The op-ed piece in the Inquirer starts this way:
While the research by criminologists and economists keeps showing that gun control doesn’t work, technological advances and practical problems mean the laws are increasingly likely only to disarm the law-abiding.
In the era of 3D printing, you won’t be able to ban guns and it will be even more difficult to stop unapproved people from obtaining them. A part metal/part plastic gun printed from a 3D printer will be completely indistinguishable from a traditionally made gun, even down to whatever serial number you want.
3D printers have consequences for the gun-control laws Obama and other Democrats are pushing. If AR-15s are banned, anyone could borrow a 3D printer and make one. If magazines holding more than 10 rounds are banned, and you don’t have access to a very simple set of tools, print one off.
Can the government stop 3D-printed guns? Unfortunately, no. . . . .
The most important parts of the piece deals with Interpol Secretary General Ron Noble’s comments on stopping mass public shootings and that gun control disarms the law-abiding, not the criminals.
A prosecutor wants a much more to build a case. However i like her straight
talking style and that i admire what she’s accomplished. Didn’t Andrea Mitchell have time to be
controlled by it?