"More guns in the hands of more people leads to a lower crime rate." He really said that didn't he.
For a man some perceive as an audacious libertarian who puts untraceable weapons into the hands of criminals, Cody Wilson is a surprisingly ordinary fellow, albeit one who gets quite animated about 3D-printed guns, Bitcoin and "crypto-anarchism". At an event organised by the Adam Smith Institute in London, the 26-year-old …
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 15:06 GMT BillG
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 15:30 GMT boltar
>Actually, statistically that is true. In the USA, the crime rate in a region goes up when you ban guns
>there. In the U.K., they use knives instead
Unless you've pissed off a circus artist, its unlikely someone will be able to kill you with a knife at any further than arms length. Not the case for a gun.
If an increase in gun ownership prevents crime how come the "wild" west when everyone and their dog owned a gun wasn't a peaceful nirvana full of hippies picking flowers?
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 19:51 GMT sampo
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 15:23 GMT boltar
Lets hope this idiot grows up before he starts distributing plans for 3D printed rocket launchers and suchlike. How old is he , 26? He really should have grown out of the teenage stick-it-to-the-man anti any authority mentality he's demonstrating right now. Unless he really is one of those deluded bunker mentality yanks who believes a rack full of guns will defend him against the entire might of the US military if he government ever did go rogue.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 09:18 GMT Michael H.F. Wilkinson
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 11:10 GMT Evil Auditor
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 11:47 GMT Michael H.F. Wilkinson
Re: Re more guns, lower crime rate
Please note the sarcasm I intended with "quite a bit of sense". ;-)
I do not buy into his anarchistic ideal. I do not like over-intrusive government either, the best we can manage in the sublunary is some compromise.
Lower crime rates might also depend on what you consider crime. If you do not consider shooting somebody who appears to be threatening a crime, then guns are not a problem I suppose. I do see shooting people because they appear to be threatening as a crime.
Gun availability in itself need not even be the core of the issue. The core of the issue on the astronomical gun related killings may have something to do with a culture that has less problems with violence in movies than with sex.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 13:00 GMT Don Jefe
Re: Re more guns, lower crime rate
I'm a huge gun advocate. Guns for everybody I say. It's not like we need politicians to help us get them. We've got good firearms resource sharing too! If we see that a country is running low on firearms we've got an entire liveried courier service that hand delivers then to the unfortunate and leaves entire warehouses and shipping containers of extras behind in case these a future shortage.
More seriously, I really enjoy guns. I build some of the most complex and advanced machines on Earth, and I'm still impressed at the engineering in a well built firearm. The tides aren't any more reliable than a well built firearm and it's just fascinating from an engineering perspective.
But that stupid liberator thing was the work of a grade a moose dick with no sense of responsibility, common sense or even good design principals. Furthermore, he made a farce out of export control regulations that are very serious things and one of the very, very few government things I take seriously. Those rules aren't in place as a feature of national protectionism, they're in place because they're important and keep truly bad people from accessing things they should be able to get unless they're strong enough to take them.
Of all the things I'm involved in the export control regulations are the only thing I've got personal liability for and the only business related thing that gives me bad dreams. If I ship high speed mills to some country and they end up where they're not supposed to be who do you think goes to prison? It ain't not me. I'm responsible for that stuff until it's installed in its final home and where possible I'll come take it away for free just to keep it from falling into the hands of a misguided clown. They're usually like this guy but actually have morals they're willing to kill for, so they're actually meaningful people.
If you're going to make guns fine, but make a fucking gun. Not a dangerous piece of garbage that has precisely zero redeeming qualities. I've seen kids take the CO2 cartridges for BB guns and make more powerful, and less dangerous to the user, guns that fired AA batteries in a gelatin carrier and they were better looking to boot.
Nothing about this entire project was well done, and instead of preening, he should he hiding in a closet from embarrassment. The fact he isn't is indicative of the fact he's improperly configured and needs immediate service. Who crows about a failure?
And the guns save lives/reduce crime thing? Please. Guns are lots of things, but the overwhelming majority of firearms owners can't hit shit with a real pistol. Even the NRA (I'm a lifetime member) says a pistol is a last line if defense, you can't run or escape, last ditch you're probably going to die if you actually need the gun kind of thing. They did an excellent study in the late '80's or early '90's demonstrating how long guns and shot guns offered a reasonable level of protection, but real pistols were next to worthless and most people would be better off with a beer bottle, baseball bat or shillelagh. The liberator isn't even a real pistol, so it's not even that useless.
If saving lives and preventing crime is the goal then land mines are far more effective, last longer are incredibly safe and require nothing beyond the skills one needs to properly take a shit in the woods. Dig cat hole, insert mine, recover with earth. This Cody guy could even do that. Every amputee (or dead person) is one person less likely to harm another and mines cut down on pillaging of natural resources. The DMZ in Korea is a great example. That's going to be the next Galapagos style evolutionary island and not one single plastic gun is required. Mines work for rebellion, home defense, golf courses and military conflict zones equally well and instead of misleading, flat out lying actually, about what the liberator wasn't, just hand out land mines and do everyone a favor. Leave gun design to the people that know what they're doing.
The clown doesn't even interview well. I know some actual interesting people, I can arrange done face time with them if you lot are hard up for interviewees. Most of them will even treat you to lunch and good booze in person too. They're also leaders in tech, science and engineering so closer to your audience. They're not 3D printer renters who can't read rental contracts or export regulations.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 13:57 GMT Dan Paul
Re: Re more guns, lower crime rate (THIS IS TRUE IN SOME LOCATIONS)
Pot meet Kettle, you're both black.... not that I'm criticizing but there truly are MANY less gun killings due to violence in the US than deaths due to bad medical practices or car accidents. Half of the roughly 38,00 deaths are due to SUICIDE not gun related violence
Note that number of killings and accompanying crime HAS ACTUALLY decreased where the populace can legally own guns. Overreaction to school shootings by CRAZY people notwithstanding, there is little that can actually be done to stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns.
For example, the cities of Detroit and Chicago each ban ordinary law abiding citizens from owning handguns. Criminals don't care.
In each of the banned areas, violent and gun crime has risen soley because NONE of these laws affect the criminals who STILL have guns (even though the guns are banned). In similar areas that ALLOW gun ownership,there is very little crime because those criminals understand they are facing an armed citizen.
Banning handguns or any weapon does NOT stop criminals, it only makes more victims. 9 people died just last week because the police regularly take 30 minutes to arrive or longer and are no deterrent to crime. Gangs no longer even care and the fact their guns are illegal makes them MORE prone to use them fatally. Dead men tell no tales.
However, you have an agenda so you continue to fail to understand.
Wednesday 23rd April 2014 13:00 GMT Evil Auditor
Re: Re more guns, lower crime rate (THIS IS TRUE IN SOME LOCATIONS)
You may be right, in some locations. When you cite Chicago and Detroit, what are the gun laws in Illinois and Michigan respectively? And in the rest of the USoA? There probably isn't much to stop someone bringing guns into those cities. I reckon that the gun laws in the two named cities are not effectively implemented. The situation would be quite different when considering an area that has effective border controls. While there still will be criminals who try and also succeed in owning guns it will be much more difficult for them, too.
Curbing gun crime is not done with creating a law to ban guns. That's just a starting point and there are quite a few other measures needed.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 14:30 GMT Rick Brasche
this shows the problem behind the anti-gun crowd
this automatic belief that possession of a firearm equals "shooting somebody who appears to be threatening me".
That may be YOUR problem and why YOU should never possess a firearm. But to project that failure of character on everyone else, is rather arrogant of you.
I've been possessing BB guns and firearms since I was 9 years old. Legally carried a concealed weapon for 5 of those years. That still adds up to (next month) 34 years of not shooting ANYBODY regardless of perceived threat status.
Hell, I've only killed two three birds (defending the family pie cherry tree) and one deer (I claimed the kill but Dad fired the same time I did) in all that time.
Interestingly enough, other than the amount of game meat downed, I am NOT unique among firearm owners.
Your fantasies of violence that seem to only be curtailed by the lack of a means to realize them, should be addressed. You might find a firearm someday.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 22:21 GMT Someone Else
@ Rick Brasche -- Re: this shows the problem behind the anti-gun crowd
Legally carried a concealed weapon for 5 of those years. That still adds up to (next month) 34 years of not shooting ANYBODY regardless of perceived threat status.
Why carry, then? You clearly don't need to (unless, of course, you're in some form of regulated militia that requires you to carry as part of the job...).
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 13:01 GMT jason 7
Re: Re more guns, lower crime rate
If he refers to lowering home invasion type scenarios with every home having a gun, might I suggest people just try locking their doors and windows at night?
I'm more of a vaccine is better than a cure kind of guy.
When I've stayed with folks in the US I'm staggered at how many don't lock their doors. Same with their cars.
Wednesday 23rd April 2014 15:46 GMT BillG
“More guns in the hands of more people leads to a lower crime rate."
What a pity Cody, up until that remark you were making quite a bit of sense!
I guess he has been indoctrinated by the USA government and gun lobby more than he realises.
In Chicago, virtually all sales of firearms are illegal. So what is the result? According to the article, "The stark reality facing the City [Chicago] each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun."
Compare to the Dallas/Fort Worth area where the 2nd Amendment is respected. The gun murder rate per capita is only 4.2, compared to 11.6 for Chicago.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 09:37 GMT Hollerith 1
Crime before Govt regulation
Before we had police and so on, violent crime was everywhere. The murder rate of medieval England, the violent attacks and affrays, make startling reading. Shakespeare's and Marlowe's plays were addressed to a bloody and violent world. Where handguns could not be afforded, knives did a good job. The western world slowly has become less violent in everyday life, and that is because the ability to destroy your neighbour due to rage or stupidity or drunkenness or greed has been curtailed. In democracies, it has been curtailed through the approval of the voters who, when it's seen as a general social thing, are always against citizens being able to murder each other.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 10:56 GMT Pete 2
A better alternative
> The western world slowly has become less violent in everyday life, and that is because the ability to destroy your neighbour due to rage or stupidity or drunkenness or greed has been curtailed
I would suggest that the reason for less violent crime as "civilsation" improves is that people now have more alternatives for redress (and due to better laws and better enforcement, less need to "do it yourself"). In past times if you had a quarrel with someone there wasn't much you could do about it without it getting violent. You could possibly appeal to a higher authority - if one could be found who was neither biased nor easily bought: by either side. However, that would have been a time-consuming, costly and unreliable activity, as pretty much anything would come down to one person's word against another.
The reason that people neither want, nor need to "defend" themselves: either from baddies or from injustice is that hundreds of years of effort (not all of it good, it must be said - and with no suggestion that we've reached the ideal position yet) has produced a justice system that most people have confidence in. Further, most people are also reasonably sure that if they transgress, they will be caught.¹
It seems to me that Cody Wilson is preaching to his particular choir here. There is always a proportion (larger in some countries, smaller in others) of the populace who are socially disconnected, terminally paranoid (man!), feel both powerless and threatened and/or are permanently afraid of whatever mostly imaginary evils their national media report fixate on, sensationalise and hugely over-exaggerate the incidence of. In the USA this appears to be guns and gun-related crime: as so many people have guns, it feeds on itself. Hence in America, it is easy to exploit the fear and promote guns as being both necessary and "liberating".
It's my experience of westen europe that we don't have these basic fears of violence and armed threats and have much more faith in our system of laws and detection/enforcement. I would therefore expect that "gun nuts" [ to use a not entirely inaccurate term ] would have a difficult time gaining traction over here - and I sincerely hope that they fail.
 although it's interesting to note that law-abiding individuals have been shown to over-estimate their chances of being caught, if they do something bad. Whereas "crims" or people who are likely to become criminals have a much more optimistic view: that the chances of getting nicked is very low. Both sides are wrong.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 13:05 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A better alternative
I would suggest that the reason for less violent crime as "civilsation" improves is that people now have more alternatives for redress (and due to better laws and better enforcement, less need to "do it yourself")
I can't be bothered to address all of the points in your post, but I want to register that I completety disagree with all of them.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 13:30 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A better alternative
For the downvoters.
Explain the disparity between the societal argument that harsh punishments don't deter crime, with the argument that that crime has fallen because people know they'll be caught and punished.
The base premise of the entire post doesn't stack up. As punishment has been made more lenient crime has gone down.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 13:38 GMT JimC
Re: A better alternative
I've known a good number of teenagers who got into greater or lesser trouble with the law, and in general they didn't seem to make a connection between crime and punishment at all. It seemed as if the mindset was that getting locked up occasionally was just one of those things that happens, like some days it rains, some days the court locks you up.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 14:48 GMT DropBear
Re: A better alternative
...they didn't seem to make a connection between crime and punishment at all. It seemed as if the mindset was that getting locked up occasionally was just one of those things that happens...
Not nearly as stupid a thing as it might sound at first glance. Consider that we're most likely talking about a demographic that doesn't sit pondering "hmmm, should I do all that lawless stuff I do, is that really a good idea? I might be caught and punished if I decide to proceed!" because not doing whatever they shouldn't be is simply never even an option considered. Not in a "being coerced" sense, but in a "cannot conceive living any other way since I'm unable/unwilling to give up the advantages" sense. Once one sees being a criminal the only realistically possible option, getting locked up occasionally is indeed just one of those things that happen, a risk of the trade, like potentially getting flattened by a falling tree is a fact of life for a logger - it just means one made a mistake or had bad luck...
Thursday 24th April 2014 04:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A better alternative
"didn't seem to make a connection" Which brings me to my point: fathers die in war regardless of the weapons, especially world wars, which are not instigated by the common man. Then entire generations of offspring "don't seem to make the connection" or see the lines drawn by authority or the threat from the stronger. So they die. Oh so sad. Teach your children not to be morons. I didn't say teach them to cowards let your elected (really?) government walk all over you. How is it going over there in non-election illusion land? You can also apply this wisdom (!?!?) to yourselves.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 15:23 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A better alternative
Not sure why.
"the ability to destroy your neighbour due to rage or stupidity or drunkenness or greed has been curtailed"
The ability of one person to kill another has not been curtailed in the slightest.
In medieval times people had swords and blades. They still have swords and blades if they want them. In some countries they also have guns. Many houses have explosive gas piped directly into the place which could be tampered with, or there's the option of just chucking a glass of bleach in your victim's face and forcing a glug down their throat whilst they're clawing at their burning eyes.
People don't because there's a very good chance the Police will come a-knocking. Which they didn't in medieval days and you're usually better off suing for recompense in respect of whatever they have done to wrong you.
As for the whole guns thing. "Gun ownership" isn't a useful thing you can measure in any western country.
You have legal ownership and illegal ownership. Sometimes the two are black and white, sometimes there are broad grey areas.
In the UK extremely stringent licensing means the white and black markets are very separate things - even though licensed ownership has increased over the past decade gun crime has gone down, mostly due to enforcement activity like Operation Trident. Something like 98.9% of firearms crime involves firearms that have never been registered, nor touched the white market. These are guns that have been produced illicitly and have never been legal in the course of their existence. Additional legislation can't control them (beyond banning the private ownership of lathes and metalworking tools to stop people making them, which isn't terribly hard. About as hard as setting up a 3D printer in fact). Once you've banned unlicensed ownership once, the rest is down to enforcement. Making it more illegal is just silly.
In the US, there are ways and means to shift guns between the two markets, grey areas and room for straw-man purchases. People possess firearms for very different reasons, which in addition to differences in how crimes are recorded mean comparisons to European states are worthless. Worth noting ~50-54% of annual firearm deaths in the US are suicides though, so the often cited "gun death" stats are not crime stats although they're frequently presented as such. Gun crime is high, but not as high as some would have you believe. Tighter gun control would not prevent people using any of the other suicide methods that exist.
Some rural counties in the US mandate by law that every home keep a firearm for home defence. They have very low crime rates. Some US urban areas pretty much ban private firearm ownership and have high crime stats regardless.
Switzerland is different again, with many young men doing national service and keeping a military rifle at home in case of invasion, but an incredibly low rate of firearms crime. Indeed crime overall is low.
Basically, levels of gun ownership have squat to do with crime levels. In some cases it may be a contributing factor, but one that usually ranks down below factors relating to poverty, gang activity, efficacy of law enforcement, etc. In short nothing that can be reliably applied across a country as a national policy, much less the many jurisdictions and regulatory regimes of the world.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 20:34 GMT MonkeyCee
Re: A better alternative
Switzerland has a low gun crime rate for a variety of other factors than gun ownership. High wages (for everyone) means greater equality, hence less property crime.
Also it's very rarely the Swiss chaps who are the ones I'd be worried about harming and getting shot. Swiss ladies are often better shots than the gents. Plus the required home defense and food storage makes most US "preppers" look like the amateurs with guns they are. Does your house have a bunker and a months food per person? :D
Thursday 24th April 2014 04:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: A better alternative
"People don't because there's a very good chance the Police will come a-knocking."
I have this "style" you could call it: If it doesn't make sense for anyone to do it, then should not do it. That is generally why I don't chuck bleach into people's eyes or generally cause people discomfort or inconvenience - not because there are police or even laws. I think most of the people around me and those I have met are the same.
Though I agree with your arguments about guns, it just seems that you seem to expect people to behave horribly. I hope no one lives up to your expectations - but generally they do. So please take notice if you smell a hint of bleach. ;)
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 14:04 GMT Hollerith 1
Re: A better alternative
I agree that faith in a working system of justice, one that is pretty fair and pretty impartial, helps the citizen step away from personal, violent solutions. The plea for proper justice is seen regularly from the Middle Ages onward, and princes and kings praised for upholding a judicial system that was fair. In countries that today seem to have democracy, but in which the justice system is completely in the control of the Government (as examples, Uganda and Russia), people despair of getting redress in the courts, and turn back to violence.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 14:35 GMT Rick Brasche
Re: Crime before Govt regulation
yes, because laws take away the ability of one side to defend itself.
Slavery was legal in your nation and mine. The lack of deaths due to the slaves being unable to reach parity of force with the slave owners was NOT a good thing.
People are so hung up on "peace" and lower statistics that they never bother to realize that the numbers may not be a good truth. A genocide of unarmed people has less body count than one where the other side fights back, and "peace" when all other diversity of belief and opinion has been violently erased, is not a noble ideal.
On the cattle and sheep ranch, there is peace. the horns are removed and one side puts the other to the pneumatic hammer.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 10:38 GMT JimC
Its certainly an odd comment to make when heard on this side of the Atlantic... The trouble is any stat analysis I see is buried in the noise of grinding axes...
But its true that social acceptance of violence has changed over the years and decades and in different societies and even parts of societies. And when you look worldwide there are armed societies with very high gun crime rates, and armed societies with very low ones. Hard to believe that the weapon does more that make murder a little more accessible. Plenty of genocide has been achieved with simple hand tools.
Two hundred years ago two significant politicians might fight a duel in London which was illegal but socially acceptable, but you can't imagine it today... However in other parts of our society a violent response to insults isn't unknown, although they don't generally go in for formal duels.
I think its a bit strong to say that democracies are always against citizens being able to murder each other. I think you have to look a lot further than that. I'm not sure when you take the same people and put them in an oligarchy or a plutocracy or a monarchy they suddenly gain a whole new enthusiasm for murdering each other. Indeed recent history in Eastern Europe suggests that a new freedom to murder members of other ethnic groups may be taken up as eagerly as other new freedoms.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 13:06 GMT RainbowTrout
He came across as a posturing 6th former in the "Rolling Stone" article as well.
In one respect though showing that a functioning machine (unfortunate that it had to be a gun) can be made from ABS on a 3D printer shows there is real promise for the technology. In the past I've had rapid prototypes made (10 years or so) from what appears to be a silica material (I don't remember what it was) the results were pleasing but fragile but having a plastic model made really opens up the possibilities.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 14:54 GMT Anonymous Coward 101
"Regular Register readers will recall the worldwide hype-gasm over the Liberator, culminating in El Reg spelling out how the flimsy plastic contraption would never work."
Actually, what Lewis Page said was that:
"The only way to be at all confident of a disabling result using a Liberator would be to press it into your enemy's body before firing. This is also true of a kitchen knife, and a vigorously thrown kitchen knife (or half-brick) would be at least as effective at a distance as the "Liberator"."
So, Version 1 of a 3D printed gun, whilst inferior to a kitchen knife, could kill someone. What do we suppose Version 2, or Version 20, is going to be like?
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 17:03 GMT WalterAlter
Pragmatic Actual Immanent 3-D Realities
1. This is a nascent technology. Criticisms based on the effectiveness of current 3-D printed pistols are reflex knee-jerk ideation divorced from processes that unfold in time. 3-D gunz will be improved upon, possibly under the rubric of Moore's Law.
2. There are few statistics about the effectiveness of gunz in protecting residents in a home invasion scenario. This site is trying to address that failure: www.homeinvasionnews.com. In the US, gunz are used to protect residents from home invasions on a daily basis. You have to dig to find these reports. They are usually carried by local news outlets, but political correctness dictates that the larger citizenry remain ignorant about how often home owners save themselves by shooting criminals who have broken into their houses.
3. The issue is POLICE RESPONSE TIME. Criminals are trained to work fast, much faster than the cops can arrive. This makes them unwilling to waste time asking questions, tying residents up, negotiating anything. They will kick down your front door, your bedroom door, your bathroom door to neutralize you as a threat.
4. The citizen must ask at some point "Am I willing to sacrifice myself for the theoretical benefits of universal pacifism... As a moral and ethical human, am I justified in protecting the safety of myself and my family in a situation where seconds count and immediate mortality is a clear issue?"
5. In my house, anyone entering at 3am without my permission will exit in a body bag, I don't care how much mess will be left to be cleaned off the walls. I'm an anarchist, gunz don't scare me, they make me think harder and plan ahead.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 22:28 GMT Someone Else
Thursday 24th April 2014 08:23 GMT A J Stiles
Re: Pragmatic Actual Immanent 3-D Realities
5. In my house, anyone entering at 3am without my permission will exit in a body bag, I don't care how much mess will be left to be cleaned off the walls. I'm an anarchist, gunz don't scare me, they make me think harder and plan ahead.Life is always worth more than property. Unconditionally and without exceptions. The lowliest human life is worth more than the most expensive piece of property.
And that means the life of a burglar breaking into your home is worth more than the property they are trying to steal.
Friday 25th April 2014 16:01 GMT WalterAlter
Re: Pragmatic Actual Immanent 3-D Realities
>>And that means the life of a burglar breaking into your home is worth more than the property they are trying to steal.
Your brainless sophistry, far from airtight, is a damp wad of deductive metaphorization, oblivious to the fact that, unlike inanimate "property", humans are self propelled by volition and INTENT and since, as such, do not rigorously recognize themselves as an object without volition, are not liable to the laws, whims and vagaries of inanimacy, hence cannot be metaphorized as such in any hare brained scheme of yours to compare bananas and alarm clocks. Your "logic" reads thus: The number two plus two bananas equals 4 bananas. You are leaping identity domains like a thief leaping back yard garbage cans after a gunshot from the back porch. Humans may not be "property" of object ownership, but they consist of actual properties of INTENT, and if your properties threaten my properties, yoo gonna get de-animated by buckshot even if your name isn't Albert Einstein.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 14:56 GMT Stevie
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 16:46 GMT Dogsauce
Gun crime exists in the UK because of legal gun markets in places like the USA. If there was no commercial manufacture of guns permitted, we'd not have so many in the hands of criminals here. Lax US gun laws are culpable for gun crime in other nations too. Where do you think these firearms come from?
I note the US feels justified in taking action against other nations (e.g. Columbia) to prevent drugs produced in those countries entering their market and causing harm to their citizens. If only we had the balls to do the same with guns.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 17:51 GMT jason 7
Thursday 24th April 2014 05:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
"If there was no commercial manufacture of guns permitted", then humans will become more creative when dealing with the lives of others that get in their way. Though I don't think it will stop anyone from killing you. So you might as well give up now and die, seeing as someone may kill you in the future. That's what you are afraid of, isn't it? Getting killed by someone else? Or maybe it's just dying in general. Well then there are whole bunch of other delusions you can subscribe to called religions and people will happily take your money for that.
Gun control will not stop someone from killing *you*. You will get killed by someone if you keep worrying about it. Just chill out a bit mate. ;)
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 16:55 GMT ItsNotMe
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 17:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
If the rube really did live in a total anarchy society (short lived as it would be till a strong man with gang took over) he would not have a 3D printer.
OTOH, a Larry Niven ARM society just won't work. At least not yet. So trying to control those plastic guns is an exercise as futile as preventing a script kiddie from releasing airborne Ebola. Oh, what? They can't do that yet?
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 18:47 GMT Trollslayer
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 19:47 GMT Anonymous Coward
On more guns -> less crime
Quoting a poster above: "For example, the cities of Detroit and Chicago each ban ordinary law abiding citizens from owning handguns. Criminals don't care."
This misses the point. The USA is saturated with guns. Removing gun ownership in one small pocket of the country might well make it more vulnerable to gun crime from others.
But if gun ownership was illegal throughout the US, except for example at secure registered gun clubs, then (after approximately 10,000 years) the guns would be removed from the system and fatal crime would fall.
The UK is an example of where very few guns exist in the general populace, and our murder rate per capita is vastly lower than in the US - see
- the 'developed countries' chart.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 21:12 GMT WalterAlter
Re: On more guns -> less crime
>>But if gun ownership was illegal throughout the US, except for example at secure registered gun clubs, then (after approximately 10,000 years) the guns would be removed from the system and fatal crime would fall.
Your Guardian Angel needs to smack you awake to realities about human psychology. Your analytical chops might get you through recess in grade school, but out where the knuckles meet the face, it's a recipe for self extinction, permanent maiming or a case of PTSD that never goes away. You are obviously from the ethereal realms where cartoon characters pop back from under a dropped grand piano. Your hunger for self righteousness compensation to infantile dependence masquerading as civility will leave you and your village torn to pieces by wild dogs. You obviously have not empathized enough with the citizens of Sarajevo, Beirut, Cali, Homs, Kiev, Goma, Michoacan or Detroit from the comfort of your entertainment center. Please don't put ideas in your head simply because your friends do so, without some independent research and intellectual rigor. Idealism may have got us from there to here, but we are still short of the incandescent levels that you would like to conjure.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 22:01 GMT Anonymous Coward
Wednesday 23rd April 2014 00:52 GMT Remy Redert
Re: wouldn't it be easier...
As easy as it is to make guns, it's even easier to make the ammo. I could make propellant with just household chemicals and some glassware. Probably even without the glassware, though it might be quite as reliable. I could make primers with just household chemicals too, but I figure the types of explosives I can make with household chemicals alone probably wouldn't be very suitable. That said, the chemicals I would need to make good primers are quite common.
Casting bullets isn't hard either, especially if you're willing to settle for plain lead rounds. Jacketed rounds require a little extra work but even those aren't particularly hard. Milling the brass for the cartridges is about the only step that requires some serious equipment to do quickly and reliably, but again you can do it with just power tools and a little ingenuity.
Assembling the components into the final cartridge can be done without any special tools as well, though again having the right tools for the job makes things a fair bit easier and faster.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 22:11 GMT Someone Else
“You can't have open-source firearms, I mean, think of the quality control,” he said sarcastically. “Don't you want a safe gun?”
"No", I answered unsarcastically. I actually think that unsafe guns (by that, I mean guns that have a very real likelyhood of failing spectacularly when fired, with a very random MTBF), would be the best possible thing to happen. Under those conditions, the gun nutters, gang bangers, members of various unregulated militia, rapists, thieves, and other assorted ne'er-do-wells would have to give serious pause before firing that oh-so-handy thing in their pocket (and, no, I'm not happy to see you!). That, more than any of Wayne LaPierre's "good guys with guns", or Cody's own "More guns in the hands of more people leads to a lower crime rate" pap, will actually lower the crime rate.
Tuesday 22nd April 2014 23:52 GMT Christian Berger
The problem with such extreme liberals is...
...that they don't understand that laws can be important. Yes there are lots of crap laws which are a symptom of democracy failing in many countries, but laws are there to level the playing field. They are there to protect the weaker, let it be individuals from companies or small companies from large companies.
The question is not more or less laws, or more or less government, but the right laws and the right government intervention. The US are a prime example for this. There are people dying because they cannot afford going to a doctor, yet the government spends trillions on wars and spying on the world.
Wednesday 23rd April 2014 08:38 GMT Anonymous Coward
Besides the moronic "More guns in the hands of more people leads to a lower crime rate" the following is an epic fail in the same league as a "Reductio ad Hitlerum"
"“The state wants to be the controller, arbiter, or at least the possessor, of everything in every domain," Wilson said. "Culturally, legally … it's that kind of greedy, fascistic, powerful nation state.""
Yeah lets compare it to nazism and fascism, cause that always makes you sound like an intelligent sensible human being. Not!
By the way, hitler drank water, omfg n0!!11