UK Police Seize Suspected 3D Printed Firearm Parts In Raid

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Granted, as long as agencies are proactive in law enforcement instead of just saying "these weapons are now illegal, now don't have one. we are just going to turn our backs to you now" will decrease crime considerably. However, even in places where firearms restrictions are so, well, strict crimes that would of been committed with a firearm are shifted to other weapons.

For example in China where a man wielding a butcher knife, which you can buy in any half decent supermarket or store, killed several children in school.

Akin to the Sandy Hook Shooting, he only killed I believe seven to eleven children instead of the twenty-eight or thirty that the Sandy Hook shooter killed, but it remains that if he had a firearm, he would of used one. He didn't, so he used the next best thing.


But using the guy as an example who killed the two police officers in the UK, he wasn't following the law. He didn't care about laws, legalities of firearms, or explosives for that matter [which by the way, was it an actual fragmentation grenade? that's beyond crazy. Here in the US we have people that will use pipebombs or such other homemade devices, but not a fricking M67, or the UK equivalent]. He set out to do one thing, and circumvented laws regarding firearm purchases and restrictions.


I'm not going to say owning a firearm will make you safer than someone who doesn't, but where I live it takes the Sheriff's Department a good ten to fifteen minutes to arrive. A lot can happen in just five minutes, and to protect myself until law enforcement arrive, I will more than likely have to use my rifle.

Saying [not you, but a majority of gun control advocates in the US] that I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself with my rifle because:

A: it holds more than 10 rounds in a magazine

B: has a pistol grip [which makes it more deadly than the exact same rifle with a traditional rifle grip]

C: can fold up [but not be fired] into a size less than 16 inches


is beyond stupid.

I would even say it's retarded.





I will even say this. Plastic isn't as strong as metal, while eventually 3d printed firearms might be a cause for concern, right now you might just get calls from annoyed corner store clerks who are reporting for the fifth time this week someone tried to rob them and the weapon exploded in their hand and if they could send an ambulance because there is a line forming behind the dumbass.

By that logic: Why do we use locks for houses and cars?

You know, people following the law will not steal your stuff and those who want to steal your stuff won't get stopped by a lock anyway, so just remove them. They're unnecessary.

 

[Daverson]

A few raids doesn't mean its stopped.

America raids drug caches every day. yet there are always more.

We also raid pedophile sites, but those are still around.

We raid a lot of things, but they still exist and grow exponentially.

There comes a point when crime escalates beyond what we are able to to counter. Drugs in America meant there was no way in hell we can counter any gang because of how much money they can throw around.

How can you stop gangs that pay our under paid soldiers thousands just for a rifle and a few mags? Not that thousands are hard to come by with drug money. With the military accepting more and more gang members its getting even easier.

Just because you are raiding things doesn't mean it won't over power you or grow. America learned that the hard way with booze, and drugs.

I'll agree, a few raids don't mean that all gun crime has stopped, permanently, forever. But that hardly means the whole thing is a pointless waste of money. At the end of the day, guns and drugs are out of the hands of people who, let's face it, don't exactly have them for educational purposes. That is, in my mind, lives saved. Which I'm sure you'll agree, is hardly a waste of anything.

(Also, soldiers selling guns to gangs? That sounds made-up, did you read it in the Sun? I don't mean to tell you your business, but perpetuating slander about the British army isn't a good way to make a point.)

 

[IceForce]

It's just proof that gun laws don't stop people from getting guns no matter how strict they are.

Failed logic is fail.

Also, you have a rather strange understanding of what "proof" means.

There will only be "proof" of this, after stricter gun laws are actually tried out, and (ultimately) fail.
THEN you can say that it didn't work. THEN you can say that it "didn't stop people".

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

You obviously haven't been listening to republicans claiming obamacare is an abject failure and is destroying this nations economy for years, even though sign-up just started earlier this month...

Bad example. Obamacare is a failure because it doesn't do what the proponents of the bill say it was going to do. People are being dropped from coverage due to the AHCA, losing their chosen doctor, their plan. The people it was supposed to help are actually not qualifying for it, or if they do the pricing is much higher than their income can afford even WITH subsidies. The website was barely beta-tested and rolled out with major traffic issues, let alone the cost of the website was enormous (more than any website on the web today).
I don't know if you've paid attention to the crap EA and Blizzard got when both SimCity and Diablo 3 rolled out with massive online issues that made it unplayable, but the same standard and beyond should be applied to a Government funded (which is a fancy name for TAXPAYER backed) project such as healthcare.gov.
An idea on paper isn't easy to implement, but when the idea isn't just on a piece, two or ten pieces of paper but over 20,000 pages of regulations and couched in legalese then the idea is just too big to implement. Especially when none of the folks who actually wrote the bill at inception could tell the American public what exactly the bill said "until it is passed".
Thats dodgy as fuck, and I wouldn't care either way what side passed it, I'd be saying the same damn thing. I have no respect for any politician who pulls crap like that.
But my original point is this: Centralized government becomes too much bureaucracy and red-tape to function correctly, as the debacle surrounding this healthcare website has shown. They had 3 years to get it ready and they failed horribly on all fronts and wasted between $70mill and $600mill of taxpayer dollars. Why I gave it that range? Because there's not enough transparency in the Government to know exactly how much it cost.
More or less the only reason this passed was so the left could say "We did it!" without actually knowing what the fuck they did or how to make it work. And now we're seeing the results of 3 years worth of preparation time. From what I can see, this isn't making it easier for anyone to get healthcare, another broken promise.
*sigh*
On gun laws, stricter laws don't prevent criminals from doing criminal things. The law is ALREADY there for them to be considered criminal, and since they don't mind breaking laws already whats one more going to prove? That a minority of a population is so destructive that the rest of the population has to abide by stricter laws that don't stop criminals from committing crimes. I think the fact that the education in the US is so poor that we end up with more criminals due to a lack of real education instilling a sense of self-worth in children.

 

[schrodinger]

Spoiler

Gun discussion. In the News Room. Gods help us all.

So that's the 'gun' they found? I guess if you hit someone with the 'gun' it might hurt, but beyond that...meh. I would need to see a video or something of this thing firing before i can classify this thing as a gun.

 

[Plucky]

I really don't see why people are making guns with 3d printers anyway, sure it might have made people create potentially easy and disposable weapons, but plastic fragments easily, chances are it'll either split, melt, or even possibly explode on the wielder.

Why not just add restrictions on flammable materials, gunpowder and bullets? maybe even possibly make the sale of bullets a universal thing, limited to people who actually still has their gun and a license. would reduce how many people and bullets moving around in circulation, it weeds out people buying bullets for others, whilst also leaving stock for people who's occupations might actually justify guns such as farmers, hunters and pest control.

 

[UNHchabo]

Or is your point simply that some people break laws? In which case, one could just as easily say "Welp, laws against murder aren't doing anything to stem the tide of murders, might as well legalize murder". I'd strongly recommend against that line of thought, because frankly, that's just dumb.

Some laws, like the ones against murder, are in place because we have a specific behavior we find immoral, and we wish to outlaw that. The laws are a means to their own end.

Other laws, like stopping at a red light, are there for a secondary reason; we think that putting stop lights on certain intersections will save lives, or help traffic flow smoothly. A law outright banning right-on-red accomplishes neither of those goals, so such a law should be removed.

Most people who support gun control do so because they feel that it will save lives by reducing the homicide rate. If gun control does not accomplish this aim, then there's no good reason for the law to be in place. So far, the statistics show this to be the case; in the US guns are used many times more often for defense than for crime, and there is no evidence showing a reduction in homicide rate with laws that restrict ownership or use of firearms.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Granted, as long as agencies are proactive in law enforcement instead of just saying "these weapons are now illegal, now don't have one. we are just going to turn our backs to you now" will decrease crime considerably. However, even in places where firearms restrictions are so, well, strict crimes that would of been committed with a firearm are shifted to other weapons.

For example in China where a man wielding a butcher knife, which you can buy in any half decent supermarket or store, killed several children in school.

Akin to the Sandy Hook Shooting, he only killed I believe seven to eleven children instead of the twenty-eight or thirty that the Sandy Hook shooter killed, but it remains that if he had a firearm, he would of used one. He didn't, so he used the next best thing.

Certainly, but the next best thing isn't nearly as good. A successful stabbing spree is rather unusual.

But using the guy as an example who killed the two police officers in the UK, he wasn't following the law. He didn't care about laws, legalities of firearms, or explosives for that matter [which by the way, was it an actual fragmentation grenade? that's beyond crazy. Here in the US we have people that will use pipebombs or such other homemade devices, but not a fricking M67, or the UK equivalent]. He set out to do one thing, and circumvented laws regarding firearm purchases and restrictions.

Certainly, the laws can never stop this from happening altogether. They can reduce the incidence dramatically.

Saying [not you, but a majority of gun control advocates in the US] that I shouldn't be allowed to defend myself with my rifle because:

A: it holds more than 10 rounds in a magazine

B: has a pistol grip [which makes it more deadly than the exact same rifle with a traditional rifle grip]

C: can fold up [but not be fired] into a size less than 16 inches

Don't forget the very dangerous bayonet attachment. You'll also note the US states with very different gun laws, but very open borders. It's one or the other.

(Having said that, in Australia, gun laws are a state thing, but the Federal government got them to introduce much the same laws across the board, though they've drifted a little. There are some noticeable differences, but that don't affect many gun users)

Hopefully the Australian police will crack down on this as soon as this stuff comes into Australia.

I'm not too worried about that, actually, the Australian police are very good at cracking down on that sort of thing.

 

[psijac]

Gun control advocates don't want gun control they want people control. mainly the control to stop people from murdering other people. Which is not a bad thing to want from the big picture sense.

But you don't get to control people, at least not every person all the time, there will always be outliers. Even if you could would you really be so narcissistic as to want to? "Let me protect you from you" is a terrible argument. Not in the sense that it is a bad ideal but it doesn't really work and people will eventually reject it.

Non-gun example, Muslim women have to wear burkas so men don't become so filled with lust and rape them. And yet those women still get raped by men.

Long story short, gun laws are bullshit, UK is overall still a pretty nice place

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Here is what all guns control discussions boil down to.

-Laws only effect law abiding citizens.
-Criminals can get guns.
-'murica

At the end of the day, Gun control doesn't save lives, it prevents the people who would take those lives from having easy access to guns.

If the guy in the article could have gone and just bought a gun, he wouldn't have been caught with components and a gunpowder recipe. He would have been caught with a real gun, which could have been used during the raid and injured or killed police officers or even himself.

That's my two cents.
And not that I need to tell you guys, but feel free to rip apart my post and deconstruct my argument in that way that only you do Escapist <3

 

[Amir Kondori]

The pictured part is clearly a part of the 3d printer. I don't think these guys realized that.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Gun control advocates don't want gun control they want people control. mainly the control to stop people from murdering other people. Which is not a bad thing to want from the big picture sense.

But you don't get to control people, at least not every person all the time, there will always be outliers. Even if you could would you really be so narcissistic as to want to? "Let me protect you from you" is a terrible argument. Not in the sense that it is a bad ideal but it doesn't really work and people will eventually reject it.

Non-gun example, Muslim women have to wear burkas so men don't become so filled with lust and rape them. And yet those women still get raped by men.

Long story short, gun laws are bullshit, UK is overall still a pretty nice place

Well a magnet's north pole cannot attract a magnet's north pole, so obviously we must have more gun laws.

/just kidding, 2nd amendment supporter over here

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

I highly doubt that who ever was shot 30 times was shot with a 3D printed gun. Being made of plastic means they can only barely stand being fired a few times, let alone 30 in rapid succession. Also, Grenades are completely impossible to replicate.