27 Christians Murdered In Texas Church...

[Cow Poke]

I've heard of those. They fire like 2 rounds and fall apart. I think we're a ways away from 3D printing guns in a way that they're actually practical, if at all.

Sure, but what's new is the ability to 'print' the parts that turn a weapon from semi-auto to auto, or stuff like that.

And I don't know a single person with a 3D printer.

People in the illegal gun business do.

Those things are super duper expensive. If you can afford a 3D printer, and the materials used to print something as complicated as a gun, then you're likely not fitting the profile of your average violent gun criminal.

The cost is going down constantly, and competitors will find a way to make them even cheaper.

But, if we get to the point where this is a viable option, we could always institute new laws for that. One thing at a time.

Laws are for people who are prone to obey them. Somebody who has the hate in their heart to want to do mass murder is hardly concerned about laws.

[One Bad Pig]

And how would any of that make a difference in stopping incidents like Las Vegas or this one? We already said he should not have been given a gun and yet he had 4. If they are not even bothering to enforce the laws we already have, how would your suggestions changed anything? Would they have enforced those? if so why?

You are right, what we are doing now isn't working -- because they are not enforcing the laws we already have. making more laws that won't be enforced isn't going to help.

as far as needing a permit, here is a page from 2010 on which states require permits. Seems like all of them except Alaska, Arizona and Vermont do require some permit or license to carry a gun.

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/shal...tricted-states

That's for concealed carry.

Most 2nd-Amendment proponents are vehemently against a gun registry; if the gubmint knows what guns you have, it's easier to take them away. These days, with so many databases being compromised, it's easier for criminals to take them away too.

[Cow Poke]

That's for concealed carry.

Most 2nd-Amendment proponents are vehemently against a gun registry; if the gubmint knows what guns you have, it's easier to take them away. These days, with so many databases being compromised, it's easier for criminals to take them away too.

Even friends of mine who are considering concealed carry seem to waver over "they'll have a record of my gun", etc.... but it's not the gun that's being 'registered', it's the owner.

[Adrift]

And how would any of that make a difference in stopping incidents like Las Vegas or this one?

Well I don't know Sparko. I'm not God. I can't see every counterfactual, and how, if these laws were implemented they might or might not prevent these mass shootings. Perhaps, at some point, these people would never have come into contact with a hypothetically unlicensed gun that triggered something in them that made them want to unload on a mass of people. But, again, at least it's something.

We already said he should not have been given a gun and yet he had 4. If they are not even bothering to enforce the laws we already have, how would your suggestions changed anything? Would they have enforced those? if so why?

Well, okay then, let's add to my suggestions congressional panels that ensure that all of these laws, both the old ones, and the suggested new ones, are enforced. Would you be okay with that? It seems to me that enforcement is not only something that gun control advocates should have to burden. It should be everyone's burden.

You are right, what we are doing now isn't working -- because they are not enforcing the laws we already have. making more laws that won't be enforced isn't going to help.

Eh, it won't hurt. I mean, if it were up to me I think an outright gun ban would probably be the best way to go, but you know, in the spirit of compromise, perhaps if you pile on enough laws, eventually something will stick.

as far as needing a permit, here is a page from 2010 on which states require permits. Seems like all of them except Alaska, Arizona and Vermont do require some permit or license to carry a gun.

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/shal...tricted-states

I think there's some sort of misunderstanding here. Skimming through your link, this seems to be about concealed carry. Are you saying that most states require a license and registration for simply owning a gun even without concealed carry? Because, again, I can tell you for a fact that that isn't true in Ohio. None of my coworkers or friends have licenses for their guns. I'm pretty sure my brother in MI has a license, but he's Border Patrol and conceals carries for his job.

[Sparko]

I've heard of those. They fire like 2 rounds and fall apart. I think we're a ways away from 3D printing guns in a way that they're actually practical, if at all. And I don't know a single person with a 3D printer. Those things are super duper expensive. If you can afford a 3D printer, and the materials used to print something as complicated as a gun, then you're likely not fitting the profile of your average violent gun criminal. But, if we get to the point where this is a viable option, we could always institute new laws for that. One thing at a time.

3D printers are not expensive.

Heck they are selling them in Aldi's for crying out loud:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/11/one...00-3d-printer/

So what if they fall apart after two shots. Just print several. The models are available on the internet.

They also have 3D printers that can print metal now. But they are indeed expensive.

[Adrift]

Sure, but what's new is the ability to 'print' the parts that turn a weapon from semi-auto to auto, or stuff like that.

Aren't 3D parts made out of plastic? Again, from my understanding, these things fire a couple rounds and then break.

People in the illegal gun business do.

I wasn't aware that there was a huge illegal 3D printed gun manufacturing problem in this nation.

The cost is going down constantly, and competitors will find a way to make them even cheaper.

Probably, but I think we got some time before that happens.

Laws are for people who are prone to obey them. Somebody who has the hate in their heart to want to do mass murder is hardly concerned about laws.

Please see my reply to this oft quoted concept. It simply is NOT the case that laws are for people who are prone to obey them. We have plenty of laws on the books that are designed specifically to prohibit behavior among those with criminal intent.

[Adrift]

Even friends of mine who are considering concealed carry seem to waver over "they'll have a record of my gun", etc.... but it's not the gun that's being 'registered', it's the owner.

We already register cars, and no one seems to bristle at that. I don't really see the big difference.

[Sparko]

That's for concealed carry.

Most 2nd-Amendment proponents are vehemently against a gun registry; if the gubmint knows what guns you have, it's easier to take them away. These days, with so many databases being compromised, it's easier for criminals to take them away too.

Most states have laws that require permits for even open-carry handguns. Shotguns and sport/hunting rifles are usually exempt.

The thing people are vehemently against is a nationwide gun registry.

[Adrift]

3D printers are not expensive.

Heck they are selling them in Aldi's for crying out loud:

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2017/11/one...00-3d-printer/

So what if they fall apart after two shots. Just print several. The models are available on the internet.

They also have 3D printers that can print metal now. But they are indeed expensive.

[Sparko]

Well I don't know Sparko. I'm not God. I can't see every counterfactual, and how, if these laws were implemented they might or might not prevent these mass shootings. Perhaps, at some point, these people would never have come into contact with a hypothetically unlicensed gun that triggered something in them that made them want to unload on a mass of people. But, again, at least it's something.

so you are doing the same thing as I have been pointing out the liberals have been doing: merely making the motions and virtue signalling because "someone has to do something" even though you nor them have any idea what good it will do.

use the laws we already have first. Then worry about making up more rules that won't be enforced.

I think there's some sort of misunderstanding here. Skimming through your link, this seems to be about concealed carry. Are you saying that most states require a license and registration for simply owning a gun even without concealed carry? Because, again, I can tell you for a fact that that isn't true in Ohio. None of my coworkers or friends have licenses for their guns. I'm pretty sure my brother in MI has a license, but he's Border Patrol and conceals carries for his job.

States that Prohibit Open Carrying of Handguns

California3
District of Columbia4
Florida5
Illinois6
New York7
South Carolina8
States that Require a Permit or License to Openly Carry Handguns

Connecticut9
Georgia10
Hawaii11
Indiana12
Iowa13
Maryland14
Massachusetts15
Minnesota16
Missouri17
New Jersey18
Oklahoma19
Rhode Island20
Tennessee21
Texas22
Utah23
States that Otherwise Restrict Open Carrying of Handguns in Public Places

Alabama (some private property restrictions)24
North Dakota25
Pennsylvania26
Virginia27
Washington28

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-la...ic/open-carry/

[Adrift]

so you are doing the same thing as I have been pointing out the liberals have been doing: merely making the motions and virtue signalling because "someone has to do something" even though you nor them have any idea what good it will do.

Who exactly do you feel I'm virtue signalling to here? This is a forum made up mostly of conservatives, I'm obviously not signalling to them, and the liberals here don't like me all that much, so why would I signal to them? What I feel like I'm doing is attempting to offer some sort of answer to the question "what can be done?" I'm a fix-it type of guy. This idea of "no one is enforcing the laws we have, so let's all just throw our arms up in the air and say nothing can be done" is not something I buy. I think there are plausible solutions, and I don't understand the resistance to them.

use the laws we already have first. Then worry about making up more rules that won't be enforced.

I say we do both.

States that Prohibit Open Carrying of Handguns

California3
District of Columbia4
Florida5
Illinois6
New York7
South Carolina8
States that Require a Permit or License to Openly Carry Handguns

Connecticut9
Georgia10
Hawaii11
Indiana12
Iowa13
Maryland14
Massachusetts15
Minnesota16
Missouri17
New Jersey18
Oklahoma19
Rhode Island20
Tennessee21
Texas22
Utah23
States that Otherwise Restrict Open Carrying of Handguns in Public Places

Alabama (some private property restrictions)24
North Dakota25
Pennsylvania26
Virginia27
Washington28

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-la...ic/open-carry/

Again, not talking about concealed or open carry. The proposal I outlined was referring to a standard license and registration for all guns, period. I'm not sure why this was so hard to figure out.

[Roy]

Correct. I'm tired of hearing the common refrain "criminals don't obey laws" when it comes to gun control laws. Gun control advocates already know that, so in case there was any confusion I wanted to cover all bases, including those criminals who, for whatever reason, may be law abiding, as well as the more common type...the law breaking ones. It was a bit of a tongue in cheek response.

Criminals don't always break every law.

I recall hearing that criminals rarely break the speed limit, for instance, since it would be stupid to get pulled over by the police while carrying stolen goods.

So I suppose criminals would prefer to use legally obtained (but untraceable?) weapons if possible, rather than taking the risk of obtaining illegal weapons.

[Cow Poke]

We already register cars, and no one seems to bristle at that. I don't really see the big difference.

We don't require the registration of cars used on private property. I have had numerous vehicles which weren't registered, and they weren't required to be. Registration of vehicles is only required if they are to be operated on public roadways.

[Roy]

We don't require the registration of cars used on private property. I have had numerous vehicles which weren't registered, and they weren't required to be. Registration of vehicles is only required if they are to be operated on public roadways.

So only require guns to be registered if they'll be carried in public places. WTP?

[Cow Poke]

So only require guns to be registered if they'll be carried in public places. WTP?

OK, so what's the purpose of registering the gun? When a van is turned into a bomb to blow up a building, or used to mow down people on the sidewalk, they have been "registered", but that didn't stop anybody from using them for evil intent.

What would you expect the registration of firearms to achieve? (serious question)