That's just the most totally bad-ass shit I heard all fuckin' day man...thank you l'll never dream about cockroaches eating the food from the corners of my mouth-crack while I sleep, ever again!

If I lived near these I'd catch and release and put handguns with hollow-points in their pouches....maybe a belt with some boxing gloves around their wast, a whole marsupial utility-belt kinna get-up...freak some twankers the fuck out.

> if someone chimes-in to educate us as to what she meant to say,

What she means is that there are HUGE guns that actually use handguns as projectiles instead of bullets as is classically the case. She is right, it doesn't matter if the handgun is loaded or not, you can still be shot by one.

The Howitzer Taking a Shit sound of movies like Dirty Harry is pretty silly. I guess the "crack" sound all handguns make, some just louder than others, isn't very sexy.

A hungry monkey is glorious to you? You have weird standards, man.

However, once you can print reliable handguns, it shouldn't be too hard to print reliable parts for the ammunition (bullet, casing). The main question would be how those bullets would behave on impact, how useful they are against people.

I was telling a coworker today that here in Canada we can own A .50 Cal BMG for about $10,000. We don't need to register it at all with anyone, only need a basic non restricted lic. to own. and can shoot it wherever legal shooting is allowed in the countryside.

Same time, a gun that shoots .22 long rifle, one of the (if not the) smallest cal. used, usually for target shooting or squirls, small bullet. If the .22 LOOKS like...yes LOOKS like an AK47 it's Prohibeted to own. If it LOOKS like an AR15 .223 (smallish bullet still) it's treated like a handgun, special lic. register it only the range not in country, no hunting with it etc.

so ya I can own a gun that'd shoot through an engine block and not have anyone know about it but can't have a .22lr tin can plinker if it LOOKS like a scary AK.....serious logic fail.

I have never seen a gun as big as this one, wow.

The question with all these things is what advantage would it have over current military technology (i.e. firearms)?

While that was cool, it wasn't very powerful. Most of the slugs didn't even penetrate the laptop screen. Pretty sure even the "weakest" handgun would manage that.

Your video, Can a slingshot hit harder than handguns? The Shootout., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Hey,
sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I figured since you had gone to all that effort I actually wanted to read everything properly.

First up, that does seem like quite a reasonable level of control on handguns.

Is that a state specific requirement? Because looking at this page that doesn't seem the case for all states.

Personally I don't have a problem with making someone jump through a few hoops to get a gun.

As for the government trying to take over, surely the way to defeat these kinds of rights abuses are through the democratic system?

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving the right or wrong of it aside, the "war" part went exceedingly well. The US rolled in and pretty much crushed any opposition. It's the "peace" they're having trouble with. But in real terms, the US military occupied those countries and despite the undoubted problems they're having with IEDs etc, no-one is really suggesting that the "insurgents" are anywhere even close to a military victory.

But ultimately I believe it is politics (for all it's evils) that will prevent the US becoming a dictatorship not arms.

If you are truly curious I hope you'll read everything.

TLDR Post Inc:

It's basically pragmatism and the slippery slope. You're making a registry of all the citizens who own guns. I mean have you ever applied for your firearms license before? Have you ever purchased a handgun? It's pretty crazy.

I wanted to purchase a handgun about 10 years ago after I got held up. It took me over 6 months to get my permit. Then it took me about another month to be able to purchase a handgun.

The Process:
In order to get your firearms id card you have to apply for it. Part of the process involved me having a sit down "evaluation" with a detective that was basically an interrogation for about 30 minutes.

Then once that detective says "this guys not crazy" He takes his form and all my information and mails it to the FBI. Then I had to wait about six months for the FBI to say "this guys not crazy and/or a terrorist.

When I have my Firearms ID card I can buy a shotgun or a rifle if I want that's no problem. But if I want to buy a handgun (which I did) I have to go back to get a handgun permit. Luckily since I was applying for my firearms permit they also gave me one (read one) permit to buy a handgun. I could buy one handgun; If I wanted more I had to apply for ANOTHER permit. Not another Firearms ID Card just another Handgun permit.

So I take my permit and I purchase said gun. I can't purchase the gun after 5:00 PM because the NIC office over at the FBI closes and they have to call it in. Even AFTER they call it in I still had to wait like 6 days before I could pick it up.

I receive a copy of the permit (and a receipt) , the dealer gets a copy, and the last part gets sent to the FBI. Once the FBI confirms they have a copy of the permit (which includes the serial # that is on multiple parts of the gun) then and only then am I allowed to pickup my firearm.

So even if I sold it to someone everyone would know know who it belonged to beforehand.

I'm not sure how much more gun control you can have. The "gun" that needs the most "control" are handguns because they are used in almost all gun related crimes if you look at the stats.

I wont' get into hypothetical situations about how citizens could perform those checks or whatever. I just want to show how regulated things are already. The idea that I could purchase like 10 handguns and then re-sell them all to someone else and NEVER have it traced back to me seems almost impossible. Heck I doubt I could even get approved to own that many handguns!

Also:

I'm not a "giant conspiracy" kind of person. But I feel like with the way government has been going with Guantanamo, stop and frisk, not really enforcing a lot of anti-trust laws, not really prosecuting some of the big banks responsible for what happened, etc etc etc I just feel like there really an upward swing for government control and collusion with protecting their own interests and not the interests of the people.

I don't see the government as an instrument of the people anymore it just seems to be wealthy people patting each other on the back.

What happened in Boston really upset me where people were just pulled out of there houses at gunpoint because there "could be" a terrorist nearby.

I believe that Obama has a good reason for trying to put these tools in place and he has no motive behind it he is just trying to protect the American People in his own way. But I don't believe gun control will help at all and all it will do is put more of a hindrance on law abiding citizens. I'd equate these laws to Anti-Piracy solutions? Ala Sims3 and Diablo etc etc. It just punishes the actual customer NOT the criminal.

If you told me there was a way to ensure program the registry of gun owners could only be searched if the striations from a bullet were scanned that was used in a crime or something like that I'd be fine with it. But there really is no way to do that.

Sorry it was long but it's not really something I can just say something short.

I'm sure people will says "Well what are your guns going to do against tanks and helicopters and xyz xyz". First I'll point to Iraq and Afghanistan and how well those "wars" went. Everyone can agree it was a disaster and we probably made a lot of terrorists by just killing people innocent or not. The same thing would happen here in America.

Would the government actually TRY to take over? I don't' believe so because it's not in our best financial interests. Everyone wants to stay wealthy and some sort of civil war would be horrible for our economy. But I believe over time constantly just eroding our rights will just lead to that. People got pulled out of their homes at gunpoint and screamed at by police in boston and they were just like "Well the police are just trying to keep us safe!" I just find that creepy.

There's a saying blah blah blah doesn't go out with a bang it happens with a whimper. I'm not going to make myself look smart by googling the quote.

Anyway that's my whole post sorry if it's long but I'm tired. I would have put it in the discussion section but I'm not at the appropriate star level.

Yes, but they restricted the types of firearms for all of those groups in nonsensical ways.

Example: IPSC shooters can only own up to a .38 caliber handgun. Anything larger is not allowed - even though larger calibers are what most IPSC shooters world-wide use (it has to do its scoring system). But if you do Steel Target Shooting or Western Re-enactments you can have up to a .45 caliber.

If you buy a .22 rimfire rifle it is classed as a Category A rifle, but if you buy a .17 rimfire it jumps into the more dangerous Category B category (because they forgot to specify other rimfire calibers in the legislation).

They made .22lr semi-automatic rifles Category C and D firearms (very restricted dangerous firearms), effectively banning them - even though a .22lr high velocity round only has as much energy as a fast ball in cricket.

You can have a .308 pump action rifle with a 30 round magazine, but you can't own over a 10 round magazine for your much, much less powerful handgun.

Interestingly, firearm owners in Australia are the most law abiding group of people in the nation. Everyone with a serious criminal offence is automatically barred from owning firearms and other criminal offences are considered on a case by case basis (e.g. you did have an assault charge from when you were 18 years old - you'll be waiting 5 to 10 years before they let you own a firearm - if ever). If you commit a serious offence while owning a firearm, expect a knock on the door to take them away.

Many of the things here which want to kill us are either protected species, not suitable targets for a handgun, or both. I think you would probably get a $2000 fine for even patting a drop bear, as well as risking your hand being bitten off.

The police will sometimes put down an animal which is threatening people, but I don't think it's a large part of their job. I seem to recall some mention of large quantities of paperwork being required if a shot is ever fired, too...

They have to have a gun to protect the citizenry from all the things wanting to kill them in Australia. Especially drop bears, although handguns would likely just piss them off.

Their are plenty of non-assault weapons that would not be subject to the ban, and those "dangerous criminals" are using them. They are handguns and shotguns, not automatic weapons.

See, I have no problem with this.
I grew up shooting at the firing range with my dad too. (or often at the gravel pit.) I've never seen or ever witnessed any negativity to it as a sport. I can't relate to this guy's story. We always had rifles in the home. (Locked Up!) There was no negativity towards them, myself or anyone I knew involved.

But WE DON'T carry them with us, everywhere we go. We don't have handguns under our pillows, and we don't have automatic weapons. I can walk down the street knowing for a fact that there is no one that I pass on the street that has a gun under their coat or stuffed in their pants! (at least I'm 95% sure - and that's much different than being 99% sure that people I am passing DO have a gun)

Good news Americans....everyone can carry a handgun. Bad news...it can't be smaller then this one.