Making a zip gun from plastic tubing is, however. And that's what a 3-d printed gun barrel is.

I apologize. I thought that you could follow a simple chain of logic. Since you apparently cannot, let me explain.

You previously said:

The republicans are in a pickle. If they support 3D gun printing, they hurt gun manufacturers, which is what they really are supporting ($$$$).

I assume that you mean that the NRA, in general, supports the GOP, and that the GOP is therefore obliged to the NRA, and therefore the gun manufacturers. This is a reasonable assumption, since, as far as I know, individual gun manufactuers do not support many individual candidates. I was simply pointing out the simple fact that the NRA is NOT just gun manufacturers, but consists of millions of individual citizens who also greatly support the organization, thereby demonstrating that the gun industry is only a very small part of the NRA.

I can understand why you call me a troll. In the future, I will try to use language that you can understand and not make assumptions about your mental abilities. Please accept my sincerest apologies.

Why not before colonization? Just imagine THAT increase.

Just before the bans compared to the latest numbers that I could fine seems reasonable and logical to me. Do you have a better idea? I listed the sources for all of my data. Feel free to dig in the same sources and come up with something better. Wait, it is more fun to throw rocks and try to explain away numbers that you don't like. Don't like my numbers? Give me something better.

I did not "cherry pick" anything. Immediately before legislation vs. after legislation (latest figures that I could find). How is that "cherry picking?" Once again, put up or shut up.

and that the guns removed HAD NO EFFECT ON AVAILABILITY OF GUNS TO CIVILIANS for personal protection.

Wow, how little you know. You have to prove a need in Australia. No proven need = no gun. I found this on the intertubes:

Applicants for a gun owner's licence in Australia are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, collection, pest control, and narrow occupational uses. In law, personal protection is not a genuine reason.

If gun laws had to effect on the availability of guns to civilians, then what are the laws for??? That the the purpose of laws -- to put restrictions on things. Fact-check much? Didn't think so.

Fact: Violent crime went UP by 40% since the great gun grab in Australia.

Now... Those are either errors or utter lies.

In that case, the Australian Government is lying. The numbers came RIGHT OFF OF THEIR WEB PAGE. I took the numbers, and even adjusted for population. I am sure that you are thinking "Wow, that goes against my world view, so it CANNOT be right, since I am never wrong, yet I cannot find fault with his numbers, I will just insult this guy and throw bogus arguments at him."

And the life is far to short to waste one's Sundays on arguing with liars.
So please do kindly fuck off.

Since you have no evidence to back up your side, you resort to ad-hominem attacks and foul language. Very classy. What next, "I'm rubber and you're glue?" I do agree about arguing with liars (namely, you), so have a nice day.

I would at least be willing to fire an original Liberator (well, a copy. The originals are collectors items). The original was safe, but not accurate. This new Liberator is an accident waiting to happen.

So, you don't like the facts. The vast, vast majority of American gun owners are honest citizens who mostly just want to be left alone.

The logic of banning something to stop the minority is even weaker than than earlier attempts to ban Torrent, because a lot more than 0.008% of torrenters were breaking the law by downloading copyrighted material.

I never said that it was a ban. My only point was that Australia is the "great hope" that everybody who wants to regulate guns points to. Things are not so rosy as they portray, and they restrict firearms a LOT MORE than anybody in this country proposes to do (for right now).

I chose 1995 as the starting point because that was before they began to overly-regulate firearms. I chose 2007 as the end because that was the last data that I could find.

So, what is your point? Before tighter regulation (which is supposed to make people safer), vs. last year that I could find = 40% increase in violent crime. Clearly, gun regulation did not make anybody safer.

Next false argument?

I gave my sources. Feel free to do this if you want.

Personally, I feel that I have proven my point. I have a job and kids, and not enough free time.

Well, if we ban all red cars, then deaths and injuries from red cars will go WAY down. Does that mean that you are any safer? My numbers speak for themselves. Use a little logic, Sherlock.

Reducing gun violence is a false target. Australia did record a marked decrease in gun deaths, but an INCREASE in knife deaths. Proponents of gun control think that being shot to death makes you more dead than somebody who has been bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat. That is inherently false, and anybody with some common sense can see.

Gun violence in Australia DID go down by a fair amount. The problem is that knife violence went way up. I can did up the statistics if you really want, but a little google-fu should confirm what I say.

No. Having facts makes something a facts.

Gun control IS argued as making people safer -- that is the reason.

Violent crime DID go up in Australia by 40% after they banned almost all guns. My spreadsheet PROVES this using data from the Australian government.

Laws designed to make people safer can safely be said to fail if violent crime goes up by 40% as a result.

Any other non-logic you want to throw at me?

If a guy uses homemade pistols a lot, they are easy to find. They are in the hospital with bits of plastic embedded in their face. The 3d-printed gun is NOT "the Liberator." It is really "the Darwinator."

I am 100% for freedom, but I am 110% for safety. I would never shoot The Liberator because having a plastic barrel is simply a horrible idea. While technically this thing IS a gun, it is not MUCH of a gun. I would rather be armed with a baseball bat than that thing.

The more you reduce the presence of firearms by honest citizens, the less they are used to prevent crime.

Some numbers for you:

There are approximately 300,000,000 guns in the US (give or take).
2011 reported 11,101 gun homicides. That means that the gun grabbers
want to restrict the rights of ALL Americans to try to stop the 0.0037%
of guns that cause the problem. To put it another way,
approximately 45% of households own guns. Assuming a uniform
distribution of family sizes across gun-owning and defenseless
households, that means that 140,200,000 people are in a household with
guns (US population in 2011 is 311,591,917). The government wants to
infringe on the rights of over 300 million people to stop 11,101
criminals (assuming one criminal per murder). That means that gun-control laws are trying to stop the 0.008% of gun owners that do
bad things. To put it another way, for every single murderer, there are 12,630 honest gun owners. Wow! Clearly, guns are indeed a problem.

I will state it again: "gun regulation doesn't work."

I have posted this previously, but it fits here. Australia banned almost all guns around 1996 or so (too lazy to look it up right now). Here is a spreadsheet that shows the real effect. Murder went down a little, but for every life saved, there were almost 700 additional assaults and sexual assaults. Violent crime went up by 40% overall. Those are the FACTS. The spreadsheet has links to the hard numbers from the Australian government.

Medical studies have to account for all variables (weight, exercise level, smoking, etc). However, in the gun debate, you cannot control for all variables. You simply cannot directly compare country X to country Y, because of different media, culture, language, family structure, social programs, etc. You, however CAN compare one country to itself before and after banning almost all guns. That is what I have done, and the picture is not pretty. I understand that a similar argument could be made for the UK, but I have not crunched those numbers personally, so I will leave that discussion to others who have.

The republicans are in a pickle. If they support 3D gun printing, they hurt gun manufacturers, which is what they really are supporting ($$$$).

Got any facts, or just making things up as you go along? If you are referring to the NRA, I should like to point out that the NRA has more than five million members. Since I am pretty sure that there are not five million gun manufacturers, you can be pretty sure that a lot of those are ordinary citizens. In this case, the Republicans are defending freedom and the Constitution.