3 ms·

Smokeless for semi automatic is strangely specific. This is not what people will make if you somehow restrict ammo casings (which you can make, and the head is

Smokeless for semi automatic is strangely specific. This is not what people will make if you somehow restrict ammo casings (which you can make, and the head is simpler), so I am not sure why those requirements equate to being effective. When talking about technical barriers, it is considered obvious as to how they can and will be circumvented. Ammo is the same, but somehow you have made the leap that dropping standards will be a deterrent. This is ridiculous.

int_19h 4y ago
Smokeless for semi-automatic reflects the historical experience of trying to use black powder in repeating guns (even such as mag-fed bolt-actions of late 19th century). As for technical barriers, it is obvious that they will be circumvented, yes - but experience also shows that most people don't bother, which is exactly why such barriers are still promoted by the industries that benefit from them. It's the same story for ammo and guns. Note that I haven't said anything about the desirability of such barriers in either case. FWIW I actually own tools to manufacture "ghost guns". Nevertheless, it seems obvious to me that any such restrictions on ammo and ammo components would be effective in exactly the same sense that DRM is effective - by reducing the number of people involved in the activity by several orders of magnitude.
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > The guns are really easily tackled though. > As for technical barriers, it is obvious that they will be circumvented, yes > any such restrictions on ammo and ammo components would be effective in exactly the same sense that DRM is effective My original objection was that guns are "easily tackled" as an incorrect assertion. You responded with a derail into moving the goalpost to "it's partially effective". Your responses are not compelling reasons to modify my stance.

3 ms·

Smokeless for semi automatic is strangely specific. This is not what people will make if you somehow restrict ammo casings (which you can make, and the head is

by Supermancho 4y ago

int_19h 4y ago
Smokeless for semi-automatic reflects the historical experience of trying to use black powder in repeating guns (even such as mag-fed bolt-actions of late 19th century). As for technical barriers, it is obvious that they will be circumvented, yes - but experience also shows that most people don't bother, which is exactly why such barriers are still promoted by the industries that benefit from them. It's the same story for ammo and guns. Note that I haven't said anything about the desirability of such barriers in either case. FWIW I actually own tools to manufacture "ghost guns". Nevertheless, it seems obvious to me that any such restrictions on ammo and ammo components would be effective in exactly the same sense that DRM is effective - by reducing the number of people involved in the activity by several orders of magnitude.
- Supermancho 4y ago
  > The guns are really easily tackled though. > As for technical barriers, it is obvious that they will be circumvented, yes > any such restrictions on ammo and ammo components would be effective in exactly the same sense that DRM is effective My original objection was that guns are "easily tackled" as an incorrect assertion. You responded with a derail into moving the goalpost to "it's partially effective". Your responses are not compelling reasons to modify my stance.