Tag: Gun Rights

Affordable 3D Printers Capable of Working with Metal on the Horizon

The march of technology cannot be stopped. When Solid Concepts unveiled their metal 3D printed guns people on both sides of the aisle agreed that the technology to print those firearms was cost prohibitive. As it turns out technology marches very quickly and we’re on the horizon of affordable 3D printers capable of working with metals:

So far affordable 3D printing has been more about using polymers. Yet we all know that the ‘real thing’ must be made of metal. But the price of 3D metal printers has been the major stumbling block towards making the use of this truly 21st century technology an everyday routine. That is why only wealthy scientific organizations, such as NASA, or the military can afford metal 3D printers that cost well over $500,000.

Now Professor Joshua Pearce and his team of 3D apostles from Michigan Technological University are proclaiming the era of Open Access 3D Printing, having published their “A Low-Cost, Open-Source Metal 3-D Printer,” article in the journal, IEEE Access. Practically anyone who is interested is now free to print objects and make a 3D metal printer of their own.

The team admits that this is only a beginning. The printer is quite basic, but it does print complex geometric objects, putting down thin layers of steel with its kit worth $1,500. The most important components are a small commercial MIG welder and an open-source microcontroller.

At this rate we’ll probably see a firearm printed with metal on an affordable 3D printer sometime next year. After that we can put the entire gun control debate to bed. Controlling easily reproducible goods is possible no matter how large or powerful the state is.

Exploiting the Mentally Disabled to Enforce Gun Control

When people develop the attitude that the ends always justify the means the doors open for some really heinous acts. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has developed a history of questionable actions during its existence. Recent revelations with Operation Fast and Furious, where the ATF and other federal agencies provided firearms to Mexican drug cartels, show just how wicked the agency’s enforcement methodologies have become. But I believe it has outdone itself. This time the ATF tatooed a mentally disabled teenager and used him in a sting operation:

They would even pay him and a friend $150 apiece if they agreed to turn their bodies into walking billboards.

Key, who is mentally disabled, was swayed.

He and his friend, Marquis Glover, liked Squid’s. It was their hangout. The 19-year-olds spent many afternoons there playing Xbox and chatting with the owner, “Squid,” and the store clerks.

So they took the money and got the ink etched on their necks, tentacles creeping down to their collarbones.

It would be months before the young men learned the whole thing was a setup. The guys running Squid’s were actually undercover ATF agents conducting a sting to get guns away from criminals and drugs off the street.

The tattoos had been sponsored by the U.S. government; advertisements for a fake storefront.

The teens found out as they were arrested and booked into jail.

Statists often ask who would take care of the mentally disabled without a government. I want to know who is protecting and providing for them now. The state seems to have a knack for exploiting the mentally disabled in its never ending quest to control our lives. This case not only shows the state’s willingness to exploit the vulnerable but also how corrupt the ATF has become. None of the high ups in charge of approving operations decided this idea was too extreme? Is the agency really operated entirely by psychopaths? Judging by the actions of the agency over the last several years I’m left to believe that it is.

Ironic Gun Control Propaganda

The more irrelevant “major” gun control advocacy groups become the more apparent their desperation to be noticed becomes. Linoge retweeted the following propaganda piece put out by Moms Demand Action:

ironic-gun-control-poster

The irony is almost thick enough to drown in. Let’s consider what Moms Demand Action is, well, demanding. The organization has been pushing several gun control initiatives including a renewal of the “assault” weapon ban, a ban on standard capacity magazines, universal background checks, and a ban based on an arbitrarily selected bore diameter (one half of an inch). What do all of these things have in common? They requires the government to use its guns to enforce. In other words Moms Demand Action are trying to use the government’s guns to restrict the rights of Americans.

Philadelphia Attempting to Ban the Impossible

You have to hand it to politicians, they always try to accomplish the impossible. Shall Not Be Questioned has a post discussing Philadelphia’s status as the first state to ban 3D printed firearms:

Today, the Philadelphia City Council voted unanimously to ban the manufacturing of guns by 3-D printers, making Philly the first city to do so. Which is interesting, because the author of the bill, Kenyatta Johnson, isn’t aware of of any local gun-printing 3-D printers. ”It’s all pre-emptive,” says Johnson’s director of legislation Steve Cobb. “It’s just based upon internet stuff out there.”

As I discussed last year, decentralized manufacturing of firearms is impossible for the state to shut down. The only way Philadelphia could begin to enforce this law is if police officers made daily searches of every building within city limits. Even then very clever people could find ways of hiding their setup.

Banning 3D printed firearms is the last gasp of desperate control freaks. In the hopes of maintaining some semblance of control they pass their ineffective laws. These laws only serve those of us who oppose those in power. When these laws are passed and continuously violated we can point it out and demonstrate that, in effect, the emperor wears no clothes.

3D Printed Firearms and the Undetectable Firearms Act

Talk about a panty wadding combination of events. Firearms that can be printed on 3D printers are becoming more advanced and the Undetectable Firearms Act is set to expire on December 9th of this year. That can only mean one thing. Chuck Schumer is going to step up to the plate and attempt to perform the impossible act of prohibiting the advancement of technology:

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — As the technology to print 3-D firearms advances, a federal law that banned the undetectable guns is about to expire.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer says he’s seeking an extension of the law before it expires Dec. 9.

He said the technology of so-called 3-D printing has advanced to the point anyone with $1,000 and an Internet connection can access the plastic parts that can be fitted into a gun. Those firearms can’t be detected by metal detectors or X-ray machines.

I don’t think Schumer realizes how incredibly stupid he sounds at the moment. He states, truthfully, that firearms that are undetectable by metal detectors and X-ray machines can be created on 3D printers. Then he claims that the Undetectable Firearms Act must be renewed to prevent these firearms from becoming available. Of course the law hasn’t expired yet and the plastic firearms are already being created. In other words, the Undetectable Firearms Act is pointless. People are already creating firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or X-ray machines even though the law hasn’t expired yet. Renewing the law is a moot point.

To borrow a famous Taoist saying, no one rules if no one obeys. The advancement of technology is leaving the old hierarchy in the dust. We are outpacing their ability to control us. While people like Schumer are arguing for a need to extend the Undetectable Firearms Act people are already creating firearms that violate that act. To make matters better, the people creating the blueprints for these unlawful firearms can remain anonymous. Creating one of these firearms carries little risk since it can be done by a single individual from the comfort of his or her own home. Without a target to attack the state cannot enforce its decrees. Since the threat of state violence is beginning to become less of an issue fewer people are seeing a need to obey, which means the state’s power is slowly crumbling.

Second 3D Printed Metal Gun Unveiled

Solid Concepts, the company that brought us the first 3D printed firearm made out of metal, have unveiled their second 3D printed metal gun:

Solid Concepts announces the successful creation of the world’s second 3D printed metal gun. Our second iteration is composed entirely of Inconel 625, a material that is stronger than Stainless Steel (and a bit heavier) save for the springs which were not 3D Printed. The gun is once again composed of thirty-four 3D Printed components. Our second gun will be stress relieved and post processing will be by hand once again.

Inconel 625 is a harder, stronger alloy than 17-4 Stainless Steel. We modified the geometry for this second iteration to incorporate different tolerances in order to make hand finishing sufficiently easier. With our first prototype, we had to hand sand to perfect a few tolerances, but our tweaks to the design should remove the need for such sanding. Our first gun is now up to 700+ rounds.

Once again I feel that it’s necessary to stress two facts. First, 3D printers capable of working with metal are extremely expensive. Second, as the technology of printing with metals advances it will also become cheaper. It is only a matter of time until 3D printers capable of working with metals become affordable to small groups of individuals. Gun control, never an attainable goal anyways, is now all be entirely dead. Once small groups of people can afford 3D printers capable of working with metals gun control will be entirely dead.

As the technology of 3D printers advance gun control advocates will almost certainly resort to attempted censorship. But that battle is already lost. The Internet was designed as a mechanism to share information. It’s very good at that task. What it isn’t good at is restricting the flow of information. Any attempt to censor information on the Internet is a lost cause from the word go. In other words, gun control cannot succeed because in this day and age the only tool in its arsenal, controlling access to firearms, is a pipe dream.

Advocates of Gun Control Create a Sandy Hook Shooting Simulator

I guess the imminent demise of gun control is starting to get to some of its advocates. They’ve apparently suffered a mental snap and have decides to create a game that allows players to reenact the Sandy Hook School shooting:

A new pro-gun-control game allows players to reenact last year’s Sandy Hook elementary school massacre.

The game, The Slaying of Sandy Hook, has players to carry out a bleak, stylized version of the shooting, which took the lives of 20 children and six adults. Players take on the role of Adam Lanza, the perpetrator, and text boxes prompt them to pick up a Glock pistol, move into the bedroom of Lanza’s mother, Nancy, and shoot her four times, just as Lanza did in real life. They are then directed to pick up an AR-15, ammunition, and Nancy Lanza’s car keys.

The game then moves to Sandy Hook Elementary where players have an 11 minute time-limit to kick in classroom and bathroom doors and slaughter students and teachers as they flee or cower on the ground. There are no voices or music; the only sound effects come from gunfire and bullets impacting bodies. When prompted, players may also end the game by committing suicide.

I’m not sure what the message this game is trying to send is. After first I assumed it was simply a cry for gun control. But the fact that the game has a “gun control mode” that allows you to slaughter students just as handily has the “uncontrolled gun mode” leads me to believe otherwise:

The game also has a “gun control mode,” which allows players to attempt to carry out the massacre using a katana—after sarcastically challenging the player to open a gun safe—and suggests that Lanza would have been able to break into the school anyway if a sledgehammer “happened to be . . . available.”

Maybe the message here is that gun free zones are ineffective. It makes sense. Without a means of responding to initiators of violence schools are at the mercy of anybody with violence in their heart. It doesn’t matter if an evil doer walks into a school with a gun or a katana, they effectively have free reign until police arrive. That message seems detrimental to the mission of advancing gun control so I can only assume the creators of this game suffered a lapse of judgement.

A Gun Rights Story of Intrigue, Deception, and Corruption

As a radical my interest in politics is probably far lower than most people involved in the gun rights community. But I’m a sucker for stories of political corruption. Like a fine mystery novel, stories of political corruption can keep me turning pages into the wee hours of the night. Although I’m not as integrated in the local gun rights movement as others I still keep my ear to the ground and have friends who are. That’s why I was surprised that I hadn’t heard about a new gun rights organization here in Minnesota calling itself Minnesota Gun Rights (MGR).

The organization came to my attention only recently. A few people, after expressing displeasure with the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (GOCRA), have been pointed towards MGR. MGR describes itself as a no compromise gun rights organization. While I have had my disagreements with the tactics of GOCRA in the past, the organization has a long track record of getting things done in regards to gun rights and consists of some damned good people. Unlike GOCRA, MGR has no track record to speak of but their site is pretty boastful (without providing specifics).

Thankfully we have the Internet so it’s easier than ever to research a new organization. My search for information on MGR lead me to a series of posts on Shot in the Dark, a website operated by local gun rights activist Mitch Berg. The series starts with this post, which covers the organization know as Iowa Gun Owners (IGO). Post two is where the story became interesting. It seems that IGO was responsible for sinking an Iowa billion that would have allowed veterans who suffered post-traumatic stress syndrome (a medical condition that can prohibit you from legally owning a firearm) to get their gun rights restored. In its zeal IGO reintroduced some additional pro-gun legislation as an amendment to the above mentioned bill. This additional legislation effectively killed the bill. It also appears that the people in charge of IGO are also in charge of MGR, which is important to note because the third post indicates one of them was involved in some political shenanigans of a corrupt nature. The series is a great read if you’re into political corruption or curious about MGR.

This brings me to a subtopic I wish to discuss: being unwilling to compromise. As my long-time readers know, I have a no-compromise position on many issues. For example, I want to eliminate the state in its entirety. When it comes to masters I have a zero tolerance policy. So I have respect for individuals and organizations that are unwilling to compromise on issues (even when I disagree with those issues). With that said, I must also point out that not compromising requires a different set of tactics. I learned some time ago that politics is not the realm for radicals. Radicals, by definition, wants something radically different. For example, I find the very concept that people with guns taking guns from nonviolent people will somehow reduce gun violence. Because of this I oppose gun control. Instead I focus on the reduction of violence in society as a whole. Even though I acknowledge that completely eliminating violence from a society is impossible I believe there are methods that can greatly reduce the amount of violence present in a society. But these methods are not achievable politically because they rely on the destruction of the state, which politics cannot do.

My point is this: if you’re not willing to compromise then you are a radical and you need to seek nonpolitical strategies. Any organization that labels itself as a no compromise group and a political group should be treated with a great deal of caution. In my experience such groups are perfectly aware of the incompatibility of their position and methodology. They don’t care because their actual goal is different from their stated goal. These organizations tend to exploit groups of political activists in order to extract cash from them. Gun rights activists are a great target for such a strategy because they’re passionate and willing to give their time and money in the pursuit of winning their fight. Proof of this fact can be found by looking at the number of members the National Rifle Association (NRA) has. If an organization is able to position itself as fighter for gun rights it stands to make a good amount of money.

Based on what I’ve found it seems MGR is an organization created to extract money from gun rights activists without sincerely investing itself in the fight for gun rights. Any new political organization should be taken with a grain of salt until it demonstrates its trustworthiness. Even though I have disagreements with the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and GOCRA they have demonstrated trustworthiness. If you’re going to support gun rights organizations those are good candidates. MGR has, so far, failed to demonstrated trustworthiness in my opinion and their list of accomplishments is nonexistent.

I won’t tell you to support or not support MGR. You’re all adults (I think) and can make your own decisions. But I urge you to research the organization, and all other political organizations, to determine whether or not you want to support it. What I can tell you is that MGR’s stated position and methodology are incompatible, which raises red flags for me. Finally I will close by offering to hear counterarguments to the claims made on Mitch Berg’s blog. Any members or supporters of MGR may post whatever counterarguments they wish in the comments section. Due to spambots I must manually approve all posts by first time posters, so if your comment doesn’t appear immediately please know that I will get around to approving it. You can also feel free to e-mail me at blog[at]christopherburg[dot]com.

3D Printed Metal Gun

Once again zerg539 was kind enough to forward some excellent information to me. Most of are aware of efforts to produce firearms using 3D printers. The biggest limitation so far has been materials. Plastic isn’t the best material to build an entire firearm out of. Nobody has reported printing a firearm with one of those fancy, and every expensive, metal printers until today:

Austin, TX – Solid Concepts, one of the world leaders in 3D Printing services, has manufactured the world’s first 3D Printed Metal Gun using a laser sintering process and powdered metals. The gun, a 1911 classic design, functions beautifully and has already handled 50 rounds of successful firing. It is composed of 33 17-4 Stainless Steel and Inconel 625 components, and decked with a Selective Laser Sintered (SLS) carbon-fiber filled nylon hand grip. The successful production and functionality of the 1911 3D Printed metal gun proves the viability of 3D Printing for commercial applications.

And it works quite well:

As you can guess, some people are unhappy about this. I think advocates of gun control realize their movement’s days are numbered. 3D printers are only going to become more affordable and widespread. It’s possible, and I would argue likely, that a majority of homes in this country (and others) will eventually have some kind of fabrication unit. These fabrication units will start off as simple 3D printers capable of working with plastics but will eventually become sophisticated units capable of working with various materials, including metals. Once that happens the entire concept of gun control will be dead. Just as the Internet has effectively killed censorship, 3D printers will eventually kill prohibitions of physical objects. Heck, as the prices of 3D printers capable of working with metals come down they will eventually reach a point where a handful of individuals will be able to pool their resources and buy them.

Decentralized systems are notoriously hard to shutdown, which is why I advocate setting up decentralized firearm manufacturing groups. Having the ability to manufacture firearms outside of the state’s control would do a lot to tip the balance of power from the state back to the people.

Considerations for Advocates of Gun Control When Making Arguments

If you’re a supporter of gun control then we are ideological opponents but I hold no ill will against you. I enjoy the fact that there are vastly different opinions from my own in this world. However, if you’re going to write articles in favor of gun control I urge you to first learn about your subject matter. It is also helpful to avoid certain debate tactics that do more harm to you cause than good. Advocates of gun control who are ignorant of current laws, treat speculation as fact, rely on argumentum ad hominem, and make hypocrites of themselves help my cause greatly. But I take no pleasure in winning battles of wits against incompetent opponents. In the spirit of ensuring better and more informed debates I’m going to critique this article that argues in favor of universal background checks:

And while we know how many times a red flag in someone’s history has blocked a sale, it’s impossible to know how many lives the critical law enforcement tool has saved. In short, the background check system is quick, effective, and it protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms.

First things first, speculation does not an argument make. Don’t get me wrong, it’s fun to speculate on matters but speculation should not be mistaken for factual information. The author states that it’s impossible to know how many lives background checks have saved. At the same time I can also point out that it’s impossible to know how many lives have been lost because of the background check system prevented somebody from obtaining an effective self-defense tool. Not everybody on the prohibited persons list deserves to be there. People who are mistakenly added or added for perpetrating a nonviolent crime shouldn’t be barred the ability to effectively exercise self-defense.

If you look at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, an Explosives’ (ATF) list of prohibited persons you’ll notice some interesting gotchas. For example, a person “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” is prohibited from owning firearms. I know many people who regularly use cannabis, which is illegal in Minnesota. Those people aren’t in any way violent. In fact they’re some of the most peaceful people I know (probably because cannabis relaxes people). Illegal aliens are also prohibited from owning firearms. Just because an individual decided to cross the imaginary line that separates this country from another doesn’t mean they should be prohibited from defending themselves. How many cannabis users and illegal aliens have been murdered because the background check system barred them from owning firearms?

We can speculate on this for the rest of eternity but it’s impossible to know. Therefore I would urge advocates of gun control to not speculate in articles advocating for specific laws. Stick to the facts.

The problem is that we leave the saturated markets for guns online and at gun shows completely unregulated. That means these same dangerous people that failed a background check at Cabela’s can go on Craigslist or to a gun show and purchase weapons from private sellers without any questions asked. The evidence shows they quite often do.

This is where we get into the article’s ignorance. First, Craigslist prohibits posting weapons:

Partial list of items for sale and services the advertisement of which is not permitted on craigslist:

[…]

Weapons and related items, including firearms, ammunition, silencers, pellet/BB guns, tear gas or stun guns.

So you’re not going to hit up Craigslist to buy firearms. Second, many states have last against private transfers between individuals. In fact looking at fellow gun control advocacy websites would have made the author aware of the states that prohibit private transfers, including ones occurring at gun shows. If you’re an advocate of gun control please take note of that site. While I disagree with what is being advocated I give credit to the authors for covering current gun laws in detail and citing them when mentioned.

In fact, in a 2011 study 62 percent of private sellers agreed to sell a gun to a buyer who said he probably could not pass a background check. The fact is, criminals know they can buy guns from unlicensed dealers, and Congress is endangering public safety by keeping these transactions completely legal. That is why our lawmakers in Washington, D.C., need to pass a universal background check bill this year.

If you’re going to cite a study then cite it. Don’t refer to it as “a 2011 study”. There were a lot of studies performed in 2011. Give the name of the study, the authors, and the publication you found it in. I believe this guide will help.

I also want to return to the first point I made in this post. Many nonviolent people who have no history of mental illness are prohibited from owning firearms. Claiming that “62 percent of private sellers agreed to sell a gun to a buy who said he probably could not pass a background check” is pretty meaningless. I know many prohibited people who I would be perfectly comfortable selling a firearm to (please note, saying I’m perfectly comfortable selling a firearm to them and actually selling a firearm to them are two entirely different things).

Now it’s time to cite some actual legalese. According to the ATF’s website it is illegal to sell a firearm to a person when you should reasonably know that person is a prohibited person:

Q: To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his State, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. A person may sell or transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(d), 27 CFR 478.29 and 478.30]

If a person claims he or she is probably unable to pass a background check that would qualify as “reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.” It’s already illegal to sell a firearm to an individual who you believe to be unable to pass a background check, which means such transfers aren’t completely legal as the article claims.

Rep. John Kline, R-Burnsville, has an opportunity to close these dangerous loopholes by co-sponsoring a bill in the U.S. House that already has the support of more than 180 representatives from both parties.

The bill, introduced by Reps. Peter King, R-New York, and Mike Thompson, D-California, is the House’s counterpart to the Manchin-Toomey amendment that was blocked from reaching a vote by a minority of senators in April. (Both Minnesota senators, Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, had the courage to vote for the life-saving legislation).

Once again, claiming that such a bill is life-saving is pure speculation. I could easily argue that such legislation would costs lives. When writing an opinion piece arguing in favor of passing a law one should stick to the facts.

What would these bills do to protect the rights of gun owners and make communities safer?

It’s simple: they would simply extend the background check system that already works at licensed dealers to cover commercial sales from private sellers. No gun registries, no confiscations, just an extension of a program that works.

What criteria is the author using to determine whether or not the current program works? So far he has offered nothing more than speculation. Again, I could argue that the current background check program has failed miserably.

As with many issues facing Washington, there are cynics standing in the way of some common-sense solutions. They say criminals will still find ways of buying guns. Or that background checks may not have been able to prevent all of our violent tragedies. But to allow that line of thinking to impede our progress on essential gun safety reforms would be a serious mistake. We cannot solve the whole epidemic of gun violence in America with one piece of legislation, but that does not mean that we shouldn’t take meaningful steps to save lives. When nine out of 10 Americans agree on something I think that overwhelming consensus should result in some action.

Again, how would such legislation save lives? The author spends a great deal of time claiming universal background checks will save lives but never provides any evidence. How many would-be murderers who couldn’t obtain a firearm simply murdered their victim(s) with a knife or an explosive device? Is there any evidence that shows background checks actually prevent violent crime?

As a hunter and gun owner myself, I am joining with the along with the 91 percent percent of Americans and 74 percent of NRA members – according to Republican pollster Frank Luntz – that support universal background checks. That’s not a typo. Hunting is a cherished tradition in Minnesota and all across this country, so it should tell you something that gun owners so overwhelmingly believe in these critical safety guards.

I find myself again pointing out the need to cite any mentioned studies. Since I’m nothing if not helpful I will also point out some rather notable issues with that poll (the article, I might add, links to the actual poll):

Nationwide, a Gallup poll taken a week after the Senate vote indicated that only 65 percent of Americans thought the Senate should have passed a bill to “expand background checks for gun purchases,” with 29 percent saying the Senate should not have passed it.

That’s much lower than 90 percent support, obviously.

Also interesting: The new poll showed that general support for an expanded background check law fell from 91 percent in mid-January to 83 percent.

[…]

Gallup says that a minor wording change in the question may have played a role in reducing the perceived general support from 91 percent to 83 percent.

In January, Gallup asked the public if they supported a law that would “require criminal background checks for all gun sales.” This month, the wording was “require background checks for all gun purchases.”

Polls are tricky beasts. A simple difference such as wording changes may lead to drastically different results. This is why you need to stay on top of polls. The results may be different if the poll is performed again. If that happens you should either use the lasted results or mention all available results. Keeping yourself ignorant of any changes to polling numbers doesn’t help your credibility. Selecting the results that best make your argument destroy your credibility. By using old results the author has put his credibility into question by making it appear as though he’s not keeping up with the topic of cherry picking results.

Despite such broad support for background checks, the gun lobby is spending millions of dollars to protect the ability for criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns without a background check. Let’s not let them distort the debate once again.

Two points need to be made about this paragraph. First, when you’re making an argument you shouldn’t attempt to demonize your opponents. Most of us are guilty of this at one point or another, especially when arguing about emotional topics. But you should really try to understand your ideological opponent and argue against their ideas, not attack their person(s). What the author did in this paragraph is known as argumentum ad hominem. He is attempting to manipulate the emotions of his audience by claiming the gun lobby is spending money to protect the ability of criminals and the mentally ill to buy guns. I have never heard any member of what can be considered the gun lobby claim it wants criminals and the mentally ill to have access to firearms. They have argued that the background check system is ineffective at preventing criminals and the mentally ill from obtaining firearms, which makes the system an unneeded inconvenience to lawful gun owners.

Second, when making an argument try to avoid coming off as a hypocrite. Attempting to distort the debate by demonizing political opponents then claiming we should not allow your political opponents to distort the debate is rank hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is one of the most effective methods of destroying your credibility.

As I said at the beginning of this post, please take this post in the spirit it was meant. I’m trying to be helpful and raise the overall quality of the gun control debate. Ignorance, speculation, demonizing, and hypocrisy are poor tools for a debate forum and should be avoided if one wants to be taken seriously. Regardless of the side of the gun control debate you’re on I urge you to maintain some professionalism when debating in a public forum. I’m not saying everybody should stop making fun of one another but such antics should be reserved for outside of public debate forums.