From GNU/Linux to GUN/Linux
Open-source?
More like open fire!
From copy left to cop piglet.
GNU/GUN
From FOSS to FOSG
Tho I support gun ownership, this guy has no business owning a gun
“If you are a [in my perception] a communist, you don’t wanna step on my lawn” === “If I don’t agree with you, I’ll shoot you”
Plus anyone saying “communist states” is definetly fallen victim of right wing propaganda and haven’t even take the time to research what communisim is. Even the US left political wing is quite capitalisitic.
Just a bunch of bad “arguments” bagged up with slapsticks words which he doesn’t even know the meaning of.
I watched this guy for a little bit and liked his Linux stuff and then in one video he started ranting about how those FOSS licenses that include a requirement to use software ethically are the worst thing in the universe because they bring politics into software and I thought “wait, this guy is ignorant asshole isn’t he?” and turns out yes, yes he is.
Not making the point to defend those licenses or not but all this guy cared about was FOSS not being political and it’s like…are you a child? Do you not understand how all of this is political?
People like this guy give FOSS a really ugly outward facing identity and it turns away soooo many potential contributors and chill people.
To your point about this guy being exactly the kind of person that shouldn’t be allowed to own a precision semiautomatic rifle with 30 round magazines of high caliber rifle rounds, I agree, I have seen that guy get so fucking angry about shit on his channel, he has no ability to control his anger and that kind of person shouldn’t be allowed to own an object that gives their temper tantrums the capacity to kill so many people so quickly before their rational control kicks back in.
“I don’t wanna get political in this video”
Get’s mega political and starts using political lingo used by the right wing
Way to go, dude, you played yourself.
I’ve also seen his temper in his videos plus adding what he said in this video, I am convinced the guy should not be allowed to own a damm BBGun. But he’s lucky he doesnt live in a “communist state”. Yo what a shitshow.
Meanwhile FOSS directly attacks multiple capitalist statements about communism
Open software is considered by many a modern example of a anachists-communist project.
The dude is just spewing what he belives to be truth without any regard for the concepts he is actually talking about. Even me supporting both FOSS and gun ownership I belive the whole video should be regard as misinformation/misrepresentation at the very least, propaganda in reality.
Open software is considered by many a modern example of a anachists-communist project.
Do you know of any good sources?
Not original commenter, but here’s Wikipedia article on anarcho-communism mentioning open source via gift economy
I think everyone should be able to own nerve gas.
Not THIS guy, of course, but everyone else.
“That isn’t happening”
While that position held, Marx now acknowledged that the standard of living of the wage earners advances with every progressive stride the bourgeoisie take. The matter, then, was more relative than absolute. Marx had now fully grown up.
freedom is where you might get shot walking your dog.
I tend to disagree for following reasons:
- freedom ends where someone elses freedom begins
- no one said freedom was save
- people don’t stop to murder other people without guns
Empty words from someone that does not understand how countries with less guns still work and don’t have CHILDREN KILLING IN THEIR SCHOOLS ALL THE TIME
To be fair there are countries with a shitload of guns where this doesn’t happen. This is mostly US being a shithole.
At compared to the other western countries, the gun rights in the US are a huge difference to almost all others. Switzerland is the one big exception I can think of, partly because of the huge shooting history / culture (which is often still actively celebrated) and because soldiers can take a private weapon to home (which had the original sense that in case of war, they could directly have a gun).
I live in austria, we have gun rights and like 33guns/100people (if I remember correctly) and we never had a single school shooting in our history, also the terrorists involved in the shooting in vienna a few years ago illigaly imported their guns from serbia
But there is law governing how you store your firearms and ammunition, so kids can’t access them, right? It’s not true freedom then /s
That’s just not true / comparable. While Austria has more gun rights than in most other Western countries, it’s nothing in comparison to the US. In Austria, the only guns you can freely buy are single shot guns. And for those, you need to wait three days until you get them.
To get a very limited amount of semi-automatic weapons, you need to, similar to other western countries, have a Weapons possession card that’s subject authorization. To get it, you don’t only need a psychological report but also a justification, be 21 and need to fit other requirements. You also need to report every weapon you get so Austria knows where the weapons are.In the US meanwhile, it depends on the state you’re living very much, but in some states, you can get semi-automatic weapons (which are completely banned in Austria) in a shop in just minutes. And that without any background checks, psychological reports, justifications, approval required, without anything like that. In many states even convicted criminals can get guns like that. And it’s often not even age restricted. In the US, guns are sometimes a presents for kids which they can just…own and use (while in Austria everything is obviously 18+).
And the biggest difference is carrying a gun. In Austria, you are not allowed to carry them in public (and getting that licence is almost impossible for normal people). While in the US (in many states), you can just carry any gun around in public whatsoever. So even if the police sees you having weapons in public, they can’t / don’t do anything about that, because it’s just legal.
I general, the gun rights in Austria are bigger than in most of other Western Europe. But even Obama’s 2012 proposal to significantly lower the freedom of guns in the US would have resulted in still much bigger gun rights than in Austria. There is just a huge difference.
Also there are around 1.332.000 guns in Austria, with around 9.2 million people, that’s around 14 guns per 100 people.
You do have some errors in your little rant. While firearms are easier to acquire in the US as a rule, there are still some restrictions and forms you need to fill out. Plus there can be a near byzantine set of laws that each state and even cites can pass to further restrictions on purchase and ownership. It might be the biggest issue about firearms ownership that there are few national laws for enforcement. It’s mostly up to each state and city regulations and enforcement.
Convicted felons are pretty much barred from firearms ownership across the US. The only real exceptions might be a billionaire who can buy anything. Or perhaps it’s just easier to pay some else to shoot people for them.
Everyone has to fill out a Form 4473 which is a universal federal background check against a data base to see if you can legally own a firearm. It is an electronic background check done at the time of sale and transfer. It can take a few minutes or a few hours to get done. And you can be disqualified for a simple misspelling or even if your name is similar to a some who is barred from purchase. Then it’s up to you to get your name cleared. All and any firearms purchases through a dealer MUST have a Form 4472 attached. And the dealer must keep a record after the sale for a fairly long period of time. A good number of states have further restrictions and requirements on the purchase and ownership of firearms. Which require further state background checks and issuance of a special card to buy a firearm. And individual cities can impose further restrictions yet.
Minors, under 18 years of age, (a few are 21), in the majority of states cannot legally buy a firearm. And are generally only allowed to handle or use a firearm with an adult present - some exceptions would be during a hunting season and only when hunting. But even then, there will be an adult somewhere around.
Carrying a handgun publicly, with the exception of a very small number of states, is very controlled. Some states, like California or New York are quite restrictive to the point that pretty much only wealthy people can actually afford to pay for all the hoops you might need to jump through to get such a permit. A tiny number of states, like Texas allow for common carry laws without a permit, (often called Constitutional Carry). But the majority of states require that you have taken a special class and then go through more special background checks by local law enforcement to get the permit issued. And these permits require renewals every few years with more background checks every time.
Again, I think the biggest issue is the lack of a uniform national set of laws and requirements for firearms purchase and ownership is what confuses everyone. States are considered to have most of the power to make many laws that the federal government can’t over ride. Sometimes this is a good thing and sometimes not so good perhaps. But it’s the system we have for better or worse.
Sweden and Canada have pretty high rates of gun ownership and don’t have this problem. That said American school shootings are not as common as they are made out to be, there has been a lot of statistical fudging to make it look so much worse than it is.
What all three countries do have are problems with gangs and they’re only getting worse as poverty drives people to crime. America has it worse because it has more poverty, but we will all catch up soon enough.
Idk how you make shooting students / children out to be much worse than it is. Kinda seems like any stat greater than 0 should be unacceptable and cause for massive societal reevaluation.
My guy, any amount of school shooting is more common than they should be.
This is the real answer.
When you look at serious violent crime, defining that as robbery, battery, forcible rape, and murder, the rate of serious violent crime is similar in the US and UK (edit - and Australia!). The UK has largely removed firearms from the equation–which is easier, since they’re an island, and didn’t start with 600M firearms–and it has decreased the murder rate, but their overall violent crime rate is still quite high. Despite nominally having single payer health, the system has been intentionally broken by conservatives, and poverty is pretty significant. You see the same kind of sharp economic divides in the UK that you see in the US.
The predictable result is violence.
Murder isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom. It’s like saying that the awful cough and shortness of breath is your problem, and then thinking that cough syrup (with codeine!, since that’s the good shit that works!) is going to fix the underlying pneumonia.
School shootings aren’t a gang problem, and school shootings are way more common in the US than any other developed country.
As a rule of thumb people stop to mass murder other people, without guns. With extremely rare exceptions, we don’t have that shit outside of the US and our schools are not shooting ranges.
The other two things you wrote are not reasons, they are a) a slogan that you could put on a 12 years old t shirt and b) something someone who is having a heart attack might say
Its a joke, don’t think too hard about it.
Freedom as a concept is to vague and personal to be useful any kind of real discussion; “freedom” means whatever you think it means. This is why politicians love to say it.
I would say that you’re right guns make people feel safe.
However, that the constant threat of violence in society leads to degradation of social norms, especially for children who then get less socialization and become more extreme.
You see this in like more people choosing to homeschool their kids - they then get lower quality education and poorer social skills and are less able to survive in society. In a capitalist world, this is slowly eating away the ability of americans to compete in a global economy and so there is a strong movement to isolate our economy which will only make us less competitive.
I would say that you’re right guns make people feel safe.
I just wanted to say that guns absolutely do not make me feel safe, knowing one is nearby or seeing one makes me incredibly anxious. Holding one even more so. I don’t understand how people can feel safe around them, to me it’s like having a ticking time bomb in the room but the timer was set by a rng.
That’s fine if you feel like that. And YOU should stay away from them and I fully support your desires and rights to do so. But others don’t feel the same.
And YOU should stay away from them
Why is drunk driving illegal when people should just stay away from drunk drivers?
I don’t support your rights to have them, sorry <3
And here my friends, we can see an exhibit from the United States of America.
There are plenty of pro-gun people outside the US too
I think the topic is not so much “gun folks”, but more the idea that the US 2nd amendment right equates with all freedoms.
The first and second amendments are seen as the cornor stone rights for sure in the US. They enable and protect each other and other rights played out in the constitution.
Never really liked his channel but wasn’t aware of this video until now. What a fuckwit. Has no idea what communism is but keeps saying it when he really means authoritarianism. Says that a gun is “great for children”, I’m hoping he meant for children to use…
I don’t understand why I need to buy a gun to deal with downstream problems where there is an upstream solution. The reasons he gave for owning any gun are really societal issues. Instead of encouraging everyone to have a private army, why not encourage people to vote for politicians who will fix the upstream problems
Dad (a mountain Appalachian man who did own guns but always hated gun nut culture) always said it was better to use your brain than bullets. I wholly agree with your assessment that if we’re at the point where we need guns, then we’ve already lost.
Exactly the problem with a lot of these gun nuts - they can’t use their brains because they don’t have one.
I’m not sure either interpretation of “great for children” is super great.
Weapons of war are not fucking toys.
I fear games like Fortnite being introduced to very young children might conflate “weapons of war” and “toys”
I liked some of his content, but it got pretty weird thats for sure.
I want to share software and ideas, not bullets and death. Hard pass.
Well, that’s hard to do when your government are the only ones with guns and power.
@lemmylem @Railcar8095 oh i love the fantasy ‘we’re going to overthrow the government with our rifles’ trope, please tell us more
Can confirm, no FOSS at all in Europe
Innocent lives lost due to “law abiding citizens” mishandling guns: a metric shit ton
Corrupt governments toppled by gun lovers: 0
The thought of how many people might be stocking ammo and thinking to use out if their favorite politician loses makes me happy for having an ocean between me and them.
You don’t understand. They mean they want to topple democratic societies in favor of theocratic fascism.
Peace is the enemy.
These fuckers never stopped waging the civil war, that’s what this is about and was ever all about.
What about the innocent lives lost because they didn’t have a gun? You think everyone can fight with their bare hands or a knife?
Owning a gun makes you more likely to die by gun accident or by that gun being used against you. You logic is completely wrong.
You think these people care about logic? Wait until you hear who they are voting for and their reasoning for it.
Who do you even need to fight bro? If I was say getting mugged I would give them all my valuables save a 10 % tip that I could give them when I was allowed to run the hell away from there. Do not be a stupid macho idiot. Be a smart coward without neither a wallet, gun nor a fatal wound.
Jokes aside, the main uptick is the smaller chance of someone less mentally stable than you with less to lose also having a gun.
So what about when you are getting raped? What about when someone doesn’t want to let you go? Do you know what its like to almost be murdered?
If you want to say “Why do you even need to fight bro” you’re basically just saying good luck to all the people who can’t defend themselves and just letting them die. And do you not understand how regimes come to light? Just take a look at Russia, Putin just got to serve for another 6 years. Do you wonder how somebody stays in power for 24 years and more? Because nobody can fight back.
How are you supposed to go an get your gun from the locked cabinet where I assume you keep it to prevent a psycho from stealing it and using it against you? Unless you keep it attached to you at all times risking a misfire or your attacker grabbing it and using it against you. What if you accidentally kill someone who was infact innocent when you think you’re doing the right thing but you misjudged a situation? How do I know that you can be trusted with a firearm? What distinguishes you from a school shooter just by looking at you? If the US is so free why don’t you fight back against the corrupt two-party system?
deleted by creator
Ahh, the typical Reddit old tradition of vague statement of knowledge with no meat to not be rebutted. Had hoped that didn’t reach Lemmy.
Lightning round. Russia? Ha! China? Ha! North Korea? Japan? Ha! Netherlands? Hahahaha
USA…? Hahahahahahhahahhaha
The US might prove true if you include gun nuts toppling their own government by voting for fascist scum.
Im pretty sure Japan is sharing software and ideas all the time
I struggle to see Japan as a bastion of freedom lol. Fun place to visit for sure, but between the archaic drug laws and suicide forests I’m not sure they are a society others should be modeling themselves after.
i would argue that you probably lean more on the side of sharing user rights and freedoms generically. Rather than the more specific “software and ideas”
You can certainly have different opinions relating to guns. But they do have a fundamental overlap of underlying concepts. Rights are rights at the end of the day. Either you have them. And they’re justified, or you don’t, and none of them are.
Rights are what a community agrees on that they should have. I’m happy my community has agreed that owning guns is a priviledge, not a right. There is no sufficient reason owning guns should be a right, so I can be completely in favour of rights and freedoms without including any right to own guns.
I dont think I’m American enough to understand this. How does wanting people to have freedom to use their systems as they please correlate with everyone being able to own and freely carry weapons that can kill instantly?
to put it blatantly. Pro 2A people (they should, on paper at least, in practice a significant portion of them are cunts and shouldn’t be allowed in the community but that’s a different rant all together) support the idea that people have rights. specifically to do with guns.
There is a very fundamental overlap in the whole “i believe i should be able to run whatever software i want, with no restrictions” and “i believe i should be allowed to own guns with minimal restrictions” crowds. It’s that simple, doesn’t matter whether you agree with it or not. If you’re a linux user, and you support open source software, and believe users should have rights. You automatically have a pretty significant moral overlap with pro 2A people. (on paper, again, fuck it, im ranting about it)
Also, minor nitpick, they don’t kill instantly, they certainly can. But if i shoot you in the toe, you probably won’t keel over and die immediately. That’s a gross mischaracterization of them.
The following is a tangential rant, feel free to ignore, it’s about gun owners being cunts. There is a non insignificant portion of the gun community who, when presented with the concept of “everybody should be taught gun safety, because it’s a right granted to us” relating specifically to (liberals edit, i misspoke here, i meant republicans, LOL) (go figure) happen to get really fucking antsy at the thought of people they don’t like owning guns.
Now i feel like i don’t have to explain why this is maybe a very bad thing. But to put it bluntly, there are two good solutions here. Ban guns forever, permanently (which i disagree with, but that’s just my opinion on it) or, make it accessible to everybody, and give everyone access to them, and the materials required to be safe and responsible with them. Because after all, gun safety, is what keeps us safe when using them. While im sure the latter would make some amount of gun owning republicans uneasy, i propose they get a taste of their own fucking medicine.
it has fuck all to do with " people they don’t like owning guns." it has fucking everything to do with people unqualified and unsafe to own guns being able to obtain guns - whether through gun show loopholes, straw buyers, no yellow/red flag laws, etc.
fuck outa here with liberals getting antsy bullshit. if you weren’t paying attention, there’s a fucking gun violence epidemic going on, every fucking week there’s another mass shooting.
if that’s liberals getting antsy, maybe you should fucking wake up and realize this bullshit only happens here. bellend.
It’s written in a messy way but I actually read it the opposite way.
There is a non insignificant portion of the gun community who, when presented with the concept of “everybody should be taught gun safety, because it’s a right granted to us” relating specifically to liberals (go figure) happen to get really fucking antsy at the thought of people they don’t like owning guns.
I think what @KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com meant was that the 2A people don’t seem to be very interested in defending gun rights for people outside their circles. I don’t know if I’d use liberals as the example here. I think Black people would be far more salient.
Did the NRA Support a 1967 ‘Open Carry’ Ban in California? | Snopes.com
While 1967 was a long time ago, the “antsiness” has remained. How often do you hear of these people doing anything to defend the people who are the primary targets of anti gun laws? Which is, by a large margin, Black and other racialized people.
I heard an interview with some Public Defenders who had submitted an amicus brief in relation to a guns rights case on the basis that even though the actual case was stupid, changing the law would materially improve the lives of overincarcerted communities. I thought it was on 5-4 podcast in follow up to the first ep that covered the case in a less friendly way: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. I don’t find the subsequent ep where they had the PDs on for an interview… maybe it was taken down.
Reagan and the NRA were all about gun control when it was Black Panthers.
I just want sane controls preventing nutbags from acquiring arsenals. I’m not anti-gun, I’m a prior service gun loving person who’s watching the idiots ruin it for the rest of us.
i wish it was less about posturing, and more about the underlying fundamental reasons.
You’re a republican that owns a gun, that’s cool, i didn’t ask, lets go do something that we can enjoy together instead.
posturing, and more about the underlying fundamental reasons.
this is why we fail: you assume it’s posturing. it’s not fucking posturing.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-violence-claimed-lives-5000-people-2024/story?id=107262776
that article is cool and all, but please try to explain to me how the intrinsic and very explicit link, between republican politics, and 2A, isn’t political posturing in some manner.
You may not be. But there is a very clear tie between the conservative rhetoric, and 2A. If it weren’t political posturing the issues that i was talking about, which do exist (go have a look at some of the comments on this video), would not be happening. As it wouldn’t fucking matter.
I see what you’re saying… I’m picking up what you’re putting down…
There’s an overlap of free rights to freedom and free rights to guns, but I think that they’re on different fields.
I agree with you, surprisingly, about a lot of what you said. But guns are a weird subject for a lot of people. The issue that is always brought up is that guns are designed to kill. The counter is good safety foundation, training, and practice. The counter to that is, humans are stupid greedy assholes.
For the sake of conversation, I’m mixed. I have guns myself but I treat them with respect. My kids know how to handle them and can cite the rules of gun ownership. The guns are locked up at all times. My family does the same. I can’t imagine that everyone is doing the same thing.
Jordan Klepper noted that a firm overlap on both sides is stricter regulatory control of deeper background checks, but the NRA makes this impossible. Jordan Klepper Solves Guns.
I know this is about to sound stupid but I promise it isn’t as dumb as it sounds.
Guns are not designed to kill, nothing is designed to kill. Guns were designed to propel a projectile at incredible velocities, they were INVENTED to kill. What you do with the gun is what makes the difference.
i’ve never really found that argument compelling tbh. Guns are designed to kill.
So are knives, and machetes. And daggers, swords, etc… Nobody ever complains about those. Mostly because they have other uses, and aren’t in particularly heavy use.
I mean hell, you could argue a car is designed to kill people. F150s are a big contender there.
So you mean to tell me that knives and machetes are primarily used to kill people every day instead of cutting rope, vines, etc?
Cars were designed to kill people? Is that why the 1894 velo was designed? To kill people? Definitely not designed to transport people I guess. If you walk in front of a train going even 15 mph, your corpse would be so destroyed that it would not even be recognizable. Are trains designed to kill then?
Hell, by your logic, anything that has the capability to kill is designed to kill, did you know that if you drink too much water, you can die? Guess water’s designed to kill too, I guess.
Guns have uses besides killing, the very presence of a firearm is a deterrant, that alone is a purpose that is given besides killing. I don’t agree with it, and I don’t even think everyone should just have easy access to firearms, but they definitely work for that purpose. Mentally unstable folks, it won’t work on those, but is that really the fault of guns themselves, or our country’s lackluster healthcare system, especially with the stigma around seeking mental help? A lack of access to guns is not going to stop someone from trying to kill someone, I am telling you that it is not. At the end of the day, external factors like economical reasons, mental health problems, stress related factors such as family issues, social issues, or work related issues, that’s what even drives people to do crimes like mass shootings in the first place.
Honestly, I could give less of a shit if guns even got taken away, but at the end of the day, there is still a problem to be dealt with and that is people who need help are not getting it, and as a result, are suffering.
So you mean to tell me that knives and machetes are primarily used to kill people every day instead of cutting rope, vines, etc?
Cars were designed to kill people? Is that why the 1894 velo was designed? To kill people? Definitely not designed to transport people I guess. If you walk in front of a train going even 15 mph, your corpse would be so destroyed that it would not even be recognizable. Are trains designed to kill then?
Hell, by your logic, anything that has the capability to kill is designed to kill, did you know that if you drink too much water, you can die? Guess water’s designed to kill too, I guess.
this is exactly my point. It’s such a broad and wide reaching statement, that it completely excludes sport, and hunting. As well as defense, from what guns were designed to do. It’s just frankly a stupid statement to make.
Guns were not designed to defend, they were designed to, once again, fire a projectile.
deleted by creator
I just got my restricted possession and acquisition license in Canada (RPAL), which gives me the ability to own firearms and ammo.
It was fascinating to see just how different Canada and US laws are in this regard; and how much less likely a widespread ‘unrestricted gun rights’ movement is here.
How difficult did you find the process? Over here we basically just go to the store and buy it after a simple background check. Even the background check seems to be avoidable if you do a private gun sale. At least this is how it was described to me by friends who have firearms, I don’t own any myself.
In Canada…
For (most) long guns and shotguns, you need to take a day-long safety course, followed by both a written and practical exam. If you pass that, then you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years. Then there’s a background check and a 28 day waiting period before they process it. (Also, I understand that the background check is far stricter here.)
If you want to be licensed for restricted firearms (handguns and some long guns), there’s a separate 6-hour course and exams. Most people do the courses and exams back-to-back, so they can apply for restricted weapons at the same time.
Purchase, storage, transport, and use rules are vastly different as well. Restricted firearms can only be used at a licensed range, and to buy one you need to be a member at a range in your province.
Generally speaking, firearms have to be stored empty and locked. Restricted firearms also have to be registered to a specific address, and if you move, you need to fill out the change of location ahead of time and are given a window in which you can move them between houses.
I also didn’t mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.
you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years.
Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don’t have a social circle is wonk to me.
I also didn’t mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.
The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they’re bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.
Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don’t have a social circle is wonk to me.
In signing, the references are saying that “I have known this person for three years and don’t believe them to be a high risk for violence.” One might argue that if you don’t know two people who don’t consider you a risk, you may actually be a risk!
Similarly, the sign-off from partners (current or recent) is in place to protect partners and exes from ending up shot dead. A bad breakup because someone was scared of their partner is probably a good indication that the partner shouldn’t have firearms.
The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they’re bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.
Nah, the RCMP has its problems but it’s a federal government division, and not in place to make a profit.
I think the difference in both legislation and acceptance thereof is that guns aren’t a right in Canada - they’re a privilege that carries a lot of responsibility.
At the end of the day, firearm offences in Canada have been rising, partly because of our proximity to the USA. The vast majority of intentional gun injuries and fatalities are carried out with guns illegally smuggled across the border. Even with the recent increases though, the rate of firearms-related deaths per 100k in Canada is 2.24, and in the USA it is 10.84. (In Texas, it was 15 and rising as of 2021.)
So the process is arduous, it’s restrictive, ownership is NOT a right, and carrying weapons in public is (mostly) illegal; and consequently, we have 15% of the per-capita fatality rate.
Edit: Just found some accurate stats which shows Texas at 15.60 in 2021, and it’s not even in the top half of the states. Conversely, Massachusetts at 3.40, is the lowest rate in the country and the only state that isn’t more than twice as high as Canada’s rate.
Yes, there are open source firearms. there is even 3d printed designs for an MP5 the youtube channel Print shoot repeat showcases a lot of them.
To be fair, enough guns can make any project open source.
I wonder if the pentagon has ran a simulation to quantify how many guns exactly.
Like hey, if x million of this class of people get armed, it would make things x levels of difficult to quash.
That feels like a CIA Chicago school question less DoD.
I see what you’re saying but, I feel like Milton and the ghouls would just come after the fact. Shock doctrine and all that jazz happens in the wreckage of the act.
we already have far more guns that people in the US. How many guns does it take to reach the levels you’re talking about? 5 guns per person?
deleted by creator
FEDpost
Actually though, that seems pretty consistent with my experience on lemmy so far
I watched the video. He says that if you support FOSS you should support guns, but never once advocates for guns to be free.
He says the problem is that politics are tribal, and people are simply in their corner, cheering for their teams - without acknowledging that there are Americans that want different levels of gun control, and there are reasons that people want gun control outside of tribal politics, and there are Republicans/conservatives/gun enthusiasts that have nuanced opinions, and support things like red flag laws and certain gun control policies.
He’s a troll trump supporter, which is all anyone needs to know. If there are 9 regular people at a table and a nazi sits down, and all that.
The author of the Bazaar and the Cathedral, an essay about open source development, wrote a lot about gun rights too, like explaining banning automatic weapons was dumb, as a good shooter would make more damage with a semi automatic.
I’m very, very pro-2A. But… I dunno, man. Yeah, I’m mostly opposed to the NFA of 1934, and the parts of FOPA that prevented new machine guns from getting tax stamps post-'86. But indiscriminate fire into a crowd will absolutely kill more people than a shooter taking aimed shots. If you’re aiming, after the first shot, people are going to start running, and aimed shots are going to get much more difficult. If you’re shooting indiscriminately on full-auto, you’re probably going to mag dump in five seconds or less.
The 2017 Vegas shootings were like that (which was full automatic in practice if not in legal or technical definition).
Most mass shootings, though, aren’t like that. People aren’t clumped up like they were in that case. Also, most people tend not to be careful about shooting in bursts, which helps control your aim. Even an AR15 (which has relatively mild recoil) will still walk all over the place if you hold the trigger down.
The NFA had organized crime shootouts in mind. In theory, the mob could do the kind of training as a group where full auto makes sense. Even if they would, that’s not really the threat posed these days.
Some are kinda, yeah. The AR-15 is for sure, and most 3d printed lowers would be, and iirc gen 3 glocks (I think, because that’s what all the 80% and 3d print glock lowers are), and I think colt SAA by now, but many designs are still owned by the original company.
I’m not an expert in 3D designing, but it seems to me that the AR-15 is a popular 3D print rifle from a practical perspective more than anything else.
The lower isn’t under extreme stresses, it can be thickened and reenforced without impeding function, and it snaps in modularly to factory made uppers. It helps a lot that the AR-15 parts market is diverse and easily accessed.
There’s a reason that I listed ARs and 3d printed lowers separately. ARs themselves are basically open source, nobody “owns” the design, so say Hodge, Noveske, Colt, SOLGW, Radian, etc, can all produce lowers etc, MIM industries can produce all the lpk bits, but so can NBS etc, cerro forge and Brass Aluminum Forge Co can both make identical “milspec” uppers, the only thing that is really “trademarked” on any of it is the branding, or an advancement like Geissele’s maritime bolt catch (which similar knock offs were produced immediately, anyway.) If you started making and selling say a2 parts (except lowers, but that’s just because you need a licence to manufacture for sale) tomorrow nobody could stop you.
Interestingly, Glock is another one that there’s strong 3D printed support for. It’s likely because Glock was designed to be polymer, and there’s very strong aftermarket support for them, so you can print the serialized part and make it work as a firearm with no real problems.
I was just thinking out loud more about why you don’t see printed AKs or at least not nearly as much. The AR-15 layout just seems practical for printing.
Yeah the Plastikov does exist but is definitely less popular and a bit more involved. They also have printable CETMEs now though too lol. Basically any cheap parts kit someone is probably working on a solution if one doesn’t exist, and they’re doing cool shit like the 3011.
ARs and Glocks are also some of the most popular purchased firearms (like through an FFL), so I’m not surprised they’d be the most printed, they’re basically the Toyota Camry of guns, easy to work on, dependable, and last long.
A printed CETME is too adventurous for my blood.
Well everyone here loves piracy so ride this goalpost with me, it’s sustainable mass transit
