Red Mosquito

I bet his parents are real winners

slow weekend

30 injured, 4 killed in mass shootings over the weekend

I'm starting to think that the best way to keep your kids safe from guns is to not have guns.

i'm not sure 'creepy smile dude behind two frightened women' is the look you are going for

is there a chart that compares the amount of guns being made compared to the amount of people in the US?

warehouse wrote:i'm not sure 'creepy smile dude behind two frightened women' is the look you are going for

is there a chart that compares the amount of guns being made compared to the amount of people in the US?

Close enough?

Bi_3 wrote:

warehouse wrote:i'm not sure 'creepy smile dude behind two frightened women' is the look you are going for

is there a chart that compares the amount of guns being made compared to the amount of people in the US?

Close enough?

I don't think this estimate even attempts to capture home manufactured guns, which are booming in popularity.

They're probably booming in the faces of the users as well.

B wrote:They're probably booming in the faces of the users as well.

Naw, 80% lowers are basically the same quality as OEM products. You buy an unfinished frame, drill some holes, drop in some hardware and install the barrel and other components that are not restricted.

Gun on the far right is definitely an 80% that has been finished, one in the middle is probably OEM, not sure about the one on the left.


Even 3D printed guns with OEM parts are pretty reliable if you download a proven design.

ss never disappoints

spike wrote:ss never disappoints

In my locality, the majority of seized firearms from suspected felons are unregistered 80% guns ("ghost guns" for the Everytown crowd). I assumed that was the case nationwide, but a cursory image search does not support that.

I've heard of cops helping their friends with questionable records acquire 80% kits and ammunition.

So yeah, decarceration mixed with acquiring a gun being trivially easy is not a workable status quo, and something will have to give.

If you were wondering what the powers that be were doing about 80% receivers, don't worry, they're on it! They have no statutory authority to regulate not-guns (definition of an 80% frame/ receiver), but they can restrict constructive possession.

So good news, you can no longer buy an 80% receiver with a jig to assist you in drilling the correct holes in it as a single kit! The practical effect is that it will dissuaded those that find putting two items into their online cart instead of one too taxing.

so the gov't can't restrict those b/c they are not 100% guns? is that the legal argument?

warehouse wrote:so the gov't can't restrict those b/c they are not 100% guns? is that the legal argument?

You can't define a block of aluminum about the correct size as a gun, so the government has defined the amount of machining inputs required for the cutoff.

The problem is they defined the gun part as the serialized part that holds the other bits together. At the time they defined this, the serialized receiver part was almost always forged metal that had to deal with significant stress. Gun designs have changed to be more modular, so there might be multiple receivers, only one of which is the registered gun part and is serialized. Manufacturers often choose to serialize the simplest part that is exposed to the least stress and is easier to manufacture.

LAW ABIDING CITIZENS

simple schoolboy wrote:

warehouse wrote:so the gov't can't restrict those b/c they are not 100% guns? is that the legal argument?

You can't define a block of aluminum about the correct size as a gun, so the government has defined the amount of machining inputs required for the cutoff.

The problem is they defined the gun part as the serialized part that holds the other bits together. At the time they defined this, the serialized receiver part was almost always forged metal that had to deal with significant stress. Gun designs have changed to be more modular, so there might be multiple receivers, only one of which is the registered gun part and is serialized. Manufacturers often choose to serialize the simplest part that is exposed to the least stress and is easier to manufacture.

agreed, gun manufacturers are a huge problem and taking advantage of outdated, borderline useless federal laws

warehouse wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

warehouse wrote:so the gov't can't restrict those b/c they are not 100% guns? is that the legal argument?

You can't define a block of aluminum about the correct size as a gun, so the government has defined the amount of machining inputs required for the cutoff.

The problem is they defined the gun part as the serialized part that holds the other bits together. At the time they defined this, the serialized receiver part was almost always forged metal that had to deal with significant stress. Gun designs have changed to be more modular, so there might be multiple receivers, only one of which is the registered gun part and is serialized. Manufacturers often choose to serialize the simplest part that is exposed to the least stress and is easier to manufacture.

agreed, gun manufacturers are a huge problem and taking advantage of outdated, borderline useless federal laws

The designs changed well before anyone thought about the legal implications. It's like going from diecast toy cars that you can't meaningfully modify to a Lego car that you can swap any part out of that you want.

The parts that are easiest to make also have large, flat features that are easier for manufacturers to stamp or put rollmarks on.

It's not some clever loophole, the feds have failed to update untenable definitions. The ATF has had to repeatedly drop cases to avoid an adverse ruling that would blow up their interpretation of the relevant gun defining statutes

simple schoolboy wrote:

warehouse wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

warehouse wrote:so the gov't can't restrict those b/c they are not 100% guns? is that the legal argument?

You can't define a block of aluminum about the correct size as a gun, so the government has defined the amount of machining inputs required for the cutoff.

The problem is they defined the gun part as the serialized part that holds the other bits together. At the time they defined this, the serialized receiver part was almost always forged metal that had to deal with significant stress. Gun designs have changed to be more modular, so there might be multiple receivers, only one of which is the registered gun part and is serialized. Manufacturers often choose to serialize the simplest part that is exposed to the least stress and is easier to manufacture.

agreed, gun manufacturers are a huge problem and taking advantage of outdated, borderline useless federal laws

The designs changed well before anyone thought about the legal implications. It's like going from diecast toy cars that you can't meaningfully modify to a Lego car that you can swap any part out of that you want.

The parts that are easiest to make also have large, flat features that are easier for manufacturers to stamp or put rollmarks on.

It's not some clever loophole, the feds have failed to update untenable definitions. The ATF has had to repeatedly drop cases to avoid an adverse ruling that would blow up their interpretation of the relevant gun defining statutes

i'm sure it's profit driven, but i'm also sure legal implications were considered during the design.

but i'm glad we are all on the same page that there are too many guns in the US