Topic: Gun free zone - page 23. (Read 21968 times)

And with the right printer (specifically, a laser sinter printer, using steel powder instead of plastic), and the design that they are working on right now, you can have a fully functional, reusable weapon in just a few hours, from the press of a button. Even with plastic, you can make a "gun to get a gun," a one-shot pistol intended to get you a better weapon from one of your attackers.

Even ignoring that, if you're not too concerned with personal safety, there are plenty of ways to make a bullet projection tube (wouldn't really call it a gun) out of household objects.

The knowledge is out there. The Genie is out of the bottle. You can't stuff it back in with words written on paper.

Bullets are already easily made at home. That's why they don't plan on addressing them.

I agree mostly: it's the number one reason today. That was not always the case, in the past personal interest of country leaders played a role and religion was a powerful force too.

The notion that a country would spend millions of dollars and risk the lives of its citizens in order to protect a second country is nothing but propaganda.

Military occupation occurs because of a country's need to protect its own interests.

Which states:
http://defensedistributed.com/faqs/how-long-it-will-it-take-to-have-a-functional-printable-gun/

So I rest my case: there isn't any fully 3D printed gun available now and they don't even plan to address bullets.

See http://twitter.com/criminalsunion for more about laws that criminals are the sole beneficiaries of.

We are grateful for the help of the US (or at least my grand parents were, I've never known this period) as you are of our own to you several generations earlier...
The past is the past, most people of these periods are long dead now and their willingness to fight with them. I'm not sure what people would have done in Europe without the US and the Soviet Union (don't forget them, they took a huge toll to split the Third Reich armies on two fronts), maybe the Third Reich would have collapsed from internal revolutions (after all the French and English people are more or less the firsts at successfully overthrowing their dictatorial states).

The fact that you are too big to not involve in conflicts like those doesn't mean we are "pacifists" (at least in the way you mean it). If our parents were pacifists we wouldn't have the blood of our colonies on our hands and we wouldn't continue to send troops/carriers/jets in recent wars ourselves.


I'm not sure I follow, are you describing the US as a hired gun for Europe and others? That is quite harsh for both the US and the rest.

The reality is more complex. I only know the recent history of my own country so I'll use it as an example. The only recent war we (the French) didn't participate in was the invasion of Iraq (don't mind the reason that's another messy subject, only that it was an exception). We were in Serbia, Koweit, Lybia for the last joint operations I remember. In the late 20th century we conducted several "interventions" in past colonies in Africa and Asia ourselves (not that I'm particularly proud of those, I'm not sure it helped the local populations or even ourselves), refused to be part of NATO for ages to remain fully independent (and our sorry clown of last president didn't forget to make the mistake of stopping this policy) and successfully developed a full-fledge nuclear weapon program. If you think France as a country is made of pacifists you are not living on the same planet we are (at least you didn't step in the craters left by our bombs). In fact this is understandable: our influence on foreign countries is obviously smaller and mostly disconnected from US interests with the obvious exception of oil-producing countries (everyone still wants to get a share in those).


I think it's a little bit exaggerated. At least there's no concrete evidence that soldiers can't disarm. I know several people who have served in the military, killed enemy combatants abroad and came home to start a civilian life. I won't swear they don't have some firearm stored somewhere but I can tell you that these guns almost never show up.

Agreed! Yet, those same parts of the world are not willing to kick the US military out of their territory, because the latter allow them to have miniscule "defense" budgets, and the US bases in their countries transfer considerable US taxpayer money into their local economies.

So, in deeds rather than words, those nations DO want to continue to "mooch" off the American taxpayer to police their regions of the world, at a profit rather than expense to the former. 

The point is, it's absurd to expect real "gun-free zones" in a war nation with the biggest military-industrial complex in the world.

I did.
http://defensedistributed.com/

A predisposition to lethal violence is not something to be proud of, and the world does not need or want America to be its police force.

I think you don't see the big picture either. America has been a war nation for a century, which continues to be the biggest arms exporter in the world, and continues to provide free defense capabilities for most of Europe and much of the Far East.

Without its willingness to resort to violence on behalf of others, your country and most of Europe would probably still be provinces of the Third Reich, and most of the Far East a part of the Japanese Empire. More recently NATO (which really means US military) interventions in places like Serbia and Libya would not have been possible without American support and propensity for solutions through superior firepower...

That kind of willingness to go to war cannot come from a relatively pacifist society like yours. American populace has always been relatively well-armed.

Europeans and other critics of American gun culture can't have their cake and eat it too; they can't expect American soldiers to go conduct violence in other countries on behalf of Europe/NATO, and then return to their own home land and disarm to the point that they can't even protect themselves and their children in their home, local movie theater, at a school. It's too much of a mindset change for rational citizens and soldiers of a warrior nation to make.

What i mean about the American way with guns was best said by some Texas businessman/politician; i can't find the exact quote, but it was something to the effect that "When I was a kid in Texas, all the kids had guns. We just didn't bring them to school!"

No I didn't. Maybe that's because 3D printers use plastic for printing that would blow up in the hands of a criminal. You can use them to make some parts of a weapon, not the whole weapon (look it up).
Anyway it's not a problem you seem to have currently and until somebody manages to print a real usable gun (including bullets by the way...) you may want to concentrate on what is used to kill people today.

Doesn't seem to work that way in other modern civilized countries, what is the difference in the US exactly? Until we understand that I'm afraid there is no solution and you'll have to endure (assuming you live in the US) and we'll have to witness your suffering and offer our condolences without understanding how those things happen to you.

In a rational society, killing your attacker would be, while acceptable, not an optimal solution. Hard to extract restitution from a corpse, and of course, now the only worth he has to society at large is as fertilizer. Non-lethal options are also less likely to result in counter-claims from family and friends. But as in all things, encouraging the result you want, rather than forcing it, is preferable in that it gets people to voluntarily accept that result.

Insisting that everyone have the right to bear lethal defensive options is not the same as insisting that everyone bear lethal defensive options.

Do you realize that 3D printers will allow anyone to make their own guns at home? Gun laws will not prevent this. Stricter gun laws can result in higher body counts should a shooting occur.


Welcome to the human race. What's your point?

Most people didn't own swords, for the most part only nobility, soldiers and cut-throats did. The nobility didn't either usually carry usable swords around, these were blunted swords with pricey decorations for show.

See my point above.

I don't think so. I explained my point of view in another post: guns are not only useful for defense so it's a two-edge sword (pun intended).

He also overlooks the fact that most normal people do not want to live in a society where a gun need be carried around. Who actually wants to have a pistol on them all the time?

You're bragging that nobody got shot at your Thanksgiving holiday? That's something to get excited about?

Guns are not the only way to defend yourself. The problem with guns is that they can be used both for offense and defense with lethal consequences. Here's another way of thinking about this subject.
There are different levels of destructive powers available to people. From a simple fist to a nuclear bomb.

If you bring the argument that forbidding a kind of weapon to someone makes him/her an easy target to criminals that will find a mean to get such a weapon, do you support the right of any citizen to own a tank? carry an assault riffle around?

Although a tank (or a nuclear bomb for that matter) might not be a practical defensive weapon (not easy to carry around or purely offensive in the case of a bomb), an assault riffle is certainly better to make sure a killer is quickly inoffensive while still light enough to carry around.

If you don't want to allow citizens the advantage of an assault riffle vs a handgun, why would you allow handguns for defense while a taser-like weapon seems (at least to me) enough for defense while non-lethal?

If you start with the principle that you live in a society that can't protect you and you must do it yourself, why do you need to allow everyone to pack offensive power instead of insisting on defensive power? If I expected the chances of being attacked above negligible, I'll wear a kevlar suit and a taser at all times instead of a gun.

That's a terrible analogy. A grenade is a offensive weapon of organized warfare for killing and maiming groups of enemy soldiers.

You could have used machetes for an example. But that's not extreme enough to suit your extremist attitude.

You know, for the entirety of the Renaissance, people ran around with swords. Not a lot of "School stabbings" or "sword rampages."

And if you think a sword wasn't designed specifically for killing, you need to think again.

You need to look at the big picture: taking the means of defense from law-abiding people only ensures that the criminal class (both of them, actually) have a disarmed, and therefore easier to plunder, target base.

Two dead. That's about average for a shooting where an armed civilian stops the shooting before it gets to the "mass shooting" level. Had she gone on a rampage, it might have taken a few seconds to determine that something was wrong - gunshots, after all, being normal for a gun range - but would she have killed dozens in that time?

The more stable and disciplined the gun-owners have to be.
Let me illustrate with an anecdote.

A few years back, I was at a Thanksgiving celebration with my girlfriend's parents. We were at their friend's house. This friend (and her parents) are avid gun owners, and her father even does a brisk side-business buying and selling firearms. While there, I noticed that the friend was wearing a pistol in a belt holster. There were numerous children running around, this was, after all, Thanksgiving. But you know what? Nobody got shot. We even took that pistol (turns out he had recently purchased it and wore it for the express purpose of showing it off to my girlfriend's father) out back and put a few rounds down-range. I'm proud to say I hit roughly where I was aiming, though we had no official target set up, so all I have to judge by is the puffs of dust that went up.