3 ms·

> This will have about as much protective effect against the criminally-motivated as putting up "gun-free school zone" signs. Even if what you're saying is tru

> This will have about as much protective effect against the criminally-motivated as putting up "gun-free school zone" signs. Even if what you're saying is true, one could argue that means "some protective effect." Yes, it's probably true that someone who intends to ignore the law and most moral codes and commit a crime with a firearm will almost certainly ignore a sign and the associated additional legal penalties. "Gun-free" school zones are not really meant to address that problem. They're an attempt to address the problem of crimes/accidents committed with firearms brought into a zone without intent to commit a crime, but that end up being used criminally anyway in a confrontation or when they end up out of original hands, etc. Given that these things happen, restricting access to firearms in a place like a school probably has some marginal positive effect (you can credibly argue there may be a negative effect too -- not having anyone armed in a school represents a targeting opportunity -- but the intelligent response to this is probably to figure out what reasonable exceptions might be rather than throwing up your hands and letting any student or visitor carry). Similarly, I think it's possible that making attempts to restrict the legal manufacture of high-capacity clips will have some positive impact -- probably a greater one, since the larger scope makes leaks through neighboring less-restricted zones less likely. It will remain true that where "criminally-motivated" means someone with resources and strong resolve, they will be able to acquire not only high-capacity clips but probably just about any form of contraband they'd like. It's also true that by placing restrictions on the process of making of high-capacity clips, the bar for sufficient resources and resolve will be at least somewhat higher: there will be fewer made, fewer people making/distributing 3D printable designs, introducing scarcity, making it harder to do. Would this be an absolute deterrent? No. Some people will still do that. Is the lock on a door an absolute deterrent? No. It raises the bar: you need to be more determined and you face additional risk of being conspicuous while breaking in. Seat belts don't protect you from many risks of driving. Sometimes, making improvements in the margins is how you get things better. Now, that's not to say that there might not be other problems with any given measure. Personally, I think if you're going to ban manufacture of something, focusing on the method is probably a bad choice. There's also the question of tradeoffs -- what does it mean to "ban" 3D printing something? Does it mean every 3D printer gets a regulator or a monitor? That might be too big a cost for the benefit.

hkhanna 14y ago
Excellent write-up, thank you for sharing.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
This is just plain silliness. There are millions, literally hundreds of millions, of full capacity magazines out there in the world right now. If a criminal can manage to get their hands on an illegal gun they can certainly manage to get their hands on a full capacity magazine just as easily and for far less money. They are too easy to make, too easy to store, too easy to transport for it to be otherwise. That was true even during the period of time when the national "assault weapons" ban was in place. Also, when you call a magazine a "clip" you immediately make yourself look like someone who knows very little about firearms. A magazine is a spring loaded device that holds bullets in a gun, and may or may not be detachable. A "clip" is a device which is sometimes used to store bullets for quickly loading into a magazine.
- wwweston 14y ago
  > Also, when you call a magazine a "clip" you immediately make yourself look like someone who knows very little about firearms. Assuming this is neither pedantry nor an ad hominem attack, I appreciate knowing what terminology communicates to people. > There are millions, literally hundreds of millions, of full capacity magazines out there in the world right now. And billions of people. The argument isn't that we can wave a magic policy wand and make anything disappear, or impossible to make or get. The argument is that it may be possible to make it harder for any one of those billions to get their hands on some of the millions of things. Here's what I'd expect to happen if we were to legally restrict the manufacture and general possession of some magazines (or anything else, for that matter): 1) Owners would split into 3-4 different categories: (a) some who would decide any legal risk isn't worth it, and get rid of theirs through approved channels, (b) some who would keep what they have but stop buying, (c) some would sell or buy on the black market. Overall, though, unless you assume that (a) is completely negligible, we're talking about a reduction in existing general circulation. 2) Regarding additions to general circulation, I'd expect manufacturers would split into different categories as well. Some would (a) comply with regulations and would no longer make or ship through general market channels, some would (b) continue to manufacture and supply the black market. Some (c) new manufacturers would spring up to fill any demand gap left by (a), but remember, some people in (1a) have dropped out of the market, so demand has probably shrunk, and risk is higher, so it's a pretty big presumption to claim supplies to general circulation from b+c are going to be equal or greater than a+b under no restrictions. Overall, we're talking about a reduction in supply coming into the pipe. 3) So at this point, if my assumptions hold up, the bar's up at least three or four notches: * perhaps we still have many banned magazines in general circulation (US estimates I've heard thrown around are closer in order of magnitude to the tens of millions rather than hundreds, though), but there's nevertheless a reduction in number vs the baseline of no restriction, so that's increased scarcity. * anyone wishing to buy/sell will need to have contacts willing to run the risk (your average postal worker or 19 year old suffering from socialization problems may or may not meet this bar) * greater risk to buying/selling means some people will prefer to hold on to what they have and not sell at any price, except perhaps with highly trusted acquaintances. This effect in how magazines circulate would be more powerful the higher their concentration in a small number of hands is. * cost would go up do to increased scarcity and risk associated with buying/selling, meaning any given individual would need to be prepared to pay more 4) That's not all, though. Remember what I said about door locks raising the bar in terms of conspicuousness? In a world with no door locks, the act of walking up to any door, opening it, and walking through is easy and unsuspicious to most given observers. In our world, you're going to need to batter the door down or spend time fiddling with tools -- both activities that are somewhat likely to draw attention. There are ways to allay the resulting suspicion, but that's another bar to meet. Similarly, someone incidentally observed with contraband is now under scrutiny; secondhand evidence it's possessed/traded at all in the neighborhood may even draw law enforcement on the trail. > This is just plain silliness. Based on your username, it looks like you would know. ;) So... what part of what I've laid out above do you expect would not happen if magazines over a certain capacity were banned, and why?

hkhanna 14y ago

Excellent write-up, thank you for sharing.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

This is just plain silliness. There are millions, literally hundreds of millions, of full capacity magazines out there in the world right now. If a criminal can manage to get their hands on an illegal gun they can certainly manage to get their hands on a full capacity magazine just as easily and for far less money. They are too easy to make, too easy to store, too easy to transport for it to be otherwise. That was true even during the period of time when the national "assault weapons" ban was in place. Also, when you call a magazine a "clip" you immediately make yourself look like someone who knows very little about firearms. A magazine is a spring loaded device that holds bullets in a gun, and may or may not be detachable. A "clip" is a device which is sometimes used to store bullets for quickly loading into a magazine.

wwweston 14y ago
> Also, when you call a magazine a "clip" you immediately make yourself look like someone who knows very little about firearms. Assuming this is neither pedantry nor an ad hominem attack, I appreciate knowing what terminology communicates to people. > There are millions, literally hundreds of millions, of full capacity magazines out there in the world right now. And billions of people. The argument isn't that we can wave a magic policy wand and make anything disappear, or impossible to make or get. The argument is that it may be possible to make it harder for any one of those billions to get their hands on some of the millions of things. Here's what I'd expect to happen if we were to legally restrict the manufacture and general possession of some magazines (or anything else, for that matter): 1) Owners would split into 3-4 different categories: (a) some who would decide any legal risk isn't worth it, and get rid of theirs through approved channels, (b) some who would keep what they have but stop buying, (c) some would sell or buy on the black market. Overall, though, unless you assume that (a) is completely negligible, we're talking about a reduction in existing general circulation. 2) Regarding additions to general circulation, I'd expect manufacturers would split into different categories as well. Some would (a) comply with regulations and would no longer make or ship through general market channels, some would (b) continue to manufacture and supply the black market. Some (c) new manufacturers would spring up to fill any demand gap left by (a), but remember, some people in (1a) have dropped out of the market, so demand has probably shrunk, and risk is higher, so it's a pretty big presumption to claim supplies to general circulation from b+c are going to be equal or greater than a+b under no restrictions. Overall, we're talking about a reduction in supply coming into the pipe. 3) So at this point, if my assumptions hold up, the bar's up at least three or four notches: * perhaps we still have many banned magazines in general circulation (US estimates I've heard thrown around are closer in order of magnitude to the tens of millions rather than hundreds, though), but there's nevertheless a reduction in number vs the baseline of no restriction, so that's increased scarcity. * anyone wishing to buy/sell will need to have contacts willing to run the risk (your average postal worker or 19 year old suffering from socialization problems may or may not meet this bar) * greater risk to buying/selling means some people will prefer to hold on to what they have and not sell at any price, except perhaps with highly trusted acquaintances. This effect in how magazines circulate would be more powerful the higher their concentration in a small number of hands is. * cost would go up do to increased scarcity and risk associated with buying/selling, meaning any given individual would need to be prepared to pay more 4) That's not all, though. Remember what I said about door locks raising the bar in terms of conspicuousness? In a world with no door locks, the act of walking up to any door, opening it, and walking through is easy and unsuspicious to most given observers. In our world, you're going to need to batter the door down or spend time fiddling with tools -- both activities that are somewhat likely to draw attention. There are ways to allay the resulting suspicion, but that's another bar to meet. Similarly, someone incidentally observed with contraband is now under scrutiny; secondhand evidence it's possessed/traded at all in the neighborhood may even draw law enforcement on the trail. > This is just plain silliness. Based on your username, it looks like you would know. ;) So... what part of what I've laid out above do you expect would not happen if magazines over a certain capacity were banned, and why?