Glorifying Guns?

Tarantulas wrote:

Actually fully automatic weapons were already illegal prior to the AWB.

Ahh, I'm getting the acronyms confused. Please consider my statements revised to state that I think that the laws that banned automatic weapons are responsible for starving the illicit market of them.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Just thinking: because people here live for centuries without a gun in the house (at least most of them, and besides those, who had one illigelly), no-one really would think about it, when he is alone or goes through bad neighbourhood.

[From the experiences during my time as probation officer - which is 15 years back - I think, I still know where to get a gun ... within hours.]

Lol! Mine is 20 years back - you've got me wondering what I still know how to get!!!!

0 Replies

Shall we interchange our doublettes? Laughing

0 Replies

What is a doublette?

0 Replies

Quote:

I know that criminals do not buy retail. The thing is, if nobody else does either they have no source anyway.

How do you starve a cottage industry? I can get the plans to male a full-auto from the web, and make one in my basement. For less than $10,000 you could set your self up a nice gun production site. The only part of a gun I would not make for my own use would be the barrel.

If there are no guns available from outer sources, some one will start making then in a machine shop, I believe there is evidence that if some one will pay for it, some one else will make it, regardless of legality.

0 Replies

I'm sure they would. Thing is, I don't think there will be enough of that going on to supply an illicit market.

Many in the pro-gun crowd decry legislated gun control as impossible, saying that people can and will make their own guns.

This is true, but the fact remains that many nations have sucessfully controled guns and if they have elements of their citizenry making their own weapons it hasn't shown and hasn't been a problem.

I do not think that home-made guns will be produced in significant volume. I don't think it would be produced at a volume high enough to feed the illicit market.

0 Replies

Volumn would be way below demand. Consider the cost of making the simplest gun in a machine shop. I spend 18 years as a machinist and have no idea how to drill and/or ream an 18" to 24" hole in a barrel with a diameter of .22".

0 Replies

roger wrote:

Volumn would be way below demand. Consider the cost of making the simplest gun in a machine shop. I spend 18 years as a machinist and have no idea how to drill and/or ream an 18" to 24" hole in a barrel with a diameter of .22".

It is much simpler to use steel pipe/tubing.

Pipe and steel tubing is available both retail and via scrapyards.

Heavy wall steel tubing is best. (heavier wall is better)
1/4" ID for .22 - .25 caliber
3/8" ID for .38 -.380/9mm
1/2" ID for .45 - .50 caliber

Note this is not rifled and therefore illegal to use for a firearm other than shot guns.

Zip guns are often made from ordinary water pipe.

I recall seeing a BATF exhibit which featured a 9mm submachine gun.
It was described as very smooth and reliable, jam free.
"hesitation locked recoil operated"
Made in a prison machine shop!

Criminals cannot be disarmed.

Also, thousands of guns have been stashed away each year since WWII, by extremist groups.
Those of my personal experience feared liberals showing up with jack booted storm troopers to "take our guns".
The NRA fed the paranoia constantly.
Cheaply obtained military surplus rifles and handguns got buried along with ammunition.

America cannot be disarmed,
with one exception:
"Law abiding citizens, by defination, obey the law without coercion.

Only law abiding citizens can be disarmed by passing laws, restricting or banning guns.

0 Replies

wambli wrote:

America cannot be disarmed,
with one exception:
"Law abiding citizens, by defination, obey the law without coercion.

Only law abiding citizens can be disarmed by passing laws, restricting or banning guns.

That is absolutely true. Gun laws only apply to people who obey the law. Criminals, by definition, disobey laws. It is SO SIMPLE that I don't understand why some of the gun control people don't smack themselves in the forehead and give up trying to make more restrictive laws.

I think rather than trying to make a fully automatic weapon from scratch, it would be faster and easier to build the pieces that modify a semiautomatic weapon to make it go full automatic. I've heard stories about how you can sometimes buy those pieces. I'm not sure if they're just stories or if they're true.

Hey wambli, welcome aboard and thanks for posting. Please stick around and participate in the other stuff that's going on here. Very Happy

0 Replies

Quote:

I do not think that home-made guns will be produced in significant volume. I don't think it would be produced at a volume high enough to feed the illicit market.

I would have thought that there would be enough antidotal evidence that the illegal market can’t be starved. Look at the drug trade, it is illegal to import drugs, but due to the demand it happens every day. When the demand is high, some one will fulfill it.

Quote:

Volumn would be way below demand. Consider the cost of making the simplest gun in a machine shop. I spend 18 years as a machinist and have no idea how to drill and/or ream an 18" to 24" hole in a barrel with a diameter of .22".

There would be a lot more “zip guns” than well made ones. All you need is a nail, some rubber bands, and a strong pipe of the right size. Cheap, easy, and dangerous.

0 Replies

On a side note, my family owned a cast iron foundry. About once or twice a year, the state police would show up with a load of contraband weapons, seized for whatever reason, and dump them into the cupula, then inspect the bucket to make sure nothing got left behind. Over the years I'm sure we melted 10's of thousands of guns.

0 Replies

Obviously traumatised you beyond reason, cjhsa! Lol!

0 Replies

Huh?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Huh?

Well, now you want the whole world to have guns! A gun in every home! Obviously it was so terrible seeing all those guns dying so horribly, you have wanted to protect them ever since.

Just teasing ya, cjhsa......kinda...

0 Replies

I honestly wondered why they didn't just sell them. They must have been illegally modified or had some horrible history behind them.

Rather than as you state I would want a gun in every home, I'd rather see a gun safe education in every head. There was a great article on this today online, suprisingly by a liberal feminist from Canada.

You can read it here.

0 Replies

These feminists - there just ain't no telling what a feminist is gonna do - ya know what I'm sayin'?

Of course I pride myself on being unpredictable....

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

wambli wrote:
America cannot be disarmed,
with one exception:
"Law abiding citizens, by defination, obey the law without coercion.

Only law abiding citizens can be disarmed by passing laws, restricting or banning guns.

That is absolutely true. Gun laws only apply to people who obey the law. Criminals, by definition, disobey laws. It is SO SIMPLE that I don't understand why some of the gun control people don't smack themselves in the forehead and give up trying to make more restrictive laws.

"SO SIMPLE" can, quite frequently, be a bad thing. This argument's simplicity serves it well for a rhetorical bludgeon but is it's downfall in that it is also the greatest detriment.

It's a feel-good rhetorical argument, a pithy statement employing the definition of a law's failure to predict its failure.

Thing is, this is a factor with any law. No law is passed with the idea that "criminals" would voluntarily adhere to it. Every law creates a definition of a segment of society that does not comply with it. And it's use in a rejoinder is a rhetorical simplicity that doesn't invalidate the law itself because the nature of proscription is such that it describes any and all laws.

Outlawry is inexorably related to the outlaw.

When murder is outlawed we do not try to equate support for "murder-control" to be a naive belief that 'the definition of those that do not follow the law' will follow the law. We set a standard that we must then set out to enforce.

"Gun-control" doesn't rely on the trustworthiness of law breakers any more than any other law. "Only law-abiding citizens obey laws against murder" is also just as true and the statement does not have relevance to the validity of laws against murder. For its viability it needs to be enforced to compel the reluctant to comply.

Whether or not it can be realized in America is a good question and the saying does have a point in that the law's enforcement would have to be viable. I think the staunch opposition to it by so many generally law-abiding citizens would hamper the ability to use the law-abiding majority to dry up the sources for the criminal minority. That's why I'm not too keen on the idea stateside. Culture itself would have to change for it to be possible.

But it's not an unrealized concept, it has been done already. There are nations that succeed with gun control. They do not do so through a reliance on criminal trustworthiness. The viability of the measure is evidenced, and the saying is a prediction that that which has already happened can't happen.

0 Replies

emclean wrote:

I would have thought that there would be enough antidotal evidence that the illegal market can't be starved.

Undoubtedly, you meant "anecdotal" evidence. In any case you're right, and certainly in the context of a liberal (no slur intended) nation like the US.

Illegal markets can be starved providing the State is willing to take extreme measures, but the measure must be extremely extreme. We're not about to be that extreme.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

We're not about to be that extreme.

I agree.

0 Replies

Wendy McElroy is not liberal by any standard definition I'm aware of. She lives in Canada with her husband, and is a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, California. She is not a liberal feminist from Canada anymore than any tourist sending a postcard from Canada is from Canada.

The premise of her article is definitely nothing you'll see supported by Canadians, liberal or not-so liberal.

0 Replies

Glorifying Guns?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know