DEFCAD taken offline at request of US Department of Defense Trade Controls

[uMMcQxCWELNzkt]

I guess we can agree to disagree, I come from the perspective that one can argue that a gallows could be used ethically to chop fruit, but in real terms that gallows will be used for taking off heads.

To be honest, I think we should not be using the word "perhaps" when people lives are at steak. I find it hard to believe that any African will feel the same way most Americans do about guns being a solution to any kind of problem.

Actually, it appears that you come from a perspective of a very poorly educated person who probably believes anything that was told him in school.

A few quick facts:
Printing a plastic gun does not pay for an Apache helicopter, and to think it does is moronic.
A gallows is a frame for attaching a hangman's noose. I believe the word you're looking for is "guillotine."
The phrase is "lives are at stake."
I'm quite certain that any african would gladly take an AK to defend his village from the local warlord rather than watch his mother and sisters raped and be forced into the army of that warlord.

I hated the educational system, I was producing anti-propaganda from a very young age so please do not make assumptions as a basis for your argument. Also yes I meant guillotine but the principle still stands regardless, I am sure you could see beyond my incorrect use of terminology to see the valid principle of my argument. You avoided the fact those local warlords would take the printed guns, the printers, the computers and so on. I hope you realize those warlords are also African, sure the majority could kill the warlords, then of course the majority will split into larger factions, because they are are surrounded by weapons and the gun culture that the warlords that were exterminated grew up in. Just like gang culture, when guns and violence are the preferred methods of control over intelligence, the results are inevitable.

Like I said, if guns are your idea of a solution then great, I guess I just think from a moronic perspective. Those silly people thinking humans can co-exist peacefully without shooting each other.

[1715003908]

1715003908

[1715003908]

1715003908

[1715003908]

1715003908

[myrkul]

Like I said, if guns are your idea of a solution then great, I guess I just think from a moronic perspective. Those silly people thinking humans can co-exist peacefully without shooting each other.

Guess what? They can do that with guns, too.

Guns don't force non-violent people to commit violence. They don't force violent people to commit violence. They do allow non-violent people to defend themselves from the violent ones.

Let's assume there were no guns anywhere in the world. How would you suggest a non-violent person defend himself from a violent one?

[TeeBone]

The gun 'control' freaks do not want to get rid of guns. That's a big fat lie. They want ALL the guns, tanks and nukes in the hands of a small class of psychopathic mass murderers (aka Govts) and the 'commoners' disarmed. Basically sending us back to medieval times of Kings, Emporers, etc. only today they're called 'presidents' and 'prime ministers'. Democracy is another evil, archaic institution touted as the great alternative. Two wolves and a sheep choosing what to have for dinner is the old saying.

Many say these views are a result of Stockholm Syndrome, a well documented mental disorder. Look it up. If these hypocrites were really sincere, they would be calling for disarming beaurocrats and doing away with the military. If, and only then, should liberty-lovers even consider disarmament. As it is right now, we need much, much, MUCH more laxer 'laws' to level the playing field and hopefully keep these tyrants somewhat in check.

[uMMcQxCWELNzkt]

The gun 'control' freaks do not want to get rid of guns. That's a big fat lie. They want ALL the guns, tanks and nukes in the hands of a small class of psychopathic mass murderers (aka Govts) and the 'commoners' disarmed. Basically sending us back to medieval times of Kings, Emporers, etc. only today they're called 'presidents' and 'prime ministers'. Democracy is another evil, archaic institution touted as the great alternative. Two wolves and a sheep choosing what to have for dinner is the old saying.

Many say these views are a result of Stockholm Syndrome, a well documented mental disorder. Look it up. If these hypocrites were really sincere, they would be calling for disarming beaurocrats and doing away with the military. If, and only then, should liberty-lovers even consider disarmament. As it is right now, we need much, much, MUCH more laxer 'laws' to level the playing field and hopefully keep these tyrants somewhat in check.

If I am considered the gun control freak in this debate then I feel it is necessary to disagree with your statement. Actually I would rather weapons were taken out of the hand of all human beings, people fail to see that giving guns to the population means giving the psychopaths even more guns. The same concept applies to finance, give the populace some money and those supplying the populace the money gain control. This is a very simple concept, power always trickles down from the top, my personal belief is that those at the top need to grow up in an environment away from the conditions that give them an excuse to kill and abise power.

Like I said, if guns are your idea of a solution then great, I guess I just think from a moronic perspective. Those silly people thinking humans can co-exist peacefully without shooting each other.

Guess what? They can do that with guns, too.

Guns don't force non-violent people to commit violence. They don't force violent people to commit violence. They do allow non-violent people to defend themselves from the violent ones.

Let's assume there were no guns anywhere in the world. How would you suggest a non-violent person defend himself from a violent one?

Guns do not force violence on any one, however they do make violence a whole lot more efficient. Knife attacks for instance cannot be compared to an automatic shot into a crowd. I feel your argument is one sided, basically a bad guy armed has no encouragement to use the firearm, but a good guy armed has lots of encouragement to use it? So weapons are a defensive measure? From a historical perspective guns seem to be preferred by the attacker, if government is the attacker which I do believe is the case then I would try to avoid supporting government military spending with my own finance. If you buy a gun, you are basically financing a supplier who is going to benefit substantially from the government contracts that you are going to pay for, over the health, education of society. I really do see your perspective,it is one of those political divides that will never be agreed upon.

If you are in a room with a load of people and you keep hanging weapons on all the walls to defend yourself then not only are you supplying all those in the room with the same weapons, but you are also increasing your own risk of getting attacked. I would rather no one had guns then everyone had guns, so in my opining the no guns perspective is the best option.

[myrkul]

Like I said, if guns are your idea of a solution then great, I guess I just think from a moronic perspective. Those silly people thinking humans can co-exist peacefully without shooting each other.

Guess what? They can do that with guns, too.

Guns don't force non-violent people to commit violence. They don't force violent people to commit violence. They do allow non-violent people to defend themselves from the violent ones.

Let's assume there were no guns anywhere in the world. How would you suggest a non-violent person defend himself from a violent one?

Guns do not force violence on any one, however they do make violence a whole lot more efficient. Knife attacks for instance cannot be compared to an automatic shot into a crowd. I feel your argument is one sided, basically a bad guy armed has no encouragement to use the firearm, but a good guy armed has lots of encouragement to use it? So weapons are a defensive measure? From a historical perspective guns seem to be preferred by the attacker, if government is the attacker which I do believe is the case then I would try to avoid supporting government military spending with my own finance. If you buy a gun, you are basically financing a supplier who is going to benefit substantially from the government contracts that you are going to pay for, over the health, education of society. I really do see your perspective,it is one of those political divides that will never be agreed upon.

If you are in a room with a load of people and you keep hanging weapons on all the walls to defend yourself then not only are you supplying all those in the room with the same weapons, but you are also increasing your own risk of getting attacked. I would rather no one had guns then everyone had guns, so in my opining the no guns perspective is the best option.

You're a master of talking much without saying much. You never answered my question.

POOF All guns are gone. How does a non-violent person defend himself from a violent one?

[infested999]

So I understand how the AR can be printed, but how are bullets printed? I mean wouldn't they need to have some kind of real gunpowder or explosive material, not just plastic?

[uMMcQxCWELNzkt]

Like I said, if guns are your idea of a solution then great, I guess I just think from a moronic perspective. Those silly people thinking humans can co-exist peacefully without shooting each other.

Guess what? They can do that with guns, too.

Guns don't force non-violent people to commit violence. They don't force violent people to commit violence. They do allow non-violent people to defend themselves from the violent ones.

Let's assume there were no guns anywhere in the world. How would you suggest a non-violent person defend himself from a violent one?

Guns do not force violence on any one, however they do make violence a whole lot more efficient. Knife attacks for instance cannot be compared to an automatic shot into a crowd. I feel your argument is one sided, basically a bad guy armed has no encouragement to use the firearm, but a good guy armed has lots of encouragement to use it? So weapons are a defensive measure? From a historical perspective guns seem to be preferred by the attacker, if government is the attacker which I do believe is the case then I would try to avoid supporting government military spending with my own finance. If you buy a gun, you are basically financing a supplier who is going to benefit substantially from the government contracts that you are going to pay for, over the health, education of society. I really do see your perspective,it is one of those political divides that will never be agreed upon.

If you are in a room with a load of people and you keep hanging weapons on all the walls to defend yourself then not only are you supplying all those in the room with the same weapons, but you are also increasing your own risk of getting attacked. I would rather no one had guns then everyone had guns, so in my opining the no guns perspective is the best option.

You're a master of talking much without saying much. You never answered my question.

POOF All guns are gone. How does a non-violent person defend himself from a violent one?

Non-violent person defends himself and kicks the ass of the violent guy once disarmed as they are on equal terms. Plus sheer numbers of good vs bad would always put the bad guy at a disadvantage, providing humans are ethical in the majority. It is 2.30AM and I have finished my beers so it is time to sign off, for the record everything I have said is just based on my own opinion so no hard feelings, it would be a far worse situation if everyone had the same beliefs, thoughts, ideas etc. Few areas of human reality are not up for debate and that is what makes life interesting. Good night all.

[myrkul]

So I understand how the AR can be printed, but how are bullets printed? I mean wouldn't they need to have some kind of real gunpowder or explosive material, not just plastic?

Yeah, you can't print bullets. You can print a mold (well, the model of a mold, that you can use to make a more sturdy one), and gunpowder is not a difficult material to make. The percussion cap is the real sticking point for making your own bullets. It should be noted that an electrical spark, such as that made by a piezoelectric lighter, can indeed ignite gunpowder.

Non-violent person defends himself and kicks the ass of the violent guy once disarmed as they are on equal terms.

Hah! No. The gun puts them on equal terms. Without the gun, the strongest person wins. That puts women, small men, and the aged at a significant disadvantage.

Plus sheer numbers of good vs bad would always put the bad guy at a disadvantage, providing humans are ethical in the majority.

This argument works for my side as well. Better, in fact.

[Schrankwand]

POOF All guns are gone. How does a non-violent person defend himself from a violent one?

A violent person will win the fight anyway. He will move faster, more aggressive and with a purpose.

A non violent person will always, always hesitate, even to pull a trigger. That is one of the reasons in hand to hand combat knife attacks and pistol disarming moves are so piss easy on an amateur. Someone who knows his way around a gun and is ready to use it is someone where it is hard to take his gun from him. Keeping a distance, moving position, on target, will shoot.

A scared person that is non violent in nature will make mistakes. Stress rises, cortisol rises, adrenalin rises, neo cortex shuts down. Rational decision making goes away. Over 80% of people I put in a simple spot of defense in training can be put in a state of catharsis by a sudden scream. Take a mask and a paintball marker and try it. I have always been hit on the field, suck at that. But taking it from a non violent person when you are ready for this? Fuck it, violent person will always win.


Look at street fights. You think the guy that is cornered by a group of five has any chance because he is the guy with the gun now?

But i can tell you, how non violent people have survived. Because that is how evolution helped: They grouped together in larger bands of people and stood in larger numbers. Attackers, even violent ones, knew that larger groups are harder to attack and kill than smaller groups.

That is why we have created tribes in the past.

[myrkul]

POOF All guns are gone. How does a non-violent person defend himself from a violent one?

A violent person will win the fight anyway. He will move faster, more aggressive and with a purpose.

Well, at least that's a more realistic answer than Johnny Kung-Fu.

However, it's a known fact that criminals prefer unarmed victims. And an armed group of peaceful people will be better able to defend itself from a violent person than an unarmed group, even if the violent person is unarmed as well.

[infested999]

So I understand how the AR can be printed, but how are bullets printed? I mean wouldn't they need to have some kind of real gunpowder or explosive material, not just plastic?

Yeah, you can't print bullets. You can print a mold (well, the model of a mold, that you can use to make a more sturdy one), and gunpowder is not a difficult material to make. The percussion cap is the real sticking point for making your own bullets. It should be noted that an electrical spark, such as that made by a piezoelectric lighter, can indeed ignite gunpowder.

So right now the popular thing to do is to print firearms and just buy real ammo?

[myrkul]

So right now the popular thing to do is to print firearms and just buy real ammo?

Well, I don't know how popular it is, but it's certainly the cool thing to do. 

[Rassah]

You avoided the fact those local warlords would take the printed guns, the printers, the computers and so on. I hope you realize those warlords are also African, sure the majority could kill the warlords, then of course the majority will split into larger factions, because they are are surrounded by weapons and the gun culture that the warlords that were exterminated grew up in. Just like gang culture, when guns and violence are the preferred methods of control over intelligence, the results are inevitable.

Like I said, if guns are your idea of a solution then great, I guess I just think from a moronic perspective. Those silly people thinking humans can co-exist peacefully without shooting each other.

I am just curious, what is your solution to the problem? Warlords, aka very bad people, have guns. Villagers do not. We can't arm villagers or stop the very bad people with guns. So... Do we politely ask them to stop being very bad people? (I mean, that WOULD be a very British thing to do, but...)


BTW, still pissed at your country for canceling Mongrels. That was a horrible atrocity that you guys did.