Yeah I listened to Joe at my shit job last year and he just gradually became a broken record in complete contrast to ethics he used to tout as important.

I think he's honestly just losing touch. Which is okay, it's hard to manage yourself like he had been for so many years, but it just means that his podcast is no longer what it was.

I'm sure moving to a Red state and continually having a large number of right leaning people on did not help. Only a few guests like Bill Burr have pushed back on his covid takes and they don't seem to stick. I was surprised that Kyle Kulisnki and the Breaking Points crew didn't push him on any of the right leaning points almost at all, just thankful to be there I guess. Disappointing.

Someone else said in a different angle the brakes were smoking so it may have suffered brake fade and the cop was not trained to be aware of that. The news clip linked in the comments here doesn't include that footage and it's too far away from the OP's video.

Either way very poor PR for that department. Brown SUV gets Tboned and then they ram an upside down suv with 5 kids in it.

Iirc I think part of it was wanting to get on the apple app store, as they have guidelines on CP and the like and tumblr went the cheaper way without realizing how many people went there for the nsfw elements.

https://www.altpress.com/news/tumblr-removed-apple-store-child-pornography/

At a microscopic level the ball and the surface deform when they contact each other. The corn starch or whatever they used acts as a boundary layer so that the ball and balloon do not stick to each other when they deform, theoretically sure it could dampen the ball bouncing but that is easy to test experimentally.

Regarding the forces, similar to a spring the surface of the balloon stretches and then pushes back but the energy transfer from the ball to deforming the surface and back is not 100% efficient. The result is a small amount of heat.

So over time even in a vacuum with no air resistance the ball would eventually stop bouncing.

Is the Missouri that bad in the current meta?

I'm a mechanical engineer and went through all the thermodynamics classes in school (though I don't use it at my job).

Even though I understand how heat pumps work, intuitively it is still mind blowing that you move heat from cooler air to warmer air.

You can also use heat pumps when it's cold outside to warm your house. The limitation is literally that water condenses/freezes on the outside evaporator coils and mitigating that eats into your efficiency pretty quickly.

Uh so what every person there needs to spend the rest of their life in prison?

Here is a list of people being charged. Most of them are serious. I imagine not everyone is getting charged beyond trespassing.

https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1

That's the same shit people said about Jan 6th and now all of those fools have been nailed to the wall. This guy will get his just desserts too.

They did that to us starting in march. Some days they enforce it some days they don't. It's a stupid rule that at least out here they are blaming on OSHA. But naturally they aren't going to do anything to help drivers, just do the bare minimum so we can all waste an extra 10 minutes sorting through overflow every day,

I'm hoping they come out with a Shera with her usual outfit. I like this one and the wedding dress version of her/rem but they're not as recognizable as I would like.

Still looks brilliant though.

Oh cute the person I was responding to was just using a number they didnt have a source for because they just read it on here.

Perfectly reasonable number, might want to make sure people understand how you got it before they go touting it elsewhere as evidence and cant source it

Traditionally you would also round up 0.0057 to 0.006 not 0.005. But I can understand your bias, even if it's a very small number.

And for the record 1/3 of the firearms confiscated in California last year were "ghost guns." It would follow that states like CA with draconian gun laws will start to see more problems with 80P than others and will probably start trying to "fix" the issue. Along with the numbers from LA and SF I've quoted in this thread it's obvious the issue is only going to get worse, even if it is fairly small in comparison to other sources of firearms used in crime.

Thanks for sourcing your numbers. I appreciate it.

This is supposed to be clear?

Good to see you caught that before my edit, as obviously one of those points is redundant (and misnumbered). I guess you're chomping at the bit to do... whatever it is you're doing.

Again, the only thing that can be pulled from this is:

"Homemade firearms shouldn't be banned but they should be harder to build."

If you can't see that your logic is "criminals can have homebuilt firearms as long as they're harder to build for everyone", then you can't be helped.

Firearms should be harder to build. That includes for everyone. That is my entire argument. Did you just realize that? Good god dude.

Not sure how my "I haven't thought enough about whether or not violent felons released from prison should get their natural rights back" is somehow a wrong position to have.

Your reading comprehension is quite poor.

That you're able to recoginize in one post that you're being dunked on all over this thread but still somehow think everyone else is wrong is...staggering.

Remind me the next time you go into a groupthink subreddit with a controversial opinion. You can't even change my mind, someone who owns a bunch of fucking guns, whose username is based on a gun, that 80P build laws are fine as is.

Actually on second though, you should probably stay away from anyone who thinks differently. It might be hard for you. You clearly spend all of your time talking with people who think the same way on all the gun subreddits here.

"Am I wrong? No, it's the children"

This might the be funniest thing you've ever said.

I'm good here. Enjoy your night.

You too bud. It's been fun.

For future refrence, when someone says "clarify your argument" it doesn't mean you're being argumentative. It means clarify your position - what you are advocating. Your argument.

As I stated in my last comment, everything I've said has been crystal clear. Thanks for playing.

I haven't resorted to insults or jabs like you have. Odd, that.

After it became clear in your last comment that you were not arguing in good faith, my effort level went through the floor. Strange that by comparison your arguments are still not very compelling.

You've waffled back and forth between "we shouldn't ban 80%" and "they are too easy to build", without any real substance. I should have known then you were just flinging stuff on the walls.

Not at all. My initial comment verbatim said:

1) "I'm not sure I can argue in good faith that people looking to ban 80% builds are wrong."

2) "I cant support banning homemade firearms or require registration of those already made, but..."

3) "...in my opinion a lot of 80% builds are really really easy."

• Felons aren't getting guns for the first time now because of 80%. If these frames disappeared tomorrow - weren't just banned but were instead snapped out of the universe - felons would still get firearms. This makes the logic of "ATF bans 80% = less criminals with guns" a nonsense argument.

Removing one of the easier avenues for criminals to attain firearms will make it harder for criminals to attain firearms. Simple.

There's a conversation to be had that if a violent felon is released from prison and "done their time" they should have all their rights restored.

I like how you pretend that you have not resorted to jabs or insults but are happy to bend over backwards to pretend that you're not wrong. Even in this, the most crystal clear of instances. 😂

You realize people are attracted to those they see as honest and trustworthy right? Why should anyone waste their time discussing matters with you when you cannot do the bare minimum?

Again, no idea what your position is.

You stated my position if the first paragraph of your previous comment. Why are we going in circles with this?

Or just more hyperbole to shine a light on the foolishness of the ATFs logic on this action. Only one of us has restored to insults.

So, you've made another irrelevant point. Got it.

Is saying you are argumentative an insult? Because these last two statements paint a pretty clear picture.

Fair enough but you'll be waiting a long time.

And unfortunately you'll want to add building your own firearm to that list at this rate.

You might want to clarify your argument.

My initial comment was not argumentative in nature. Ya'll like arguing, not so hot on the critical thinking I see. I get sucked into these things because I can be a dumbass (but at least I'm self aware, unlike most).

Mine is simple - ATF actions banning 80% firearms will not keep firearms from criminals. The only thing it will do is make it harder for law abiding Americans to exercise their rights.

I was never arguing to the contrary there buddy. Ya'll like to argue.

Also, provide citations for your 0.005% number, and prove that they are recent. The rise in ghost gun confiscations are very recent and I highly doubt you (or anyone) has the appropriate data to give a nationwide statistic like that number you've thrown out.

As I said, I've read everything you've written on this thread. Including when you said this about an hour ago:

I researched it. The number does not come up anywhere.

You can research the previous trend I allude to. It is exists. The number you've quotes appears to be pulled out of thin air, and since you won't cite your sources I'm assuming it's bunk.

And good job, you should probably try to understand the words you read before responding. If there is any fact that comes up in an online discussion that I was not already aware of, I take a look to see if there is any spin present. Unlike a conversation with a friend, you can't just ask as an aside for clarification. You refusing to cite a specific statistic you used in an argument that is not common knowledge is a pretty damn clear sign of a bad faith argument.

Felons cannot legally possess firearms. Criminals cannot legally buy or build firearms. Somehow they continue to do both!

Perhaps because off the shelf 80% kits are now highly commercialized and very, very easy to do! Learning is fun huh?

What is your 80% proposal that will change this reality?

I don't have a specific proposal. But ya'll have a really hard time honestly discussing a problem.

Zero new laws will stop criminals from doing either. The only thing this action from the ATF will do is make it more difficult for those abiding by the law to build their own firearms (a legal, protected action).

Might as well make murder legal since we can stop all of them aye bud?

No one is arguing that violent felons should have the same right to firearms - built or otherwise - that law abiding citizens do.

Someone else in this same mess of a conversation did. I guess you didn't really read all of the other comments here.

We're arguing that the ATF doesn't have the authority to ban home building of firearms for responsible Americans based on the actions of the criminal minority.

I'm not arguing that they are. You know this from your first paragraph here. So why is this statement in your argument?

Should we register penises in some sort of national database because of the actions of rapists?

More emotional arguments aimed at nobody. Interesting.

Or should we bury rapists under the jail and leave law abiding people alone?

Lol

As much as I'm apparently eating shit in this sub, I cannot confirm nor deny anything lol.

When someone commits a violent act, with or without a gun, there are cages we can put them in. That's the punishment, no need to restrict their rights post-release, except in very exceptional circumstances.

Just to be clear, you fundamentally oppose restricting firearm ownership for anyone?

Because there is no way for anyone to argue with you about 80P builds if that is your reasoning. Your mind is already made. Which is fine, but that is why I asked that qualifying question of

"If you believe that all people should have access to guns, that is a different discussion"

There is no rule, regulation, or law that will keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. This part of your argument dies on the table.

I did not suggest that it is possible to keep firearms out of all every criminals hands. It was a question of whether you think certain people should or should not be able to legally own firearms.

Pretending that there is nothing to be done is a poor argument on the best of days. It's too late, the other side is here with a real growing problem and just telling them to suck it up with no alternative is a quick way to see your right to 80P builds quickly lose public and political support.

Also, provide citations for your 0.005% number, and they should be recent. The rise in ghost gun confiscations are very recent and I highly doubt you (or anyone) has the appropriate data to give a nationwide statistic like that number you've thrown out.

"Well several large cities picked up 700 in the last couple of years"

Ok. Compared to how many other firearms used in crimes?

According to this article, one in three guns seized in California is homemade and has no serial number

And that 700 number was the number of guns from a single 80P supplier, not all of the 80P guns they seized in total.

That's extreme and hyperbolic, but the false choice of "punish law abiding gun owners for criminal behavior" is worn the fuck out already.

People drove drunk, we created drunk driving laws. When enough people abuse their rights we lose them. The constitution itself is a living document that can be changed if enough people agree to it. Rights can become nonrights. We need to thoughtfully consider problems and respond instead of doubling down on tired rhetoric.

I was trying to have one with you.

sigh

164 guns in SF last year

The Los Angeles Police Department seized about 700 ghost guns last year made from Polymer80 parts, and 17 murders or attempted murders have been tied to ghost guns from any company.

What specifically does that means in terms of crime?

We don't know for sure, the problem is newer than any study can tell us. We know some rough numbers from LA and SF here, you can likely find numbers from other cities if you want.

If by out of touch you mean not letting rights be stolen on the false promise of safety and security then yeah I have no problem with being “out of touch”. Lots of people are willing to trade rights away to try and keep other ones but I’m not so it’s going to take a lot more than buzzwords, guilt tripping, and appeal to emotion fallacies to convince me otherwise. They just need to find a way to solve the problems without infringing on rights and if that turns out to be physically impossible then so be it.

As I said to somebody else, most people agree we need some level of gun control. If you believe that all people should have access to guns, that is a different discussion, but if you don't, then we have to decide what level of access should be available that keeps criminals from owning guns (within reason) while making it as easy as possible for everyone else to acquire them.

In my opinion there comes a point where it might be too easy to fabricate a reliable firearm at home. Deciding how easy it should be is the central point of the conversation, not whether or not we should be able to make a firearm at home. I'm a bit disappointed with most of the responses here actually as I think this is a very interesting topic, but that's what I get for posting in the gunpolitics subreddit I guess.

It's a discussion not a debate bud. It's not my responsibility to inform you, I assume you don't ask your friends for citations during casual conversation. I find conversations like this become useless the second people become combative and thus citing things becomes a waste of time. Hence why I dipped.

This isnt about restricting home made firearms though.

It is about what is and isnt considered a firearm. A block of aluminum is not a firearm. So when does it become one? The ATF decided that when roughly 80% of the work is done it it is not a firearm. But in reality that means you can buy an 80P lower that needs (relatively) very simple and easy operations done to fabricate a firearm.

The fact they are used in crime isn’t even relevant to me

As principaled as that sounds I dont think that's a particularly helpful strategy when it comes to discussions like this. You just sound like you are intentionally out of touch.

They're becoming more common in crime at least because criminals don't have to risk straw buying 80P firearms and they've become easier to manufacture over the years. It's pretty simple.

Hey man, if you would rather remain ignorant that's fine. It's obvious to me and others that this conversation is coming to a political head and just ignoring that cities are recovering hundreds of them a year (some are now suing 80P manufacturers too) is no good. There is an obvious correlation between guns confiscated in crimes and the guns used in crimes.

It's clear you aren't actually interested in discussing the problem so I'll be checking out here.

Depends heavily on the platform I would guess. I have a freind who is messing around with 80P flats and that is not what I would call easy either lol.

But Ar pattern 80%s are a walk in the park. I dunno it just seems like these things (80P handguns anyway) are starting to turn up in larger numbers. I think a compromise needs to be found before they're just banned.