9 ms·

This has been legal for a very long time, and is the cause of approximately no violence. Much as with the discussion of 3d printed firearms, it's not so much th

This has been legal for a very long time, and is the cause of approximately no violence. Much as with the discussion of 3d printed firearms, it's not so much that the behaviors of gun owners and gun builders has changed as it is that the prevailing discourse in the political arena and the news is different. The author refrains from espousing an opinion in the piece, but only just, and frankly I disagree with him. The rifles created at build parties don't cause crime. Violence in general is falling, and "gun crime" with it. Occasional, prominent tragedies are emotionally shattering, but making policy based on emotion has served us poorly for decades. Relevant previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019586

kunai 13y ago
Agreed. This is politically charged linkbait.
- knowtheory 13y ago
  Oh? Is it? How would you have preferred to see this reported? Is it just that Mother Jones published it? Is it something he said? Is it the fact that he destroyed the gun afterwards?
  - Cushman 13y ago
    > How would you have preferred to see this reported? What "this"? That somebody built a rifle from a kit is not exactly newsworthy.
    - knowtheory 13y ago
      How many people on Hacker News (or hell, in the US in general) do you think have built a rifle from a kit? How many of them do you think understand what a receiver is, or what the difference is between an automatic and semi-automatic? If you genuinely think this is information that more people should not know then say so explicitly. There is a debate about guns going on in the US, whether you like it or not. The question is whether you want people to make informed decisions or not.
      - Cushman 13y ago
        > How many people on Hacker News (or hell, in the US in general) do you think have built a rifle from a kit? Order... hundreds of thousands? Millions, maybe? It depends how you define a kit, I guess. It's quite common to put together uppers and lowers and barrels and triggers et cetera when building a rifle, and I imagine most of those who do so understand the rules that govern it. Frankly building an AK from parts isn't a lot harder than that, you can do it with hand tools. > How many of them do you think understand what a receiver is, or what the difference is between an automatic and semi-automatic? ... If you genuinely think this is information that more people should not know then say so explicitly. Has this information been removed from Wikipedia? It's all public, that's the point. > There is a debate about guns going on in the US, whether you like it or not. The question is whether you want people to make informed decisions or not. I don't believe this will help anyone to make an informed decision (unless they want to build an AK, maybe). As has been noted elsewhere in these comments, we do not have a problem with rifle violence in the US. We just don't. It's not worth having a national discussion about. But people on both sides want it to be about rifles, because that's where the political hay gets made. The anti-side loves to hate rifles because they're scary looking, while the pro-side loves to love them because, well, same reason. They're talking perfectly past each other, and can likely continue to do so indefinitely. But while this debate is going on, while this very article was being written to make whatever point it will be used to make, our children continue to kill themselves and each other with cheap, legal, store-bought handguns. Let's fucking talk about that.
        knowtheory 13y ago
        Well, we can quibble about this, but i'm betting you that the vast majority of people in the USA haven't put together a gun from a kit, and most of them probably don't own a gun, or if they do own a gun, probably haven't thought about modifying it. Irrespective of who's right on that point, there is a cultural issue here. People who have not lived with/around fire arms, and who do not hunt, have essentially no reason to ever encounter a fire arm. It is, save for violent crime, just not relevant to their lives. Expecting them to be informed about firearms kind of isn't reasonable is it? So even if the information is out there, they've had no cause, nor frame of reference for figuring out how guns work. So, when an explainer like this pops up on how easy it is to put together a gun, it's worthwhile to point out that turning some sheets of metal into a gun is really freaking easy, and banning all guns (even if it were legal) would be from a practical standpoint really really hard. > As has been noted elsewhere in these comments, we do not have a problem with rifle violence in the US. [...] Let's fucking talk about that. Dude, I could not agree with you more. But despite that, having even the most basic explainer on firearms is still a good thing. So, anyway, how do we stop handgun deaths, deliberate or accidental? :P
    - blankenship 13y ago
      “This” was news to me. Newsworthiness is a matter of individual context.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      I had no clue that it was legal to build an AK-47 from a kit. I doubt I'm alone.
      - MChristopherson 13y ago
        He did not build an AK. He built a copy of the defanged, non-fully-autmatic, "for gun enthusiasts" version of the gun. He did not build a fully automatic machine gun. He built something that is in every way equivalent to a hunting rifle you can buy at a sporting goods store: he built a semi-automatic rifle.
      - Cushman 13y ago
        Sure, but you don't know about that because you're not interested in guns. Like, how many people know you can legally build and fly an RC drone from a kit? Or that you can legally build and drive a car from a kit? There are enthusiasts, and there's everyone else. The things you don't know may be interesting to you, but that doesn't make them news. But, sure, you could see a piece in Vanity Fair about my trip across the country in my hand-build automobile, why not. What we have here is this article coming out in the midst of a huge argument about how to reduce traffic fatalities, noting especially how there is absolutely no oversight over hand-assembled vehicles. (Okay, those have to pass inspection, but leave that aside.) Where hand-assembled vehicles account for roughly no traffic fatalities. Surely you can see how that article in that context is rather disingenuous, to put it charitably.
        mikeash 13y ago
        Are you proposing that "news" should only count if it's something that a person who already follows the field closely wouldn't know? Is "news" only current events, and not reporting on old facts that are not well known?
        Cushman 13y ago
        My thoughts on this article are roughly equivalent to my thoughts on my hypothetical Vanity Fair piece, which I think I made clear. Since your questions don't seem to relate to that hypothetical, I don't have much to add.
  - jmduke 13y ago
    I'm pro-gun control and I dislike Mother Jones for their rampant editorialization in other articles. That rampant editorialization makes me distrust a lot of this piece: not the facts, but the characterizations of the other "build partigoers" as red-state pastiches (the idea that someone genuinely said "Johnny Law" is a tough pill to swallow), as well as the "Target Demographics" section having no relevance to the article whatsoever besides the fact that both concern firearms. There's also zero context of how the author got to the build party, etc. From a pure interest standpoint (as opposed to a political one), I wish he would have included that.
at-fates-hands 13y ago
Completely agree. Mother Jones is a known Liberal magazine and despite the approach to not insert the authors opinion, you can clearly see the point of the article is we need to have the ability to register guns with the government. I'm constantly shocked at how uninformed gun control advocates are.
- theorique 13y ago
  Disgusting. If these Obama-worshippers would pause for a moment in the adoration of their "Saint", they might see that he and his administration (DoJ) are responsible for the largest power grab and human rights violation in the history of this country. The Second Amendment is not a "suggestion" or "subject to interpretation" (aside from a constitutional amendment). It is part of the bedrock of this nation that was founded on a profound distrust of arbitrary government power, and a belief that "We The People" must keep our government small, scared, and subject to the will of the governed, not the other way around.
  - kunai 13y ago
    Your point stands, but name-calling and sarcasm is just low. Really low. And the Second Amendment was founded for two purposes -- so that this nation would be able to defend itself against an outside force that sought to destroy the U.S.'s independence, and so that this nation would be able to defend itself against an inside force that sought to destroy the U.S.'s independence, i.e. the government. I'm constantly amazed at how few moderates and independents exist. There seems to be an intense dichotomy with regards to politics; you're either blue or red. The indoctrination towards either party must stop.
    - Retric 13y ago
      The second amendment was not about peoples ability to overthrow government it was about states ability to overthrow the federal government. Now days people don't think much about states as independent actors but back they where giving up on soverenty and wanted some protection.
  - 13y ago
ChuckMcM 13y ago
It disappoints me when magazines like MotherJones don't take the high road which would lead to more balanced coverage but their readership isn't really looking for that road. I'm still on the fence as to whether the increased discussion is helping or not. On the one hand it opens peoples eyes to what has always been the case, and sometimes that reduces fear but sometimes it increases it.
minamea 13y ago
What? How is this not a disgrace? This article means that practically anyone anywhere in the US can have an AK-47 with no licensing. How is that supposed to make me feel safe? What if I sneak into my GF's house and her dad tries me right then and there, and decides that the punishment for fucking his daughter is death. Oh, and what do you know? He has an AK-47 for it so all my hopes of running away are dashed. People shouldn't have the power to kill other people so easily - not unless they're the police or army.
- angersock 13y ago
  What if your girlfriend's dad decided to run you down in his car--again, running away is dashed. Hopefully she can find a mate who has more spine and isn't cowed so easily by the thought of other humans with possession of means of force. Seriously, you can either live your life afraid of every damn thing, or accept that while there are dangerous devices out there the odds of ending up on the wrong side of one can be mitigated--unless, you know, you go looking for trouble. Don't be such a scaredy-cat.
  - minamea 13y ago
    I'd like to see your brave Kratos face with an AK-47 in your face. Every point you make is wrong: I'd have a decent chance of getting away from a car, I wouldn't from an AK-47. A car has other legitimate uses. Guns outside of the police and hunting, don't imo. I wouldn't say being afraid of firearms counts me as having no spine and afraid of "anything". I just think you're kinda full of crap and would cry the most if you actually had a gun in your face. I wouldn't say guns are just a means of force. A good punch, a knife is. A gun is just an automatic KO for me. So yes, I don't think the average person should be able to have a gun - something that serves no means other than give him the ability to kill people at will.
    - angersock 13y ago
      You ever shot at something outside of a video game? Especially with an old semi-auto assault rifle? While it's running away from you? It's hardly a decided matter--try skeet shooting sometime. Are you afraid of cars? Of lathes or mills? One misstep with those and you're going to lose a digit, more likely than not. Weapons are tools, and you can't go through life being afraid of tools. You respect them, you treat them carefully, but you shouldn't be afraid of them. Why is the idea of someone else being able to kill people at will so distressing to you? It shouldn't be an issue, right, if you haven't put yourself in a position to deserve it--after all, that's the position you're wishing on those who would go against the military or police.
glurgh 13y ago
the prevailing discourse in the political arena and the news is different. The prevailing argument of gun advocates, at least in the US, is that "it's not our guns. it's those other, bad people's guns". It would probably help their case if they stopped arguing that owning a potentially deadly piece of gear is some universal human right not subject to regulation like, say, owning a car. Most car owners cause approximately no deaths. All drivers need a license and insurance. The compromise is there to be had - own whatever gun you want, but take a few steps to convince the rest of us that you can do so safely.
- angersock 13y ago
  "All drivers need a license and insurance." One wonders, why? At least in the case of licenses and insurance, we see folks all the time (anecdotally illegal aliens doing work, though I'm curious how well statistics actually back that supposition up) drive with neither, usually to no ill effect. Insurance usually doesn't seem to help very much in the case of a totaled car, and mostly just seems to be a captive market for insurance providers. Drivers licenses are more for glorified identification than a seal of approval of your driving prowess--look at the highways near any major city. And yet, here we are, with millions of firearms owned and honestly not that much death and dismemberment because of it, all without licensing and insurance. We don't need a compromise--it's a solution in search of a problem.
  - cstross 13y ago
    The point about insurance isn't so that the driver gets a new car if they wreck it -- it's so that if they kill or injure, or damage the property of, someone else then that someone else is covered. Driving licenses are "a seal of approval of your driving prowess" in many countries other than the United States; American drivers frequently can't drive for shit. (Sorry, but I live in the UK, with approximately half the per-capita adjusted road death/injury rate to the US, and a driving test that's notoriously hard.) As for "not that much death and dismemberment" because of the easy availability of firearms in the US, it's noteworthy that the level in question is a couple of orders of magnitude higher than in the UK, where firearms ownership is rare and tightly licensed. I wouldn't argue for a total ban -- if nothing else, North America is full of interesting and exciting wildlife, to which many people live in close proximity -- but there's no obvious need for city dwellers to own semi-auto rifles and handguns, and requiring those who do to carry third-party insurance in case an accidental discharge ends up injuring someone is an absolute minimum.
leot 13y ago
Do guns absolutely need to be lethal? If so, why? Would you (assuming you own a gun) forego all your lethal guns if someone gave you one with comparable stopping power, but which was much less lethal?
- travisby 13y ago
  Yes. I certainly do not want to kill anyone, but my safety comes first. If my safety would not be any more in jeopardy (aka, same stopping power), I'd be fine with it. My only concern is ME living. I'm sure most pragmatics would feel the same way.
- hga 13y ago
  "Set phasers to stun...." Agreed with travisby, and in fact, we and the police are only legally allowed to use lethal force to stop, not to kill per se (internally, killing is reserved to the judiciary). We just don't have anything even on the horizon that comes close to the stopping power of firearms without also bringing its own dangers to life. In fact, pretty much all of those instruments of force are called "less lethal" to underline that using them might result in death, e.g. pepper spray and allergies or asthma. The very connotations of the word "force" tell you a lot. The other gun owning members of my family wouldn't, they're all hunters first and foremost, and we don't bow hunt in part because we don't consider that humane. There's also issues with wildlife pretty much every place we live.
hga 13y ago
Although apparantly not legal in California; I haven't looked at this Mother Jones stuff, but I can confirm the first two are illegal in that state (e.g. why the Hello Kitty AR-15 has such a wierd stock, and look up bullet button for #2; http://disqus.com/facebook-1392090219/ http://disqus.com/facebook-1392090219/): "Do you know how many felonies you just committed? Just because you are a reporter doesn't make you immune to these multiple CA felonies: 1) Owning a semi-automatic w/ a pistol grip 2) At 1:20 you can clearly see that the magazine lock is mounted too far back, allowing the magazine to be detached without the use of a tool. 3) You perform an improper disposal of the gun and leave it for the garbage collector. By CA law, that's an illegal transfer since he didn't go through an FFL. I hope you get shafted by those strict laws you support, idiot."

kunai 13y ago

Agreed. This is politically charged linkbait.

knowtheory 13y ago
Oh? Is it? How would you have preferred to see this reported? Is it just that Mother Jones published it? Is it something he said? Is it the fact that he destroyed the gun afterwards?
- Cushman 13y ago
  > How would you have preferred to see this reported? What "this"? That somebody built a rifle from a kit is not exactly newsworthy.
  - knowtheory 13y ago
    How many people on Hacker News (or hell, in the US in general) do you think have built a rifle from a kit? How many of them do you think understand what a receiver is, or what the difference is between an automatic and semi-automatic? If you genuinely think this is information that more people should not know then say so explicitly. There is a debate about guns going on in the US, whether you like it or not. The question is whether you want people to make informed decisions or not.
    - Cushman 13y ago
      > How many people on Hacker News (or hell, in the US in general) do you think have built a rifle from a kit? Order... hundreds of thousands? Millions, maybe? It depends how you define a kit, I guess. It's quite common to put together uppers and lowers and barrels and triggers et cetera when building a rifle, and I imagine most of those who do so understand the rules that govern it. Frankly building an AK from parts isn't a lot harder than that, you can do it with hand tools. > How many of them do you think understand what a receiver is, or what the difference is between an automatic and semi-automatic? ... If you genuinely think this is information that more people should not know then say so explicitly. Has this information been removed from Wikipedia? It's all public, that's the point. > There is a debate about guns going on in the US, whether you like it or not. The question is whether you want people to make informed decisions or not. I don't believe this will help anyone to make an informed decision (unless they want to build an AK, maybe). As has been noted elsewhere in these comments, we do not have a problem with rifle violence in the US. We just don't. It's not worth having a national discussion about. But people on both sides want it to be about rifles, because that's where the political hay gets made. The anti-side loves to hate rifles because they're scary looking, while the pro-side loves to love them because, well, same reason. They're talking perfectly past each other, and can likely continue to do so indefinitely. But while this debate is going on, while this very article was being written to make whatever point it will be used to make, our children continue to kill themselves and each other with cheap, legal, store-bought handguns. Let's fucking talk about that.
      - knowtheory 13y ago
        Well, we can quibble about this, but i'm betting you that the vast majority of people in the USA haven't put together a gun from a kit, and most of them probably don't own a gun, or if they do own a gun, probably haven't thought about modifying it. Irrespective of who's right on that point, there is a cultural issue here. People who have not lived with/around fire arms, and who do not hunt, have essentially no reason to ever encounter a fire arm. It is, save for violent crime, just not relevant to their lives. Expecting them to be informed about firearms kind of isn't reasonable is it? So even if the information is out there, they've had no cause, nor frame of reference for figuring out how guns work. So, when an explainer like this pops up on how easy it is to put together a gun, it's worthwhile to point out that turning some sheets of metal into a gun is really freaking easy, and banning all guns (even if it were legal) would be from a practical standpoint really really hard. > As has been noted elsewhere in these comments, we do not have a problem with rifle violence in the US. [...] Let's fucking talk about that. Dude, I could not agree with you more. But despite that, having even the most basic explainer on firearms is still a good thing. So, anyway, how do we stop handgun deaths, deliberate or accidental? :P
  - blankenship 13y ago
    “This” was news to me. Newsworthiness is a matter of individual context.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I had no clue that it was legal to build an AK-47 from a kit. I doubt I'm alone.
    - MChristopherson 13y ago
      He did not build an AK. He built a copy of the defanged, non-fully-autmatic, "for gun enthusiasts" version of the gun. He did not build a fully automatic machine gun. He built something that is in every way equivalent to a hunting rifle you can buy at a sporting goods store: he built a semi-automatic rifle.
    - Cushman 13y ago
      Sure, but you don't know about that because you're not interested in guns. Like, how many people know you can legally build and fly an RC drone from a kit? Or that you can legally build and drive a car from a kit? There are enthusiasts, and there's everyone else. The things you don't know may be interesting to you, but that doesn't make them news. But, sure, you could see a piece in Vanity Fair about my trip across the country in my hand-build automobile, why not. What we have here is this article coming out in the midst of a huge argument about how to reduce traffic fatalities, noting especially how there is absolutely no oversight over hand-assembled vehicles. (Okay, those have to pass inspection, but leave that aside.) Where hand-assembled vehicles account for roughly no traffic fatalities. Surely you can see how that article in that context is rather disingenuous, to put it charitably.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Are you proposing that "news" should only count if it's something that a person who already follows the field closely wouldn't know? Is "news" only current events, and not reporting on old facts that are not well known?
        Cushman 13y ago
        My thoughts on this article are roughly equivalent to my thoughts on my hypothetical Vanity Fair piece, which I think I made clear. Since your questions don't seem to relate to that hypothetical, I don't have much to add.
- jmduke 13y ago
  I'm pro-gun control and I dislike Mother Jones for their rampant editorialization in other articles. That rampant editorialization makes me distrust a lot of this piece: not the facts, but the characterizations of the other "build partigoers" as red-state pastiches (the idea that someone genuinely said "Johnny Law" is a tough pill to swallow), as well as the "Target Demographics" section having no relevance to the article whatsoever besides the fact that both concern firearms. There's also zero context of how the author got to the build party, etc. From a pure interest standpoint (as opposed to a political one), I wish he would have included that.

at-fates-hands 13y ago

Completely agree. Mother Jones is a known Liberal magazine and despite the approach to not insert the authors opinion, you can clearly see the point of the article is we need to have the ability to register guns with the government. I'm constantly shocked at how uninformed gun control advocates are.

theorique 13y ago
Disgusting. If these Obama-worshippers would pause for a moment in the adoration of their "Saint", they might see that he and his administration (DoJ) are responsible for the largest power grab and human rights violation in the history of this country. The Second Amendment is not a "suggestion" or "subject to interpretation" (aside from a constitutional amendment). It is part of the bedrock of this nation that was founded on a profound distrust of arbitrary government power, and a belief that "We The People" must keep our government small, scared, and subject to the will of the governed, not the other way around.
- kunai 13y ago
  Your point stands, but name-calling and sarcasm is just low. Really low. And the Second Amendment was founded for two purposes -- so that this nation would be able to defend itself against an outside force that sought to destroy the U.S.'s independence, and so that this nation would be able to defend itself against an inside force that sought to destroy the U.S.'s independence, i.e. the government. I'm constantly amazed at how few moderates and independents exist. There seems to be an intense dichotomy with regards to politics; you're either blue or red. The indoctrination towards either party must stop.
  - Retric 13y ago
    The second amendment was not about peoples ability to overthrow government it was about states ability to overthrow the federal government. Now days people don't think much about states as independent actors but back they where giving up on soverenty and wanted some protection.
- 13y ago

ChuckMcM 13y ago

It disappoints me when magazines like MotherJones don't take the high road which would lead to more balanced coverage but their readership isn't really looking for that road. I'm still on the fence as to whether the increased discussion is helping or not. On the one hand it opens peoples eyes to what has always been the case, and sometimes that reduces fear but sometimes it increases it.

minamea 13y ago

What? How is this not a disgrace? This article means that practically anyone anywhere in the US can have an AK-47 with no licensing. How is that supposed to make me feel safe? What if I sneak into my GF's house and her dad tries me right then and there, and decides that the punishment for fucking his daughter is death. Oh, and what do you know? He has an AK-47 for it so all my hopes of running away are dashed. People shouldn't have the power to kill other people so easily - not unless they're the police or army.

angersock 13y ago
What if your girlfriend's dad decided to run you down in his car--again, running away is dashed. Hopefully she can find a mate who has more spine and isn't cowed so easily by the thought of other humans with possession of means of force. Seriously, you can either live your life afraid of every damn thing, or accept that while there are dangerous devices out there the odds of ending up on the wrong side of one can be mitigated--unless, you know, you go looking for trouble. Don't be such a scaredy-cat.
- minamea 13y ago
  I'd like to see your brave Kratos face with an AK-47 in your face. Every point you make is wrong: I'd have a decent chance of getting away from a car, I wouldn't from an AK-47. A car has other legitimate uses. Guns outside of the police and hunting, don't imo. I wouldn't say being afraid of firearms counts me as having no spine and afraid of "anything". I just think you're kinda full of crap and would cry the most if you actually had a gun in your face. I wouldn't say guns are just a means of force. A good punch, a knife is. A gun is just an automatic KO for me. So yes, I don't think the average person should be able to have a gun - something that serves no means other than give him the ability to kill people at will.
  - angersock 13y ago
    You ever shot at something outside of a video game? Especially with an old semi-auto assault rifle? While it's running away from you? It's hardly a decided matter--try skeet shooting sometime. Are you afraid of cars? Of lathes or mills? One misstep with those and you're going to lose a digit, more likely than not. Weapons are tools, and you can't go through life being afraid of tools. You respect them, you treat them carefully, but you shouldn't be afraid of them. Why is the idea of someone else being able to kill people at will so distressing to you? It shouldn't be an issue, right, if you haven't put yourself in a position to deserve it--after all, that's the position you're wishing on those who would go against the military or police.

glurgh 13y ago

the prevailing discourse in the political arena and the news is different. The prevailing argument of gun advocates, at least in the US, is that "it's not our guns. it's those other, bad people's guns". It would probably help their case if they stopped arguing that owning a potentially deadly piece of gear is some universal human right not subject to regulation like, say, owning a car. Most car owners cause approximately no deaths. All drivers need a license and insurance. The compromise is there to be had - own whatever gun you want, but take a few steps to convince the rest of us that you can do so safely.

angersock 13y ago
"All drivers need a license and insurance." One wonders, why? At least in the case of licenses and insurance, we see folks all the time (anecdotally illegal aliens doing work, though I'm curious how well statistics actually back that supposition up) drive with neither, usually to no ill effect. Insurance usually doesn't seem to help very much in the case of a totaled car, and mostly just seems to be a captive market for insurance providers. Drivers licenses are more for glorified identification than a seal of approval of your driving prowess--look at the highways near any major city. And yet, here we are, with millions of firearms owned and honestly not that much death and dismemberment because of it, all without licensing and insurance. We don't need a compromise--it's a solution in search of a problem.
- cstross 13y ago
  The point about insurance isn't so that the driver gets a new car if they wreck it -- it's so that if they kill or injure, or damage the property of, someone else then that someone else is covered. Driving licenses are "a seal of approval of your driving prowess" in many countries other than the United States; American drivers frequently can't drive for shit. (Sorry, but I live in the UK, with approximately half the per-capita adjusted road death/injury rate to the US, and a driving test that's notoriously hard.) As for "not that much death and dismemberment" because of the easy availability of firearms in the US, it's noteworthy that the level in question is a couple of orders of magnitude higher than in the UK, where firearms ownership is rare and tightly licensed. I wouldn't argue for a total ban -- if nothing else, North America is full of interesting and exciting wildlife, to which many people live in close proximity -- but there's no obvious need for city dwellers to own semi-auto rifles and handguns, and requiring those who do to carry third-party insurance in case an accidental discharge ends up injuring someone is an absolute minimum.

leot 13y ago

Do guns absolutely need to be lethal? If so, why? Would you (assuming you own a gun) forego all your lethal guns if someone gave you one with comparable stopping power, but which was much less lethal?

travisby 13y ago
Yes. I certainly do not want to kill anyone, but my safety comes first. If my safety would not be any more in jeopardy (aka, same stopping power), I'd be fine with it. My only concern is ME living. I'm sure most pragmatics would feel the same way.
hga 13y ago
"Set phasers to stun...." Agreed with travisby, and in fact, we and the police are only legally allowed to use lethal force to stop, not to kill per se (internally, killing is reserved to the judiciary). We just don't have anything even on the horizon that comes close to the stopping power of firearms without also bringing its own dangers to life. In fact, pretty much all of those instruments of force are called "less lethal" to underline that using them might result in death, e.g. pepper spray and allergies or asthma. The very connotations of the word "force" tell you a lot. The other gun owning members of my family wouldn't, they're all hunters first and foremost, and we don't bow hunt in part because we don't consider that humane. There's also issues with wildlife pretty much every place we live.

hga 13y ago

Although apparantly not legal in California; I haven't looked at this Mother Jones stuff, but I can confirm the first two are illegal in that state (e.g. why the Hello Kitty AR-15 has such a wierd stock, and look up bullet button for #2; http://disqus.com/facebook-1392090219/ http://disqus.com/facebook-1392090219/): "Do you know how many felonies you just committed? Just because you are a reporter doesn't make you immune to these multiple CA felonies: 1) Owning a semi-automatic w/ a pistol grip 2) At 1:20 you can clearly see that the magazine lock is mounted too far back, allowing the magazine to be detached without the use of a tool. 3) You perform an improper disposal of the gun and leave it for the garbage collector. By CA law, that's an illegal transfer since he didn't go through an FFL. I hope you get shafted by those strict laws you support, idiot."