from the now-what-can-I-do-with-this-Instant-Pot-I-got-as-a-gift-too? dept.
A man named "Kem" printed 110 firearms on a $200 printer he got for Christmas and turned them into a gun buyback program held at the Utica Police Department in Oneida County, New York.
"I 3D-printed a bunch of lower receivers and frames for different kinds of firearms," Kem told local media WKTV.
He drove six hours across the state to turn in the firearms he printed in August, collecting a whopping $21,000 from the New York State Attorney General's Office.
[...] WKTV contacted the state Attorney General's Office about 3D-printed firearms, though there was no response to that question besides it being a 'big success and that the program, in general, keeps New York families safe.'
"I'm sure handing over $21,000 in gift cards to some punk kid after getting a bunch of plastic junk was a rousing success," laughed Kem.
[...] Some police departments have changed policies on accepting 3D-printed firearms as more and more people take advantage of flawed buybacks.
[...] Kem concluded to the media outlet: "Gun buybacks are a fantastic way of showing, number one, that your policies don't work, and, number 2, you're creating perverse demand. You're causing people to show up to these events, and, they don't actually reduce crime whatsoever."
(Score: 5, Touché) by sgleysti on Wednesday October 05 2022, @12:26AM (17 children)
Ok, the guy found a flaw in the buyback program, exploited it, and collected $21k in gift cards. That's pretty smart, considering he got away with it. It would have been a whole lot smarter to never talk about this scheme publicly.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @12:55AM (15 children)
The flaw in the buyback program *is* the buyback program.
If you no longer want a gun for whatever reason, you should be able to surrender it to the police, a licensed gun dealer, or some random dude down the street at any time.
What part of "shall not be *infringed*" don't they understand?
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @01:29AM
How is a buyback program infringing upon anyone?
(Score: 5, Touché) by MIRV888 on Wednesday October 05 2022, @03:29AM (12 children)
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' is hard to understand too.
It's the first line.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @03:56AM (8 children)
The explanatory clause is not a limit on the given right. It is given as a sufficient reason, but is not a necessity.
If it was intended to limit the right it would have said "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
(Score: 2, Troll) by Spook brat on Wednesday October 05 2022, @01:52PM (2 children)
Groupthink is strong with the mods this morning.
Parent's comment agrees with several recent Supreme Court rulings, not sure why it's modded "Troll".
Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @02:43PM
Because the Supreme Court is trolling ya too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2022, @12:27PM
It's a mod point sink. 9 mods for a total (at the time of writing this) of +1.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday October 05 2022, @05:48PM (4 children)
Another "2A explanatory clause" proponent, as ridiculous as the rest. I can't even find the term "explanatory clause" in any legal terms glossary.
"Explanatory" or not, you can't simply ignore part of the amendment, especially when ignoring it completely changes the meaning! You also can't ignore the context of the times when said amendment was written either.
I find it very hard to believe that the intention of that amendment was to have Joe Average American able to acquire and use any and all firearms, especially considering that the state of the art of the time were muskets and cannon.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @07:02PM (3 children)
Then you fail to understand both history and the intent of the 2A. Private citizens of the time did indeed own weapons that were the equal or superior of any government weapons. The intent of the second amendment was to ensure that the free people had the means to resist a tyrannic state. It would be pointless indeed to limit the citizens' weapons when the intent was for them to be able to resist the state's weapons.
Things might have changed now, but that should be dealt with by amending the second amendment, not by denying what it says or what was intended.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday October 05 2022, @08:40PM
While I may believe it should be amended to not allow the average citizen to own Nuclear Weapons or perhaps even RPGs. The likelihood that we would get anything designed to protect the people from a tyrannical government as was the original intention, is extremely low. Leave it alone. It was #2 for a reason.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday October 06 2022, @06:01PM (1 child)
Agreed, however does that mean that any individual should have unfettered access to any and all firearms? Or does it mean that we should expect the citizenry that have weapons to know how to use them properly, and be able to call upon them to fight? Also, who gets to define "tyrannic state"?
At the time, yes. These days? Not even close.
There's no "might" about it.
Agreed, 100%. Too bad one side won't entertain such a blasphemous thought.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2022, @06:30AM
They might if there wasn't such a history of creeping additions. State in plain language the change to the amendment and they might agree with it.
e.g.
"Private citizens shall not, except as provided by listed exemptions, possess nuclear weapons, biological weapons, fully automatic weapons, weapons of a caliber larger than X, or antipersonnel explosive devices."
That provides a baseline, and the only extra bits you can add to the schedule are ones that allow more exemptions rather than more restrictions.
(Score: 4, Informative) by RamiK on Wednesday October 05 2022, @08:26PM (2 children)
18th century English didn't use "regulate" the way you think it did: https://www.constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm [constitution.org]
compiling...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 06 2022, @08:48AM (1 child)
Of course, the US doesn't have a functioning and maintained militia.
So either:
- the US is not a free state, and the absolute clause (that's the grammatical term for it) no longer applies, and therefore the right to bear arms no longer needs to be upheld
- the militia wasn't necessary, so the absolute clause is false, and therefore is no longer a valid justification for anything. F |= Anything, as a mathematician would say
Either way, it needs to be either scrapped entirely, or scrapped and replaced by something that (a) makes sense in modern English; and (b) is based on facts.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2022, @11:35PM
"For the safety of citizens, this road has a speed limit of 50 mph"
...
"But officer, I was doing 90 because my beat up old piece of shit car has no brakes and is unsafe anyway, therefore the speed law no longer applies."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday October 05 2022, @11:01PM
I'm a strong 2nd amendment supporter and still have no problem at all with voluntary gun "buybacks". The police are also welcome to purchase from my classified ads too.
The only rights issue I have is if they become INvoluntary.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Opportunist on Wednesday October 05 2022, @06:52AM
Since he pretty much gave away the 21 grand, it's obvious that his goal wasn't to abuse the system to gain profit but to show that the system is flawed and needs to be improved or dropped altogether.
And for that purpose, talking about it is the best way to go about it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday October 05 2022, @12:44AM (27 children)
... why is this not in a journal?
ZeroHedge. Really?
Maybe I should have stuck with my decision that the time of life is to important to waste on S/N and don't make any "but procrastination time" exceptions. Hmmm...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @01:03AM (1 child)
This.
Zerohedge is not a reliable source: [adfontesmedia.com]
.
Of all the potential sources for this story [duckduckgo.com], why use one that is notoriously biased and unreliable?
Just curious.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @02:10AM
Sounds like a CNN or MSNBC to me.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @01:45AM (23 children)
I can't say I know anything about ZeroHedge one way or the other. The article quotes from and links to some local TV coverage, not to some overtly dubious source. I can't say I see what the big issue is here.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday October 05 2022, @02:12AM (22 children)
Presuming innocence (as opposed to just playing coy), here are my issues:
- the topic is highly polarizing; "gun control" is one topic S/N had "internal wars" over, until the editors decided that such articles are to be allowed in journals only
- ZeroHedge is highly opinionated, on the far right wing of the spectrum, twists the factual information and on occasion "fabricate facts" (the civilized way to say it's an "alt-right piece of shit, with a tendency to conspiracy theories"). Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org]:
Follow the citations, draw your own conclusions.
In any case, my strong suggestion: if you find a story interesting, go and find it on other (than ZeroHedge) sites. If you can't find it anywhere else, it is likely that's a ZeroHedge pretext just to peddle some more of their shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1, Troll) by legont on Wednesday October 05 2022, @02:33AM (2 children)
Yep, ZeroHedge is the best source if one wants to keep his money.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @02:56AM (1 child)
Anyone can keep her/his money, and you don't need to be particularly smart to do that, just a bit more intelligent than the total idiot level.
Did you have troubles doing it before reading ZeroHedge?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday October 06 2022, @03:13AM
Depends who wants to take your money.
Thieves? You'll probably do all right.
Government? Uh-oh.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @06:45AM (3 children)
1. Define "far right". That term is slung around so much, BLM members are in danger of being labeled.
2. Define "libertarian". You do realize that the monster under your bed is probably not libertarian?
3. Prove that Austria has schools.
4. You realize that being banned by social media has become a Good Thing®?
5. Tyler Durden better than Joe Burden.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @07:44AM (2 children)
Go start your journal and spew whatever nonsense you want there, nobody bans you.
And yet Joe's president and Tyler Durden isn't, get over it.
Now, go and shoot yerself in the face [youtu.be] to woke up, say a few stupid words words and watch the closing credits roll.
BTW, take my hint, Marvel movies aren't documentaries either.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @08:49AM (1 child)
You revel in the fact that the DNC figured out how to steal an election?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @09:01AM
No, I'm revel in the fact you succumb so easy to your delusions, so delicious to mock you.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday October 05 2022, @09:28AM (6 children)
Discussing gun control for gun control's sake is, as you say, a topic for the journals.
However, that supposes that there is no other link to a relevant technology. This story is posted under 'Random' which suggests that the link to technology might not be as strong as we usually would like. There have only been two 'Random' discussions in the last 4 days. However, the story does have other links to technology. He used a 3D printer to make selected parts of a weapon. If this becomes a commonplace occurrence it is not beyond the realms of possibility that some restrictions could be placed on the use of 3D printers thereby placing a burden on many more people in addition to the handful who are using them to facilitate this scam.
Which parts of a weapon would qualify it for buyback program? I could create a rifle butt from a piece of wood but that surely wouldn't qualify? Who is writing such vague laws, or is it a case of local interpretation of what the law actually states? Will ownership of a 3D printer carry the same supposed criminal intent as some believe anyone using TOR has?
Furthermore, it shows that some laws are not fit for purpose. The same government could easily pass a law which places severe limitations on internet use (encryption, for example, or anonymity, TPM, the collection of personal data) with similar unintended consequences to billions of people. If you don't see these things coming you might not notice until it is too late.
We have discussed the war in Ukraine on the front page because the side effects have severe consequences to many areas of technology. Shortage of chip supplies, chip manufacturing, energy dependency, satellite technology, drones, etc. We are trying to broaden the discussions providing that there is some relevant link to those topics that we usually discuss. The community have asked us to do so and this is one such topic. If the discussion focusses on the potential links of this story to other technologies rather than 'gun control' then that will surely be a good thing?
The problem with the journals - even those by some of our best contributors - is that they attract a lot of noise and disruption that has no relevance to the topic under discussion. On the front page, if somebody starts taking the discussion in a specific but unwanted direction or simply tries to disrupt intelligent conversation, then the community has the power to control it.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday October 05 2022, @10:50AM
It is, in fact, common, and has been for a number of years now. Due to the 1st amendment and the free nature of data on the internet, anyone in any jurisdiction in the world can obtain the files and instructions to make a so-called "assault weapon" or other firearm using a limited amount of tools, materials, and resources. If you have a torch, a file, and a drill press, you can make a gun. If you have a 3d printer and some garage shop tools, you can make a better gun.
The cat's out of the bag.
With regard to laws that will effect everyone, California is already making it illegal to possess a CNC machine or 3d printer for the purpose of making firearms, without an FFL. That means if you have a 3d printer and someone claims you got it to make guns, you're a criminal until and unless you can prove otherwise.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Troll) by c0lo on Wednesday October 05 2022, @10:51AM (4 children)
BS, jan, and you know it.
Nowadays a 3D printer (or a CNC) is like a chisel, anyone even remotely interested in woodworking will buy and learn to sharpen and use one.
I bought one with the money I didn't manage to spend during my holiday - under USD1000, with a 0.05mm horiz resolution and 0.02mm on Z-axis.
Took me 2 days to get from zero to printing myself some custom brackets to mount a webcam over my work desk. And this included learning enough FreeCAD from scratch (I tipped this guy [youtube.com] £50 for his tuts). Even discussions about distributed ledgers and AI are more novel nowadays and gosh aren't they moldy already?
Serves the Americans right. Give up your guns or give up your 3D printers. Others not afflicted by ammosexuality aren't gonna suffer.
But not even the Americans are going to suffer from it - for fuck sake, they didn't suffer anything even almost 10 year ago, when that putz printed one and the fired it [theguardian.com].
There are many other laws that aren't fit for purpose. Why choose one you know it's gonna create more noise on the front page?
And "the war in Ukraine on the front page" has a bearing on discussing a loaded social topic, starting from a piece of new published by ZeroHedge... exactly how?
And, really, ZeroHedge? I though that being an editor requires something between the ears, at least a bit of memory.
If you wanted the story so hard, whoever promoted it on the front page could search [google.com] for it and, after filtering out the Murdochs and other garbage, you could get something like:
this one [interestingengineering.com] - "However, Kem added that getting his money was not so easy. He had to haggle and negotiate with the Attorney General's Office staff. He ended up spending his whole day in this endeavor."
or this one [wktv.com]
---
This is not a problem, is a feature. And a feature that I remember you (the editors) decided to use, particularly for non-stories like this.
Yeah, because the community is powerless in journals, no sir, no modding there, right? Oh, poor community.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday October 05 2022, @12:15PM (3 children)
So you would prefer a different source. Please give us a list of the sources of which you approve, or simply read one of those alternatives that you suggested. We quoted only the parts that were relevant to the intelligent discussion that we hoped would follow. Not everyone can see the point that you are intent on making a fuss about - https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=51809&page=1&cid=1274949 [soylentnews.org]
I strongly dislike extremists of any political persuasion or religion, countries that invade other countries, terrorists, rapist and child abusers among many other things. I don't, however, refuse to accept that they exist. This is not an attempt to continue this conversation, it is just my point of view....
Another story will be along shortly.
(Score: 1, Troll) by c0lo on Wednesday October 05 2022, @12:24PM (2 children)
A different story from a different source would have been nice, yes.
Just from curiosity, has what you hoped happened yet?
Noted.
Maybe I'll get over the procrastination and finish the stupid thing I need to finish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday October 05 2022, @01:27PM (1 child)
In part, but some of the comments have concentrated on the source rather than the questions it raises. However, as less than 1/3 of our community have even seen it yet it is too early to make an assessment.
(Score: 0, Spam) by aristarchus 2 on Saturday October 08 2022, @02:26AM
Your source is still trash, and you and Runaway are still butt-buddies. Fucking creep.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 06 2022, @08:54AM (7 children)
The left has just as much right to be up in arms about a story like this - it's trivially spun into a gun-nuts-are-evil yarn.
Easier to just do a lazy leftie ad hominem rant, eh?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 06 2022, @09:31AM (6 children)
You'll find two links here [soylentnews.org], which provide more details than the original FA:
- the first prove that the bureaucrats didn't just accept the thingies without contest, but they were forced by regulations to do it
- the second prove that the loophole has been corrected
Interesting that ZeroHedge chose to ignore them, I reckon.
Also not a trace of evidence that I didn't actually give a shit.
You inferring something as true and starting your mouth (well, fingers) without checking says more about you than me.
Oh, the irony.
Please quote the "ad hominem" in my post. Or was it "Tyler Durden" the homo that you think I attacked?
Love you too, FatPhil.
PS: friendly advice, go wipe the foam at the corners of your mouth, wearing it in public is unbecoming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 06 2022, @10:49AM (5 children)
And complaining about the source is an /ad hominem/ fallacy.
So it looks like the score is 2-0 to me.
Is this half time, or full time?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 06 2022, @10:57AM (4 children)
FatPhil, allow me to be irrelevant and offtopic in regards with story one more: feel free to keep whatever scoresheets you want, I have my methods to my madness.
Just note that the above doesn't make your rant on topic and neither you contributed something to the quality of the story or the comments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday October 06 2022, @11:31AM (3 children)
Cut it out at the root.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 06 2022, @12:13PM (2 children)
Cut what to the root? The habit of soylenters to search for info when a notification about the dubious quality of a site is made?
Or do you contest that ZeroHedge is at least dubious?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday October 07 2022, @12:10PM (1 child)
ZeroHedge is 50% pure fucking garbage. Possibly more, maybe 2/3rds of it. However, I like to read the garbage stories until I detect the first error, logical fallacy, or meaningless ranting. That doesn't take long though, as typically it's in the first sentence - sometimes it's even in the headline! It barely interrupts my scrolling. As I say, it carries some high grade bullshit. One of my hobbies is debunking bullshit - I do like to be on top of what the idiots are talking about, so ZH's useful source material.
However, I also read it for the occasional insights into the financial world - fed rates, strikes, PMs, trade deals, lockdowns, resource shortages, bonds, trannies, etc.. There was a story on monday that was convincingly-enough presented it persuaded me to buy into a particular commodity ETF, and I'm up ~650e already in 4 days, but not selling, as the conditions that will bring about a top aren't in place yet - I'll let ZH help me be on the lookout for those triggers. It's had these insights before, many times. I could probably get these insights from reading BI or the FT, or whatever, but to be honest I have no interest at all about 99% of the investing world - no interest in tech stocks, industrials, startups/IPOs, mergers/bimbos, SPACs, and it's infinitely easier to find the interesting things floating in a sea of shit than it is against a backdrop of superficially similar looking things.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by c0lo on Sunday October 09 2022, @11:16PM
This would be the third ... umm... strong preference that I noted in you over times, the other being:
- finding God in yourself, mostly by talking (but not limited to)
- playing meaningless word games (instead of trying to understand the meaning the would-be dialogue partners intended).
This drives you often enough in awarding yourself stupid prizes for playing stupid games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @02:16AM
c0lon doesn't like the 0hedge! He is threatening to blow! Shit!
If you need a new place to procrasturbate, you should try Twitter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @12:58AM
The 'hood knows all about arbitrage. Gun buy-backs have had the effect of raising the price of cheap "Saturday Night Specials" that are likely to blow your hand off, until whoever buys it figures the price difference isn't profitable. The classic 'hood arbitrage is sneakers and they even have computer programs that will let you jump on the latest "drop".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Wednesday October 05 2022, @01:02AM (6 children)
I guess they don't want to ask to many questions at gun buyback programs, that said I would assume all guns are later inspected, tested and compared to various databases. Even tho they might not know where it came from exactly it might be enough. If he got $21k for his 110 "guns" he sure made of like a bandit.
That said, just cause it looks like a gun it might not necessarily be a gun. It does appear to have the main parts, at least they are mentioned, but is it functional and complete? A broken gun might still be considered a gun but if it never worked to begin with? As he noted it's plastic junk. It's barely more of a gun then what you buy in a toy store in that regard. It might look the part but it might also end there. They are probably not from what I can gather from the article functional and have never been functional or complete in that regard. Even if it somehow was and he used his xmas cheapo plastic to print it then it would most likely explode or shatter in his hand before he even managed to fire more then a few rounds. Still then it would at least qualify, it doesn't have to be good it just have to do the trick. But with that in mind if he made them all plastic they are quite illegal, as per the legal definition they have to be detectable and having some metal parts in them usually helps in that regard. A fully plastic gun wouldn't be and is there for not legal. He might have just confessed to making 110 very illegal guns in that regard.
But back to question at hand -- are they functional gun(s) or just something that looks like a gun. Just cause it looks like a gun doesn't make it one. At best it might be a replica of a gun. With that in mind what he did, then bragged about it in the news, isn't that fraud? Shouldn't the cops be busting down his door by now and arresting him? He accepted money for a gun not a random assortment of plastic junk that looked like guns. Also as noted he could just have confessed to making 110 very illegal guns if they are functional.
$21k for 110 "guns", so about $190 per gun. You could probably find real guns in or around that price range and sell those. I have seen various pistols, really cheap shit once, in the $200 range. I'm sure there are some used once or if you buy bulk or if you don't care where they come from they might be somewhat cheaper. So it might be possible to make a profit then selling them to the police for a buyback. That said if you can pass of a dollars worth of molten plastic as a functional handgun you have it made.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @03:35AM (4 children)
He exploited a flaw in the law where the lower receiver is the "vital" part of an AR and is considered to be "the gun". They won't explode, even if made of plastic. That's all he handed in, 110 plastic AR lower receivers. Due to silly rules, he technically handed in 110 AR rifles.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday October 05 2022, @12:58PM (3 children)
OK. Didn't notice that. But that is beyond stupid, it's not even a complete receiver then but just by definition the vital part. Completely harmless in that regard unless you use it to bludgeon people to death with it. Still if you only need to hand in a lower receiver and that is considered a complete gun you could just turn to the closest manufacturer and bulk buy lower receivers -- you can get them for like $50 if you don't want anything fancy (which is still a lot more then it would cost to print some plastic junk) and then collect $100+ per part. At least then they would look the part.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday October 05 2022, @11:09PM (2 children)
IMHO "stupid" is that the powers that be want to expand the definition of "firearm" to include parts kits now too.
'weapon parts kits or aggregations of weapon parts that are designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive are also “firearms”'
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/04/26/2022-08026/definition-of-frame-or-receiver-and-identification-of-firearms [federalregister.gov]
Squint at it just right and both Home Depot and Lowes are now in the "firearm" business because of the parts available in their plumbing section.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday October 06 2022, @03:22AM
So... under a liberal reading of the rules, a piece of pipe, a nail, and a rubber band qualify, if one "aggregates" them into a "kit".
There was actually a shotgun manufactured that consisted of nothing but a stock and two chunks of pipe, fired trombone-style.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday October 06 2022, @04:38AM
Hah, you think that's good?! Australia has dangerous goods legislation where "prohibited weapons" include
Technically a kids water pistol or your kitchen bottle of spray cleaner meet the definition although they do seem to have walked that back slightly. It used to say "capable of" now it says "designed or adapted to".
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @06:53AM
The buyback program is the fraud. Added verbiage doesn't change that basic fact.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @02:25AM (16 children)
While not perfect, gun control absolutely works, all the countries that implemented it experience far lower death by firearms than US.
If you don't get the results, you haven't implemented enough gun control.
Oblig theonion (no way to prevent this) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by legont on Wednesday October 05 2022, @02:43AM (6 children)
Yeah, let me compare a typical home robbery in the US and in Great Britain. In the US the perpetrators wait till the house is empty. In GB they go in, break your legs, rape your wife and daughter, and take whatever they want. No guns are reported.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @02:46AM (1 child)
[Citation needed]
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday October 05 2022, @08:55PM
Not an exact citation, but assuming that criminals just don't criminal in the UK is stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_statistics_in_the_United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @02:52AM (3 children)
I'll let you know that in UK a stronger door is more efficient for the purpose, much cheaper and doesn't kill anybody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @03:50AM (2 children)
Funnily enough, there's actually laws against having too strong a door. If the cops can't break it down, it's illegal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @05:37AM
[Citation or GTFO]
I searched Google [google.com], it didn't return a hit in the first 3 pages. Even when searching specifically for .uk TLD.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday October 05 2022, @06:57AM
If your cops can't open a door, get them better tools. There is virtually no way to keep our cops from getting into your home if they want to, even if your door is a steel vault door, they WILL enter your home. If need be by creating a new door next to it right through the wall.
Get better cops.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 05 2022, @09:08AM (1 child)
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/cdc-data-shows-constitutional-carry-states-have-fewer-total-and-gun-related-homicides/ [thetruthaboutguns.com]
Gun control doesn't work, either.
Since no two countries countries compile the same statistical data, using the same methods, you can't compare plums to peaches to strawberries to kiwis to apples. Thanks for playing. The various states don't even use the same data or the same methods. The most meaningful statistics are put together by the FBI. And, those statistics are only "meaningful" in that they apply the same data gathering methods to all jurisdictions, then handle that data in a consistent manner.
But, I think it hilarious that suddenly the CDC is helping to prove that constitutional carry states are safer than gun control states. In gun control states, only criminals are carrying guns. In open carry states, people have the means to resist the criminals, so the chances that the criminal ends up dead are vastly higher.
And, let us be clear: when a criminal dies as a result of his criminal activities, we should celebrate that fact. Give the guy a Darwin award, and move on, knowing that some trash has been filtered out of the gene pool.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @09:43AM
Told ya, you haven't used enough yet.
Fer Chri'sake, you haven't even started, you're speaking through your ass with no direct experience.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday October 05 2022, @10:41AM (4 children)
Want to see how well gun control works? Scroll down to the bottom of this page:
https://homemadeguns.wordpress.com [wordpress.com]
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @11:08AM (2 children)
Count how many zipguns are in circulation in other countries and then count how many bona fide guns are in America.
The read my opening statement, it start with "While not perfect..."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @01:02PM (1 child)
It doesn't work, so it can't be perfect. And, once again, once gun control goes into effect, only criminals have guns, leaving law abiding citizens all but defenseless.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @01:32PM
Oh, but it does.
False.
The correct statement is "only the criminal have uncontrolled guns". Then, because such guns are in short supply, they are expensive. As such, the criminals will take the risk of using them only when it matters.
It turns out that, with very few exceptions, they see as worth using uncontrolled guns when settling whatever disputes happen between them - mostly drug distribution territories and such - and let the "all defenseless law abiding citizens" alone. No mass shooting, no open street violence, less death by gun in opportunistic robberies.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 05 2022, @01:04PM
It's a trick! That page is infinitely expanding, just like Facebook! LOLOL
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Wednesday October 05 2022, @03:01PM (1 child)
And simultaneously experience a far higher rate of every other form of violent crime. I'm sure it's purely coincidental.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 06 2022, @01:12AM
Oh, do tell! Have actual stats that you can share to support it?
Let me put it straight: [Citation or GTFO]
(Score: 2) by owl on Wednesday October 05 2022, @02:47AM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @03:00AM (5 children)
Unlike living things, real guns don't procreate.
Just close the loophole in the process and continue. Only the idiots think the Nirvana fallacy is sound.
(Score: 4, Funny) by deimtee on Wednesday October 05 2022, @04:32AM (3 children)
Not yet they don't, but what happens when the smart guns learn to run the 3D printers?
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @05:40AM (2 children)
Beware of ejaculating guns. Also, don't try to have sex with one.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday October 05 2022, @07:00AM (1 child)
Hey! No kinkshaming please!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 05 2022, @07:50AM
No shaming, just common-sensical advises for a safe sex.
(Score: 2) by owl on Thursday October 06 2022, @12:47PM
True, but here, while there were no procreating living things, the guy underlying the scheme exploited the exact same issue that was exploited by the Cobra Effect folks in India.
The govt. will pay me $X for thing Y? Can I make [1] Y's for less cost than $X? If the answer is yes, then we have an arbitrage [wikipedia.org] situation ripe for exploitation.
Of course, recognizing the arbitrage situation requires more knowledge of economics than is possessed by most politicians.
[1] Note, use the broad definition of make, such that procreate and manufacture both fall within the definition of make.
(Score: 2) by MIRV888 on Wednesday October 05 2022, @03:20AM
Gift cards aren't cash.