From my cold dead hands!

[Guest Derek L]

As I've said before, I acknowledge the reality that we would have no real way of keeping guns off the street by further controlling them here. As long as we have a multithousand mile border with a nation of gun nuts they are going to find their way into our streets. That's why I favor draconian legislation which would basically give those who smuggle, sell and posses illegal firearms a decade or two cracking rocks to think about the error of their ways. Unfortunately, for decades now, Canadian judges have thwarted every effort to crack down on illegal firearm possession and use. I'd kind of like to say to a judge "Okay, you won't send this guy to prison for a long term for using a firearm. That's your decision. But if he gets out and does it again, you're going to share his next term in prison."

Like I said, I have no complaints with that, both here and in the States, but it would probably do wonders if we (and the Americans) enforced and made convictions to the full extent possible with the laws we already have.

[Argus]

Like I said, I have no complaints with that, both here and in the States, but it would probably do wonders if we (and the Americans) enforced and made convictions to the full extent possible with the laws we already have.

First you have to do as Dick the Butcher suggested and shoot all the lawyers.

[ReeferMadness]

And here again you demonstrate your ignorance, fore AR-15’s doesn’t shoot any faster then a kids’ .22lr……

Ah, yes the kids' .22. What could be safer or more innocent than that? Why you could give one to a 5 year old!!

A Kentucky mother stepped outside of her home just for a few minutes, but it was long enough for her 5-year-old son to accidentally shoot and kill his 2-year-old sister with the .22-caliber rifle he got for his birthday, state officials said.

Yes, in Kentucky, it's OK to give a kid a rifle for his 5th birthday. I'm just waiting for the press release from the NRA - I'm sure it will go something like this:

If only the girl had been armed and trained in self defense, she would have been able to protect herself from her brother. This is a clear case of someone losing their life because she was not armed and willing to defend herself.

[Guest Derek L]

Ah, yes the kids' .22. What could be safer or more innocent than that? Why you could give one to a 5 year old!!

Yes, in Kentucky, it's OK to give a kid a rifle for his 5th birthday. I'm just waiting for the press release from the NRA - I'm sure it will go something like this:

I fail to see the relevance of you quoting me above?

And did you read the part about the parents keeping the gun safely stored? Oh yeah, that’s right…..

I received my first gun when I was about 7, the difference, I was only allowed to use it well my parents were present, and when not in use, my father kept it in a locked cabinet………The same goes with my own children, my wife and I bought them both their first guns when they were 8 and 10.…..and allowed them to use them under supervision and when not in use, where kept in a safe……When they both became of age, they both took the required safety course and got their youth licences, but still did not have access when not in use and always supervised……Once the eldest turned 18 last year and got her full restricted licence, only then was she allowed unfettered access and usage to her guns…..The same will occur once the youngest get’s his licence after he turns 18 next year…..

As to the NRA’s response, based on their record of promoting their own safety courses, I imagine it will be similar to mine…..

Imagine, children safely using firearms:

[kimmy]

My cousin's children-- now 15 and 13-- have been shooting for years, and go hunting with their parents. The 15 year old now has her own 30-30, which was once my grandfather's gun. She told me at Christmas that she used it to chase a lynx out of their yard. Neither she or her brother are going to shoot anybody by accident, because they know how to treat firearms. They didn't start out with Cricket™ rifles, but they started shooting with a .22 when they were young. Probably older than 5, but before 10 for sure.

Guns are quite a different issue for rural people than city ones. If you're a country kid, a gun is a mundane item, a tool, something your mom and dad use, something your dad has shown you how to use too. If you're a city kid, a gun is something you see in video games and action movies. It's fetishized, it's a magic forbidden fruit.

I think it's kind of like a kid whose parents have let him drink alcohol at family gatherings, versus another kid who has never touched alcohol, turns 19, and goes on a bender.

People seem offended at the idea that Cricket makes a rifle designed for children. I understand why, but I think they are looking at it the wrong way. In an environment where guns are going to be common-- rural areas-- I think educating children about firearms would be much wiser than hoping that kids never find a firearm.

I am not familiar with a Cricket rifle... I would assume a gun designed for children would be a single shot, light, easy to handle, have a safety that is easy to recognize and operate, and probably have a trigger that is hard to pull unless you really mean to. I would expect that a gun designed for children would be one designed to help parents in teaching, and could incorporate safety features to reduce the chances of accidental discharge. It could be a good teaching tool, safer than trying to teach your child to shoot a gun designed for adults. The idea of a rifle designed for a child is not inherently bad.

The problem in this Kentucky incident is not that Cricket builds a rifle intended for children. The problem is that parents left a gun leaning against a wall in a house with a 5 year old and 2 year old. That is so astoundingly stupid that it's incomprehensible. Their response "yeah well we didn't think it was loaded" is also incredibly stupid, because the #1 rule of firearms is to *NEVER* assume it's not loaded.

This is just parenting failure. People seem to have latched onto this "Cricket Guns For Kids" angle, but leaving *any* rifle leaning against the wall in a house with a 5 year old and a 2 year old was a recipe for tragedy.

-k

[Pliny]

Ah, yes the kids' .22. What could be safer or more innocent than that? Why you could give one to a 5 year old!!

Yes, in Kentucky, it's OK to give a kid a rifle for his 5th birthday. I'm just waiting for the press release from the NRA - I'm sure it will go something like this:

You can't legislate stupidity out of existence.

Liked your post kimmy.

[Guest Derek L]

Guns are quite a different issue for rural people than city ones. If you're a country kid, a gun is a mundane item, a tool, something your mom and dad use, something your dad has shown you how to use too. If you're a city kid, a gun is something you see in video games and action movies. It's fetishized, it's a magic forbidden fruit.

I think it's kind of like a kid whose parents have let him drink alcohol at family gatherings, versus another kid who has never touched alcohol, turns 19, and goes on a bender.

Well said Kimmy, but I’d make one minor correction of the distinction between rural and urban kids. Both myself and my children have pretty much always been urbanites, I think urban kids that have grown up around firearms and have learned their safe use are also able to respect them for what they are.

Most certainly though there is a certain “aura” around firearms for people with little to no exposure to them. Our neighbours immigrated to Canada from South Korea, and aside from the two years of mandatory military service the father did when he was younger, have had no real exposure to firearms other then what they saw on tv…….That is until our two boys started hanging out and we invited the father and son out with us several times….They have since got their license/junior license and are taking their CORE course & test next month in the hope of coming hunting (and not Coyote) with us this fall.

I am not familiar with a Cricket rifle... I would assume a gun designed for children would be a single shot, light, easy to handle, have a safety that is easy to recognize and operate, and probably have a trigger that is hard to pull unless you really mean to. I would expect that a gun designed for children would be one designed to help parents in teaching, and could incorporate safety features to reduce the chances of accidental discharge. It could be a good teaching tool, safer than trying to teach your child to shoot a gun designed for adults. The idea of a rifle designed for a child is not inherently bad.

I’d never heard of it either…..But I still have one of my first rifles (Mossberg 320B), a gun that I also taught my children to shoot with when they were younger, and basically it’s a full size .22lr rifle (Lighter and about an inch shorter then the M-14) with the only inherent (but relevant) safety features being a single shot bolt, that once you pull the bolt back to load another round, the safety (on the top-right side of the receiver) is automatically engaged and can’t be made unsafe with a open bolt…..Once you close the bolt, you have to unsafe it, and with children’s smaller hands, it forces them to take their trigger hand away from the trigger(guard).

edit to add pic of Mossberg youth rifle:

Here the safety is off with the bolt closed.......

Edited May 3, 2013 by Derek L

[kimmy]

As I mentioned above, and in American Woman's status updates, I think that the idea of a "learner's gun" has merit.

I agree with AW that a 5 year old shouldn't have a gun and is too young to start learning to shoot. 5 year olds are just plain stupid.

However, with that said, I think that in an environment where firearms are commonplace, I think that teaching children about firearms is a good idea, once they're old enough.

And I think that a gun designed specifically for a young shooter is a good idea:

-it could have features designed to reduce the chance of accidental discharge, as with Derek's Mossberg above.

-it could be appropriately sized to make it easier for a young shooter to control more easily than a full-sized gun.

I don't know for sure that the Cricket rifle has either of these qualities, but as I said before I think that the idea itself has merit.

When or if I have kimlets of my own, I would certainly consider buying a "learner's gun" when they are old enough to start teaching them to shoot. And it goes without saying that I would not let them use the gun unless I was there to supervise. You can rest assured that I do have a kid to teach to shoot, I am not going to start teaching them with my full-sized, full-power weapons. I'll pick out an appropriate gun for a small person, and a Cricket rifle sounds like the sort of thing I would look for.

So while a lot of people seem to be extremely upset by the idea that Cricket makes "a gun for kids", I think that criticism is unfair, and that the real villains here are not Cricket at all, but the people who left a gun just lying around in a house with two toddlers. There have been other stories where children have killed people with guns stored recklessly, but this one seems to be getting extra attention because of the Cricket angle... and to me that is exactly the wrong way to look at this.

All of my guns are kept in locked cabinets, and they are also disabled with trigger-locks or cable-locks to make them inoperable even if somebody gets into the cabinet. And I don't even have toddlers; I have one cat and one Texan, neither of which are likely to shoot anybody by accident.

-k

[ReeferMadness]

You can't legislate stupidity out of existence.

Oh, you think maybe this is some bizarre exception?

"In this part of the country, it's not uncommon for a 5-year-old to have a gun or for a parent to pass one down to their kid," he said.

[Argus]

As to the NRA’s response, based on their record of promoting their own safety courses, I imagine it will be similar to mine…..

I was thinking it would be "Waal, ya'all know the issue here is that there 2 year old warent armed! If she'da been armed she coulda defended herself proper laik! AK-47s in every cradle!"

[ReeferMadness]

You can't legislate stupidity out of existence.

No, you can't. But you can base your legislation on the entirely realistic premise that not everyone has the same idea of what is reasonable. Apparently, there are people in Kentucky who think it's reasonable for a 5 year old to own a rifle.

[ReeferMadness]

I received my first gun when I was about 7, the difference, I was only allowed to use it well my parents were present, and when not in use, my father kept it in a locked cabinet………The same goes with my own children, my wife and I bought them both their first guns when they were 8 and 10.…..and allowed them to use them under supervision and when not in use, where kept in a safe……When they both became of age, they both took the required safety course and got their youth licences, but still did not have access when not in use and always supervised……Once the eldest turned 18 last year and got her full restricted licence, only then was she allowed unfettered access and usage to her guns…..The same will occur once the youngest get’s his licence after he turns 18 next year…..

I guess that makes you and your parents model gun owners. I guess you can understand, then, that there are lots of parents that are much more liberal in their approach and that's why we need to have gun control legislation.

[Guest Derek L]

I guess that makes you and your parents model gun owners. I guess you can understand, then, that there are lots of parents that are much more liberal in their approach and that's why we need to have gun control legislation.

Hence why I support both safe storage laws and Firearms Licensing.

[ReeferMadness]

My cousin's children-- now 15 and 13-- have been shooting for years, and go hunting with their parents. The 15 year old now has her own 30-30, which was once my grandfather's gun. She told me at Christmas that she used it to chase a lynx out of their yard.

Are you saying that she needs a 30-30 to protect herself from a lynx? Probably a hockey stick would have been enough. Or maybe just a raised voice.

There is a myth that most rural people need guns on hand because they have to protect themselves from wild animals. I grew up on a farm and I see more wildlife in the city setting where I live now. Unless you're going to walk around armed at all times, having a gun around is of limited value. And the number of times when you really need one to protect yourself is pretty tiny.

Neither she or her brother are going to shoot anybody by accident, because they know how to treat firearms.

Well, let's hope not but we can't be sure. After all, that's why they call them "accidents".

Guns are quite a different issue for rural people than city ones. If you're a country kid, a gun is a mundane item, a tool, something your mom and dad use, something your dad has shown you how to use too. If you're a city kid, a gun is something you see in video games and action movies. It's fetishized, it's a magic forbidden fruit.

Guns can be seen as mundane when they are common. It's part of what makes them especially dangerous, people get careless. Like the people in Kentucky.

Regarding a gun, being a "tool", that's just NRA doublespeak. I grew up on a farm. We had guns. We had tools. Nobody would call a pitchfork a weapon or a shotgun a tool, although technically they could be used in that way.

People seem offended at the idea that Cricket makes a rifle designed for children. I understand why, but I think they are looking at it the wrong way. In an environment where guns are going to be common-- rural areas-- I think educating children about firearms would be much wiser than hoping that kids never find a firearm.

I don't think offended is the right word. Maybe enraged would be better. You woudn't make a power saw or a hunting knife and market it to little kids. Why a firearm?

I am not familiar with a Cricket rifle... I would assume a gun designed for children would be a single shot, light, easy to handle, have a safety that is easy to recognize and operate, and probably have a trigger that is hard to pull unless you really mean to. I would expect that a gun designed for children would be one designed to help parents in teaching, and could incorporate safety features to reduce the chances of accidental discharge. It could be a good teaching tool, safer than trying to teach your child to shoot a gun designed for adults. The idea of a rifle designed for a child is not inherently bad.

The problem in this Kentucky incident is not that Cricket builds a rifle intended for children. The problem is that parents left a gun leaning against a wall in a house with a 5 year old and 2 year old. That is so astoundingly stupid that it's incomprehensible. Their response "yeah well we didn't think it was loaded" is also incredibly stupid, because the #1 rule of firearms is to *NEVER* assume it's not loaded.

This is just parenting failure. People seem to have latched onto this "Cricket Guns For Kids" angle, but leaving *any* rifle leaning against the wall in a house with a 5 year old and a 2 year old was a recipe for tragedy.

-k

Kimmy, I see a lot of typical gun-culture rationalizing going on here.

[Guest Derek L]

Guns can be seen as mundane when they are common. It's part of what makes them especially dangerous, people get careless. Like the people in Kentucky.

No, the number of guns doesn't represent a tangible value in determining the safety level of firearms, as you’re also incorrect in indicating that firearms owners get careless………That’s indicative of stating that if a driver causes an accident, all drivers are dangerous/careless.

Regarding a gun, being a "tool", that's just NRA doublespeak. I grew up on a farm. We had guns. We had tools. Nobody would call a pitchfork a weapon or a shotgun a tool, although technically they could be used in that way.

No, not NRA doublespeak, but English:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tool

¹tool noun \ˈtül\

Definition of TOOL

1

a : a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task

b (1) : the cutting or shaping part in a machine or machine tool (2) : a machine for shaping metal : machine tool

2

a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession <a scholar's books are his tools>

I don't think offended is the right word. Maybe enraged would be better. You woudn't make a power saw or a hunting knife and market it to little kids. Why a firearm?

I guess as a youth you never partook in Scouting……..

Kimmy, I see a lot of typical gun-culture rationalizing going on here.

Funny, I see a lot of common sense in her post.

[kimmy]

Are you saying that she needs a 30-30 to protect herself from a lynx? Probably a hockey stick would have been enough. Or maybe just a raised voice.

They get coyotes, wolves, and bears too. Are you really saying you think a teenaged girl would be safer fighting wild predators with a hockey stick than with a rifle?

There is a myth that most rural people need guns on hand because they have to protect themselves from wild animals. I grew up on a farm and I see more wildlife in the city setting where I live now. Unless you're going to walk around armed at all times, having a gun around is of limited value. And the number of times when you really need one to protect yourself is pretty tiny.

So based on your own experience, you've declared the entire premise a myth? That seems rather presumptuous, to say the least.

Well, let's hope not but we can't be sure. After all, that's why they call them "accidents".

If you grew up on a farm, you know that there are a vast number of potential accidents inherent in that environment, of which firearms are the easiest to prevent.

If preventing accidents were a legitimate policy goal, there's a long list of things we'd start banning.

Guns can be seen as mundane when they are common. It's part of what makes them especially dangerous, people get careless. Like the people in Kentucky.

I certainly don't want to be in the position of defending the intelligence of Kentucky residents.

Regarding a gun, being a "tool", that's just NRA doublespeak. I grew up on a farm. We had guns. We had tools. Nobody would call a pitchfork a weapon or a shotgun a tool, although technically they could be used in that way.

I don't think offended is the right word. Maybe enraged would be better. You woudn't make a power saw or a hunting knife and market it to little kids. Why a firearm?

Kimmy, I see a lot of typical gun-culture rationalizing going on here.

If a 5 year old had killed a 2 year old with a kitchen knife, a lawnmower, a power saw, or any number of other potentially lethal items, we wouldn't have even heard about it but she'd still be just as dead.

-k

[Wilber]

The NRA talks out of both sides of its mouth. One side says the background checks are too severe because they make life difficult for private sellers and the other says they aren't strict enough because they don't include mental health records. Guess it would be OK for a crazy to buy a gun privately but not from a dealer. Pretty clear they will take any position no matter how contradictory as long as it guarantees the net result is the status quo.

As far as the two morons who gave the five year old a gun as a gift (perhaps four years old as they said it was given last year), not only did their negligence result in their daughters death but it has sentenced that little boy to a lifetime knowing he killed his little sister. They should be treated like a person who leaves a small child under their care alone at a swimming pool and charged with criminal negligence causing death.

[ReeferMadness]

They get coyotes, wolves, and bears too. Are you really saying you think a teenaged girl would be safer fighting wild predators with a hockey stick than with a rifle?

I'm saying that your original example was a lynx. I'm saying that it is highly improbable that a lynx would attack a 15 year old girl and if one did, I'm not sure a rifle would be more useful than a stick. In close quarters, the rifle would become a club, albeit a potentially dangerous one (to the user as well as bystanders). Coyotes also would be very unlikely to attack a teenage girl - they're not that big. Wolves are more dangerous but not known for hunting humans. Bears are in a class by themselves (particularly black bears because they tend to live near humans) but even then most attacks are the result of random encounters, not predatory behaviour.

My experience is that the "wild animal excuse" for gun ownership tends to artificially inflate the danger posed by wild animals. It would be interesting could someone to calculate the incremental risk posed by gun ownership (due to accidents, homicides that otherwise may not have occurred, suicides that otherwise may not have occurred) vs the risk posed by wild animals. I think the calculation is impossible (it relies on calculating the probability of events that haven't happened) but I suspect it would show that your cousins kids are statistically more at risk because they have weapons at hand.

So based on your own experience, you've declared the entire premise a myth?

Fair enough. My experience may be different from others. Let me ask you this. Does your cousin insist that the children stay in or close to the house except when accompanied by an adult? Is your cousin always armed when leaving the yard? If the answer is no, that's an indication that they don't consider wild animal encounters a serious threat. After all, if you run into a bear a mile from home, what good is a 30-30 stored in a locked cabinet with the ammunition stored in another locked cabinet? Your survival will be dicated by chance, wits and good judgement, not by firepower.

Wild animals aren't known for laying seige to rural residences. Chances are if you ignore them, they'll wander off on their own. Providng you haven't left tasty garbage out for the bears.

That seems rather presumptuous, to say the least.If you grew up on a farm, you know that there are a vast number of potential accidents inherent in that environment, of which firearms are the easiest to prevent.

Excuse me?? I do??? The number of times when I felt it necessary to go and grab a gun to prevent some "accident" is, let me see, carry the zero....

ZERO.

I lived miles from the nearest town and hundreds of miles from a major city. But farmland is just not that amenable to large predators because there is no place to hide and limited habitat for large prey. And wild animals avoid people when they can.

If preventing accidents were a legitimate policy goal, there's a long list of things we'd start banning.I certainly don't want to be in the position of defending the intelligence of Kentucky residents.If a 5 year old had killed a 2 year old with a kitchen knife, a lawnmower, a power saw, or any number of other potentially lethal items, we wouldn't have even heard about it but she'd still be just as dead.

-k

The difference is that we don't have companies marketing power saws and lawnmowers in cute colors to 5 year olds.

Look, I'm not anti-gun. I have used rifles, shotguns and handguns. I've had occasion to shoot animals for a variety of reasons (though never self-defence). My son has had limited exposure to guns as well.

However, there is a deep attachment between a segment of the population and their firearms that I find disturbing and unhealthy (see the title of this thread). Part of it is cultural (my grandpa had guns, my dad had guns and now I have guns) but it runs deeper than that. It is intimately tied to an anti-government paranoia that is common in rural areas. You won't have to dig deep on the internet to find segments of the population who believe that gun ownership is essential to prevent tyrants from taking over the government. The community also contains survivalists who believe that their gun ownership mean their survival when society breaks down.

So, if people want to own guns, I'm fine with that, providing they use them safely. If you want to hunt, go for it. It's not my cup of tea but it's morally no worse than eating beef. But I don't think that asking people to register firearms is an egregious imposition.

[Guest Derek L]

And the genie is about to be let out of the bottle:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/schumer-stop-plastic-guns-article-1.1335599#ixzz2SWNfEVO9

A Texas company is set to release blueprints for making a plastic gun with a 3-D printer — a development Sen. Chuck Schumer called “stomach-churning” Sunday.

Defense Distributed, a collective of gun access advocates headed by self-described “free-market anarchist” Cody Wilson, has announced it made such an untraceable gun with the new plastic-making technology. The nonprofit Texas group intends to post blueprints for “The Liberator” (pictured) online this week.

The Liberator may look like a toy, but “this gun can fire regular bullets,” Schumer said, calling for legislation outlawing the technology’s weapons potential.

So are we going to “ban” the internet and 3-D printers? Wait until they hear about Defence Distributed’s plans for a plastic AR-15.……Or the even easier to produce "high capacity assault clips" (Magazines)

“Security checkpoints, background checks and gun regulations will do little good if criminals can print their own plastic firearms at home and bring those firearms through metal detectors with no one the wiser,” Israel said in a statement.

To Schumer, the ramifications of make-your-own untraceable and undetectable weapons are “stomach-churning.”

“Now anyone, a terrorist, someone who is mentally ill, a spousal abuser, a felon, can essentially open a gun factory in their garage,” Schumer said. “It must be stopped.”

Now how are the anti-gun folks going to frame this as argument against legal gun owners? Republicans? Red States? The gun makers? And most importantly of all, the monolithic gun manufactures lobbyists (namely the NRA)?

Simply put, they can’t, fore these above groups, like them, will have zero influence over the proliferation of simple to produce, undetectable and untraceable firearms. Maybe now, the anti-gun folks will focus their efforts on, to borrow from young Mr Trudeau, the root causes associated with gun violence, namely social and economic factors, with a little helping of societies failings with dealing with and treating mental illness, as opposed to the “tool” used in such actions or people (the majority of legal gun owners) devoid of such failings……..What people like me have been clamouring about and suggesting for decades……..

Only now, can a honest discussion, if it’s so desired, occur………..Three cheers for the Tupperware gun….

[Wilber]

What's your point? We have just had a graphic demonstration that IED's can be produced at home as well. Should we do nothing about the proliferation of commercial and military explosive devices just because home made versions are possible?

[Guest Derek L]

What's your point? We have just had a graphic demonstration that IED's can be produced at home as well. Should we do nothing about the proliferation of commercial and military explosive devices just because home made versions are possible?

I thought the point was glaringly obvious……sorry if that’s not the case……….The point exemplified, restrictions place upon a $1500 semi-auto AR-15 will be moot when an individual can go to Staples and purchase a 3-D printer and produce as many “military grade” fully automatic firearms in their basement as they so desire……..Said 3-D guns, unlike the varying levels of complexity associated with some of the wiring of improvised explosives devices, will literally be able to be produced by a teenager that can work the internet and click print…….

[Wilber]

I thought the point was glaringly obvious……sorry if that’s not the case……….The point exemplified, restrictions place upon a $1500 semi-auto AR-15 will be moot when an individual can go to Staples and purchase a 3-D printer and produce as many “military grade” fully automatic firearms in their basement as they so desire……..Said 3-D guns, unlike the varying levels of complexity associated with some of the wiring of improvised explosives devices, will literally be able to be produced by a teenager that can work the internet and click print…….

You don't think any action should be taken against this so called "company" for doing this? The example shown sure doesn't look like a "military grade fully automatic" to me. More like a Saturday night special.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Wilber

[Guest Derek L]

You don't think any action should be taken against this so called "company" for doing this? The example shown sure doesn't look like a "military grade fully automatic to me". More like a Saturday night special.

No “action” can be taken……He has filed fore and obtained a firearms manufacturing license from the US Federal Government, and his plans have the inclusion of one piece of metal in the design so they can’t be considered “undetectable” by X-rays and metal detectors……..Of course someone not abiding by said law could just replace the metal part with a plastic one.

And yes, his “Liberator pistol” does resemble some sort of Saturday Night Special zip gun with a dash of Star Trek……But like I said, he’s already produced a semi-auto AR-15 with high capacity magazines…..And like the above inclusion of a metal part, the difference between an AR-15 and (military) M-16 is found within the upper and lower receiver, and though next to impossible to turn an AR-15 into a select fire M-16, said alterations would be simple during construction on the printer……..Same goes, especially in the short term, with the production of higher capacity magazines…….A design for a legal ten-round Glock 9mm mag could be uploaded, but the minor alterations to turn it into a 32 round magazine could will also be found “online”.

Don’t get me wrong, I only “celebrate” this development because it will drag one side of the gun debate, kicking and screaming if necessary, to the table to have honest discussions surrounding gun violence in our society……What I do fear, is that the anti gun side will continue to bury their heads in the sand to a point that it will take the killing of police officers or public/political figures with untraceable, undetectable plastic guns to foster said honest debate.

[Wilber]

No “action” can be taken……He has filed fore and obtained a firearms manufacturing license from the US Federal Government, and his plans have the inclusion of one piece of metal in the design so they can’t be considered “undetectable” by X-rays and metal detectors……..Of course someone not abiding by said law could just replace the metal part with a plastic one.

Don’t get me wrong, I only “celebrate” this development because it will drag one side of the gun debate, kicking and screaming if necessary, to the table to have honest discussions surrounding gun violence in our society……What I do fear, is that the anti gun side will continue to bury their heads in the sand to a point that it will take the killing of police officers or public/political figures with untraceable, undetectable plastic guns to foster said honest debate.

So what. Do you think it is acceptable that every weapons manufacturer should be able to post the plans and means to manufacture everything they produce on the internet just because they have a license to build them? Should explosives manufacturers be able to do the same? Should we stop licensing vehicles, their drivers and mandating safety standards for vehicles just because we can't prevent all vehicle deaths? After all it's not that difficult to build a car in your own shop. Should we stop requiring proper fencing and child proof gates for swimming pools just because we can't stop all drownings?

I don't have a problem with people owning firearms. I do have a big problem with a large number of owners who are unwilling to give an inch when it comes to the carnage they cause. It has to be anything else.

[Guest Derek L]

So what. Do you think it is acceptable that every weapons manufacturer should be able to post the plans and means to manufacture everything they produce on the internet just because they have a license to build them? Should explosives manufacturers be able to do the same? Should we stop licensing vehicles, their drivers and mandating safety standards for vehicles just because we can't prevent all vehicle deaths? After all it's not that difficult to build a car in your own shop. Should we stop requiring proper fencing and child proof gates for swimming pools just because we can't stop all drownings?

I don't have a problem with people owning firearms. I do have a big problem with a large number of owners who are unwilling to give an inch when it comes to the carnage they cause. It has to be anything else.

Do you honestly think a company like Ruger or Colt want individuals to produce their own firearms? Honestly now……..

As to the plans…….too late, they are already up and forever in the internet……Like combating online child porn, police forces will be able to invest time and resources and will make arrests, but it is a never ending battle and the forces for good will always be reacting to the forces of bad…….

Really, what good will banning a company like Magpul from manufacturing high capacity magazines do, when the individual at home can make as many as they so desire?

I’m glad you have no issues with people owning firearms, fore in a few years time, anyone that so desires it, including your criminals and wing-nuts, will be able to produce their own from the comfort of home……You can waste all the time and money you want going after legal gun owners, but in a few years, it will be obvious that you’re wasting your finite resources………You’ve mentioned you have a family member in law enforcement, ask him or her what they’ll fear more in five years time: middle age folks with 50 year old revolvers that drive 10 under the speed limit on their way to the range on Sunday, or urban street gangs shooting each other with impromptu fully automatic grease guns and mentally ill persons sneaking past metal detectors into government offices with a grudge and a “liberty gun”….