First fully 3D printed gun now exists

[orpheus]

The deaths from those not being armed do outweigh the other lives "saved." Those who are intelligent and prepared to save their own lives are the ones who's lives you should value greater, since apparently we're placing value on life.

It's simple Natural Selection. Those who are smart and prepared should live. "Survival of the fittest," remember? Not, the sheeple, "Let's hope someone comes in time to save us!" mentality. That's not fit. Especially when you mention suicide. Apparently those who are willing to take their own life, are also more important than those who value their life enough to protect it. Talk about some fucked up logic.

And then on top of it, then you mention accidental deaths. Yet again, apparently idiots doing stupid shit with guns, are the people who need to be saved, not the smart ones who can manage firearm ownership without negligent discharges.

So yeah, let's promote the breeding of the scared sheep, suicidal, and stupid. Or do we not believe in Evolution anymore? Since apparently some lives are more important than others. I'll pick the intelligent and capable.

Naturalistic fallacy.

Good to know you're one of the Evolution deniers.

No, it's just that you totally missed the point.

[MrJonno]

It's simple Natural Selection. Those who are smart and prepared should live. "Survival of the fittest,

Human beings don't adapt to their environment, they adapt their environment to themselves, and ensuring a gun free environment by paying the police to lock up/execute anyone carrying a gun is the most effective survival strategy by a long long way

Wrong. It's both.

So, you think that I should be dead or in jail just because I have guns?

I am quite happy with mandatory 5 years in jail for possessing a handgun or illegal weapon in my country assuming you surrender very promptly, failing to do so and a straight execution is also cool by me. Whether you get punished or not in your country is up to your electorate but doesn't stop me mocking you for it

[Collector1337]

It's simple Natural Selection. Those who are smart and prepared should live. "Survival of the fittest,

Human beings don't adapt to their environment, they adapt their environment to themselves, and ensuring a gun free environment by paying the police to lock up/execute anyone carrying a gun is the most effective survival strategy by a long long way

Wrong. It's both.

So, you think that I should be dead or in jail just because I have guns?

I am quite happy with mandatory 5 years in jail for possessing a handgun or illegal weapon in my country assuming you surrender very promptly, failing to do so and a straight execution is also cool by me. Whether you get punished or not in your country is up to your electorate but doesn't stop me mocking you for it

You live in a disgusting country. I'd never want to live there.

I want to live somewhere where I'm not a slave to the government.

I see you are pro-death penalty as well.

Pretty fucked up you'd execute people whose "crime" they committed, mere possession, is totally victimless.

Some civilized society you want to live in, where you execute people for victimless crimes. That's totally insane.

[Seth]

But the argument goes beyond that, basically saying that the lives lost in Oz, for example, by someone not being armed for self defence are greatly outweighed by the lives saved because criminals or just angry people did not have a gun easy to hand, not to mention the suicides and accidental deaths facilitated by an easy availability of guns.

And therein lies the difference between collectivists and individualists, and the inherent problem involved. You, like BG seem entirely unable to comprehend one simple point: No individual's life may be justifiably or morally reduced to a statistical calculation that allows the government to place the individual in peril on the premise that statistically, the collective will be more safe by doing so.

It's the product of a collectivist mindset that simply cannot comprehend the idea that in some cases, particularly where life and liberty are involved, the individual's rights always and in every circumstance outweigh the desires or needs of the collective.

Self defense is the foremost example of this principle. It is utterly immoral for the collective to say to the individual, "you must submit to being victimized, injured or killed by a criminal and you are prohibited from defending yourself effectively because the government has decided that it's more important for the collective to be protected against the smallest possibility that you might misuse the tools of self defense to the detriment of others."

In other words, nobody can tell me that I must submit to criminal victimization without fighting back. And I don't know anyone here, even MrJonno, who is so much of a pacifist that they would allow someone to rape and murder their daughter without any objection merely because the "law" says you can't use force to defend her, much less acknowledge a government authority to render themselves helpless victims against criminal predation by legislative fiat.

That's why I keep throwing up the "what would you do if someone was raping your daughter" argument, which NONE of the advocates of gun bans have EVER honestly addressed or rebutted. Because it's easy to say that someone else shouldn't have the tools of effective self defense, but it's much harder when it's YOU who is the victim and you suddenly realize that you are a victim because you support laws which disarm you (and everyone else) and prevent you from acting effectively in your own, or your daughter's, defense.

Nor do I know a single individual I've ever known, met or heard of who would eschew the use of force, or any available weapon from a handgun to a table lamp, to put a stop to a deadly attack on themselves or their family. Everybody has that line somewhere, and when pushed beyond that line, everyone will react in self defense because it's a natural instinct we're born with, even pre-born babies being torn apart by the abortionist's filthy instruments will shriek silently and try to survive.

And unless you are willing to watch your 9 year old daughter or son be brutally raped and murdered without offering ANY resistance or violence at all, and you're willing to prove it, you're a gross hypocrite because when you disarm SOMEONE ELSE with anti-gun policies and laws you are forcing THEM to potentially suffer the same fate. So if YOU would come to the defense of your loved ones, AT ALL, even with just your hands, you have no moral authority to deny others ANY other tool of armed individual self defense that they might deem necessary or reasonable to effectively defend themselves in a like situation.

And that makes every single one of you, including BG and MrJonno, hypocrites of the highest order.

[MrJonno]

I see you are pro-death penalty as well.

Child rapists I expect the police to take alive unless they are an immediate threat, people who possess guns are an immediate threat and whether they get make it to court or not isnt a great concern

[Blind groper]

Seth and Collector routinely and blithely and blindly ignore the numbers.

However, since this is rationalia, let me show these numbers again.

In the USA, in 2009, according to FBI data, murders were

1. Caused by arguments not over money or property. 3500

2. Unspecified, mainly unsolved, therefore motive unknown, 2000

3. Juvenile gang killings 200

4. Gangland killings 200

In other words, most murders are 2 people arguing, when 1 loses his temper, pulls out a hand gun and commits murder. These are not gang killings, or even guys with a criminal history. These 3500 cases are mostly normal guys who murder because they had possession of a hand gun at the wrong time.

Remove the hand guns from these normally law abiding citizens and save thousands of lives each year.

[JimC]

BG, I have come to the conclusion that the US is a lost cause - the gun lobby is too fully hooked into the political process, and the majority who would accept somewhat tighter laws are fairly half-hearted about it...

I prefer to defend the value of tight gun regulation in Oz and similar countries, and laugh off the lunacy that insists that we are liable to become a police state at any moment because our citizens ain't packing heat...

The gun nuts are addicted to their precious guns, and have built a mystical edifice of worshipping the gun-toting heroes of the American Revolution.

[Blind groper]

To Jim

Sadly you are right.

However, there is still a lot of amusement value to be gained here. I find human stupidity often amusing.

[Blind groper]

Just a point, though, on the 3D printed guns.

Wonder how many people have woken up to the fact that an essentially undetectable plastic gun is an invitation to another 9/11?

[FBM]

How are you going to kill 3,000 people with a single-shot .22 cal?

[JimC]

How are you going to kill 3,000 people with a single-shot .22 cal?

He may mean getting it through airport security, and then hijacking a plane...

[FBM]

Ah. Gotcha.

Does a .22 round have enough metal in it to set off a metal detector?

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Wouldn't it all show up in body scanner / x-ray units, anyway?
Metal or not, it would still be very risky to try to get it onto a plane, I think.

[Collector1337]

In other words, most murders are 2 people arguing, when 1 loses his temper, pulls out a hand gun and commits murder.

Tell me why I should care about such stupid people?

[Collector1337]

Just a point, though, on the 3D printed guns.

Wonder how many people have woken up to the fact that an essentially undetectable plastic gun is an invitation to another 9/11?

It's not undetectable, genius.