Can you print bullets ?
The hardest part about making your own bullets is getting the primers.
Topic: Guns - page 2. (Read 22194 times)
http://defensedistributed.com/
Gun control is quickly approaching an era of practial irrelvance. As copyright faced it's endgame during the last decade, centralized mass manufacturing faces it's own moment in this decade. If these designs work, new single shot weapons will be able to be produced without a machinist.
Gun control is quickly approaching an era of practial irrelvance. As copyright faced it's endgame during the last decade, centralized mass manufacturing faces it's own moment in this decade. If these designs work, new single shot weapons will be able to be produced without a machinist.
Genius.
http://defensedistributed.com/
Gun control is quickly approaching an era of practial irrelvance. As copyright faced it's endgame during the last decade, centralized mass manufacturing faces it's own moment in this decade. If these designs work, new single shot weapons will be able to be produced without a machinist.
Gun control is quickly approaching an era of practial irrelvance. As copyright faced it's endgame during the last decade, centralized mass manufacturing faces it's own moment in this decade. If these designs work, new single shot weapons will be able to be produced without a machinist.
Genius.
+1 I look forward to playing with this as soon as I get my new printer up and running here.
http://defensedistributed.com/
Gun control is quickly approaching an era of practial irrelvance. As copyright faced it's endgame during the last decade, centralized mass manufacturing faces it's own moment in this decade. If these designs work, new single shot weapons will be able to be produced without a machinist.
Gun control is quickly approaching an era of practial irrelvance. As copyright faced it's endgame during the last decade, centralized mass manufacturing faces it's own moment in this decade. If these designs work, new single shot weapons will be able to be produced without a machinist.
Genius.
http://defensedistributed.com/
Gun control is quickly approaching an era of practial irrelvance. As copyright faced it's endgame during the last decade, centralized mass manufacturing faces it's own moment in this decade. If these designs work, new single shot weapons will be able to be produced without a machinist.
Gun control is quickly approaching an era of practial irrelvance. As copyright faced it's endgame during the last decade, centralized mass manufacturing faces it's own moment in this decade. If these designs work, new single shot weapons will be able to be produced without a machinist.
What prevents me from claiming that I'm an insurance company, then licensing random people for a $2 fee?
Bankruptcy.
Sooner or later some moron is going to end up in court due to some poor decision while driving, and the first question the court is going to want to know is, "Which insurance company do you have?" and even knowing full well that he paid $2 to avoid an insurance company's costs and minimum standards, he's going to name the guy who sold him the paper. If the court can find him, he will share in the bad driver's bad day. This would simply be a cost of doing business for a real insurance company, but for some guy just printing off falsehoods on his computer printer one such event would destroy him. Anyone else with any sense isn't going to either try starting such a fake business, nor depend upon such a business. Sure, some morons are going to do this sometimes, but that's why you have an 'uninsured driver' clause in your current auto insurance, because that happens now. There is little that governments, or ancap insurance/security businesses, can do about the freeloader problem. The best that a government can do about it is put the uninsured driver in jail if they are caught, but even that is rare unless some other crime is committed, such as vehicular manslaughter or DUI.
What prevents me from claiming that I'm an insurance company, then licensing random people for a $2 fee?
Bankruptcy.
Well, you see, that paper says that they can tell the accelerator from the brake, and that you certified that. That makes you liable for the damages they cause, or at least partially. You may want to charge more than $2.
What prevents me from claiming that I'm an insurance company, then licensing random people for a $2 fee?
Bankruptcy.
What prevents me from claiming that I'm an insurance company, then licensing random people for a $2 fee?
Bankruptcy.
In my own defense, most of the time licensing in the context of gun ownership is used as the equivalent of a government permit to purchase a firearm, not an operator's permit. I, personally, don't object to the idea that governments can expect that gun owners who intend to venture armed into public spaces should be expected to pass a reasonable safety & practical shooting exam. With a few notable exceptions, such as Vermont, nearly every state that has adopted 'shall issue' citizens' concealed carry laws also compel those who seek such a permit to pass safety training, a practical shooting exam & a background check before getting such a license. The framers of the US Constitution expected an educated citizenry, including on the topic of weapons, and such a training requirement doesn't infringe upon one's right to 'keep & bear' arms under normal circumstances; so long as the requirements are not deliberately so difficult as to effectively hamper same. The data Myrkl posted about Vermont seems to support your position that a training requirement can reduce accidents, but is that because the training is effective or simply because the greater difficulty in aquiring the permit in other states filters out the less determined. Self-selection is a powerful force.
States don't need to license, a private institution can license also. Lets take cars, I believe that insurance companies would be also good private institution for licensing drivers, same as we have private institutions licensing for Series 7, GMAT, CFA, CPA, etc.
While that's true, I'm not an anarchist of any flavor. I do believe that governments are instituted for specific reasons, and one of those reasons is to promote public safety (not ensure it). At the federal level, that means maintaining a defensive military. At the local level, that means police. I do believe that, at the state level, the creation & enforcement of standards of driver education & behavior is a valid task for state governments. However, I tend to balk at the idea that a state government has much say in the same set of standards for defensive firearms use; mostly because I consider it a conflict of interests. One of the valid defensive uses of firearms is against a tyranical government, and the very existence of wide spread gun ownership tends to prevent the rise of such a government. So it's unwise to trust governments to set those standards, although that is what tends to happen. Widespread gun ownership also promotes proficiency of use of those same weapons in the event of national conflicts, and discourages the ambitions of a foreign power. One such modern example of this is how Hitler deliberately avoided Switzerland during WWII, always intending to come back around to them once the rest of Europe was conquered. Another comes to us after the fall of the Soviet Union; once their secret files were opened up, we discovered that their military did a study on the feasibility of invading & occupying US territories during the 1980's. The used the greater Chicago area as their example, and determined that it would require at least a full division just to subdue and occupy Chicago; mostly due to the number of privately owned firearms in Illinois. Thus, the Soviet Union didn't have the numbers to invade the US and expect to succeed, despite the rather large military they had at the time, which was several times the size of the total US military under Ronald Regan. They only considered legally owned firearms in the area, because the data for illegal weapons was too difficult for them to pin down, and it's not like Illinois has nearly as many legal firearms available as other states such as Texas, Kentucky or Wyoming. Nor were there any centralized registration of firearms ownership that they could rapidly pursue. All this, also despite that we now know that the Soviets managed to compromise one of our major encryption codes used to communicate with military commanders in the European theater; and therefore could have reasonablely expected to manage the US military in a conventional war. (I do not believe that the use of nuclear weapons by the US, as a last resort or otherwise, was even considered) The Soviets never screwed with US allies in Europe mostly because they had our codes there, we had field nukes there, and they knew when field officers had authorization to use them. However, they generally didn't expect that the US military would use nukes upon their own territory in a conventional war, and thus were discouraged against a Wolverines scenario, in large part, by the numbers of small arms dispursed across the United States & the generally high level of civilian experience with those same small arms.
States don't need to license, a private institution can license also. Lets take cars, I believe that insurance companies would be also good private institution for licensing drivers, same as we have private institutions licensing for Series 7, GMAT, CFA, CPA, etc.
Welcome to AnCap, brother.
In my own defense, most of the time licensing in the context of gun ownership is used as the equivalent of a government permit to purchase a firearm, not an operator's permit. I, personally, don't object to the idea that governments can expect that gun owners who intend to venture armed into public spaces should be expected to pass a reasonable safety & practical shooting exam. With a few notable exceptions, such as Vermont, nearly every state that has adopted 'shall issue' citizens' concealed carry laws also compel those who seek such a permit to pass safety training, a practical shooting exam & a background check before getting such a license. The framers of the US Constitution expected an educated citizenry, including on the topic of weapons, and such a training requirement doesn't infringe upon one's right to 'keep & bear' arms under normal circumstances; so long as the requirements are not deliberately so difficult as to effectively hamper same. The data Myrkl posted about Vermont seems to support your position that a training requirement can reduce accidents, but is that because the training is effective or simply because the greater difficulty in aquiring the permit in other states filters out the less determined. Self-selection is a powerful force.
States don't need to license, a private institution can license also. Lets take cars, I believe that insurance companies would be also good private institution for licensing drivers, same as we have private institutions licensing for Series 7, GMAT, CFA, CPA, etc.
I find myrkul's data suitable enough (though there may be more firearm accidents e.g. child shot self in foot than car *off* accidents such as child climbed into trunk). Cars are pretty dangerous. They are huge and sometimes explode. They careen through the streets and can exert forces of 300 times gravity's pull in a head-on collision. For reference, astronauts have to train extensively to withstand 7 G's. Meanwhile guns don't get shot very often.
What I have yet to concede is licensing.
Who suggested such a thing? I have a permit for my firearm, and I had to take classes in both the legal ramifications as well as a practical shooting test. Are you saying that I cannot, as a father of children who own firearms & with a military background, teach my children to handle weapons responsiblely? Do I need a piece of paper issued by some government agency that says I know how to teach my own children to act safely? I'll be the one to teach them how to drive, the driver's test is the only part that a government agent is involved. Does the idea that such a government training course might exist make you feel better?
http://appleseedinfo.org/
Actually, you can probably teach them to handle guns just fine. You're also not a bad driving instructor, most likely. Licensing != training. Licensing is where you prove that you have had adequate training.
A parent can teach a child how to drive. Once the child has received adequate training, the child goes off and proves that they are suitably experienced and less likely to kill other people in a car accident. Voila, the child is now a legal car driver.
A parent can teach a child how to properly handle guns. Once the child has received adequate training, the child goes off and proves that they are suitably experienced and less likely to kill other people in firearm accidents. Voila, the child is now a legal gun carrier and can enjoy all the benefits of self defense yada yada.
In some fields, including driver education, the training course can optionally be provided by a private organization which is in turn certified by the gov't. That's cool too. Competition and all that, etc.
--------
Certainly, criminals can get guns illegally. Cars too. I hope, however, that the majority of car-owners own them legally; same goes for guns. Therefore, I'd prefer that the majority of car-owners (the legal ones) be suitably educated in not killing people; same goes for guns. Most people I know have no problem with needing to carry a driver's license.
What I have yet to concede is licensing.
Quote
Who suggested such a thing? I have a permit for my firearm, and I had to take classes in both the legal ramifications as well as a practical shooting test. Are you saying that I cannot, as a father of children who own firearms & with a military background, teach my children to handle weapons responsiblely? Do I need a piece of paper issued by some government agency that says I know how to teach my own children to act safely? I'll be the one to teach them how to drive, the driver's test is the only part that a government agent is involved. Does the idea that such a government training course might exist make you feel better?
http://appleseedinfo.org/
A parent can teach a child how to drive. Once the child has received adequate training, the child goes off and proves that they are suitably experienced and less likely to kill other people in a car accident. Voila, the child is now a legal car driver.
A parent can teach a child how to properly handle guns. Once the child has received adequate training, the child goes off and proves that they are suitably experienced and less likely to kill other people in firearm accidents. Voila, the child is now a legal gun carrier and can enjoy all the benefits of self defense yada yada.
In some fields, including driver education, the training course can optionally be provided by a private organization which is in turn certified by the gov't. That's cool too. Competition and all that, etc.
--------
Certainly, criminals can get guns illegally. Cars too. I hope, however, that the majority of car-owners own them legally; same goes for guns. Therefore, I'd prefer that the majority of car-owners (the legal ones) be suitably educated in not killing people; same goes for guns. Most people I know have no problem with needing to carry a driver's license.
In my own defense, most of the time licensing in the context of gun ownership is used as the equivalent of a government permit to purchase a firearm, not an operator's permit. I, personally, don't object to the idea that governments can expect that gun owners who intend to venture armed into public spaces should be expected to pass a reasonable safety & practical shooting exam. With a few notable exceptions, such as Vermont, nearly every state that has adopted 'shall issue' citizens' concealed carry laws also compel those who seek such a permit to pass safety training, a practical shooting exam & a background check before getting such a license. The framers of the US Constitution expected an educated citizenry, including on the topic of weapons, and such a training requirement doesn't infringe upon one's right to 'keep & bear' arms under normal circumstances; so long as the requirements are not deliberately so difficult as to effectively hamper same. The data Myrkl posted about Vermont seems to support your position that a training requirement can reduce accidents, but is that because the training is effective or simply because the greater difficulty in aquiring the permit in other states filters out the less determined. Self-selection is a powerful force.
If licensing was statistically significant, we would expect to see increased accidents in Vermont, where there is no licensing requirement to own or purchase a firearm.
Let's see if we do:
Well in 1996, it was 5 accidents. That puts it at .91, higher than the national average for that year (.47), but still an order of magnitude lower than vehicular accidents.
I'd say, arguably, licensing (or at least certification) does reduce accidents. Anyone know if Vermont has voluntary certification, or if any state does?
Let's see if we do:
Well in 1996, it was 5 accidents. That puts it at .91, higher than the national average for that year (.47), but still an order of magnitude lower than vehicular accidents.
I'd say, arguably, licensing (or at least certification) does reduce accidents. Anyone know if Vermont has voluntary certification, or if any state does?
I find myrkul's data suitable enough (though there may be more firearm accidents e.g. child shot self in foot than car *off* accidents such as child climbed into trunk). Cars are pretty dangerous. They are huge and sometimes explode. They careen through the streets and can exert forces of 300 times gravity's pull in a head-on collision. For reference, astronauts have to train extensively to withstand 7 G's. Meanwhile guns don't get shot very often.
What I have yet to concede is licensing.
If mandatory licensing for vehicles was removed, there would be more automotive deaths. Parents would think their 12 year old Jimmy is mature enough to drive on the highway. People would forego education, etc. Additionally, mandatory seatbelts seem to have worked wonders. Graduated licenses have also worked wonders. I feel more confident on the roads of New York State knowing that the legal operators of vehicles have received or are receiving many hours of supervised driving instruction time.
Who suggested such a thing? I have a permit for my firearm, and I had to take classes in both the legal ramifications as well as a practical shooting test. Are you saying that I cannot, as a father of children who own firearms & with a military background, teach my children to handle weapons responsiblely? Do I need a piece of paper issued by some government agency that says I know how to teach my own children to act safely? I'll be the one to teach them how to drive, the driver's test is the only part that a government agent is involved. Does the idea that such a government training course might exist make you feel better?
http://appleseedinfo.org/
Actually, you can probably teach them to handle guns just fine. You're also not a bad driving instructor, most likely. Licensing != training. Licensing is where you prove that you have had adequate training.
A parent can teach a child how to drive. Once the child has received adequate training, the child goes off and proves that they are suitably experienced and less likely to kill other people in a car accident. Voila, the child is now a legal car driver.
A parent can teach a child how to properly handle guns. Once the child has received adequate training, the child goes off and proves that they are suitably experienced and less likely to kill other people in firearm accidents. Voila, the child is now a legal gun carrier and can enjoy all the benefits of self defense yada yada.
In some fields, including driver education, the training course can optionally be provided by a private organization which is in turn certified by the gov't. That's cool too. Competition and all that, etc.
--------
Certainly, criminals can get guns illegally. Cars too. I hope, however, that the majority of car-owners own them legally; same goes for guns. Therefore, I'd prefer that the majority of car-owners (the legal ones) be suitably educated in not killing people; same goes for guns. Most people I know have no problem with needing to carry a driver's license.
What I have yet to concede is licensing.
If mandatory licensing for vehicles was removed, there would be more automotive deaths. Parents would think their 12 year old Jimmy is mature enough to drive on the highway. People would forego education, etc. Additionally, mandatory seatbelts seem to have worked wonders. Graduated licenses have also worked wonders. I feel more confident on the roads of New York State knowing that the legal operators of vehicles have received or are receiving many hours of supervised driving instruction time.
Then I must concede that, in general, cars are more dangerous than guns. I have yet to concede that removal of mandatory licensing for automobiles would lower the accident rate.
Who suggested such a thing? I have a permit for my firearm, and I had to take classes in both the legal ramifications as well as a practical shooting test. Are you saying that I cannot, as a father of children who own firearms & with a military background, teach my children to handle weapons responsiblely? Do I need a piece of paper issued by some government agency that says I know how to teach my own children to act safely? I'll be the one to teach them how to drive, the driver's test is the only part that a government agent is involved. Does the idea that such a government training course might exist make you feel better?
http://appleseedinfo.org/
A parent can teach a child how to drive. Once the child has received adequate training, the child goes off and proves that they are suitably experienced and less likely to kill other people in a car accident. Voila, the child is now a legal car driver.
A parent can teach a child how to properly handle guns. Once the child has received adequate training, the child goes off and proves that they are suitably experienced and less likely to kill other people in firearm accidents. Voila, the child is now a legal gun carrier and can enjoy all the benefits of self defense yada yada.
In some fields, including driver education, the training course can optionally be provided by a private organization which is in turn certified by the gov't. That's cool too. Competition and all that, etc.
--------
Certainly, criminals can get guns illegally. Cars too. I hope, however, that the majority of car-owners own them legally; same goes for guns. Therefore, I'd prefer that the majority of car-owners (the legal ones) be suitably educated in not killing people; same goes for guns. Most people I know have no problem with needing to carry a driver's license.
Quote
...In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.
Quoted for truth.
Here's an interesting study....
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
...notablely by the CDC, which is openly anti-gun. I'll quote some highlights...
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
...notablely by the CDC, which is openly anti-gun. I'll quote some highlights...
Quote
... Results of studies of firearms and ammunition bans were inconsistent: certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, and others indicated increases....
...Approximately 689,000 applications to acquire a firearm (2.3% of 30 million applications) were denied under the Brady Law from its first implementation in 1994 through 2000 (25); the majority of denials were based on the applicant's criminal history. However, denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means.
Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases...
...Waiting periods have been established by the federal government and by states to allow time to check the applicant's background or to provide a "cooling-off" period for persons at risk of committing suicide or impulsive acts against others. Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase....
...Licensing and registration requirements are often combined with other firearms regulations, such as safety training or safe storage requirements. Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent...
...Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes...
...The most recent study, which included the most recent states to pass CAP (Child Access Prevention) laws and had the longest follow-up time, indicated that the apparent reduction in unintentional firearm deaths associated with CAP laws that carry felony sanctions was statistically significant only in Florida and not in California or Connecticut...
...
The study reported that schools with and without metal detectors did not differ in rates of threatening, fights, or carrying of firearms outside of school, but the rate of carrying firearms to, from, or in schools with detection programs was half that of schools without such programs. The effectiveness of zero tolerance laws in preventing violence cannot be assessed because appropriate evidence was not available. A further concern is that "street" expulsion might result in increased violence and other problems among expelled students...
...On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects. Moreover, as conducted, index studies, even if consistent, would not allow specification of which laws to implement...
...In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.
...Approximately 689,000 applications to acquire a firearm (2.3% of 30 million applications) were denied under the Brady Law from its first implementation in 1994 through 2000 (25); the majority of denials were based on the applicant's criminal history. However, denial of an application does not always stop applicants from acquiring firearms through other means.
Overall, evaluations of the effects of acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced inconsistent findings: some studies indicated decreases in violence associated with restrictions, and others indicated increases...
...Waiting periods have been established by the federal government and by states to allow time to check the applicant's background or to provide a "cooling-off" period for persons at risk of committing suicide or impulsive acts against others. Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase....
...Licensing and registration requirements are often combined with other firearms regulations, such as safety training or safe storage requirements. Only four studies examined the effects of registration and licensing on violent outcomes; the findings were inconsistent...
...Therefore, evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of shall issue laws on violent outcomes...
...The most recent study, which included the most recent states to pass CAP (Child Access Prevention) laws and had the longest follow-up time, indicated that the apparent reduction in unintentional firearm deaths associated with CAP laws that carry felony sanctions was statistically significant only in Florida and not in California or Connecticut...
...
The study reported that schools with and without metal detectors did not differ in rates of threatening, fights, or carrying of firearms outside of school, but the rate of carrying firearms to, from, or in schools with detection programs was half that of schools without such programs. The effectiveness of zero tolerance laws in preventing violence cannot be assessed because appropriate evidence was not available. A further concern is that "street" expulsion might result in increased violence and other problems among expelled students...
...On the basis of national law assessments (the Gun Control Act of 1968 in the United States and the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1977 in Canada), international comparisons (between the United States and Canada), and index studies (all conducted within the United States), available evidence was insufficient to determine whether the degree of firearms regulation was associated with decreased (or increased) violence. The findings were inconsistent and most studies were methodologically inadequate to allow conclusions about causal effects. Moreover, as conducted, index studies, even if consistent, would not allow specification of which laws to implement...
...In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.
Does an automobile with its ignition on equate to a loaded and cocked gun? What are the hours for automobiles with their ignitions turned on vs. the hours in which a gun is loaded and cocked? Presumably, under both conditions, the device is being operated and providing utility.
Please redo your equations factoring in the above.
Why would it need to be cocked? I would presume that a cop's sidearm is providing it's utility by simply being availble for use, and it's not normal for a cop to be patroling with his weapon 'cocked' or otherwise in any condition than loaded with the safety on. (assuming there is a safety, as a handgun without a safety is only legal for police to own, and there are such police districts) My (loaded with safety on, no round in chamber, not 'cocked') handgun inside my biometric safe near my bed is providing my family utility while I sleep; once again simply for being available in short order. In many ways, gun ownership with the goal of self-defense is insurance; and thus is performing it's primary function of risk reduction even when not directly in use.
Jump to: