Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 182. (Read 450471 times)

Now you don't know what you are talking about, again.

There is no fantasy, your idea of "affordable" does not apply to others, and your idea of "suitable" isn't exact that of an engineer.

I would suggest you separate the issue of 3d printers from your personal desires to see guns lowered in quantity.  Because the arguments you use show little knowledge of these technologies.  Here is an example.

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/atlas-314-3-d-printed-guns-bullets/

What is done is to take the limitations of a material in tension-compression, heat resistance, etc, then design a solution.    I've made things with CNC subtractive mills and lathes, and with 3d additive equipment, and have little desire to discuss these matters with close minded tards.  Have a nice day.

In Colorado, legal marijuana has significantly increased the volume of black market marijuana transactions within the state, and people still buy from Steve down the street because he's far cheaper and more convenient than buying it at a shop.  Why do you suppose it would be any different with firearms if, for example, Steve owns a sintered metal 3d printer?

Yes, you are just repeating yourself. We keep giving you direct evidence why your premise is flawed but you just keep going like some kind of true believer parrot that thinks they can talk over reality and make it change. The extra risk itself provides extra profit. This is the same reason a gram of cocaine is practically worthless in Colombia, but by the time it gets to the US it is worth about $150. More risk = more cost = more profit, which more than makes up for any undercutting. Do you even have any basic concept of how supply and demand works? Supply goes down, price goes up, profit goes up, supply goes up, repeat.



You are just pulling those numbers out of your ass. You have zero concept of how supply and demand works. Take an economics class. What you said is completely moronic and contrived to fit your viewpoint. Cartels don't have that much risk, because they can afford to pay mules to do that for them.


Actually we did provide evidence, which you promptly ignored in order to move on with your mindless bias ranting.
Here it is again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiHdV5slQps
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8FL_vgb01M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEJt_ujJWVA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElgTP3c-XcQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPWU3TcJ7zU

Making guns at home is quite practical, economical, and a lot easier than you think.


The point is criminals don't pay taxes. If they don't pay taxes, and they make their own weapons, then your entire strategy of using taxation as a method of restriction is completely useless, because they can make as many weapons as they want, and there will be ZERO paperwork tracking them as opposed to some. It is a pretty simple concept that seems lost on you.


Yeah, we get it, you said it already like 3 times, and we have replied that your plan is worse than useless and why.
How the fuck do you enforce taxes on something someone can make in their home out of a block of metal on a $1000 machine? You aren't just playing dumb...

Tax free? Utopia? What? Now you are just being like a refractory 5 year old and repeating my own words back to me. You are also projecting. Your confirmation bias is dribbling all over the page attacking my "ideology" because I point out how your premises are logically flawed. Do you even know what the word utopian means? I will give you a hint, it is not a world with so much crime that you need a firearm to protect yourself and your family.

How do you force criminals that make their own weapons to pay taxes? Also even assuming no one can make their own weapons, how do you stop them from smuggling weapons from other countries? The existence of alternatives DOES matter, because they will simply choose the path of least resistance. THEY ARE FUCKING CRIMINALS. CRIMINALS DO NOT PAY TAXES. Are you really that dense?

The only people that taxes will restrict are LAW ABIDING gun owners. The real world... that's funny considering you are trying to make the real world fit your ideology in contradiction of logic, economics, or any form of common sense. Speaking of which, WHICH SOCIALIST HELLHOLE DO YOU RESIDE IN?


Yes, you did.


Having trouble keeping up with your own bullshit are you? BTW, it doesn't costs thousands, and they are exactly the same durability and general quality as commercially produced firearms, and can be produced with little skill, currently even cheaper than commercially produced units.



There you go again using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. Either that or you are so pissed off about the ideas of libertarianism that you can't see past your own bias and realize the fact that even IF we did support your idiotic taxing scheme, it still would be no more effective in reality, because criminals just don't pay taxes. It is a pretty simple concept. Unless you can control the actual manufacture of the weapons (you can't) your scheme is completely worthless.

Prisoners are convicted criminals. Are you equating the poor with convicted criminals? Speaking of worlds we live in... WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE?

Yeah, you are right... people certainly don't have a need to not be raped, beaten, and killed, it is just something they want and could go without.



Me pointing out poor people being defenseless in high crime areas is pretty much the opposite of utopian, but don't bother using words according to their definition, you can just pretend they mean whatever you want. Speaking of hypocrites, WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE YOU FUCKING COWARD? Afraid we might find flaws in your own homeland? No, of course not, because you don't even have the balls to tell us what country you live in. Of course the whole world should fit under the rubric of your most likely tiny, socialist, homogenous western European nation. Its easy to talk like there is no crime when your country isn't accepting millions of illegal immigrants raising the crime rates.

P.S. Learn to use the quoting system properly you lazy fuck. I don't think I could live with myself if some one mistook your words for mine.

But maybe "some" restrictions on guns help to maximise overall freedom?

Simple risk analysis:
the competence of a neighbour is unknown, whereas the "professional" label gives us information, making us more confident about they can and can't do. They might be trained in various ways, like knowing how to properly handle guns, or avoiding escalation of conflicts. By default we know a lot less about the neighbour, unless of of course they're someone you spend time getting to know personally. So the neighbour is a higher risk for accidents or other dangerous situations.

I don't have all the answers. Obviously when the game is sudden death, you're going to use whatever ace you have up your sleeve. A cop's not going to take chances when so many people are lethally armed. This goes back to my point about reducing the over-availability of weapons in society.

No-one ever expects policemen to be smaller, less physically fit , and to drive around in slower cars than the average person in society. They'd never get their job done. So to be fair, why should they be less armed? Or barely breaking even? They have to stay ahead, so they're kind-of a litmus test for how bad things are in society.

Where did I say "for your own use"? You just made that up on the spot, totally ignoring the above discussion that clearly talks about manufacturing and selling.


Yeah because everyone is going to spend THOUSANDS in order save HUNDREDS, and each wannabe gun owner is going to mess around with their own individual DIY manufacturing. Guns in shops could be micro-chipped. Can't take that risk! I doubt that even most gun owners in the US are as fanatical and paranoid as you obviously are.

And that's ignoring the obvious problem that most 3d printers are designed for prototyping with shitty THERMOPLASTICS. Great! You're gonna make an ergonomic handle for your non-existent gun. And then you'll spend the next couple of years paying it off by selling 3d-printed crafts on Etsy.

Just because 3d metal printers EXIST, it does not mean they'll be affordable any time soon, or that the metal parts are by any means suitable for real-world usage. What part of "prototyping" do you not understand? You've latched onto this 3d printing fantasy, but it's just bullshit.

Next stop: an epidemic of Libertarians in hospitals with missing limbs due to faulty weapons.

What the hell are you talking about?  There is nothing illegal about manufacturing firearms for your own use in the USA.

You appear to be creating some sort of black market manufacturer of firearms to serve as a straw man argument - in a hypothetical scenario where tax regulations have some "good effect."

It's common knowledge that 3d printers subvert the legal principles on which gun ownership, registration and tracking are based.  Only you seems to not understand or accept that.

Keep the rationalisations coming, guys! Give us more reasons why your country can't/shouldn't be made safer!

I was talking about individual items on sale being subjected to sales tax. VAT and GST and has been tried and tested, and it works extremely well all around the world. You're just playing dumb because you're ideologically opposed to the idea. Tax-free utopia and all that shit. Welcome to the real world.

I never said there was.

Gimme a fucking break. You're so blinded by your utopian Libertarian ideals, that you've constructed an entire fantasy world in your head where everything works differently and black is white.

Why not start giving prisoners their own guns to defend themselves against their fellow inmates? If that sounds ridiculous, then why the hell should an "open air prison" be any different?

Want versus need. Learn the difference.


hypocrite^^[/list]

Now I'm just repeating myself...
It doesn't matter if it can be done, the market price will be dictated by the main suppliers, who will comply with tax regulations in order to stay legal.
Therefore your price would either be undercutting the market, which would be stupid, or it would get bumped up, giving you extra profit per unit. However, extra profit per unit means extra risk, as I already mentioned.

For example:
a black market producer makes $50k worth guns or gun parts per month, for their ring or their paying customers or whatever. Meanwhile, a new tax is applied on the legal market, significantly affecting the price. The black market producer now has a serious problem:
The same quantity is now worth $1M.
It's a completely different "tax bracket", making them a much more appealing target in the eyes of both law enforcement who would do more chasing, and the courts, which would now impose bigger penalties.
Therefore, to reduce their risk exposure, the obvious thing to do would be either produce less to get back to the original $50k plan, or invest in more expensive security/tactics/bookkeeping, and hope that they don't get caught while they're out of their league.

The problem applies whether it's one guy in his garage doing cash jobs on the side, or an extensive crime syndicate.

Why retro? You provided zero evidence that it was practical or competitive. It's like you're telling me that I can make colour printouts from my B&W laser printer, just by purchasing 3 different toner cartridges, swapping them out and manually turning the paper upside down and placing it on the in-tray. "It can be done!"

http://www.political-humor.org/the-police-should-be-here-any-minute-until-then-lets-talk-about-jesus.shtml

No, gun control laws are not constitutional. We have a right in the Bill of Rights to carry arms. We should be allowed to take the gun with us into any place we wish. Unfortunately, guns falling into the wrong hands makes the government happy because they can take guns away as much as possible and charge outrageous fees on anything that is left.

I do not think gun laws are needed that much. Just maybe a better screening system. I am not sure how these kids with a huge mental history, going to doctors and shrinks for years and having issues in the past, are getting guns though. My husband was in a fight with someone once over ten years ago, and the last time he tried to get a gun to go hunting with his family in Minnesota, it took like a month to complete and verify is background. Apparently he was an exception or some people are not following the right procedures.

I do not think we need to punish the people who are following the rules though. We have a right in the constitution to have a gun. But of course, we really don’t seem to follow the constitution any longer.

Well, ya.

There have been some sincere posts on this forum from people in (day to day) peaceful places that could not imagine why people would want firearms and why governments would allow them to have them.

I do not think they err in what they say about where they live.  I do think they err in extending that to a global truth.

And it's ridiculous.  NOBODY is going to say the average man or woman in Alaska shouldn't have firearms. 

I've been about ten feet from a bear in New Mexico and didn't exactly feel too great about it.  A great many people have firearms and never dream of point them at a human being.

I still want to know what utopian lands he resides in.

1a)  I agree, where there are guns, there is more potential for pain regardless of who has them.

1b)  Where there are restrictions on freedom, there is more potential for rebellion.

2)  Believing that a professional will necessarily act professionally is just as absurd as thinking that a non-professional will necessarily act unprofessionally.

3a)  Why do soldiers take 2nd and 3rd tours when their experience includes the suffering of war?  Why do police use guns to combat not only gun violence, but violence from knives, bats, cars, fists, etc.?  Why do professionals in governments around the world continue to commence wars despite the countless millions who have died in past ones?  

3b)  Violence and wars stem from a self vs. other paradigm.  People identify with that with which they are familiar, and have fear/uncertainty/doubt about that with which they are not familiar.  The minute you start splitting people up into groups like "professionals" vs. "non-professionals" or "cops" vs. "citizens" or "government" vs. "populous" and give one side more rights than others, you're going to get problems.  Bottom line, people are people, and there is absolutely zero concrete basis upon which to conclude that a so-called "professional" has any more or less ethical aptitude in applying use of their freedoms.  Maybe it's the use of the word "professional" that prohibits one from recognizing this, because it leads one to falsely assume that the person necessarily matches the description.

3c)  The bell curve is present everywhere.  You will always have a few crazy people, both in the general population and in the "professional" population, who will do some pretty horrible things.  But in general, most people professional-or-not will be just fine if they have a gun.

4)  There is a general set of personality characteristics applicable to those who become police or soldiers.  These people are more likely to want to be in charge, to want to apply authority over others, and to apply it forcefully if necessary.   In other words, there is a greater likelihood that this group of people granted with unequal power will perpetuate and make it known this inequality.  If you deduce this is a good thing because you axiomatically believe anyone called a professional will act professionally, therein lies the problem.  In the USA, it's estimated over 1,000 civilians (whether criminals or not) are killed by law enforcement annually.  If there were as many law enforcement officers as there are US civilians and we extrapolate the kill rate linearly, there would be over 300,000 kills committed annually by law enforcement, far surpassing the number committed by the general population.  Sure, you can explain this disproportionate number by pointing to the fact that a large number of those killed provoked it in some way.  Or, maybe it's also a symptom of a larger problem in which many criminals become criminals as a result of living in a society in which some groups have disproportionate rights and authority, the byproducts of which trickle down into virtually all aspects of societal interaction.

Bullshit. It IS already economically viable to make your own guns. If you taxed all of the machinery to make guns, you would be making EVERYTHING more expensive because these basic tools are used to make all kinds of legal parts we need to keep society running, and you STILL wouldn't stop it from happening.



Bullshit. There is fundamentally no difference between a receiver milled at home and a professionally produced one. Additionally by ridding the markets of the cheapest weapons, you deny the segment of the population at most risk the ability to defend themselves, the poor. The poor are the ones that live in high crime areas, and that are most likely to need a firearm to protect themselves. Of course you don't give a shit about any of that as long as your utopian ideologies are satiated.



You assume that there are manufacturing jobs just sitting waiting for these people. There are not. Additionally not all crime is a result of poverty, some times people just lose their fucking minds.



Temporary? You are completely ignorant of economics. A permanent added cost isn't some how magically not as expensive over time. It will always be more expensive, thus there will be MORE incentive to buy from underground sources, and the supply of illegal weapons will only increase.



Again, you are completely ignorant of reality. Do you think these kingpins give a shit if a handful of their mules go to prison? They don't. If the money is there there will ALWAYS be an ENDLESS SUPPLY of people willing to break the law, and the more you enforce the law, the more they can charge for the weapons, increasing profits and motivation for supplying more weapons. Remember how well the drug war worked? There is functionally no difference between a restriction and a ban if there is economic incentive to violate it.



Half baked excuses? How about your half baked gun control idea like above. It is obvious you haven't spent more than a few minutes examining the subject otherwise you would realize all of your strategies are completely flawed and would only increase incentives for trafficking illegal weapons. You claim we are just making excuses to not have gun regulations that make us safer, but what we are saying is these gun regulations will make us LESS SAFE. Where do you get off putting us in danger to test your little half baked social experiments?



Speaking of terrorists, you are 55 times more likely to be killed by police than a terrorist.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/youre-55-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-police-officer-than-a-terrorist/5434934

You are right though, it is just some voodoo belief that we would ever need to defend ourselves against our kind, loving, benevolent government. Because after all the government is not composed of people, people who are just as able as being criminal as anyone else. Also anyone with an IQ of 70 knows that you have an epiphany, you don't make them.

The first act of every tyrant and dictator is ALWAYS finding a way to disarm the population to put them in a position where they can not resist abuse and the disposal of rule of law. Freedom is not a partisan issue. Just because you live in some fairy tail land where genocide and mass murder is erased from your mind does not mean the rest of the world is so naive. Speaking of which... WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU LIVE? Only a coward criticizes others while hiding details about themselves so as to avoid criticism. It is easy to point out all the flaws of others from a dark corner where no one can make the same critical examination of you and your culture.

You are the worst case of confirmation bias I have come across in a very long time. You take an idea you have concluded upon, then you attempt to make your argument fit around your premise. The rest of the educated world studies the premises to find which one has facts supporting it, THEN makes a conclusion. You are in a constant fight to try to make reality fit your world view. Sorry, but that is not how it works. Can you make that epiphany?

NO, you have "debunked" nothing whatsoever.  I have extensive experience with CNC and 3d printers, and I will assure you that production of certain firearms by amateurs is plausible, is happening, and is impossible to stop.   Therefore you have a sort of "retro" gun control argument, not one that is oriented toward the world we are moving into.

Further, you show ignorance of basic issues such as "what is a firearm?" 

Is it the barrel?  The trigger?   What is it, exactly, that you think by banishing from the world or decreasing in quantity, the world will suddenly become a better place?

Challenge accepted. Regardless of intellect, reasoning, or political/religious beliefs, their life experience will provide them with one simple fact that Pavlov could have tested on his dogs:


Anyone with an IQ of 70 can make that epiphany. Or even if they don't 'think' it, they still have the correct biological reaction with a bit of adrenaline or fear to help them prepare for violence upon having a weapon come into view. Neighbours are far more likely to be foolish, naive, or stupid and irresponsible, compared to any professional who has actually seen or experienced suffering in conjunction with guns.

Don't tell me you're another paranoid type who has fallen for that partisan nonsense about the population versus the government? Blue team versus Red team? Freedom lovers versus bureaucrats? Come on, I thought you were smarter than that. Wait for the late harvest, more CBD, less paranoia, or so they say.

And are those teenage science projects responsible for most of the social problems like murder and other gun-related deaths? Gimme a break. I dunno why I'm even bothering when you don't even have enough respect to reply to the points I've made.

Not viable. I've debunked it above, so if you don't have anything new to add, I'll take it that I've won that point hands down.


The biggest impediment I'm seeing is this:
Gun proponents keep coming up with half-baked excuses as to why society can't be made safer, why tax won't work, why you shouldn't even try, and dismissing vital social concerns like countless murders, deaths and injuries...

And all for what? For selfish reasons like a personal desire for cheap, tax-free toys. Or your cultural Voodoo about "potentially defending yourself" against your flesh-and-blood peers in the government sector.

Are you seriously suggesting that your Voodoo beliefs are more important than deaths that could even affect you or your family? That's utterly delusional. And selfish like I already mentioned several times.