Statistically it doesn't seem like a real problem right now though it could become one.

I think we should confront the fact that 80% lowers make it easier for prohibited persons to obtain a firearm. The question then is how do we deal with that issue?

Its all a question of how much freedom do you want to give up.  The state could have cameras in all our homes that that would reduce some crime.   We could have the state monitor all our purchases constantly and refuse to give out cash.  That would reduce crime as well. 

Where do you draw the line because guns are still going to be made.   A few weeks ago Professor Parabellum released a how-to guide on making a full auto shotgun using just hardware store parts.   The files for the 3D printed AKM receiver got released this morning (tested up to 1000 rounds without breaking) on a sub-$200 printer.   They are working on ammo produced at home and making your own barrels with $100 in tools.   

So that adds the state monitoring 3D printer sales and trips to the hardware store as well. 

I'm not interested in giving up more freedoms If the occasional criminal gets an 80% receiver.   The war on drugs did not get rid of drugs.  the war on guns isnt going to get rid of guns

 

Its all a question of how much freedom do you want to give up.  The state could have cameras in all our homes that that would reduce some crime.   We could have the state monitor all our purchases constantly and refuse to give out cash.  That would reduce crime as well. 

Where do you draw the line because guns are still going to be made.   A few weeks ago Professor Parabellum released a how-to guide on making a full auto shotgun using just hardware store parts.   The files for the 3D printed AKM receiver got released this morning (tested up to 1000 rounds without braking) on a sub-$200 printer.   They are working on ammo produced at home and making your own barrels with $100 in tools.   

So that adds the state monitoring 3D printer sales and trips to the hardware store as well. 

I'm not interested in giving up more freedoms If the occasional criminal gets an 80% receiver.   The war on drugs did not get rid of drugs.  the war on guns isnt going to get rid of guns

but, but, but, but somebody's gotta do something!

Statistically it doesn't seem like a real problem right now though it could become one.

I think we should confront the fact that 80% lowers make it easier for prohibited persons to obtain a firearm. The question then is how do we deal with that issue?

Kind of like red flags right?

So let's do the math, most criminals would not use a P80 due to the cost. I say most, because it's not 100%.  To complete a P80, would cost about $500 and take hours of their time to do.  Now if someone else is completing it, then the cost goes up because they're not working for free.  So instead of $500, it's $600+ per pistol.  The $500 also doesn't include the cost of any tools needed that have to be purchased.

Compared to a gun on the black market, they go for about $200ish.  So why spend $500 plus time?  Also factor in many of these guns that  may be tossed when running from the cops.  So would a criminal rather toss a $200 gun or a $500 gun plus hours spent completing it, only to have to redo the process?

Also depending on the person, many P80's are not reliable.  Look at the Lucky Strike shooter, the 2nd shot failed to cycle.  He had to rack the slide again.  This is why many do not rely on it for their EDC. 

So any P80 law would just be another reason for lawmakers and Ballard to restrict the 2A right.

Nothing intelligent to add?

Says the man who added nothing intelligent...



You changed subjects on some other thing you wanted confront. I said be my guest. Confront technology as it relates to crime. You brought up the subject, you say something about it if you want, go ahead and start us off.

Its all a question of how much freedom do you want to give up.  The state could have cameras in all our homes that that would reduce some crime.   We could have the state monitor all our purchases constantly and refuse to give out cash.  That would reduce crime as well. 

Where do you draw the line because guns are still going to be made.   A few weeks ago Professor Parabellum released a how-to guide on making a full auto shotgun using just hardware store parts.   The files for the 3D printed AKM receiver got released this morning (tested up to 1000 rounds without breaking) on a sub-$200 printer.   They are working on ammo produced at home and making your own barrels with $100 in tools.   

So that adds the state monitoring 3D printer sales and trips to the hardware store as well. 

I'm not interested in giving up more freedoms If the occasional criminal gets an 80% receiver.   The war on drugs did not get rid of drugs.  the war on guns isnt going to get rid of guns

Interestingly, India did get rid of cash few years ago. Didn't go very well but was an interesting story in economics.
https://www.strategy-business.com/article/What-Happened-after-India-Eliminated-Cash?gko=1fea8

Drugs are a bit harder to combat than guns but I do know what you are getting at. I don't think anyone believes that banning 80% lowers is going to get rid of guns but I think they do believe it will make guns harder to get, or at the very least keep them from being easier to get. The war on drugs did make it harder to get drugs. Is a seasoned criminal with connections going to be able to find a gun either way? Absolutely, but what about an inexperienced new criminal? Say I fell on hard times and needed to rob a bank or wanted to kill my ex-wife... I honestly don't know where I would go to purchase a black market gun, but if I can order a couple of parts I certainly can make one. So will it stop all gun crimes? Of course not, but will it stop some? A reasonable possibility.

So to me the real question is: is it worth it? Do the numbers even matter? If banning 80% firearms prevents 5% of future murders is it worth it? What about 25 %? Is there any line which we may cross where determine the freedom to be too risky? It would be easier to make a grenade if I could get all the ingredients and just drill and tap the body. Freedoms are not unlimited, a line has to be drawn somewhere. We may differ on where the line should be drawn but right now a lot of people on the left think we have no line

What I think we should do is try to help find a solution instead of just attacking theirs otherwise we really aren't doing anything to address the issue and they are going to keep steamrolling over our rights. So here is the tough question, what do you think we should do instead of banning 80% lowers?

Says the man who added nothing intelligent...



You changed subjects on some other thing you wanted confront. I said be my guest. Confront technology as it relates to crime. You brought up the subject, you say something about it if you want, go ahead and start us off.

I drew an analogy.

You took it as a debate topic.

 

Kind of like red flags right?

So let's do the math, most criminals would not use a P80 due to the cost. I say most, because it's not 100%.  To complete a P80, would cost about $500 and take hours of their time to do.  Now if someone else is completing it, then the cost goes up because they're not working for free.  So instead of $500, it's $600+ per pistol.  The $500 also doesn't include the cost of any tools needed that have to be purchased.

Compared to a gun on the black market, they go for about $200ish.  So why spend $500 plus time?  Also factor in many of these guns that  may be tossed when running from the cops.  So would a criminal rather toss a $200 gun or a $500 gun plus hours spent completing it, only to have to redo the process?

Also depending on the person, many P80's are not reliable.  Look at the Lucky Strike shooter, the 2nd shot failed to cycle.  He had to rack the slide again.  This is why many do not rely on it for their EDC. 

So any P80 law would just be another reason for lawmakers and Ballard to restrict the 2A right.

Just curious about how you know the price of a black market pistol...

Your point about the cost is taken but you must also consider that you are only looking at 1 factor in a criminal's decision. Buying a stolen gun from someone often means a trail that can lead back to you whereas an 80% lower is going to be clean.

Ballard and the lawmakers are not just looking for some new excuse to restrict firearm rights, this isn't some conspiracy. Be realistic, they push for it because they think it will make a dent in crime.

I drew an analogy.

You took it as a debate topic.

I know. I just wasn't taking your silly bait. You had no intention of a real debate on technology and how it affects crime so I didn't waste my time with some in depth reply. We can continue when you have something intellectual to say like the others here.

Just curious about how you know the price of a black market pistol...

Your point about the cost is taken but you must also consider that you are only looking at 1 factor in a criminal's decision. Buying a stolen gun from someone often means a trail that can lead back to you whereas an 80% lower is going to be clean.

Ballard and the lawmakers are not just looking for some new excuse to restrict firearm rights, this isn't some conspiracy. Be realistic, they push for it because they think it will make a dent in crime.

There was a show on either VICE or Nat Geo about ghost guns.  Can't remember which one it was.  But to be fair, this was the rates of the mainland.  So a felon who calls a HiPoint a Glock won't spend way more for a P80.

I would like to know how many P80's were used in crimes in the past 5 years vs all other guns.  We know the Lucky Strike for sure was a P80, but IIRC, the shooter had no criminal past.  So had he registered the gun, it would have been legal, but just being carried illegally.  I could be wrong about his criminal past.

Ballard and lawmakers always look for reasons to ban stuff.  Look at the bump stock ban.  Only once in history has a bump stock been used for an active shooting.  And to be honest, I've tried one while it was still legal state and federal wise.  They're hard to operate, it takes practice.  So someone who is even experienced using an AR, can't just pick up 1 with a bump stock and use it effectively.


And IDK if you remember, but the original bill also banned "anything that can increase the rate of fire".  But thanks to testimony, we got that vague language removed. 

But to be fair, I am the president of the tin foil hat club.

I know. I just wasn't taking your silly bait. You had no intention of a real debate on technology and how it affects crime so I didn't waste my time with some in depth reply. We can continue when you have something intellectual to say like the others here.

You're either super obtuse or just stupid.

You made the comment that we should "confront the fact that 80% lowers make it easier for prohibited persons to obtain a firearm".

I asked why that "logic" isn't applied to ALL forms of goods and services when they make a criminal's efforts "easier."

You ignored the question by arguing over the analogy.

I'm leaning toward you being stupid.  Prove me wrong.

You're either super obtuse or just stupid.

You made the comment that we should "confront the fact that 80% lowers make it easier for prohibited persons to obtain a firearm".

I asked why that "logic" isn't applied to ALL forms of goods and services when they make a criminal's efforts "easier."

You ignored the question by arguing over the analogy.

I'm leaning toward you being stupid.  Prove me wrong.

Wanna bet $5 that there will be an “attempt” to do so? 😳😝

Wanna bet $5 that there will be an “attempt” to do so? 😳😝

Suckers bet! 

Just curious about how you know the price of a black market pistol...

Your point about the cost is taken but you must also consider that you are only looking at 1 factor in a criminal's decision. Buying a stolen gun from someone often means a trail that can lead back to you whereas an 80% lower is going to be clean.

Ballard and the lawmakers are not just looking for some new excuse to restrict firearm rights, this isn't some conspiracy. Be realistic, they push for it because they think it will make a dent in crime.

"Ballard and the lawmakers are not just looking for some new excuse to restrict firearm rights, this isn't some conspiracy. Be realistic, they push for it because they think it will make a dent in crime. "
I'm pretty sure they only "believe" that the laws they pass will make a dent in crime.  Democrat party members don't "think". They believe, feel, and have faith that their truths are the only truths.  Particularly when it comes to guns. 

"Ballard and the lawmakers are not just looking for some new excuse to restrict firearm rights, this isn't some conspiracy. Be realistic, they push for it because they think it will make a dent in crime. "
I'm pretty sure they only "believe" that the laws they pass will make a dent in crime.  Democrat party members don't "think". They believe, feel, and have faith that their truths are the only truths.  Particularly when it comes to guns.

Conservative:  "These new laws aren't reducing crime like we were promised by the Liberal politicians and the cops.  Let's repeal these laws and do a better job of identifying the actual problem before passing more ineffective laws."

Liberals:  "These new laws aren't reducing crime like we were promised, because (a) the laws don't go far enough, (b) we need more tax dollars to properly implement them, and/or (c) President Trump isn't doing enough to fix the problem.  We need to add more laws to see if the laws we already passed will actually reduce crime."

Think I'm exaggerating? 

So of course a leftist like Joe Biden sees nothing wrong with demanding more laws, in the same breath
he admits the State cannot effectively enforce the gigantic volume of law it has already written.  Writing
laws expands the State.  Diligently and impartially enforcing them reveals it is hollow.

https://humanevents.com/2013/01/18/biden-we-cant-enforce-the-old-laws-so-we-need-more/


https://www.c-span.org/video/?310644-1/gun-violence-prevention

There was a show on either VICE or Nat Geo about ghost guns.  Can't remember which one it was.  But to be fair, this was the rates of the mainland.  So a felon who calls a HiPoint a Glock won't spend way more for a P80.

Interesting. I kind of meant it as a joke though I guess I didn't really lay out out very well as one.

I would like to know how many P80's were used in crimes in the past 5 years vs all other guns.  We know the Lucky Strike for sure was a P80, but IIRC, the shooter had no criminal past.  So had he registered the gun, it would have been legal, but just being carried illegally.  I could be wrong about his criminal past.

A very valid question. Any step in making a new law should start with data which shows how big a problem is.
I don't know how big a problem it is here but it does appear to be a growing problem in some other places.
https://www.thetrace.org/2019/05/ghost-gun-california-crime/

Ballard and lawmakers always look fr reasons to ban stuff.  Look at the bump stock ban.  Only once in history has a bump stock been used for an active shooting.  And to be honest, I've tried one while it was still legal state and federal wise.  They're hard to operate, it takes practice.  So someone who is even experienced using an AR, can't just pick up 1 with a bump stock and use it effectively.

I think they see the risk of such items and believe it is too high, I don't think they are just evil overlords wringing their hands with glee at everything they can take away from us. I didn't personally object to the banning of bump stocks but my reasons are a separate discussion.

Ballard is a political puppet

You're either super obtuse or just stupid.

You made the comment that we should "confront the fact that 80% lowers make it easier for prohibited persons to obtain a firearm".

I asked why that "logic" isn't applied to ALL forms of goods and services when they make a criminal's efforts "easier."

You ignored the question by arguing over the analogy.

I'm leaning toward you being stupid.  Prove me wrong.

I am not taking your troll debate. I already agreed with you that technology can be used by a criminal and that is an issue to confront. If you want to go down that road then start a new thread and we can discuss it and all its implications.

I am not taking your troll debate. I already agreed with you that technology can be used by a criminal and that is an issue to confront. If you want to go down that road then start a new thread and we can discuss it and all its implications.

Thanks for not trying to prove me wrong.  Even you know it's impossible.

    

"Ballard and the lawmakers are not just looking for some new excuse to restrict firearm rights, this isn't some conspiracy. Be realistic, they push for it because they think it will make a dent in crime. "
I'm pretty sure they only "believe" that the laws they pass will make a dent in crime.  Democrat party members don't "think". They believe, feel, and have faith that their truths are the only truths.  Particularly when it comes to guns.

Their arguments aren't entirely baseless. I notice many of their arguments are logical and/or intuitive at some level. The problem with a lot of their arguments is that appear to be emotion which is a double edged sword. It can be a great motivator but can also could judgement. But even on firearms they make a few arguments that are logically sound.

Of course republicans aren't immune to these things either but I see it more often on the left in my opinion.