borkcorkedforks

The change doesn’t really seem that great and there are years missing.

Also “Gun laws should be stricter” is too vague for the range of policies involved. When a gun control advocate says that they might mean bans. Someone else might be talking about opening up the NICS or want to improve the background checks somehow. There are also a lot of people who don’t actually know the existing laws and want “stricter laws” we already have.

Sure, but legal processes aren’t quick. I would assume they’re trying to be thorough in the process. Probably not a great sign they letting the rule stay but in theory it doesn’t actually do much. 80% manufacturers can still sell products. I can still buy an 80% or a 3d printer.

The real thing would be to just get a ruling to limit how they can change law through changing definitions. Same reason slapping down the bump stock was needed.

Also the issue there ruling on probably won’t actually be a 2a thing but about the rule making effectively side stepping the legislative proceess.

deleted by creator

The rule in effect is rather narrow and doesn’t actually ban home manufacturing. All the elements of a kit are still accessible and legal.

The only difference is that all the parts to finish the controlled part can’t be sold together. So like you could by the 80% from one shop online and the jig from a different shop online. All the other parts wouldn’t be affected in general, maybe an issue if sold with the 80%. And there are also other ways to do home manufacturing that would be completely unaffected but the rule.

Also the case isn’t done. The order is a temporary stay where the court is asking the ATF lawyers to explain things.

There are a lot of ways to cause mass murder so it certainly isn’t “the only way left”. People have and will used other methods. Something as simple as fire is a weapon with a history of use in terrorism.

Guns do have laws associated with them. You’d know this if you ever went to a shop to buy one or just looked at the laws. I don’t need to pass a background check to buy a car from the dealership. There is no crime for a felon to own a car. A felon could even get a license to operate a car in public. There is no crime for “brandishing” a car in public.

Which law in GA are you talking about? Most states don’t outright ban ownership over a diagnosis or seeking treatment. Making that a criteria becomes tricky when trying to determine what counts or who gets to decide. I’m sure you would find a ban on voting for the mentally ill questionable if say Republican law makers decided what counts.

Involuntary commitment is a problem for gun ownership federally regardless of state laws as well. It should kinda take a lot to restrict a right and there are problems with essentially punishing people for seeking treatment.

I feel like that is too on the nose. Prague U and related media is just propaganda and alternative history. I suppose some of it is close to what is already being taught for some parts of US history.

@crow Not really sure how someone faking it would expect things to work out. Someone could decide they could get a bunch of clout and followers by faking it. But at some point they get shown to be a fraud then they lose any following they had. Are the people who claim to have discovered something notable before this or could they just be riding a wave for a min for a quick buck? I guess there have been cases in more proper scientific circles of faked results.

Reporting on it is kinda whatever as that’s kinda just talking about what someone else claimed.

Another possibility is that some other mechanism is at work or there is a fault in the test setup. At that point the person making the claim could be wrong but not necessarily aware of it. Maybe due to a lack of knowledge.

@science @technology @dzen

The ammo/parts thing was more about how without domestic production there room for it to be affected by changes to import laws or sanctions.

Personally I’m not worried about using something that some other group seems to like. I want what’s practical and fits my needs. There is a reason ARs are so common today. They’re just good and can be built/modified to fit a lot of people or use cases. If I really wanted something different just to be different I’d get something like a vz 58 or some kind of space gat. It’s still kinda hard for me to justify the expense for that kind of reason and I have to rein it in a bit as I kinda want all the things.

To me it looks like an over estimation of the capabilities for the tech. Same kind of thinking that led to lawyers submitting fake cases as support in court. The current tech can be useful but has to be verified and generally tweaked a bit to be good enough. It certainly has room for improvement in quality and just not lying. Real world use has some copyright questions with what the training data was. Applying it to something creative is questionable and more or less feels like uninspired remixes.

Also the whole graphic is kinda suspect to me when “Blockchain engineers” is a job category and it’s produced by an org working on AI.

That’s exactly what it originally said. This is a repost of the edit I saw a year or two ago.

Lol, clean your guns if you’re getting jams. (The idea about jams is mostly a myth based on military personnel being told they didn’t need to maintain early designs while fighting in a jungle.)

If you prefer AKs that’s fine. It’s also fine to own both but I think in the US an AR is more practical for most people if they can’t afford both. There are also weird designs mixing the two or having one chambered in the others caliber.

In the US an AR is generally more affordable and more available. Parts and ammo for it also has more standardization and domestic production. In general it would be easier for most people to work on ARs. In other parts of the world an AK would be more common so more recommendable in my opinion. And the low end offerings there would be better than the low end offers on the US market. Where as you can still get a mostly decent AR for $600 in the US. If I got an AK I’d want to spend notably more than that to actually trust it.

You’re the one randomly commenting to defend a government. Plenty of governments and orgs find problems with the policies and actions of the CCP not just the US.

One I have a problem with is how people in China can’t really criticize their government without risking being targeted by the government. If I said the Pooh Bear comment in China the CCP would be on my ass because WeChat reported me.

On the other hand criticize my government all the fucking time including leaders in particular. Watch. Fuck Biden I don’t like his gun policy and I don’t think he should run again, he is too fucking old. Here, I’ll do it again. Fuck Trump, he has tiny hands and I’m pretty sure he did those crimes he has been to going to court over. Also the DMV sucks and inflation is bad.

I could get into more important things the CCP is responsible for like the genocide but you probably think those are lies or want to get into whataboutisms.

How do you keep your breath so fresh? Does the pooh bear use mint flavored shoe shine or do you just pop in a mint after going to town?

If they have to use code words they’re not going to be getting care in their state, not legally anyway. That’s part of how they can even be charged with something.

I’m a pro-gun leftist but, yeah, a lack of mental healthcare is an obvious issue when talking about mental health problems. There is absolutely no rational way for you to claim intentional suicide isn’t a mental health issue.

If the issue was just guns existing you’d quickly be able to pass any gun laws you wanted due to the lack of gun owners. Plenty of people do not have mental health problems that would require them to be disarmed. No one is getting any treatment just because a gun ban got passed.

What I don’t get is why Democrats don’t call their bluff and try to create public healthcare options with the stated goal of preventing violence and issues related to mental health.

There is political theater going on but with gun control laws they’re not going to even stick due to lawsuits. Effectiveness is questionable as well.

The laws do not affect a tiny portion of people though. Lots of weapons that fall under the idea of an assault weapons ban are extremely popular and common. Then such laws would affect future buyers including people who do not have the opportunity to buy something now or didn’t think to. Definitely a problem for someone a decade from now who was too young or wasn’t into firearms yet. Like that the whole point of the ban right? Stopping people from being able to own something.

The “loopholes” aren’t. They’re just making something that is in compliance. The problem is they don’t know how to define what they want to ban and the ban isn’t actually effective for the results they claim.

I don’t care about hunting. Crimes were done without the things you want to ban and would continue after.

Criminals would get things they need from Home Depot and computer type stores. It doesn’t take as specialized equipment as you think. Also straw purchases and a black market is a thing. Criminals with a record aren’t obtaining them from an FFL.

Legal full auto is effectively banned for the commoners. The only ones legally available are ones that were in civilian hands when partial bans went into effect. It’s as banned an AWB with grandfathering would be a banning things.

A ban and confiscation of semi-autos would be on a vast majority of firearms. Certainly a vast majority of modern firearms and commonly owned firearms. There is a good chance if a person only owns one firearm it’s a semi-auto. Especially today when the most common reasons for ownership include self-defense. Then people would just buy lever actions and revolvers as the next best thing. Actual criminals before such a law would continue not following laws after. And then there is home manufacturing which gets easier everyday.

Legal full-auto access is mostly not a thing due to cost. There is a partial ban in that new full-auto can’t be imported or manufactured for civilians. That directly affects the cost and thus only available for the rich or companies with the cash and paperwork.

My main point about an AWB in relation to suicides was more that people aren’t using those kinds of weapons for suicide. The kind weapons these laws are trying to describe aren’t even commonly used in crimes. The main reason they’re talking about assault weapons now days is because targeting handguns first kinda stalled. That and the marketing works better for them.

There are things they could do that would be effective but it would be other left wing policies that would address root causes. The issue with that is those things seem to be even more of a lip service thing and it’s kinda hard to bumper sticker that shit.