Chad Perrin: SOB

15 March 2009

the futility of “gun control”

Filed under: Liberty — apotheon @ 10:17

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.

3 Comments

  1. They let people own pit bulls and rotweilers that are more likely to kill people than guns, but then they ban guns and then they jail you for shooting a weapon in a city, animal cruelty, reckless endangerment if you shoot any vicious animal dog, bear, mountain lion, etc. in self defense.

    Comment by Anonymous — 16 March 2009 @ 07:49

  2. You’re right, of course, “Anonymous”. All this hand-waving over gun control kinda misses the point, in that it targets a minor source of potential danger with a disproportionate amount of legislative and enforcement effort, all for results that are at best dubious.

    I found a YouTube video demonstrating a homemade shotgun. A close-up of removing a spent shell from the thing makes it incredibly obvious how easy it is to make a rudimentary, functioning, reusable firearm — the whole thing mostly consists of a length of pipe and a couple of pipe fittings. A little more time and effort would make it more convenient, too, with quicker reloading and greater ease of use.

    Comment by apotheon — 16 March 2009 @ 05:04

  3. As I’ve expressed in your previous posts, I agree with the basic premise of what’s being said here. The existence itself from firearms (that is, that they have been invented and that the process of said craftsmanship is widely known) make arguments such as this a mere intellectual diversion at best.

    Fred.

    Comment by the_blunderbuss — 17 March 2009 @ 06:26

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

All original content Copyright Chad Perrin: Distributed under the terms of the Open Works License