FedEx Refuses To Ship Machine That Can Make Untraceable Guns

[Riccochet]

People bent on killing themselves are going to kill themselves. Whether they blow their brains out, hang themselves, cut their wrists or jump off a building/bridge.

You know what all that means?

BLAME GUNS!

lol

 

[Deleted member 204526]

I can tell you are looking at this subject as an intellectual with this stunning post of yours.

Not everything can be reduced to an intellectual exercise, especially when we're talking about people who want to opt out of life. Cynical bastard that I am, I believe most people who use suicide as a way to come sideways at gun control really don't give a shit about the suicides. These selfsame types tend to favor things like elective late-term abortion (I'm against) and doctor-assisted suicide (I favor). The freedom to own guns is a huge stumbling block in their quest for total control over every aspect of our lives.

 

[rudy]

Well that didn't take long. Actually usually race gets interjected within the first two pages. So this must be some kind of record. Anyway, sad to burst your bubble but that statement isn't true. Great Britain averages 140 gun related deaths a year. The United States averages around 30,000. You could completely remove black and hispanic people from that total and still be somewhere around 10,000. Hispanics rank third by the way in gun related deaths in the US.

Where do I even start on this?

You compare raw numbers where you should be comparing rates.
I know this may come as a mind boggling surprise to you but a nation of 320 million people probably has more murders than a tiny nation of 65 million. It was really hard to figure out England would have less people than America wasn't it? But wait maybe you are just ignorant and you don't understand he concept of rates, but then several posts down you cite rate data...

So lets talk about bias you clearly show, if you were going to compare England why wouldn't you compare a more comparable country like Switzerland? We all know why because you aren't interested in a rational argument with fair comparisons you are interested in proving your point by any manipulation necessary. And because Switzerland a developed nation in Europe has a lower homicide RATE than England despite widespread gun ownership you knew this wouldn't support your point and purposely left it out. Are you trying to make a valid point or a commercial for apple?

Next you compare a firearm related deaths, um duh if you don't have a firearm handy you aren't going to kill with it you will kill with something else. The only argument against guns has to come from a significant increase in homicide rates independent of how they are committed. If people who don't have guns simply strangle people instead what have you gained by banning guns, other than giving up any chance a smaller weaker person has of defending themselves against a stronger person, or government?

The only thing we have determined here is that Kac77 has extremely unfair bias and has no moral problem selectively cherry picking data which supports his belief system no matter how obviously flawed the comparisons are. Thus he has no credibility in the argument because he has shown that he will willingly bring forth unfair comparisons to prove his point despite knowledge of better data.

 

[dmonkey]

We have a population that's four times greater. You can multiply can you? You can look it per capita if you want to we lead so drastically that you can compare us against the UK all day long. The results are the same. It's kind of funny that you used the word obtuse.

Tell me do you have any other make believe notions of any other racial groups?

Now take out the contributions of those racial groups from that unsourced chart of yours. There's nothing make-believe about it. I expect your argument to be about culture and cross-cutting cleavages rather than to brush the rate of "underprivileged" violence completely under the rug.

Unqualified gun control is not going to and has never addressed the rate of violence itself in a society.

 

[wizzi01]

You can post dangerous things that get shipped all you want but the fact is they cannot be used to create more of said dangerous object.
This device allows people to make untraceable firearms in mass quantities.
If people cannot understand this or the fact that FedEx has a legal right to deny you shipping then we are just going to go nowhere.
If that person wants to ship the device then they can drive it themselves.

You do know it is legal to make firearms for your own personal use, right? If you are making firearms for sale you had better have your ffl(whatever number it is for manufacturing). Of course criminals do not care what the laws state and are probably not buying something like this in the first place.

 

[mope54]

So lets talk about bias you clearly show, if you were going to compare England why wouldn't you compare a more comparable country like Switzerland? We all know why because you aren't interested in a rational argument with fair comparisons you are interested in proving your point by any manipulation necessary. And because Switzerland a developed nation in Europe has a lower homicide RATE than England despite widespread gun ownership you knew this wouldn't support your point and purposely left it out.

um, you know, choosing a country with a lower homicide rate actually strengthens his argument, right? he chose UK because as a worst case comparison to show just how ridiculous the assertion was that, once removing all minority gun homicide, our gun violence was on par with other developed nation.

 

[Booyaah]

You can buy an unfinished 80% lower receiver, take it to a local shop, or buy a jig machine and finish it yourself, and it does not have to have a serial#. SN# are only required for FFL gun manufacturers, primarily to track illegal gun shipments.

If FedEx wants to be paranoid, they should have the right to, even if it is silly.

 

[maverikv]

People bent on killing themselves are going to kill themselves. Whether they blow their brains out, hang themselves, cut their wrists or jump off a building/bridge.

Nope

 

[Riccochet]

Nope

Yup

 

[Riccochet]

My uncle was suicidal. We gave that man all the support he needed. Had someone with him always. Got him all the care we could possibly think to get that man. You know what he did? While my aunt went in to a gas station to grab a drink he took the car, did 100mph in to an overpass support without a seatbelt on.

That man wanted to die. And he accomplished that regardless of what was done to help prevent it. Where there is a will there is a way.

 

[rudy]

um, you know, choosing a country with a lower homicide rate actually strengthens his argument, right? he chose UK because as a worst case comparison to show just how ridiculous the assertion was that, once removing all minority gun homicide, our gun violence was on par with other developed nation.

Um you clearly didn't comprehend me writing. Because I clearly said you cant compare gun homicide rates you have to compare total murder rates. Guess what genius people who cannot afford cars are probably not going to die in car accidents. Does that prove any point about the danger of cars?

 

[mope54]

Guess what genius people who cannot afford cars are probably not going to die in car accidents. Does that prove any point about the danger of cars?

Is this really the logic you want to rely upon?

people who can't afford cars aren't likely to die in car accidents?

 

[Cr4ckm0nk3y]

I will start by saying I am a huge 2A supporter and actively carry when/where I can.

With that being said, FedEx has a complete right to not ship a CNC machine if they don't want to. Just like a bakery has a right to refuse service to whomever they want regardless of a reason. If you don't like a company's actions then don't use them.

With regard to the use of the term "Ghost Gun," as said before it is a knock at Sen. Kevin de Leon who is a reckless/dangerous moron. Defense Distributed named their small CNC machine Ghost Gunner to take advantage of Mr. de Leon's gaff and publicity behind it.

For those who don't understand guns; any citizen in the United States may make an unserialized firearm. A unserialized rifle is no more dangerous than a rifle with a serial number. People have been making unserialized weapons for decades using CNC machines or mills. Just because you make the gun at home doesn't mean you still don't have to comply with local/federal laws with regard to right to possess. A felon still cannot own a firearm, home built or purchased from licensed manufacturer.

All a criminal would need to make a rifle untraceable is a dremel tool which is by far cheaper than a CNC machine. So to say the Ghost Gunner CNC machine will make crime easier, for $1,500 and many hours, is insane. Criminal's won't build their own AR-15 lowers to avoid having a serial number. They will just straw purchase a AR-15 or any other gun and grind the serial off.

The Ghost Gunner CNC is an amazing piece of tech and I for one would love to buy it. To have the ability to make high quality lower's, in all calibers, and customize them how I want would be great. However, to insinuate this CNC machine will somehow increase crime or mass shootings is completely unfounded.

But FedEx has a right to be overly cautious, even if their legal team are the typical uninformed, and not ship a product. I wonder if they will do the same for other products they don't socially agree with.

With regard to gun violence in the US. We do not have a problem with guns or types of weapons in existence. Remember the AR-15 began being sold to civilians in 1963. The US has a problem with a selfish population that doesn't care about other people or personal responsibility. Add in the breakdown of the family unit and mental healthcare system then you get what we have.

 

[kac77]

Where do I even start on this?

***gets popcorn***

Possibly a book about the complexities of reading whole sentences before responding.

You compare raw numbers where you should be comparing rates.
I know this may come as a mind boggling surprise to you but a nation of 320 million people probably has more murders than a tiny nation of 65 million. It was really hard to figure out England would have less people than America wasn't it? But wait maybe you are just ignorant and you don't understand he concept of rates, but then several posts down you cite rate data...

***munch munch**
Um my second post pointed that out. If you weren't so quick to respond and actually read the succeeding posts you would have known that.

The only thing we have determined here is that Kac77 has extremely unfair bias and has no moral problem selectively cherry picking data which supports his belief system no matter how obviously flawed the comparisons are. Thus he has no credibility in the argument because he has shown that he will willingly bring forth unfair comparisons to prove his point despite knowledge of better data.

**man I need some water**

Actually what we have found out is that you can't read and your own biases prevent you from reading English. My post was refuting the retarded claim that if you took Hispanics and Black People out of homicide rates that the US rate of gun death would still be higher vs. European countries.

My post had nothing to do with equating guns with violence. But good job it was entertaining.

 

[mope54]

For those who don't understand guns; any citizen in the United States may make an unserialized firearm.

All a criminal would need to make a rifle untraceable is a dremel tool which is by far cheaper than a CNC machine.

With regard to gun violence in the US. We do not have a problem with guns or types of weapons in existence.

False

False

and
three strikes, you're outa here!

 

[Flogger23m]

False

False

and
three strikes, you're outa here!

Everything he said was true. You can build your own firearm, provided you do not transfer it to anyone. Criminal tend to not serialize their firearms anyways.

For example, in Australia, gangs were producing illegal fully automatic weapons with sound suppressors. I don't think they bothered to serialize them.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/22/1090464799535.html

Oh and look, they weren't disposable single shot plastic frames either. They made entire firearms.

 

[mope54]

Everything he said was true. You can build your own firearm, provided you do not transfer it to anyone. Criminal tend to not serialize their firearms anyways.

For example, in Australia, gangs were producing illegal fully automatic weapons with sound suppressors. I don't think they bothered to serialize them.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/22/1090464799535.html

Oh and look, they weren't disposable single shot plastic frames either. They made entire firearms.

Prohibited persons can not manufacture a firearm at home, serialized or not. So no, "any citizen in the US" may *not* make one at home

and just try and dremel a serial number off a firearm and catch yourself a felony after the forensics lab pulls it back up

 

[Cr4ckm0nk3y]

For those who don't understand guns; any citizen in the United States may make an unserialized firearm.

False

Really? You sure?

For your information, per provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, an unlicensed individual may make a “firearm” as defined in the GCA for his own personal use, but not for sale or distribution.

OK that is step 1. A UNLICENSED INDIVIDUAL

Step 2:

Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs). However, we suggest that the manufacturer at least identify the firearm with a serial number as a safeguard in the event that the firearm is lost or stolen. Also, the firearm should be identified as required in 27 CFR 478.92 if it is sold or otherwise lawfully transferred in the future.

It is only suggested the homemade weapon have identification. NOT required.

In the US; only licensed manufacturers or importers are required to identify weapons.
27 CFR § 478.92

If you attempt to sell your homemade weapon you are now a manufacturer.

.

All a criminal would need to make a rifle untraceable is a dremel tool which is by far cheaper than a CNC machine.

False

How so? Have you even seen a firearm? Can't scream false unless you want to back it up.

QUOTE=Cr4ckm0nk3y;1041452040]
With regard to gun violence in the US. We do not have a problem with guns or types of weapons in existence.

three strikes, you're outa here![/QUOTE]

Again care to share how I am wrong? How is the AR-15 more deadly now than in 1963? Lets start there.

Maybe you should just take the strikes and go back home.

 

[motomonkey]

False

False

and
three strikes, you're outa here!

Conditionally true, any citizen that is not a convicted Felon or otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm can manufacture a firearm.

True, unless you know some mystic secret that replaces metal after it's ground away (deep enough to prevent an acid wash from revealing stamping stress patterns in the metal).

And Subjective as hell, so, I don't think we have a problem, he doesn't think we have a problem with firearms, you think we have a problem, he's still in the game. try again.

 

[mope54]

Our country definitely has a problem with gun violence.
How can any rational adult argue otherwise?

Now, what to do about it or if anything can/should be done about it are completely different from recognizing that our gun violence in this country is far and away higher than nearly any other country on the globe...it's not subjective. Whether you see it as something we should address or how we should address it may be subjective, but to argue that we don't have a problem at all? That's preposterous.

 

[mope54]

That's one of the problems confronting sensible discussions about firearm related policies.

You've got people willing to argue beyond all sensibilities that there's nothing to be concerned about and the vast majority of the population, who by and large are not opposed to gun ownership, shake their heads and think you're just a nut.

I swear, the people who make ridiculous assertion are their own worst enemy. The enemy of gun ownership comes less from so-called liberals trying to snatch legal owners' firearms and more from the ludicrous position some people take on the topic and alienate the rest of the nation and piss them off and pretty much force their hands to swing the pendulum into too restrictive policies...because you give no middle ground.

 

[dirtydr]

"Again care to share how I am wrong? How is the AR-15 more deadly now than in 1963? Lets start there."

You can't reason with the unreasonable so why give their demonstrably uninformed opinion any sort of validation by responding? You will get nothing but deflections, attempts to control the language and conversation steering. Unless the logic is just giving them more rope to hang themselves and their position(s) publicly. If that is the case you've got a goldmine to be tapped.

 

[mope54]

I ignored that sentence because it doesn't even make sense in the discussion.

Is he seriously asking whether the AR-15 is more deadly now than in 1963?
I don't believe so...LOL

Does he own one? I've owned a few AR-15's. Does that qualify me to ignore that asinine question or is that deflection?

 

[mope54]

I have to go teach a class on the death penalty for a few hours...but while I'm gone I want you to ponder this question:

Does the Loch Ness monster really exist? hmmmm?
Let's start there....

 

[wizzi01]

That's one of the problems confronting sensible discussions about firearm related policies.

You've got people willing to argue beyond all sensibilities that there's nothing to be concerned about and the vast majority of the population, who by and large are not opposed to gun ownership, shake their heads and think you're just a nut.

I swear, the people who make ridiculous assertion are their own worst enemy. The enemy of gun ownership comes less from so-called liberals trying to snatch legal owners' firearms and more from the ludicrous position some people take on the topic and alienate the rest of the nation and piss them off and pretty much force their hands to swing the pendulum into too restrictive policies...because you give no middle ground.

Then there are people like you who if people don't agree with your position they are not sensible.

 

[Flogger23m]

Prohibited persons can not manufacture a firearm at home, serialized or not. So no, "any citizen in the US" may *not* make one at home

and just try and dremel a serial number off a firearm and catch yourself a felony after the forensics lab pulls it back up

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. As for defacing the serial number, it happens all the time. Criminals tend to do that; although I suspect defacing serial numbers is probably one of the rather harmless things they are going to do. They aren't exactly known to be bright.

 

[motomonkey]

Our country definitely has a problem with gun violence.
How can any rational adult argue otherwise?

Now, what to do about it or if anything can/should be done about it are completely different from recognizing that our gun violence in this country is far and away higher than nearly any other country on the globe...it's not subjective. Whether you see it as something we should address or how we should address it may be subjective, but to argue that we don't have a problem at all? That's preposterous.

Our country has a problem with Violence and a breakdown in social order, mostly in our inner cities, not with guns. you can see it in certain parts of England as well, doesn't matter if a firearm is available or not.

In the more rural areas, the rate of firearm ownership compared to the per capita rate of violent crimes is reversed compared to nearly any inner city you care to name. a relatively small number of criminals commit the majority of violent offences

logically, more guns would equal more deaths and violence, if you follow your reasoning. it just isn't so.

http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/defa...rban-rural-crime-statistics-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2


I've seen gun control advocates make the statement "no guns = no crime" now that is preposterous.

 

[Cr4ckm0nk3y]

I ignored that sentence because it doesn't even make sense in the discussion.

Is he seriously asking whether the AR-15 is more deadly now than in 1963?
I don't believe so...LOL

LOL all you want, it is not my fault you took 2 sentences from my original statement and didn't keep up with the conversation as it went on.

Not my fault you can't pick up on sarcasm.

Let's begin again, my statement was:

With regard to gun violence in the US. We do not have a problem with guns or types of weapons in existence. Remember the AR-15 began being sold to civilians in 1963. The US has a problem with a selfish population that doesn't care about other people or personal responsibility. Add in the breakdown of the family unit and mental healthcare system then you get what we have.

I never said we don't have a gun violence problem but I did say our problem isn't because of guns or the types in existence. Why is the AR suddenly getting press as being extremely dangerous when its been around since 1963? Why is it suddenly banned/restricted (NY/CA) when it didn't pose a problem for decades?

If you continued to read, which it is evident you didn't, you would see I stated our gun violence problem is a result of our changes in society. If you purely blame guns then it is time to take your head out of the sand Mr. Ostrich.

We don't have a gun problem. The AR-15 is not suddenly more dangerous. We have a society problem. Unfortunately, it would appear you merely want to blame guns.

Does he own one? I've owned a few AR-15's. Does that qualify me to ignore that asinine question or is that deflection?

Sounds like you are deflecting now?

Not that is matters but I own several AR platforms.

If you went back to my original statement/opinion that you only took part of then proclaimed as "FALSE;" you will clearly see I was using the AR-15 as a prime example of a weapon, freely available for 50+ years, that is suddenly labeled as a problem.

But why would you actually read or keep up with the entire conversation.

You still haven't given me one shred of an example as to why my first two statements are false. The third statement you labeled as false was only part of my statement, good on ya for that, and a subjective in nature.

Just keep your head in the sand there teach.

 

[FearTheCow]

Our country definitely has a problem with gun violence.
How can any rational adult argue otherwise?

Now, what to do about it or if anything can/should be done about it are completely different from recognizing that our gun violence in this country is far and away higher than nearly any other country on the globe...it's not subjective. Whether you see it as something we should address or how we should address it may be subjective, but to argue that we don't have a problem at all? That's preposterous.

We dont have a gun violence problem, we have liberals who are afraid that they would go on killing sprees if they owned a gun assuming everyone else would do the same problem. Its not my problem you aren't responsible enough to own or handle a gun, stop projecting your inadequacies onto others already. Fuck, dont even know why I am trying, you just make shit up and keep spewing bull shit until everyone else gives up even trying to discuss anything with you.

 

[kac77]

Now take out the contributions of those racial groups from that unsourced chart of yours. There's nothing make-believe about it. I expect your argument to be about culture and cross-cutting cleavages rather than to brush the rate of "underprivileged" violence completely under the rug.

Nope my argument is that somehow basic math eludes you. You are asking to dissect a pie when a portion of it's total is larger than what we are comparing it to. Oh..my...god.

 

[Converge]

Prohibited persons can not manufacture a firearm at home, serialized or not. So no, "any citizen in the US" may *not* make one at home

and just try and dremel a serial number off a firearm and catch yourself a felony after the forensics lab pulls it back up

Lame. This is half way to trolling. You pick out a line and quote it and proclaim FALSE! and provide an explanation that he had given himself in the same post, hell not just the same post but the same paragraph. About 1 or 2 sentences later and he stated that felons and other wise prohibited persons cant own firearms. So you're post is pointless and trolling.

Okay.... And yes, its very possible to entirely remove the serial number from a firearm and leave no trace of it. Sure, if some nutcake uses a fucking file then they could pull it up. BUT It really doesn't matter since most criminals are using stolen guns to commit crimes so they don't care about taking off any serial number. The only time I can see someone doing this is if they are trying to sell an illegal/stolen firearm to someone else. Its a mute point.

Anyways. It should be noted that under 2% - 5% (depending on your source) of gun crimes involve rifles like AR-15's. So all this talking about criminals getting AR's is kind of pointless. Criminals want to use handguns so people don't see them coming I would assume. It doesn't matter the reasoning, the fact is its rare. Maybe if the mexican cartel comes up north a little more that number might change.... lol.

 

[mope54]

logically, more guns would equal more deaths and violence, if you follow your reasoning. it just isn't so.

http://victimsofcrime.org/docs/defa...rban-rural-crime-statistics-2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2


I've seen gun control advocates make the statement "no guns = no crime" now that is preposterous.

My logic? Where did I say anything even remotely close to that?

I never said we don't have a gun violence problem

Unfortunately, it would appear you merely want to blame guns.

Sounds like we agree that there is a gun violence problem in the US.

Where did I blame guns?


The two of you constructing strawmen is precisely why I said that polemics make it difficult to discuss rational policy about firearms. You simply made shit up and then attributed it to me. You won't find many members of the public agreeing with you if your best argument is, "you think like I say you do and you're wrong."

 

[LordEC911]

Since antis have no knowledge of history on the topic.

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control.png

 

[mope54]

Lame. This is half way to trolling. You pick out a line and quote it and proclaim FALSE! and provide an explanation that he had given himself in the same post, hell not just the same post but the same paragraph. About 1 or 2 sentences later and he stated that felons and other wise prohibited persons cant own firearms. So you're post is pointless and trolling.

No, you're wrong.

I was the one who pointed out prohibited persons can't manufacture or own firearms when I corrected his assertion that felons couldn't own them.

A standup person would apologize for calling me a troll but I'm not going to hold my breath...

 

[maverikv]

Yup

No, sorry. You're just wrong

 

[mope54]

I have a tremendous amount of knowledge about the subject at hand.

I never said anything about gun rights, either.

 

[LordEC911]

I have a tremendous amount of knowledge about the subject at hand.

I never said anything about gun rights, either.

So you already forgot what you posted a few hours ago?
Go read what I originally quoted.

 

[mope54]

So you already forgot what you posted a few hours ago?
Go read what I originally quoted.

I know what I wrote. Do us a favor and quote me saying anything about gun rights.

The closest thing that could be even interpreted that way is when I cautioned people from behaving in incendiary ways making non-extremists in the country more likely to think you're a nut and pass policies that are too restrictive.

You quoted that sentiment and cussed me out and said I was full of BS basically proving my point that you can't control yourself and just lashing out at anyone you perceive to be not 1million percent in line with your antagonism.

 

[mope54]

roughly translated: please don't act like a nut because you make it hard for gun owners to convince non-gun owners that we aren't all freaking nuts LOL

 

[LordEC911]

I know what I wrote. Do us a favor and quote me saying anything about gun rights.

The closest thing that could be even interpreted that way is when I cautioned people from behaving in incendiary ways making non-extremists in the country more likely to think you're a nut and pass policies that are too restrictive.

You quoted that sentiment and cussed me out and said I was full of BS basically proving my point that you can't control yourself and just lashing out at anyone you perceive to be not 1million percent in line with your antagonism.

So you also don't read the thread.
Why have a discussion with you if you can't follow along?

Gun ownership, gun control, gun rights, are all the same subject.

You also weren't cautioning people, you were making a statement based on your beliefs, which is why I had an issue with it.