> "zip guns"
This helps people make a fully automatic machine gun, an AR-15, not a single-shot gun.
But if you want to be concerned, look at how utterly simple a full auto (simpler that way, e.g. firing pin is a bump in the bolt face) 9mm Sten gun is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten
(A semi-auto AR15 is a much more capable weapon, BTW.)
ADDED: per the NRA's page on California gun laws, in theory its even legal to have and transport one, although evidently the permits to do so are never granted (well, I assume except for Hollywood...).
2 known illegal uses of legal machine guns in private hands in the US ... one by a cop....
http://stevespages.com/pdf/sten_mk2_complete_machine_instruc...
Really don't need much of a machine shop to knock one of them out.
It's true this device alone doesn't make an automatic weapon, but it certainly catalyzes the process of making an untraceable automatic weapon.
Once you have made an untraceable semi-auto AR-15 with this device, you can then make it untraceable auto with numerous ways.
And, no, it doesn't catalyze this, or at least no more than allowing the sale of millions of finished AR-15s. Those are a lot closer than a 80% receiver and a pile of parts, "Some assembly required".
I say this as a non-gun-owner who was taught to shoot the old fashion way, by a 12 year old friend who got a rifle for Christmas when I was 11, and have subsequently taken enough firearms training, including in the armed forces, to understand firearms well enough to be terrified of the huge number of ignorant clowns who own them, no matter how well-informed and responsible the majority of gun owners are most of the time.
It is also worth pointing out that since the point of firearms is to make it really easy to kill things it would be disingenuous and stupid to claim anything other than "a gun owner only needs to fail in their understanding or self control for a moment to kill someone", and anyone who believes of their fellow gun-owners, "we never make mistakes"... well, people like that have good company in murderous tyrants the world over.
Everyone makes mistakes now and then. When people with guns make mistakes, other people die. Because the purpose of guns is to make killing really easy, and when you have a technology that makes something really easy you get more of it. To claim otherwise is to claim that intercontinental travel was as common before steamships as after, which is false.
Guns are a tool to solve a problem: killing things. Gun advocates in the US claim that this tool, and this tool alone, can be applied to the unrelated problem of personal safety. I say this is an unrelated problem because it is: in every other developed nation it has been solved more effectively than it has been solved in the US, without substantial reference to guns.
Let me say this again: the problem of personal safety has been solved better (people are safer) in every other developed nation without ubiquitous firearms. This is just a fact. Murder rates in Canada are lower than in the US. Murder rates in England, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Switzerland (where firearms are all inaccessible, remember), etc are all lower than in the US. People in those countries are safer than in the US, despite the freedom of all Americans to carry firearms and the overwhelming victory of the gun lobby in the US in the past couple of decades.
So anyone who advocates firearms as a good solution to the problem of personal safety is like someone advocating bloodletting for personal health. It is a solution that has been tried and failed. It's time to move on to something else, like civilization and the rule of law.
That said, yeah, many gun owners don't really understand guns in the technical sense, and have very silly biases (consumer preferences, really) about what is a valid arm to possess. A lot of older hunters I've met, for example, get grumpy if they see you with any rifle that isn't a bolt-action.
I tentatively disagree with the problem of personal safety being solved in those other countries: you've stuck with the metric of "murdered", whereas there are additional ones still of note to the average citizen such as "assaulted" and "robbed". Also, we can trot out the tired refrains about diversity and whatnot and argue that those populations don't map onto ours, but let's save space.
I might agree that the firearms are not a good solution to the problem of personal safety, but they are a solution and one that has worked. I think that the problem that they help prevent is creating an irreversible monopoly in force and ensuing tyranny, which is what happens once you disarm your populace. As a veteran, surely you appreciate that.
EDIT: Changed qualifier on "one that has worked well" to "one that has worked"...don't want to blow my reply quota picking nits on the difference between "well" and "good".
Also, forgot to mention: parent's point about letting people who don't understand something regulate it is correct--if you can't even articulate the different sorts of firearms and differences thereof, why should you be allowed to restrict anyone's access to them? It's just as annoying as legislation about computer stuff.
...there isn't a substantial problem therewith. Not zero, of course, but by your line of reasoning cars should be outlawed immediately because of the actual accidental & unintentional harm rates therewith ... and the same issue with guns being orders of magnitude less.
The problem isn't accidental casualties (those are in fact quite rare). The problem is people willing to cause grave harm to others, a group which does not include a vast number of people who are not willing to cause grave harm to others save for stopping the former from doing so - but whom you are quick to lump together. Break down US murder rates, and you'll find the bulk of the problem firmly within certain subgroups; disarming other US subgroups (as you advocate) won't solve the problem, as up-arming those groups has decreased murder rates in their areas.
I know what I want if I have to take care of my safety and security. It's the same weapons the police carry.
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
Articles, anecdotes and statistics:
Don't these countries have lower murder rates than the US has non-gun-related murder rates? As in, even if you removed every gun in the US, and even if all the crimes that would otherwise be committed with guns now just don't happen, the US still would have a higher murder rate than these countries.
(This is off the top of my head, please correct me if I'm wrong.)
In which case, it seems unlikely that the US' murder rate can be attributed to guns. You don't explicitly blame guns yourself, but I think this is worth noting. (And "civilization and the rule of law" isn't a solution, it's an applause light.)
What do the statistics imply? Per gun-owning capita is the rate of accidental discharge higher, lower, or within the median compared to other populaces around the world?
However, I am very excited to see how this technology will be used in Canada, or if it will even make a blip on the crime radar.
