11 ms·
Doesn't seem like a lot of money. Shame somebody didn't buy it and shutter it. Less guns in the world is better for everyone.
by ed_blackburn 6y ago
Doesn't seem like a lot of money. Shame somebody didn't buy it and shutter it. Less guns in the world is better for everyone.
- suifbwish 6y agoYou have no idea how capitalist markets work apparently. If the DEA decided to buy up all the street drugs and burn them it would create a million new drug dealers overnight as the prices would spike. Less guns is not the solution. The solution is to round up all the humans and cut their thumbs off so they can’t use tools to kill each other.
- frongpik 6y agoThat's a solid solution, actually, and it would prevent fist fights as well.
- yellowapple 6y agoIf anything it'd make fistfights easier, since there's no thumb in the way. Not to mention kicks, slaps, and karate chops.
- KaiserPro 6y agoconversly, if you flooded the market with cheap "safe" drugs, the market would drop out entirely. as for guns, the solution is societal change. However removing handguns, and limiting the legal reasons to be wondering around the streets with a gun would also help.
- njharman 6y agoThe true mission of Elons brain interface. Save us from our thumbless future.
- nickthemagicman 6y agoWe've all grown so comfortable in modern America that we forget that default state of human nature is subjugation and repression and has been for thousands of years. Modern America is a historical anomaly. The powerful aren't peaceful by choice. It's the SECOND amendment in the constitution for a reason.
- yoz-y 6y agoThere are a lot of countries where the populace isn't generally armed and they are doing just fine. It's not like America is the only free country out there.
- nickthemagicman 6y agoYeah a good part of the reason those countries aren't Chinese, German, or Russian provinces right now is America.
- sofixa 6y agoCitation needed. If anything, a lot of nations were subjugated with the help of or by the US.
- CapricornNoble 6y ago>>>Citation needed. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
- nickthemagicman 6y agoThank you was going to post this. And sure..America's not perfect... but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative!
- yoz-y 6y agoIf I recall correctly it was not the armed civilians that disembarked in Normandy.
- Bakary 6y agoThe number of prisoners per capita in the US is indeed an impressive anomaly
- DamnYuppie 6y agoThe dream and goal of every tyrant and despot ever is to reduce the martial capacity of their "subjects".
- injidup 6y agoThe dream of every gun nut is to imagine they live in a world where they gotta pack that go bag and ammo and head down to the Capitol to stop the steal.
- nickthemagicman 6y agoIt's the second amendment for a reason. Modern America is a historical anomaly. And as inequality grows here in America and we slowly but surely descend back to what has been the default state of humanity for thousands of years...with a few rich and powerful with their neck on the rest of society who is poor...we'll be glad the average citizen has guns to fight back at some point. There's a saying: History repeats itself.
- nicoburns 6y agoModern America is an anomaly in a different sense: AFAIK it's the only country with a constitution that guarantees the right to bear arms.
- rancor 6y agoPer Wikipedia Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala also have constitutional protections of varying strength.
- Acrobatic_Road 6y agoThey do, but in practice they don't. Many European countries which don't have a right to bear arms still manage to have better gun laws than those three Latin American countries (and I should add, a number of American states).
- frongpik 6y agoWell, you probably want to keep some guns around for private guards for the rich - respectable citizens deserve safety.
- La1n 6y agoI guess giving money to the people selling a gun company, then firing most their workers just sets up a situation where they can rehire them all, and use the money you just spend on making more guns.
- vageli 6y ago“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.” With 3d printed guns already a reality (I have seen designs for completely printed models, including the bolt carrier), the cat is out of the bag.
- alex_young 6y agoDon’t 3D printed guns have a not insignificant chance of blowing the user up? Seems like a big commitment to using one.
- yc-kraln 6y agoNo, actually, they don't. Typically the barrels are machined using electricity and the pressure-sensitive parts are hardened steel. Many firearms are made out of plastic anyway (Glocks, to name one you might be familiar with). It's not hard to build a reliable firearm with fairly little skill. In the United States, it's not even illegal to do so.
- moate 6y agoI think we have a lot of people having very different discussions about what "3D printed gun" means. This can be anything from a fully plastic weapon like the Liberator to what you're describing (more 3D components and home assembled traditional components coming together which really just feels like the "80% receiver" style ghost guns) to a fully metal 3D printed 1911 off a machine that itself costs at least half a million dollars to acquire. Point being: Yes they do, but also no they don't, because you're having different conversations about different types of weapons. Are fully plastic weapons commonly used for anything? Doesn't seem to be, and I would suspect the reason is because they'd be inclined to blow up/warp after a single fire.
- m0ngr31 6y agoTypically you print the lower receiver - not the part where the explosion happens.
- 6y ago
- Bancakes 6y agoOkay but let's see the EU, China, and Russia disarm themselves first.
- orange_tee 6y ago> Less guns in the world is better for everyone. If the defenseless had guns they would be able to protect themselves. I am not sure if that would result in more peace or more war, but it would definitely be a more just world.
- jaywalk 6y agoIt's funny that you think it would somehow come out to less guns in the world, when in reality it would just mean that the rest of the companies which still exist would take up the slack.
- rayiner 6y agoNo it's not. The British disarmed colonial India to make it easier to control. This resulted in tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths in Bangladesh, when the Pakistani army was able to commit genocide against a disarmed populace: https://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/bangladesh-liberation-war-1971-muktijuddho-guerrilla-fighter-arms-freedom-1511812 https://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/bangladesh-liberation-... > Most of the weapons used by the Mukti Bahini were taken from defeated soldiers. Then, there were homemade bombs, knives and even instances of the use of bows and arrows. > Walking along the gallery of the Liberation War Museum in Dhaka where a number of weapons, including rifles and machineguns used in the Liberation War of 1971, had been put on display, Shahzaman Mozumder Bir Protik, a guerrilla freedom fighter, reminisced saying “They had to earn their weapons.”
- ashtonkem 6y agoIt seems incredibly optimistic to assume that one gun company shutting down would meaningfully change the number of guns available. The demand is still sky high; at best this would delay consumption until other manufacturers add more capacity. More realistically it would change what type of guns people own. Fewer Colts, more Glocks, I presume. From a public policy perspective that’s no change at all.
- Guthur 6y agoAdvocate for the governments to give up their arms first and i'm sure can all be there with you :)