As I’ve mentioned in discussion, in response to a couple of recent SOB entries that touch on the subject of “gun control” legislation, I think it’s highly unlikely that eliminating all the guns in the world would have any hope of reducing violent crime rates. Eliminating firearms actually eliminates much of the biggest fear violent criminals have: the ability of a would-be victim to defend him/her self from aggressors.
That aside, however, there’s also the simple problem that in the real world you simply can’t eliminate all the guns in the world, now that they’ve been invented. It’s not even just a logistical problem of trying to track them all so you can round them up once you’ve outlawed manufacture: there’s also the simple fact that outlawing manufacture won’t stop manufacture. My friend Jassen commented on this point to me in IMs today. Note that I haven’t looked into the specifics of the numbers he mentioned, but they sound about right to me:
First, note that (as he pointed out) setting up a for-profit meth lab is likely to run you about $30,000. Then, check out his commentary on the futility of trying to effectively ban all firearms:
MASS PRODUCTION of firearms can be done with under $10,000 of equipment set up in a spare bedroom.
They can confiscate and melt down every firearm in existence. But first they need to confiscate and ban all lathes, mills, and CNC machines. Oh, wait, if they do that then the politicians wouldn’t have limos or private jets. My bad.
The fact of the matter is that a gun is actually a very simple, purely mechanical machine. All it really has to do is ignite a fast-burning chemical, and contain pressure in a tube behind a small, weighty projectile. If I’m willing to settle for a one-shot gun that will probably destroy itself the first (and only) time it’s used, I could make that myself — probably for under $20 — and I’m no machinist or gunsmith.