The failed drug war has taught us you can regulate and draft laws until it's illegal to even think about making a gun let alone get a hold of one without the appropriate credentials, but it won't change a thing at the end of the day. While it can be argued that we might see people printing their own guns in the future when 3D printing becomes affordable, what's stopping people from printing knives and other sharp pointy objects that could be used to kill or maim someone else? If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that. If someone doesn't get hold of a printed weapon, they'll get their hands on a legitimately made metal one (or whatever material it is they build guns out of these days).
The benefit of 3D printing is that at least you have a better chance tracing a home printed weapon than you would an illegally purchased street firearm with no serial number.
I find it particularly amusing that many of the people I hear calling for the legalization of all drugs on the grounds that banning them doesn't work, are the same people calling for the outlawing of all guns.
Additionally, there is a very good argument for being free to take substances which release/alter your voluntary control of self. What are the arguments to own any gun? Imaginary civil war, fantasy home defense, pride of ownership, and practicing marksmanship? For this, we have to suffer the fact that any crazy can buy push-button killing machines, or that any sane owner thereof can subsequently lose his shit and kill the rest of us?
There doesn't seem to be much of an upside for the rest of us.
Yep. A long-barreled rifle, of small-ish calibre (.223 maybe) and with a fixed 5-shot magazine should be good enough for them. A determined person can hold up a mini-mart with that, but he'll be much less effective if he tries to go on a spree. Any features you add to such a weapon are, essentially, for the purposes of increasing its lethality to humans.
It's a good point. I actually would advocate no guns, but I could find it acceptable to compromise with hunting rifles only. But still, apart from hunting rifles then, what are the arguments to own any gun?
Hunting, recreation, self defense, home defense. Those are the main arguments I know. This generally corresponds to rifles/shotguns, plinking/antique guns, handguns, and shotguns/handguns respectively.
It's also sort of in the roots of the country, so you could say it's sort of patriotic to own a gun and train yourself in its use, but that is of course not a cold, practical argument.
Note: "Self defense" may have raised eyebrows; in particular, I am referring to people like judges and police officers who handle violent criminals. Typically these people are allowed to carry just about anywhere even off-duty.
Note2: In case you aren't actually aware, shotguns are commonly used for hunting, typically for small game and birds.
I would like to see some numbers for the home defense case -- it seems that the reasoning is mostly based on common sensical intuitions. IIRC guns in the home are multiple times more likely to be used against the family, than against an intruder. Permitted law-enforcement use is also acceptable to me.
Everything else you mentioned can, I think, be narrowly compromised on -- for shotguns, we can have single or double-barreled breechloaders only, 20 gauge only. That is plenty lethal, and the freedom to own pump-loading and larger gauges are, I think, acceptable casualties.
I think there really is not a fact-based case for the civilian ownership of the majority of weapons designed and sold in the market. Why does anyone need a Bushmaster or knockoff AK?
I'm not a big proponent of guns as home defense, I was just listing the arguments as you asked for them.
As for shotguns, while I'm partial to breech loaders, I imagine pump-loaders would be nice when bird hunting- you have literally seconds to take your shots. 12 gauge is popular for hunting, particularly when using a shotgun as a poor man's deer rifle (buckshot or slugs). Anyway, don't worry about shotguns so much. They aren't used much in crime, and I gather they are pretty survivable at all but very close range.
If you want to save lives, forget shotguns, forget rifles, forget even assault rifles- while mass shootings are big news, from a pure numbers point of view handguns are the biggest nail to pound down. More people in rural California in 2010 were killed with handguns than the count for the Connecticut shooting:
I've come to develop the POV that we should focus on ensuring that the gun control laws we already have are made effective. When murderers keep showing up with automatic weaponry (when automatic weaponry is basically outlawed) we should start by figuring out how they are getting automatic weaponry.
Are they really the same people? Gun ownership isn't something I am interested in, but neither does it frighten me. My drug if choice is already legal in my state.. and federally, but I think drugs should be legal.
I don't know.. maybe I just universally underestimate risk, but the targets of these bans or proposed bans all seem motivated by the irrational fear of tragic edge-cases.
No part of my comment mentioned calling for the legalisation of drugs nor am I calling for the outlawing of guns. Please do not misconstrue my words, and lets not confuse the real issue here. We are talking about people being able to potentially print functional firearms in the comfort of their own home using a 3D printer.
I've thought about this one, and I think drug prohibition is an unfair comparison. Drugs bring a immediate and addictive reward, that the user seeks continuously. This drives up their demand. Not to mention they have higher profit margins, and are a temporary good. If gun's were illegal, owning one would be a constant threat to the owner. Drugs can be easily disposed, and are not permanent. Decent guns are made by manufacturer's, which is much easier to regulate than drugs which are made in labs and farms. Finally, gun's are metal and therefore much harder to smuggle... metal detectors and such.
Not saying I can prove any of this, but I think the comparison just doesn't work.
I always hear the argument "If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that..."
In the heat of the moment can you easily get a gun? Especially if you are looking for banned weapons? How many incidents have occurred due to guns being easy to access?
How many school shootups have been "in the heat of the moment"? Every time the police follow up, it looks pretty apparent they were planned. I mean, who has full body armor available "in the heat of the moment"?
(Aurora and the most recent shooter were both in full body armor)
Even when these events are planned, there is still a time when you go "I need a big gun" to getting one. If mom has one in the closet, this obviously makes that event happen instantly. If there are more roadblocks to the process of acquiring an assault rifle, wouldn't it be worth it even if it saved a single life?
If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that.
> Except the lack of guns
The benefit of 3D printing is that at least you have a better chance tracing a home printed weapon than you would an illegally purchased street firearm with no serial number.
> Except smart filesharers already can't be caught
There will never be a lack of guns. America is too big to police efficiently. The drug war which has well and truly failed is a perfect example of this.
Filesharing is different. Printing a gun from a 3D printer requires materials, materials which can easily be traced back to their purchase point of origin. You could argue said materials could be obtained on the black market as well as the printers, but you have a better chance of tracking a created gun back to a particular type of 3D printer. I'm not saying it would be that reliable, but at least law enforcement agencies would stand a better chance than they currently have. Tracking a gun without a serial is like treasure hunting in the pacific ocean without a map.
The benefit of 3D printing is that at least you have a better chance tracing a home printed weapon than you would an illegally purchased street firearm with no serial number.