FFS yet again the media get it wrong on purpose
minigeff
EnglandPosts: 7,884MI6 Agent
I was gonna stick this in the rant thread, but I thought it deserved it's own one because I'd like to hear anyone else's views on this.
It would appear (call me cynical or what) that the media seems to 'sex up' most things these days, and intentionally mislead the public, and it's pissing me right orft.
This latest golden nugget of cack from ITN (Intentionally Tinkered with News) is a prime example;
http://www.itn.co.uk/UK/87950/police-seize-uks-first-3d-printed-gun
The article is titled 'Police seize UK's first 3D printed gun' but then goes on to state that;
"officers found a 3D printer and what is suspected to be a 3D plastic magazine and trigger which could be fitted together to make a viable 3D gun."
So they didn't find a 3D printed gun, they found suspected parts of one. The other thing that they omit is that in UK law, only pressure bearing parts such as barrels and chambers are considered components of firearms.
Say for instance you break the trigger guard on your rifle. You make a replacement, and this could be made out of anything. You have not broken the law. If you made your own barrel however, yes, this is avery serious offence.
I'm not supporting anyone who's illegally making their own guns, be it on 3D printers or using other methods. It's stupid, dangerous and highly illegal.
I'm also not against the press reporting on this subject or any other for that matter, I just wish they would do so in an impartial and unbias way.
After reading that ITN article, you could quite easily walk away to tell your mates and exclaim 'the rozzers seized a 3d printed gun some nutter has made the other day'. This is not the case, but you could quite easily and unintentionally start spreading the wrong message around. This sways public opinion and this is how daft laws like Tony Bliar's gun laws came into play and got public backing.
So is it just me, or does anyone else here think that the media could do with being a little more impartial and factual in their writing?
MG -{
It would appear (call me cynical or what) that the media seems to 'sex up' most things these days, and intentionally mislead the public, and it's pissing me right orft.
This latest golden nugget of cack from ITN (Intentionally Tinkered with News) is a prime example;
http://www.itn.co.uk/UK/87950/police-seize-uks-first-3d-printed-gun
The article is titled 'Police seize UK's first 3D printed gun' but then goes on to state that;
"officers found a 3D printer and what is suspected to be a 3D plastic magazine and trigger which could be fitted together to make a viable 3D gun."
So they didn't find a 3D printed gun, they found suspected parts of one. The other thing that they omit is that in UK law, only pressure bearing parts such as barrels and chambers are considered components of firearms.
Say for instance you break the trigger guard on your rifle. You make a replacement, and this could be made out of anything. You have not broken the law. If you made your own barrel however, yes, this is avery serious offence.
I'm not supporting anyone who's illegally making their own guns, be it on 3D printers or using other methods. It's stupid, dangerous and highly illegal.
I'm also not against the press reporting on this subject or any other for that matter, I just wish they would do so in an impartial and unbias way.
After reading that ITN article, you could quite easily walk away to tell your mates and exclaim 'the rozzers seized a 3d printed gun some nutter has made the other day'. This is not the case, but you could quite easily and unintentionally start spreading the wrong message around. This sways public opinion and this is how daft laws like Tony Bliar's gun laws came into play and got public backing.
So is it just me, or does anyone else here think that the media could do with being a little more impartial and factual in their writing?
MG -{
'Force feeding AJB humour and banter since 2009'
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Comments
Nope, it's not just you. Agreed 100%.
Often the press will only give half the story, so they can follow it up with the balancing other half the next day, or maybe they won't check it, a story being 'too good to check' means they can run it anyway.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Remember the good old days of Top Gear when the likes of Tony Mason covered rallying, Quentin Wilson showed you how to avoid buying a lemon and Geoff... erm, somebody reviewed affordable new cars?
In the mid nineties when Jeremy 'hard done by, no really I'm one of you working class guys now get off my land I don't care if it's a public footpath, you're ruining the view from my £12m Cotswold mansion' Clarkson had got his feet firmly under the table, he apparently asked the top brass at Vauxhall what they were going to pay him for a good review. I think this was around the time the Vectra came out. Vauxhall refuses to pay a penny, subsequently the impartial and highly factual BBC's top motoring programme slates anything to come out of Luton.
The press seem to be totally swayed to the notion of an outright gun ban. Remember when Dunblane happened and there was public uproar about how easy it was to obtain guns etc? It's a shame that while the anti gun lobbyists were constantly asked for their bias opinion*, no one from the likes of the BASC or NSRA were asked for theirs. Neither was there much converge of the home office report which stated there were 44, yes FORTY FOUR missed opportunities by Strathclyde police which if just one of them had been taken, Thomas Hamilton would have had his licences revoked and his guns taken, as they shoukd have been, away from him.
But I guess the rozzers aren't as easy a target as the law abiding citizens, and shock and awe sells papers.
I'm just sick and tired of hearing more and more made up crap in the press presented to us as truth.
Hillsborough anybody? X-(
*This isn't a direct attack on the anti gun lobbyists, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but the vast majority, if not all if these anti gun groups are started and consist of people who have been directly affected by gun crime. These people are obviously anti gun having lost loved ones to the barrel of a gun, but their opinions, regardless of the facts, will always be based in their emotions. You can't make informed choices or advise people when you're so emotionally attached to the subject in hand.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I guess that rules out the two associations you mentioned as well then
The onus is on the individual to identify the truth within the lies.
In the age of the internet, it's easier than ever for people to inform themselves and draw their own conclusions and yet the vast majority seem to expect unconditional honesty from their preferred propagandist.
Ultimately we need the press to give us both sides so we can make up our own minds, don't we?
However I don't necessarily think the ITN has an axe to grind, but I do think there's a natural tendency for people to be wary of guns, because of the terrible reports about gun crime all over the world. While some people are doubtless very responsible with guns, others sadly aren't. Is it really so far fetched that someone could make a makeshift gun out of a 3D printer? I don't know enough about them and I guess that's also the point, who knows where this technology will take us. If you can make a replica DB5 body shell using a 3D printer, maybe you could make a gun too...
Nothing against anyone starting a campaign but I get a tad miffed when the wrong people are targeted. Instead of trying to ban the legal people from doing what they want, how about having a go at the people who aren't doing their jobs properly ie the ones who are there to enforce the already suitable level of regulation of firearm ownership?
I once had my ticket come back with every gun and serial number mixed up, even though I'd sent a letter explaining my latest purchase.
The next time I rang up to ask about a certain aspect of firearm law, you know the advice I got? "I'm not sure about that, have you rang your local gunshop to ask them?"
That's right, total incapability of administration of the most basic sort and referring legal enquiries to civilians (who luckily after stopping laughing at the situation set me straight).
Doesn't give you much confidence in the system does it?
It's like ringing up your insurance company to ask if your wife is insured on your car only to be told "have you asked the local garage?".
In an idea world charmed.
Ok, put basically there are many different types if 3D printer, all work similarly but use different materials.
The 'cheap' 3D printers like the one in the uk press right now and what that Wilson kid in the states printed his working .38 pistol use ABS plastic which is no where near strong enough to withstand the internal pressures created by the ignition of even .22 rimfires, let alone .38's.
The layers of plastic are printed out by pushing a strand if ABS through a fine nozzle, and heat fuses the layers together as they're printed out.
To strengthen the ABS after the build you can dip the job in acetone which starts to melt the ABS and thus chemically fuse it together a bit more than the heat did.
However, even after this, the .38 in the states fired around 7 or 8 times before blowing up, so yes this 3D plastic printing can produce a very basic but working gun, but certainly not a reliable one.
Other machines can use metal and high power lasers to fuse particles of metals together. You might of heard NASA have recently sent one into space so parts and tools can be produced on site instead of having to pack them prior to launch. This is metal sintering.
A metal sintering machine is extremely expensive and to my knowledge no one is making an affordable one for the civvie market as yet.
Hope this helps,
MG -{
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
There is! It used to be a dedicated Firearms Licencing Department, now in a cost cutting age they shut that down and contracted it out to prisoner loosing feckeits G4S!! Luckily though they kept the same staff on (dunno how this cut costs by introducing a middle man) so at least I know I'm dealing with the same bunch of intelligence.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
Nothing fills me with feelings of safety more than a bunch of Minimum waged, half
trained, unmotivated staff. With the Olympics they did us proud, I salute you one
and all.
Right...didn't realise they were still going...albeit in this different guise...I remember doing a few days work with the unit many years ago...
No worries charmed.
Ya see the press would have us all believe that since the kid in the states printed and fired his pistol, it's become as easy to do as dropping a grand in maplin and clicking print.
For starters, there were people in the states printing lower receivers (the casing bit that hold all the guts together) in ABS and fitting metal components and barrels to them long before Wilson printed his out. It was only a matter of time though before someone printed the majority of the gun though (there's still parts like the firing pin and springs that can't be done in the plastic).
Not only do you need a better machine than the makerbot this guy in Manchester has (the machine Wilson used was £53k brand new) but you also need the file to send to the machine or the software and knowledge to create your own (would you trust your hand getting blown off to someone else's CAD drawing skills?).
After that you then have to obtain the ammunition, which requires a licence.
Now if you can illegally obtain ammunition then I doubt you would be unable to get a gun to fire it from.
The other aspect if course is that a gun is a reflectively simple mechanism and they've been made from scratch to fit into or look like things like mobile phones, umbrellas, shoes and lipsticks for donkey's years, we're talking WW2 and SOE here.
It it's that straight forward to use standard DIY tools, are the criminals likely to start shelling out on expensive 3D printers and downloading traceable CAD files (not the monk).
What the press are doing is reporting badly on a subject which is irrelevant. It's shouldn't be a case of focussing on restricting legal gun ownership, the purchase of 3D printers or asking bias opinions of grieving families, we should instead be asking the authorities what measures they'll take to reduce this type of activity.
The fact of the matter is that should anyone want to make a gun, a bomb, a rocket launcher or other item of ordinance then there's very little the authorities can do. Maybe a ban on public buying fireworks is next?
Besides, the most commonly used murder weapon is still the humble carving knife, available to shoplift from just about any high street.
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org