Slashdot Mirror

There's a world of difference between getting a cut of the sale ... implying a business relationship between gun manufacturers, gun retailers and the NRA ... and soliciting a donation at the point of sale ... where the NRA gets small contributions from individuals.
My local grocery store sometimes works with charities and asks customers to donate $1 at the checkout. We don't say that The Children's Miracle Network is "getting a cut" of grocery sales.

It's not only firearms. The exact policy probably depends on the specific retailer, but I know that Midway USA participates and they don't sell firearms.

I don't have time to look up the stats, but I'd assume that the Czech Republic has better mental health services, less income inequality, greater social mobility, ranks higher on happiness indexes, etc.. than the US.

Yes, of course.

(This is unfortunately rarely brought up, because to the right wing, public healthcare and other things necessary to reduce income inequality and improve social stability are anathema, and to the left wing, guns themselves are anathema.)

But it we aren't going to address some of the root causes of the absurdly high rates of gun violence in the US, then I don't see lowering clip capacity and banning a few more rifles as that big a deal. We already drawn the line at machine guns, grenades, rpgs (for the average person), moving the line down another notch or two isn't a big deal.

How big of a deal it is depends on whether you own any or not. To remind, there are several million of those types of guns in the country, and probably 10x if not more magazines. If you ban them, what are their owners supposed to do with them? Confiscation? It'd be unconstitutional. Or mandatory buyback like in Australia? If the latter, where does the money come from? It'll be quite expensive...

But, more importantly, why would you want to do it if it doesn't actually make any difference? Assault weapon bans in particular make zero sense, because they ban guns based on largely decorative features that have little to no relevance to how deadly a gun is in a spree killing. A stock Ruger Mini-14 is just as deadly as its "tactical" cousin with a pistol grip and flash hider, yet the latter is an "assault weapon" while the former is not, even under the strictest AWB proposals to date.

Unless, of course, by "assault weapons" you really just mean all semi-auto firearms. That would change things. But then why not call it what it is? And bear in mind that if the ban target is that broad, you'll have to amend the total count (and hence the number of people affected, and the amount of money you'd need for compensation purposes) to tens of millions, possibly even a hundred.

With respect to magazine capacity limits. For one thing, they also make very little sense, as most popular semi-auto firearms are very easy and quick to reload, and even more so with just a little practice. Remember that Columbine was done with legal 10-round-limited mags. Besides, it's also fairly hard to define correctly, and consequently easy to circumvent. For example, here is a magazine that holds at most 10 rounds - of the caliber that it is designated for, that is. However, because the dimensions of the magazine are the same as the standard AR-15 mag, it can also hold 30 rounds of 5.56. Should it be illegal to own, or is it only illegal to load it with more than 10 rounds, or shoot it, or none of that? If you don't know about such things in advance when you write laws (and let's face it, most politicians who write gun control bills have no clue about what they're regulating), you wouldn't clarify that; and under any sane legal system, what's not prohibited is legal - as Canada has found out. Another good example of that type of thing is the California "bullet buttons", which stem from an unsuccessful attempt to define the difference between a fixed and a removable magazine (as all magazines are ultimately removable in some manner, for cleaning purposes).

Also, magazines are actually extremely easy to manufacture - when you stop to think about it, it's basically just a box with a spring and a follower. A follower from any (even 2-round) legal capacity magazine will work without any changes, springs are obviously trivial to obtain, and the box itself can be made fr

Home ammunition production is a solved problem. Take your pick http://www.midwayusa.com/find?dimensionids=11521

I think the 3d printing of ammunition is much more dangerous than some 11000$ kalashnikov knockoff replica.

Why? casting bullets from lead and stuffing them into (used) shell casings is insanely cheap and easy. it will be a LONG time before 3d printing can improve on a process we've been using for a century to create ammunition.

You can make bullets really cheap, at home, right now. It's marginally dangerous if you don't know what you're doing, but no more so then printing ammunition would be.

Here's some links to get you started! good luck!
http://www.midwayusa.com/find?dimensionids=5671
http://www.buffaloarms.com/products.aspx?CAT=3764
http://www.wideners.com/itemview.cfm?dir=210%7C212%7C235

I will be shooting printouts of this: http://www.midwayusa.com/content/pdf/legacy/pistol_target.pdf

No. Their predecessors like the old Chinese Hand-Cannon were designed for killing and destroying. I won't argue that. However, target rifles for example, have evolved from that base goal.

As well they are not necessarily destroying targets either. For example, these which the projectile only makes noise and some motion.

I'm sorry that your only experience with firearms has involved killing, or that your only firearms experience is that which has been fed to you by the TV.

Try ordering a barrel or bolt without a FFL (Federal Firearms License). You won't get very far.

That's a big negative, Ghostrider.

So what extortionary terms should we pay so that the Mr. Dears of the world will give up his life of crime and behave like a civilized human?

If you prefer a quicker way of fixing Mr. Dears' affliction, it would cost you about 5 cents. An even quicker way is about 50 cents per round. Also if you are environmentally friendly then there are very natural materials made from hemp; these are also very effective (zero recidivism) and perfectly reusable to serve needs of many criminals.

Stop crying to me about how "society" is to blame for Mr. Dears decisions. MR. DEARS is to blame for his own decisions.

That is so. However the society is not blameless. The society is guilty of coddling Mr. Dears and his ilk. This means that the society is not willing to fight for its own survival.

So what extortionary terms should we pay so that the Mr. Dears of the world will give up his life of crime and behave like a civilized human?

If you prefer a quicker way of fixing Mr. Dears' affliction, it would cost you about 5 cents. An even quicker way is about 50 cents per round. Also if you are environmentally friendly then there are very natural materials made from hemp; these are also very effective (zero recidivism) and perfectly reusable to serve needs of many criminals.

Stop crying to me about how "society" is to blame for Mr. Dears decisions. MR. DEARS is to blame for his own decisions.

That is so. However the society is not blameless. The society is guilty of coddling Mr. Dears and his ilk. This means that the society is not willing to fight for its own survival.

So what's this "or dangerous" bit? Ammunition? Websites promoting cults? Websites attacking cults? Websites selling material that promotes anything that senators don't like, like free thought, opposing political positions, naked bodies that they can't grope for themselves?

This ain't about piracy, people.

If you vote for someone & they do, don't vote for them again.

Those lying politicians are expendable like ammo rounds in a belt-fed machine gun, and just as plentiful. Sure, you won't vote for that one any more, but there are twenty more waiting to replace him. And each politician chips another speck of freedom away. Give them time and nothing will remain.

If they do want to join the rest of us: shape up in the personal freedoms / democratic department first.

The most modern theory of political correctness, maintaned by those lying politicians, says that its not "them" who should shape up but it's "you" who has to shape down. Otherwise it would be unfair, or something.

they can take the freedoms that my ancestors fought for, from my cold, dead hands.

They don't care about the temperature of your hands. You probably will be more convenient to them dead. Not that I reject your choice, of course.

Maybe something like this is more up your alley? Granted, they're still expensive (for the higher end models, at least) and likely are not as multi-functional, but they would help in the interim until you could find a job and get something better.

They're all over the place and work really well for hearing conversations in loud areas (conversations at a ball park), so I imagine the utility would be similar for a deaf person.

I grew up with a close (legally) deaf friend. While it may depend on the state, he was able to get a large portion of hearing aid costs paid for by the state. I know there are other services many states provide for deaf/hearing impaired people. Additionally, it is illegal to discriminate against a person with a disability - and being hearing impaired is a disability. (Though, it's also possible you didn't get the job because you were under-qualified, too expensive/expected too much, or some other factor. BTDT.)

Binoculars are a lot easier to hold steady than a 10 lb (give or take, plus ammo) rifle.

Not exactly. I suggest you try and compare the two. The mass of the rifle takes out the high frequency jitter, and only the low frequency sway remains. As long as you make the shot before your arms are tired (30-40 seconds) you will be very much OK. In any case, you have plenty of support on the ship (or on the bench.) Heavier weapons wobble less, provided that you don't need to hold them for long. Most precise rifles are heavy, and they are fired from sandbags or a sled.

In my experiment I could have used a rifle with a VX-3 scope, but it is a bad idea to point a rifle at something that isn't a target.

You definitely don't want to use a laser dot sight, you are right about that. I don't have one and I don't need one. Also you are right that assault rifles (like AK series) don't come with scopes; but these are simply not right weapons for this job, they are close combat weapons (up to 300 meters at best.)

hunters tend to be far better shots than the average soldier

Then you know who to hire. Indeed, there are many soldiers that never held a rifle in their hands because that's not what they do in the army. But it's more difficult to find a hunter who never shot a rifle or a shotgun; you'd need to find some very dedicated archer for that :-)

Standard marksmanship training for US Marines goes up to 500m using the iron sights and from the prone position

Could be. As long as that's the rules it's fair - it's just a test. But in real life a telescopic sight is a requirement because it offers not only magnification, it also places the target and the reticle into a single plane, that is easier on eyes. Army marksmen successfully engage targets miles away. I wouldn't expect that in the sea, but if people like that are involved, all pirates would be dead before they can hit the broad side of the ship with their weapons.

Living in a cabin in Montana and purchasing bullets does not count!

Actually, if you're living in a cabin in Montana, you probably already know that you can cast your own bullets, preferably from the ones recovered from yesterday's dinner.

Now, modern gunpowder ... that's a little more difficult.

At last count I own 6 pistols, 1 shotgun and 5 rifles.

Dude, if you own that many guns and do a lot of practice shooting, then you really should buy some reloading equipment and load your own ammo. I didn't believe it was all that much cheaper until I bought some RCBS reloading equipment and started doing it myself either, and in just two years' time, I have saved enough money over store-bought ammo to have paid for my reloading gear. Another big benefit is that I can load my ammo as hot or light as I want, and control the weight of the bullet and powder charge very precicely with a digital scale that I get ultra-consistant results just like using expensive match-grade ammo but at a fraction of the cost.

I buy a lot of my stuff from Midway and am very satisfied with their prices and service. Another reloading place with a good reputation is F & M Reloading but I've never shopped with them yet, so YMMV.

My favorite time to reload is whenever we have crummy weather all weekend long and there's nothing else to do except staring at the TV of playing video games. Reloading can be tedious work, but yet it is rewarding knowing that you're saving money and making yourself a fine crafted product by hand that's superior to what your buddies buy off-the-shelf.