Baller. PhD
Banned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tAW72Y_XPF4#
Mandatory psych evals are probably the answer though! It's not like 3D printing is becoming more mainstream every day or anything.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Shooter with AR-15 at Houston's Bush Airport (suicide, no other deaths)
- Thread starter jmdajr
- Start date
- Status
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tAW72Y_XPF4#
Mandatory psych evals are probably the answer though! It's not like 3D printing is becoming more mainstream every day or anything.
Zomba13
Member
Yeah. Seems like he just wanted to make a scene/be noticed but not actually harm anyone. He could have just strolled in, fired a few rounds off at some people, killed a few, ingured more then killed himself. Nice that he just killed himself.
(well, not nice. But you know, better than what could have happened)
No, no, NO.
Before US vs. Emerson, any federal appelate court ruling that found there to be a 2nd amendment violation in a case brought before them would find it as a case of a federal activity forcefully restricting the capabilities of the militia or militia participants. It was never about John Smith being able to have a gun to go skeet shooting, or even to protect his wife and kids from the psycho jealous ex-husband down the street. it was always about whether or not the federal government was legislating military power away from the states in some fashion.
Again, no federal appellate court had adopted an individual right interpretation of the second amendment until the 2003 case of U.S. v. Emerson. that's 2003. Not "the country's inception"
You may agree with the current interpration of the 2nd amendment as guaranteeing anyone the right to own a gun for any reason*, but don't claim that it's the interpretation that has always existed. It's not. Argue in favor of that interpretation on its own merits, not on a (false) sense of tradition.
*Unless that part of the constitution doesn't apply to them, as we selectively choose so when it comes to felons.
Angelus Errare
Banned
Yawn, wake me up when they print the entire gun in that shitty plastic, I'll put money on it exploding in their face after a single shot.
Deified Data
Banned
Totes, we'll have working 3D printers in every hunter's blind by the end of the decade. Dat endless progression of science.
GoldenEye 007
Member
But either way the interpretation fell on individual rights. The 2nd states because a militia could be needed or activated to ensure the country's security, the individual right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Recent rulings seemed to eliminate the militia part as you stated - but before that the end result was essentially the same. And a court only addresses things that people are in dispute over. It's possible that it wasn't even brought up until very recently because the previous understanding was that there was an individual right.
Then enter certain legislation getting passed that challenged that and a ruling thereafter that throws that law out maintaining the status quo.
There hasn't been a major change or openness in gun ownership recently since those rulings. Likely because the courts simply threw out laws that it viewed overstepped the established understanding on the role of guns and how they are utilized by the individual.
Baller. PhD
Banned
Everything else can be purchased anywhere with no regulations whatsoever. The only part that the government considers a "gun" is the lower receiver. That's the part of every weapon that has a serial number. Everything else can be ordered on the fucking Internet and is not registered or tracked.
It also won't be long before they'll be able to print barrels and such too (every other part of the weapon can now be printed). Less than a year ago the best printed receiver could only manage 6 shots before breaking. These gun heads have a fire lit under their asses and it's only going to get worse. Look at all this shit that can already be printed with consumer-grade machines. The technology isn't going to get worse.
You can download the lower receiver in that video here.
Piss off a legion of rednecks by taking their assault rifles away and see how fast this shit takes off (more than it already has, that is).
You guys need to come to grips with reality. Guns are here and they're here to stay. I hate it too but that's just where we are now.
Deified Data
Banned
I've never suggested banning them outright. Just make them at least as difficult to own as an automobile and we're off to a good start. "Shoving it down our throats" my ass, the vast majority of regulatory proposals have been totally common-sense and more than fair to gun hobbyists.
At the end of the day, I can't take someone seriously who places their hobby above the lives of others, especially when the option remains to preserve that hobby while taking a few special considerations for the inherent danger involved. It's childish and deserves to be treated as such. That's not necessarily addressing you, Baller, as I have no idea exactly where you stand.
Baller. PhD
Banned
Sure, I agree with that. Gun shows should have to do background checks. Fair enough. Saying that gun owners should be subjected to mandatory psych evals every so often is absolutely "shoving it down their throats," however.
Would the recently proposed regulatory changes have stopped this shooter though? Or the Sandy Hook shooter? Or the Aurora shooter? Everyone is losing their shit in the wake of these tragedies, but the solutions being proposed wouldn't have stopped them. I agree that there are some common sense steps that could be taken regarding gun ownership but to act like they'd have made a difference in any of these shootings is silly. Especially with the 3D printing stuff advancing at its current breakneck pace (ban "high capacity" magainzes? lolol).
GoldenEye 007
Member
Who is doing that in this thread, though? I'm a pro-gun person but does not like needless loss of life. Normal people don't. A lot of people are in favor of increased regulations for sure. But there is a line to draw in all of this.
I will not be held responsible for the ill-advised and/or criminal actions of others I have no control over.
Deified Data
Banned
I think it's important to legislate proactively, as opposed to reacting to disaster as it happens. Americans in general seem to have a very difficult time with this concept. Would regulation have prevented any of the recent high-profile shootings? Maybe, maybe not. But there's not a doubt in my mind that it would prevent some of them, no matter how small or under-reported. I have no interest in preventing "the next Sandy Hook" or "the next Aurora".
If common-sense regulation can prevent just one sick guy behind on his meds from procuring a gun and harming himself or someone else, then inconveniencing everyone is worth it for that one victory (and there would be many, many more, I'm sure). I think this is our fundamental difference of opinion.
Benjamin Franklin may have said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety", but I don't think owning a gun grants any meaningful portion of freedom. Indeed, I think the freedom that most of us view as ideal can only be obtained by coupling it with safety and responsibility.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
It's the daily GAF gun thread with the daily anti-gun rant/tantrums. Just enjoy it for what it is.
Baller. PhD
Banned
That could be applied to so much more than just gun control though. What about razer blades? Paint thinner? Drano? Hammers -- which kill more people than assault rifles year after year?
I see where you're coming from, but at some point you have to draw the line. One could make the argument that hammers have a useful purpose outside of murder while assault rifles do not. Fair enough. How do we define "assault rifle" then? During the last ban you could still buy weapons that were, for all intents and purposes, assault rifles. They simply had slightly different pistol grips and butt stocks. Still fired the same ammunition at the same rate. How would you stop the gun manufacturers from skirting the line again? Answer: you can't. Whatever ban that goes into place, you'll still be able to purchase a semiautomatic rifle if you wanted, either through traditional channels or 3D printing. Hell, you can CURRENTLY mod an AR15 to be fully automatic without much issue. It's illegal as fuck, obviously, but if you're planning on shooting up an airport what do you care?
Again, I hear you on requiring background checks at gun shows. That's it though. No mandatory psych evals beyond that. You can't punish honest folks for the actions of a few psychopaths. That would be forcing them to sacrifice their liberty for a little temporary safety.
Deified Data
Banned
I was of the belief that the attempted assault weapons ban was pointless and reactionary, so I have no further comment on that.
I think we mostly agree on the subject of regulation, bar my support of periodic psych evaluation. Nor would I go so far as to say requiring a psych evaluation is "punishment"...at least no more than getting a vision test before procuring a driver's license.
In the end, I'd like to see background checks and minimum 3-month waiting periods before purchase, and an ownership permit that requires a safety and psych evaluation every 4-5 years. I honestly don't think that's overly intrusive. Of course those precautions are going to be received unfavorably when viewed as punishment (read: when the NRA tells gun owners they're being punished), as opposed to being viewed as basic civic duty and responsible ownership.
Baller. PhD
Banned
The NRA would simply call the new regulations a slippery slope, which wouldn't be unwarranted.
As for mandatory psychological evaluations, how would those be enforced? What if a gun owner decides not to do it, would the police show up at his home? Would they be able to search his residence without his permission to find the weapon? What about theft -- or worse, staged theft? Who would be paying for these evaluations, the state or the individual (shrinks aren't cheap)? How would that be facilitated?
You've got to look at it from the responsible gun owner's perspective. Would requiring new psych evals every 5 years have prevented the violence today, or at Sandy Hook or Aurora? Probably not. Those weapons weren't even registered to the people who carried out those attacks. In that case... why should they have to deal with even more shit after they've legally purchased their weapon? It just doesn't make sense.
As for mandatory psychological evaluations, how would those be enforced? What if a gun owner decides not to do it, would the police show up at his home? Would they be able to search his residence without his permission to find the weapon? What about theft -- or worse, staged theft? Who would be paying for these evaluations, the state or the individual (shrinks aren't cheap)? How would that be facilitated?
You've got to look at it from the responsible gun owner's perspective. Would requiring new psych evals every 5 years have prevented the violence today, or at Sandy Hook or Aurora? Probably not. Those weapons weren't even registered to the people who carried out those attacks. In that case... why should they have to deal with even more shit after they've legally purchased their weapon? It just doesn't make sense.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Im going to stop you right here. You can't be against sensible regulations because you're afraid what it "might lead to" in the future. That's nothing but a boogeyman people create so nothing gets done. It's complete bullshit.
Baller. PhD
Banned
That kind of thinking is what leads to stuff like the Patriot Act. Regardless, that's how the NRA looks at just about all gun regulation.
Mammoth Jones
Member
So a potential mass shooter killed himself after he was confronted by a good guy with a gun?
Gotcha.
Gotcha.
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
Deified Data
Banned
No, he just killed himself. If he wanted to kill someone else he would have.
Responsible gun owners don't heed the beck and call of the NRA - they realize they're just lobbyists for manufacturers and rightfully ignore them. In this current political climate I wouldn't consider a member of the NRA a responsible gun owner.
As I said, I'm not a fan of reactionary legislation that attempts to somehow correct what already went wrong. Forget Aurora and Newtown - this is about preventing the hundreds of incidents that haven't happened yet. It doesn't phase me in the least that such regulation wouldn't effect the outcome of every gun crime in America. If it prevents even a few incidents, regardless of how high-profile they are, it's worth it in my view. "It would be too hard to regulate" isn't an acceptable argument to me - it's just an excuse for not wanting to do it.
Do you feel driver's licenses should be renewed every 4 years?
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
No, LAX is a piece of shit. Try making an international connection from terminal 6 or 7 to terminal 2. You gotta hoof that shit outside or get on some rickety ass bus. And, the stench of LA right when you deplane is like hitting a wall... And I've lived in the shadow of refineries.
At least IAH has a dumb little interterminal train, even if you still gotta walk 3 miles after you it. The C/E terminal setup is admittedly moronic.
DFW is ok, and their terminal to terminal movement is quite slick, but I dislike flying American, and they ground planes over a single cloud in the sky. I honestly try to go through Love Field if I have to go to Dallas by jet.
I agree that O'Hare is nice.
Baller. PhD
Banned
You clearly don't know many serious gun nuts (i.e. the types who would own AR15's). The vast majority of them absolutely support the NRA and believe the NRA has their best interests at heart. For the most part, they're right. You assume that responsible gun owner = liberal with a firearm. Not the case, lol.
That's all fine and dandy, but just as in a court of law, the burden of truth is on the prosecutor. If I'm a gun owner, why should I have to be harassed if there's no proof that harassing me would even make a difference? The fact of the matter is there are millions of gun owners in the United States, and only several thousand firearm murders occur every year. Only several hundred if you're talking assault rifles.
You're arguing that these millions of people should have to pay out of pocket (or have the government pay at a massive expense) in the hopes of saving 0.001% of the people who are killed every year. Sorry, that's just not gonna fly in a free nation. If we wanted to go down that road we could also require that everyone donate 5% of their income to education and infrastructure in impoverished areas -- after all, it's worth it even if only 1 person is saved by the decrease in violence, right? You could apply that logic to just about anything. With guns it's such an incredibly low percentage of people, and WAY lower than other dangerous "weapons." The logic simply doesn't hold up.
Ease (and COST) of regulation also must be considered, especially when you're talking about a "proactive" law. When we're already trillions in debt, is it wise to dig the hole even deeper for a regulation that is unlikely to change anything? Come on now.
Onion_Relish
Member
Maybe if his head had a gun it could have protected itself. Dat American logic.
"only" several thousand (really, it's in the 5 figure range).
Now let's look around the world for comparison:
Less than 50: Japan
Less than 150: Germany, Italy, France, most other industrialized nations.
Less than 200: Canada
RobotMafia
Banned
These gun threads are getting more and more horrifying with gun-gaf showing how batshit insane they really are.
Baller. PhD
Banned
That's where the culture comes in to play. Our country was founded with the statue that private citizens had the right to own firearms. I agree that it's an unhealthy culture, but how do you propose we change it? Brain washing? I think you might be a bit out of touch with just how serious many southern conservatives are about their guns -- and just how many of them there are in the country. They've grown up shooting with their parents and grandparents, and teaching their children to shoot is one of the highlights of their life as a parent. Should it be? Not in my opinion, but do you think they're going to up and change their ways just because I say they should? Get real.
The Culture Vulture
Member
Glenn Beck's take on the event in front of a studio audience (for the day of prayer I assume) he's blaming the "ultra" left for this.
The Blaze - Truth Lives Here
http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/05/02/glenn-beck-theres-a-very-good-chance-the-housto/193883
The Blaze - Truth Lives Here
http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/05/02/glenn-beck-theres-a-very-good-chance-the-housto/193883
Not doing anything just because it would be difficult to change is a super, super, super shitty way of looking at it. It's also highly unrealistic that people would turn to 3D printing on such a wide scale given how expensive and difficult it would be to do. And they would still be creating an illegal weapon, meaning they would get it confiscated if the police ever got a whiff of them owning it. A far cry from being able to patrol malls with your Bushmaster.
And sure the current round of gun control proposals were anemic outside of the universal background checks, but you got to start somewhere. People who adopt this defeatist sense of "but most gun crimes are committed with handguns", don't understand that you aren't going to get momentum going by just focusing on stopping every gun crime that could ever occur. There is no other aspect of the world that is looked at in this way. Nobody says "well, these proposals could improve our economy, but it's not gonna end poverty, so fuck it", for instance.
Edit: Sure, there's a risk that we might pass these laws restricting what is really relatively arcane weaponry and arbitrarily limit clip sizes and society will be convinced that it was "enough" and the "job is over", but that possibility shouldn't be dissuading any approach to a solution for this issue at all.
Bornstellar
Member
What a moronic statement.
Link
The Autumn Wind
I'm pretty sure my first driver's license did expire after four years. Now that I'm older and more experienced, it expires every eight years. I have no issues with that system.
Jim E. Rossler
Banned
Long barrel's don't make a gun accurate
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
This guy offs himself after being confronted by armed officers and anti gun GAF goes nut with the "what if's". You're as bad as you claim pro gun GAF to be. Lol!
Deified Data
Banned
I'm sorry, but after this post I can longer debate you as a fellow informed adult, so I will choose to say nothing at all. Just posting this to let you know that I read your post and appreciate your response. You've revealed yourself to be exactly the kind of pro-gun advocate that I can't carry a conversation with.
Beck is also headlining the NRA's convention, I believe. Seems an odd choice for such an inclusive, level-headed group.
Huh?
Baller. PhD
Banned
We're talking about enacting new regulations to ensure a brighter future, are we not? 3D printing will be ubiquitous within our lifetime, and sooner rather than later. The tech is advancing at breakneck speed and you can already buy pretty fucking capable consumer printers for the price of a decent PC in 2004 (or a decent Mac today). You'll be able to print these components on affordable, consumer-grade printers within the decade.
Not true. Per the Gun Control Act of 1968, private citizens may assemble their own firearms -- and are not required to register them -- as long as they are for personal use and never sold. In most states permits are only issued upon sale. If you buy all premade parts you'll still be getting a lower receiver with a serial number, so there's still a record of you buying it. 3D printing though? Off the grid. Or if you don't think 3D printing is viable for whatever reason, purchasing an "80%" lower receiver and milling it yourself with rental equipment from Home Depot will net you a functioning semiautomatic rifle with no serial number and no trace. If you never sell it (since it's yours), no registration ever comes in to play. Completely legal.
You guys are losing your shit for failed regulations that will soon be rendered moot by advancements in printing technology. Sound scary? It is. Kind of makes you think twice about carrying a concealed handgun, eh?
I'm anti-gun. Just pro-logic. I'm a U.S. Army veteran from Texas and have many friends who are vehemently pro-gun. To the point that they don't even bother to become informed before elections, they simply vote "straight ballot" for the candidates endorsed by the NRA. True story.
ChainedMaster
Banned
So armed guards do work.
Link
The Autumn Wind
I guess. The guy fired into the air, the guard shot at him and missed, then the guy pulled a handgun and shot himself.
Thankfully, it seems the guy was purely suicidal, because those guards don't sound particularly effective to me. But hey, low standards.
ChainedMaster
Banned
>Stopped gunman from shooting very soon after he started
>Doesn't sound particularly effective
We're talking about enacting new regulations to ensure a brighter future, are we not? 3D printing will be ubiquitous within our lifetime, and sooner rather than later. The tech is advancing at breakneck speed and you can already buy pretty fucking capable consumer printers for the price of a decent PC in 2004 (or a decent Mac today). You'll be able to print these components on affordable, consumer-grade printers within the decade.
Not true. Per the Gun Control Act of 1968, private citizens may assemble their own firearms -- and are not required to register them -- as long as they are for personal use and never sold. In most states permits are only issued upon sale. If you buy all premade parts you'll still be getting a lower receiver with a serial number, so there's still a record of you buying it. 3D printing though? Off the grid. Or if you don't think 3D printing is viable for whatever reason, purchasing an "80%" lower receiver and milling it yourself with rental equipment from Home Depot will net you a functioning semiautomatic rifle with no serial number and no trace. If you never sell it (since it's yours), no registration ever comes in to play. Completely legal.
You guys are losing your shit for failed regulations that will soon be rendered moot by advancements in printing technology. Sound scary? It is. Kind of makes you think twice about carrying a concealed handgun, eh?
I'm anti-gun. Just pro-logic. I'm a U.S. Army veteran from Texas and have many friends who are vehemently pro-gun. To the point that they don't even bother to become informed before elections, they simply vote "straight ballot" for the candidates endorsed by the NRA. True story.
And you don't think when 3D printing gains prevalence to this degree the laws won't be revised? Of course, given the way our government operates they very well may not, but I think your "3D printing invalidates everything!" stance is a little too cut-and-dry given that laws can be changed. Advocating "eh, fuck it, they'll just print their own guns anyway" seems a little silly to me when you could just as easily say "hmm, maybe we should endorse laws banning the printing of your own guns"
Again, difficult but not impossible.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Sounds to me like he stopped himself soon after shooting at no one.
A receiver, upper OR lower, isn't the primary load bearing element of the firearm though, That's the barrel, the firing pin, the gas system, and the bolt assembly, and those just don't work very well with polymer. Explosives and heat would fracture and melt these things so fast you'd sooner have a pile of gun than a deadly weapon.
So unless consumer metal 3D printers become commonplace, we shouldn't have a problem. And even then, the NRA would likely support regulation of such devices for making firearms because I don't think the gun manufacturers would much like civilians making their own firearms and not paying them exorbitant prices.
Baller. PhD
Banned
How exactly do you think those laws would be enforced? DRM on 3D printers? Takedown notices on the pirate bay? Come on now. If we're talking about a criminal wanting to commit a murder, no unenforceable law is going to stop him. If someone is planning a mass murder and cannot buy a weapon at a gun store, but CAN print one himself on a consumer 3D printer, he'll print it. Regardless of what the law says. I mean, murder is already illegal and that's not stopping him. Heh.
You can buy all those components easily though, without any registration and without serial numbers. As far as the government is concerned the "gun" is the lower receiver. The only possible solution I see here is to start putting serial numbers on the barrel, since that's by far the most difficult component of a weapon to print or mill yourself. I wonder how feasible that is though given the large number of "naked" barrels already in the wild.
Regardless, my only point in bringing up 3D printing was that these proposed restrictions are going to become even more silly in the future. The technology to print this stuff is already here today, in the future it's only going to get easier and more reliable. The only reason anyone is talking about gun control is because of the mass shootings we've had this year. Sad as they were, none of the proposed laws would have stopped them.
I don't understand why this is even up for discussion. Psych evaluations should, obviously, be mandatory.
In Norway, If you want to legally own a rifle, you need to have a hunting license. In order to get the license, you need to pass a series of theoretical and practical courses/tests, which are arranged twice on an annual basis for people over 16.
Not sure how pistol/gun licenses work, but I think you need to be a member of an official pistol club for an extended period of time (Several months or something similar.).
Machine guns are obviously banned. I assume they are banned in the US as well. I think automatic weapons were banned after the massacre a couple of years ago. (I assume most types.)
In my opinion, there's really no reason to own an automatic weapon, or any weapon that can hold more than 2-5 bullets at a time.
Baller said:
These kinds of rules serve as a barrier that makes the goal more difficult and time consuming, and forces the "criminals" to go through more channels as well (Which raises the likelihood of authorities noticing and paying attention.).
I do like how Baller and others seem to be ignoring that post I made, though. :/
So we're talking about criminals printing these guns for mass shootings now? That sure escalated quickly given that originally you were saying
Gun nuts and criminals are two completely different issues, and they both can be approached differently. Everything I've said so far regarding regulating printing weapons can refer to gun nuts, but expanding that even further, there can be a regulation on 3D printer sales, or a registry, or even going as far as background checking. Banning the use of them to print weapons would still work. Even if it might not prevent the actual creation of the weapon, it would dissuade people from being caught with a printed weapon the same way you get in trouble owning a gun that has the serial number filed off. There are ways to curb the possible threat of 3D printing for nefarious purposes. If the government actually sees the threat as being worth the effort you can make damn sure they would find a way to handle it, even if they had to go as far as banning the sales of 3D printers altogether (which would be easy given that they actually have to be manufactured and distributed).
As for criminals using them to print their own weapons for mass shootings, it's not so crazy to suggest they might be able to monitor sales of these printers and the substances used to create the 3D object. It might be impossible to do without severely hampering the potential of 3D printing, but if that's what it takes then it's still an option. They've got laws against purchasing too much fertilizer as well as many other items that can be used to make homemade explosives, it's possible to go that route to prevent the homemade creation of weapons. And at the end of the day if they can't prevent a criminal from obtaining a home printed weapon through these methods there may still be more of a paper trail to find someone who is a suspect due to a registry and regulation of materials. That's a lot more to go on than we have now, which is nothing, even for guns that are actually manufactured.
In addition, it seems like you are strangely determined to cling to this defeatist "eh, well whatchu gonna do" mentality when there really are a ton of ways to deal with the issue of guns in our society (even with the advent of 3D printing). The same bullshit about "none of the proposed laws would do anything", which I've already said hinders any type of gun control legislation gaining momentum. "eh, there will still be shootings somewhere, fuck regulation." How about background checks? How about a registry? How about needing more than just signing some papers in order to legally sell a gun? How bout gun licenses needing constant renewal based on mental and house checks? Maybe that might be too expensive to implement, but it's an idea. Just saying "eh, what can you do" is fuckin bullshit in light of all the shit that we aren't doing that could prevent deaths all over the country.
A five year old was legally given a gun as a gift recently. It was his. He owned it. You can't do that with a house, car, alcohol, drugs. If they gave him an ounce of marijuana instead his sister would probably still be alive (not that I advocate giving marijuana to children, o course). And people still act like America is alone in the world. Other countries have regulated guns to great success, and apparently all that bullshit about the "bad guy with a gun" hasn't been a big enough problem for them to give them back. "but those countries weren't founded with the ideals of giving guns to everyone!" Fuck that. Beliefs can be changed, behavior can be influenced, people can be informed.
If you don't believe that's possible I'd like to direct you to emancipation, desegregation, gay marriage, suffrage, marijuana. Public sentiment on all of these things have shifted quite a bit since the Constitution was written.
3D printers could have a system that requires it to be "always online" to function though; and any use would be uploaded to a register. Could be a nationwide, countrywide, or countywide register, whatever. Alternatively, the software for designing stuff with it could be an online program -- like, you'd have to log onto a service to design stuff.
Sure, it could probably be cracked, and several gun parts wouldn't raise any suspicion (Or could be designed in such a way.), but as I said earlier about these kinds of rules, it's another barrier. It would provide a log/record of activity and ensure that the "community" is somewhat connected.
Sure, it could probably be cracked, and several gun parts wouldn't raise any suspicion (Or could be designed in such a way.), but as I said earlier about these kinds of rules, it's another barrier. It would provide a log/record of activity and ensure that the "community" is somewhat connected.
Given the influence by Blackstone and Beccaria on the bill of rights and its interpretation I have concluded you have no idea what you're talking about ROFL.
Baller. PhD
Banned
You're entirely missing the point. You're saying that the laws would "dissuade people from being caught with a printed weapon." So what? I'm talking specifically about criminals and the mentally disturbed, which are the only types of people we're trying to keep the guns from, right? The entire point of background checks, psych evals, registries and the like is to keep weapons from those who are unfit to have them. What I'm saying is that if those individuals actually want a weapon, they will be able to get one without much issue. Draconian policies only punish the responsible, law-abiding gun owners who've done nothing wrong. If an angry kid decides to shoot up a school, it won't matter if the government requires 3 month background checks or periodic psych evals. He'll still be able to shoot up the school. Only the law-abiding gun owners will have to deal with the bullshit.
Are you serious? You basically just described PC video game DRM. How effective has that been, eh? Moreover, how ethical is it to force honest Americans who aren't making guns to have everything they print uploaded to a registry for the government to monitor? Anything to stop a potential murder though, right? I guess I should smile and be happy that the NSA has more likely than not screened some of my email correspondence through an automated system at some point (or possibly even randomly pulled one for human eyes to read). They've got terrorists to catch, after all! Hopefully they've been screening my phone calls too!
- Status