.

[Randox]

Hmm, that one is my mistake for misreading. That's a 95% survival rate if your heart is still beating when you hit the operating table in the ER. That wasn't speaking to the greater survival rate. 15-20% fatality sounds about right overall now that I think about it, since that would be in line with the portion of your body where being hit with a bullet tends to be fatal, now that I have done a bit more looking around while not sleepy.

 

Bernice, thanks for that summary as well.

[sees_all1]

1st handgun made from a 3d printer, out of ABS plastic:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/wiki-weapons-fires-first-100-3d-printed-handgun/

[Omar]

Wow, that was pretty quick. How many shots does it sustain so far?

[Randox]

Just a couple of points, from a purely observational point.

 

First off, that's actually pretty cool that someone figured out how to do that. I do admire the creativity. I am impressed.

 

Second, the barrel isn't rifled (I assume), which makes it quite inaccurate. I look forward to seeing what they can do with this past the proof of concept stage.

 

Such a weapon would be useful in a small confined space, such as an airplane, where it has the edge of being able to get through a metal detector (the firing pin would be a breeze to hide in something else).

 

Can you say pat down by the TSA? I do also hope that the irony of this situation is not lost on other people.

[sees_all1]

Second, the barrel isn't rifled (I assume), which makes it quite inaccurate. I look forward to seeing what they can do with this past the proof of concept stage.

Since it's printed, I wouldn't think rifling would be too much of a challenge. They might have been concerned with the forces involved and left that to a later prototype.

 

I'd also think you'd have a hard time smuggling a bullet through a metal detector. Certainly other materials could be used instead of lead, but you're getting into more customization that is more involved than 3d printing.

[Randox]

That's a fair point about the bullet, though not an insurmountable problem. Not a thought experiment I really want to walk through on a public forum though, because I plan on getting on an aircraft again in the future.

[Ember]

.

[Ember]

.

[Jonanananas]

I'm somewhat torn on gun control. On the one hand, I think it's better for a society not to have access to a lot of guns, and I'm happy in that respect that I live in Germany and not the USA...but I'm not sure how effective legislation there would be. First of all, you have the problem that a lot of guns are already in circulation, so it would take a long time to get rid of those. Gun culture is also way different, and you have to wonder how much laws are going to do under those circumstances. I can't see the problem with banning assault rifles or large magazines though.

 

I also think people need to be realistic about what gun laws might possibly improve. Laws won't keep criminals from using guns. However, what it might improve are e.g. escalated arguments in a family - if things get out of hand, chances of survival are far higher if you're being attacked with a knife instead of a gun. It also won't prevent shootings, but it might help lessen the damage. Of the last 6 recent attacks, one was commited without firearms (No one died) and two other shooters probably wouldn't have had access to guns if the laws had been followed (One got the guns from the unlocked safe of his dad, the other was a legal owner, but tricked on some of the requirements in a way which the authorities should have noticed)

 

As said, shootings and other crimes aren't going to be prevented, but the number of casualties might be reduced, and if that's possible without really having an impact on normal people, I think that's good.

[Quyneax]

Removing guns will reduce deaths by homicide and accidents.

 

It's pretty hard to kill someone with your bare hands. Even with a baseball bat or knife, you still have to be pretty thorough, one swing or stab doesn't usually do the trick (this is why we have ribs and such, and people can throw up their arms and curl up into a ball etc.). Lots of things are only survivable because of health care and ambulance service, of course.

 

Now with guns, one shot can do a lot more damage than a knife stab or baseball swing, it takes less effort to attack, you can attack more often per unit of time, you can do it more 'impersonally' (makes it easier psychologically, don't have to get up close), you can't be interrupted as easily by your target and your target can't protect themselves so well. Basically, guns are a major upgrade to your arsenal, and they make it much, much easier to kill people.

 

I don't see how making it easy to kill people is a good thing. Just like I don't see why killing people is a good thing. If you accept that killing people is bad, how do you prefer making it easy to kill people?

[Omar]

https://docs.google....qijaJWud3E/edit

 

On the other hand, it is not so widely known that when criminal aggressors possess guns in a crime incident, they are substantially less likely to attack and injure their victims in the first place. At least nineteen studies have found that offenders possessing guns are less likely to injure their victims than offenders with other weapons or no weapons. The explanation appears to be that possession of a lethal weapon enables aggressors to intimidate victims without actually attacking them, in crimes where the offender’s goal is not to kill the victim. Since a killing cannot occur if a wound is not inflicted, this is a fatality-reducing effect of aggressor gun possession. Thus, even gun possession by aggressors has some inadvertently violence-reducing effects, along with the violence-increasing ‘lethality effect.’ Nevertheless, the net effect of offender gun possession is that it increases the likelihood that a violent crime will result in the death of the victim.

I imagine "violent crime" involves use of force (as opposed to simple threat). Moreover, the proliferation of guns does not necessarily mean crime will increase. As I explained to Smelly Paws, you don't want to remove guns, since you want the state to have them. This seems evidence enough to me that guns don't always lead to homicide. It depends whose hands they're in. Guns also make it much easier to defend yourself for reasons you've already explained, especially if your opponent has a physical advantage in combat without firearms (he's a giant, for example). Killing people can be a good thing in the case of self-defense; the problem is murder.

[Quyneax]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=violent+crime+definition

 

"A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim."

 

That's Wikipedia.

 

"In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force."

 

That's the FBI.

 

So yes, threatening to use violence does mark a crime as a violent.

 

Not otherwise commenting on your post, just clarifying the statistics you quote: "[...] the net effect of offender gun possession is that it increases the likelihood that a violent crime will result in the death of the victim." - this includes the intimidation aspect of weapons.

[Omar]

I was in a hurry and didn't have time to think about whether that jived with the rest of the quote, that's all. Still a little confused because I didn't read the whole thing.

[The_Gabe]

The United States of America is a country founded off of the greatness of the Constitution which was made by our founding fathers and it is the pinnacle of what being an American is all about.

 

Gun control violates the Constitution and it violates the 2nd Amendment. It's bad. Everyone should have a gun. Having a gun could mean the difference between getting shot and living. The difference between a bad guy stealing your car and you having a car. The difference between getting raped and not getting raped. If you have a gun, you won't get raped.

 

If you support gun control, that means you support rape. If you want the government to come in to your home and take your guns, you are literally raping every single woman in America. Do you want that? Do you bleeding heart liberals really want to have that on your conscious? The fact that you aiding criminals in raping women?

 

Gun control is what DICTATORSHIPS have. Look at Australia. They had gun control laws enacted in 1996 and they had their guns taken away from them by the government. Now they can't even defend themselves against dictatorship they live in. As a result of gun control, Australia is in a state of utter chaos. Everything's on fire, cities experience massive flooding, and everything is out to kill them and they don't have any guns to stop it. God wants you to have guns and these floods and fires are proof of that.

 

And you want to know what else? You know who else supported gun control? And had guns taken away from every citizen?

 

Hitler. That's right. Hitler took guns away from every citizen. He singlehandedly removed the citizens God-given right to be able to shoot bad people. Hitler would have been dead a long time before WWII if it wasn't for him taking away access to guns.

 

So, in short, gun control is bad, if you support it, you are killing unborn babies and you are aiding in the raping of millions of women in the United States.

[Alg]

Honestly, I expected better trolling from you.

[The_Gabe]

Honestly, I expected better trolling from you.

 

It was a facebook copy pasta lol.

[Alg]

Oh. Facebook. That explains everything.

[Randox]

It's also just a little bit scary that there are people out there who do believe that. The crazy people who make it difficult for everyone else who is roughly on their side, because everyone else can point at the crazies as justification to assume that everything after 'pro gun control' is just the sound of crazy.

[Omar]

Poe's law? AFAIK some things are not on fire in Australia.

[nine naked men]

i can confirm that everything in that post above wrt Australia is completely true

[sees_all1]

It's also just a little bit scary that there are people out there who do believe that. The crazy people who make it difficult for everyone else who is roughly on their side, because everyone else can point at the crazies as justification to assume that everything after 'pro gun control' is just the sound of crazy.

Doubt anyone actually believes that, and if they do I doubt they'd post it on facebook. I've seen too much satire of those "kooky" tea partiers and right wing "nut jobs" to trust a sourceless wall of text on the internet.

 

Hey, you know what would be fun? To dress up like my political opposite, join their protest and pretend to be racist idiots to try and tar them all.

[Randox]

It's also just a little bit scary that there are people out there who do believe that. The crazy people who make it difficult for everyone else who is roughly on their side, because everyone else can point at the crazies as justification to assume that everything after 'pro gun control' is just the sound of crazy.

Doubt anyone actually believes that, and if they do I doubt they'd post it on facebook. I've seen too much satire of those "kooky" tea partiers and right wing "nut jobs" to trust a sourceless wall of text on the internet.

 

Hey, you know what would be fun? To dress up like my political opposite, join their protest and pretend to be racist idiots to try and tar them all.

 

You don't think that of the 7 billion people on this planet there are at least a couple that roughly fit that bill?

 

That's not my point though. I really mean only that, given the earth population, the variety of backgrounds, and a garden variety of mental illnesses, there are some very scary people that I don't really care to meet. It's actually quite comforting that most of the people you might consider to be your regular lunatics are not even close to that level crazy.

 

Oh, and never doubt what people will publish. There is a rather famous/infamous book collection in the united states, that combined with its author, sort of demonstrates what I am thinking about.

 

 

The actual post from facebook itself that was quoted reeks of satire, and is actually quite funny if you take it to be such.

[Giordano]

 

You don't think that of the 7 billion people on this planet there are at least a couple that roughly fit that bill?

Time to change the voting franchise!

[sees_all1]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/13/3d-printed-gun-makes-it-through-transportation-security-undetected/

 

Plastic gun smuggled through "airport style" security.

 

Wonder what Australia and the UK will do now, ban 3d printers? :rolleyes:

[Giordano]

America should ban 3D printers.

 

I mean...they'll destroy the remaining manufacturing business we have left! Jobs will go to China and our middle-class will be left jobless. Think of their children's college tuition, please! Oh, and the gun smuggling issue too.

 

 

 

...or you know, accept that not everything can be monitored. An unfortunate fact of reality.