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

That sounds like my question.

 

Let’s put it this way, compared to junkers I’ve had, including Jennings .25, two Taurus revolvers and a first gen Glock 42 jamatic, they are infinitely less safe and reliable.

So you don’t know the difference between ignorance ( uninformed) and low intellect. Wayne is an ignorant, criminal a hole. But, he isn’t a low intellect person. You need to consult a dictionary. Being uninformed is being ignorant. That’s not a comment on a persons intellect. Please don’t keep bragging how superior you are to anyone, it is wearing.

 

Well, educate yourself if you have questions. I linked to a solidly progressive source you still haven’t read.

 

Of course that’s your opinion based on no evidence. You didn’t even know these printed firearms existed 24 hours ago. I seriously doubt you are qualified to compare your junkers to them.

You REALLY need to work on your reading. I have never commented on WL’s intelligence or anyone else’s. I’ve ONLY commented on ignorance, not on intelligence. You are making that up.

It would appear you are making up your accusation WL is ignorant as well because you have not supplied evidence I asked for. You have not shown him to be uninformed as I have shown you and Bowerbird to be.

I’m sorry if I’ve hurt your feelings and you feel intellectually inferior. Wasn’t my intention. I’ve only referred to your state of being uninformed, I’ve not claimed I’m more intelligent or superior. I won’t apologize for basing my posts on empirical evidence instead of how I feel or what I heard some journalist or politician say. Nor will I post false information or let false information provided by others stand unchallenged just to assuage the feelings of others.

Many people simply can’t deal with facts that conflict with their preconceived opinions. I refuse to pander to them. If you are such a poster you are welcome to ignore me as @Bowerbird has. She became upset because I corrected misinformation she was posting on functional vs. sterilizing immunity. Because of that she will remain ignorant of facts and statistics concerning firearms in her own country. But ignorance is a choice I fully support everyone’s right to. I just won’t pander to it.

The funny part is, when the ignore function is employed, your misinformation is still exposed and you just look silly without any recourse. I’m still able to use false posts as props to make my points, it just protects the person’s feelings who is using the ignore function.

 

It’s hard for you to declare “disarming everyone” happens when someone is declared incompetent by a judge.

It’s irrational to be AFRAID OF EVERYTHING too.

 

They don’t exist in home use. Manufacturers use metal printing to extend their manufacturing capabilities. No, these aren’t your mothers 2-400 dollar printers.

Poor quality when compared to what ? Another printed gun or a home made zip gun by a 12 year old. Your definition of quality is lacking.

 

I’ve posted the question several times. You certainly aren't feeling qualified enough to answer it. Are you claiming home made printed weapons are as reliable and safe as a Jennings .25 ? Simple question.

 

All the firearms I’ve discussed and linked to can be made on the $400 printer I linked to on Amazon. I have only mentioned metal printing as a future interest of mine.

There are junk printed guns that blow up and there are good printed guns going thousands of rounds without damage. I doubt a Jennings would go thousands of rounds but I couldn’t say for sure as I don’t own any. I certainly would be very uncomfortable shooting a Jennings with that many rounds through it. Nor would I shoot a zip gun I made thousands of rounds.

As I said, I’m a pretty good judge of quality. I have to be or I suffer physically and financially. Guns aren’t range toys and collector items to me. They are serious tools I use everyday in conditions harsher than most military applications. I don’t take quality for granted.

 

owning a gun is a constitutional right, like religion or free speech, if you can take the right away from the least among us for one right, you can do it for all for anyone

the only time rights can be taken away is when one is the ward of the State, they are basically then your parents, and you're like the child

 

Well, regardless of whether you think it’s a constitutional right, if you agree it’s like freedom of speech and religion, it’s highly regulated ALREADY So keep jabbering all you want and we’ll keep passing gun laws. Cause they are all CONSTITUTIONAL. .

I really don’t know where you live, but it couldn’t be in America.

 

Well, I own no Jennings and no printed firearms. I failed to understand you were looking for a direct comparison. I would guess they are quite similar in quality with a slight edge to the printed type I linked to. There are numerous examples of Jennings blowing up, malfunctioning, and cracking. Here’s a funny one where nobody gets hurt. One shot fail.



I would give an edge to the printed firearms for sure if produced by myself or someone I knew to be a competent manufacturer. Simply because quality control on Jennings is a crap shoot where on a printed firearm the quality control is a known quantity.

A head to head shoot off with between a Jennings and a printed firearm would be cool but I don’t know if any. To be relevant you would have to replicate and control everything. Right now we just have evidence of both failing on occasion.

 

FreshAir and I don’t see eye to eye on firearms, but I find her posts are very logical and intellectually consistent.

 

Consistent I agree.

 

That’s a Jennings 9 mm ? The .25 is a piece of junk, but it has never proved to be unsafe for the operator. I guess the point I’m trying to make is, printed firearms will continue to be a regulatory nightmare and more so as they approach that of manufactured guns. But to say they are anything remotely comparable which they aren’t isn’t really the issue. We all know down the road, they will be. And as usual, it will be related to the manufactured guns and their development as the printed gun today is.

Imo, the real problem will arise when projectiles are fired from something other then a shell casing. Either rail guns or small solid propellant rockets like projectiles will then make arms makers themselves obsolete.

 

The chamber max pressure of a .25 ACP is 10,000 psi lower than that of a 9 mm. Since the firearms I’ve linked to are 9 mm there is no way to compare safety of them to a .25 ACP. I’m not aware of any printed firearms in .25 ACP to compare to your Jennings. To make a meaningful comparison we must use the same chamber pressure/same cartridge. I hate to keep harping on it, but this is why it’s hard to communicate with you on this subject. Your baseline knowledge isn’t there to understand the comparisons you are trying to make.

We will make our own rail guns instead of buying them from Glock or H&K? Maybe.

I think it would be great to eliminate primers and brass and propellant. I don’t see a downside.

 

Every law abiding American citizen has the right to keep and bear arms. If it can be shown that a person is not law abiding or is a danger to themself or others for reasons recognized under the law, the right should be denied them. That should require evidence and testimony in a court of law with legal counsel protecting the rights of the accused. This is the American Way.

The arms they are allowed, no, strike that. The arms they have a Constitutional Right to own and carry for all lawful purposes are those of common utility to a military force of today. Or, any lesser arms that may prefer or can afford. The same is true of ammunition.In fact even though this right is infringed upon by the National Firearms Act of 1934 there are those who choose to go thru the hoops and considerable cost to own such things as machine guns and artillery pieces. Not a single owner of such as ever been charged of using such a weapon in a crime.

But then the "gun control" argument is not about controlling guns as the anti-gunners would claim, nor about controlling people as the pro-gunners would claim. The gun banning effort is a tragically misguided attempt to control human violence by going after the inanimate objects humans make use of. As such, because it fails to focus upon the humans doing the violence, it is an effort that is doomed to fail.

Perhaps one of the very best studies on this was done by the US Secret Service in tandem with the US Dept of Education after the Columbine attack. Their report showed that in virtually all cases of a targeted mass shooting at a school or other venue, the shooter was known about before the attack. The Secret Service found that such persons could be detected early and an intervention planned. These techniques have been successful everywhere they have been fully and correctly applied.

Sadly, neither side wants to know this. Talking about a solution that is not centered on the guns offends both sides of the stupid, wasteful, idiotic gun debate. Mainly because both sides refuse to look beyond the instant of the attack. Anti-gunners argue to limit capacity, so that fewer die, or so they foolishly think. Likewise, the flip side of that coin, the pro-gun side argues for more people being armed so an attacker can be shot down.

But here's the problem with all that, both sides arguments focus on people dying before anything is done. No efforts to prevent the actual attack. The anti-gunners would accept fewer dead per incident but so too would the pro-gun side.

BUT PEOPLE STILL GET SHOT NO MATTER WHICH SIDE WINS!

The approach of Early Detection, Threat Assessment & Planned Intervention (not the only approach, there is more) takes money, training, laws to build upon. It takes a restoration of the mental health care system that this country began tearing down in the 1950's and completed the ruin of in the 1980's.

My position is to stop this insipid fight over things and work the people problem. No different than any other people problem.

It is not simple or easy, but focusing on people is focusing on the root cause.

Which is where success is to be found.

Always.

 

And the anti-gun left wants to change this.
They oppose the American Way.

 

The people should have the same guns the cops have. If the cops need superior firepower than the people they live with and have power over, then that is how authoritarianism is achieved, as the police are the main enforcers of the laws the government creates.

Anyone who claims semi-autos are only mass murder weapons, but is ok with letting police be exempt from a ban on them, is an idiot. If it is a weapon of mass murder, as you claim it is, then why would the cops need it? Is mass murder in their job description or do you just want them to be our better armed overlords?

I think the last year and current events should show you maybe you should not let the cops be the sole owners of AR-15s.

 

The people should have whatever weapons they can afford.

 

Not correct. They feel like the problem of people shooting people is just so incredibly easy to solve, just get rid of the guns. The foolishness of this thinking is beyond them because they have been so very long indoctrinated in the notion that guns cause violent human behavior. It is no different than certain issues the right is enamored of. Years of listening to the loudest, most intense voices have warped the thinking of these two groups on their big, emotional, hot button issues.

The reality is that the public owns far more firearms than all the police and military combined and far more AR-15 and other semi-autos too. Add to that the very real potential that if an effort were ever made to disarm the public of these weapons, the military and police would fracture along Constitutional lines. Finding adequate military and police personnel to both disarm the public and disarm those in uniform who would refuse and resist and not comply would be an iffy proposition.

One that would break this Republic.

All for false reasoning. Inanimate objects do not cause human behaviors. People are not obese because of the Eating Utensil Loophole. People are not obese because of the capacity of a grocery story shopping bag.

People take actions. Things do not.

 

In my opinion, police and military should have guns, and stacks and stacks of paperwork and justification to use them. They should also have tazers, and be more often be using those.

Hunters should have guns, strictly registered for that purpose, and to be viewed as a tool rather than as a weapon.

I don't see any reason anybody else should have guns.

And yes, I would take your hand gun from you if I had that power and if you lived anywhere near me.

PS- Don't let this be a reflection of the USA left. I'm not from the USA.

 

More likely, you'd send someone with a gun to do it.
Hopefully, an orphan with no siblings, spouse, or children.

 

Ideally we'd have prevented you from having a gun in the first place.

And if you are saying that you would shoot and kill anyone who wanted you to not have a gun, then that's another good reason to take your gun from you.

 

Well unless your intentions are to ask politely and then move on with a “no” answer, the assumption is you mean take guns by force (using guns and gun violence to cause gun violence to take people’s expensive property they refuse to sell either because they don’t want to or you aren’t asking enough as the seller sets the price not the buyer). So of course people are going to defend their homes and themselves from door knockers trying to disarm them so only the violence police have the guns and can be the better armed overlords.

And gosh darn it all, some people may just hand you that gun with a smile on their face as you walk away thinking about what a good little peon that gun owner was, when really they have 50 more buried a few miles down the road off their property so you don’t find them with the metal search on their property. Whoops and Womp Womp.

 

But that's -not- the case.
And when you say you would take my handguns from me, you don't really mean it.

There's only one reason someone would try to disarm me:
They want to do something to me they know I have every right to shoot them for.