QotNews Hacker News, Reddit, Lobsters, and Tildes articles rendered in reader mode.
Are you ready for what it takes to stop ghost guns? | New laws in California and New York might stop anyone from 3D printing guns — and create entirely new kinds of surveillance.
This is an insane proposal. No system could identify a firearm component accurately without triggering false matches. Adding an exception for Hollywood makes it even more of a crazy idea. I doubt the majority of the public could reliably filter for gun / not gun.
If a person wants to print a water pistol, then they won't be able to.
If a malicious person wants to print a firearm component, they just need to pretend to be from hollywood
At least with porn you have "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". There is nothing close for firearms.
Ghost guns are far faaaaar more likely to be an accounting problem than actual crime in America.
not having a serial number or having a serial number not match ballistic evidence under a forensic analysis has legit reasons that aren't criminal subterfuge. Some times guns break, or people use modified parts.
I wish that zip guns or ghost guns were more than a rounding error in crime stats. The stats are so bad for legal fire arms that America asked everyone to stop tracking them.
I'll be honest, gun control is such a losing issue for Democrats. I'd rather they drop that stance entirely so they can win elections and actually impact policy rather than pushing a nothing agenda.
Agree. Its part of our country and culture. Best to stop trying to make cultural changes through legislation and focus on positive impact on the most lives.
Assault weapons aren't part of the culture, they only became legal again in 2004 and since then they've become the gun of choice for school shooters. Unless you're saying that school shootings are part of our culture
"Assault weapon" is a fake term created by politicians that has no set definition. "Assault rifle" is a term referring to automatic guns. Automatic guns are extremely regulated and tracked on a much higher level than regular semi-automatic guns. AFAIK no assault rifle has been used in a school shooting.
Plus, when Democrats are in power, gun and ammo sales go up because people are afraid they won't be able to buy them soon. The gun lobbies love to push that narrative, too.
Bro sees the rise of authoritarianism, lack of poltical representation, sharp increase on crime committed against minorities and vulnerable people, and still comes to this conclusion.
That may be even less of a problem. Rifle deaths of any kind hover around 400/yr for the entire country. Either way, deaths involving both are marginal.
Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons which are already illegal to possess except with a very specific type of license. Nothing needs "restoring".
Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons used by the military. Semiautomatic rifles which are available to civilians can look similar but do not have the ability to switch between semi-automatic and fully automatic or burst fire.
No, it is semiautomatic only. Rifles can be made to look like other rifles but that doesn't make them the same thing. For example, this one looks like a Tommy Gun out of an old gangster movie but it isn't a real Tommy Gun. Its just another type of semiautomatic rifle.
The reality is that any repeating rifle, semiautomatic or even some manual actions, can shoot at a rapid rate. The term "assault rifle" has been overloaded to the point it doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means.
Right, but at the same time a great alternative was the Ruger Mini14 Ranch Rifle. It has basically the same capabilities except it has a traditional rifle type stock - available in the same caliber with a detachable magazine. This is why the term doesn't work and why specificity matters.
Semiautomatic vs automatic is already where federal law draws the line. Some states, such as my home state of California, they regulate every little aspect of firearms and ammunition. That's really the only way to do it short of banning all semiautomatic guns.
The trouble with that is CA's AWB and other related laws have been hung up in court for many, many years. It's an effective strategy to skirt the constitutionality of the laws by dragging it out in court indefinitely. If they eventually lose one, they just pass another with a variation to start the legal process all over again.
The real kicker is, people have a very good idea what they are, the problem is that dumb fucks think you need an extremely precise definition for everything. For example, you famously can't actually define what a fish is without lumping in a whole bunch of stuff everyone would agree is not a fish. So you know it when you see it is good enough.
As such, sometimes, you know it when you see it is actually enough for a public debate. As the issue people have is very clear, there exists a category of guns that allow largely unskilled individuals to kill a lot of people very quickly that do not meet the definition of a machine gun.
With machine guns banned for precisely this reason, and this category of guns, 'assault rifles' being available to the public largely to exploit loopholes to get a gun as close as possible to a machine gun without getting banned like one.
Sure, there are real issues when writing laws, as you do need to be precise then, but let's be honest, this level of precision doesn't extend to the public debate, as we all know what they are, and anyone seriously claiming otherwise is clinically retarded and should qualify for the disability pension.
Imagine if every time you told a child to eat his vegetables, he would slap back with “CAN YOU EVEN DEFINE A VEGETABLE”. Such a kid would be considered a whiny brat that didn’t have a point.
No, we're not talking about a child, we're talking about law, and laws need specific definitions. You can't ban something without defining what you're banning, because if you don't define it it just opens the door for abuse by law enforcement.
That makes zero sense because all semi automatic weapons only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and you can make extended magazines for virtually any weapons.
So your definition is basically “all guns are assault rifles”
Ok, so not who you asked, nor a gun person, but to answer the "what about "assault rifles" being particularly dangerous?" It would be the amount of bullets (potential targets hit, directly or indirectly) shot withing x amount of seconds. Idk what the formula would be, but, if I understand correctly, things like bump-stocks that increase fire rate could put a gun into the "assault rifle" category. This, again, from just a regular ol citizens perspective and also not someone who sees guns for taking human life (despite an argument for defense against a tyrannical government/military attack on civilians).
So the thing about automatic modes on rifles that don’t worry me is that I have never found a use for it in actual firefights. And as a combat vet I have been in a lot of them.
The thing about automatic is it is hard to aim and it depletes your ammo too fast, so you end up killing fewer when you use it. You are more lethal wjen you take your time to aim each shots. Same in hunting. I would never want a fully auto gun for hunting. And I hunt as well.
Fully auto has very specific uses. Otherwise it isn’t useful. I wouldn’t lose sleep over it
Not a gun expert but ease of use, ammo capacity, and range. A normal ar-15 carries 30 rounds. About twice as many as most pistols. They are semi automatic, meaning for every time you pull the trigger it fires a bullet. So you can very quickly shoot many things.
Those are basically the only differences between an "assault rifle" and a bolt action hunting rifle. The amount of ammo it holds and how quickly you can make the shots come out.
For me, because why would someone need a weapon that riddles their target with bullets, when I feel gun ownership should be primarily for hunting animals, not other humans.
I'm American, and recognize the 2nd amendments importance and original purpose (from my personal interpretation), but I would love to see a world where, after 250 years after our country's creation, gun violence wasn't so prevalent that I'm seeing people shooting each other over parking disputes, neighbor dissatisfaction, road rage incidents on social media regularly. And yes, the worst shit gets reposted, often, there are so many events that aren't recorded. My perfect world, everyone enjoys their hobbies, be it guns, or whatever, but they aren't used to gun down other humans...
Well I'm naive, but there has to be a better solution than an unbalanced arms war against the most militaristic army in history. And I don't have the answer, I'm just heartbroken from the violence I've seen without ever seeing a national resistance to a hostel government takeover.
I was just answering the guy above's question. I don't have a dog in this fight. It's true that the majority of gun deaths in the US are from handguns but the majority of mass shooting events are from rifles so I would say being concerned about either isn't invalid.
Isn't this just like people saying we don't need vaccines because no one gets Polio anymore?
Are the majority of firearm fatalities handguns because they're the most accessible? If assault rifles became more accessible, would we not see the number of assault rifle deaths increase?
This feels like that apocryphal story of the planes coming back with bullet holes, so they put armor on those parts, not realizing those are the ones that made it back, so you need armor on the other parts.
An AR is definitely not easier to use than most hunting rifles. I carried a variant of the AR and when I got out of the military, I didn’t want to use one ever again due to what a pain in the ass they are.
And as far as the magazine size, that is more of a magazine issue than a platform issue. Canada limited magazine capacities to 5 rounds. That is a much clearer objective than “ban assault rifles”
And no plenty of hunting rifles including bird hunting guns are semi-automatic.
Any functional definition really should just be, can someone with some training reliably kill X number of people within Y period of time?
As it's pretty obvious what the actual issue is, people want to get guns as close as possible to a machine gun, which are banned, so they just tweak elements of the gun until it is no longer banned.
We got into this mess by people being pedantic, shifting the goal posts around, and just adding 1 more rule doesn't solve the underlying issue, as it's then just a gun with 1 more element changed.
The whole point of framing this debate as you need to define 50+ rules to create an air-tight legal definition is so obviously batshit insane. This is never done in any other policy debate, which is always framed by objectives in public debate, not strict rules. It says a lot about how dishonest or mentally impaired some people are in this space.
The only person who sounds unhinged here is you. Every policy requires legislation, which requires details. We know that “assault rifle” bans have a definition problem because the ones that have been enacted have all had that problem. Now you’re just trying to get around that problem by waving it away like it doesn’t matter.
Are you stupid or something? Its like what is a fish? You know it when you see it.
It's pretty bloody obvious, what people have an issue with is the combination of guns with stuff like
1 Requires 2 hands to use.
2 Have a stock that lets you brace the gun against your chest.
3 Semi automatic fire.
And a range of other elements that lower the skill requirement to kill a lot of people very quickly. We all know what it is, let's not pretend to be terminally retarded here.
Sure, there is a very real issue around actually needing strict rules when writing laws to close loopholes but let's be honest here, that is an issue for lawyers and lawmakers not the general public. And that handguns are generally a bigger issue as mass shootings are rare events while regular shootings are not and handguns are generally much more useful due to them being smaller and easily hidden, so this issue is, in part, a red herring.
But anyone who honestly thinks the strictness of legal loopholes lawyers can exploit is relevant in any way to public debate should be on a disability pension, as they are honestly dumb as bricks.
Any rifle checks the first two boxes, and loads of rifles nobody would dispute are hunting rifles are semi-auto.
Could you name any other of that range of other elements?
Keeping in mind that hunting rifles are generally designed to be more lethal because wounding animals is not the aim of hunting, while in war, wounded enemy are actually strategically more desirable than killed enemy because a wounded soldier takes more of the enemy combatants out of action: the wounded soldier and one or two who are occupied helping the wounded off the battlefield. And a wounded soldier drains the resources of the enemy far more than a dead one.
This is one reason why rifles traditionally considered to be “assault rifles” are actually considerable lower power than hunting rifles.
If you actually want the highest kill rate for a mass murder, hunting rifles are usually a better choice because they aren’t designed with exactly this in mind. As well as a lot of the performance compromises made with the aim of making them easier to carry for days on foot with lots of gear, not something that really helps most civilian murder scenarios
You just described every semi-automatic rifle that exists. Maybe hold off on calling everyone else dumb until you understand what you’re talking about.
Volume and frequency. I don’t know a lot about guns, but I know I would like to see a reduction in the number designed to kill large numbers of people in a short period of time. Such weapons (and that would include chemical and biological weapons and all kinds of bombs, along with whatever guns fit the description) are for defending one’s country from a military attack, and don’t belong in homes and streets.
Hunting rifles are generally designed to be more lethal because wounding animals is not the aim of hunting, while in war, wounded enemy are actually strategically more desirable than killed enemy because a wounded soldier takes more of the enemy combatants out of action: the wounded soldier and one or two who are occupied helping the wounded off the battlefield. And a wounded soldier drains the resources of the enemy far more than a dead one.
This is one reason why rifles traditionally considered to be “assault rifles” are actually considerable lower power than hunting rifles.
If you actually want the highest kill rate for a mass murder, hunting rifles are usually a better choice because they aren’t designed with exactly this in mind. As well as a lot of the performance compromises made with the aim of making them easier to carry for days on foot with lots of gear, not something that really helps most civilian murder scenarios
What do you mean when you say "ghost gun"? Because when they talk about "ghost guns" they heavily imply they mean home-built (often 3D printed) firearms, but when they actually report statistics on "ghost guns" they just lump together anything for which they have no definitive record of commercial sale. So if the police find a Gen-1 Glock from 1988, trace it back to a gun shop that's been closed for 20 years, and the ATF declines to search their archive to find that single paper transaction, then that's a "ghost gun" in most state records.
The vaaaaaast majority of gun deaths due to murder are with guns legally acquired either by the murderer or by someone go illegally gave a legal gun to that murderer.
There are far more assault rifles in legal circulation than there are ghost guns in illegal circulation. The profit just isn't there to bootleg a blicky
3d printed guns aren't really a problem in the US. You can buy most parts to make a gun online without a background check. You can buy an 80% lower without a background check. California has new laws to combat this but it is still very easy to do in other states.
People who make 3d printed guns in the US are probably hobbyists or engineer types. They likely can legally buy whatever they're trying to make.
3D-printed guns have been around for over a decade. Cody Wilson, a self-described crypto anarchist, created the first functional printed firearm in 2013, and lawmakers and courts have tussled with how to rein them in ever since. Those efforts largely targeted the gun files themselves and the websites that hosted them, but courts have (with some exceptions) repeatedly treated gun code as a form of protected speech, frustrating gun control advocates at every turn. Though many states have passed laws specifying who can print or share gun files, they are notoriously difficult to actually enforce.
Today, almost anyone with a printer, internet access, and enough patience can browse file-sharing sites and attempt to make their own gun.
But a new volley of legislation progressing in California and New York aims to shake up that stalemate by moving regulation from the files to the machines themselves, requiring 3D printers to employ blueprint scanning “print blocker” software that, in theory, would detect gun files and stop the print before it starts. It’s essentially taking the long-running debate over online content moderation and translating it to the physical world.
The problem is, neither New York nor California specifies what the blocking technology must actually look like. That flexibility gives the printing industry and technologists more time and freedom to experiment with different technical approaches, but it simultaneously leaves critics on edge — unsure whether a relatively contained gun control measure could eventually evolve into something closer to a broad infrastructure for file surveillance.
Also of note most 3d printed guns require some amount of metal parts. This is usually a kit that you can buy. To my knowledge there hasn't been a 3d printed multi shot capable gun that is created from only plastic.
Cleaned link from "https://www.theverge.com/tech/960802/3d-printed-gun-laws-ghost-guns?view_token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpZCI6IkE1ZlRjeEtybDUiLCJwIjoiL3RlY2gvOTYwODAyLzNkLXByaW50ZWQtZ3VuLWxhd3MtZ2hvc3QtZ3VucyIsImV4cCI6MTc4Mzg2NDE5OSwiaWF0IjoxNzgzNDMyMjAxfQ.cV38wPB7l3ymn3VFFbvMfXGRFdUx_Kd8Q_IQdcdDnos&utm_medium=gift-link":
https://www.theverge.com/tech/960802/3d-printed-gun-laws-ghost-guns?view_token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpZCI6IkE1ZlRjeEtybDUiLCJwIjoiL3RlY2gvOTYwODAyLzNkLXByaW50ZWQtZ3VuLWxhd3MtZ2hvc3QtZ3VucyIsImV4cCI6MTc4Mzg2NDE5OSwiaWF0IjoxNzgzNDMyMjAxfQ.cV38wPB7l3ymn3VFFbvMfXGRFdUx_Kd8Q_IQdcdDnos
Tracking parameters were removed from the original URL(s).
Won’t stop shit and that isn’t even the point anyway. “Ghost guns” have never been an issue for the average person. This is about controlling production of products in general and has more to do with the age old class struggle we’re told to not give a shit about.
Good. Next we should have PCs and smart phones sold only to licensed and properly vetted individuals. The technology has gotten too powerful for random citizens to just go out and buy with no oversight. The 1st amendment only applies to paper and printing presses anyway.
I completely understand that few people get sarcasm on Reddit lol. 90% of folks that are terminally online here would take Joanathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" as a literal call for cannibalism and alert the mods that someone is encouraging mass murder.
But yeah, we are in some deep doo-doo when a state treats CAD files as a felony. Even though the schematic files themselves are of items (firearms components) that are in of themselves not illegal Federally.
3D printers are great for prototyping physical parts. Do you really want every revision sent to a cloud service to make sure that you still aren't trying to make a gun?
If you're making something medical, like customized prosthetic devices, you can get an exemption. But to exercise that, you have to buy an industrial printer instead of a much cheaper commercial model.
High quality 3D printers can be built from almost entirely off-the-shelf parts. The few custom parts have to be available as replacements because they wear out. If somebody builds their own printer with open-source software, it won't block anything.
memoriesofgreen | a day ago
This is an insane proposal. No system could identify a firearm component accurately without triggering false matches. Adding an exception for Hollywood makes it even more of a crazy idea. I doubt the majority of the public could reliably filter for gun / not gun.
If a person wants to print a water pistol, then they won't be able to.
If a malicious person wants to print a firearm component, they just need to pretend to be from hollywood
At least with porn you have "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it". There is nothing close for firearms.
frostysauce | 9 hours ago
> At least with porn you have "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".
Now they want to abdicate all responsibility and let the AI identify the things that will become illegal.
CountFauxlof | a day ago
I don’t actually think ghost guns are a problem for the average American
Epistaxis | 18 hours ago
In particular I don't actually think 3D printing is a major route of guns getting into the hands of Americans who probably shouldn't have them.
DHFranklin | 20 hours ago
Ghost guns are far faaaaar more likely to be an accounting problem than actual crime in America.
not having a serial number or having a serial number not match ballistic evidence under a forensic analysis has legit reasons that aren't criminal subterfuge. Some times guns break, or people use modified parts.
I wish that zip guns or ghost guns were more than a rounding error in crime stats. The stats are so bad for legal fire arms that America asked everyone to stop tracking them.
Polymathy1 | a day ago
I'd rather focus on restoring the assault rifle ban.
BlondeJesus | a day ago
I'll be honest, gun control is such a losing issue for Democrats. I'd rather they drop that stance entirely so they can win elections and actually impact policy rather than pushing a nothing agenda.
hippydipster | 23 hours ago
Agree. Its part of our country and culture. Best to stop trying to make cultural changes through legislation and focus on positive impact on the most lives.
adidasbdd | 15 hours ago
Assault weapons aren't part of the culture, they only became legal again in 2004 and since then they've become the gun of choice for school shooters. Unless you're saying that school shootings are part of our culture
Dwn_Wth_Vwls | 13 hours ago
"Assault weapon" is a fake term created by politicians that has no set definition. "Assault rifle" is a term referring to automatic guns. Automatic guns are extremely regulated and tracked on a much higher level than regular semi-automatic guns. AFAIK no assault rifle has been used in a school shooting.
Dugen | 20 hours ago
Yea.. if we go anywhere it should be taking guns out of the hands of the obviously crazy people. There's a lot more support for that out there.
SoMuchMoreEagle | 15 hours ago
Plus, when Democrats are in power, gun and ammo sales go up because people are afraid they won't be able to buy them soon. The gun lobbies love to push that narrative, too.
FamousPart6033 | 4 hours ago
Like especially now with ICE and right-wing gangs on the rise.
FapoleonBonerparte1 | a day ago
Bro sees the rise of authoritarianism, lack of poltical representation, sharp increase on crime committed against minorities and vulnerable people, and still comes to this conclusion.
Polymathy1 | a day ago
Oh, you assume I don't have any. That's not correct.
CountFauxlof | a day ago
So you only want them for yourself and the government?
Polymathy1 | a day ago
No, I'd be happy to get rid of mine if we ban them. But there's a ton of psychos praying for a civil war on the mean time.
CountFauxlof | a day ago
Hopefully you realize that those people don’t go away (nor do any of their weapons) if you ban a specific type of gun.
toolisthebestbandevr | 16 hours ago
Oh now I get it. Bootlicker then.
CountFauxlof | a day ago
That may be even less of a problem. Rifle deaths of any kind hover around 400/yr for the entire country. Either way, deaths involving both are marginal.
CorneliusSoctifo | 20 hours ago
More people die of rectal trauma than rifles each year
toolisthebestbandevr | 16 hours ago
I actually quoted this the last time my aunt brought up how bad guns were
Johny-S | a day ago
Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons which are already illegal to possess except with a very specific type of license. Nothing needs "restoring".
FamousPart6033 | a day ago
No thanks, fuck the cops.
Choosemyusername | a day ago
What technical characteristics make assault rifles more dangerous?
Is it their power? Accuracy?
Johny-S | a day ago
Assault rifles are fully automatic weapons used by the military. Semiautomatic rifles which are available to civilians can look similar but do not have the ability to switch between semi-automatic and fully automatic or burst fire.
Choosemyusername | a day ago
Would you consider this an assault rifle? https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/colt-ar-15a3-tactical-carbine-223-4549963276
Johny-S | a day ago
No, it is semiautomatic only. Rifles can be made to look like other rifles but that doesn't make them the same thing. For example, this one looks like a Tommy Gun out of an old gangster movie but it isn't a real Tommy Gun. Its just another type of semiautomatic rifle.
The reality is that any repeating rifle, semiautomatic or even some manual actions, can shoot at a rapid rate. The term "assault rifle" has been overloaded to the point it doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means.
Choosemyusername | a day ago
Well it was banned in the Federal Assault Weapons ban from 1994 to 2004.
During that time it was only sold to the police and military and not to civilians.
Johny-S | a day ago
Right, but at the same time a great alternative was the Ruger Mini14 Ranch Rifle. It has basically the same capabilities except it has a traditional rifle type stock - available in the same caliber with a detachable magazine. This is why the term doesn't work and why specificity matters.
MenergyLegs | 21 hours ago
And there are lots of others
Choosemyusername | a day ago
So if you specify, what do you specify?
Johny-S | a day ago
Semiautomatic vs automatic is already where federal law draws the line. Some states, such as my home state of California, they regulate every little aspect of firearms and ammunition. That's really the only way to do it short of banning all semiautomatic guns.
The trouble with that is CA's AWB and other related laws have been hung up in court for many, many years. It's an effective strategy to skirt the constitutionality of the laws by dragging it out in court indefinitely. If they eventually lose one, they just pass another with a variation to start the legal process all over again.
AllStupidAnswersRUs | a day ago
The real kicker is they don't even have a consistent definition of what an assault rifle means lol
Far-Fennel-3032 | a day ago
The real kicker is, people have a very good idea what they are, the problem is that dumb fucks think you need an extremely precise definition for everything. For example, you famously can't actually define what a fish is without lumping in a whole bunch of stuff everyone would agree is not a fish. So you know it when you see it is good enough.
As such, sometimes, you know it when you see it is actually enough for a public debate. As the issue people have is very clear, there exists a category of guns that allow largely unskilled individuals to kill a lot of people very quickly that do not meet the definition of a machine gun.
With machine guns banned for precisely this reason, and this category of guns, 'assault rifles' being available to the public largely to exploit loopholes to get a gun as close as possible to a machine gun without getting banned like one.
Sure, there are real issues when writing laws, as you do need to be precise then, but let's be honest, this level of precision doesn't extend to the public debate, as we all know what they are, and anyone seriously claiming otherwise is clinically retarded and should qualify for the disability pension.
MenergyLegs | 21 hours ago
You are effectively saying:
"An assault weapon is any weapon with an action that is semi-automatic or faster and has detachable magazines"
To which I say:
Fuck off
bearrosaurus | a day ago
Imagine if every time you told a child to eat his vegetables, he would slap back with “CAN YOU EVEN DEFINE A VEGETABLE”. Such a kid would be considered a whiny brat that didn’t have a point.
hippydipster | 23 hours ago
That's my kids and we have a good time with it.
Apart-District3771 | 22 hours ago
Vegetables isn't even a real definition. It's a culinary term.
wraithnix | a day ago
No, we're not talking about a child, we're talking about law, and laws need specific definitions. You can't ban something without defining what you're banning, because if you don't define it it just opens the door for abuse by law enforcement.
m2r9 | a day ago
Sea lioning. “I’m just asking questions here!”
coleman57 | a day ago
Okay fine: set a maximum number X of bullets that can be fired per second and Y before reloading. Easy peasy. Now go away.
imam-altman | a day ago
That makes zero sense because all semi automatic weapons only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and you can make extended magazines for virtually any weapons.
So your definition is basically “all guns are assault rifles”
alkatori | 21 hours ago
Or the law is just ignored like marijuana laws and prohibition was.
Choosemyusername | a day ago
So what about what you personally consider assault rifles is particularly dangerous? Is it the power? The accuracy? The reliability?
Ghosttiger13 | 19 hours ago
Ok, so not who you asked, nor a gun person, but to answer the "what about "assault rifles" being particularly dangerous?" It would be the amount of bullets (potential targets hit, directly or indirectly) shot withing x amount of seconds. Idk what the formula would be, but, if I understand correctly, things like bump-stocks that increase fire rate could put a gun into the "assault rifle" category. This, again, from just a regular ol citizens perspective and also not someone who sees guns for taking human life (despite an argument for defense against a tyrannical government/military attack on civilians).
Choosemyusername | 18 hours ago
So the thing about automatic modes on rifles that don’t worry me is that I have never found a use for it in actual firefights. And as a combat vet I have been in a lot of them.
The thing about automatic is it is hard to aim and it depletes your ammo too fast, so you end up killing fewer when you use it. You are more lethal wjen you take your time to aim each shots. Same in hunting. I would never want a fully auto gun for hunting. And I hunt as well.
Fully auto has very specific uses. Otherwise it isn’t useful. I wouldn’t lose sleep over it
AllStupidAnswersRUs | a day ago
Assault rifles mean literally nothing lol.
Legislature is supposed to be specific.
Do you understand what legislature is even for?
jumbohiggins | a day ago
Not a gun expert but ease of use, ammo capacity, and range. A normal ar-15 carries 30 rounds. About twice as many as most pistols. They are semi automatic, meaning for every time you pull the trigger it fires a bullet. So you can very quickly shoot many things.
Those are basically the only differences between an "assault rifle" and a bolt action hunting rifle. The amount of ammo it holds and how quickly you can make the shots come out.
CountFauxlof | a day ago
Why are those bad for civilians to own?
Ghosttiger13 | 19 hours ago
For me, because why would someone need a weapon that riddles their target with bullets, when I feel gun ownership should be primarily for hunting animals, not other humans.
CountFauxlof | 17 hours ago
I understand your logic. Where I live gun ownership is explicitly in our constitution for the purposes of self and civil defense.
Ghosttiger13 | 17 hours ago
I'm American, and recognize the 2nd amendments importance and original purpose (from my personal interpretation), but I would love to see a world where, after 250 years after our country's creation, gun violence wasn't so prevalent that I'm seeing people shooting each other over parking disputes, neighbor dissatisfaction, road rage incidents on social media regularly. And yes, the worst shit gets reposted, often, there are so many events that aren't recorded. My perfect world, everyone enjoys their hobbies, be it guns, or whatever, but they aren't used to gun down other humans...
CountFauxlof | 17 hours ago
I agree, I don’t want humans to kill one another. However I am not comfortable with the government having a monopoly on weaponry.
Ghosttiger13 | 16 hours ago
Well I'm naive, but there has to be a better solution than an unbalanced arms war against the most militaristic army in history. And I don't have the answer, I'm just heartbroken from the violence I've seen without ever seeing a national resistance to a hostel government takeover.
Em_Es_Judd | a day ago
The vast majority of firearm fatalities every year are handguns.
But big rifles are scary so they gotta go, right?
jumbohiggins | a day ago
I was just answering the guy above's question. I don't have a dog in this fight. It's true that the majority of gun deaths in the US are from handguns but the majority of mass shooting events are from rifles so I would say being concerned about either isn't invalid.
ncolaros | a day ago
Isn't this just like people saying we don't need vaccines because no one gets Polio anymore?
Are the majority of firearm fatalities handguns because they're the most accessible? If assault rifles became more accessible, would we not see the number of assault rifle deaths increase?
This feels like that apocryphal story of the planes coming back with bullet holes, so they put armor on those parts, not realizing those are the ones that made it back, so you need armor on the other parts.
Choosemyusername | a day ago
An AR is definitely not easier to use than most hunting rifles. I carried a variant of the AR and when I got out of the military, I didn’t want to use one ever again due to what a pain in the ass they are.
And as far as the magazine size, that is more of a magazine issue than a platform issue. Canada limited magazine capacities to 5 rounds. That is a much clearer objective than “ban assault rifles”
And no plenty of hunting rifles including bird hunting guns are semi-automatic.
Far-Fennel-3032 | a day ago
Any functional definition really should just be, can someone with some training reliably kill X number of people within Y period of time?
As it's pretty obvious what the actual issue is, people want to get guns as close as possible to a machine gun, which are banned, so they just tweak elements of the gun until it is no longer banned.
We got into this mess by people being pedantic, shifting the goal posts around, and just adding 1 more rule doesn't solve the underlying issue, as it's then just a gun with 1 more element changed.
The whole point of framing this debate as you need to define 50+ rules to create an air-tight legal definition is so obviously batshit insane. This is never done in any other policy debate, which is always framed by objectives in public debate, not strict rules. It says a lot about how dishonest or mentally impaired some people are in this space.
percussaresurgo | a day ago
The only person who sounds unhinged here is you. Every policy requires legislation, which requires details. We know that “assault rifle” bans have a definition problem because the ones that have been enacted have all had that problem. Now you’re just trying to get around that problem by waving it away like it doesn’t matter.
alkatori | 21 hours ago
The solution is to repeal the 1986 machine gun ban.
CorneliusSoctifo | 20 hours ago
Fuck the Hughes amendment
alkatori | 20 hours ago
It only exists as a "Screw You" to FOPA.
MenergyLegs | 21 hours ago
Consider the following: 30-50 feral Nazis
Polymathy1 | a day ago
It seems like you know already and are looking for a fight.
Parrotparser7 | a day ago
It seems the fight was already there and he's just reminding you of your bullshit.
Choosemyusername | a day ago
Actually I don’t know. Because nobody does.
It just sounds sensible until you think about it.
Polymathy1 | a day ago
I don't believe you.
Choosemyusername | a day ago
Do you know?
Far-Fennel-3032 | a day ago
Are you stupid or something? Its like what is a fish? You know it when you see it.
It's pretty bloody obvious, what people have an issue with is the combination of guns with stuff like
1 Requires 2 hands to use.
2 Have a stock that lets you brace the gun against your chest.
3 Semi automatic fire.
And a range of other elements that lower the skill requirement to kill a lot of people very quickly. We all know what it is, let's not pretend to be terminally retarded here.
Sure, there is a very real issue around actually needing strict rules when writing laws to close loopholes but let's be honest here, that is an issue for lawyers and lawmakers not the general public. And that handguns are generally a bigger issue as mass shootings are rare events while regular shootings are not and handguns are generally much more useful due to them being smaller and easily hidden, so this issue is, in part, a red herring.
But anyone who honestly thinks the strictness of legal loopholes lawyers can exploit is relevant in any way to public debate should be on a disability pension, as they are honestly dumb as bricks.
Choosemyusername | a day ago
Any rifle checks the first two boxes, and loads of rifles nobody would dispute are hunting rifles are semi-auto.
Could you name any other of that range of other elements?
Keeping in mind that hunting rifles are generally designed to be more lethal because wounding animals is not the aim of hunting, while in war, wounded enemy are actually strategically more desirable than killed enemy because a wounded soldier takes more of the enemy combatants out of action: the wounded soldier and one or two who are occupied helping the wounded off the battlefield. And a wounded soldier drains the resources of the enemy far more than a dead one.
This is one reason why rifles traditionally considered to be “assault rifles” are actually considerable lower power than hunting rifles.
If you actually want the highest kill rate for a mass murder, hunting rifles are usually a better choice because they aren’t designed with exactly this in mind. As well as a lot of the performance compromises made with the aim of making them easier to carry for days on foot with lots of gear, not something that really helps most civilian murder scenarios
percussaresurgo | a day ago
You just described every semi-automatic rifle that exists. Maybe hold off on calling everyone else dumb until you understand what you’re talking about.
bearrosaurus | a day ago
Okay ban every semi auto rifle
percussaresurgo | a day ago
Not constitutional or realistic.
coleman57 | a day ago
Volume and frequency. I don’t know a lot about guns, but I know I would like to see a reduction in the number designed to kill large numbers of people in a short period of time. Such weapons (and that would include chemical and biological weapons and all kinds of bombs, along with whatever guns fit the description) are for defending one’s country from a military attack, and don’t belong in homes and streets.
Choosemyusername | a day ago
Hunting rifles are generally designed to be more lethal because wounding animals is not the aim of hunting, while in war, wounded enemy are actually strategically more desirable than killed enemy because a wounded soldier takes more of the enemy combatants out of action: the wounded soldier and one or two who are occupied helping the wounded off the battlefield. And a wounded soldier drains the resources of the enemy far more than a dead one.
This is one reason why rifles traditionally considered to be “assault rifles” are actually considerable lower power than hunting rifles.
If you actually want the highest kill rate for a mass murder, hunting rifles are usually a better choice because they aren’t designed with exactly this in mind. As well as a lot of the performance compromises made with the aim of making them easier to carry for days on foot with lots of gear, not something that really helps most civilian murder scenarios
toolisthebestbandevr | 16 hours ago
Man those downvotes piling up in this sub of all subs. I had to go check what sub I was in for a second.
triple_carry | 6 hours ago
From a financial standpoint, this would make me rich.
x1009 | a day ago
How many people are killed by "assault" rifles? They're just semiautomatic rifles.
MajesticBread9147 | a day ago
They are a huge conttributor to gang violence.
They're a bigger deal than assault weapons by death toll by a wide margin.
SakanaToDoubutsu | a day ago
What do you mean when you say "ghost gun"? Because when they talk about "ghost guns" they heavily imply they mean home-built (often 3D printed) firearms, but when they actually report statistics on "ghost guns" they just lump together anything for which they have no definitive record of commercial sale. So if the police find a Gen-1 Glock from 1988, trace it back to a gun shop that's been closed for 20 years, and the ATF declines to search their archive to find that single paper transaction, then that's a "ghost gun" in most state records.
CountFauxlof | a day ago
I think gang violence needs to be addressed by avenues other than prohibition.
DHFranklin | 20 hours ago
"Huge" no chance.
The vaaaaaast majority of gun deaths due to murder are with guns legally acquired either by the murderer or by someone go illegally gave a legal gun to that murderer.
There are far more assault rifles in legal circulation than there are ghost guns in illegal circulation. The profit just isn't there to bootleg a blicky
James_Solomon | 22 hours ago
Best nip that problem in the bud.
rjksn | a day ago
Its going to cost a lot and not work. Brilliance.
Choosemyusername | a day ago
It’s not about the guns. It’s about surveillance generally.
Rebelgecko | a day ago
The goal is control, and government surveillance of 3d printers. by that standard I think these laws will be mostly successful
SuddenValley1899 | 22 hours ago
3d printed guns aren't really a problem in the US. You can buy most parts to make a gun online without a background check. You can buy an 80% lower without a background check. California has new laws to combat this but it is still very easy to do in other states.
People who make 3d printed guns in the US are probably hobbyists or engineer types. They likely can legally buy whatever they're trying to make.
thearchenemy | 20 hours ago
Getting really sick of this drive to turn every device into a fucking cop.
crookedledder | a day ago
A solution looking for a problem.
Vadoff | 15 hours ago
How many ghost gun deaths have there been since 2016? 0? Close to 0?
How about for regular guns? 400,000+
Hmm...
[OP] theverge | a day ago
3D-printed guns have been around for over a decade. Cody Wilson, a self-described crypto anarchist, created the first functional printed firearm in 2013, and lawmakers and courts have tussled with how to rein them in ever since. Those efforts largely targeted the gun files themselves and the websites that hosted them, but courts have (with some exceptions) repeatedly treated gun code as a form of protected speech, frustrating gun control advocates at every turn. Though many states have passed laws specifying who can print or share gun files, they are notoriously difficult to actually enforce.
Today, almost anyone with a printer, internet access, and enough patience can browse file-sharing sites and attempt to make their own gun.
But a new volley of legislation progressing in California and New York aims to shake up that stalemate by moving regulation from the files to the machines themselves, requiring 3D printers to employ blueprint scanning “print blocker” software that, in theory, would detect gun files and stop the print before it starts. It’s essentially taking the long-running debate over online content moderation and translating it to the physical world.
The problem is, neither New York nor California specifies what the blocking technology must actually look like. That flexibility gives the printing industry and technologists more time and freedom to experiment with different technical approaches, but it simultaneously leaves critics on edge — unsure whether a relatively contained gun control measure could eventually evolve into something closer to a broad infrastructure for file surveillance.
Gift link: https://www.theverge.com/tech/960802/3d-printed-gun-laws-ghost-guns?view_token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpZCI6IkE1ZlRjeEtybDUiLCJwIjoiL3RlY2gvOTYwODAyLzNkLXByaW50ZWQtZ3VuLWxhd3MtZ2hvc3QtZ3VucyIsImV4cCI6MTc4Mzg2NDE5OSwiaWF0IjoxNzgzNDMyMjAxfQ.cV38wPB7l3ymn3VFFbvMfXGRFdUx_Kd8Q_IQdcdDnos&utm_medium=gift-link
jumbohiggins | a day ago
Also of note most 3d printed guns require some amount of metal parts. This is usually a kit that you can buy. To my knowledge there hasn't been a 3d printed multi shot capable gun that is created from only plastic.
clean-links | a day ago
Cleaned link from "https://www.theverge.com/tech/960802/3d-printed-gun-laws-ghost-guns?view_token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpZCI6IkE1ZlRjeEtybDUiLCJwIjoiL3RlY2gvOTYwODAyLzNkLXByaW50ZWQtZ3VuLWxhd3MtZ2hvc3QtZ3VucyIsImV4cCI6MTc4Mzg2NDE5OSwiaWF0IjoxNzgzNDMyMjAxfQ.cV38wPB7l3ymn3VFFbvMfXGRFdUx_Kd8Q_IQdcdDnos&utm_medium=gift-link": https://www.theverge.com/tech/960802/3d-printed-gun-laws-ghost-guns?view_token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpZCI6IkE1ZlRjeEtybDUiLCJwIjoiL3RlY2gvOTYwODAyLzNkLXByaW50ZWQtZ3VuLWxhd3MtZ2hvc3QtZ3VucyIsImV4cCI6MTc4Mzg2NDE5OSwiaWF0IjoxNzgzNDMyMjAxfQ.cV38wPB7l3ymn3VFFbvMfXGRFdUx_Kd8Q_IQdcdDnos
Tracking parameters were removed from the original URL(s).
krebstar4ever | a day ago
https://www.theverge.com/tech/960802/3d-printed-gun-laws-ghost-guns
toolisthebestbandevr | 16 hours ago
Won’t stop shit and that isn’t even the point anyway. “Ghost guns” have never been an issue for the average person. This is about controlling production of products in general and has more to do with the age old class struggle we’re told to not give a shit about.
Neither_Cod_992 | a day ago
Good. Next we should have PCs and smart phones sold only to licensed and properly vetted individuals. The technology has gotten too powerful for random citizens to just go out and buy with no oversight. The 1st amendment only applies to paper and printing presses anyway.
PersistentBadger | a day ago
For anyone who didn't get your sarcasm, it's called the war on general computation.
Neither_Cod_992 | 22 hours ago
I completely understand that few people get sarcasm on Reddit lol. 90% of folks that are terminally online here would take Joanathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" as a literal call for cannibalism and alert the mods that someone is encouraging mass murder.
But yeah, we are in some deep doo-doo when a state treats CAD files as a felony. Even though the schematic files themselves are of items (firearms components) that are in of themselves not illegal Federally.
pteridoid | 22 hours ago
No, I am not.
Vahuo89 | 20 hours ago
I don't think that they know how technology works and that you can't stop the signal Mal
rabidcow | 15 hours ago
3D printers are great for prototyping physical parts. Do you really want every revision sent to a cloud service to make sure that you still aren't trying to make a gun?
If you're making something medical, like customized prosthetic devices, you can get an exemption. But to exercise that, you have to buy an industrial printer instead of a much cheaper commercial model.
High quality 3D printers can be built from almost entirely off-the-shelf parts. The few custom parts have to be available as replacements because they wear out. If somebody builds their own printer with open-source software, it won't block anything.
Parrotparser7 | a day ago
I don't disapprove of ghost guns, so I consider this an infringement.
jxj24 | a day ago
Great idea! Because, you know, it's soooo hard to get a gun otherwise.
SponsoredByMLGMtnDew | 21 hours ago
Why are you trying to turn us into gayer Australia?
SoMuchMoreEagle | 15 hours ago
That actually sounds fun.
fanart89 | 10 hours ago
Well done Newscum
Substantial_Meal_530 | 9 hours ago
I think the problem is what is defined as the gun. The easily printed parts are the gun. The parts that actually act on the bullets aren't the gun.
BlindBeard | 7 hours ago
Literally anything except for working on the reasons people shoot other people in the first place.
SirrNicolas | 6 hours ago
Ghost guns the least of our problems right now
clean-links | a day ago
Cleaned link: https://www.theverge.com/tech/960802/3d-printed-gun-laws-ghost-guns?view_token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpZCI6IkE1ZlRjeEtybDUiLCJwIjoiL3RlY2gvOTYwODAyLzNkLXByaW50ZWQtZ3VuLWxhd3MtZ2hvc3QtZ3VucyIsImV4cCI6MTc4Mzg2NDE5OSwiaWF0IjoxNzgzNDMyMjAxfQ.cV38wPB7l3ymn3VFFbvMfXGRFdUx_Kd8Q_IQdcdDnos
Tracking parameters were removed from the original URL(s).
TalkativeTree | a day ago
Fuck ghost guns, we need this for AI biological labs so we don't have some whack job building a super virus and releasing it on the public.
imam-altman | a day ago
3d printer owners love dead kids, what’s new?
Apart-District3771 | 22 hours ago
And you like to mutilate & rape them.
imam-altman | a day ago
3d printer owners love dead kids, what’s new? Lock these disgusting tech bros up and throw away the key