3 ms·

> 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? I

by 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
- Cushman 13y ago
  I can understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, I don't think this article is the explainer you're looking for, for a lot of reasons discussed in these comments, but primarily this: he destroyed the gun. He bought it, he built it, he fired forty rounds through it and then he found it so distasteful that he didn't want it in his life, so he destroyed it. Even after mentioning how much it might have sold for, he didn't sell it. He didn't even give it away to one of the hobbyists he met, which he would have no difficulty finding takers for. Imagine you help someone buy and put together their first computer. Not a monster machine, but a nice solid, balanced build. Later you learn that they booted it up once, played thirty minutes of World of Warcraft, and didn't like it, so they smashed all the parts with a hammer and left it out with the trash. How does that make you feel? To a normal person, whatever, that might be a bit of an overreaction. But an enthusiast is shocked, confused, dismayed. Why? Why did you do that? I could have taken it off your hands. I could have paid shipping. And that's the lethal problem: The author of the article, himself, could not or did not come to an understanding of how and why it is that these hobbyists feel safe and comfortable with what they do. He didn't understand them, from the sound of it he didn't really try to, and he still doesn't. And if he doesn't understand it himself, what can he possibly hope to teach anyone else?
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I think it's interesting how people who will vehemently defend a person's right to own a gun will turn around and criticize him for destroying his own property, harming nobody in the process. Maybe I'm being uncharitable, but it strikes me as an attitude of "freedoms are great as long as the person does things I like". I'm reminded of the recent incident in the US Southwest somewhere (Arizona?) where a city started a gun buyback program with the intention of destroying the guns, and the NRA sued them to prevent them from destroying guns that they had legally purchased from willing sellers. The world is mad, I tell you.
    - Cushman 13y ago
      Heh. It's a bit ironical, but I don't think it's really hypocritical or anything. To go back to my computer example, I can argue for your right to smash it with a hammer and still not be able to understand why you would choose to. Or take a look at the comments on gadget destruction videos some time. Or I wonder if anyone has ever tried to stop a religious institution from burning books they paid for with their own money? To be honest, it's exactly the point I think the article missed so closely. It's different when you're an enthusiast. You see a mass-produced object worth what it will cost to haul away; I see a unique work of art, low born perhaps but with a history and a soul, with countless beautiful features and imperfections. (Mind, this isn't guns for me personally.) Yes it's yours, but it shouldn't be destroyed, that's disgraceful! All that being said, it is unfortunate that so many of the most vocal gun advocates seem to have so little respect for people who don't like guns.
angersock 13y ago
Statistics from 2008-2009: http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publicat... Basically, <3K children per year for 2008 and 2009. ...and the estimated total child population: http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp Around 74 million at that time. So, this is whitenoise from population standpoint; .004% of the population of kids. I'm not going to suggest giving up access to pistols for the nation because of statistical outliers.
- Cushman 13y ago
  I was using "children" rhetorically here, including gang violence and adult suicides basically. Anyway, this isn't the place for the conversation.
  - angersock 13y ago
    Fair enough--my general instinct is just to start bringing up stats when something this emotionally-charged comes up. Carry on. :)

by Cushman 13y ago

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

Cushman 13y ago
I can understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, I don't think this article is the explainer you're looking for, for a lot of reasons discussed in these comments, but primarily this: he destroyed the gun. He bought it, he built it, he fired forty rounds through it and then he found it so distasteful that he didn't want it in his life, so he destroyed it. Even after mentioning how much it might have sold for, he didn't sell it. He didn't even give it away to one of the hobbyists he met, which he would have no difficulty finding takers for. Imagine you help someone buy and put together their first computer. Not a monster machine, but a nice solid, balanced build. Later you learn that they booted it up once, played thirty minutes of World of Warcraft, and didn't like it, so they smashed all the parts with a hammer and left it out with the trash. How does that make you feel? To a normal person, whatever, that might be a bit of an overreaction. But an enthusiast is shocked, confused, dismayed. Why? Why did you do that? I could have taken it off your hands. I could have paid shipping. And that's the lethal problem: The author of the article, himself, could not or did not come to an understanding of how and why it is that these hobbyists feel safe and comfortable with what they do. He didn't understand them, from the sound of it he didn't really try to, and he still doesn't. And if he doesn't understand it himself, what can he possibly hope to teach anyone else?
- mikeash 13y ago
  I think it's interesting how people who will vehemently defend a person's right to own a gun will turn around and criticize him for destroying his own property, harming nobody in the process. Maybe I'm being uncharitable, but it strikes me as an attitude of "freedoms are great as long as the person does things I like". I'm reminded of the recent incident in the US Southwest somewhere (Arizona?) where a city started a gun buyback program with the intention of destroying the guns, and the NRA sued them to prevent them from destroying guns that they had legally purchased from willing sellers. The world is mad, I tell you.
  - Cushman 13y ago
    Heh. It's a bit ironical, but I don't think it's really hypocritical or anything. To go back to my computer example, I can argue for your right to smash it with a hammer and still not be able to understand why you would choose to. Or take a look at the comments on gadget destruction videos some time. Or I wonder if anyone has ever tried to stop a religious institution from burning books they paid for with their own money? To be honest, it's exactly the point I think the article missed so closely. It's different when you're an enthusiast. You see a mass-produced object worth what it will cost to haul away; I see a unique work of art, low born perhaps but with a history and a soul, with countless beautiful features and imperfections. (Mind, this isn't guns for me personally.) Yes it's yours, but it shouldn't be destroyed, that's disgraceful! All that being said, it is unfortunate that so many of the most vocal gun advocates seem to have so little respect for people who don't like guns.

angersock 13y ago

Statistics from 2008-2009: http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/protect-children-not-guns-2012.pdf http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publicat... Basically, <3K children per year for 2008 and 2009. ...and the estimated total child population: http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp Around 74 million at that time. So, this is whitenoise from population standpoint; .004% of the population of kids. I'm not going to suggest giving up access to pistols for the nation because of statistical outliers.

Cushman 13y ago
I was using "children" rhetorically here, including gang violence and adult suicides basically. Anyway, this isn't the place for the conversation.
- angersock 13y ago
  Fair enough--my general instinct is just to start bringing up stats when something this emotionally-charged comes up. Carry on. :)