respect than Giap, IMO. Giap was far more amenable than Lee to his men being slaughtered.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#47134019)

Manual, used milling machines can be had for around $1000, if not cheaper.

That's for industrial use for thousands of hours - hobby stuff is much cheaper even for new stuff.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132121)

2 - 3D printing requires no special skill or knowledge, unlike subtractive machining. You load it with plastic or resin ( a simple operation ) and hit the print button then walk away for a few hours. When you come back you have a object.

As someone who works on some of the fastest computers on the planet but still can't reliably get the office printer to work, I have my doubts that 3D printing is really as straightforward as that. When you can talk your grandmother through the process and get something working, then come back to us, 'kay?

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133145)

I built an unserialized ar15 from an 80% lower for a out $450 in parts. I used what was then a $400 harbor freight micro mill. It was super easy, there are jigs available. I also have had access to 3d pri ters and found that even the pricier ones are very fussy and difficult to use in comparison. You only think about what I have already done.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133687)

1 - CNC is on the order of a magnitude more expensive than additive 3D printing, which will only go down further in cost as technology advances.

Are you stupid or something? This is not even remotely true. I once worked for a guy who put together a small CNC machine for under $1000, years before the additive 3D printing fad. He used it for prototyping.

A modern sub-$1K additive printer would've been pretty useless to us. We often needed to make stuff out of materials a fair bit tougher than PLA (think: 100psi regulator bodies). Even when we were working with plastics, we were making stuff that needed to hold 20psi indefinitely. I would not trust an additive-printed device made on a sub-$1k printer to hold 1psi, let alone 20. (Speaking of why 3D-printed plastic guns are of no use to anyone...)

Also, CNC machines and additive 3D printers are actually quite similar. They're both 3-axis (or more) computer controlled machines for moving a tool relative to an object. The only major difference is the tool: CNC machines use a motor, chuck, and cutting tool, while additive printers use a motor to feed plastic stock into a heated extruder head.

CNC, well, its already advanced to the point i dont see any reduction in costs.

This right here says that you're completely fucking ignorant about the mechanical and electronic technology involved in both. So far as low-end, low-cost, small machines are concerned, cost reductions for one will almost always have implications for the other. The only real cost differences are that CNC machines need beefier motors and bearings because the forces involved are higher, while 3D printer heads are notoriously tricky to get right (they need some fine control over feed rate and temperature, or you'll get a gloopy mess instead of the object you wanted).

If anything, CNC helped pave the way for the modern low-cost 3D printer fad by bringing the prices of 3-axis table components down.

2 - 3D printing requires no special skill or knowledge, unlike subtractive machining. You load it with plastic or resin ( a simple operation ) and hit the print button then walk away for a few hours. When you come back you have a object.

Bullshit bullshit bullshit. I have never read any account of getting into 3D printing which matched this description. They're finicky machines. Many of them require constant monitoring during the "print" process, careful tweaking of parameters (remember what I said about the print head?), and so on.

Also, even though my boss' 3D CNC machine was hand built from ebay parts, he routinely left it to run for hours making something or other. Once you get a hang for the maximum feed rate and cut depth for a given material, it's not hard to avoid problems.

He wasn't dumb, though. He put the entire machine inside a lexan housing so that if a bit snapped or a chip flew out it couldn't endanger anyone. I might add that this is actually a friendlier catastrophic failure mode than 3D printer failure modes, where there is a ready supply of flammable material (plastic) and a potential ignition source (the extruder).

3D printer fanboys are almost always ignorant. Stop that. They're just machines, not a new industrial revolution which old fuddy duddies Just Don't Get, Maaan. They've actually been around for decades, all that's changed is that a few years ago people noticed you could probably make small cheap ones by borrowing some parts from the small/cheap CNC bin, did so, hyped it up a bit, and all of a sudden dumb posers thought their star trek replicator fantasies were on the verge of becoming real.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#47135157)

Are you stupid or something?

No, but clearly you are.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133931)

Just an FYI: In the last month I've gotten in on the lower-end 3D printers... RepRap (and it's kind: Makerbot, solidoodle, etc) are hot glue guns attached to printer parts. There's a HELL of a lot of fiddling to get it going. Getting usable output is not a turn-key process. For that, you need something like a Stratasys which is more like a $45,000 machine.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 5 months ago | (#47135161)

True, but i was talking about future machines, as we are still at the infancy of home 3D printing. Once they mature it will be a push button affair.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#47134011)

It doesn't have to be CNC thus ends up quite a lot cheaper than additive 3D printing. Hobby lathes are very cheap. Hobby mills are more expensive but still a lot cheaper than low end 3D printers.
Got a weekend? You can spend it learning enough to do simple stuff with machine tools. You probably still need that long to set up a 3D printer.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47136861)

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

1. CNC is not that much more expensive than 3D printing. You can put together a CNC mill for about $1500. You can buy off the shelf for under $5000.

2. You have never run a 3D printer. Make a 3D printer to work like you have described and you will be rich beyond your wildest dreams. Printing little plastic Yoda's is one thing. Functional parts is another.

CNC is not more expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47138219)

You can buy an new entry level CNC mill for about the same as a hobbyist 3D printer, 1k or less (type "3020 cnc" into ebay for some cheap chinese desktop units). Look on Craigslist for used ones too.

Know your y\topic before putting others down on it (2)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#47134003)

If you are suggesting casting it from an aluminium alloy then your "I can do it" is an empty and overconfident boast based on ignorance. An aluminium-silicon barrel would be a brittle thing that would give you a fragmentation grenade with no delay in the shape of a gun. The alloys used in aircraft/bikes/etc get their strength from rolling, age hardening etc and are soft weak things when initially cast. Even cast bronze barrels had serious problems (which meant a lot remelted immediately after casting) and were given up on hundreds of years ago.
Making it from wrought steel scrap on the other hand ...

Re:Know your y\topic before putting others down on (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47135101)

If you are suggesting casting it from an aluminium alloy then your "I can do it" is an empty and overconfident boast based on ignorance. An aluminium-silicon barrel would be a brittle thing that would give you a fragmentation grenade with no delay in the shape of a gun. The alloys used in aircraft/bikes/etc get their strength from rolling, age hardening etc and are soft weak things when initially cast. Even cast bronze barrels had serious problems (which meant a lot remelted immediately after casting) and were given up on hundreds of years ago. Making it from wrought steel scrap on the other hand ...

No. YOU should know your topic before putting others down. The AR platform uses a relatively simple, low force bearing part as the receiver. The rest of the stuff is not tracked, easy to get, and right now, very cheap to get.

Casting an aluminum alloy lower would be child's play. They have been made out of WOOD for fucks sake.

YOU should know your topic. When it comes to firearms, you are CLEARLY in over your head.

Sorry kid but I do know the topic (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#47138789)

To put things simply, brittle stuff that cracks easily is unsuitable for some gun parts.
As for shifting the goalposts to the receiver alone - go jump on somebody else's comment where that actually is the topic instead of trying to change the subject and pretend you are not.

Here's why that doesn't make sense either (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#47139613)

Casting an aluminum alloy lower would be child's play. They have been made out of WOOD for fucks sake.

Wood is far more suitable in that situation because it flexes. Commercial cast aluminium alloys crack easily due to the silicon flakes that give them some strength and it's unsuitable for anything likely to get dropped or bumped. Even when you cut down the flake size with additives it's still a bit brittle. The aluminium stuff you are used to seeing is wrought - cast in great big billets too soft to use as is and then rolled into shape to give it strength without being brittle. Buying something like that from your local hardware, already strengthened for you, and easily filing or machining it into shape makes a vast amount more sense than the suggestion of the poster above that was trying to present their silly idea as evidence that they didn't have less of a clue than the person they were being critical of.
So if you want something you don't want to have to treat like glass and never drop then you'd choose something other than casting an aluminium alloy.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 5 months ago | (#47131219)

Because you can't buy all that stuff legally in the UK. Also, most people don't have a mill or milling skills, and in the UK most don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132263)

Well I'm sure that stops the criminals in the UK from buying guns! /sarcasm

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#47131411)

Why even bother printing guns when you can just buy a legally unregulated upper, a trigger assembly, and an 80% lower reciever blank then just mill the blank and assemble a fully working, untraceable and unserialed AR-15?

Why even bother printing documents when you can just buy blank paper, pens, and a ruler then just copy the document by hand?

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132125)

because criminals are stupid and would never think of that? Sheesh, criminals are always dumb, always... they are criminals after all

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 5 months ago | (#47132133)

I can buy a what, a what, and then I can what the blank? I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do have a 3D printer! Ooh, I can build a gun? sweeet! *clicks*

(That's why)

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about 5 months ago | (#47132291)

I can buy a what, a what, and then I can what the blank? I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do have a 3D printer! Ooh, I can build a gun? sweeet! *clicks*

(That's why)

Well, one would hope that someone who was wanting to build something that has the potential to cause harm to others or especially themselves (would you really want to hold your first attempt at printing a gun in your hand for the first firing attempt?) would get to know at the very least common terms with the types of object they are making, if not learn how they properly function. Hopefully they understand a litte more than "I put this little thingy in this hole and point the narrow end in this general direction and then pull this little lever and BANG".

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

amxcoder (1466081) | about 5 months ago | (#47136355)

I would hope so too, but if you look at the legislators at state and federal level, they have NO IDEA how firearms work and the ones writing laws to get rid of them. Remember the 30 caliber clip magazine that makes guns shoot several thousand rounds per minute. They are all that uninformed, yet feel they are informed enough to make decisions for all of us in that department. Shame.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 5 months ago | (#47148337)

The purpose of 3D printing a gun is so that you do not have to know those things.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132805)

"Why even bother printing guns when you can just buy a legally unregulated upper, a trigger assembly, and an 80% lower reciever blank then just mill the blank and assemble a fully working, untraceable and unserialed AR-15?"

Why? Because I live in the Netherlands, and I have no idea what an "upper" is, what a "trigger assembly" is, what an "80% lower reciever blank" is, how I would "mill the blank" and "assemble" it. You're seriously living in your own tiny world, is it fun there? We don't even have any guns stores over here and nobody except cops are allowed to carry guns. If I wanted a gun, I would literally have no idea where to go or who to talk to. I would need to Google or go to a pub to find a shady looking person. I am a computer nerd though, so 3D printing a gun sounds a lot more doable to me. Are you starting to understand how different my world is from yours? When you write that I could legally get an unregulated upper, even though I have no idea what you're talking about, I know I cannot get it legally where I live.

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

sootman (158191) | about 5 months ago | (#47133249)

> Why even bother printing guns when you can just...
> assemble a fully working, untraceable and unserialed AR-15?

Because then you'd wind up with an AR-15. :D

Re:Not a very thorough evaluation (1)

fredrated (639554) | about 5 months ago | (#47131453)

Yep, I would trust my life to Wired rather than the National Ballistics Intelligence Service.

Good thing technology never moves forward (5, Funny)

BoberFett (127537) | about 5 months ago | (#47130709)

It's a good thing technology never moves forward. This issue can now be put to bed.

Re:Good thing technology never moves forward (1)

eexaa (1252378) | about 5 months ago | (#47130793)

Yeah. Moreover, if UK Ballistic Police Department couldn't do that, who else would? Nobody, obviously!

I saw like dozens of videos of successful printed guns, did they completely miss that?

Re:Good thing technology never moves forward (4, Insightful)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 5 months ago | (#47131127)

Or maybe they intentionally did a bad job so others wouldn't even try?

Re:Good thing technology never moves forward (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 5 months ago | (#47132127)

Possibly. There are a number of ways to game this: Freezing, bad raw material, less structural elements, overpressure ammunition, putting something in the barrel, etc. However, I do not believe they are lying, I think it just requires a lot of expertise to get this right. On the other hand, drilling a hole into a solid block of material may give superior results without the need to get the printing right.

The kicker in the end is that you cannot usually get ammunition in countries with strict gun control and a different black-powder-and-ball design may be needed anyways. But quite frankly, what do you need guns for? Gun violence is very rare in countries with strict gun control. If somebody pulls one on you, you run away and call the police. But you being run over by a car is vastly more likely, so I would recommend being careful when crossing streets as an effective measure that greatly outperforms carrying a gun in preserving your health.

Re:Good thing technology never moves forward (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 5 months ago | (#47132511)

I think they deliberately tried to make it fail. Perhaps they just grabbed a bad plan by chance and it didn't work, but I think they put more effort into making sure it failed. Probably in choice of material and pattern. They want to scare people away from it, not actually see what would happen when someone actually makes one work. Because people have made them work.

The material is crap for that purpose (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#47134037)

Consider that ABS plastic made from powder is not as strong as most types of wood.
These things are going to fail without anyone trying to make them fail so long as the designs are completely and utterly stupid. The designs are stupid because the goal is stupid - the goal is not a gun that can be made at home but a gun that uses one single fabrication method and one material. A few parts made a different way is the difference between a low end Glock workalike and a handheld plastic fragmentation grenade with no delay.
It's like making an entirely wooden knife instead of a wooden handle and a steel blade.

Re:Good thing technology never moves forward (1)

Feyshtey (1523799) | about 5 months ago | (#47132187)

Obviously! And it's a good thing that 3D printed firearms are the only way to kill someone. It's not like a computer and an internet connection canprovide you a few 100 other cheap and easy ways to do so.

The media (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130723)

Good to see that Ameriker hasn't cornered the market on worthless media reports. Also seems like some of the homebrew done stateside has had much better results.

Others exist (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130731)

Yet others have been fired multiple times, successfully.

Either the UK-NBIS sucks at 3D printing, or this is disinformation.

Re:Others exist (1)

FuegoFuerte (247200) | about 5 months ago | (#47130977)

Maybe the UK sucks at gun-making in general... How many British gun makers can you think of off-hand?

Re:Others exist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131193)

I'm not sure that this 3D printed gun was made in the UK.

Nothing in the report said anything about it leaking oil, so I have to assume it wasn't.

Re:Others exist (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 5 months ago | (#47131597)

Royal Small Arms Factory
The Birmingham Small Arms Company
London Small Arms Co.

But only because I own Lee-Enfields from those manufactures.

Re:Others exist (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 5 months ago | (#47131807)

Royal Ordnance (now BAE Systems Global Combat Systems Munitions)

Re:Others exist (1)

FuegoFuerte (247200) | about 5 months ago | (#47132059)

Let me re-phrase... how many *current* gun makers can you think of off-hand?

Re:Others exist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47131893)

Great point. I can't name any around here. That proves the UK is a much bettter society than that one that the Republicans have ruined in the USA. They have destroyed their country. It is no longer safe to go out at night because of the Republicans. According to the odds, every man, woman, and child there has either been a victim or is a close relative to someone that is a victim of the Republicans. The Republicans have made sure the USA will never recover. If you can't even, for example, go to the grocery store safely, there is no hope. I feel sorry for all of you Republican-victims over there.

Re:Others exist (1)

greenwow (3635575) | about 5 months ago | (#47132531)

Oh please. I just drove to the grocery store and was only shot at twice. It's not as bad as you claim it is. Yes, Republicans want to return to the days of slavery, but it isn't nearly as bad as you describe. Less than half of my relatives have been put in prison by their kind.

Re:Others exist (2)

quantaman (517394) | about 5 months ago | (#47132147)

It's not disinformation it's a PSA.

The clue is at the end of the summary:
"without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves."

I.e. you've seen all those cool videos about printing 3D guns? Well here's what happens if you try to make one without really knowing what you're doing.

And the media shouldn't freak out because they're of no use to criminals. Any criminal with the expertise to make one of these would have a much easier time making a much more reliable and effective zip gun or buying a gun on the black market.

Thanks... (2)

bytethese (1372715) | about 5 months ago | (#47130733)

Thanks a lot U.K.'s National Ballistics Intelligence Service, way to throw down the gauntlet and challenge folks...

Re:Thanks... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130885)

It's not a challenge. It's just a way of pointing out the advantages of carrying a small explosive device.

Just carry a loaded 3D printed gun with you everywhere you go, then, when confronted with a criminal, wave it around like a total n00b and let them take it from you. When the criminal fires it, you win.

Re:Thanks... (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#47131203)

Just make a fake "Liberator" gun that doesn't really do anything. Except that its trigger has been modified and has a small hole in it with a mechanism that pushes a sharp needle into the finger when you press it.

Re:Thanks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47132727)

To do what... Piss off the attacker that overpowered you and got your gun?

Re:Thanks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47145669)

Wait till titanium printers replace plastic printers, and drop to under $400.
Then directional claymores with some precisely angled bores in a honeycomb structures will be practical.
But the real use will be titanium teeth - dentists are bigger robbers than gun wielding crooks.
Or bling and dog/cat tags, or handbag flash.. On second thoughts, the hardware store could be hit hard.

Sounds like police propaganda. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130739)

Even the BBC article admits that 3D-printed guns have been successfully fired in the United States, and this is a police body warning people not to try to 3D print a gun.

Re:Sounds like police propaganda. (3, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#47130761)

"Have been successfully fired" does not contradict the conclusion: 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'

Re:Sounds like police propaganda. (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 5 months ago | (#47131161)

"Have been successfully fired" does not contradict the conclusion: 'without additional expertise and the right type of ammunition, anyone attempting to fire one would probably maim or even kill themselves.'

Technically this is true for a non-3D printed gun. Using the wrong ammunition and without training, any gun is going to be more dangerous to the shooter than anyone else.

Re:Sounds like police propaganda. (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 5 months ago | (#47131291)

Please. Don't be dense. The manufacture of munitions(unlike guns, which at their simplest are literally just metal tubes) isn't something that can be done at home by 3d printing. Modern chemical charges can't be made through home processes, and trying to make black powder or other simpler chemical propellents isn't within the grasp of most of the people declaring "revolution" against gun laws, and would be extremely dangerous.

If they sell standardized .22 munitions to go with your 3d printed .22 handgun, there's a good chance you can also acquire the firearm itself(in a designer cheaper and more reliable than the 3d printed version).

This is about as much as an argument as saying "anyone can do backyard rocketry, thus anyone can launch nuclear ICBMs"

Re:Sounds like police propaganda. (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 5 months ago | (#47135383)

Please. Don't be dense. The manufacture of munitions(unlike guns, which at their simplest are literally just metal tubes) isn't something that can be done at home by 3d printing. Modern chemical charges can't be made through home processes,

The guns and gunpowder people made in the 18th and 19th century still work today. All you need to make them is some basic metal working tools (for the gun and cartridge), and urine, wood, and sulfur (for the gunpowder). They aren't going to be quite as powerful as modern guns, but that hardly matters. Trying to control access to guns through controlling the tools to create them is futile.

Re:Sounds like police propaganda. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#47133783)

Using the wrong ammunition and without training, any gun is going to be more dangerous to the shooter than anyone else.

By "right type of ammunition" they mean using a weak load. Even +P ammo won't blow up even most weak guns, except perhaps after extended use.

No use/threat...right now (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#47130745)

What about in the future, after more iterations of design and better 3d printers?

If they ever get reliable enough to be a problem I wonder how much of a high powered laser would be needed to damage the barrel enough to render it useless.

Though I guess a flamethrower could be used in a pinch.

Re:No use/threat...right now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47130855)

I don't know if I can leave my house knowing that I might encounter an ordinary civilian with a high powered laser or a flamethrower.

Re:No use/threat...right now (2)

saider (177166) | about 5 months ago | (#47130925)

Most of these studies focus on implementing a semi-automatic. Here the problem is going to be the higher case pressures of modern ammunition. If they made a 3D gun to an older spec (e.g. 45 Colt revolver cartridge instead of 45 ACP) they would probably have better results.

Re:No use/threat...right now (1)

mlts (1038732) | about 5 months ago | (#47131177)

It depends on use. A criminal could be well off with a small caliber firearm because the threat of the weapon is what he needs more than actual firepower. A legal owner is going to expect that what he has is going to last through thousands of rounds. A crook just needs it to fire a few times, and if it is used for firing, it will be at point-blank range.

Re:No use/threat...right now (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#47131267)

Because plastic guns in Fisher-Price blue always strike terror in the hearts of men.

You want threat, just buy a plastic replica.

Re:No use/threat...right now (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 5 months ago | (#47131785)

Well, there have to be a certain number of instances where the criminal actually fires the thing and word gets around that they are actually lethal. Then people will figure it out. But one of the chief benefits of said 'plastic gun in Fisher-Price blue' is that it sounds like it would be relatively cheap to produce, cheap enough to use once and then throw away (or better yet, burn in a fire or melt) so that it isn't evidence that can be found.

Re:No use/threat...right now (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 5 months ago | (#47132427)

This is the UK: We have had a good number of robberies where the villain used a banana under a coat, and a case where the police shot a man dead because he was carrying a table leg wrapped up - the police here can't tell table legs from guns.

Bear in mind that one thing they can do here is mis-information

WMD Blair/Brown qv.

Re:No use/threat...right now (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#47132873)

Being the UK I'll assume the coat is of the trench variety. Now, is banana code for something?

Would give a whole new meaning to 'stick someone up'.

Re:No use/threat...right now (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#47131299)

Yes, but then the radical gun nutters who absolutely NEED the ability to decimate large quantities of 'enemies' in rapid succession, in the name of freedom and some such clause on a piece of paper you know, would not be interested.

Re:No use/threat...right now (1)

Hategrin (3579025) | about 5 months ago | (#47131685)

I guess OSX is just a bunch of recorded keypressess too. Leave it to a liberal to present the most influential document of our time as scratches on a piece of paper.

Not even sure if "liberal" even fits you, they at least seem to place value on penmanship and the written word. I guess you never went to college, or if you did the English dept failed you. Look up "Reduction Fallacy", it's the exact same fallacy those "gun nutters" use when they say "guns don't kill people...."

Re:No use/threat...right now (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 5 months ago | (#47132011)

I change the way I dance dependent on the song, my partner and the audience.

You're right though, I never went to college, mainly because I'm not a USian and we don't have colleges. BTW, that piece of paper is really only important to you guys and your revisionist history that makes it seem like nothing like it had ever existed before.

Re:No use/threat...right now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#47133797)

I guess OSX is just a bunch of recorded keypressess too. Leave it to a liberal to present the most influential document of our time as scratches on a piece of paper.

If it's the most influential document of our time, it is as a cautionary tale, a negative example which has shown other nations what not to do when drafting a democratic constitution. Not even the United States itself was dumb enough to impose it as a rigid model in situations where it easily could've (e.g. when we controlled much of the process of forming a new government in post-WW2 Japan). The government prescribed by the Constitution is actually pretty dysfunctional, even after all the amendments.

Every time one of you dumb conservatives lines up to worship the Constitution as if it were a holy document handed down from perfect beings, I want to laugh, except the problem is that you're deadly serious. Learn some real history instead of these vapid slogans. Learn how to be a real patriot, i.e. one who is willing to face up to uncomfortable truths. Conservatives in the US love to prattle on and on about themes which amount to "my country, right or wrong", but you never remember the vital followup: "To be celebrated when right, to be put right when wrong."