Gun Control

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 07, 2013 6:59 pm UTC

Nem wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:We would likely see a similar distribution of manufacturers with firearms. Simple zip guns could be made by anyone(some kids got busted making and selling zip guns recently, was a minor news article). Lowers and other fairly easy to make pieces for more professional firearms would be somewhat less common, but still really common. Ditto for AKs. High quality weapons would be less common, but highly distributed, via organized crime.


You don't need an AK to hold up grandma, or rob the 7/11. The distribution pattern at any given quality of firearm would be determined by supply and demand, profit and risk. If guns are weapons of opportunity, something for having, not so much for using, - which is not improbable - then where's the demand for guns that are better than zip guns going to come from?


I believe you are under the impression that an AK is difficult to make. This is not the case. Some guns require a certain degree of precision, have tons of pieces, and are generally made by technologically adept countries. The AK, on the other hand, sneers at the idea of tolerances, is made in basically every country in the world, including out of tents in places with so little civilization that food is a severe problem, and you can find guides online to making them out of objects as simple as a rusty old shovel.

So, the demand is going to come from the same place it does now. Single shot guns are dirt cheap compared to higher quality guns now, but people, criminal or not, obviously are willing to pay more for better guns.

Tyndmyr wrote:Making drugs is rather more work. Guns tend not to explode while being made, gunsmithing doesn't have much in the way of telltale smells or massive power consumption the way drugs often do. Today, ARs start at somewhere north of about a grand. I'm sure that if supply were greatly restricted, prices would rise.


Making drugs isn't hard, at least not on a per unit basis. You can make meth in a jug in the back of your car (granted it has a non-negligible chance of blowing up in your face if you're not careful about bleeding it off, but that apparently doesn't stop drug addicts) and the more industrialised methods turn out massive quantities for the amount of effort put in. MJ? It's actively hard to screw that one up - the reason most MJ users don't grow their own has more to do with really bad planning abilities than anything else. Opiates? Hard to get the poppies but it's easy enough to separate out over the counter medicine.

None of those things is hard. Most of it you don't even have to watch that closely.


Right. And making guns is easier. Firearm technology hasn't changed all that rapidly. It's old tech. The 1911, still one of the most popular guns around, is over a hundred years old. There's no electronics or anything funky. You mostly just need a barrel and some way to strike the primer. A very short shopping trip to lowes or home depot will get you everything you need. There's very few parts in even many commercial guns. Hell, if you ask, folks at the hardware store will generally cut things to length for you.

Making full auto guns isn't even that hard. Mostly, it means not including stuff that semi-autos have. If you aren't concerned about your gun having safety features, pleasing asthetics, and so on, it really isn't that big of a deal to make something with some firepower. You need a tube, something that goes bang, and something to get flung out the far end, really. Double barrel? two of those and duct tape. Auto? Well, spring, slide, mag. Meh.

Look, it crops up from time to time now. Sometimes children make zip guns because money means more to them. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcconnecticut.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2FNew-Haven-Police-Arrest-Robbers-Uncover-Zipgun-Manufacturer-228979091.html&ei=-uJ7UtWuAtKs4AO9Dg&usg=AFQjCNFpiM8QCOn2HPfc2g9sSNeUC_5IQA&sig2=wFyM2Bi79PBZoZ3IAK4Ugg&bvm=bv.55980276,d.dmg

Tyndmyr wrote:The same will be true for guns at some degree of increased price/limited supply. Realistically, the higher the price, the more people will say "that's worth it", and give it a shot.

Sure, but who's going to say "Sell me a gun for a million dollars"? If the intersection is wrong then it just won't be worthwhile.


We can be reasonably sure that the intersection will be far less than a million dollars. If you look south, across the mexican border, it's fairly trivial to deduce that illegal firearm prices are pretty damned low, even without much in the way of legal supply for the country( a single gun shop in the capital). Now sure, we're richer than Mexico, so prices can be expected to rise somewhat in the US...but again, drugs are a great parallel here. If there's money to be made shipping us drugs, they'll ship us drugs. If guns, guns.

Sure, but who's going to say "Sell me a gun for a million dollars"? If the intersection is wrong then it just won't be worthwhile.[/quote]

sweeneyrod
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 5:39 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sweeneyrod » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:45 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
sweeneyrod wrote:It seems to me that the culture surrounding guns and their use varies massively between the US, the UK (where I live) and presumably also countries such as Switzerland. Many of the arguments put forward in favour of gun ownership seem to go along the lines of "We need guns so if someone tries to burgle, rob or rape us we can take it out and shoot them." This seems massively different to my idea of what I'd do in the UK if someone tried to mug me: hand over any valuables immediately with minimum fuss and call the police when the mugger is out of sight - I value my life and lack of physical injury higher than any money I might have on me. If someone tried to rob my house, and I had a gun but they didn't, then then that might be a different story, but surely in any society where the general population has access to weaponry, criminals will as well. I just can't imagine anyone in Britain with an attitude of "if someone tries to take my stuff, I'll shoot them" except criminals, so I'm really curious about whether this attitude is prevelant in the US, or whether I'm misunderstanding.


And if you live in an area where the police response time is about an hour or more, or you live in an area where the police don't give a shit about burglaries?

I grew up with people who ate by the barrel. That is, if they didn't have a rifle, they'd starve. You want to tell them they shouldn't eat because of some city dumbasses with handguns? And if you don't know what is to deal with an enraged bull, don't tell farmers they can't have shotguns.


First thing - farmers in the UK who quite clearly do need shotguns are allowed them. And I suppose that the ideas of a police response time of an hour or more is, is a difference due to nation sizes - there are very few places in the UK more than an hour from civilisation. By "where the police don't give a shit about burglaries?" do you mean "so if the police won't turn up to stop criminals, are you just gonna let them take your stuff?", because if so then that is exactly what I mean by a cultural difference. If there's no-one to stop the burglars, then I'll let them take my stuff, as this won't happen very frequently and I feel it's a good price to pay for feeling less likely to be shot.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:04 pm UTC

sweeneyrod wrote:First thing - farmers in the UK who quite clearly do need shotguns are allowed them. And I suppose that the ideas of a police response time of an hour or more is, is a difference due to nation sizes - there are very few places in the UK more than an hour from civilisation. By "where the police don't give a shit about burglaries?" do you mean "so if the police won't turn up to stop criminals, are you just gonna let them take your stuff?", because if so then that is exactly what I mean by a cultural difference. If there's no-one to stop the burglars, then I'll let them take my stuff, as this won't happen very frequently and I feel it's a good price to pay for feeling less likely to be shot.

Just one problem: there's no guarantee that the burglars will merely take your stuff and leave you alone. It's not at all unreasonable to fear that someone willing to break into your home while you're there will also be willing to brutalize or kill you and your family. "Dead men tell no tales" isn't fearmongering; it's a legitimate concern.

Now, we can make the argument that if guns weren't as widely available, robbers would be less likely to injure or kill homeowners during home invasion robberies, but that doesn't really help us.

I'm sure that most gun owners would happily give up their possessions rather than have to shoot someone. But possessions are not the only thing that can be lost.

Nem
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Nem » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:19 pm UTC

How often do home invasions happen as compared to just your run of the mill stealing stuff while people aren't home? How did the criminals get into your house fast enough to place you in that sort of danger? And why aren't you securing against that rather than getting ready to fight them?

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:31 pm UTC

Nem wrote:How often do home invasions happen as compared to just your run of the mill stealing stuff while people aren't home? How did the criminals get into your house fast enough to place you in that sort of danger? And why aren't you securing against that rather than getting ready to fight them?

It doesn't do any good to compare to "run of the mill stealing stuff while people aren't home" because obviously self-defensive firearm use isn't going to be at issue there. It's difficult to pin down the number of home invasions in comparison to other types of crime, mostly because home invasion is not defined as such in law; most criminals convicted of home-invasion-related crimes are convicted specifically of rape, murder, or robbery.

I'm not sure why you think the speed of entry is relevant. If you're an hour from the nearest police station and two men with guns want to break into your home, tie you up, rape you, take your valuables, and then burn the house down to hide the evidence (this isn't an unreasonable fear), the amount of time it takes them to break into your house isn't really an issue. It's not that hard to kick down a door, break a window, or otherwise gain entry to a locked house. In that kind of situation, self-defense is pretty much your only option, especially when police are under no obligation to protect you, even during an active robbery.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:57 pm UTC

sweeneyrod wrote:First thing - farmers in the UK who quite clearly do need shotguns are allowed them. And I suppose that the ideas of a police response time of an hour or more is, is a difference due to nation sizes - there are very few places in the UK more than an hour from civilisation. By "where the police don't give a shit about burglaries?" do you mean "so if the police won't turn up to stop criminals, are you just gonna let them take your stuff?", because if so then that is exactly what I mean by a cultural difference. If there's no-one to stop the burglars, then I'll let them take my stuff, as this won't happen very frequently and I feel it's a good price to pay for feeling less likely to be shot.


Well, burglaries are somewhat lower priority. In places like Detroit, a high priority call, of the sort like "he's holding us hostage", has an average response time of about 58 minutes. Lower priority stuff will have longer delays, if responded to at all. At a certain point, it stops being about stuff, though that is somewhat important, and starts being about the fact that nobody is there to protect you.

Of course, that's a response time IN a city(other, less broken cities, have faster response times, but still typically far too slow to stop someone bent on doing actual harm). If you're deep in the woods, even the most high priority response is going to be pretty delayed. Or if you're in a poor district. Or it might be a case of a major disaster/riot/etc, and police simply refuse to go into dangerous districts at all. What if you happen to live there? It's pretty clear that police cannot be counted on to protect you in all circumstances.

I'm actually ok with companies that ban firearms on the premises, so long as they have made arrangements for security. If they choose to take that responsibility on rather than leaving it to individuals, all is well and good. I'm less thrilled with companies that ban firearms, but make no provisions for security at all. A sign alone does rather little to ensure safety.

Newm wrote:How often do home invasions happen as compared to just your run of the mill stealing stuff while people aren't home? How did the criminals get into your house fast enough to place you in that sort of danger? And why aren't you securing against that rather than getting ready to fight them?


Well, people in more dangerous neighborhoods frequently rent instead of owning. They may not be able to harden their home against intrusion beyond the customary lock on the door. In any case, it is difficult to harden anything against a determined assault for any significant length of time. Windows break. Average people cannot afford bulletproof windows for every window of their home. Windows and doors are pretty obvious weak points. You can put in an alarm system if you like, but all that really does is dial for you...the actual response is still going to be too slow to stop a violent assailant.

Plus, how much money can you really be expected to invest in order to try to save the life of someone bent on attacking you? At some point, it's on him to, yknow, stop. I once lived in a spot where it was a crappy neighborhood, and it was just accepted that stuff left on the porch would likely be stolen. Meh, that's no big thing. After I realized the cops didn't care about crime(them laughing and joking as a woman tried to complain to them about being the victim of a hit and run was something of a clue), I didn't bother reporting it, even. I just set out stuff that I was bored of, but didn't mind if it vanished. However, if someone's breaking in while you're clearly home, something is definitely wrong beyond the "I want your stuff" level.

Nem
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Nem » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:04 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:It doesn't do any good to compare to "run of the mill stealing stuff while people aren't home" because obviously self-defensive firearm use isn't going to be at issue there. It's difficult to pin down the number of home invasions in comparison to other types of crime, mostly because home invasion is not defined as such in law; most criminals convicted of home-invasion-related crimes are convicted specifically of rape, murder, or robbery.


I'm looking for some idea of the scale here. I mean I used to be scared of fighting back if someone tried to do something to me, because I thought that if I fought back they'd hurt me more, but then I looked at the figures and it seemed like people didn't get hurt more on average when they fought back - at which point I lost that fear. Numbers and comparisons of scale make the world make sense. There are fears that are reasonable and unreasonable to have. It doesn't make sense to fear lightning unless you're in a thunderstorm - and without some more concrete idea of the scale, this feels more like a lightning strike scale problem than a traffic accident scale problem.

davidstarlingm wrote:I'm not sure why you think the speed of entry is relevant. If you're an hour from the nearest police station and two men with guns want to break into your home, tie you up, rape you, take your valuables, and then burn the house down to hide the evidence (this isn't an unreasonable fear), the amount of time it takes them to break into your house isn't really an issue. It's not that hard to kick down a door, break a window, or otherwise gain entry to a locked house. In that kind of situation, self-defense is pretty much your only option, especially when police are under no obligation to protect you, even during an active robbery.


If someone can just kick your door down, then you need a better door frame. If someone can just smash a window, then you need to stick some security film over it (they make these for shops, they're very effective.) If you're not allowed a better door frame, because you're in flats or something, or can't afford one, then get a length of metal or a large lump of wood and wedge it between the centre of the door and something immovable on the other side.

As to why speed of entry matters: if someone takes a long time to get into the building, making a lot of noise while they're about it, there's less chance of you being hurt or killed without anyone coming to help. If you've got a few minutes, and the above precautions would buy you more than a few, you can retreat to a room that can be fortified and buy yourself yet more time. Have a room where you can tip a filling cabinet in front of the door - or even better where there's a strip of metal attached to the centre of the door going to a shoe of metal embedded in the floor... they used to use those in hotel rooms, they stopped using them because it took firemen forever to bust the doors down.

The only hope they'd really have, if you made getting in difficult, would be to burn you out. And I don't see why they would - it's taking them forever to get in, they've made a lot of noise, the police are getting closer... they'd really be a lot better off just cutting their loses.

#

Tyndmyr wrote:I believe you are under the impression that an AK is difficult to make. This is not the case. Some guns require a certain degree of precision, have tons of pieces, and are generally made by technologically adept countries. The AK, on the other hand, sneers at the idea of tolerances, is made in basically every country in the world, including out of tents in places with so little civilization that food is a severe problem, and you can find guides online to making them out of objects as simple as a rusty old shovel.

So, the demand is going to come from the same place it does now. Single shot guns are dirt cheap compared to higher quality guns now, but people, criminal or not, obviously are willing to pay more for better guns.


I don't think they're difficult to make, I just think they're more bother to make than a reasonable pistol would be.

As for demand, most people aren't going to break the law just to own a gun that they're not going to be able to shoot and enjoy without significant bother - automatic fire being a rather distinctive sound. And it's not like the criminal is just going to walk around with a rifle (guns being acknowledged as weapons of opportunity.) So... I just don't see where the demand would come from to justify even the little extra bother.

Tyndmyr wrote:Right. And making guns is easier. Firearm technology hasn't changed all that rapidly. It's old tech. The 1911, still one of the most popular guns around, is over a hundred years old. There's no electronics or anything funky. You mostly just need a barrel and some way to strike the primer. A very short shopping trip to lowes or home depot will get you everything you need. There's very few parts in even many commercial guns. Hell, if you ask, folks at the hardware store will generally cut things to length for you.

Making full auto guns isn't even that hard. Mostly, it means not including stuff that semi-autos have. If you aren't concerned about your gun having safety features, pleasing asthetics, and so on, it really isn't that big of a deal to make something with some firepower. You need a tube, something that goes bang, and something to get flung out the far end, really. Double barrel? two of those and duct tape. Auto? Well, spring, slide, mag. Meh.

Look, it crops up from time to time now. Sometimes children make zip guns because money means more to them. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcconnecticut.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2FNew-Haven-Police-Arrest-Robbers-Uncover-Zipgun-Manufacturer-228979091.html&ei=-uJ7UtWuAtKs4AO9Dg&usg=AFQjCNFpiM8QCOn2HPfc2g9sSNeUC_5IQA&sig2=wFyM2Bi79PBZoZ3IAK4Ugg&bvm=bv.55980276,d.dmg


If you just want a zip gun, yes - I've already covered that. Making more complex firearms - like say you wanted to knock off a 1911 - requires specially shaped bits of metal though, generally small things that are a pain in the arse to mess around with. That's not easier to make than drugs.

Tyndmyr wrote:We can be reasonably sure that the intersection will be far less than a million dollars. If you look south, across the mexican border, it's fairly trivial to deduce that illegal firearm prices are pretty damned low, even without much in the way of legal supply for the country( a single gun shop in the capital). Now sure, we're richer than Mexico, so prices can be expected to rise somewhat in the US...but again, drugs are a great parallel here. If there's money to be made shipping us drugs, they'll ship us drugs. If guns, guns.


Well, yes, I feel this is a more realistic concern. That the border can't be secured and there's a rather messed up nation next door.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:38 am UTC

Nem wrote:How often do home invasions happen as compared to just your run of the mill stealing stuff while people aren't home? How did the criminals get into your house fast enough to place you in that sort of danger? And why aren't you securing against that rather than getting ready to fight them?

Those are good questions.

The point has been made that Home Invasions are more dangerous than simple taking things from an unoccupied building.

People that think they are prepared for that are Wrong.
But; People being people; Folks like to brag about what they will do.
Seldom do people truthfully brag about what they have done. Well..Not in those situations.

Sometimes the guys that do the Home Invasion brag about it.
It does tend to be a Team Sport.

Every once in a great while we have a psychotic person break into a home while the family is home.
I think that is a danger no nation is free of. That can happen, anywhere.

The Team Players are not psychotic. I would like to call that psychotic, but it's not.
No man is prepared to go against a Team. He might go onto the internet and brag about how he has it UNDER CONTROL.

The poor things. Let them dream.
Of course, it does get irritating.

Idiots all puffed up and half drunk.
Braging about what great warriors they are.

So; Some one like me, might say,
"Pfft. You would not stand a chance."

That is not a nice thing to say. Those guys may not be talking about guns as much as they are talking about their Masculinity.
Not a good thing, to laugh at a man's masculinity, unless you are really good friends. They don't like that.

But; If we can't laugh at them what can we do?
Shooting them for shooting off their mouths is not allowed in all jurisdictions, yet.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:35 am UTC

Nem wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:It doesn't do any good to compare to "run of the mill stealing stuff while people aren't home" because obviously self-defensive firearm use isn't going to be at issue there. It's difficult to pin down the number of home invasions in comparison to other types of crime, mostly because home invasion is not defined as such in law; most criminals convicted of home-invasion-related crimes are convicted specifically of rape, murder, or robbery.


I'm looking for some idea of the scale here. I mean I used to be scared of fighting back if someone tried to do something to me, because I thought that if I fought back they'd hurt me more, but then I looked at the figures and it seemed like people didn't get hurt more on average when they fought back - at which point I lost that fear. Numbers and comparisons of scale make the world make sense. There are fears that are reasonable and unreasonable to have. It doesn't make sense to fear lightning unless you're in a thunderstorm - and without some more concrete idea of the scale, this feels more like a lightning strike scale problem than a traffic accident scale problem.


Violence is a lot more common than lightning strikes, but traffic accidents are pretty bad. There's a wide range there.

2011 deaths by auto accident: 32,367
Average lightening deaths per year: 51
Homicides per year: 16,259

All numbers are US only. So yeah, if you're worried about staying alive, you should probably also wear your seatbelt, but not worry overly much about lightening. Still, concern over homicides is pretty rational, and in scale, it is much closer to traffic accident scale than to lightening bolt scale. This concern might be higher or lower for a given individual depending on their likely exposure to violence as well.

davidstarlingm wrote:I'm not sure why you think the speed of entry is relevant. If you're an hour from the nearest police station and two men with guns want to break into your home, tie you up, rape you, take your valuables, and then burn the house down to hide the evidence (this isn't an unreasonable fear), the amount of time it takes them to break into your house isn't really an issue. It's not that hard to kick down a door, break a window, or otherwise gain entry to a locked house. In that kind of situation, self-defense is pretty much your only option, especially when police are under no obligation to protect you, even during an active robbery.


If someone can just kick your door down, then you need a better door frame. If someone can just smash a window, then you need to stick some security film over it (they make these for shops, they're very effective.) If you're not allowed a better door frame, because you're in flats or something, or can't afford one, then get a length of metal or a large lump of wood and wedge it between the centre of the door and something immovable on the other side.

As to why speed of entry matters: if someone takes a long time to get into the building, making a lot of noise while they're about it, there's less chance of you being hurt or killed without anyone coming to help. If you've got a few minutes, and the above precautions would buy you more than a few, you can retreat to a room that can be fortified and buy yourself yet more time. Have a room where you can tip a filling cabinet in front of the door - or even better where there's a strip of metal attached to the centre of the door going to a shoe of metal embedded in the floor... they used to use those in hotel rooms, they stopped using them because it took firemen forever to bust the doors down.


Forever in a fire is entirely different than forever when waiting for police to come. A very good police department has a response time in minutes, and might arrive within seven minutes or so. Seven minutes in a fire is forever. A very poor police department might not come at all. No protection lasts forever. A very poor police department that does come may have a response time of an hour or more. You're not gonna hold a door shut that long, even if there's a strip of metal involved. In any case, it seems unlikely that everyone can fortify their doors and windows to repel attackers and have fortified saferooms.

Also, noise doesn't matter a great deal to people attempting to break in when you are there. Obviously, they are not trying to be sneaky. Calling 9-11 is going to be the first thing most people do when you're breaking into their home, so criminals not seeking violence/confrontation, but just robbery are going to bail out at the first sign of someone being home, mostly. So, the sort of people that are gonna smash stuff in to get to you are already not the stealthy sort. It's just not much of a factor.

As a practical matter, I've moved and rented a lot. It's vastly more reasonable to take a gun with me when I move than to somehow get permission to armor up each apartment.

Tyndmyr wrote:I believe you are under the impression that an AK is difficult to make. This is not the case. Some guns require a certain degree of precision, have tons of pieces, and are generally made by technologically adept countries. The AK, on the other hand, sneers at the idea of tolerances, is made in basically every country in the world, including out of tents in places with so little civilization that food is a severe problem, and you can find guides online to making them out of objects as simple as a rusty old shovel.

So, the demand is going to come from the same place it does now. Single shot guns are dirt cheap compared to higher quality guns now, but people, criminal or not, obviously are willing to pay more for better guns.


I don't think they're difficult to make, I just think they're more bother to make than a reasonable pistol would be.

As for demand, most people aren't going to break the law just to own a gun that they're not going to be able to shoot and enjoy without significant bother - automatic fire being a rather distinctive sound. And it's not like the criminal is just going to walk around with a rifle (guns being acknowledged as weapons of opportunity.) So... I just don't see where the demand would come from to justify even the little extra bother.


An AK is definitely not going to be more of a bother to make, generally. Yeah, pistols are common in crime here...but that's at least partly a stealth thing. In places like Mexico, the AK is indeed a common element in crime. They're ridiculously easy to make, and that's part of why they're so common. Choke the supply of guns that is currently in vogue, and the criminal firearm supply starts to look more like Mexicos.

Tyndmyr wrote:Right. And making guns is easier. Firearm technology hasn't changed all that rapidly. It's old tech. The 1911, still one of the most popular guns around, is over a hundred years old. There's no electronics or anything funky. You mostly just need a barrel and some way to strike the primer. A very short shopping trip to lowes or home depot will get you everything you need. There's very few parts in even many commercial guns. Hell, if you ask, folks at the hardware store will generally cut things to length for you.

Making full auto guns isn't even that hard. Mostly, it means not including stuff that semi-autos have. If you aren't concerned about your gun having safety features, pleasing asthetics, and so on, it really isn't that big of a deal to make something with some firepower. You need a tube, something that goes bang, and something to get flung out the far end, really. Double barrel? two of those and duct tape. Auto? Well, spring, slide, mag. Meh.

Look, it crops up from time to time now. Sometimes children make zip guns because money means more to them. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcconnecticut.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2FNew-Haven-Police-Arrest-Robbers-Uncover-Zipgun-Manufacturer-228979091.html&ei=-uJ7UtWuAtKs4AO9Dg&usg=AFQjCNFpiM8QCOn2HPfc2g9sSNeUC_5IQA&sig2=wFyM2Bi79PBZoZ3IAK4Ugg&bvm=bv.55980276,d.dmg


If you just want a zip gun, yes - I've already covered that. Making more complex firearms - like say you wanted to knock off a 1911 - requires specially shaped bits of metal though, generally small things that are a pain in the arse to mess around with. That's not easier to make than drugs.


The 1911 is not a particularly simple pistol, more simple ones exist. For instance, the AK-47 has only eight moving parts. It is commonly operated and maintained by children. In africa, one brings prices as low as $12/ea. It's notable that most places that produce drugs in job lots have no shortage of AKs, but AKs also exist in a ton of other places as well.

Tyndmyr wrote:We can be reasonably sure that the intersection will be far less than a million dollars. If you look south, across the mexican border, it's fairly trivial to deduce that illegal firearm prices are pretty damned low, even without much in the way of legal supply for the country( a single gun shop in the capital). Now sure, we're richer than Mexico, so prices can be expected to rise somewhat in the US...but again, drugs are a great parallel here. If there's money to be made shipping us drugs, they'll ship us drugs. If guns, guns.


Well, yes, I feel this is a more realistic concern. That the border can't be secured and there's a rather messed up nation next door.


It's hard to practically secure. We could build a very imposing wall, I suppose, but it would be a very long wall, much it through fairly remote country. People would go under or over. So long as trade exists, some will go through. Some will go around on the coasts. The drugs situation is very similar to how firearms would be even if you stomped out every US maker. Granted, some US drug makers still exist, and the same would likely be true of guns, but there's a significant inflow there.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:08 am UTC

I am mildly offended at the way you personalities type about Mexico.
jeeze. Mexico is all dangerous drugs and guns to you?

Mexico has some bad neighborhoods. Everywhere has bad neighborhoods.
To draw a line across the US/Mexico border will not make US people safer.

To stop the US people from going to Mexico would be an economic blow to some areas of Mexico, during the winter.
People from other nations would pick up the slack as Tourists. We would not be missed much.

I don't know where you picked up your ideas about Mexico.
I think you are Wrong.

Get guns. That is fine. Shoot everyone you know. That is fine.
Do not take your guns to Mexico. Getting guns from Mexico? Maybe.

Getting guns here is plenty easy. You would have to move a lot of guns to make it worth your while.
I have heard that you do not want to be found transporting guns in Mexico. It is only a rumor.

I don't bother transporting guns. I do bother being searched.
Mexican personal is a lot nicer about it than US personal is.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:21 am UTC

addams wrote:I am mildly offended at the way you personalities type about Mexico.
jeeze. Mexico is all dangerous drugs and guns to you?

Mexico has some bad neighborhoods. Everywhere has bad neighborhoods.
To draw a line across the US/Mexico border will not make US people safer.

To stop the US people from going to Mexico would be an economic blow to some areas of Mexico, during the winter.
People from other nations would pick up the slack as Tourists. We would not be missed much.


It's a hypothetical scenario within a hypothetical scenario. My suggestion is that even a super-wall between the US and Mexico would be of limited use in curtailing the drug trade. Obviously, it would also have significant costs.

In the hypothetical scenario of a widespread US gun banning, the same can be assumed to be true, even if we take similarly ludicrous precautions.

In essence, I'm deliberately setting up a system to be as favorable as possible for the gun-banning side, and showing how even in that unlikely scenario, it doesn't fix the problems they claim to be trying to fix.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:00 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
addams wrote:I am mildly offended at the way you personalities type about Mexico.
jeeze. Mexico is all dangerous drugs and guns to you?

Mexico has some bad neighborhoods. Everywhere has bad neighborhoods.
To draw a line across the US/Mexico border will not make US people safer.

To stop the US people from going to Mexico would be an economic blow to some areas of Mexico, during the winter.
People from other nations would pick up the slack as Tourists. We would not be missed much.


It's a hypothetical scenario within a hypothetical scenario. My suggestion is that even a super-wall between the US and Mexico would be of limited use in curtailing the drug trade. Obviously, it would also have significant costs.

In the hypothetical scenario of a widespread US gun banning, the same can be assumed to be true, even if we take similarly ludicrous precautions.

In essence, I'm deliberately setting up a system to be as favorable as possible for the gun-banning side, and showing how even in that unlikely scenario, it doesn't fix the problems they claim to be trying to fix.

You are setting up a system? Really?

The Drug Trade? ech. I have known people in the past that transported a some drugs across that border.
Estrogen. I was told it is cheep, cheep, cheep by US standards.

What else? Anti-biotics and heart meds. BetaBlockers and such.
Yes. Closing the border would slow that down a bit, I suppose.

Banning guns is a non-issue.
That is not going to happen.
No one wants to take your guns away.

I do understand the conversation.
People needed and sometimes still do need to talk about Stoping the Violence.

I know some stuff.
I learned some of what I know by reading Reports and Studies.
I learned some of what I know by experience.

To stop the violence and to control guns, The People must have some self control.
The more self control people have the less violence we will have.

Where do people learn self control?
Think!! Everyone think!!

Where does self control come from?
Do you get it from some Fancy Pants on TV?

Donny Trump? Is that where you learn self control?
Where? Where do you get self control?

Do you accept the premise?
Self control is an important part of being a citizen.
Do you accept that premise?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Nem
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Nem » Thu Nov 14, 2013 2:24 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Violence is a lot more common than lightning strikes, but traffic accidents are pretty bad. There's a wide range there.

2011 deaths by auto accident: 32,367
Average lightening deaths per year: 51
Homicides per year: 16,259

All numbers are US only. So yeah, if you're worried about staying alive, you should probably also wear your seatbelt, but not worry overly much about lightening. Still, concern over homicides is pretty rational, and in scale, it is much closer to traffic accident scale than to lightening bolt scale. This concern might be higher or lower for a given individual depending on their likely exposure to violence as well.


Going with a narrower range quickly loses meaning when you're dealing with small probabilities. If it's more probable than dying of a heart attack, I don't even know what that would mean in terms of how to feel about it and how we treat risk.

It's not much closer. It's 16,108 incidents away from deaths by auto accident and 16,208 incidents away from lightning deaths. It's pretty much bang in the middle. It wouldn't even register as a single percentage point off.

So, it's about half as likely as dying in an auto accident.

Of gun-related homicides the majority (93%) in 1996 were committed against people with at least one criminal conviction (More Guns, Less Crime John Lott 1998) This was up from 73% in 1985 (Journal of Trauma #35(4) 532-536 quoted in Gun Violence the Real Costs 2000)

Going by those figures your chance of being subject to a homicide at all, provided you're not a criminal, seems much closer to the lightning strike end of the scale than the auto accident end of the scale.

When taking whatever percentage of those are as the result of home invasions the number seems likely to be smaller again, though I don't know how much by.

Tyndmyr wrote:Forever in a fire is entirely different than forever when waiting for police to come. A very good police department has a response time in minutes, and might arrive within seven minutes or so. Seven minutes in a fire is forever. A very poor police department might not come at all. No protection lasts forever. A very poor police department that does come may have a response time of an hour or more. You're not gonna hold a door shut that long, even if there's a strip of metal involved. In any case, it seems unlikely that everyone can fortify their doors and windows to repel attackers and have fortified saferooms.

Also, noise doesn't matter a great deal to people attempting to break in when you are there. Obviously, they are not trying to be sneaky. Calling 9-11 is going to be the first thing most people do when you're breaking into their home, so criminals not seeking violence/confrontation, but just robbery are going to bail out at the first sign of someone being home, mostly. So, the sort of people that are gonna smash stuff in to get to you are already not the stealthy sort. It's just not much of a factor.

As a practical matter, I've moved and rented a lot. It's vastly more reasonable to take a gun with me when I move than to somehow get permission to armor up each apartment.


People who aren't bothered about noise are, it seems to me, trading noise for speed. And not much noise for that, kicking down a door's relatively quiet. The occupants will notice, but will the people in the next house over be aware that something's off enough to phone the police? The example, given above, of the woman whose family were raped and murdered, they had multiple hours to work with where the police weren't even aware that they were there. Smash the door in and hope that the police/neighbours don't notice and you can take the family before they can do anything about it.

It's true enough that no protection lasts forever against any attacker, yes. But some protection is very formidable. To the point where the people trying to get through are going to get knackered before they can hope to get in. Realistically someone is not going to swing a sledgehammer for an hour. And if they're just trying to kick down a reinforced door, that's a futile effort.

Standing there hammering away at a door with a sledge hammer is not something I imagine you want to be doing for any great length of time.

Tyndmyr wrote:An AK is definitely not going to be more of a bother to make, generally. Yeah, pistols are common in crime here...but that's at least partly a stealth thing. In places like Mexico, the AK is indeed a common element in crime. They're ridiculously easy to make, and that's part of why they're so common. Choke the supply of guns that is currently in vogue, and the criminal firearm supply starts to look more like Mexicos.


Folding these together because they're strongly related -

Tyndmyr wrote:The 1911 is not a particularly simple pistol, more simple ones exist. For instance, the AK-47 has only eight moving parts. It is commonly operated and maintained by children. In africa, one brings prices as low as $12/ea. It's notable that most places that produce drugs in job lots have no shortage of AKs, but AKs also exist in a ton of other places as well.


Do you think that AKs are more difficult to make than pistols? If not why do you think that the criminal gun supply would move towards that end of things?

Tyndmyr wrote:It's hard to practically secure. We could build a very imposing wall, I suppose, but it would be a very long wall, much it through fairly remote country. People would go under or over. So long as trade exists, some will go through. Some will go around on the coasts. The drugs situation is very similar to how firearms would be even if you stomped out every US maker. Granted, some US drug makers still exist, and the same would likely be true of guns, but there's a significant inflow there.


Mmm, I don't really disagree with you there at the moment. I wonder how effective drones would be at monitoring the border.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:55 pm UTC

When it comes to the whole question of robberies and home invasions and so forth, I think it's important not to understate the impact of the American penal system. Prison is punitive, not rehabilitative; if you get caught committing a felony, you're in deep shit for the rest of your life. This doesn't make people less inclined to commit crime, though....this just makes them try harder to avoid getting caught.

Burglary is a felony even if you don't actually steal anything. If you're willing to break into a house in the United States, you're almost definitely prepared to kill rather than risk capture or identification. So you carry a firearm, because the increased penalty for carrying a firearm while committing a felony is nothing compared to the reduced risk of getting caught. Which just makes you more likely to use your firearm if things get nasty.

So, flip this around to the other side....if someone breaks into your house at night, it's pretty safe to assume that they are armed and prepared to kill you. Assuming that they're only there for money and will leave you alone is very probably going to get you killed. A person who has broken into your house at night has almost no reason not to kill you. Which is why owning a revolver or semiautomatic pistol loaded with hollow-point rounds and kept close to where you sleep is a very, very good idea.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:22 pm UTC

Nem wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Violence is a lot more common than lightning strikes, but traffic accidents are pretty bad. There's a wide range there.

2011 deaths by auto accident: 32,367
Average lightening deaths per year: 51
Homicides per year: 16,259

All numbers are US only. So yeah, if you're worried about staying alive, you should probably also wear your seatbelt, but not worry overly much about lightening. Still, concern over homicides is pretty rational, and in scale, it is much closer to traffic accident scale than to lightening bolt scale. This concern might be higher or lower for a given individual depending on their likely exposure to violence as well.


Going with a narrower range quickly loses meaning when you're dealing with small probabilities. If it's more probable than dying of a heart attack, I don't even know what that would mean in terms of how to feel about it and how we treat risk.

It's not much closer. It's 16,108 incidents away from deaths by auto accident and 16,208 incidents away from lightning deaths. It's pretty much bang in the middle. It wouldn't even register as a single percentage point off.

So, it's about half as likely as dying in an auto accident.

Of gun-related homicides the majority (93%) in 1996 were committed against people with at least one criminal conviction (More Guns, Less Crime John Lott 1998) This was up from 73% in 1985 (Journal of Trauma #35(4) 532-536 quoted in Gun Violence the Real Costs 2000)

Going by those figures your chance of being subject to a homicide at all, provided you're not a criminal, seems much closer to the lightning strike end of the scale than the auto accident end of the scale.

When taking whatever percentage of those are as the result of home invasions the number seems likely to be smaller again, though I don't know how much by.


Sure, for the average person, death by car accident should be about twice as worrisome as death by violence. Circumstances will definitely change your concern for each, because risks vary. If you don't drive, maybe car accidents are a much lower concern. If you live in a really nice area, maybe violence is less of a concern. I don't think we disagree that this is rational.

And yeah, home invasions are to violence as, say, roll-over deaths are to car accidents. A subset of each, but people may discuss the specific subset in contexts where it is relevant.

Tyndmyr wrote:Forever in a fire is entirely different than forever when waiting for police to come. A very good police department has a response time in minutes, and might arrive within seven minutes or so. Seven minutes in a fire is forever. A very poor police department might not come at all. No protection lasts forever. A very poor police department that does come may have a response time of an hour or more. You're not gonna hold a door shut that long, even if there's a strip of metal involved. In any case, it seems unlikely that everyone can fortify their doors and windows to repel attackers and have fortified saferooms.

Also, noise doesn't matter a great deal to people attempting to break in when you are there. Obviously, they are not trying to be sneaky. Calling 9-11 is going to be the first thing most people do when you're breaking into their home, so criminals not seeking violence/confrontation, but just robbery are going to bail out at the first sign of someone being home, mostly. So, the sort of people that are gonna smash stuff in to get to you are already not the stealthy sort. It's just not much of a factor.

As a practical matter, I've moved and rented a lot. It's vastly more reasonable to take a gun with me when I move than to somehow get permission to armor up each apartment.


People who aren't bothered about noise are, it seems to me, trading noise for speed. And not much noise for that, kicking down a door's relatively quiet. The occupants will notice, but will the people in the next house over be aware that something's off enough to phone the police? The example, given above, of the woman whose family were raped and murdered, they had multiple hours to work with where the police weren't even aware that they were there. Smash the door in and hope that the police/neighbours don't notice and you can take the family before they can do anything about it.

It's true enough that no protection lasts forever against any attacker, yes. But some protection is very formidable. To the point where the people trying to get through are going to get knackered before they can hope to get in. Realistically someone is not going to swing a sledgehammer for an hour. And if they're just trying to kick down a reinforced door, that's a futile effort.

Standing there hammering away at a door with a sledge hammer is not something I imagine you want to be doing for any great length of time.


Police frequently use a sledge or similar kinetic system for entry with SWAT, etc. It's very fast and reliable. If the criminal is dedicated enough enough to have brought a sledge, he's getting in, and fast. Almost no doors can take much sledgehammering at all. Windows certainly can't. Hell, your walls likely can't, unless you live in a brick home. Now, sure, having a good lock is nice, but it doesn't really replace the firearm.

I mean, if the neighbors do notice, how is that different, really? What are they going to do, call the police? It won't speed the response.

Tyndmyr wrote:An AK is definitely not going to be more of a bother to make, generally. Yeah, pistols are common in crime here...but that's at least partly a stealth thing. In places like Mexico, the AK is indeed a common element in crime. They're ridiculously easy to make, and that's part of why they're so common. Choke the supply of guns that is currently in vogue, and the criminal firearm supply starts to look more like Mexicos.


Folding these together because they're strongly related -

Tyndmyr wrote:The 1911 is not a particularly simple pistol, more simple ones exist. For instance, the AK-47 has only eight moving parts. It is commonly operated and maintained by children. In africa, one brings prices as low as $12/ea. It's notable that most places that produce drugs in job lots have no shortage of AKs, but AKs also exist in a ton of other places as well.


Do you think that AKs are more difficult to make than pistols? If not why do you think that the criminal gun supply would move towards that end of things?


AKs are significantly less difficult to make than most pistols. They need comparatively little machining, and tolerances are pretty loose. The firearm needs particularly little upkeep as well. They are not common currently because in a world filled with commercial firearms manufacturing, availability is sufficiently high that ease of manufacture is almost irrelevant. If you banned that, one would expect certain shifts in weapons carried by criminals, with availability becoming a higher priority.

Of course, ease of manufacture does not correlate to lethality, so this isn't much of a win. The AK is a pretty effective gun.

Tyndmyr wrote:It's hard to practically secure. We could build a very imposing wall, I suppose, but it would be a very long wall, much it through fairly remote country. People would go under or over. So long as trade exists, some will go through. Some will go around on the coasts. The drugs situation is very similar to how firearms would be even if you stomped out every US maker. Granted, some US drug makers still exist, and the same would likely be true of guns, but there's a significant inflow there.


Mmm, I don't really disagree with you there at the moment. I wonder how effective drones would be at monitoring the border.


Probably less so than guys in trucks. A drone needs a substantial support network, a guy in a truck, not nearly as much.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Gun Control

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:00 pm UTC

Not really, the support network needed for a small drone (not a fighter-jet sized, missile-armed military drone) is actually quite minimal. There's quite an industry of 'backpack' deploy-able UAVs for soldiers and scientists in un-developed areas.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:27 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Not really, the support network needed for a small drone (not a fighter-jet sized, missile-armed military drone) is actually quite minimal. There's quite an industry of 'backpack' deploy-able UAVs for soldiers and scientists in un-developed areas.

Have you been down there?
At the US/Mexican border?

What did you see? Did you do any of the reading?
Gun Control has turned into a Defend the Border Thread?

Why? Mexico is not invading the US with guns.
Sometimes I think, "More's the pity."

Playing with Drones has got to be fun!
There have been some great films shot from those things.

So much cheeper than helicopters.
If one goes down in that desert, it can stay down.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:28 pm UTC

Nem wrote:You can make meth in a jug in the back of your cat (granted it has a non-negligible chance of blowing up in your face if you're not careful about bleeding it off, but that apparently doesn't stop drug addicts).


The visuals for this sentence are just awesome.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:49 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Nem wrote:You can make meth in a jug in the back of your cat (granted it has a non-negligible chance of blowing up in your face if you're not careful about bleeding it off, but that apparently doesn't stop drug addicts).


The visuals for this sentence are just awesome.

We are xkcd; Are we not?

Who does not want to try it?
Have the MythBusters tried it, yet?

Buster can take another one, for The Team.
They can do everything, Wrong.

Shake, don't stir. How much would it take to blow the back door off?
Leave it unlatched. That could happen. The back door might fly so far open the front door becomes unusable.

Go Buster! Confirm a Myth!
They could put fireworks in the trunk.
That would increase the entertainment value.

Fireworks are a common household item for the adventurous types.
Nothing much more adventurous than Chemistry in the back seat of a moving car.

Many of you are the products of Chemistry in the back seat of a moving car.
See what it can do? Outlaw Chemistry! It will solve the overpopulation problem.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:21 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:Not really, the support network needed for a small drone (not a fighter-jet sized, missile-armed military drone) is actually quite minimal. There's quite an industry of 'backpack' deploy-able UAVs for soldiers and scientists in un-developed areas.


And the performance aspects of such a drone mean that they are something you give to a guy in a truck, not use to replace a guy in a truck. Per the recent washpo interviews, 1 mil drone flying = about 300 workers supporting it.

I have to assume that border guards require somewhat less support.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:12 pm UTC

Huh, sometimes data falls right in your lap.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/jeweller-angelos-koots-admits-to-making-submachine-guns-at-his-seven-hills-home-and-supplying-them-to-bikie-groups/story-fni0cx12-1226760983916

IE, the level of diminished supply caused by Australia's firearm laws(which, while strict compared to the US, are certainly still well short of a full ban), resulted in significant supply of automatic weapons, and the price/per professionally made firearm on the black market hit about 15k. And of course, that's a perfectly made silenced submachine gun, so...pretty high up the spectrum in terms of quality.

And of course, even if he only made the hundred-odd guns he admitted to making, at 15k a pop, that's...a pretty goodly supply of money. I have to imagine that others would be tempted for that kind of a payout.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:33 pm UTC

That doesn't seem particularly worth it for the customer. Is there something missing here? Why would anyone pay 15,000 dollars for a gun?
Last edited by sardia on Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:14 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby morriswalters » Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:13 pm UTC

No serial numbers.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:51 am UTC

sardia wrote:That doesn't seem particularly worth it for the customer. Is there something missing here? Why would anyone pay 15,000 dollars for a gun?


When no one else is armed, a silenced SMG, professional grade, without any police records of its existence? If you can't think of any uses for that, well...

Suffice it to say it's of great value (15k!) to organized criminals.
Omni.

Nem
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:19 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Nem » Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:27 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Sure, for the average person, death by cat accident should be about twice as worrisome as death by violence. Circumstances will definitely change your concern for each, because risks vary. If you don't drive, maybe cat accidents are a much lower concern. If you live in a really nice area, maybe violence is less of a concern. I don't think we disagree that this is rational.

And yeah, home invasions are to violence as, say, roll-over deaths are to cat accidents. A subset of each, but people may discuss the specific subset in contexts where it is relevant.


Sure, but ideally the subset should be representative of the concerns of the superset. I don't know that it is here.

Tyndmyr wrote:Police frequently use a sledge or similar kinetic system for entry with SWAT, etc. It's very fast and reliable. If the criminal is dedicated enough enough to have brought a sledge, he's getting in, and fast. Almost no doors can take much sledgehammering at all. Windows certainly can't. Hell, your walls likely can't, unless you live in a brick home. Now, sure, having a good lock is nice, but it doesn't really replace the firearm.

I mean, if the neighbors do notice, how is that different, really? What are they going to do, call the police? It won't speed the response.


Some doors take a hammering surprisingly well. Especially more recent, flexible doors. You see police hammering away on them, getting worn out, on those police shows sometimes. The frame, with a certain degree of metal in it and multiple locking points, tends to come with the door and the door flexes to absorb impact. As for doors specifically designed to stop entry ... you're just not getting in with anything less than a powerful explosive - it'd be simpler to go through the walls. In either case it's difficult. And doors that are made of wood and reinforced still tend to stand up better than you might suspect - especially if the reinforcement is reasonably behind the force. You're not knocking it open, you're going to be breaking it to bits, with all the slowness that implies, if you want to get in.

Police get in quickly because most doors aren't set up to stop someone who wants to get in. A lot of doors you can open by simple expedient of kicking them hard.

Similarly, while certainly true that windows aren't going to stand up to much of a hammering, if you've got the window properly reinforced it's not going to just shatter into a zillion pieces, it's still going to be a bother to climb through. It slows people down. And if you've got your safe room on the upper floors then they're not going to be breaking in through that window. Buys you time, lets you get to somewhere safer to hide.

The difference between a response from police who aren't called and police who are ought to be considerable. If it takes police an hour to get there (and considering that crime is concentrated in cities and shootings seem to go along with previous convictions I wonder how likely that is) it takes them days to get there for the cleanup if they aren't called.

...

Really even if you think guns are great, if you're worried about security and can do it, this is stuff you should be doing. Someone's gonna be a lot easier to shoot when they're trying to knock down the door to your hidey-hole, you've got time to get your gun, and you know more or less where they are, than when they knock your front door out and are on you in a couple of seconds at most.

Tyndmyr wrote:AKs are significantly less difficult to make than most pistols. They need comparatively little machining, and tolerances are pretty loose. The firearm needs particularly little upkeep as well. They are not common currently because in a world filled with commercial firearms manufacturing, availability is sufficiently high that ease of manufacture is almost irrelevant. If you banned that, one would expect certain shifts in weapons carried by criminals, with availability becoming a higher priority.

Of course, ease of manufacture does not correlate to lethality, so this isn't much of a win. The AK is a pretty effective gun.


Well, that is concerning.

...

Though now I think about it, if guns are banned and criminals take to routinely carrying AK47s, all our problems may be solved. Kinda easy to pick them out on a street.

And aren't sawn off shotty's easier to make? And more concealable now I think about it.

And 'most' pistols. Considering criminals are unlikely to care about copyright why wouldn't they just use one of the mechanically simple pistols?

Tyndmyr wrote:Probably less so than guys in trucks. A drone needs a substantial support network, a guy in a truck, not nearly as much.


Balloon based drones don't require much of a support network, they can stay aloft for months or years at a time and are mechanically very simple.

Tyndmyr wrote:Huh, sometimes data falls right in your lap.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/jeweller-angelos-koots-admits-to-making-submachine-guns-at-his-seven-hills-home-and-supplying-them-to-bikie-groups/story-fni0cx12-1226760983916

IE, the level of diminished supply caused by Australia's firearm laws(which, while strict compared to the US, are certainly still well short of a full ban), resulted in significant supply of automatic weapons, and the price/per professionally made firearm on the black market hit about 15k. And of course, that's a perfectly made silenced submachine gun, so...pretty high up the spectrum in terms of quality.

And of course, even if he only made the hundred-odd guns he admitted to making, at 15k a pop, that's...a pretty goodly supply of money. I have to imagine that others would be tempted for that kind of a payout.


Ah, but this doesn't look like Mexico's gun supply. If gun making was a common activity he wouldn't have been able to demand a 15k price. :wink:

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby morriswalters » Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:17 pm UTC

Couple of things.

Drones are already in use on the border for drug interdiction.

The harder it is for people to enter your home the harder it will be to leave if you have to. But in the end aesthetics rule, not safety against intruders.

Guns would be cheaper in Mexico because they are closer to the best supplier in the world. US. Where you can simply buy them.

Australia has the bad or good fortune, depending on which way you choose to look at it to be an island. Everything is more expensive on an island. :D

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:55 pm UTC

Ralith The Third wrote:
When no one else is armed, a silenced SMG, professional grade, without any police records of its existence? If you can't think of any uses for that, well...

Suffice it to say it's of great value (15k!) to organized criminals.

Is Austrailia different from the US in criminal gun usage? Aren't most gun crimes committed with small arms? Why don't criminals in the US use SMGs?

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby davidstarlingm » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:03 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Ralith The Third wrote:
When no one else is armed, a silenced SMG, professional grade, without any police records of its existence? If you can't think of any uses for that, well...

Suffice it to say it's of great value (15k!) to organized criminals.

Is Austrailia different from the US in criminal gun usage? Aren't most gun crimes committed with small arms? Why don't criminals in the US use SMGs?

Speculatively, I would say that it's driven by the criminalization of small arms in general. In Australia, owning any gun is going to really get you in trouble, so you might as well use as much firepower as you can get your hands on. In the United States, having a revolver or a semiautomatic doesn't raise any red flags, so you can get away with it more easily than an SMG.

Ralith The Third
Don't Ask About His Nephews
Posts: 782
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:21 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Ralith The Third » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:47 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Ralith The Third wrote:
When no one else is armed, a silenced SMG, professional grade, without any police records of its existence? If you can't think of any uses for that, well...

Suffice it to say it's of great value (15k!) to organized criminals.

Is Austrailia different from the US in criminal gun usage? Aren't most gun crimes committed with small arms? Why don't criminals in the US use SMGs?


Essentially what David said.

If I'm a high-end criminal and I'm going to be paying 10k+ for a firearm, I'm going to go for the thing that's best for my job. A silenced SMG is a marginal increase over most firearms for most criminal activities. I can imagine a few situations where a high-end rifle would be useful over one, but not many.

But if I'm in the US and I'm a high-end criminal I don't need to pay 10k for a firearm. I can pay a few hundred/a thousand for one that'll perform nearly as well. There isn't a real supply of silenced SMGs here, so it's much more likely they'll go for a semi-auto handgun or an SBR or what have you to best suit their particular job. 10/15k can get you a *lot* of guns, especially if you have no qualms about using stolen ones.

The supply of "lesser" firearms in the U.S. essentially hamstrings the need for 15k silenced SMGs.
Omni.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 18, 2013 6:14 pm UTC

Nem wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Sure, for the average person, death by cat accident should be about twice as worrisome as death by violence. Circumstances will definitely change your concern for each, because risks vary. If you don't drive, maybe cat accidents are a much lower concern. If you live in a really nice area, maybe violence is less of a concern. I don't think we disagree that this is rational.

And yeah, home invasions are to violence as, say, roll-over deaths are to cat accidents. A subset of each, but people may discuss the specific subset in contexts where it is relevant.


Sure, but ideally the subset should be representative of the concerns of the superset. I don't know that it is here.


To some degree, in both instances. Roll-over problems for SUVs aren't a huge deal for me, because I drive a civic. There's always going to be some fuzziness in exact situations, and no one solution is going to fix all situations. It ends up being a fairly complex breakdown to fully analyze either car accidents or deaths by violence. Most people probably don't do this in detail for either, but it's certainly possible if you want a more accurate picture of the problem.

Tyndmyr wrote:Police frequently use a sledge or similar kinetic system for entry with SWAT, etc. It's very fast and reliable. If the criminal is dedicated enough enough to have brought a sledge, he's getting in, and fast. Almost no doors can take much sledgehammering at all. Windows certainly can't. Hell, your walls likely can't, unless you live in a brick home. Now, sure, having a good lock is nice, but it doesn't really replace the firearm.

I mean, if the neighbors do notice, how is that different, really? What are they going to do, call the police? It won't speed the response.


Some doors take a hammering surprisingly well. Especially more recent, flexible doors. You see police hammering away on them, getting worn out, on those police shows sometimes. The frame, with a certain degree of metal in it and multiple locking points, tends to come with the door and the door flexes to absorb impact. As for doors specifically designed to stop entry ... you're just not getting in with anything less than a powerful explosive - it'd be simpler to go through the walls. In either case it's difficult. And doors that are made of wood and reinforced still tend to stand up better than you might suspect - especially if the reinforcement is reasonably behind the force. You're not knocking it open, you're going to be breaking it to bits, with all the slowness that implies, if you want to get in.

Police get in quickly because most doors aren't set up to stop someone who wants to get in. A lot of doors you can open by simple expedient of kicking them hard.

Similarly, while certainly true that windows aren't going to stand up to much of a hammering, if you've got the window properly reinforced it's not going to just shatter into a zillion pieces, it's still going to be a bother to climb through. It slows people down. And if you've got your safe room on the upper floors then they're not going to be breaking in through that window. Buys you time, lets you get to somewhere safer to hide.


Oh, granted, but how many people have reinforced doors, windows and a safe room? Eventually, it ends up being a far more expensive/problematic solution to that subset of the violence problem than a firearm is. Ideally, perhaps you would do all of those things AND have a firearm, but that's a lot of resources dedicated to a single potential problem, and tradeoffs with other needs exist.

The difference between a response from police who aren't called and police who are ought to be considerable. If it takes police an hour to get there (and considering that crime is concentrated in cities and shootings seem to go along with previous convictions I wonder how likely that is) it takes them days to get there for the cleanup if they aren't called.


That's average high-priority response time IN detroit. The difference between an hour and days is likely academic for most purposes. Obviously, calling the police should be done as soon as possible, but that likely isn't a sufficient solution.

Really even if you think guns are great, if you're worried about security and can do it, this is stuff you should be doing. Someone's gonna be a lot easier to shoot when they're trying to knock down the door to your hidey-hole, you've got time to get your gun, and you know more or less where they are, than when they knock your front door out and are on you in a couple of seconds at most.


Oh sure. I'd like to have all that, but I rent at the moment, and even if I could convince the landlord to go for it, putting a bunch of money into a place I may not be staying in for terribly long is unattractive. Likewise, I keep batteries in the fire alarms, mostly, and keep an extinguisher about, but I'm not going to bother to change materials in the house to be fire resistant.

Tyndmyr wrote:AKs are significantly less difficult to make than most pistols. They need comparatively little machining, and tolerances are pretty loose. The firearm needs particularly little upkeep as well. They are not common currently because in a world filled with commercial firearms manufacturing, availability is sufficiently high that ease of manufacture is almost irrelevant. If you banned that, one would expect certain shifts in weapons carried by criminals, with availability becoming a higher priority.

Of course, ease of manufacture does not correlate to lethality, so this isn't much of a win. The AK is a pretty effective gun.


Well, that is concerning.

...

Though now I think about it, if guns are banned and criminals take to routinely carrying AK47s, all our problems may be solved. Kinda easy to pick them out on a street.

And aren't sawn off shotty's easier to make? And more concealable now I think about it.

And 'most' pistols. Considering criminals are unlikely to care about copyright why wouldn't they just use one of the mechanically simple pistols?


Well, the AK does not need to be made as a full length rifle. Ommitting the shoulder stock, for instance, while not normally legal, is pretty much irrelevant if the firearm is illegal to begin with. Leaving it off actually makes construction easier(not much, because stocks are stupid simple, but still). Likewise, a shorter barrel is a very easy modification on most rifles or shotguns, and, if making them to begin with, making a shorter barrel is usually just as easy or easier than making a longer one.

We actually owe some of our restrictions on short barrelled shotguns to crime. There were one or two high profile incidents that led to the heavy restrictions on machine guns, etc. Tommy guns were fairly short, and there was initially discussion of adding pistols to the ban. They had to set minimum standards for rifles and shotguns to avoid trivial circumvention of the pistol regulations. The pistol regulations proved to be politically untenable, and were removed, but the rifle/shotty length rules were never readjusted afterward, so those still went through. So, you have some firearms that are legal in Canada, but not in the US, and many of the specific rules don't make a great deal of logical sense currently.

But yeah, we can expect that to go pretty much out the window once rules are being broken. Copyright won't matter, firearms will bias towards those that are easy to make within each given type, and we can expect firearms to also bias towards concealability. The latter effect should be proportional to risk of detection and what not. In Mexico, crime has reached such levels that detectability may not be a big deal in many cases. If things get too far out of control, you may end up with positive feedback loops encouraging more crime.

Tyndmyr wrote:Probably less so than guys in trucks. A drone needs a substantial support network, a guy in a truck, not nearly as much.


Balloon based drones don't require much of a support network, they can stay aloft for months or years at a time and are mechanically very simple.


Hmm, that would be kind of interesting.

Tyndmyr wrote:Huh, sometimes data falls right in your lap.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/jeweller-angelos-koots-admits-to-making-submachine-guns-at-his-seven-hills-home-and-supplying-them-to-bikie-groups/story-fni0cx12-1226760983916

IE, the level of diminished supply caused by Australia's firearm laws(which, while strict compared to the US, are certainly still well short of a full ban), resulted in significant supply of automatic weapons, and the price/per professionally made firearm on the black market hit about 15k. And of course, that's a perfectly made silenced submachine gun, so...pretty high up the spectrum in terms of quality.

And of course, even if he only made the hundred-odd guns he admitted to making, at 15k a pop, that's...a pretty goodly supply of money. I have to imagine that others would be tempted for that kind of a payout.


Ah, but this doesn't look like Mexico's gun supply. If gun making was a common activity he wouldn't have been able to demand a 15k price. :wink:


Well, it's at the very top end of the quality spectrum. Zip guns seem to command a price of around $100. Presumably high quality silenced submachine guns are a market more oriented towards the successful, organized crook. There'll be a range in between, naturally.

Of course, Australia also has an advantage over us in terms of securing from imported things...they simply have a much easier time of that, so foreign import likely will always be more of an issue in the US for geographical reasons. Thus, we can expect a somewhat lower priced supply curve here.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Mon Nov 18, 2013 7:02 pm UTC

We could make it a Law!
Everyone must have a gun and be able to prove they can use it.

That is one way to interpret the 2nd Amendment.
The US has enough guns or can get them.

Hand outs? Don't give people worthless hand outs.
Give people something that will empower them.

Do they fear being without a gun? Take that fear away.
Give guns to everyone. Make them prove they can use that gun.

Little old ladies that Really, Really don't want to, can designate a shooter for them.
That person get twice as much responsibility and twice as many Government guns.

It will Work! What a lot of fun!
What are your people complaining about? No guns? Fear of losing guns?
Take that burden off those people. Give them Government Guns! Put a USA sticker on each one!

We can walk around comparing guns. It will be fun. My life expectancy would drop like a rock.
I don't care. What fun!

People standing around complaining that The Other guy does not deserve a Government hand out gun.
That Other guy did not work for it. The Other guy might take issue.

The Exceptional American distinguishes its self, again.
Or; Is that?
The Exceptional American extinguishes its self.

That is a strange way to run a Civil War.
Will it work? How much fun would it be?

Have you met my neighbors?
They would not shoot me out of malice.
They would shoot me, I am fairly sure of it.

The guy across the street is constrained by fear of the Law from shooting me.
He has guns and he hates the idea of me. Nothing can be done about that.

The people down stairs are constrained by a lack of gun from using one.
We can fix that. Go Team! 2nd US Right! The only Real Right! Go! Go! Go!

It will take real faith in your beliefs. I will back you. Its a great idea, even if I thought of it.
I can not be the first! An Idea Who's Time Has Come!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 18, 2013 9:17 pm UTC

addams wrote:We could make it a Law!
Everyone must have a gun and be able to prove they can use it.

That is one way to interpret the 2nd Amendment.
The US has enough guns or can get them.


It'd be kind of a stretch. The freedom of speech doesn't mean a person HAS to speak...in fact, remaining silent is a very reasonable option. It isn't really a freedom if you HAVE to engage in it.

Firearms are similar. People have the freedom to choose to bear arms. Making arms mandatory removes that freedom just as banning them would.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:28 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
addams wrote:We could make it a Law!
Everyone must have a gun and be able to prove they can use it.

That is one way to interpret the 2nd Amendment.
The US has enough guns or can get them.


It'd be kind of a stretch. The freedom of speech doesn't mean a person HAS to speak...in fact, remaining silent is a very reasonable option. It isn't really a freedom if you HAVE to engage in it.

Firearms are similar. People have the freedom to choose to bear arms. Making arms mandatory removes that freedom just as banning them would.

OK. OK. There must be a way of pleasing the US people.
At least the vocal and borderline violent ones.

How about: Everyone that wants a gun can have a gun.
We are the US! We can give hand outs to our people.

They want guns? We have guns!
It is a Go! No proof of anything.
Show up. Get a gun.

How is that? It will work!
We are a wealthy nation.

ok ok. We are a nation in debt.
Still; We have guns. If that is what our people want, that is what they should have.

Not earned. Like a good family, ask once.
Take a test? No.

If the people that have guns want to take a test, they can. Freedom. Remember?
They want guns. It may not be true, but I must take people on their word.

When I listen to people they tell me the most pressing issue is this 2nd amendment thing.
Obama wants their guns. Obama can prove he does not want their guns.
He can support the Empowerment of the People!

That is a catchy name for it. Right?
It can be a countermovement. It will be Great!

Obama can not give guns to the people anymore than he can take the guns away.
He and you and me can support Empowerment of the People!

A simple program. Everyone that wants a gun, gets a gun.
What kind will be the easiest to get and give?
We can be handing them out between Thanksgiving and Christmas of this year.

The AK and the MK are the most numerous gun on the planet.
How many of those do we have? What do we have that we can give to our people?

In the armories we still have guns. Those can be distributed.
What are they? It Does Not Matter! If they are guns and the people want them, Hand Them Over!

I did some reading about my nation when I was young. That was a very long time ago.
We were to be a nation Of The People, For The People, By The People.

We were to be a nation of people that handle the responsibility of one another.
My people speak of being victims. My people should not be victims.

They want guns? Give them guns!
After they have guns, they might want something else.

When they say they want something else, then our nation in the form of agents of the government should give them that.
Now; They want guns. We have guns. We can and should give anyone that wants a gun, a gun.
Period. No questions asked. Period.

If we do not trust one another with guns, then how can we trust one another with Government?

No. I am not advocating for lawlessness.
When a person wants something and it is refused them, it can cause a kind of obsession.
We don't want that. I don't want that for my people. I don't want that for my nation.

Empower the People!
Once they have all the guns they want,
maybe the ones that are left, after the dust settles, will be interested in other things.

People may behave better than expected.
It is almost a sure thing. people being people; They will surprise us.

I can easily imagine people taking the Government hand out guns and trying it for a while.
Then becoming interested in the next issue.

Guns have taken up too much of our national imagination and talent.
It must be time to take the power away from the issue.

The fastest way to do that is to give the people what they want.
Don't try to explain anything to us. Give us guns!
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:35 am UTC

Oh joy. It looks like a terrible version of the Undetectable Firearms Act is gonna be voted on by House and Senate. Gonna ban all 3d printed guns, because obviously, that's the biggest threat they have to worry about. Apparently, if it doesn't make a metal detector go beep, all is lost, and we'll just ignore all detection methods anyone came up with since then. Shit, this means terrorists are mostly undetectable. They should pass a law requiring terrorists to make themselves detectable too. Problem solved, right?

Hopefully this'll all die, and hopefully people yell at congress for having the idiocy to worry about this rather than, yknow, everything else they've been failing at. I'm not especially optimistic, though. Sticking our collective head in the sand has been historically popular from time to time. Easier than accepting reality.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Gun Control

Postby addams » Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:39 am UTC

Yes. We all have more important and more interesting things our governing body should be doing.

AssHoles want to make 3D guns illegal. This is the Tea Baggers, again?
3D printed guns are not a problem for the people of the US.

Are they making it illegal to print a gun or to transport a printed gun through airport security?
Have we not discussed and linked 3D guns to death? Not an important social problem.

3D guns are difficult, expensive and unreliable.
AK and Mk are easy, cheep, easy to use and reliable.

Hey! We don't have to make them, there are loads.
Do you know where those guns are? We are a free nation.

Free people do not have a lot of secrets. Free people don't need secrets.
We have enough guns for everyone.

Where is your link. Is the 3D gun story a lead in to more CyperSecurity?
We don't want those CyperPeople e-mailing guns to the High Schools?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:34 pm UTC

addams wrote:Yes. We all have more important and more interesting things our governing body should be doing.

AssHoles want to make 3D guns illegal. This is the Tea Baggers, again?
3D printed guns are not a problem for the people of the US.


Nah, Schumer and co. Different faction, but the perjorative is fair. I think that the voters on both sides have more pressing concerns.

3D guns are difficult, expensive and unreliable.
AK and Mk are easy, cheep, easy to use and reliable.


Pretty much, yeah. They are a fantastic tech demo, but a terrible gun. There's enough high quality firearms in the US to make the printed guns irrelevant in terms of supply.

Where is your link. Is the 3D gun story a lead in to more CyperSecurity?
We don't want those CyperPeople e-mailing guns to the High Schools?


Oh, there's bills in the house and the senate. HR 1474, IIRC, is the one likely being voted on later today when the house session starts. If memory serves, the senate bill is S. 1149.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby morriswalters » Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:13 pm UTC

In 1970 a mobile phone was the size of a suitcase and required an operator. Printed guns will happen. Still a dumb law mind you.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 03, 2013 7:21 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:In 1970 a mobile phone was the size of a suitcase and required an operator. Printed guns will happen. Still a dumb law mind you.


Of course they'll happen. I have seven in my basement. A printed metal one of quality has already been made.

I suspect it's likely protectionism. 3d printing threatens a number of established industries. I don't think it was an accident that the Senate version was updated to ban all 3d printed guns regardless of material. It's probably an overlap of general gun dislike, fear of new tech, and protectionism of existing industry players. Apparently, Schumer and co tried to sneak it out of the Senate by adding it to the list of unanimously approved stuff, but that got caught, so there'll actually be a vote and stuff.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:43 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
morriswalters wrote:In 1970 a mobile phone was the size of a suitcase and required an operator. Printed guns will happen. Still a dumb law mind you.


Of course they'll happen. I have seven in my basement. A printed metal one of quality has already been made.

I suspect it's likely protectionism. 3d printing threatens a number of established industries. I don't think it was an accident that the Senate version was updated to ban all 3d printed guns regardless of material. It's probably an overlap of general gun dislike, fear of new tech, and protectionism of existing industry players. Apparently, Schumer and co tried to sneak it out of the Senate by adding it to the list of unanimously approved stuff, but that got caught, so there'll actually be a vote and stuff.

Can you give some examples? Like I don't expect to 3d print my clothes, but what industries did you have in mind? Car parts? plumbing?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Gun Control

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:02 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
morriswalters wrote:In 1970 a mobile phone was the size of a suitcase and required an operator. Printed guns will happen. Still a dumb law mind you.


Of course they'll happen. I have seven in my basement. A printed metal one of quality has already been made.

I suspect it's likely protectionism. 3d printing threatens a number of established industries. I don't think it was an accident that the Senate version was updated to ban all 3d printed guns regardless of material. It's probably an overlap of general gun dislike, fear of new tech, and protectionism of existing industry players. Apparently, Schumer and co tried to sneak it out of the Senate by adding it to the list of unanimously approved stuff, but that got caught, so there'll actually be a vote and stuff.

Can you give some examples? Like I don't expect to 3d print my clothes, but what industries did you have in mind? Car parts? plumbing?


Car parts is actually a big issue, yeah. Maybe not for the small, cheap, home ones yet, but Stratasys printers already do an excellent job on car parts. I would not be surprised if us auto manufacturers were resistant to change. That'd pretty much be par for the course, actually. Look at projects like Urbee, for which preorders and a prototype already exist. I don't know if the tech is mature enough yet for that particular project to take off, but I'm sure that the pace at which it's becoming possible for individuals and small companies to challenge industry giants is already exceeding their comfort level.

Plus, of course, there's a healthy mix of lawmakers just not being terribly good at issues involving technology. They tend to run with the latest media scaremongering...I dunno if you saw any of Fox's coverage of the proposed Amazon drone thing, but all manner of people are acting as if that's going to end society...when really, the actual problems are more like "how are they gonna make that more cost effective than a guy in a truck".


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests