If not all people should have guns, who should have guns exactly?

So really, all you know is a few articles you have read. You’re no expert. The only truth of the matter is, it’s still junk and the claim that anyone can churn guns out in their home that actually function reliably is all bogus. Maybe you should of mentioned that from the beginning and just agreed. Would have saved a lot of posting time.

 

Personally, I would recommend a limit to the number of firearms owned. If they want a hundred collectibles, make them inoperative. Otherwise, this so called legal proliferation of firearms just provides inexhaustible supplies for people that can’t have them otherwise except in private sales.

 

Of course we aren’t surprised to find you don’t even understand gun ownership in your own country. Gun ownership per capita in Australia has fallen since 1996. In fact it has been falling since long before 1996. Few are aware of this, most just swallow the BS fed them. Here are the facts for people who care about facts.






Source for all graphs:
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/proportion_of_households_with_firearms

The total number of firearms owned in Australia is higher than in 1996, but only because of individual owners owning more guns each.

Source:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-australia-44105129

Another fun fact is that gun deaths in Australia were in free fall before the Port Arthur massacre and subsequent National Firearms Agreement.




Isn’t it interesting how those from other countries who have no understanding of firearm law, use, or statistics in their own country wish to “help” us make decisions? It’s both fascinating and quite disturbing. It’s more evidence those that wish to tell others what’s best for them are themselves completely uninformed on the subject. It’s the progressive way it seems.

 

The proof of that IS Australia because if the argument that “you can print firearms were viable then our crimes would have done it since firearms for felonies are hard to come by here. But I have not heard of a Crime here committed with a printed gun - I guess our crimes like keeping their fingers

 

Exactly.
These things have to be sold with a disclaimer.

The only thing that’s even remotely safe to shoot in them is very unreliable ammo. Maybe the two together can scare someone....But really, just make one out of a soap bar....then you’ll have something to wash up with after all the fakery.

 

Of course you’re including frauds like Wayne L. who claim the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

 

It isn't really about who, it's about recognising the significant risks the firearms pose and striking a reasonable balance between that and the benefits and legitimate uses of them.

As a general principle, I'd expect to see it treated in a similar way to things like driving, flying or working as a medical professional. You'd want some kind of process to establish that a person is willing and able to handle and use firearms safely, formally signing up to a recognised set of laws and regulations with the possibility of a legal process to limit or remove that freedom from the individual if they're shown to have broken those laws or regulations.

This is kind of what is done in many developed nations anyway, including the USA, which already has a whole range of arguably unconstitutional gun-control regulations along these kind of lines. The US seems pretty much incapable of having rational discussions on the topic though, in great part because the constitution is brought up as an unquestionable and unconditional barrier at any point, often in place of any reasonable argument that might be made.

 

A reasonable postIon and can agree with most. The constitution though has long been excused in favor of gun management and regulations. It’s just a matter of who, what type and where we can agree to. The one side that keeps saying, “anything new is wrong”, is wrong.

 

And you timid little hoplophobes want to disarm everyone because of your irrational fear of guns.

I am not arguing for allowing the legitimately incompetent or violently mentally ill to be able to buy firearms.

But, how does prohibiting gun ownership for someone who is being treated for mild PTSD or moderate depression put "...everyone in harms way."?

I worked as a psychiatric case worker for about 10 years and have seen people who decided to seek treatment for mild PTSD and moderate depression who are far less threat to society than deranged people running around in denial.

 

I’ve never claimed you can print barrels or bolts. You are welcome to quote me saying so.

Of course you failed to comprehend what I wrote. I said barrels aren’t commonly printed because they aren’t. But printed barrels do exist. If you had read the article you would realize the reason most people don’t eliminate all metal is to keep the firearm legal—it must be detectable to metal detectors to be legal.

Also, you failed to read the part about 3D printed tools being used to create the metal barrels.

And you are referencing pistols now when the linked article is about semiautomatic rifles. LOL. Like I said, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

In effect, your argument amounts to claiming you can’t print a firearm with a printer—you have to have filament.

I’m sorry but taking (another) tour of a plant would be interesting, but of little value. I have been making zip guns safely since I was around 12 years old. I’m well aware of the differences between manufacturing methods and results. Unlike you, I’m even educated on methods I have never employed—printing technology.

 

I’ve never claimed to be an expert. An expert would have to be an individual actually using the technology. I know several who are using the technology successfully—I told you that initially.

But as my links have demonstrated, firearms capable of reliably firing hundreds to thousands of rounds are in routine production with this method. The source I linked to was just for you progressives—it’s a progressive source. But of course you didn’t even read it. You are happy to stay ignorant which is fine. Most of my content is for third parties to learn from—posters like you who are not into facts are just props I use to demonstrate how the most ignorant are the most authoritarian.

You have served your purpose well. Thanks.

 

I loath WL. I loath the NRA. Won’t score any points trying to link my factual posts to the NRA. Nice try though.

You should stop making assumptions about me. Makes you look silly.

 

So you ARE including frauds like WL. My post was pretty innocuous to anyone who did hate Wayne’s world. I don’t know why you got apoplectic.

 

Successfully doing what ? Making dinner table center pieces or one time drug dealers popping caps in each other. Have a hard time believing, and you would too, thinking anyone, even a drug dealer would trust their lives to one.

oh, I did see a presentation on Utube using one as a throw away you kept in a tackle box for emergencies. After shooting and missing everything he aimed at less then ten feet, the final choice was a .25 caliber pot metal Jennings. That junk was infinitely more reliable then this junk.

 

You brought up WL. I couldn’t care less what he says or does. I don’t hear much of what he says because I don’t care, so can’t comment on specifics. He certainly seems to think he knows what’s best and does a fine job appealing to emotion.

Where we probably disagree is on his ignorance. He probably knows more about Australian firearm history and data than @Bowerbird and more about legality of manufacturing firearms for individual use than you. Of course I could be wrong on that. I’ve just seen PF members make blatantly false statements on statistics and law where I’ve not observed that with WL. If you can quote him making false statements like you and @Bowerbird my mind is open to be changed.

 

Are you now admitting that printed guns are little more then up guns ? Thanks if you are. . Slowly you’re agreeing with me. Btw, you need to read my posts with more understanding. I implicitly say that that only the plastic parts normally made in gun manufacturing can be reliably made by printing.. How that translates into, I’m saying any thing more about barrels and bolts, is your language barrier.

 

You should read the link I provided.

Since you definitely need knowledge and others do as well, by law, a firearm is the receiver. Everything else is simply parts that are sold online etc. completely unrestricted for the most part. So, in reality, when you have printed the receiver you have created the firearm. Whether you choose to use purchased barrels, slides, bolts, or any other part is irrelevant to the fact printed firearms are not only very common (printed on cheap printers) but extremely reliable and safe. When you harp on the fragile nature of some printed firearms you are not talking about the legal firearm. You are talking about optional parts that can be manufactured or purchased just like a head of cabbage or a box of Cheerios.

So again, by referring to things that aren’t actually the firearm you have demonstrated you don’t even know legally what a firearm is.

Yes I’ve seen a lot of junky printed firearms. But their existence doesn’t erase the existence of very reliable safe ones.

 

Oh, I don’t think I commented on his intellect. I just think he’s a fking criminal.

 

Ha ha
That’s an oxymoron. I don’t consider any firearm safe if you have to make checks after every round for “plastic fatigue”.

 

No, zip guns are totally different than printed firearms. Again you display your ignorance.

You are incorrect. Reliable barrels are being printed. As well as rails and internals that are metal in traditional firearms. You are just plain wrong.

 

Ah, but you did. You bolded this when quoting me.

It’s more evidence those that wish to tell others what’s best for them are themselves completely uninformed on the subject. It’s the progressive way it seems.

 

Doubtful. You need to read both sides....

 

And you have evidence at your fingertips there are printed firearms you need not check every round.

 

You’re all over the place. Reliable barrels aren’t coming out of your $400 printer. Neither are these barrels reliable when compared to manufactured firearms. That’s delusional. Now compared to a 12 year old attempt at a zip gun ? Wow.....go for it. One question. Are you claiming a full printed gun is as safe and reliable as a .22/.25 caliber Jennings ?

 

No, you need to read period. I know there are varying qualities of printed firearms. You believe only poor quality exist. Plus you don’t even know what a legal firearm consists of.