|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On November 07 2017 05:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If tomorrow I was handed 100 guys and told to make an automatic rifle, I can make a fair stab at it, (assuming infinite ready made bullets;and a lot of those 100 guys will be unfortunate testers assuming the first few models will have problems), but I wouldn't know where to start to make gunpwder.
There is this novel from Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court , it's about one of his contemporary somehow being transported to medieval England and becoming the boss, mainly because he quickly manages to make guns.
|
On November 07 2017 06:22 Aveng3r wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 03:29 Jockmcplop wrote:
Will people still argue for their right to have a lethal weapon when a good non lethal alternative becomes cheap/available?
you mean like a BB gun or a blowgun or something? Theres plenty of cheap non lethal alternatives to guns already available. Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by "alternative"
I think he means "effective as a self defense weapon". So think something like a gun which reliably incapacitates people.
On November 07 2017 06:55 nojok wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 05:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
If tomorrow I was handed 100 guys and told to make an automatic rifle, I can make a fair stab at it, (assuming infinite ready made bullets;and a lot of those 100 guys will be unfortunate testers assuming the first few models will have problems), but I wouldn't know where to start to make gunpwder. There is this novel from Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court , it's about one of his contemporary somehow being transported to medieval England and becoming the boss, mainly because he quickly manages to make guns.
I couldn't get through that one. 80% of the plot were just "people in the past are really, really stupid children, the only reason they didn't all the modern (meaning 1850 or something) stuff is because they choose not to because they are stupid." Which is an incredibly naive view of the past.
|
lol the electronic solution isn't impossible from an engineering perspective, it's just pretty silly from a logistics perspective. We could start with the ~300,000,000 guns in the US which don't or wouldn't have whatever feature we're talking about.
Any changing in gun tech has to take that into consideration.
Luckily I have an equally silly idea.
We temporarily ban gun sales. Variety of ways to do this but the easiest would be expanding the NFA Tax Stamp then making it prohibitively expensive/arbitrarily restrict it (like they did with cannabis back in the day).
Presumably the illicit gun manufacturer market would be smaller than the pot farmer market and you could pull the bullshit where you just don't give any stamps too.
What does that do for the 300m guns already in the country, well, that's where you come in world. You (through the UN if you want) orchestrate an international gun buyback program. The world (I imagine mostly Europe) agrees to buy our consumer owned guns at a premium, no questions asked paid in cash.
Keep that going for a decade or so and then you can reintroduce guns to the market with whatever fancy gizmos and gadgets to make them safer as you want and they'll actually make up a significant portion of guns that people own.
Add in a liability requirement for gun ownership, meaning you are liable and therefore need insurance in order to own a firearm otherwise face going bankrupt if your gun is used irresponsibly or intentionally against other humans and you have an additional financial incentive to not own guns.
Stolen guns are typically less expensive than legitimately bought guns, so if the buyback rate is reasonably high, it also encourages illegally obtained weapons to be sold to the buyback program for more money than they would get on the street.
Of course it's our broken ass society at the core of this anyway. Our society breeds mental illness, and does a shit job of addressing it. Hence why despite the sensationalism of mass shootings, we lose so many more Americans to them shooting themselves than we do to them shooting others.
|
On November 07 2017 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol the electronic solution isn't impossible from an engineering perspective, it's just pretty silly from a logistics perspective. We could start with the ~300,000,000 guns in the US which don't or wouldn't have whatever feature we're talking about.
Any changing in gun tech has to take that into consideration.
Luckily I have an equally silly idea.
We temporarily ban gun sales. Variety of ways to do this but the easiest would be expanding the NFA Tax Stamp then making it prohibitively expensive/arbitrarily restrict it (like they did with cannabis back in the day).
Presumably the illicit gun manufacturer market would be smaller than the pot farmer market and you could pull the bullshit where you just don't give any stamps too.
What does that do for the 300m guns already in the country, well, that's where you come in world. You (through the UN if you want) orchestrate an international gun buyback program. The world (I imagine mostly Europe) agrees to buy our consumer owned guns at a premium, no questions asked paid in cash.
Keep that going for a decade or so and then you can reintroduce guns to the market with whatever fancy gizmos and gadgets to make them safer as you want and they'll actually make up a significant portion of guns that people own.
Add in a liability requirement for gun ownership, meaning you are liable and therefore need insurance in order to own a firearm otherwise face going bankrupt if your gun is used irresponsibly or intentionally against other humans and you have an additional financial incentive to not own guns.
Stolen guns are typically less expensive than legitimately bought guns, so if the buyback rate is reasonably high, it also encourages illegally obtained weapons to be sold to the buyback program for more money than they would get on the street.
Of course it's our broken ass society at the core of this anyway. Our society breeds mental illness, and does a shit job of addressing it. Hence why despite the sensationalism of mass shootings, we lose so many more Americans to them shooting themselves than we do to them shooting others.
Watching rural America go absolutely berserk over "Europe seizing guns, just like Hitler did" is something I would love to watch.
|
On November 07 2017 08:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:
lol the electronic solution isn't impossible from an engineering perspective, it's just pretty silly from a logistics perspective. We could start with the ~300,000,000 guns in the US which don't or wouldn't have whatever feature we're talking about.
Any changing in gun tech has to take that into consideration.
Luckily I have an equally silly idea.
We temporarily ban gun sales. Variety of ways to do this but the easiest would be expanding the NFA Tax Stamp then making it prohibitively expensive/arbitrarily restrict it (like they did with cannabis back in the day).
Presumably the illicit gun manufacturer market would be smaller than the pot farmer market and you could pull the bullshit where you just don't give any stamps too.
What does that do for the 300m guns already in the country, well, that's where you come in world. You (through the UN if you want) orchestrate an international gun buyback program. The world (I imagine mostly Europe) agrees to buy our consumer owned guns at a premium, no questions asked paid in cash.
Keep that going for a decade or so and then you can reintroduce guns to the market with whatever fancy gizmos and gadgets to make them safer as you want and they'll actually make up a significant portion of guns that people own.
Add in a liability requirement for gun ownership, meaning you are liable and therefore need insurance in order to own a firearm otherwise face going bankrupt if your gun is used irresponsibly or intentionally against other humans and you have an additional financial incentive to not own guns.
Stolen guns are typically less expensive than legitimately bought guns, so if the buyback rate is reasonably high, it also encourages illegally obtained weapons to be sold to the buyback program for more money than they would get on the street.
Of course it's our broken ass society at the core of this anyway. Our society breeds mental illness, and does a shit job of addressing it. Hence why despite the sensationalism of mass shootings, we lose so many more Americans to them shooting themselves than we do to them shooting others. Watching rural America go absolutely berserk over "Europe seizing guns, just like Hitler did" is something I would love to watch.
Just tell them they are buying them to fight Sharia law in Europe and they'll pack them up themselves.
|
United States24701 Posts
Attempts to use a control system to prevent a gun from firing too quickly should probably be linked to a security system that only allows authorized users to use a gun, for economy of scale. It would be cool if guns worked like in Metal Gear Solid 2 where only the authorized user(s) of the gun could fire it. Of course, this is not simple to implement, especially considering the plethora of existing guns.
|
On November 07 2017 05:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
You can make an automatic rifle from any well equipped machine shop. You don't need a chrome molybdenum barrel or whatever. It wouldn't be an exact model of a modern rifle, it wouldn't have the weight, tolerances, or accuracy, or reliabilty of a modern rifle, but it will be accurate enough, functional enough and reliable enough. It'll also weigh like 6kg off the top of my head. Guns are old technology. They have been around for over 600 years. Bullets would be tougher.
If tomorrow I was handed 100 guys and told to make an automatic rifle, I can make a fair stab at it, (assuming infinite ready made bullets;and a lot of those 100 guys will be unfortunate testers assuming the first few models will have problems), but I wouldn't know where to start to make gunpwder.
You underestimate gunsmithing a lot. The "guns" that were around 600 years ago have little to nothing to do with how to make a modern gun. The difference between a gun before the revolver and lever action rifle is the difference between crossbows and longbows. Tolerances are a very important thing when you're working with intricately moving parts at high speed. Chrome molybenium is for making a barrel that will survive the heat that automatic fire generates.
Bullets are really a lot easier if you have the metal and materials. They make mass production machines for it that punch them to size and gunpowder is pretty simple gram by gram compression, The techniques to make them on a lathe are pretty simple if you want to use that route.
Making a gun is a lot more like making a car. You almost always make the machines specifically for the gun that you're making
|
|
|
Having spent nearly all my life in Europe, I used to think that Americans are crazy for having such "absurd" gun laws. I still find their fascination with guns mind-boggling.
However, nowadays I cannot see how a gun ban (or any other regulations) could resolve the gun related problems in the US. In a best case scenario a blanket firearms ban would reduce the number of accidental gun deaths in the US (e.g. a child getting hold of its parent's guns and accidentally shooting itself or another child). But as far as mass shootings or any other violent crimes are concerned, it seems like a gun ban would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. There are already hundreds of millions of guns circulating in the US. If somebody actually wanted to get one (or a few) without going throught the legal procedures, it is, and will remain being, impossible to stop that person. Any possible further gun regulations will not change that.
In the long run - a theoretical scenario where guns are completely banned right away - at some point the amount of still functional guns in the US will hit rock bottom. However, just waiting out till all current guns become obsolete may take over a century. In the meantime, it is not unthinkable that violent crimes will increase significantly, since a potential blanket gun ban would likely go hand in hand with legally acquired guns being collected by the government first. While legally acquired guns will be removed from circulation, the currently seemingly endless amount of illegal firearms will still be quite accessible to anyone who wants to use a gun for any kind of crime.
Of course, I cannot know how exactly a gun ban in the US will work out, but I am fairly certain that it will not achieve much of a positive effect in the foreseeable future. The US is simply flooded with firearms right now, which, I can only assume, would make any additionaly legislation in the near future obsolete.
Personally, I am glad that I live in a region with sensible gun laws (at least what I view as sensible), and I am glad that those have existed for a very long while... However - given the current situation in the US (hundreds of millions of guns already being in circulation) - makes me doubt that adopting any European gun regulations would have any positive effect on gun related crimes in the US.
|
On November 07 2017 12:53 ggrrg wrote:Having spent nearly all my life in Europe, I used to think that Americans are crazy for having such "absurd" gun laws. I still find their fascination with guns mind-boggling. However, nowadays I cannot see how a gun ban (or any other regulations) could resolve the gun related problems in the US. In a best case scenario a blanket firearms ban would reduce the number of accidental gun deaths in the US (e.g. a child getting hold of its parent's guns and accidentally shooting itself or another child). But as far as mass shootings or any other violent crimes are concerned, it seems like a gun ban would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. There are already hundreds of millions of guns circulating in the US. If somebody actually wanted to get one (or a few) without going throught the legal procedures, it is, and will remain being, impossible to stop that person. Any possible further gun regulations will not change that. In the long run - a theoretical scenario where guns are completely banned right away - at some point the amount of still functional guns in the US will hit rock bottom. However, just waiting out till all current guns become obsolete may take over a century. In the meantime, it is not unthinkable that violent crimes will increase significantly, since a potential blanket gun ban would likely go hand in hand with legally acquired guns being collected by the government first. While legally acquired guns will be removed from circulation, the currently seemingly endless amount of illegal firearms will still be quite accessible to anyone who wants to use a gun for any kind of crime. Of course, I cannot know how exactly a gun ban in the US will work out, but I am fairly certain that it will not achieve much of a positive effect in the foreseeable future. The US is simply flooded with firearms right now, which, I can only assume, would make any additionaly legislation in the near future obsolete. Personally, I am glad that I live in a region with sensible gun laws (at least what I view as sensible), and I am glad that those have existed for a very long while... However - given the current situation in the US (hundreds of millions of guns already being in circulation) - makes me doubt that adopting any European gun regulations would have any positive effect on gun related crimes in the US.
There are a number of different ways that gun regulation could occur. On one extreme (to counter your point), just look at Australia; sudden gun regulations in 1996 after a mass shooting, and they implemented a mass buyback scheme. Gun violence has dropped dramatically since then.
|
You can't ban guns in America, its too entrenched in their culture and ownership is too prevalent. The main problem is two-fold: ease of access, regardless of who you are and what you have done, and a decreased sense of responsibility with regards to gun usage and ownership. Anecdotal but I swear that unsafe gun usage and sense of entitlement is on the rise, perhaps fueled by the sheer number of dumbass gun personalities on the internet like that FPS Russia guy. These guys weren't taught by their dad and grandpas that gun ownership, despite being a right, is also a huge privilege and you're going to get the belt if you don't treat it with respect.
Gun ownership in Australia is actually pretty prevalent and on the rise. The fundamental difference between Australia and America is that you have to jump through a lot of hoops just to get the right to legally own a firearm. The government is actually proactive to make firearm ownership a privilege. And in most cases, that's enough to deter the majority of people from owning guns for the wrong reason like wanting to shoot up a school after suffering from a mental breakdown. Which can be dealt even if they do own a firearm because most states offer very robust 24/7 mental help and support.
In America? Background checks don't really work because America makes sure they don't really work. Gun restrictions don't really work because not enough effort is put into the prevention of cross border gun smuggling, like in Illinois. No one has done anything about it because the politicians, most of whom are probably scared or funded by the NRA, don't want to do anything serious about it.
We're seeing this song and dance all over again. America isn't going to do anything about this. Donald Trump and the Republicans don't think guns are the issue, which is fine, and instead blame mental illness. Yet they're not going to invest anything into mental illness prevention and support, because that costs money and you can't spend any money when you're dead set on cutting taxes for the rich and entitlements to the most vulnerable people. Instead we're going to give "hope and prayers" every time it happens and hope the problem automatically resolves itself.
|
So I think that gun policy in the US is one of the problem of mass shooting issues
WHAT IF :
You ahve to wait 1 week or + before buying a gun ?
Lemme explain,
You go to the shop, you pay for your gun, but you can have it only 2 weeks after.
This will let the authorities check your passive etc.
This can help avoiding selling war weapons to retards ?
|
I always read this debate not with European smugness of having nearly no violence, but with a sense of how much safer I'd feel if I had a gun, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
|
They could do a buyback action alongside advertising that guns are actually dangerous for the people that own them. If you show enough enough pictures of bleeding mothers shot by their own children people might eventually reconsider. Just ruin their image, it somewhat worked with cigarettes.
The problem is that the NRA is way to powerful for the politicians to ever take the necessary steps, the average republican is basically a NRA salesman. Democrats aren't much better, they've argued for years that there should be tighter controls and nothing happened.
On November 07 2017 17:45 VelJa wrote:
So I think that gun policy in the US is one of the problem of mass shooting issues
WHAT IF :
You ahve to wait 1 week or + before buying a gun ?
Lemme explain,
You go to the shop, you pay for your gun, but you can have it only 2 weeks after.
This will let the authorities check your passive etc.
This can help avoiding selling war weapons to retards ?
I'm pretty sure that the problem isn't time, but motivation. If the salesman isn't punished for selling stuff to people who shouldn't buy it...
Besides the problems aren't exclusively known retards and in the US way too many weapons get sold to actually have hands on controls by authorities.
|
On November 07 2017 17:45 VelJa wrote:
So I think that gun policy in the US is one of the problem of mass shooting issues
WHAT IF :
You ahve to wait 1 week or + before buying a gun ?
Lemme explain,
You go to the shop, you pay for your gun, but you can have it only 2 weeks after.
This will let the authorities check your passive etc.
This can help avoiding selling war weapons to retards ?
I mean, the day you can walk into ANY gun store and buy a "war weapon" which is basically any gun fyi. But i'm going to assume since the term in this thread seems to be "assault style" weapons that's what you're referring too, also a stupid term by the way. You have to go through a background check, which doesnt take hardly any time at all regardless.
My background check for joining the US Army was back in 24 hours, most gun stores can do it in an hour or two at that.
As for here in my state(NC) the biggest hoops period are buying pistols which you must go to the local sheriffs department and apply for a permit or three how ever many you want to buy which takes a week or more to process your paperwork before they'll even give you that.
Would i say it should be that way for every gun? Sure. So should mental health screening before I can walk into a store buy an AK47 and shoot up a school or something. Not me obviously but anyone really could in theory do that. Felons are already prohibited from ever owning a firearm, and being caught with one as a felon is a very serious offense, does that stop them? Nope.
The thing these days is everyone that shoots up any kind of building is using some sort of a semi automatic "assault weapon". Do i believe people would call for bans on any kind of weapon involved, probably not. People don't think of Shotguns/Long rifles in the same manner as an "assault rifle".
Since I wasn't alive in the day any older members can probably describe in more detail were bans called when Whitman shot everyone from the tower at Texas? No Assault rifles being used then, or Oswald(allegedly but different subject) Shooting Kennedy? Nope. And he was using a WW2 Bolt action rifle, Whitman using the same with various side arms or whatever also.
Either way the gun bans I feel are unwarranted,and the people wanting to issue them have no idea how half the shit they use work either way. I'll never forget the classic CNN demonstration of how bump fire works with no bump fire on the gun, not forgetting the acog,grenade launcher,silencer they had on there for show.
TLDR; I think a closer system to the permits required to buy pistols these days would be better for legal gun owners or stricter mental evaluations, but outright banning guns isn't going to work. It doesn't stop criminals who arent legally allowed to own them today nor stop the illegal gun trade either.
On November 07 2017 03:45 Nevuk wrote:
It's not as easy to make an ar-15 as people in this thread are claiming. Also, you'd have to get ammo, as I don't think making your own is viable for most people without a forge. Some sort of gun could probably be made with a 3d printer, but that's a different issue. It's also rather dangerous to make your own firearm, since if you do it wrong it'll blow up in your face (literally).
Even making the gun fully auto is something that isn't that easy either, there's a reason the parts that make it one truly fully auto go for so much (either 1,000$ or 10,000+ last I checked). That's why bump stocks are a big deal since they can make it functionally automatic rate of firing for 200-300$.
Bumpfires are a loop hole fix anyway, all things they do are well within the guidelines of anyone without a Class 3? I believe owning a semi automatic rifle. Bumpfires are by definition semi automatic.
And without the recommended permit you won't find anyone who's semi intelligent to ever convert any semi auto into full auto. The risk far out weighs the gain even if you pay them a substantial amount of money to do it
|
On November 07 2017 18:05 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2017 17:45 VelJa wrote:
So I think that gun policy in the US is one of the problem of mass shooting issues
WHAT IF :
You ahve to wait 1 week or + before buying a gun ?
Lemme explain,
You go to the shop, you pay for your gun, but you can have it only 2 weeks after.
This will let the authorities check your passive etc.
This can help avoiding selling war weapons to retards ?
I mean, the day you can walk into ANY gun store and buy a "war weapon" which is basically any gun fyi. But i'm going to assume since the term in this thread seems to be "assault style" weapons that's what you're referring too, also a stupid term by the way. You have to go through a background check, which doesnt take hardly any time at all regardless. My background check for joining the US Army was back in 24 hours, most gun stores can do it in an hour or two at that. As for here in my state(NC) the biggest hoops period are buying pistols which you must go to the local sheriffs department and apply for a permit or three how ever many you want to buy which takes a week or more to process your paperwork before they'll even give you that. Would i say it should be that way for every gun? Sure. So should mental health screening before I can walk into a store buy an AK47 and shoot up a school or something. Not me obviously but anyone really could in theory do that. Felons are already prohibited from ever owning a firearm, and being caught with one as a felon is a very serious offense, does that stop them? Nope. The thing these days is everyone that shoots up any kind of building is using some sort of a semi automatic "assault weapon". Do i believe people would call for bans on any kind of weapon involved, probably not. People don't think of Shotguns/Long rifles in the same manner as an "assault rifle". Since I wasn't alive in the day any older members can probably describe in more detail were bans called when Whitman shot everyone from the tower at Texas? No Assault rifles being used then, or Oswald(allegedly but different subject) Shooting Kennedy? Nope. And he was using a WW2 Bolt action rifle, Whitman using the same with various side arms or whatever also. Either way the gun bans I feel are unwarranted,and the people wanting to issue them have no idea how half the shit they use work either way. I'll never forget the classic CNN demonstration of how bump fire works with no bump fire on the gun, not forgetting the acog,grenade launcher,silencer they had on there for show. TLDR; I think a closer system to the permits required to buy pistols these days would be better for legal gun owners or stricter mental evaluations, but outright banning guns isn't going to work. It doesn't stop criminals who arent legally allowed to own them today nor stop the illegal gun trade either.
*Well thanks for the rep,
In fact this gone to ofar, it seems to be no solution -_-
Too many guns in USA, & we do not even talk about arms sold between citizens (huge part of sell / trade between americans according news)
Is there any way to legiferate on ammo ?
Control the sales&production ?
|
How about that Dave Chapelle (or was it Chris Rock? Or Bill Cosby?) joke, saying ammo should be much more expensive?
Wouldn't people think twice before they 'cap a nigga if a bullet cost fiddy hunna dolla'?
|
|
|
We've already been down this path, though you're mistaken if you think googling articles like that renders one "good to go" in terms of ammo production. Acquiring an adequate reloader and base materials is one thing, actually putting out good ammo is another. Both are orders of magnitude more difficult than walking into pretty much any big-box store or gun shop and buying as much ammo as one wants. This is really not altogether different from acknowledging the fact that the ease of putting together a simple timed explosive doesn't render prohibitions on the sale of bombs toothless.
|
I mean, what's the culture behind buying bullets like in the US? Can you just walk into a gun store, say you want 500 rounds and the cashier gives them to you without asking questions? With all those mass shootings going on, is there a social stigma around buying rounds? Are there shops where you do it discretely or do just buy them in an arms supermarket?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
