Two Year Sentence For 3D Print a Gun.

[cae]

are you even serious

You want to tell me, that a M16 or a Glock 17 was NOT designed to hurt or kill other people by using it?

It doesn't matter if you use it or not.

 

Of course it matters if you use it or not. That's the only way these hunks of metal/plastic/wood serve a purpose. The users decide that purpose, not the designer.

[trentonjeffro]

I would say that. Neither the M16 nor the Glock 17 were designed to hurt or kill people, they were however both designed to accurately, reliably and safely launch a standardized projectile from a standardized cartridge.

 

In the same way that a framing nailer is not designed to hold your house together.

I laughed I am glad there are more gun people in this community. It makes me not feel alone!

[Real_PhillBert]

I laughed I am glad there are more gun people in this community. It makes me not feel alone!

I usually try to stay out of the political discussions on this board as I know that no one is changing their opinion on the matter, but I do occasionally get pulled in anyway.

 

I am also an IDPA and IPSC competitive shooter, so I tend to pay extra attention to the firearms related threads that pop up from time to time.

 

You are not alone.

[trentonjeffro]

I usually try to stay out of the political discussions on this board as I know that no one is changing their opinion on the matter, but I do occasionally get pulled in anyway.

 

I am also an IDPA and IPSC competitive shooter, so I tend to pay extra attention to the firearms related threads that pop up from time to time.

 

You are not alone.

I have never tried competitive shooting, it looks fun, I have been to a few matches to watch people shoot, but I have never tried to do it. I might do that some day.

 

I understand why you would want to stay out of political discussion on here.

And I was wondering on the IDPA and IPSC shooting, how often do you shoot, is it a few times a weekend? Just wondering.

[Real_PhillBert]

I have never tried competitive shooting, it looks fun, I have been to a few matches to watch people shoot, but I have never tried to do it. I might do that some day.

 

I understand why you would want to stay out of political discussion on here.

And I was wondering on the IDPA and IPSC shooting, how often do you shoot, is it a few times a weekend? Just wondering.

I guess I am not sure what you mean by how often do I shoot.

 

If you mean how often do I compete: I don't make it to all of my local matches, I probably do about one a month or so depending on how my schedule works out.

 

If you mean how much do you shoot in a match: Most matches are 10-15 stages totaling 200-300 rounds fired over the whole course.

 

If you mean how often do I go shooting: at least once a week sometimes more. In the year or so since I bought a dedicated competition gun, I have put ~5000-6000 rounds through it. Steel targets are your friend.

 

I am not super great, usually upper middle of the pack in my area.

[trentonjeffro]

I guess I am not sure what you mean by how often do I shoot.

 

If you mean how often do I compete: I don't make it to all of my local matches, I probably do about one a month or so depending on how my schedule works out.

 

If you mean how much do you shoot in a match: Most matches are 10-15 stages totaling 200-300 rounds fired over the whole course.

 

If you mean how often do I go shooting: at least once a week sometimes more. In the year or so since I bought a dedicated competition gun, I have put ~5000-6000 rounds through it. Steel targets are your friend.

 

I am not super great, usually upper middle of the pack in my area.

Yes I meant how often your compete. . silly me.

[IdortMasterRace]

And you have a bad habit of not producing any arguments.

 

From what I've seen, Toddwjp is like this all across the forum. Even gun threads we've had in the past he never actually posts arguments but just buzzwords, strawman and cherrypicking.

[IdortMasterRace]

It was designed by Glock to kill or hurt people.

 

First of all, this is incorrect.

 

Second of all, it can hurt people, which is why it's an effective tool in stopping an attacker or criminal. As said, if some guy kicks down my door and holds up my family with a shotgun to the head, do you expect me to fend him off with a stick?

 

Also, what about people that live 100s of miles out in the middle of no where? Are the supposed to expect emergency services to rush to them in a couple minutes if they are being attacked, or do you suggest they wait several hours trying to fend themselves off while their attacker has a gun?

[mr.skyrim_pc]

I can't wait until criminals get in on this kind of shit and people realize that gun laws can't protect you. I wonder how many innocents will die in "gun free zones" before people realize that you have to protect yourself.

A shame that common sense is viewed as insanity these days. And anyone who quotes me on this topic, don't expect me to respond, I'm not getting into this argument for the trillionth time and devolving the thread.

I agree with what you just said 100%.

[MrSuperb]

I would say that. Neither the M16 nor the Glock 17 were designed to hurt or kill people, they were however both designed to accurately, reliably and safely launch a standardized projectile from a standardized cartridge.

 

In the same way that a framing nailer is not designed to hold your house together.

 

Of course they were designed to do so. If you can't accept that fact, any further discussion is useless.

 

A framing nail was designed to make a joint. Building a frame for a house is one way of using one.

A gun was designed to kill/hurt people. Killing a robber is one way of using one.

 

 

Of course it matters if you use it or not. That's the only way these hunks of metal/plastic/wood serve a purpose. The users decide that purpose, not the designer.

bullshit. The gun was designed with to kill or hurt someone in the most efficient and effective way.

Also if a police man carries a glock and never in his lifetime uses it, the intended purpose carrying that weapon is still to hurt or kill someone.

 

 

First of all, this is incorrect.

 

Second of all, it can hurt people, which is why it's an effective tool in stopping an attacker or criminal. As said, if some guy kicks down my door and holds up my family with a shotgun to the head, do you expect me to fend him off with a stick?

 

wait what? first you say I am incorrect, then you say I am right?

 

If guns were better regulated, there probably would be much less "guys who kick down doors"

Also I wonder, how many have guns right next to the door and are able to get a hold of them, when  there is a "guy who kicks down doors" 

 

That "guy who kicks down doors" would get arrested if someone would caught with an illegal weapon.

That "guy who kicks down doors" can buy 20 more guns and put them in his car, when no one gives a shit for any regulation.

[IdortMasterRace]

wait what? first you say I am incorrect, then you say I am right?

 

No, you said they were made specifically for hurting/killing. This is very incorrect. They CAN hurt or kill people, but that's like saying cars are made specifically to kill/injure just because they can kill/injure.

 

If guns were better regulated, there probably would be much less "guys who kick down doors"

Also I wonder, how many have guns right next to the door and are able to get a hold of them, when  there is a "guy who kicks down doors" 

 

That "guy who kicks down doors" would get arrested if someone would caught with an illegal weapon.

That "guy who kicks down doors" can buy 20 more guns and put them in his car, when no one gives a shit for any regulation.

 

Incorrect. Statistics show that countries where at least one gun is required per household have the least crime rates of all - guess what, a robber isn't going to try breaking into your house if it's almost certain the owner has a gun. Also, when Britain gun laws were put in place, crime rose drastically.

 

Also, what happens then when a guy kicks down my door with a machette and threatens my family with it? Am I going to fend him off with a knife? Have a sword fight or something?

 

Why are you so against basic fucking self defence?

[MrSuperb]

No, you said they were made specifically for hurting/killing. This is very incorrect. They CAN hurt or kill people, but that's like saying cars are made specifically to kill/injure just because they can kill/injure.

 

they are made for hurting/killing people. Even when you habe a gun just for self defense, the purpose ist still to hurt or kill someone.

[HalGameGuru]

 

bullshit. The gun was designed with to kill or hurt someone in the most efficient and effective way.

Also if a police man carries a glock and never in his lifetime uses it, the intended purpose carrying that weapon is still to hurt or kill someone.

 

 

Ask a cop if that is why they carry a gun and they will tell you to your face you are wrong.

[cae]

@MrSuperb

 

A firearm is designed to capable of firing a projectile. That is the end of its intended purpose. YOU believe the purpose to be the injuring of humans, but that requires the input of another human, or some other kind of interacting factor.

 

It's like saying computers were designed to doxx people. It's that absurd. Address the actions of the people, not the tools used to implement those actions. It seems to work everywhere else, except when it comes to firearms.

[Noctus]

 I remember there being about 10x as many people killed by stabbings in the UK vs the US which was IIRC more deaths per capita in the UK than the US when including both guns and knives.

 

 

Thats because at least 10x less people in the UK own a gun.... kinda logical lol.

[IdortMasterRace]

Thats because at least 10x less people in the UK own a gun.... kinda logical lol.

 

Exactly. It isn't guns that kill people, it's people that kill people. A gun is simply a tool - reducing guns won't suddenly reduce death/injury rates.

 

Also, it also implies that if knives kill people, why don't we ban those too?

[HalGameGuru]

they are made for hurting/killing people. Even when you habe a gun just for self defense, the purpose ist still to hurt or kill someone.

Your entire arguments stems from the legitimacy of the aggressor, a gun does nothing, it is designed for nothing more than mechanical process. You project the immoral aggressors status on an entire category of inanimate objects.

 

The only people your controls hurt are those people who would not victimize anyone. The person who breaks into your home, assaults you, etc. has already forfeited any protection by the law. They are the aggressors and as such are in the wrong, whatever means you use, your defense is JUSTIFIED. Through self ownership, property rights, and moral interaction there is no cause to forcibly remove from me anything I own if I have not aggressed against someone. Until such time that I have violated someone's rights, thru injury, property destruction, death, or assault, you have NO legitimate nor moral imperative to use violence against me.

 

That INCLUDES violence by proxy at the hands of the state to enforce your opinion. A gun is an object, property like any other, my gun is no more an inherent murder waiting to happen than my car or my baseball bat. Would you allow such an argument to hold sway on any other subject? Cars, Power Tools, Cell Phones, PCs... There is a half thought out hypocritical argument for the removal of any of  these things from your possession, and all are equally unfounded and immoral when you attempt to use violence or the threat of force to project your opinion into the lives of peaceable people..

[Noctus]

@MrSuperb

 

A firearm is designed to capable of firing a projectile. That is the end of its intended purpose. YOU believe the purpose to be the injuring of humans, but that requires the input of another human, or some other kind of interacting factor.

 

 

 

Except the actual original reasoning behind a "gun" was to compact the ability to fire one of those big ass cannons use to inflict pain and death.

 

Just because i can bludgeon you to death with a spanner or use an oversized one as a baseball bat replacement in a game of rounders, does not mean it's original purpose wasn't to loosen nuts.

[Real_PhillBert]

Of course they were designed to do so. If you can't accept that fact, any further discussion is useless.

 

A framing nail was designed to make a joint. Building a frame for a house is one way of using one.

A gun was designed to kill/hurt people. Killing a robber is one way of using one.

How about this one; a deck of cards?

 

Two simple questions

 

1) Is the purpose of a deck of cards gambling?

 

2) can the deck of cards be used for gambling?

[HalGameGuru]

Except the actual original reasoning behind a "gun" was to compact the ability to fire one of those big ass cannons use to inflict pain and death.

 

Just because i can bludgeon you to death with a spanner or use an oversized one as a baseball bat replacement in a game of rounders, does not mean it's original purpose wasn't to loosen nuts.

 

If we're going to go historical every gun today is just a horribly inefficient fireworks launcher. 

 

A wrench's original purpose WAS to loosen nuts, NOT to bludgeon someone to death, by the same token a gun's purpose was to mechanically project a bullet down range. Your argument is saying since a bat can hit a ball its obviously a weapon because someone can hit a person with a ball from a bat. In the same way a watch is meant to tell time, not set off a bomb when the big hand meets the little hand.

[Noctus]

Exactly. It isn't guns that kill people, it's people that kill people. A gun is simply a tool - reducing guns won't suddenly reduce death/injury rates.

 

Also, it also implies that if knives kill people, why don't we ban those too?

Reducing guns most likely will. Not everyone thinks "ill go stab up that school" (obv an example) it's far easier to pull a trigger than it is to get personal in a stabbing.

 

Also it's not implied at all

[HalGameGuru]

Reducing guns most likely will. Not everyone thinks "ill go stab up that school" (obv an example) it's far easier to pull a trigger than it is to get personal in a stabbing.

 

Also it's not implied at all

 

China, Come for the Egg Rolls, stay for the random stabby death. 

[Noctus]

If we're going to go historical every gun today is just a horribly inefficient fireworks launcher. 

 

A wrench's original purpose WAS to loosen nuts, NOT to bludgeon someone to death, by the same token a gun's purpose was to mechanically project a bullet down range. Your argument is saying since a bat can hit a ball its obviously a weapon because someone can hit a person with a ball from a bat. In the same way a watch is meant to tell time, not set off a bomb when the big hand meets the little hand.

You have misread what i typed btw. And no, not fireworks.

[Noctus]

China, Come for the Egg Rolls, stay for the random stabby death. 

Yeah cos they are rolling guns.....

[HalGameGuru]

You have misread what i typed btw. And no, not fireworks.

 

And you apparently don't know the history of gunpowder and cannons. If you are going to reach back and project modern industry onto ancient you better be ready to follow it up.

 

Tools are tools, just as when guns were found to be more effective projectors than bows bows got to keep doing their thing outside of the martial arts. Projecting missiles. Into game, into targets, as competition, as defense, as a source of food. None of those uses any more or less legitimate, but, none of them the inherent cause of whatever bow you are holding to exist.

 

Edit: OOH! Or awesome things like Piton guns and hook shots.

 

And while we're on it, CATAPULTS and TREBUCHETS, fulfilling their intended purpose BEAUTIFULLY throwing pumpkins for sport.