4 ms·

In U.S. you can buy belt fed machine gun. But you need a special licence. If you remove the full auto functionality of such gun, you can buy belt fed anything

by vlehto 9y ago

In U.S. you can buy belt fed machine gun. But you need a special licence. If you remove the full auto functionality of such gun, you can buy belt fed anything as much as you want without any licence. Single shot handgun is incredibly bad for hunting. Single shot rifle is useful and some people still use them for added challenge. But having a bolt action rifle with maybe three rounds in the magazine is much better for beginners, because if you miss and wound the animal, you can end the suffering with follow up shot. Clip is just a bent piece of metal. It's mostly out of favor by now. They we're used because that's insanely cheap and easy to manufacture. And currently could be manufactured in a garage with very cheap tooling. https://milsurpexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/copy_313_sksclips.jpg https://milsurpexchange.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/copy_... Magazines are the modern option. It's practically a plastic box with spring inside. It has almost no strength requirements and magazines are some of the most easily 3D printed items around. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/09/21/welcome-to-the-future-print-yourself-an-ar-15-magazine-at-home/ http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/09/21/welcome-to-the... Most firearms with no detachable magazine can be converted to accept a magazine relatively easily. How are you going to stop criminals from making the conversion and 3D printing the magazine?

Retric 9y ago
Altering a single shot gun to use any form of Magazine or Clip is vastly more challenging than manufacturing a Magazine or Clip. As to 3 shots, a revolver that can't be rapidly reloaded is the kind of compromise that's worth talking about. Cutting the number of bullets you can fire in 10 seconds by say 1/3 is in and of it's self a useful compromise. PS: Personally I don't think the full vs semi auto is generally a useful distinction because you quickly run out of ammunition in either case. However, limiting someone to say 6 shots per 30 seconds really world be a significant change.
- vlehto 9y ago
  >Altering a single shot gun to use any form of Magazine or Clip is vastly more challenging than manufacturing a Magazine or Clip. Requirements: usage of hand drill and screwing on 3D printed adapter. Only parts of a firearm that cannot be easily manufactured or endlessly modified in some random garage are the barrel and the chamber. >As to 3 shots, a revolver that can't be rapidly reloaded is the kind of compromise that's worth talking about. There are currently no revolver rifles manufactured. So it would be very bad deal for hunters. Then there are revolver speed loaders and half moon clips. Those things are bloody miraculous. The difference between those and magazines is so small that some cops still use revolvers. Have you looked at the statistics of how many people die in mass shootings and how many people die in single shootings? Also do you know how many shots is fired in average gunfight in US? >Personally I don't think the full vs semi auto is generally a useful distinction because you quickly run out of ammunition in either case We agree on this. I have shot full auto AK-47 and I could probably take out 6 people with single magazine while firing full auto because you easily waste about 5 rounds with every burst. Switch to semi auto and I could probably take out 25 people with that same magazine. Switching between targets usually takes equal amount of time regardless are you firing semi or full auto.
  - Retric 9y ago
    > cannot be easily manufactured or endlessly modified in some random garage are the barrel and the chamber To modify a front loading single shut gun you do have to modify the chamber. Average shots in a gun fight is a very misleading statistic. Average shots in a gun fight resulting in death are vastly higher. Edit: A lot more people die in US mass shootings than you might think. Once you start talking about saving 1,000+ lives per decade it's far from meaningless. PS: "a revolver that can't be rapidly reloaded" clearly excludes speed loaders. Revolver chambers that open up are necessary before you can use a speed loader. I can only assume you are ignoring what I am actually saying.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      So you mean a revolver or a shotgun that can be loaded only one bullet at a time? And has a limited carrying capacity? Relatively trivial to modify. Germans did exactly that to Mauser bolt action rifles during WW2 with very little hardware.
    - vlehto 9y ago
      >To modify a front loading single shut gun you do have to modify the chamber. Muzzle loaders area actually dangerous to the shooter. And outdated inefficient for most modern shooting sports and hunting. You could just as well tell people to use bow and arrow. Actually modern bows and arrows would in that situation be technically superior. Bit like you would decide that 60 ton trucks are dangerous. Now everybody has to only drive cars manufactured prior to 1920. My point about the statistics is that if you make magazine change impossible for the hobbyist, you should know how much impact that even can have on crime. Anyhow, I present you a video of a guy who is first using a firearm that is not automatic or even semiautomatic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYQBgi0TRGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYQBgi0TRGU Then speed loading that weapon with a plastic tube and wooden rod: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9emvE1LIEWA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9emvE1LIEWA I'm actually for gun control and few other things that would bring gun violence down without controlling guns. I just think your approach to the matter is absurd and would be inefficient. If terrorists would simply switch to bombs, any advantage from strict gun law would just melt away overnight.

by vlehto 9y ago

Retric 9y ago

Altering a single shot gun to use any form of Magazine or Clip is vastly more challenging than manufacturing a Magazine or Clip. As to 3 shots, a revolver that can't be rapidly reloaded is the kind of compromise that's worth talking about. Cutting the number of bullets you can fire in 10 seconds by say 1/3 is in and of it's self a useful compromise. PS: Personally I don't think the full vs semi auto is generally a useful distinction because you quickly run out of ammunition in either case. However, limiting someone to say 6 shots per 30 seconds really world be a significant change.

vlehto 9y ago
>Altering a single shot gun to use any form of Magazine or Clip is vastly more challenging than manufacturing a Magazine or Clip. Requirements: usage of hand drill and screwing on 3D printed adapter. Only parts of a firearm that cannot be easily manufactured or endlessly modified in some random garage are the barrel and the chamber. >As to 3 shots, a revolver that can't be rapidly reloaded is the kind of compromise that's worth talking about. There are currently no revolver rifles manufactured. So it would be very bad deal for hunters. Then there are revolver speed loaders and half moon clips. Those things are bloody miraculous. The difference between those and magazines is so small that some cops still use revolvers. Have you looked at the statistics of how many people die in mass shootings and how many people die in single shootings? Also do you know how many shots is fired in average gunfight in US? >Personally I don't think the full vs semi auto is generally a useful distinction because you quickly run out of ammunition in either case We agree on this. I have shot full auto AK-47 and I could probably take out 6 people with single magazine while firing full auto because you easily waste about 5 rounds with every burst. Switch to semi auto and I could probably take out 25 people with that same magazine. Switching between targets usually takes equal amount of time regardless are you firing semi or full auto.
- Retric 9y ago
  > cannot be easily manufactured or endlessly modified in some random garage are the barrel and the chamber To modify a front loading single shut gun you do have to modify the chamber. Average shots in a gun fight is a very misleading statistic. Average shots in a gun fight resulting in death are vastly higher. Edit: A lot more people die in US mass shootings than you might think. Once you start talking about saving 1,000+ lives per decade it's far from meaningless. PS: "a revolver that can't be rapidly reloaded" clearly excludes speed loaders. Revolver chambers that open up are necessary before you can use a speed loader. I can only assume you are ignoring what I am actually saying.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    So you mean a revolver or a shotgun that can be loaded only one bullet at a time? And has a limited carrying capacity? Relatively trivial to modify. Germans did exactly that to Mauser bolt action rifles during WW2 with very little hardware.
  - vlehto 9y ago
    >To modify a front loading single shut gun you do have to modify the chamber. Muzzle loaders area actually dangerous to the shooter. And outdated inefficient for most modern shooting sports and hunting. You could just as well tell people to use bow and arrow. Actually modern bows and arrows would in that situation be technically superior. Bit like you would decide that 60 ton trucks are dangerous. Now everybody has to only drive cars manufactured prior to 1920. My point about the statistics is that if you make magazine change impossible for the hobbyist, you should know how much impact that even can have on crime. Anyhow, I present you a video of a guy who is first using a firearm that is not automatic or even semiautomatic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYQBgi0TRGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYQBgi0TRGU Then speed loading that weapon with a plastic tube and wooden rod: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9emvE1LIEWA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9emvE1LIEWA I'm actually for gun control and few other things that would bring gun violence down without controlling guns. I just think your approach to the matter is absurd and would be inefficient. If terrorists would simply switch to bombs, any advantage from strict gun law would just melt away overnight.