3 ms·

I suspect the much bigger issue in the UK at least is the availability of ammunition. It's been really quite easy to manufacture weapons (which, at their simple

by shabble 14y ago

I suspect the much bigger issue in the UK at least is the availability of ammunition. It's been really quite easy to manufacture weapons (which, at their simplest, are just a tube strong enough to stop the cartridge walls bursting) It seems a relatively common technique is to rebore the barrel of a starter (blank-firing) pistol or modify an air-rifle, there was a guy caught not that long ago with his own machine shop making full-auto capable weapons, iirc. But bullets; I'm sure they're easier to smuggle, and there are legitimate ways to get then (rifles only, pistols being banned entirely) Making your own is also difficult, although buying a sack or 2 of spent cases and a tumbler is possible, there aren't really any decent sources of propellant, nor primer/caps. It's hard to say objectively which is the harder component to manufacture/acquire, but I'm going to go with ammo right now. Not sure where the enforcement effort will be best spent in future though. It may be that the focus is moved towards detection, perhaps with something like the directional microphone arrays that can do gunshot detection/localisation. We could even mount them on all the millions of CCTV cams we have scattered around the place, what could possibly go wrong?

ChuckMcM 14y ago
This. Silly journalists don't realize that its always been possible to build guns at home. One of the advertised benefits of owning a Smithy brand combination lathe and mill is that you can do gunsmithing. Bullets though, and by that we mean ammunition you would want to carry around, is quite a bit tougher. My Dad and brother-in-law are both fans of black powder guns, and have made their own powder for them. But while a musket is still a solid defense against someone who isn't armed, its not much of a threat to someone wearing ballistic armor and carrying a M4. Gun control has never been about guns anyway, it has always been about a society that thinks killing people is an acceptable way to settle disputes.
- sukuriant 14y ago
  'Gun control has never been about guns anyway, it has always been about a society that thinks killing people is an acceptable way to settle disputes.' Eh? I thought it was always about people misusing and people being afraid of big, scary, long range killing machines.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    Just think about it. Lets say that everyone in your society was convinced the best way to settle a disagreement with you was to have a walk off [1], do you think you would worry that someone owned or was carrying a gun? Looking at the NRA surveys of gun owners, #1 reason for owning hand guns is 'self defense'. If you're not going to be attacked that reason goes away. [1] Yes that is a Zoolander reference.
    - sukuriant 14y ago
      While I am not a member of the NRA; I had always perceived the 'self defense' side of gun ownership as twofold: 1) in the event that someone else has a gun and is assaulting you with one; either that, or your in a situation where the assailant is substantially stronger than you and isn't stopping (or is attacking someone you love). For example, a mountain lion or bear. and more importantly, 2) a detourant. * "I'm not going to steal from that guy, because he's packing and I like living." * "It would be unwise for me to attack that car dealership, because one of the patrons might shoot me." * "Opening fire in this mall would be a generally bad idea, considering one in four people in it have a glock on their hip."
      - ChuckMcM 14y ago
        In #1 its really about people not wildlife. Either folks don't think they will be attacked by wildlife or they feel like wildlife won't attack them without 'cause' and since they don't feel compelled to give cause they don't worry about it. And of course if your society didn't think attacking people was a reasonable course of action then #1 goes away. And as a deterrent the your three examples all presume a human out to do harm. Back to my ideological, if unrealistic, observational comment. Does that help get my point?
        Zak 14y ago
        I grew up in rural Alaska. I routinely carried firearms for protection from wildlife from a fairly young age.

by shabble 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

This. Silly journalists don't realize that its always been possible to build guns at home. One of the advertised benefits of owning a Smithy brand combination lathe and mill is that you can do gunsmithing. Bullets though, and by that we mean ammunition you would want to carry around, is quite a bit tougher. My Dad and brother-in-law are both fans of black powder guns, and have made their own powder for them. But while a musket is still a solid defense against someone who isn't armed, its not much of a threat to someone wearing ballistic armor and carrying a M4. Gun control has never been about guns anyway, it has always been about a society that thinks killing people is an acceptable way to settle disputes.

sukuriant 14y ago
'Gun control has never been about guns anyway, it has always been about a society that thinks killing people is an acceptable way to settle disputes.' Eh? I thought it was always about people misusing and people being afraid of big, scary, long range killing machines.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Just think about it. Lets say that everyone in your society was convinced the best way to settle a disagreement with you was to have a walk off [1], do you think you would worry that someone owned or was carrying a gun? Looking at the NRA surveys of gun owners, #1 reason for owning hand guns is 'self defense'. If you're not going to be attacked that reason goes away. [1] Yes that is a Zoolander reference.
  - sukuriant 14y ago
    While I am not a member of the NRA; I had always perceived the 'self defense' side of gun ownership as twofold: 1) in the event that someone else has a gun and is assaulting you with one; either that, or your in a situation where the assailant is substantially stronger than you and isn't stopping (or is attacking someone you love). For example, a mountain lion or bear. and more importantly, 2) a detourant. * "I'm not going to steal from that guy, because he's packing and I like living." * "It would be unwise for me to attack that car dealership, because one of the patrons might shoot me." * "Opening fire in this mall would be a generally bad idea, considering one in four people in it have a glock on their hip."
    - ChuckMcM 14y ago
      In #1 its really about people not wildlife. Either folks don't think they will be attacked by wildlife or they feel like wildlife won't attack them without 'cause' and since they don't feel compelled to give cause they don't worry about it. And of course if your society didn't think attacking people was a reasonable course of action then #1 goes away. And as a deterrent the your three examples all presume a human out to do harm. Back to my ideological, if unrealistic, observational comment. Does that help get my point?
      - Zak 14y ago
        I grew up in rural Alaska. I routinely carried firearms for protection from wildlife from a fairly young age.