7 ms·

Any competent machinist can make functional semiautomatic weapons. This is just the next step in making it even easier. If the United States ever got serious a

• HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago
  Exactly. See my post about making guns by hand. As a 12 year old boy I was making gunpowder from drugstore items and launching rockets made from rolled-up newspaper. This stuff ain't hard to do!!
  • grecy 14y ago
    Of course. Let's pretend Billy Bob is a heated rage because he just found out so-and-so slept with so-and-so (or whatever). What's more likely? a) He walks around to so-and-sos house with his legally purchased, unlicensed, unregistered semi automatic assault rifle and 1000+ rounds, and kills the whole family, and anyone else unlucky enough to be nearby. or b) He spends days (weeks?) making his own gun, gunpowder and projectile by hand, and is still motivated all those days later to walk around and kill everyone, with a small caliber, (probably) non-semi automatic, (probably) small/no magazine. Gun control won't stop people killing each other with guns. It will make it many times harder for the average Joe, therefore it will reduce the frequency, and the overall homicide rate.
    • timdiggerm 14y ago
      And that's the big question: What percentage of homicides are done spur of the moment by people who would not acquire weapons illegally under a ban?
    • OmegaHN 14y ago
      I think that the problem lies with Billy Bob, not the gun. It's not worth preventing the edge cases if that means reducing the average person's ability to defend themselves. Say that one person of the family had a pistol, and ran and got it while the Billy was busy shooting the others? The family member could then shoot Billy and possibly save a few family members. Guns are a means of personal power, and while loose gun laws mean that an unlawful person can get a gun, it also means that other people can defend themselves against said person, or other, non-gun-related crimes such as burglary.
      • figglesonrails 14y ago
        And for those who say "bah hard to get illegal guns", replace the word "guns" with "drugs" and tell me how hard those are to get.
    • pielud 14y ago
      Why wouldn't he just grab a knife from his kitchen? Or run them down with his car? Or a bat? Or set their house on fire? Not having a gun isn't going to stop a person who wants to hurt someone else from doing it. It's just a tool.
      • grecy 14y ago
        > Why wouldn't he just grab a knife from his kitchen? Or run them down with his car? Or a bat? Or set their house on fire? How many people would he kill compared to a high-caliber semi-automatic assault rifle with 1000+ rounds of ammo? > It's just a tool. A tool that enables the holder to seriously injure or kill many more people than other readily available tools.
        • cobrausn 14y ago
          Stop saying '1000+ rounds of ammo', as it makes you sound like the alarmist you are. Point of fact - a loaded magazine for an AR-15 weighs in at approximately one pound. To carry '1000+ rounds of ammo', you would need to carry something like 30 magazines. Try it sometime - that only happens in video games for a reason. A large truck driven through a crowded market could kill many more people than your average looney with a semi-automatic rifle. These highly publicized events make up only a tiny fraction of the number of homicides we experience per year, most of which only use a few bullets, and not from a 'high-caliber semi-automatic assault rifle'. Calm down.
        • Symmetry 14y ago
          In this particular example he had a finite list of people he wanted to kill in either case, so if moderately athletic guy who's for-armed himself with a baseball bat and knife I'd expect him to be able to murder a person or small number of people with or without a gun. As to someone who's really crazy and wants to kill as many people as possible, well, people who use bombs seem be much more deadly than people who use guns, so I'd be nervous about banning guns for fear of channeling them into less visceral but more deadly sorts of mayhem.
      • yason 14y ago
        He probably would but the probability of actually killing the victim would be much lower. You can kill a lot more people more easily and more accidentally with a gun and also with quite a high probability compared to a knife. Guns just require one click to inflict a fatal wound if you know the tinies imaginable bit of knowledge of where to aim. So you can just shoot another person off the bat but with a knife or another close-range weapon you have someone who realizes that a) you have a knife and b) you intend to fatally use it against him. That means combat. I don't know which person attacked is more determined or more difficult to stop, a parent with kids or a person who's just running for life but they're both damn fucking hard. You will have to catch your victim first and if you just did, s/he will try nothing but escape again. Now, with a knife (or a bat or...) you're likely to be able to wound that other person but actually killing him/her always requires an extra mile. All kinds of odds are stacked against not only the victim but the attacker as well, and as stabbing requires an intimate range and takes time, the outcome is far from certain unless you're really, really good. I'd much rather be attacked by an amateur knifer than an amateur gunner.
    • angersock 14y ago
      I resent your (probably intentional) choice of names. Were you trying to pick on rednecks/hicks? Anyways, most likely: he does nothing. Your option A is silly. First, 1000 rounds of .223 is fairly heavy (that's > 30 magazines of normal size). Second, "Unregistered"? "Unlicensed"? What good is paperwork going to do if he decides to shoot someone? We already have ( http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#background http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#background ) federal measures regulating gun sales, so we do try not to make things super-easy for felons and the like. Also, your option B is dumb. Days or weeks, instead of a fast job with some piping to make a really ghetto shotgun? What does small caliber even mean to you? You are correct that it would be non-semiauto, as the mechanics of an open-bolt automatic weapon are simpler than even a bolt-action weapon (compare, say, the M3 greasegun to a Mauser). I could go on. Lastly, you omit the option where he attacks them with a knife, or makes a simple blackpowder IED, or what not. You're just being alarmist and ignorant.
      • mgarfias 14y ago
        To clarify: The only firearms in the US (federal level) that are registered are NFA items (machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, etc). Firearms are not "licensed", people are. And in the US, in a vast majority of the states, there is no required licensing of people wanting to own a weapon. States like Illinois or New York are the exception.
      • grecy 14y ago
        > I resent your (probably intentional) choice of names. Were you trying to pick on rednecks/hicks? Apologies. I was trying to use a "generic" name. > Second, "Unregistered"? "Unlicensed"? What good is paperwork going to do if he decides to shoot someone? I expect he'll be less likely to kill people if he knows the weapon is tied to him. (and he might not have it in the first place, which is the case if I try to buy one in Australia right now) > What does small caliber even mean to you? I mean say a .22 instead of a center fire. Less killing power. bolt action also means less killing power (i.e. much slower) > Lastly, you omit the option where he attacks them with a knife, or makes a simple blackpowder IED, or what not. knife could harm or kill just a couple of people. IED is in the same range as a homemade gun in that it takes a long time and lots of effort to make. > You're just being alarmist and ignorant. Actually, I own a .30-06 and a 12 gauge and regularly go hunting.
    • figglesonrails 14y ago
      What part of "HOMICIDAL MANIAC" do you not understand? Do you think he'll only kill the family and anyone else who gets in his way ONLY if he has a gun? I don't think this is how homicidal maniacs work.
      • grecy 14y ago
        > What part of "HOMICIDAL MANIAC" do you not understand? I understand we should try to prevent them from getting their hands weapons that can harm or injure tens of people in a matter of seconds. 70 people hit by one person in a movie theater with a semi-auto. How many do you think it would have been with a knife? or even a bolt action?
    • runjake 14y ago
      That's a pretty bigoted comment. When's the last time you heard of a "redneck"/"hick" as you'd probably call them, commit mass murder with a firearm? If anything, I find them generally far more responsible with firearms because they grew up learning about them, not learning about them in violent action movies with ceramic Glocks.
    • derleth 14y ago
      > Billy Bob And this kind of simple classist bigotry ("The poor people are dangerous! They aren't like us!") is one reason the people who want to increase firearm regulation have done such a terrible job of it: You can't intelligently impose laws on a culture you have no understanding of, especially if you think it's not important to understand.
    • InclinedPlane 14y ago
      By this logic we should live in a police state. Anything to keep the crime rate down right?
    • bdunbar 14y ago
      Let's pretend Billy Bob is a heated rage Using a stereotyped redneck name is ugly. Next time use first letter of the alphabet, common name. Second person gets second letter, common name and so on. "Let's pretend Alice is a heated rage because she found out Bob slept with her wife Carol." Much better, nu?
• jack-r-abbit 14y ago
  and higher margins means more incentive for people to get into the business.
• reitzensteinm 14y ago
  > People who quite rightly see our drug laws as pointless and ineffective somehow often miss that a gun ban would be no more effective in the United States. As an outsider, this is one of the most irrational things about American politics to me. Talk about guns, then talk about drugs, and each of the two major parties literally adopts the arguments of the other. Then again, it's a perfectly rational system from the point of view of extracting maximum donations from supporters, so maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way. Moderation doesn't sell.
  • tjic 14y ago
    > Talk about guns, then talk about drugs, and each party literally adopts the arguments of the other. Except libertarians. We believe in decriminalization of both.
    • reitzensteinm 14y ago
      You're right. I only meant the big two; I went through about five variations of the phrasing and couldn't find one that wasn't awkward. Fixed for correctness.
    • cobrausn 14y ago
      Most Americans actually believe in the decriminalization of both - you don't need to be a libertarian. It is the parties they vote for that don't.
    • gordianknot 14y ago
      And authoritarians, believing in criminalization of both. Gun laws reflect a society's general property rights, and drug laws their intellectual freedom.
  • InclinedPlane 14y ago
    What's even more hilarious, about gun laws, is that the same folks who tell you that the entire system is corrupt (that you can't trust the military or the police because they're just a bunch of power hungry savages) are the ones who think that only the police and the military should be able to use guns. Not a very logically consistent worldview.
• grecy 14y ago
  > If the United States ever got serious about banning firearms, a massive homebrew industry would grow up overnight. Do you have any stats or experience to back that up? It might happen, but you are stating as fact something that's not been tested. Anecdotally, in Australia where gun laws are very strict, it's difficult to get firearms. Yes, serious hardened criminals still get their hands on them, which certainly is a problem. The average angry Joe can not simply legally purchase a semi automatic or handgun to walk around to his antagonists house and shoot them. With a murder rate twice any other developed country[1], the United States clearly has a serious violence problem, and taking guns out of the hands of the average Joe would surely help reduce it. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona... Using the argument of "Hardened criminals will still get them anyway" is like saying we shouldn't have a law against murder because some people will do it anyway, so it's a waste of time. The point is to deter or make it extremely difficult for as many people as possible.
  • mc32 14y ago
    I think you're right. Japan which has a very strict sword and firearms law, afaik, has not seen a "homebrew" industry spruot since they passed the laws back in the '70s. And, it's not as though there are no criminals. The Yak syndicates are not, on principle, against the use of guns --they do occasionally used smuggled guns to settle things. Now, Japan does allow some kinds of firearms, typically to farmers and such who need to deal with threats/vermin, but the permit process is lengthy and few people obtain them.
    • JabavuAdams 14y ago
      Japan has a completely different culture from the US (obviously). You can't ignore the effects of such different attitudes towards individualism, income disparity, acceptable levels of violence, and trust in government. Never mind that the US is a multicultural society, whereas Japan isn't really.
      • mc32 14y ago
• ericmoritz 14y ago
  Not only is prohibition pointless; the actual harm caused by guns is relatively low compared to other causes. More people are harmed by cars than handguns.
  • mc32 14y ago
    But people need to get to places. People don't need guns for daily survival. Japan annually sees double digit gun-deaths. In the US we see triple digit accidental gun deaths.
    • WiseWeasel 14y ago
      There is still a significant number of people in the US who hunt for subsistence, or to supplement their diet. If you live in rural Alaska, you might rely on your gun for daily survival in a very real and immediate sense. Some cynics might say the same for Compton or Detroit.
      • mc32 14y ago
        Japan's Swords and Firearms laws allow for that. It's a lengthy and involved process. It's not a short process, but if you could prove that it was really necessary -such as life sustaining necessary, you could obtain a shotgun, for example.
        • deleted 14y ago
          [deleted]
        • WiseWeasel 14y ago
          No one needs a Hummer, but someone's buying them.
      • grecy 14y ago
        Of course (I live right near Alaska and hunt). If you can prove you hunt (permission from a land owner, hunting permit, tags, etc.) you should be allowed to own a couple of weapon. No semi or fully automatics, no handguns, no "assult" shotguns or what-not. Those are not for hunting, and every hunter knows it.
• kunle 14y ago
  Banning guns will require a change in the constitution, and will likely never happen as a result. In addition, even if it did happen, it would likely be unpopular because of the demand side as you mention. That being said, the argument(s) for mandatory background checks, tracking whose buying what, and assault weapons restrictions are pretty compelling, and while they are supply side solutions, they can hardly be called ineffective and pointless. There are very few instances in which one individual (or a small group) assembling/developing an arsenal of military grade (and/or military quantity) can be considered defensible. Imagine this: the same way there is a massive public outcry for sexual predators to be outed in their neighborhoods - what if people with assault weapons were also outed in their neighborhoods? Would you be willing to share a wall with someone who had 6k rounds of ammunition?
  • bdunbar 14y ago
    what if people with assault weapons were also outed in their neighborhoods? That would be fun. A list for criminals of 'houses not to rip off'. Also: list of houses to rip off with impunity. Would you be willing to share a wall with someone who had 6k rounds of ammunition? 6,000 rounds is not lot - a few guys can burn that many off in a weekend. Sure, why not? What matters is intent. Also: a prudent gun owner is not going to use a rifle in an apartment building or duplex. That's what shotguns are for. (edited: content)
  • mgarfias 14y ago
    What is an "assault weapon"? Oh, did you mean an AR15? The most popular firearm sold in the US for the past few years. Which Heller specifically protects ("in common use"). Dude, go ahead and out everyone in my neighor hood with an AR15 or other detachable box magazine fed automatic rifle. You know what will happen? Not a damn thing - we all have these things here. I personally have had well over 6000 rds of ammo at some point. You know what? It didnt go bad, nor did it magically get shot at innocent people. I either buy in bulk, or reload in bulk because its cheaper. WAY cheaper. When you shoot 150+ rounds of ammo a week shooting competition, you can not do otherwise. As far as arsenels being defensible? WTF does that even mean. I can have an arsenal if I want to. I'm not hurting anyone with it, so what business of it is yours?
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• mistercow 14y ago
  >Gunpowder is not fundamentally harder to make than methamphetamine. I think it's actually considerably easier. If you have saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal, there isn't even any chemistry involved, and the only one of those ingredients that is remotely plausible (and I'm stretching the term "remotely plausible" here) to regulate the sale of is saltpeter. And even if they went that far, Wikipedia mentions an old process[1] for synthesizing saltpeter using only wood ash, urine, and straw. And your setup isn't even likely to explode or leak poisonous gas into your home in the process. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_nitrate#From_urine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_nitrate#From_urine