The Gun Control Challenge

Post Reply New Topic

Ever seen a zipgun? It's a pipe with a cap on one end with a hole drilled in it for the breach, a nail for the firing pin, and a rubber band to function as the striker spring. You can make one in about 10 minutes, and though it's only good for the one shot before you have to take it apart to reload, it's still a gun. My point is that guns are not complicated things, and that your statements seem to indicate a lack of familiarity with both firearms in particular and basic mechanical principles generally, otherwise you would not have submitted the unrealistic proposals that you did. It's like if I were a chemist and you were proposing that we solve the energy crisis by simply synthesizing petroleum from other elements, and I was explaining to you why that's not workable.

I'll agree, there are much more important things than arguing guns on the internet; I have a wife and two jobs, for example. With lots of free time, I could be a real menace to the anti-gun people, as it is debating here is just a hobby.

Not to derail your thread, and afaik you are a competent gunsmith, but this focus purely on the damage done by guns is interesting. Just off the top of my head, you could do a fuckload more damage with an IRA style pipebomb, molotov variants, homemade thermite or napalm variations.

Outside of explosives, its possible to make all kinds of makeshift bladed weapons, that are more than capable of doing severe damage.

Very true. In the case of this thread I'm working on multiple goals specifically related to guns and how people view them, but I'm also very familiar with all the improvised devices one could conceivably McGuyver together to cause mayhem with.
With the UK and some other countries we've seen a bit of the post gun control game, with ever increasing restrictions on greater and greater numbers of potential weapons, but unless they somehow manage to outlaw gasoline and glass bottles, rust and aluminum, various sporting implements, kitchen knives, etc, people will always have deadly weapons at arms reach.
Thankfully, most mass shooters seem to have tunnel vision concerning the "blaze of glory" aspect of their planned crimes and so haven't gotten too clever about maximizing their bodycounts, and most of the improvised explosive type weapons are too indiscriminate for use in "normal" crime.

To bring things around, yeah, I could make a gun out of a block of metal, and I could make virtually any required gun part out of a lot less, but if I just wanted to kill a bunch of people in a hurry I'd reach for the oxyacetylene tanks sitting in my shop before I'd go to the trouble of fabricating a gun. Fuel air explosions can ruin a lot more peoples' collective day, and I wouldn't even need to be anywhere nearby when it happened.

Things get a bit sticky when you throw the term "armor piercing" into the mix. The public at large thinks this means some sort of super-ammo specifically designed to punch through steel plate, while the politicians pushing such bans tend to classify virtually any rifle ammo as "armor piercing" because it will penetrate level II soft body armor, which was never designed to stop rifle rounds in the first place. It gets even more convoluted when you throw hand-loading into the mix, as the question becomes "what makes the bullet armor piercing?"; the bullet design or the amount of powder behind it? A conventional copper jacketed lead bullet can achieve quite a bit of penetration if loaded to very high velocity, while a purpose designed armor piercing bullet can fail to penetrate if loaded to subsonic velocities, say for suppressed use. It's far from a simple question.

Personally, I have a Czech CZ52 pistol chambered in 7.62X25 Soviet loaded with high velocity submachinegun ammo that would zip right through most soft body armors without blinking, but nothing about the ammo is designed specifically for that purpose, it's just a fast round. What does that qualify as?

I'm going to have to break down you post a bit to fully respond, as it's pretty lengthy, and my experience here has been that people just skim or skip over walls of text.(friendly hint)

I may spread it out over a period of time as well, it's much easier for me to write a bit here and a bit there than to sit down and produce a lengthy and fully reasoned/sourced reply. The fact that it also continually bumps the thread is just a happy coincidence...

I broke that bit out to clarify that when I'm responding to posts, especially aggressive or insulting ones, my general policy is to use slightly disproportionate force, in my favor of course. If the post I was replying to had been a polite disagreement, it would have generated a very different response from me both in tone and in forcefulness; but alas it was neither polite nor helpful. Combine the tone with making absolutist statements that could be easily contradicted with verifiable sources, and well you saw how I handled it.

Most proposed bans on certain types of ammunition, or guns, follows this same flawed logic. For example, one of the qualifying items on the Federal Assult Weapons Ban list was a "barrel shroud". A barrel shroud is literally a covering (usually metal or plastic) that goes over a barrel and prevents the operator from burning themselves. It modifies nothing about the performance of the gun itself. At least the "pistol grip" item modifies the way in which the firearm could be held (which I still don't see as a huge deal, but w/e).

People who propose these kinds of restrictions have very little understanding of what they are actually proposing, and end up banning something because it "looks" or "sounds" dangerous - not because it actually is dangerous.

Time to add another variable to the list, the political cost of gun control.

This guy explains it a lot better than I do, here's a taste to entice you to click the link.

http://harpers.org/archive/2012/07/hbc-90008724


Good stuff, the whole article and the others linked in it are well worth reading.

@Dox 47, thats fine, about taking time to reply to my posts. I love dealing with large volumes of information, and honestly debating things is the one area I get to do it, and even when I try to control this, I have a hard time not doing it anyway. In the end most people run away from me face to face, and I dont know that I can say Ive ever met a single person that hasn't been at sometime or another totally overwhelmed in the face of the amount of information I can throw at them ^^;. Comes from growing up arguing with a history Major Mother with aspirations to be a librarian, we'd constantly try to "Out-information" each other.... Pretty much on a daily basis once I hit teenage, lol. So memory retention, organization, prioritization, and the ability to communicate it in a meaningful way was constantly stressed and expanded on.... So I know what you're hinting at, Ive recieved them before, but theres a good chance I won't be able to take it regardless, my apologies if my habit(vice?) inconveniences you, lol.

As far as your response to, Ill just call him "Binary" for now, its fine. I was only giving you a little grief, as it were. I realized his post probably got to you, and admittedly I didn't directly say it, but I didn't go read his post either. You just seemed more versed in intellectual discourse as it were, and at least the parts you quoted seemed to me at the time to be from someone that was trying to express his thoughts in a less sophisticated way, and I felt sorry for him having someone come down on him like that ^^;. I could be totally misreading the situation, but Im allowed to react to my emotions as much as the next guy, and make an idiot of myself in the process if thats what happens ^^.

@Sliqua-Jcooter?
That said, I also need to inform Sluice-juice? Something Jcooters? I can't for the life of me even attempt to remember your name or how to spell it... Can I just call you slick scooter for now? Please? Or maybe just Jcooters? Anyway, I need to inform you I've seen your post but haven't had the time to respond to it myself. I saw it earlier today but was 30 minutes away from leaving for work, and thats nowhere near enough time to do it justice IMHO.

Aldran

I care to differ.
I believe the 2nd amendment was meant to ensure the people could always defend themselves, not only from criminals and invading forces, but also from a corrupt government.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right of adult men to keep their own weapons apart from state-run arsenals.
"Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion."

Further

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

An armed civilian population is the only way to ensure the ability to do that.
But then that is the problem isn't it, everyone sees things from a different point of view.


PS: Sorry for the incorrect information in my last post, my brain likes to skip over whole words sometimes.
Which is why I usually read things over more then a few times before quoting them.

^
Aside from SCOTUS sticking a fork in the "militia interpretation" of the 2A with the Heller and McDonald decisions, I would think that any thinking and honest person would have noticed that everywhere else in the Constitution that the phrase "The People" is used, it means just that, everyday citizens.

Lets skip over the whole "meaning of the second amendment" thing. Mostly because no one has made a point out of it - also, I've had that debate before, and it's really boring.

It can be done if you want to put that much time and effort into a internet forum, which for most people isn't practical. Anyone can throw up a wall of text, but that's not the same as a good argument. You have shown what would be good research skills if it wasn't for some questionable sources, but that is not the same thing as presenting a strong conclusion.

Due to laws, my experience with handguns is somewhat limited, but in regards to your post on high velocity ammo, I'm fairly sure a S&W 500, much like your CZ52, could punch through most things.

My point was merely that the ammunition is a more suitable thing to control rather than firearms themselves. Homeloading is a lot more common in the states though than here, and thus it would be unlikely to work.
My thoughs go towards "how many people are capable of doing this?" somehow I doubt a lot of criminals who would be able to go out and buy ammunition with certain capabilities would be able to manufacture it themselves.

I was primarily speaking of rounds with incindiary capabilities. Outlawing simply fast projectiles would outlaw just about every caliber of hunting ammunition. Isn't the "problem" the combined concealed weapon and high velocity ammunition though?

In regards to countries with more harsh laws in regards to firearms, it just seems to "push" towards other types of weaponry such as knives. I find it quite funny that I'm allowed to buy a full size, battle ready Katana, yet I'm not allowed to buy a .22.

^
Is anywhere in particular having problems with AP ammo?

No area is really having an issue with anthrax either, but I'd prefer to not have it sold down the street.

Well, that mindset is sorta the raison d'etre of this discussion; nothing bad has happened, but someone thinks people shouldn't have access to item X because something bad could happen, without any actual evidence other than opinion. It's also a bit of a false comparison, anthrax and AP ammo are leagues apart both functionally and proportionately.