No; I’m not going to. Are you going to be an internet asshole and threaten to make me?
On “argue”, if stating my opinion that what you’re advocating is good regulation, when it’s no regulation at all, sure. It’s pretty clear that you think the status quo is fine, and therefore it’s not surprising that you think a window-dressing law is good regulation. At least be forthright about opposing any further regulation rather than trumping up what sounds like a mere service as actual regulation.
But hey, don’t let me get in the way of your attempt to own the thread.
Sarkus
2728
In fairness to Houngan, the current background check laws are equally toothless in many regards. It works to the degree that it does because the FFL’s have the incentive of keeping their license (which is regularly reviewed). If guns sold can be traced, its because of the FFL records, not the background check system. The current background check system doesn’t track actual sales. So to the degree that this proposal is a “window-dressing law,” it’s simply extending already existing window-dressing laws (or at least aspects of them.)
Which is a fine point. I was happy to agree with Houngan that shifting it to a store, alone, is equally stupid. But that doesn’t change the fact that the law is window-dressing. Now, if window-dressing is what you want, then it does a fine job of being that. The question is what is the law being sold as and what there’s a political demand for.
Note that an argument premised on the current laws being ineffective arguably advocates for more stringent laws (assuming the political will is for a change of the status quo), not more window-dressing.
Houngan
2730
You could, if you would think things through and make better arguments. Saying that you can’t be bothered to actually consider what you’re saying gives you all the weight of a pro-lifer saying “Well, let’s just stop all sex where someone doesn’t want to have a child.” and leaving it at that. There’s a few steps in between a common desire, reducing gun crime/abortion, and a specific method, “regulate all transfers in every situation” or “stop all unwanted pregnancies.”
Further, I don’t believe I said this was regulation at all, that’s your baby. I said it was good legislation, and it is. It’s something that will have almost no cost and can only have positive outcomes. That those outcomes might not be as much as you want is immaterial.
Sarkus
2731
Well, the argument being presented in recent months (including by the President) is that we need to “close the loophole” in background check laws. To some degree this proposal does that, in that it provides a method for people who want to follow the law to do so. But it ignores the fact that the current system requires the involvement of FFL’s to create someone with an incentive to actually follow the law beyond personal values.
Is it good legislation? Well, in some ways, as it provides an easy way for those who already want to do the right thing to do it. I don’t think it really closes the loophole, but I guess it would be better than nothing.
I’m also pretty sure the NRA would oppose it, along with the rest of the “not one more inch!” gun rights advocates.
As you mentioned, there is a stick for FFL checks: loss of license. Economics is a powerful incentive. You can’t transplant a similar approach to actors who do not have the same incentive, and then expect the same level of participation.
olaf
2733
The guns were in pretty good shape. None of them had been counter bored. Rifling out to the muzzle good to great on about half of them. Ok on the other half, but none were bad. All 12 passed a field gauge headspace test. 10 of the 12 had matching numbers on the receiver, bolt and mag. The other 2 were force matched. Stocks were hit or miss, a few were gorgeous, a couple were pretty banged up. No rust, let alone pitting, on any part that mattered but 2 had some rust on the barrel shank stamps. One of them was a 1944 Tula with a hex receiver (which I got, yay!), fairly rare from what I can tell. Going to shoot them next Tuesday.
olaf
2734
Good news for the masses.
The story won’t load, but I’m guessing from the URL it’s about making firearms with a 3D printer.
The folks over at Defense Distributed have designed, but not tested, an almost-all-plsatic .32 ACP pistol that uses a metal nail as a firing pin and a functionless metal block to meet the legal proportion-of-metal-weight requirement under the law about undetectable firearms. Anyway, it’s likely to be a jobber that works once before it fails, and you couldn’t convince me to hold one in my hand and shoot it, but it’s much sooner than I thought they’d get this far.
Perhaps, but if you’re just making a shit gun like that, it would be trivial to go buy some steel pipe for a barrel and change the design to install it. That would give you plenty of shots before failure.
And now you can buy a 3D printer for $1300. Pretty soon any criminal with $1000-1500 or so can get a gun without even needing the gun shows.
olaf
2739
As for the 3D printed gun, I dont think it will be a shit gun that works once, but we’ll see. This guy is pretty serious. And I dont think it really has serious implications for the US, aside from all the legal bullshit about making guns that are ‘undetectable’. I think the impact is really going to be felt in places with confiscatory gun laws abroad.
Anyway, I shot my M44 today. It was great fun. It was dialed in perfectly for elevation. It was shooting about 2.5 MOA left, but upon further inspection this was no surprise as the front post was set way left. I punched it back some when I got home, going to shoot it again Tuesday.
http://defdist.tumblr.com/post/49768758853/the-liberator
Footage and pictures of the Liberator 3D printed gun. The only metal part is the firing pin - a regular hardware nail.
I think the real impact of this gun will be the fact that it’s undetectable and won’t look like a gun on x-ray. Hell, you could build it into a child’s toy robot with a little imagination. Smuggle on a bit of ammo and you have a working gun on a plane.
I heard about that on BBC World News yesterday, and…well, am I the only one who immediately thought of using it as a prop for an “In the Line of Fire” sequel?
No, I went there as well.
RichVR
2746
When common household nails are outlawed…
