[z64555]

Why are we even having a discussion about 3D printed guns when there are already eleventy billion actual guns out there in the wild?

Possibly because it falls under the realm of "home brew" weaponry, to which there is no current legislation that can address, much less enforce. It may be an issue in the future, but honestly I think we shouldn't be very concerned about it right now.

By all means it is not easy to do. As I've stated earlier, the sociological and psychological side of the argument is difficult for governments and communities to address without carefully stepping around some long standing ideologies. It also takes a lot of time.

The problem I see is that people don't know how to deal with psychological aspect of the problem. So far, I haven't seen government attempts at social engineering be a real success. The government has a hard time keeping up with its own society, let alone engineer it.

Well, not to be rude, but we could have known how to deal with the psychological aspect. Congress put a stop to that with their legislation prohibiting the science communities from investigating (looking for a link...). I don't think we'll be able to get any further unless that gets repealed somehow.

[EDIT]
Here is a link. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/cdc-still-cant-study-causes-gun-violence-180955884/?no-ist

[Phantom Hoover]

I mean yeah, you can make an improvised gun on your own and it might get a lot easier with 3D printing, but it's not that hard to make a homemade bomb either. You can do it by accident, even, hence all those explosions at fertiliser factories. But nobody uses this as an argument against 'bomb control', because it's still much harder to kill people with homemade bombs than if you could buy them from a shop and it's pretty easy for the police to pick up on people manufacturing illegal goods.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Why are we even having a discussion about 3D printed guns when there are already eleventy billion actual guns out there in the wild?

Probably because it's a good diversion from the real issue. Instead of worrying about the AR-15 Assault Rifles, worry about the plastic Derringers.  Because buying a 3000 3D printer is much easier than buying a 40 dollar gun from a shop. Right?

[Bobboau]

wow, an AR-15 costs $40?

[Akalabeth Angel]

wow, an AR-15 costs $40?

Wow, another diversionary comment?  Maybe you can start a discussion about the prohibitive costs of weapons when the Oregon shooter was packing about seven guns?

While you can be easily confused by my lazily written comments as to which "gun" that 40 dollar price tag was associated, the fact remains that it's beyond silly for grown adults to be comparing 3D-printed guns with store bought guns given the relative ease and cost by which both are obtained.

Maybe next you can address the dangers of civil-war vintage restored weapons? Or perhaps the general ease by which a flintlock rifle could be stolen from a museum and the need for additional guards and security meaures?

[SpardaSon21]

Yeah, I want to know where I can buy a $40 firearm, since that can't even get you a good BB gun.  Please tell me you accidentally a zero on that statement, especially because there are many AR-15 rifles that do indeed cost at least $3000 dollars to buy at a gun shop.

[Dragon]

Because buying a 3000 3D printer is much easier than buying a 40 dollar gun from a shop. Right?

Where do you live? Africa? The only semi-reliable gun you can get at that price is a second-hand Chinese AKM copy (and that's because being an AK, it's reliability is a given). And even then, they only go for that price in 3rd world countries. I can't really speak for the US, but I don't think you can get a decent weapon for less than 500$. And the AR-15 is a a big step up from simply a "decent weapon".

Maybe next you can address the dangers of civil-war vintage restored weapons? Or perhaps the general ease by which a flintlock rifle could be stolen from a museum and the need for additional guards and security meaures?

If you steal a real Civil War-era rifle from a museum, the correct course of action is to sell it and use the money to buy a modern gun. A Civil War-era cartridge rifle is still as deadly as a modern gun (unless we're talking blackpowder muzzleloaders which were still in use at the time), but I think that the same regulations apply to them as to the more modern guns. The difference is that a 3D printed weapon could be manufactured with just a 3D printer and a bunch of material. That said, I think that good ammunition control can handle those, as stated above.

I mean yeah, you can make an improvised gun on your own and it might get a lot easier with 3D printing, but it's not that hard to make a homemade bomb either. You can do it by accident, even, hence all those explosions at fertiliser factories. But nobody uses this as an argument against 'bomb control', because it's still much harder to kill people with homemade bombs than if you could buy them from a shop and it's pretty easy for the police to pick up on people manufacturing illegal goods.

You can actually buy perfectly good explosives from a shop. You can then proceed to blow yourself and others up with them, a much beloved activity on the 4th of July and New Year's Eve (for best effect, pair with a strong alcoholic drink). They even make them in a wide variety of casings, yields and flame colors. Actually, making a bomb from fertilizer is downright trivial and much easier than buying a large quantity of fireworks in the store (not to mention it attracts less attention). Such a bomb is pretty well behaved if you do it right, which isn't that hard, either. It doesn't mean it won't blow you up if you do something stupid or screw the production up, but it's a secondary explosive (meaning that usually, something else needs to explode first for it to go boom), not a primary.

[Bobboau]

wow, an AR-15 costs $40?

Wow, another diversionary comment?

wow, I'm responding to ****ing you.
ok you know what, ****it. why do you hate freedom?

[Scotty]

Take some time to cool off, Bob.  That goes for everyone else, too.

[Bobboau]

got a PM that has caused me tp come back to this thread to clarify something

My "why do you hate freedom" comment?
You will be pleased to know that was me announcing my departure from this thread.

[Goober5000]

You really need to look closer at that. Where does it say that the comment is from a study? If you actually follow the link it takes you to a website about a book the guy once contributed to on divorce amongst Aftrican-Americans. Now maybe that book cites a study to back up that comment but I don't see any proof of that anywhere.

Are you being deliberately dense?  The book is the study.  Presumably - given that the book was cited as the source of the comment - the comment can be found there.

Then don't sink to that level yourself. Given that this entire thread is about the despicable levels that BOTH sides have sunk to in a desperate attempt to keep proving they are correct, why would you choose to part of the problem? BOTH sides are child killers because being right is more important than solving the problem. Live with it.

Or better yet, do something about it other than soapboxing.

Eh.  You have no idea what I do when I'm not on HLP.

The legal situation isn't really 'complicated': the campus banned guns 'except as permitted by law', and the law clearly said concealed carrying was allowed.

Which is what I said.  I'm glad you agree with me.

Whether the shooter himself was allowed to carry guns on the campus is irrelevant

Ah, now you're moving the goalposts.

Hold on a second. It's not about preventing this tragedy.

But you said:

The only thing that we can learn from this is that Oregon's gun laws, as they currently are, are not effective at preventing these tragedies.

Do try to be more consistent.  Your arguments carry more force when you don't contradict yourself.  Also:

The goal here is not preventing tragedies, it's cutting down their number

How do you cut down on their number other than by preventing some of them?

And incidentally, do you have any idea how tyrannical your proposals are?  Let's look at what you said:

"Gun owners who lose their guns lose their permits ... Burden of proof is on the former owner." - Reversal of "innocent until proven guilty"
"Seize all ammunition" -- Confiscation of private property
"A new permit may not be granted untill the owner of the firearm can specify a valid reason for why their bullets are missing" -- Totalitarian control of behavior
"All gun permit owners will submit to a check to see if they are not procuring their own ammuntion" -- Invasion of privacy

If one were to consider my proposal as an end goal to work towards

This is why gun owners oppose gun control so strenuously.  Because they know what their opponents have in mind as the end goal.  They know that even if they give up an inch, their opponents will not be satisfied.  They will take it and demand the mile.

[karajorma]

A book is not a study. A study needs to be published in a journal so it can be peer reviewed. What you have is not a study but a comment from a guy. We have no idea if that comment is the result of scientific research or simply the guy's personal opinion.

Eh.  You have no idea what I do when I'm not on HLP.

Neither do I care. What you do on here is what is important. And on HLP you're not helping.

[Scotty]

In a similar vein to the above, can we please knock off the stupid quote-chain bull****?  There have been maybe two or three good threads on HLP with quote chains, and this is already not one of them.  These discussions aren't won in the trenches, so to speak, so don't drag them into that particular muck.

[karajorma]

This is why gun owners oppose gun control so strenuously.  Because they know what their opponents have in mind as the end goal.  They know that even if they give up an inch, their opponents will not be satisfied.  They will take it and demand the mile.

And they think the exact same thing about you. So round and round it goes forever cause no one is willing to compromise. It's idiotic. And it's a specifically American kind of idiocy because as I've pointed out even though there are other countries with guns, single parent families, mentally ill or whatever cause you want to blame for this problem, it's only in America where shootings are THIS common.

[Grizzly]

Goober, what i meant was that focusing on one particular incident (what could have prevented this tragedy from happening) is innefectual in itself. One has to look at the broader picture of the regularely occuring trragedies, find common points, and try to adress those common points.

You also claim my proposals are totalirian, but... well, they're all based on gun laws in various european countries. The dutch are rather stringy, sure, but the example of the regulation of ammunition comes from the swiss, where there are loads of service rifles in people's homes, but no ammunition. I struggle to think of any of these countries as totalitarian (and I know the swiss get brought up as a shining example of freedom by the NRAs). But off course, one does not need to implement all of it. Politics is more about finding compromise then anything else.

[karajorma]

Okay, let's try this. Instead of demanding what you want, everyone suggest a compromise they could live with. One that would actually have an effect on the number of people getting shot every year.

[z64555]

Here's a few proposals that I ran off the top of my head. Again, I would like to stress that going through with only one side of the system will most likely not eliminate the issue, both must be considered.

Gun control side of things:

• Pscyh eval on new gun owners.
  
  • Existing gun owners do not need an eval if they can prove ownership.
  • Eval is confidential on a pass-fail basis.
  • Evaluators (who are separate from the gun sellers) are encouraged to provide help to those who fail the eval.
  • Evaluators are not required to report to authorities unless there is fear of imminent danger to the requester or others.
• New gun owners would be required to undergo basic firearms handling and safety, including a defensive class on what to do in the event a hostile shooter is on the scene
• New gun owners would be required to house an adequate gun safe cabinet, etc. to safely house their firearm(s) and ammunition. To sweeten this deal, a reasonable discount on an adequate gun cabinet is advisable.
  
• New gun owners would be required to take a class on how to prevent unauthorized use of their firearm. Essentially, everyone in the household of the gun owner should be aware that there is a gun in the house and should take the necessary precautions from accidental discharges. Have the concept of firearms introduced to children at an early age via the parents.

Pscyh/Sociology side of things:

• Promote local gun clubs and events! Here children and adults alike can get together and learn safety and other essential skills regarding firearms while having fun plinking.
• Get the teachers educated on pscyhology and sociology. They already have some degree of this as a required course, so they just need to expand on this a bit to address prevention of "disharmony"
• Get the police on the good side of the neighborhood. Sponsor get togethers, BBQ, benefits, etc. that help make the police force bond with the community.
• Have a public campaign explain why news should be doubted when it is first revealed, and why speculation must be cut down. Newspaper and internet news sensationalism is a major enemy here as they are very good at getting people pissed off. When emotion goes high, rationalism is the first thing to go. The govt. legally cannot restrict what the media says, but they have the full right of running their own ads, etc. to explain why speculation from breaking news is a bad thing.
• Have "tornado" drills for public schools. These drills are meant to move people into classrooms and into areas that put doors between them and the shooter. Should teachers be allowed to have a concealed weapon (which everybody is aware of its presence), they should be drilled on how to defend the classroom to minimize harm. The responding police force must be aware of their drill routines.

Bonus: public area defense
Have open public areas surveyed up the wazoo. The first time I went to college I could not believe how just how easy it was for anybody off the street to go to any building they wanted to without being noticed. No cameras, no security guards, and very sparse cover. Fencing off the public area is expensive, uninviting, and quite frankly paranoid. Strategically place art boulders, benches, etc. something that'll stop a bullet so that civilians can hide behind and safely move indoors. As a bonus, support a paintball club that'll occasionally use the public space to see how well the cover works at the same time training them on how to avoid fire in that area. I'm aware that the cover can be used both ways, so art and other cover items that are enclosed shouldn't be used. A boulder would make a great piece a cover for civies at the same time being vulnerable from flanking.

[jr2]

That seems reasonable (not that I necessarily agree with all of the ideas, but that it seems to be middle of the road instead of one-sided).

[FlamingCobra]

The problem that supporters of gun control don't seem to understand is that gun culture is deeply embedded in US culture. Even if guns were banned, nothing would change. There are umpteen million guns in the US and they're not going anywhere. Some people will give up their weapons but most won't, and then they'll be felons in the eyes of the law. Criminals will still have guns. People that want to shoot kiddies will get guns. Stricter psychological examinations and legislation will not help this because it's easy as piss to get guns on the black market.

I will reiterate what some have already said in this thread: The only way to cut down on mass shootings is to tighten control on the ammunition supply and train people how to defend themselves against an assailant. Teaching our students to lock the classroom door and hide under their desks in the event of a school shooting is foolish.

[Grizzly]

One thing that does surprise me about the gun debate in the US is that the arguments about why gun control would be ineffective are also the exact same arguments their opponents use when discussing drug or sex issues. Not getting at you here, FlamingMamba, but it's perhaps another example of the deadlock any political debate in the US gets itself in.

I agree with you on there being simply too much guns in the country for gun control to be effective (unless one is willing to be harsh). Take a look at the gunpolicy website, and specifically the gun numbers tab...