[AnthonyMouse]

> Range shooting is not what they're trying to legislate though.

It's the thing gun manufacturers are selling to their customer base though. The theory was they were lobbying for this to prevent competition, but it's not good enough to actually compete with them.

> Whoever killed that healthcare CEO didn't need a hundred rounds.

Luigi Mangione didn't have a criminal record. Given his apparent political alignment, he presumably used 3D printed parts for trolling purposes since there was no actual need for him to do so. He could have bought any firearm from any of the places they're ordinarily sold.

[alterom]

>It's the thing gun manufacturers are selling to their customer base though. The theory was they were lobbying for this to prevent competition

Does anyone actually believe this? Is there any funds for this theory?

Seems to be too far fetched to be even worth sitting.

>Luigi Mangione didn't have a criminal record

That really isn't the point (he still doesn't have a criminal record, by the way).

The point was that the stated danger of 3D printed guns is their use by criminals for criminal purposes, not economic competition to established gun manufacturers.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The point was that the stated danger of 3D printed guns is their use by criminals for criminal purposes, not economic competition to established gun manufacturers.

I guess the counterpoint is that it's not actually useful to criminals either, so there is no incentive for any non-fool to want laws like this and then all incentive arguments are weak because foolishness can be attributed to anyone.

[jim33442]

Luigi Mangione wasn't trying to get caught. Maybe he was worried buying and using a real gun would link him back to the murder.

[AnthonyMouse]

Let's review the three possibilities here.

One, you succeed in never being identified or apprehended. Consequently you, rather than the police, have the gun you used, and you can file off the serial number and throw it into the sea or whatever. They don't know who you are so they never come looking for the gun you no longer have and it's just one of millions that were sold to random people that year.

Two, you get caught before you do the murder. Some cop thinks you look too nervous or you get into a car accident on the way there etc. and they find the gun. Having one without a serial number at this point means you're in trouble when you otherwise wouldn't be. It's a disadvantage.

Three, they catch you in the act or figure out who you are because your face got caught on camera somewhere after you took off your mask etc. At this point it's extremely likely you're going to jail. This is even more likely if the weapon is still in your possession because then they can do forensics on it, and it not having a serial number at that point is once again even worse for you. This is apparently the one that actually happened.

Whereas the theory for it allowing you to get caught would have to be something like, they don't know who you are but they have a list of people who bought a gun (which, depending on the state, they might not even have) so they can look on it to find you. But that's like half the US population and doesn't really narrow it down at all.

There is no criminal benefit in doing it so that leaves the remaining options which are either trolling or stupidity.

[jim33442]

If he's a suspect but not confirmed, they'd know if he purchased a real gun, and a ballistics test would confirm it matches the bullet. Conveniently "losing" it would raise suspicion too. Or if that's not why, there has to be some reason people make ghost guns in general.

[some_random]

It comes back the same thing, there is zero evidence that gun manufacturers are lobbying for this while Everytown is very publicly and proudly announcing that they are pushing this exact legislation.