Build Your Own Gauss Pistol

BdosError writes "A Russion software developer has developed a homemade Gauss pistol. It's not very powerful yet, but as a proof of concept, it's interesting. Nice, non-chemical slugthrower that should appeal to fans of Science Fiction and related games, like Traveller and many others."

Comments

Hrmm

[Vokbain]

Today must be 'dangerous projects' day on slashdot.

I didn't see any expense information on his site. I wonder how much it costs to build one of those.

Re:Hrmm

[SkArcher]

I'm wondering how the existing laws of various countries hold up against this weapon. Don't a lot of laws specify the weapon by the method the projectile is accelerated (i.e. in existing cases a chemical reaction)?

Does this weapon circumvent any laws against firearms?

Re:Hrmm

[Vokbain]

I don't think they count as firearms unless they have some kind of chemical propellant.

I could be wrong though, and usually am.

Re:Hrmm

[pi_rules]

There are a myriad of firearm laws. Last I knew it was darned near 22,000 nationwide. It's a mess. Sure has done a heck of a lot to keep illegal guns off the street though. As a law abiding citizen I'm glad to know that I can't buy the same kind of firearms that my coke dealing cousin can illegally. Makes me feel real damn safe at night.

Ranting aside, laws generally apply to chemically propelled weapons. That leaves BB and pellet guns out of the regulations. The magnetic weapons are still slow enough and bulky enough that they're not under regulation yet. As soon as somebody gets one that works well and starts selling it though you can bet stink will hit the fan though.

While I'm not a fan of what he did Timothy McVeigh did build a weapon of sorts that was somewhat like a shotgun but fired a modified flare that would explode. It was meant to take down helicopters. The ATF went after him for a bit on this one, or at least confronted him I guess, even though it was prefectly legal to sell. Couldn't sell the explosive flares but empties with instructions on how to make shells were illegal.

"Shall not infringe" sure has come to mean "shall not entirely infringe" over the years.

Yes I'm a pro-2nd ammendment person. If you have a problem with that I suggest you post a sign on your front lawn saying that you refuse to own guns if you think that will make the world a safer place.

Re:Hrmm

[josh crawley]

Thank you for officially beginning the obligatory Second Amendment flame-war. I will counter by making the obligatory mention of Columbine. "Columbine". Your turn.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Teachers with guns??? Are you out of your mind? I don't want my children being taught by armed teachers. Do you? Fights happen all the time in schools. Imagine what would happen if one of the kids got their hands on a teacher's gun during a fight.

Next.

Re:Hrmm

[ljavelin]

I'm not against guns... I'm pro-gun. I don't have a thing against them. They're nice and usually made of metal and plastic.

But I am against nuts with guns. Yep, I'm against it.

If you're for nuts with guns, I suggest you put a sign on your lawn that says "I think all nuts should own guns!"

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

(different pro-2nd ammendment AC poster here)

He would have to be suicidal to go for a teacher's gun, because one of the other armed teachers would fill him full of holes.

Next.

Re:Hrmm

[pete-classic]

I suggest you post a sign on your front lawn saying that you refuse to own guns

I'm not sure if you were inspired by this or if it is coincidence, but . . .

The JPFO used to make just that sign. They seem to have discontinued it. I can't understand why, it seems like a popular position.

If if is a coincidence I highly recommend you check them out. You don't have to be Jewish, you just have to support all of the Bill of Rights for all citizens.

Oh, and since I am posting anyway, the guy says the projectile takes on 1.5J of energy. For comparison, the rounds in the .44 Mag under my pillow (240 grain Hydra-shoks @ 1180 fps) have a muzzle energy of 2010J. Cool hack, but some miles to go between here and practical applicability.

-Peter

Re:Hrmm

[SealBeater]

Imagine what would happen if one of the kids got their hands on a
teacher's gun during a fight.

Not that I want to get drawn into this (pro-2nd amendment as well) but citing
the Colombine incident, apparently kids don't have a problem getting their
hands on their own guns, let alone someone else's. Plus, even tho it's been a
while since I was in high school, teachers who had any kind of experience or
brains didn't try to break up fights, that's what security is there for. Just
a note, in junior high, a vice principle tried to break up a fight. He got
tossed out of a second floor window for his trouble.

SealBeater

Re:Hrmm

[Vokbain]

Americans are all crazy.

Re:Hrmm

[Tassach]

Personally, I don't care if the nuts own guns, even the nuts who wear uniforms and carry badges, so long as I have the capibility to return fire.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but non Americans are worse :-)

Re:Hrmm

[pete-classic]

The guns used by those kids were:

1. Illegally purchased (They were purchased by someone who could purchase them legally, but with the intent to illegally provide them to minors, which makes the act of purchasing them illegal.)

2. Illegally owned (In the state of Colorado handguns may only be owned by persons 21 and older.)

3. Illegally possessed (In the state of Colorado it is illegal for a person under 21 to possess a handgun without supervision.)

4. Illegally carried (Carry of a concealed handgun is only allowed by permit.)

5. Illegally possessed (It is illegal for non-LEOs to possess a firearm on public school property without a concealed carry permit. Yes, this makes it "doubly" illegal for them to have had them.)

6. Illegally carried (It is illegal to carry a concealed firearm on school property without a permit . . . ditto above.)

So, discounting all the petty things (like illegally possessing handgun ammo, etc) the young lady and boys involved broke no fewer than SIX "gun control" laws before a single shot was fired.

Any insinuation that this situation would have somehow been improved by more "gun control" laws (aka further erosion of the second civil liberty enumerated in the Bill of Rights) amounts to strong evidence of a hopelessly irrational mind.

-Peter

Re:Hrmm

[pi_rules]

But I am against nuts with guns. Yep, I'm against it.

If you're for nuts with guns, I suggest you put a sign on your lawn that says "I think all nuts should own guns!"

I don't think you actually read my post entirely. Please note the opening where I mention my gun-toting drug dealing cousin (with a felony!) has access to weapons easier than I do as a law abiding citizen.

He shot two men two months ago after a drug deal went bad.

Nuts do own guns, illegally. There is nothing I can realistically do to stop them from having them. However by being armed I can protect myself and those around me. Because I'm armed I raise the probability of a nut-job encountering an armed citizen when they want to commit armed robbery -- and they begin to think twice. If they knew every damned person in the city had a gun on them and that 99% of them were law abiding peaceful people do you really think they'd pull half the crap they do?

You don't have to thank me for protecting your freedom and livelyhood. I get enough satisfaction out of knowing that I'm doing my part while you whine and moan about it.

Re:Hrmm

[bobdobbs3]

NRA folks are constitutionally (pun intended) UNABLE to quote the whole of the Second Amendment(see their own masthead , here ) because it it directly refers to regulation.

The whole of the Second Amendment reads thus:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

>"Shall not infringe" sure has come to mean "shall not entirely infringe" over the years.

and apparently "A well regulated militia" sure has come to mean "a bunch of drunken rednecks shooting deer crossing signs with automatic assault rifles loaded with bullets designed to pierce body armor" over the years.

oh, please.

Re:Hrmm

[Skjellifetti]

The problem with most 2nd Amendment folks is that they forget that it starts "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." and think that the Amendment implies that gov't cannot regulate anything about gun ownership.

2nd Amendment fanatics typically do not know their history very well. The vast majority of citizens in Colonial America did not own guns. Guns were hand made and quite expensive at the time of the American Revolution. As a result, all of the colonies were faced with critical shortages of arms and ammunition during the first years of the war. Also, the Continental Army came very, very close to a coup d'etat after the war when the Continental Congress could not pay the officers and men what they were owed for their service. It was averted at the last moment by Washington who gave a tearful address to the officers begging them not to. These experiences with a lack of preparation for defense and distrust of a standing army led the feds to pass the 2nd Amendment in 1791 and The Militia Act of 1792 which required all able bodied men, 18-45, to serve in their local militia and provide their own weapons and equipment. The problem with the act was that most people do not want to be forced to serve in an army of any kind and by the 1830s, most people were regularly dodging the requirement. Gun ownership in America really only got started after the Civil War when many returning soldiers were allowed to take their guns home with them. It was at this point that the myth that America had always been defended by heavily armed individual citizens began. The myth was eventually perverted into the notion that the 2nd Amendment was written as a protection for individuals and not an attempt to create a gov't regulated alternative to a standing army.

Re:Hrmm

[Dimensio]

Would you mind pointing out what in the second amendment allows the government to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms? Be specific, and keep in mind that the amendment is one entire word, but there are no qualifiers on the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", at least none immediately obvious.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if more (or more effective) gun control laws could have done more to fix that, then you would be back at square one.

You'd still have to get past the argument that removing the gun control laws might make considerably more bad things happen than have been.

Better, I think, admitting that freedoms come with associated risks and arguing that the freedom is worth it. You won't convince anyone but at least you won't be telling people they are irrational from an irrational standpoint.

Re:Hrmm

[Daemonik]

On one side you make a good point. Criminals will always have access to illegal weapons. That's a given. Death penalty laws don't keep people from killing each other either, should we get rid of those? Heck, jails don't stop criminals much, so let's tear those down too.

While we're at it, we can each huddle up our families into well armed little encampments, put out armed guards (trusted relatives only, and then only trust them as far as you can throw them) and we'll all just stare at each other while caressing all our nice shiny guns. Yeah, thats civilization.

Frankly, there are numerous people who would never consider commiting a crime who simply should not have access to a firearm.

If we dictate who can own and operate a car, under what conditions they can operate it and require them to pass a test demonstrating some aptitude with it, why is it such a leap to require similar checks on ownership of something designed to kill?

Crying that it's in the Constitution doesn't mean jack either. The Constitution is a collection of words, meant to be reinterpreted over time to suit the needs of the people now, not as we were 200 years ago.

Re:Hrmm

[AceMarkE]

Only after the Civil War? Sorry, wrong. That's part of what Michael Bellisles tried to claim in his book "Arming America". See the archives of Clayton Cramer's blog for research showing that American gun ownership was quite common well before the Revolutionary War (Cramer has dug through numerous archives of town records, all of which prove his point). In particular, see here, here, and here
Mark Erikson

Re:Hrmm

[nrjyzerbuny]

Because apparently "The People", which means "The People" in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments means something else when applied to the second.

A well regulated militia means every male between 16 and 60 who isn't unfit for physical or psychological reasons. Some people seem to think that a militia (Bill of Rights, 1787) means the National Guard (Created 1917). And by the way, "assualt rifles", being the types of firearm carried by most of the armed soldiers of the world, is explicitly what the second amendment is about.

Re:Hrmm

[pi_rules]

The problem with most 2nd Amendment folks is that they forget that it starts "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." and think that the Amendment implies that gov't cannot regulate anything about gun ownership.

I'm only going to concentrate on this part of your post as the rest goes into what are very well factual things but have absolutely no bearing on the intention of the 2nd ammendment.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

You are correct on the beginning, but the ending is what really gives it a punch. This is a -SINGLE- sentence. The beginning nearly states why the following occurs. The 2nd half of the sentence states what actually is being guaranteed.

" the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.". This is the -ONLY- "action" of the sentence.

Granted, I didn't write it, and it's meaning is still up for debate apparently but there are a few people out there that agree with my interpretation of it:

Thomas Jefferson:

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."

George Washington:

"A free people ought to be armed." Speech Jan 7, 1790.

Thomas Jefferson:

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Letter to William S. Smith, January 30, 1787, in Jefferson, On Democracy , pg. 20 (S. Padover ed., 1939)

John Adams:

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self defense." A Defense of the U.S. Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-88)

James Madison:

The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Federalist #46.

Thomas Paine:

"...arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them," Thoughts on Defensive War, (1775)

Thomas Jefferson:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764)

Richard Henry Lee:

' A militia when properly formed is in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms..." Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788)

Samuel Adams:

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." During Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention (1788)

Alexander Hamilton:

"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." Federalist Papers, Article 29 January 10, 1788

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there's nothing you can do anyway. If the kid is suicidal, they're going to get somebody's gun anyway...if it's a not a teacher's gun, it's dad's, or the neighbor's, or the guy on the street corner. So how can it hurt to let the teachers have access to guns, too?

Next

Re:Hrmm

[pi_rules]

I wish all you gun-toting fucktards would just go create your own nation,

We did. Who the hell let you in here?

Re:Hrmm

[Feztaa]

Just
a note, in junior high, a vice principle tried to break up a fight. He got
tossed out of a second floor window for his trouble.

Makes me glad to be Canadian. You see, it's very difficult to built igloos more than one storey high, so most schools only have the one floor.

Re:Hrmm

[$uperjay]

You support the right for creation of militias?

Hey, that's great.

What does this have to do with firearm laws?

Saying 'The 2nd Amendment is about everyone being able to have guns' is like saying 'the 14th Amendment was about protecting civil rights and doing away with segregation', silly.

Re:Hrmm

[Phleg]

Sounds like you're forgetting some history. Namely, just about every framer of the Constitution stating at one time or another that it'd be a pretty damned nice thing if every able-bodied man carried a firearm.

But sure, go on and claim that that Constitution was never intended to protect the rights of individuals to own guns. Just because the actual authors of the statement advocated and demanded it, and that every other of the Bill of Rights grants rights to individuals isn't any sort of indication of intent.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

We did. Who the hell let you in here?

I don't know man, he gave me a choice of a couple of pills, I took one of them, the dude shrugged, I woke up, and I'm still stuck in this shithole of tension and aggression, any idea if aspirin acheive the desired effect? Or perhaps it would be quicker to start up my own island, perhaps call it Phentermine and commit suicide due to my weapons of mass destruction?

Re:Hrmm

[loucura!]

Crying that it's in the Constitution doesn't mean jack either. The Constitution is a collection of words, meant to be reinterpreted over time to suit the needs of the people now, not as we were 200 years ago.

The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If you want to reinterpret it, you need to get a constitutional amendment. What's that? You can't get an amendment to infringe on the right to own weapons? Then quit-your-bitching, the law states that the right shall not be infringed, and until the Constitution says otherwise, that's the law.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more worried about the teacher having the gun in the first place. To judge from the teachers in my public school experience, they aren't exactly the most stable of people.

Next.

Re:Hrmm

[Daimaou]

The people are irrational though, and the argument against them is sound. What are you going to do, make gun control laws that are "new and improved" or "extra strength"?

Re:Hrmm

[Tassach]

I've never had to return fire yet, and I hope I never have to. I have had to point a gun at someone who was trying to break into my home. And no, I didn't lose control of my bowels. We gun-toting fucktards did create our own nation; it's called the United States of America. Don't like it? There are plenty of countries you can move to where it's illegal for a private citizen to own a firearm. Most of them are third-world shitholes, but I'm sure that won't bother you since you'd be living in a gun-free utopia.

Re:Hrmm

[josh crawley]

Right, I can dig it. So why doesn't everybody load up on guns to protect themselves, we'll assign a gun to each kid on the first day of class, have handy ammo dispensing machines in the cafeteria, and the first time some goth calls some football player a "mean jock" and reaches for their piece they'll be pulverized into a thin red paste in a hail of 1000 bullets.

I mean, you can't stop it anyways, can you?

Re:Hrmm

[josh crawley]

People do illegal things. Therefore, laws are ineffective. Therefore, we should get rid of all the laws (except the 2nd Amendment) and just carry a DEagle 5-0. Anyone who thinks differently is a whack-job.

Re:Hrmm

[zulux]

"Columbine". Your turn.

I'll raise your "Columbine" and give you a "Nazi" - and a misspelling - "Loser".

Re:Hrmm

[feagle814]

The US doesn't dictate who can own/operate cars. If you can buy/build a car, you are free to do so. If you want to drive it, you are free to do so... on your own land. The streets are owned by the government, and they have the right to say who drives on them and who doesn't. Guns, however, are a different matter. I'll not argue that guns were not designed to kill; I can think of few non-killing uses of guns. You're arguing that the Constitution doesn't mean anything today. Problem with that is it still governs our country. That's several hundred million people we're talking about, and I'll be damned if that means nothing.

Re:Hrmm

[1029]

Wow, harping on people for not overstating the first portion of the sentence comprising the 2nd amendment, while you totally leave out the entire second half of that same sentence.

So lets get this straight:

"right of the people peaceably to assemble," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" are all a part of our Constitution. And you will argue that "people" in those sentences refers to all the citizens of America as individuals?

However the 2nd amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers only to the state?

Sorry buddy. You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation. "People" means all of us, or it means the state. You simply cannot have it both ways.

Re:Hrmm

[BJH]

There are plenty of countries you can move to where it's illegal for a private citizen to own a firearm. Most of them are third-world shitholes

I find a lot of USians have this (completely incorrect) impression - as it happens, the majority of countries out there are perfectly nice places to live. I think you guys (a) don't get out enough and (b) are indoctrinated to believe that everywhere outside of the US is full of bizarre savages.

Re:Hrmm

[Cpt_Kirks]

I want a derringer that fires .50 AE.

If you are going to carry a derringer, you might as well buy one that shoots through schools...

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Been on the 'net since '94 and I must say that this is one of the finest bitchslaps I've ever seen. Beat them with logic, knock them senseless with facts, and still they cling to the last precipice of folly.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Take it to Russia jerk.

Re:Hrmm

[Bios_Hakr]

I have thought a lot about that problem. I would like to be able to have a gun, but I know that most illegal guns come from legal purchaces. Not to mention that if the flow of ammunition was stopped, most criminals would not be able to fire their guns.

Imagine having to find powder ingredentes, mix and test the powder, find spent casings, form the bullet, pack the casing, and finally, insert the bullet. That, to me, would be too much work for a criminal to go out and "gang bang".

Along with ceacing bullet production, I suggest a NRA maintained list of owners cross-referenced with the guns they own. If a firearm is recovered from the scene of a crime, then the original owner should be charged with accessory to that crime. This would make people less likely to leave the crate of Glocks on their back porch to be "stolen".

And if you ever sold a gun, you'd be damn sure to see that the license was transfered.

In exchage for the cops having access to the database, we'd get access to "assault weapons". After all, how are you going to defend your home from the Army if all you have is a shotgun?

Personally, I think that the right to bear arms should include firearms, rockets, grenades, bombs, missles, nukes, chemicals, biological agents, and strong crypto. That cop thinking about arresting me for smoking a joint needs a moment of pause to think about drug policy.

Re:Hrmm

[Penguin2212]

The problem is not with the guns themselves, it's with the persons who posess them. All too often you hear of accidental misuse of guns which lead to deaths. Guns should be regulated in some way, but there also has to be better training for those purchasing guns. A gun in the hands of a fool is more of a danger themselves or others than a person who obtained a gun illegally. Take Switzerland, for example (I think it's Switzerland), where all men are required to serve in the military. Accidental gun deaths are approximately 1/3 that of American accidental gun deaths. However there is a higher percentage of gun owners. That is because people are more responsible over there than they are here.

Re:Hrmm

[argStyopa]

OK, I'm a pro-gun-ownership person myself, although I don't own any guns. I also happen to be a strict constitutionalist, meaning I hold the framers and their ideas in very high regard and the current legislative Supreme Court in equally low regard.

But I will point out that if you read not only the clause, but the text of the different colonies' suggested amendments and correspondence around this issue, it is abundantly clear that the reason the various "right to keep and bear arms" proposals were made were entirely in the context of PREVENTING the establishment of a standing army in the United States.

One could thus either say that SINCE we have a standing army, private ownership of guns should be strictly regulated since the point is now moot.

OR, one could conclude that, with the establishment of a standing army by the United States government, we have progressed DIRECTLY down the road toward an over-intrusive and domineering Federal Government. In which case the citizenry should fight ever stronger AGAINST the further restriction of firearms because it is exactly this which the Founding Fathers prophecied in the case of an over-powerful Federal system: the disarming of the citizenry as a prelude to tyranny.

Take your pick.

Re:Hrmm

[Chess_the_cat]

You can't have your cake and eat it too in this situation.

A common error. The only sensical ordering of this is "You can't eat your cake and have it too." Because, obviously, I can have my cake and eat it. But once I eat it I can no longer have it also.

Re:Hrmm

[paganizer]

While I can see why you posted this one as AC, "Better, I think, admitting that freedoms come with associated risks and arguing that the freedom is worth it" is such a clear way to phrase things.
Unfortunately, while I understand this and accept it, apparently few others can.

Re:Hrmm

[paganizer]

+1 insightful please?
anybody?
come on..... at least a funny?

Re:Hrmm

[whatch durrin]

What?

Why would it matter if we could own "firearms, rockets, grenades, bombs, missles," etc., if we don't have access to ammunition? Or was that your point all along?

By the way, your reference to giving the cop "a moment to pause and think" is asinine. You may not agree with certain laws, but that's why we have them: they apply to everyone.

If a cop has to hesitate before arresting you on a drug charge because he's worried about getting blown away...you're one sorry ass MF. It's one thing to defend yourself or your family from personal injury - it's totally another to think you're above the law.

Don't like the drug laws? Write your congressman, march outside the state house, have benefit concerts, promote "awareness." But the second you threaten the life of a cop so you can smoke a joint is the second when I could care less if you occupy the planet.

Cops don't write the laws. They get paid shit wages to do their job and for the most part they do it well.

So fuck off.

Re:Hrmm

[Vermifax]

Perhaps you absent the day when "America Armed" was completely debunked as bad science?

Re:Hrmm

[Vermifax]

my apologies "Arming America"

Re:Hrmm

[Oz_mjk]

A magentically powered gun? It gives new meaning to the phrase "silent but deadly". Really, this tech could mean alot for the army's covert ops stuff, but also for the better equipped criminals.

Re:Hrmm

[Eskarel]

Yes and of course we all know that none of those people could possibly have been wrong. Oh wait, these are the same founding fathers who believed that black people only counted as 2/3's of a person and were so afraid of actually giving electoral power to the rabble that they created an electoral college which could ignore their wishes. Jefferson in particular was a bit of a nut job and if we're going to follow his wishes we'd better all move onto 40 acre farms and live the isolated rural lifestyle.

As for the 18th Century criminologists, I've read some really fun stuff from 19th Century criminologists, stuff which associates certain physical features with propensity for criminal acts.

I'm not saying that the great majority of what the founding fathers believed wasn't reasonably good, I'm merely saying that not everything they believed was right.

It is also a well known fact that when they ratified the constitution most of its authors believed it would be a temporary document as had been the articles of confederation not something which would last 200 years, and even then they were smart enough to put in the ability to change it.

Guns are a problem, perhaps making them all together illegal is going overboard, I've even known a few people who were responsible enough about firearms that I didn't feel totally uncomfortable with them owing them, but it's not unreasonable to require some sort of training or control before you purchase a gun. No we will probably never stop actual criminals from obtaining guns and using them to muder people, but maybe we can stop idiots from accidentally shooting themselves or others and maybe we can cut down on those random acts of gun violence. Even if I can't know that no one is going to shoot me, I'd like to know that if I accidentally piss somone off they're not going to go temporarily insane and shoot me, we don't need that kind of security.

Re:Hrmm

[whatch durrin]

Oh yes. You speak of the wonderful book Arming America by one Mr. Michael Bellesiles of Emory University.

Funny thing...Mr. Bellesiles was found to have made fraudulent claims in that book, and was summarily forced to resign from his post at Emory.

More info here, here, and here.

Want more? Google search for "fraud," "Emory," and "guns."

Re:Hrmm

[Mr. Slippery]

Imagine having to find powder ingredentes, mix and test the powder, find spent casings, form the bullet, pack the casing, and finally, insert the bullet. That, to me, would be too much work for a criminal to go out and "gang bang".

Imagine having to find heroin ingredients, mix and test the powder, find syringes, and finally shoot it into your vein. That, to me, would be too much trouble to get high - yet 1 in 11 adults in Baltimore city is a heroin addict. Anyone who wants it can get it.

If you can't keep crack and heroin away from people, what makes you think you can keep ammunition off the black market?

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're indoctrinated to believe you're the rest of the world.

Re:Hrmm

[drinkypoo]

While we're at it, we can each huddle up our families into well armed little encampments, put out armed guards (trusted relatives only, and then only trust them as far as you can throw them) and we'll all just stare at each other while caressing all our nice shiny guns. Yeah, thats civilization.

This is exactly what the United States of America went through in the period of expansion. People fought their way over hills and fields and rivers and you name it, and past angry injuns and injuns angry at a whole lot of asshole white folk and various peaceful injuns, and when they found a nice piece of land they built themselves little enclaves consisting of them and anyone else they didn't run off.

Thank you, MECC, for Oregon Trail :D

Re:Hrmm

[Mr. Slippery]

because it it directly refers to regulation.

It refers to "well regulated". It's not a phrase used now, but at the time of writing it meant effective, properly disciplined, ordered.

Re:Hrmm

[drinkypoo]

Hitler! I win. Where's my lemon cookie?

Re:Hrmm

[zerocool^]

Don't like it? There are plenty of countries you can move to where it's illegal for a private citizen to own a firearm.

See, and my reply to that is that it's living in the same country that guarantees your right to own a gun that gives me the right to voice my opinion about how guns are bad.

We don't live in a country that gives us the right to own guns. We live in a country that gives us the right to choose whether or not we'd like to own guns. I choose to both live in the US and to not own a gun.

I feel that your views are as valid as mine, and I feel that constitutional democracy is working when you can raise your voice as loud as mine and proclaim that they'll never take your guns at the same time as I proclaim that I'll never own a gun.

So, if you don't mind, let's settle this whole "love guns or leave the country" arguement. I don't love guns, I loathe them. However, I love the government which gives me the opportunity to love or loathe them, and I choose to stay.

"While I may not agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it"

~Will

Re:Hrmm

[KrispyKringle]

Whether or not I want to get involvd in such a debate I am not sure. That said, I do have a couple of questions for you.

First, to address your sarcastic comment that "I'm glad to know that I can't buy the same kind of firearms that my coke dealing cousin can illegally". Aside from the obvious comment, vis-a-vis your coke dealing cousin, which is "get that boy off the streets," I'm a tad curious why you and those like you assocaite gun ownership with explicit safety. Statistically, you are far more likely to be shot by your own gun, or to shoot someone accidentally or in a heated argument, than you are to use it successfully to defend yourself against a thief, rapist, or ego-maniacal tyrant (I don't think the Secret Service would let you get close enough to Bush for that last one, anyway). I'm sure you think those statistics are about untrained amateurs who don't know how to use their guns, or perhaps you think they're about redneck drunks who come home and beat their wives, but they're not. Gun ownership leads to elevated risk.

Second, in regards to your commends on the Constitution, it never ceases to amaze me that many groups--and it's hardly fair for me to assume that your politics are such a way just because you are pro-gun--insist on a literalist interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to gun ownership, but on other issues are perfectly willin to compromise. The moral of the story is that literalist interpretations of the Constitution of the sort Justice Scalia is an advocate of don't make sense. By a literalist interpretation of the Constitution, wiretaps without a search warrant are legal, as is remote electronic surveillance or satellite tracking. Are you a fan of those activities? I certainly am not.

In comparison, an attempt at "translation," to quote Lawrence Lessig, in order to apply the goals and intentions of the authors of the Constitution effectively to changing circumstances, allows us more than just a dead piece of paper, instead, we can follow the living and applied ideals. Nobody benefits from trying to follow laws to the letter as they were written centuries ago. Our "founding fathers," no matter how wise or intelligent, did not always predict the ways in which society may change. But the answer is not to pretend society is not changed and insist on applying laws the way they were written. Instead, we must preserve the ideals by changing the application, for it is the ideals, not the phrasing, which are truly important.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn straight. Funniest thing I have read today.

Re:Hrmm

[Red Warrior]

Yes and of course we all know that none of those people could possibly have been wrong.
When it comes to "what did they mean when they wrote the consistution", yes we all know that none of those people could possibly have been wrong. Duh.

Whether it was a good idea or not (it was, btw) can be debated. What they wrote, and what they THOUGHT and SAID they wrote cannot.

Don't like it? Amend the constitution. They even included a mechanism to do so. Built right in.

Re:Hrmm

[KrispyKringle]

"If you can't keep crack and heroin away from people, what makes you think you can keep ammunition off the black market?"

It's a lot harder to mass-produce reliable ammunition than it is heroin. Or so I'd suspect. No being a drug dealer or gun-nut, I wouldn't precisely know.

Re:Hrmm

[josh crawley]

Take Switzerland, for example (I think it's Switzerland), where all men are required to serve in the military.

Take Israel, where everyone's required to. Nobody dying of gunshot wounds there. Whoops, bad example.

Actually I think Switzerland's a bad example, given that collectively as a nation and a culture they haven't done anything aggressive since the time of Julius Caesar. I think they've had their balls off ever since Caesar decimated their population.

Re:Hrmm

[josh crawley]

Along with ceacing bullet production, I suggest a NRA maintained list of owners cross-referenced with the guns they own. If a firearm is recovered from the scene of a crime, then the original owner should be charged with accessory to that crime. This would make people less likely to leave the crate of Glocks on their back porch to be "stolen".

And if you ever sold a gun, you'd be damn sure to see that the license was transfered.

God forbid, the Right Wing Maniacs say. That would be infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. But you can't even get a valid license plate without showing a title to a car (and showing transfer of that title from person to person).

Re:Hrmm

[KrispyKringle]

We have photoids and licenses for automobiles, and a lot more people benefit from their use than from guns. We have greater monitoring and accountability for their use, and far greater restrictions to get a license, even though in many parts of the US cars are critical to our freedom of movement. We have strict crackdowns on the use of "illicit" drugs, even though their use is statistically far less dangerous for others than that of handguns. We crack down on encryption technology even though it serves a significant legitimate purpose of protecting anonymous speech, which the Supreme Court has defended as a critical component of our First Amendment rights.

All of you gun-nuts think the gob'mint is going to come grab your precious shotgun and then you'll have nothing to keep the IRS man away with. Cut me a fucking break (yes, I know this isn't an appropriate level of discourse, and I apologize--I'm tired, both physically and metaphorically). All "fundamental freedoms" crucial to our freedom, even the very essence of our freedom, our right to individuality, free thought, and free expression, takes its limits. Such is the nature of living in a society; we are not anarchists, and the rights of the individual to do whatever the fuck he wants do not always take precedence over what is best for society as a whole.

Hell, the government has the right to send me off to war to kill people I don't have anything against or to die for some rich old man to get a little richer. So what if you can't buy the biggest, baddest gun you want? (Seriously, why do people get angry at laws restricting them to three guns per month? Is that not enough around Christmass? And should we really allow people to buy anti-aircraft guns or shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles?)

Re:Hrmm

[fodi]

wow, that's awesome man... I'm smashed atm and that toally messed with my head.

Re:Hrmm

[josh crawley]

Which part don't you understand?

Re:Hrmm

[BinxBolling]

If we dictate who can own and operate a car[...]

Idiot.

Re:Hrmm

[ocelotbob]

This is of course, only if you ignore the fact that the kids had the fucking propane tanks in the school rigged to explode. Suppose they didn't have a gun, what would have happened? They probably would have just blown up the school, causing many more deaths than happened with their illegally obtained guns. Care to counter?

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

You're willing to give up your right to defend yourself against tyrrany in order to protect a few idiots?

You're an idiot, and I care about you and all other idiots dearly, but I'd rather see you shoot yourself in the ass twice than give up my freedoms.

As far as me being worried that an idiot like you will shoot me, I'm not too worried about it. I'm probably better armed and a better shot than you. Even so, I'd rather risk it than live in a totalitarian state.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

funny thing: in Canada, it's only a firearm once it's registered. Until it's specifically registered, as per the Firearms Act, no weapon can be classified as a firearm. So, obviously, these things are totally OK in Canada at least.

Re:Hrmm

[Flarelocke]

I see you didn't get the memo:
http://www.reason.com/0303/fe.jm.disarming. shtml

Short version:
No, you're wrong.

Re:Hrmm

[pkinetics]

Imagine having to find powder ingredentes, mix and test the powder, find spent casings, form the bullet, pack the casing, and finally, insert the bullet. That, to me, would be too much work for a criminal to go out and "gang bang".

So lets remove firearms. Then these gang bangers won't be using guns but knives, baseball bats, tire irons, and what not.

You say that's not too bad... well add another 20 years, and then they start outlawing these things.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the police are not responsible for your safety. Nothing against the people who will put their life on the line for me.

The National Gaurd is called upon by the President to handle both foreign and domestic situations. They don't protect your interest.

In the end, the only one who can protect you and your family, is you.

Oh, and lets forget that a portion of the ammo sold in the US, is actually manufactured outside the US, and that anything outlawed just becomes more expensive, and the criminals have the money to do it.

Re:Hrmm

[usotsuki]

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. - Anonymous

Mhm, makes me feel real fucking safe at night.

-uso.

Re:Hrmm

[cha0sadddddddd]

(Seriously, why do people get angry at laws restricting them to three guns per month? Is that not enough around Christmass? And should we really allow people to buy anti-aircraft guns or shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles?)

YES!!!! seriously...how the fuck are you going to rise up against an oppressive government with a handgun??? huh??
you think the 2nd amendment is to protect hunters rights or something??

Re:Hrmm

[usotsuki]

(Score: 4, Flamebait) O_o I *have* seen it all.

Does anyone fucking understand what shall not be infringed means anymore? Gawd daimn.

-uso.

Re:Hrmm

[Keeper]

Two points:

1) It is difficult to accurately interpret the second ammendment, primarily because the way the sentence was constructed is ambiguous, primarily because it has at least one comma too many and is missing another punctuation mark.

It could be interpreted to say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms can not be infringed", with the first half of the sentence being background information.

It could be interpreted to say that the right of a militia (armed group of citizens) group to keep and bear arms can not be infringed.

It could be interpreted to say that there can't be a law prohibiting militias, nor a law stating that their right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed.

It could be interpreted to say that there can't be a law prohibiting militias, nor a law stating that the people's right to keep and bear arms can not be infringed.

I personally think the last item is the most accurate one. I also think that at the time, such a statement made a lot of sense -- the common man could afford the arms to defend his country. Today, in the age of 16 million dollar military jets, multi million dollar tanks, and guns that can empty a clip of ammo before you can react to the first shot, I don't think it does make a lot of sense.

2) (didn't think I'd ever make it to the second point, did you?) While I may not necessarily agree with it, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as meaning that the people will always have the right to keep and bear arms -- however, they also have stated that the constitution says nothing about being able to keep and bear any/all kind of arms, so as long as there is a single firearm available to a common citizen (even if it's a lousy 9mm pistol that holds 1 round) gun control laws are constutional.

Re:Hrmm

[zeno_2]

You really have to think of it this way. The laws passed by our lawmakers are not laws of physics or anything. They are designed to make someone NOT want to do something that they feel shouldn't be done. It doesn't prevent them from doing so, its a deterrent.

Any sort of law or restriction is that way, your not physically making the act impossible, your giving the people a reason for not doing the act because there will be consequences. So, anyone who is really pushed to the point where they don't care about the consequences of thier act, they are going to do what they want, with no reguard to what laws they may break. Don't think your safe walking down the street because of gun laws.. Id say your safer because of morals. Its pretty obvious to any "normal" person that you shouldn't shoot some unknown person for no reason. This isn't because theres a law that says so, its because most people value life. I feel much safer because of that then any sort of law that someone can pen up..

I am pro-second amendment also (I live in Idaho, we value our guns). I feel some laws involving what you can do with guns are necessary, but its never going to stop "that person" from going crazy and shooting people.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the US government has ever been as oppressive as it is right now with the DMCA, Patriot Act, TIA etc... Guns don't protect you against manipulation and propaganda. Those are the weapons of the 21st century and you'd better start defending yourself against them, instead of focussing on a false sense of security by having umpteen guns in your closet.

Really, if the government would be out to get you, all the guns of the world wouldn't help you. They would first plant and disperse false information, then try to convince as many people as possible that you really are a bad person and finally use this as a justification to get at you. Sounds familiar? Probably, since that's what they also did with one or other country not that long ago.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I do have a degree in English.

The first part of the 2nd Amendment is a dependant clause. It adds information to the sentence as a whole, but it restricts neither the intent nor the meaning of the second part, the independant clause.

You being an idiot, I disagree with you because the implementation of ideas like yours endangers my liberty. See? I don't know if you're an idiot or not. You may simply be willfully ignorant of English usage. Nonetheless, I still disagree with you. The meaning and intent of my independant clause is not dependant on the first part of the sentence.

Fish being fowl, water is wet. Water being wet, fish are fowl. Get the point? It doesn't matter how you restructure the sentence, fish are not fowl and water is wet.

I try to say what I mean and I assume that you do too, as did the Founding Fathers (though they did so much better than either your or I). If the FF had meant for arms to be borne only insofar as it supported a militia, why would they not have written so?

Language is not an absolutely precise medium in which to express thought. Some things are open to interpretation. But the usage in the 2nd Amendment is clear and common.

Though the FF did not make the right to keep and bear arms dependant on the relevance of millitias, they did think the issue relevant. That's why they put that bit in there. It adds information. That militias are considered by some to be irrelevant today does not mitigate the fact that the relevance of militias is irrelevant to the the right to keep and bear arms, given the very precise, though often misunderstood, way in which the FF worded the amendment.

You do not reinterpret the basic meaning of the Consitution when the status quo changes, though you may reinterpret how it is applied. For instance, as far as I know, flag burning wasn't much of an issue in the days of our FF. It is an issue today, however, and the application of the 1st Amendment to flag burning is open to interpretation. Is burning the flag protected speech? That's a good question. Do we really need freedom of speech today? That's an entirely different type of question. The Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It does not say what speech is, and, therefore, that is up to interpretation. But we can not up and decide that there shall be no guarantee of freedom of speech without amending the Constitution.

You now stand corrected. If you don't believe me, please seek other authorities. If you think firearms should be outlawed, by all means, seek to have the Constitution amended. If you willfully refuse to accept common usage and meaning, you cannot be reasoned with. Unfortunately, I fear that many people use your argument to willfully disregard the bare truth. If you come to me arguing about "what the meaning of 'is' is," I know that you are either ignorant or that you are a soundrel.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't like it? Amend the constitution. They even included a mechanism to do so. Built right in.

Kind of like modules in the linux kernel! Uh oh.. Is that infringing on SCO's patents?

Re:Hrmm

[Shinobi]

Wrong. Just plain wrong. Try early 19th century, during the Napoleonic wars, when the Swiss Guards(The highly elite mercenary unit guarding the Vatican) were forced to sign an agreement that forbade them to do anything other than act as guards for the Vatican, since they were so feared. The Swiss were among the first to arm the peasants with pikes and crossbows and use them against charging knights to great effect.

And I know that many people only think the Swiss Guards are ceremonial and armed with polearms and such, when they are in fact one of the worlds best trained units. Patrolling guards have pistols in concealed holsters under their jacket, in the small of their back, while guards assigned to specific locations have submachine guns and assault rifles within arms reach, in concealed compartments. The various buildings in the Vatican are riddled with concealed metal detectors, and the troops are trained to notice concealed weapons(You'd have to wear very baggy clothes to hide even a small Makarov, not to mention practice for a long time to get rid of the subconscious change in movement and balance that carrying a concealed weapon induces)

Re:Hrmm

[dipipanone]

If you're for nuts with guns, I suggest you put a sign on your lawn that says "I think all nuts should own guns!"

Or displaying an NRA poster should suffice in a pinch.

Re:Hrmm

[ajs318]

The definition of a firearm is a weapon in which a chemical reaction provides the energy to accelerate the projectile. In this gun, the projectile is accelerated electromagnetically, by energy supplied from a rechargeable battery. Inside that battery is ..... a chemical reaction! Ergo, this weapon is a firearm.

In this country, it is illegal for anyone to own a gun; so only criminals have guns. And they are using them. But since criminals constitute a tiny minority of the population, then this is not as bad as some people make it out to be. Some innocent people are bound to get shot, but that's just bad luck you can't legislate for. Generally, if you stay away from military types and criminals, you can be born and die without ever coming anywhere near a live firearm.

Re:Hrmm

[torpor]

2 armed kids vs. 350 unarmed kids = Columbine.

2 armed kids vs 350 armed kids = ?

Your turn.

Re:Hrmm

[Sycraft-fu]

The difference would be that there is a specific provision in our constitution (the highest law in the land) about the right to bear arms whereas there is none about owning or operating a car. That is where many of the pro gun arguments come from, such as those you hear form the ACLU (a rather liberal group).

However arguments for registries aside I cannot see how you can possibally support the orignal poster's point. You thin that someone should be charged, simply becuase something they happened to own at one time that got stolen was used? Well then, since you like car analogies, I suggest you be prepared to have a ton of people locked up. Cars are stolen all the time, far more often than guns. Of my close personal friends over 50% have had their cars broken in to. A bunch of punks tried to steal mine, but failed on account of they couldn't figure out how to hotwire it. Another firend had the same thing tried by professional, but had a cutout that stopped it. 4 other owners of the same vehicle type on campus were not so luck (this over the course of two weeks).

Now, as it happens, just about all stolen cars are recovered form a crime scene of some kind or another. OFten its a chop shop, or more usually where it was dumped after being stripped or taken for a joy ride. Should people be charged because someone illegally took their property? If you think that, then you have some screwed up priorities.

Re:Hrmm

[u38cg]

If you have a problem with that I suggest you post a sign on your front lawn saying that you refuse to own guns if you think that will make the world a safer place.

Frankly, if it means the burglars are less likely to come prowling in with their gun out in front of them, I'm all for it. OTOH, I live in Britain, so it's a moot point anyway. We jail people who shoot burglars, and quite rightly. I can't even begin to imagine living in a society where you have to convince every police officer you come accross that you're nbot a dangerous threat. Ugh.

Maybe we're less free over here, but we're less dead, too.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Your fundamental lack of understanding the aurguments about gun registration show your prejuces on the matter.

This country was founded to keep men free. With freedom comes responsibility. Part of the resposibility of a grown person is the ability to take care of themselves and their property. In order to do this we must have self defense, which in turn requires ownership of firearms by the general population.

Nobody gives a rats ass about registration. The only thing people give a damn about is that registration is a precurser to seizure of firearms. You make lists of people with firearms so that you can take those weapons away easier.

Registration serves no purpose other then that. Criminals do NOT buy weapons from gunstores or private responsible individuals. They buy them from other criminals who are experts at working around the buerocratic net set up to stop this activity. The only people who would register guns are law-abiding citizens. This makes the concept of regulating firearms null and void from the offset.

Criminals already break the law. If you kill someone with a firearm, what is that compared to breaking a firearm registration law? Nothing. If you break the law you make it easier to get away with the murder, if you follow the law it makes it harder. Which would do you think criminals choose? If a person is willing to risk exicution or life in prison, what is a extra 5 years penalty going to accomplish for fighting crime.

Registration is useless exept for gun seizeres. It treats everyone who would by a gun as a potential criminal. This is not the behavior of "a government for the people and by the people"
This is the behavior of a socialist state, which by it's nature subverts freedoms for better control over the populace.

Another aurgument is that gun registration can make "finger printing" a gun possible. This is were the groves on a bullet and impressions on a case can be matched to a database.

It's actually pretty retarded. A unskilled person with a file and a pair of pliers can change this "finger print" the firing pin on a case to make it untracable in five minutes. Or they can simply replace the pin with a different one.

The bullet type finger printing is worthless, too. The impression of the barrel on a bullet changes over time and can be affected by stuff like lead fouling, dirtyness and other uncontrollable factors.

This makes this system makes it close to trash for prosicuting criminals. Especially if they intented to use a illigal unregistared gun in a illigal criminal act, and had time to prep for the criminal act.

OH, BTW if drugs are harmless compared to guns how about this...
Alchohol killed 110,000+ people, perscription drugs killed 32,000 people, illitic drugs killed 17000 people in 1998... how does that compare to 32000 in 1997?

Looks like you could save 3 times as many lives if you make alchohol illigal. Or maybe you should start a registration of people buying alchohol so that they can be tracked by satalite with a transiver they must wear to buy a drink and if they get in a car, they should be tracked down and arrested on the spot.

Oh, another thing. A full 2/3 of gun deaths are drug related. If poeple stopped addicting themselves to that crap, then you would have a dramit drop in gun related deaths.

Re:Hrmm

[Dave Emami]

The problem with most 2nd Amendment folks is that they forget that it starts "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." and think that the Amendment implies that gov't cannot regulate anything about gun ownership.

The problem with anti-2nd Amendment folks who point to the "well-regulated" portion of the amendment, is that they don't know what "well-regulated" meant when used back then. It has nothing to do with government regulation. It means properly functioning.

From Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton (talking about the problems of maintaining a standing army):

"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

That is, having a certain "degree of perfection" in "going through military exercises and evolutions" entitle them to the character of a "well-regulated militia." A "well-regulated" militia is one that can shoot straight.

Your "guns were rare in Colonial America" sounds like you're getting your info (directly or indirectly) from Michael Bellesiles's Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, which has been pretty thoroughly debunked, so I'm not going to go into the details here. Best place to start is this article in Reason magazine.

Re:Hrmm

[CitizenJohnJohn]

No no no-itty no! It's the nuts that should be given guns. The ones you have to look out for are the *quiet* types. After all, whenever someone goes rampant-crazy-apeshit with a semi-automatic because his aspidistra told him the local 7-11 was actually a nest of demons preparing for the apocalypse (it was at building 666, right, so it's *obvious*!) his neighbours always say, "Oh but he was so quiet." They never say "yeah he was obviously a total nutjob, we've been able to see this coming for years."

Guns should therefore only be available to those prepared to turn up at the licence office foaming at the mouth, dressed in rainbow motley and a tricorn, playing the bagpipes and shouting 'stop the parade, Mrs Jalopy, I'm a tea-kettle.'

Re:Hrmm

[BlowChunx]

If you haven't risen up yet, what makes you think that you will in the future???

Reaganomics, Iran-Contra, DMCA, what does it take to push your "rise up" button?

Re:Hrmm

[arcanumas]

In Greece there was a sudden supply of really cheap (i mean 30 Euro cheap) stolen Kalasnikof (or what's it called). This is a combat rifle , not a toy. This supply was braught by the uprising in the neighbouring Albania. So it is really safe to say there are many many "war" weapons in the hands of many citizens (and mostly criminals i may add). Do you know how many die from these weapons every year? No? Well neither do i. I can not recall the last time there was a murder.
So don't blame the owning of guns or the breaking of gun laws. Blame the society and the rules and values on which it is based that drive these kids to something like that.

Re:Hrmm

[1gor]

You are no anarchist, but you are closer to being a communist than you think. The issue is exactly that: rights of individual DO take precedence over what is good for society as a whole. Because, who exactly has determined what IS good for the society? You, my little comrade?

There is no such thing as abstract "common good". There are real interests of real people who delegate power to speak on their behalf to the elected government. And no government has a right to send people to war. It can declare war on behalf of people. And if the reason for the war was not legitimate, this government is likely to be voted out of the office.

So, government is agent of people, not a sovereign. And a person may want to carry a bazooka, it's his/her right. Such right can be limited only by majority vote of other people who think bazooka may be hazardous to neighbours.

I hope majority of Americans still are capable of deciding what's good for them. And are in posession of means to protect this right (guns). From people like you who are not capable of personally taking up the challenge of liberty and who are ready to sell out yours and everybody's right to a small minority of state officials "who know better what is common good".

If this changes, sorry for the rest of the world. Here comes this huge totalitarian gorilla...

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

so France, Italy, England, Germany, Ireland, Spain, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Portugal, Luxemburg, Iceland, Greenland, et cetera... These aren't the rest of the world?? What the fuck planet do you live on, dumbshit?

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you, fucktard!

Wow, you're right!: what a brilliant, witty way of responding to things with which you disagree.

Not! You fucking moron!!!

Re:Hrmm

[rvega]

I haven't bothered to look into the facts myself, but I suspect you should have started with "MY definition of a firearm is..." instead of "The". By your logic, a thrown stone would constitute a firearm, as it is chemical reactions in the human body that is responsible for the stone's motion. Where do we draw the line? Can we use a capacitor instead of a battery?

Re:Hrmm

[dtr21]

I disagree with this. If you increase the chances of nuts encountering citizens with guns, then you get nuts who will hunt in packs under large amounts of stress, and who will probably adopt a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later policy towards people who stand up to them. You also get a police force that knows that the nuts have guns and have this policy, so they then adopt a shoot-if-anything-gets-pointed-near-me policy. Hence, you get a lot of dead people, nuts and others.

Not having guns doesn't mean you don't have nuts, nor does it mean that you won't have nuts with guns. But it does lower the tension levels a lot, and will make you a lot less likely to get shot. Think about it, which would you rather, to be robbed, or to get into a gun fight with a gang of nuts and probably get shot?

Re:Hrmm

[BrynM]

Great! I can see poeple blowing themselves up in their "ammo labs" now. They'll be just as professional as your average Meth or LSD lab.

Re:Hrmm

[dirkx]

Yet, despite all those 22.000 laws - the US sees regular shootings at factories, schools and companies.

About 2 or 3 a year we read about in the newspaper here (and about double that when you follow US news papers closely).

At the same time, I have a hard time recalling any incident even remotely similar in Holland, Italy, France or the United Kingdom.

Perhaps just a single law; No guns for anyone, would be a tad bit more effictive.

And given the number of revolts or swapping of governements/those-in-power we've seen in those countries in the past centuries (while these gun laws where in place) - I have no worry about citizens not being able to rise against their governement should they feel like it.

Call it 'try by experience' - but that part seems to work fine and not require some amendment or constitution to allow them to bear arms. In fact the newbies in power seem to generally relish in rewriting the darn thing from scratch. (Nor does it seem to stop the criminals from getting guns either).

Dw.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Mpffffff, hahahahahahha, mpfffff, you idiot US of idiot A.. hahahahahhahahHAhahahhahahHAhaHAHahAh.. boy, how many people get killed by firearms per year in the mpffff Finest mpffaHAHAHAHHAHAHAHahhahaha country in the world?

Re:Hrmm

[Daemonik]

"The Constitution is a collection of words, meant to be reinterpreted over time to suit the needs of the people now, not as we were 200 years ago."

Exactly where in that sentence do the words "the Constitution doesn't mean anything today"? I never said that, and never implied it.

What I said, is that the Constitution is open to interpretation. That is why we have the Supreme Court, to decide on what the Constitution means to us today. Just like they decided that since the Constitution says 'limited times' in connection with copyrights, Congress can lengthen copyrights for any term they wish but can't come out and actually say it's permanent. "Infinity -1" so to speak.

Many people read the 2nd Amendment and see the little section that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" and deam that to mean that anyone, under any circumstances, can own entire arsenals of machine guns. Other people notice the other part of the sentence that says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" and feel that you have to be in a militia to own a gun, and that said militia is to be heavily regulated by the state. It's a contradictory sentence open to wildy opposing interpretations, but that's somewhat the point.

It, and the rest of the Constitution is not written in stone. They are guidlines meant to be challenged, redefined, honed to meet the needs of the people at any given moment. It's a fluid document, not the ten commandments.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

They were assholes and bullies.
They got the hell they deserved.

Re:Hrmm

[Daemonik]

My god, what a devistating counter argument. I bow to such a word-smith as you sir. Indeed, the wool has been removed from my eyes and I see clearly now.

Re:Hrmm

[Thoth Ptolemy]

Except no one wants blacks, or homosexuals, or such to have guns.

Not like some gun-toting, camo-wearing cracker is actually oppressed by this government. Unless you take oppression in the bin Laden (or other crazy ass religious right winger) definition as meaning 'not forcing my religion and views on other people'.

Re:Hrmm

[Thoth Ptolemy]

Taxes.

It's all about money.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of speech should be the first to go!
Can't have people disagreeing with me.
Where the hell do they think they are?!
Unpatriotic America-hating liberals!!!

Re:Hrmm

[Thoth Ptolemy]

South Central LA?

Re:Hrmm

[Thoth Ptolemy]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Are you in a well regulated militia?
Are you necessary to the security of a free state?

Doubt it.

Something i'll never get, why don't conservatives hate the Second Amendment. Don't they hate regulation ;)

Re:Hrmm

[Thoth Ptolemy]

It also states that the right to bear firearms is for maintaining a well regulated militia...

Re:Hrmm

[Megane]

In this gun, the projectile is accelerated electromagnetically, by energy supplied from a rechargeable battery.

By that logic, a BB gun is accelerated by a mechanical spring, which is charged by energy supplied by a human arm... and guess what the human arm is powered by? Chemical reactions!

Now if someone could come up with a "nuclear battery" to put in this thing, then it would be totally legal. Woo hoo!

Re:Hrmm

[Thoth Ptolemy]

"A well regulated militia..."

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

just a reminder....

only the complete idiots want guns banned. because they are too stupid to understand that if you make it illegal to have a gun, only thecriminals will have the guns.

and it sure isnt going to impact them at all..

I want one of these utterly stupid cun control freaks to explain how really tight gun laws can prevent anything? explain why the local police raided a gang's place and found several machine guns and 2 Fricking Light Anti Tank Weapons..

Oh yeah, laws stop criminals... Not.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

White Males between 16 and 60.
So you niggers can't own guns!
Chicks? Forget about it! Get back to the kitchen and make me dinner!

The US Military replaces the Militia.

Re:Hrmm

[Lumpy]

" the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Oh crap... I read that as the right to keep and arm BEARS...

Now how the hell am I going to get those guns away from all those bears out there, eh?

and that little one was getting really good with that pistol...

Re:Hrmm

[pete-classic]

Please see Reductio ad absurdum.

What I, in fact, said is that making something that is ALREADY illegal "doubly" illegal is irrational, and, furthermore, is harmfull to civil liberties.

But thanks for your useless. You have reinforced my impression of those who fear the right to keep and bear arms as irrational, unthinking people.

-Peter

PS: Are there any other civil liberties you'd like to dispose of? That pesky freedom of religion perhaps? It seems like that whole "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure" might be helping terrorists . . .

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I see, this only guarantees citizens the ability to keep two of their limbs, and not to keep guns.

Re:Hrmm

[pete-classic]

At the risk of provoking the invocation of Godwin what you have just described is a recipie for holocaust*.

I don't know what your political leanings are, but that is something that I would personally like to avoid.

-Peter

*Historical note. IMO the first "event" of the rise of the Third Reich was not the burning of the Reichstag, but the registration of firearms by the Kaiser.

Re:Hrmm

[fenix down]

Any other pro-gun people here that really, really hate these pro-2nd ammendment people? Every time I hear one of these nutcase tirades I wanna go out and ban something just to spite them.

I like guns, not as much as big, steel, phallic, non-chemically-assisted weapons, but I like them. I just hate people who think the second ammendment means something today. It's there to let us have a revolution. That's it. You don't see any "self-defense" ammendment. There's no hunting ammendment. There's no "shooting the cops when they break into your house by mistake is OK" ammendment. There's just a appropriately subtle protection of the ability to revolt. They don't wanna explicitly mention rebellion in the fucking constitution, just make sure it's not to tough.

Then we invented technology and now you can't have a violent revolution here. We have nuclear weapons sitting around and no strategy to deal with them in the event that we kill everybody in charge. Even if you don't worry about that, one AFB can still take down a few hundred thousand people armed with the largest weapons operable by a single person. Unless your neighborhood watch practices with satillite surveilence and directing fighter-bomber assaults on a regular basis, your revolution ain't never goin' nowhere. Give it up, for fuck's sake. We invented Ghandi to compensate for that problem years ago. If it ever gets bad enough that the gun nuts finally get inspired to start something, anything you do will just screw up the bargaining position the smart people were working on.

Re:Hrmm

[GooberToo]

I'm constantly amazed at how many people think the DE is the ultimate in handguns. I have a friend that actually has one and I can tell you, unless you have a giant's hand, there is no way you'd want a DE. The springs will give you a hernia. The thing jumps like a spanked banshee when fired. It weighs a ton and the grips are massive.

Long story short, unless you're first name is Arnold, or a close relative, you're not going to like the DE at all.

Re:Hrmm

[frantzen]

i live in maryland. during world war 2, there was a threat of the germans landing troops presumably to conduct guerilla warfare around our nation's capitol. the governor of maryland called for all members of hunting lodges, trap and skeet clubs, shooting clubs and all citizens possessing their own firearms to defend the state in case of a foreign invasion.

ergo, I help constitute a "militia". checkmate my fair weather friend.

Re:Hrmm

[jsteven42]

While I an not %100 for or against gun control, I have 2 points to make. you said: OH, BTW if drugs are harmless compared to guns how about this... Alchohol killed 110,000+ people, perscription drugs killed 32,000 people, illitic drugs killed 17000 people in 1998... how does that compare to 32000 in 1997? Looks like you could save 3 times as many lives if you make alchohol illigal. Or maybe you should start a registration of people buying alchohol so that they can be tracked by satalite with a transiver they must wear to buy a drink and if they get in a car, they should be tracked down and arrested on the spot Point 1. Alcohol, Prescription Drugs and Illicit Drugs kill the people using them, they (usually) aren't used to kill others. Guns kill other people. Point 2. Use Spellcheck.

Re:Hrmm

[usotsuki]

The point is that we can fight the well-regulated militia with our arms. The amendment is there IMAO to permit WE THE PEOPLE to fight the government, if it goes rogue.

-uso.

Re:Hrmm

[bigsmelly]

Okay. Here's my logic. Follow it if you will.

If a country has a ban on handguns, then it will be impossible to law-abiding citizens to obtain them.

By the same measure, it will be very difficult for the average street hoodlum to get a handgun. The weapon either has to be specially manafactured, or imported - both expensive and risky.

Sure, a criminal who has the resources can buy a black market imported weapon, but that is expensive. puts it out of reach of many. Therefore there is less "casual" gun crime where people are shot.

of course, this cannot be applied to the US, because of the massive stockpiles of weapons that exist.

If guns are banned, but there are sufficent stockpiles to make them cheap to own, then legitimate citizens have no defense.

it's a vicious circle.

Re:Hrmm

[SpamHeart]

Alcohol, Prescription Drugs and Illicit Drugs kill the people using them, they (usually) aren't used to kill others.

Lord, that statement certainly takes the what-rock-have-you-been-under award.

If it was (usually) true, I would have nothing at all against morons drinking/doping and driving.
Nothing at all.

Guns kill other people. ...who frequently deserve it. There are scads of situations where a well placed shot from a .45 is the appropriate response.

DC

Re:Hrmm

[mozumder]

Does the 2nd amendment preclude me from having my own weapons of mass destruction? Are they not arms that I should have a right to keep and bear? Sure would stop the king of Britain from invading Maryland if each Marylander had their own nuclear bomb. Actually, I would settle for my own B-2 bomber. That would kick ass.

Also as a moral equivalent, would you allow Iraq to have WMD due to your view of the second amendment? Should the second amendment apply to only non-crazy people? Or should crazy people also be allowed to have WMD?

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

"They get paid shit wages to do their job and for the most part they do it well."

Umm ... When our D.A.R.E. officer was arrested for playing stinky finger with a boy, the average wage for a cop in Dumont was 63K, not exactly shabby for a job that requires only "some" post high school education (NOT an AAS or BS, just atttend a couple of classes at a college)

If the wages were so terrible you would not have a list of applicants trying to get in, or the nepotism that is so blatent in most departments.

As far as safety goes ("But they risk their lives every day!") Tree cutting, miners and folks who work in slaughter houses are at much higher risk, and their pay truely sucks. The cop's biggest danger, statistically speaking, is from the doughnuts.

Oh, and by the way, the cop was convicted of molestation, but it wasn't "official misconduct" because he was out of uniform at the time.

Re:Hrmm

[Wolfrider]

--Yes, I see you've cleverly managed a way to misspell "tosser". ;-)

Re:Hrmm

[Wolfrider]

>> I suggest you post a sign on your front lawn saying that you refuse to own guns

>I'm not sure if you were inspired by this or if it is coincidence, but . . .
The JPFO [jpfo.org] used to make just that sign [216.239.57.104]. They seem to have discontinued it. I can't understand why, it seems like a popular position.

--Umm, perhaps because it's just like a big sign that says "COME IN AND ROB ME"?

--Unless you cleverly neglected to mention the six or seven highly trained attack dogs/parakeets that substitute for the firearm...

Re:Hrmm

[rzbx]

"Guns are a problem..."

Going by your logic, the table saw in my garage is a problem, it almost cut off my thumb.

Going by reasonable logic. It is not the table saw that is the problem, but not correctly using it that is.

A tool is never a problem. It is everything surrounding the tool that needs to be questioned. Who makes it? Why? How? What is its purpose? What are people using it for? Why? How? and many more.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forgetting that there were next to no shootings back in the 1800s, despte the fact that almost everybody owned at least one gun, and were trained in how to use it. Now it's a relatively small percentage that own guns, and fewer who have been trained in how to use them, which belies your excuse for why they need to be removed.

So the only thing that's gone -up- in the case of school shootings is the percentage of kids in school. By the logic you've used it would be wise to completely eliminate the educational system, as that would put a firm end to school shootings. Alternatively, if we eliminated the entire population of the planet it's an absolute certainty that there will never be another murder of any kind EVER again!

Yes, that was sarcasm.

A prohibition on guns would work as well as the prohibition on alcohol; nobody who wanted guns would be stopped from getting 'em, they could use those channels to get far WORSE weapons than they could now, and dealer organizations would rise to power. (Remember the mafia?)

'Sides, history has shown that if you allow people to take some of your rights away, they will continue to do so, and you'll NEVER get them back. At least with guns you can fight back if they go to far, which is something you -can't- do with the Assault-rifle VS knives status you suggested; Prior revolts in countries where there were gun bans either benefited from a lack of enforcement (Which would mean your suggestion is nonsense as people desiring them would have them available), or guns had yet to exist or exist with any significant presance, or the guns were muskets or similar (30 seconds between each shot gives a LOT of slack to people trying to take it to melee range and to ambushes/raids).

Tell you what, study some millitary and social history before you respond with that.

Re:Hrmm

[Wolfrider]

--I'll take point #2, and a .44 Magnum, please...

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

You pull something that looks like a gun, muggers run.

Nobody wants to die, and if guns are -more- common then a potential mugger or rapist has a greater chance of crossing the wrong person and getting killed by a 9 outta some bimbo's purse.

Easy marks are harder to pick if you can't tell who's got a gun by thier appearance.

Re:Hrmm

[Megahurts]

You'd still have to get past the argument that removing the gun control laws might make considerably more bad things happen than have been.

You say that like it would be nontrivial. It's been shown time and again that under stricter gun control, crime goes up and when given more liberties to own, use, and even carry concealed firearms, violent crime decreases significantly.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I am a gun enthusiast, and while I don't do it, I know a LOT of people who reload their spend casings with gun powder they make themselves. It's not a complicated task. People were making their own powder for centuries before mass production...it's not a lost art.

Re:Hrmm

[KrispyKringle]

I'm not capable of taking up the challenge of liberty, eh?

Let's look at this from a standpoint just a tad more grounded in facts. You say that only the majority vote of the people have the right to take away the individual liberties of the people. Two problems with that argument: first, this is not a democracy; it's a republic. There are specific safeguards in place to avoid what Jefferson, if I'm not mistaken, referred to as the tyranny of the majority. You yourself would probably cite those safeguards, including the Second Amendment, as specific inalienable rights which are unaffected by all but the most overwhelming of majorities modifying the Constitution. Second, if you do want to go by the majority, tough break for you. The majority of American's favor tougher gun control; believe it or not, despite their loud voices, the NRA are actually in the minority.

You don't seem to realize that there is a middle ground between anarchism and totalitarianism; the mere fact that I am not a Libertarian does not lable me a fascist. We make compromises on all issues of government to balance the multiple interests, both personal and societal, at stake. That does not lable us sellouts who are incapable of taking up the challenge of liberty.

Re:Hrmm

[jhoffoss]

Stop controlling them and eliminate them altogether. The only credible argument against this is rifles for hunting. Buy a bow. If you can't buy a gun legally, it becomes that much harder to buy one illegally. And in time, we would be able to eliminate more and more of the illegal weapons that were in the U.S.

One comment I've heard made against this is the whole "it's my right to carry a gun." Bull-shit. You were not born with a gun in your hand. You HAD a right to weapons to defend yourself from your tyrannical government. We A) no longer have a tyrannical government, (at least in the historical sense) and B) are now grossly underpowered against our government. If I want to actually defend myself, I'm gonna go shopping for a few SCUDs.

And as for people who think the gun provides them some self-defense, bull-shit. It gives you a self-inflated sense of confidence, makes you stupid, and thus makes you dangerous. The police exist to protect us, so let them do their job. Look at countries like Japan. No, not crime free. But from what I understand, there is less violent crime.

One of my coworkers likes the self-defense argument a lot. My only response is usually "well, if you're being mugged at gunpoint or someone has a knife to your throat, are you really stupid enough to reach down for your gun in your holster, and do you expect you'll get a shot off before him?" His answer is yes, he does think this. I reiterate, self-inflated confidence, stupidity, making him dangerous. NOT something I care to ever be around.

Re:Hrmm

[digity]

I could be completely off on this, it's been a couple of years.

I seem to recall having a conversation in 1998 on exactly this with one of the fellows working for the RCMP Forensic Lab, responsible for identifying guns for the (then) new Canadian Firearms Registration Act. He said they got around this by using muzzle velocity as the determining factor on what constituted a weapon that needs to be registered.

Under the new law, even some air pistols could qualify as a controlled weapon. Unfortunately, the program has been an unmittigated disaster, costing over $1 billion when it was supposed to cost $2 million, and with nearly half of all provincial governments refusing to prosecute "offenders", if you consider Joe Farmer Rifle-owner or Frank Hobbyist a felon. Punk Ass Hot Piece is still out at large, and nothing in the Act will stop him.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

but that's a good thing...

Re:Hrmm

[Sly Mongoose]

Don't a lot of laws specify the weapon by the method the projectile is accelerated (i.e. in existing cases a chemical reaction)?

Certainly in this country (Barbados) it is the muzzle velocity that counts. <550 fps and it isn't a "firearm".

Re:Hrmm

[Gilmoure]

I think you guys...are indoctrinated to believe that everywhere outside of the US is full of bizarre savages.

That's what we get from living next to Canada. Try it sometime.

Re:Hrmm

[Eskarel]

That was a part of what I was attempting to say, however guns are a problem in a way which your table saw is not. Your table saw inspires idiots to go out and cut through things they shouldn't which while dangerous is 99% of the time only dangerous to the individual.

Guns on the other hand inspire people to shoot things, which is a recipe for disaster. There is nothing wrong with a gun in and of itself and as I said I've known people who respected their guns(admitedly the same guy bought a butterfly knife and played around with it like a moron, but still), but guns are designed to kill, not cut wood. There are circumstances under which killing is necessary, but there is no excuse for allowing anyone to own a tool which is used for killing without at least making sure they know how to use it properly.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Your logic is flawed. A gun is at its core a pipe, propellant and a hunk of lead. If all the guns are banned then even the most primitive of firearms could be easily produced and would be most effective against people with no firearms.

Re:Hrmm

[Eskarel]

I will ignore the fact that instead of contradicting my opinion you chose to insult me personally. I do not own a gun, I am not worried about me shooting myself, I'm not even hugely worried about other people shooting themselves(that's just a darwin award) I'm worried about the people who shoot other people because they have access to a gun. I also said I felt that people should be trained to use guns before they were allowed to have them, which would mean that as a method of self defense they might actually work.

As for defending yourself against tyranny, if you truly believe that owning a gun can protect you from a tyrannical government, let alone one as large and well armed as that of the United States, you are sorely deluded. Besides which I'm allowed to give up any right I so desire, it's part of having rights.

Re:Hrmm

[loucura!]

I could say that I don't like Snickers(TM) because it has peanuts in it, but that doesn't detract from the fact that I do not like Snickers(TM).

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

BAN WINDOWS!

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If that's not flamebait, what is?

Actually you should come and live in Canada, you can own firearms AND not have to worry about being killed by one!

It's sad to see such paranoia and fear. The same argument I'm hearing about is, if I don't get to by guns, the criminals will buy them and I can't defend myself.

Why don't other countries have the same problem as the US? Answer that question and perhaps you can come up with a good solution.

It's tough to change, but Guns have been so entrenched in the US society, if a change is to be made...it will have to be very drastic, probably too drastic that it will never happen.

It's just sad to see people are arguing for assault rifles, because of the fear that some criminals will get assault rifles. Soon it'll be tomahawk missiles, nukes, etc.

Re:Hrmm

[lobsterGun]

Post Hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Guns do not inspire people to destroy things. In the save way that picking up a knife doesn't inspire me to run amok stabbing people or picking up a pen inspires me to write a letter.

Re:Hrmm

[mOdQuArK!]

Wouldn't that break your arm every time you fired it?

Re:Hrmm

[josh crawley]

But thanks for your useless. You have reinforced my impression of those who fear the right to keep and bear arms as irrational, unthinking people.

You are welcome for my useless. Thank you for participating in the latest bi-weekly Slashdot Second Amendment flamewar on Slashdot. I noticed that this week nobody brought up the "Hitler wanted gun control/Yeah but Hitler was a vegetarian too/Yeah and Hitler was an atheist too/No he wasn't" thread. Your little PS brings up the good ol' "You are a fascist" ad-hominem slippery slope, so we're really just one step away from the "YOU ARE A NAZI!" whistle which signals the end of the flamewar.

Thanks again for sharing becase "sharing is caring".

Re:Hrmm

[murdocj]

"Shall not infringe" sure has come to mean "shall not entirely infringe" over the years.

As long as we are quoting *parts* of the 2nd amendment, lets not forget this part: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

In other words, the 2nd amendment is NOT in the constitution so homeowners can blow away intruders, or so a couple of guys can call themselves "the militia".

Re:Hrmm

[Cpt_Kirks]

No, but you may have a derringer sized bruise on your chest.

You can buy .357 & .44 magnum derringers.

Re:Hrmm

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

I think his point is about how there are countless instances where pot smokers were murdered by cops who were on a mission from god to destroy all pot smokers. Knocking down doors without warrants and shooting a family of innocent bystanders because you think they have pot is not legal, and cops get away with it every year.

Re:Hrmm

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

Let me go a little further, but I hit enter and it went to submit by accident...

Illegally executed searches is a big cause of death of innocent people by police men. If a police man charges into your house without a warrant, or illegaly breaks down your door, you as a home owner have EVERY (legal) RIGHT to kill that man, whether he is a cop or not. Period.

That is what (i think) the parent poster is trying to get across. And yes, this kind of illegal search happens every single day across this country.

Re:Hrmm

[Thoth Ptolemy]

Heh. Bit too late for that.
The goverment would win.
We the people don't have Stealth Bombers and precision munition :-/

Re:Hrmm

[Nerull]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." You forgot about the second part.

Re:Hrmm

[Gilmoure]

It's not flamebait, it's sarcasm. Sorry to have left off the tags. I'm from Spokane. I've gone hunting in Canada. Was having a little fun in a too serious slashdot post fest. Sheesh! That's why no one in the world like Canadians. No sense of humor. When's the last time anyone ever even heard of a Canadian comedian? It's a shame, really, as Canadian comedian rolls off the tounge like some ancient Roman political office.

ps: I didn't include the tags again. Can you guess where they go?

Re:Hrmm

[Mike1024]

Personally, I think that the right to bear arms should include firearms, rockets, grenades, bombs, missles, nukes, chemicals, biological agents, and strong crypto.

That wouldn't be very useful; I understand many cities have laws against detonating nuclear weapons within city limits.

Sorry.

Michael

Re:Hrmm

[Rob Riggs]

One could thus either say that SINCE we have a standing army, private ownership of guns should be strictly regulated since the point is now moot.

Fine. If that is what you want, amend the consititution. Until that happens, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

I happen to think that the consititution should be altered to fit a changing world far more frequently than it is.

Re:Hrmm

[jsteven42]

I don't drink. However since you brought up drinking and driving....
In 2001 there were 17,448 drunk driving related deaths, roughly 48 per day. 505 of these deaths were children.
In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths, roughly 80 deaths per day.
3,365 of these deaths were children.
(Source: www.cdc.gov) Its funny, there are no stats showing which were "appropriate" or not. It doesn't matter if they're killed by a drunk driver or a gun. They're dead. Whenever anyone dies it's a tragedy.
Welcome to 2003, we don't need to protect our house from British Invasion or the French. Are "Terrorists" going to enter our houses? No. (No matter what ready.gov wants us to believe...) I do however support the rights of hunters who eat what they take.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been making my own ammo for years now. I do it because it gives me good target ammo at a cheap price. It is also VERY easy to make and there are enough supplies in the U.S. alone to make ammo on the "black market" for the next 100 years. It's only draw back is it takes time. For me to do about 100 rounds of pistol 30. it takes about 1 hour. I guess I could speed the process up just by trying harder and save off 15 min or so. If I put an extra $150 to $200 into my press I could double that amount of shells easy and in the same time.

Of course if you want to charge sombody who has the gun(s) stolen with a crime if the gun is found a another scene the we need to do the same with cars, and anything else. It's all about fairness isnt it. Or you could just mind you own business and avoid a bad situation to prevent bad things happening to you. Then you wouldnt have to worry so much about a right that you dont want anyway.

Some of us really do enjoy the hand-eye skill involved with a real firearm, the simple beauty of one, hunting for food or sport ( I do hunt for food, do you have any idea how much it costs to by venicin )

I really cant understand why you anti's hate the idea of pro's having guns. We are not the ones running arround blowing away kids in the school yards, or doing anything wrong with them I have stared down a barrel twice in my youth and both times were from criminals. I will never be caught in a situation again where it could happen without some form of basic ranged attack as my defence. I think you may fell the same if it were to happen to you. Instead I suspect it never has and you will never understand that some people have something called a survival instinct.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Blaming guns for Columbine is like blaming spoons
for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Along with ceacing bullet production, I suggest a NRA maintained list of owners cross-referenced with the guns they own. If a firearm is recovered from the scene of a crime, then the original owner should be charged with accessory to that crime. This would make people less likely to leave the crate of Glocks on their back porch to be "stolen".

What a terrifing idea. Many people, especially women, get shot with their own firearms in domestic violence cases. Your proposed legislation would mean the vicitms of such occurences would be thrown in jail after being released from the hospital for being an accessory to their own attempted manslaughter.

I don't know about you, but I've never seen a crate of Glocks sitting on someone's porch. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that such occurances don't add a statistically relavant amount of firearms into the pool. Although it is impossible to predict with absolute certainty how a law will affect society, I can envision your proposed legislation leading to fewer firearms that are properly registered, and more firearms which have had their serial number's removed.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Blocking ammo wouldn't work either.
Grinding up nitrocellulose (old film stock has been used for this long ago) and making percussion caps isn't quite trivial, but drive-by shootings with cap-and-ball weapons are perfectly feasable.
Been done from horseback for a looong time! :)

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

In 2001 there were 17,448 drunk driving related deaths, roughly 48 per day. 505 of these deaths were children.
In 1999, there were 28,874 gun-related deaths, roughly 80 deaths per day.
3,365 of these deaths were children.

Firstly, why use 2001 in one case, and 1999 in the other? Trying to hide something?

Secondly, the definition of "children" they use includes 17-year-old gang-bangers shooting up each others turf. (Some studies count anyone up to 19 years old as a "child"!) Take out the gang/drug deaths, and the deaths of 'children' are much, much lower.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Try:

2 armed kids vs. 2 dozen armed (and trained) teachers.

Re:Hrmm

[acousticiris]

Not to mention that if the flow of ammunition was stopped, most criminals would not be able to fire their guns.

I almost didn't reply to this because it's really not an issue that is near or dear to my heart. But how do you propose "stopping the flow of ammunition?"
I mean, you could pass a law to ban them, but then the natural ebb and flow (that is the subjet of so many ... many endless flamewars) goes "Now the criminals are safe...they can still get guns, but the law abiding citizens cannot." You could not simply pass a law and make the problem of "Criminals Using Guns" go away. Last I checked, Marijuana, crack, (insert name of illegal drug here) was outlawed. In the US we have even gone to extreme measures, like declaring "war on drugs" to attempt to stop the distribution of said substances. But yet at any given time it would not be very difficult to get my hands on these substances (not to mention currently outlawed firearms).

As far as holding those responsible for their gun being stolen, etc. As much as I hate the car/gun analogy, the reality is, would you hold a car owner responsible for leaving theirs doors unlocked in their drive-way if the end result was that someone stole that vehicle and hit a few pedestrians in the street. I have two friends at work who have had their vehicles stolen. In both cases the vehicle was recovered...at the scene of an accident. I don't know if there were any deaths involved, but either of these people being held responsible because someone stole their property and misused it seems kinda backward to me. If punishing the criminals isn't working, punishing the innocent is not how you fix it.

Don't get me wrong. I sympathise with those who have been victims of gun violence that could have been prevented if a law abiding gun owner had taken his responsibility a little more seriously. But if we write every law to handle the least-common-denomenator type of person, we're going to have an internet that resembles sesame street, cars made out of nerf that don't actually drive, and quite possibly a consortium of Microsoft, the RIAA and MPAA deciding what we can and cannot install on our computers (not to mention the requirement to validate a license for every CD, DVD, or piece of software prior to our equipment allowing their usage). It never ends.

Any attempt to remove a right that we presently enjoy today you will always find me on the other side of.

Re:Hrmm

[Dimensio]

How does this allow the government to infringe upon the right to keep or bear arms? I don't see any "unless there is a time when a lot of people don't think that one is needed".

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Death penalty laws don't keep people from killing each other either

We don't have a Death Penalty in America.

We have a
Maybe-if-you-commit-a-bad-enough-crime-and-you- are -the-'wrong'-ethnic-group-and-the prosecutor-isn't-a-wimp-and-the-media-doesn't-make -you-out-to-be-sympathetic-and-you're-not-a-woman- and-if-the-jury-agrees-and-if-the sentance-isn't-overturned-in-one-of-the-many-many- many-mandatory-appeals-and-if-the-governor-doesn't -grant-a-stay-of-execution-then-and-only-then-you- MAY-be-put-to-Death Penalty.

See the difference?

A real Death Penalty is: "Joe Blow, you have been found guilty of murder. (To guards) Take him out back and shoot him."

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If you increase the chances of nuts encountering citizens with guns, then you get nuts who will hunt in packs under large amounts of stress, and who will probably adopt a shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later policy towards people who stand up to them. You also get a police force that knows that the nuts have guns and have this policy, so they then adopt a shoot-if-anything-gets-pointed-near-me policy

OOh, OOh, pick me!!!

IF all nuts "will hunt in packs", then the police should have the policy "shoot-if-anything-gets-pointed-near-me-FROM-A-PAC K-OF-NUTS"

Re:Hrmm

[pete-classic]

Had a little edit error there. Split an awkward sentence and lost the word "comment."

"You are a fascist" ad-hominem slippery slope

Nice try, but the discussion revolves around people's take on civil liberties (viz the Bill of Rights). I never called anyone a Fascist (straw man, since we seem to be playing "rational fallicy bingo") but I did commit the mortal sin of drawing attention to the fact that someone's (even a dyed-in-the-wool "liberal's") beliefs can be (gasp) wrong.

If you don't support ALL of the Bill of Rights for ALL citizens you are fucking wrong. That doesn't mean that I think you are (necessarily) a Fascist, Nazi, or dog fucker. It does mean that I think you are a shithead.

Thank you, and good night.

-Peter

PS: Comment for posterity: This message is in reply to "josh crawley (537561)" a.k.a. dogfucker@yahoo.com.

Re:Hrmm

[A55M0NKEY]

The photo driver's license is nothing but an underhanded ploy to make everyone in the US carry 'their papers' to move about. They would have a devil of a time making such a regulation outright, but since 'driving is a privelege and not a right' the normal protections about freedom of movement in the constitution fail to provide protection. Unless you live in a major city equipped with decent mass transit, a car, and license to drive is a necessity. You can not have a job or get to the store to buy groceries without one.

The other side of the 'papers please' pincher are ordinances that allow you to be picked up by the police for 'vagrancy' which is 'not having any visible means of supporting yourself'. This, in practice, means that if you do not have a driver's license or other ID, which you are required by law to give to a police officer if they should ask for it, you can be taken to jail then and there. Usually, if you look to be under 18, they will not take you in, but then you might be subject to cerfews. I look young for my age and still get ID'ed for smokes and of course for beer, though I'm pushing 30. This means I need to have my drivers license to walk my dog after 10 pm in my town. A cop would have probable cause to ID me for 'breaking curfew' and if I don't have my ID, they could take me in for 'vagrancy'. Of course a license and 99 cents will get you a cup of coffee, but I doubt it would 'support you'.

The only license most people have is the driver's license. There is no photo on liquor licenses, or on export licenses, or on fishing licenses. The photo ID on driver's licenses together with the road/automobile based infrastructure that we live with makes everyone in the US subject to 'papers please'.

Re:Hrmm

[A55M0NKEY]

Did you ever watch 'Gangs of New York'? They had an all out bloodbath of a brawl at the start of the movie. If there were no guns, criminals would carry other weapons. Axes, crossbows, bombs ( you can make a bomb out of almost anything they will never be able to outlaw the capacity for making bombs. ) If there were a law agains guns/ammo then only criminals would have guns. And criminals who didn't have guns would still be tend to arm themselves better than the general public and be able to wreak just as much havoc. ( remember the guy on Jackass that danced in a thong in front of the Japanese police officer, all he could do was bashfully ask him to please stop brandishing his 'weapon' )

Re:Hrmm

[Jawn98685]

Ah, another gun-hating fucktard speaks up and thinks HE has an exclusive on a new definition of the 2nd Ammendment... A militia is, by definition, NOT the standing army. It is a collection of CIVILIANS. It was those citizen soldiers who probably made the difference in the Revolutionary War. The framers of the Bill of Rights were acutely aware of this fact and had the foresight to ensure that the populace would always retain the ability to defend itself should the need ever arise again. The word tyranny had deep meaning to those men. Now, ask yourself if you think that right-wing whackos like John Ashcroft wouldn't REALLY rather have a more "docile" (i.e. disarmed) populace as he tramples over what's left of their civil rights?

Re:Hrmm

[The Terminator]

At least in Germany, not the Propellant but the Energy of the projectile is relevant.
If I recall right the limit is 7.5J. Even posession of an Airgun or a Crossbow with higher energy is to be licenced, not to mention the carrying.

And I think that this is right. Nobody should be allowed to possess or carry a weapon without proving the necessity.
If this would be law all over the world, the world would be a nicer place to live.

Re:Hrmm

[Thoth Ptolemy]

Actually..I don't hate guns. Fucktard.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

No, whoever first mentions Hitler has lost the argument.

Re:Hrmm

[Eskarel]

Possibly not, but spending $300 on something makes you want to use it, I know that, it's happened to me, it's happened to my friends, it's happened to lots of people. It doesn't necessarily inspire you to shoot people, but it does inspire you to do "something" with the gun you just bought and "something" can be very stupid and dangerous, especially without proper training.

How can anyone possibly object to the idea of making sure people know what they're doing before they're allowed to buy a gun?

Re:Hrmm

[Jawn98685]

Wrong. The militia is made up of CIVILIANS. It is not the government's standing army. Otherwise, you are quite right; the amendment is there to ensure that the populace has the means to defend their liberty. And for Thoth's comments that the militia doesn't have stealth bombers, so a war against a "rogue government" would be futile. Wrong again. While there is no doubt that modern, state-of-the-art weaponry is extremely formidable, in the end, to actually make use of the gains made by those machines, the foot soldiers have to be on the ground to enforce the will of the occupying government. You can't change policy, steal the resources, rape the women, etc. (all the reasons one fights a war for in the first place) simply by bombing things. Ours is an extremely well armed populace. Think how much tougher things would be in Iraq right now if that populace were as well armed AND highly motivated to repel the occupying forces.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Cops don't write the laws. They get paid shit wages
>>to do their job and for the most part they do it
>>well.

Why wasn't this modded as funny!?

Re:Hrmm

[The FooMiester]

Thirdly, it includes minors killed by the police.

Re:Hrmm

[Jazu]

1. Gun control is futile.
2. Gun control will allow the government to take all your rights away.

Re:Hrmm

[Daimaou]

Look at countries like Japan. No, not crime free. But from what I understand, there is less violent crime.

I have lived in Japan for many years and you are completely wrong about "less violent" crime. People are killed there quite frequently in some extremely violent fashions. In fact, violent crime, and crime in general, is up significantly during the last 10 years. So much for your no guns == no crime theory.

Eliminating guns does not lessen crime. All you have to do is study any country that has outlawed guns within the last 50 years to determine that fact.

Re:Hrmm

[mi]

At the same time, I have a hard time recalling any incident even remotely similar in Holland, Italy, France or the United Kingdom.

Not that I watch those countries closely, but did not some gang "rescue" their leader from prison in France -- using grenades and other fairly heavy weaponry?

Anyway, the thing to compare is not the bizarre shooting sprees, that get reported all over the world, but the dry everyday statistics and crime-rates...

Re:Hrmm

[d34thm0nk3y]

A right:
If it is specifically mentioned in the constitution I would call that a right (free as in inalienable)
Fighting a tyrannical government:
Everyone knows that guerilla tactics work the best when fighting a larger force. A bunch of starving vietnamese farmers managed to kick the ass of the most powerful military in the world with rifles from the early 1900's
Self defense:
Let him take your wallet, don't reach for the gun. when he leaves follow him, shoot him in the face and take your wallet back.

Re:Hrmm

[riprjak]

Umm, it could not possibly convene any law against "firearms", no matter how they are written. It is not, cannot ever be, a *fire*arm; a firearm requires something to go boom and make fire to be such. The laws that cover a gauss pistol would most likely be the same which cover crossbows and bows.

It may well convene many laws relating to dangerous weapons :) Pity cool factor isnt a valid defence for posession of a deadly weapon in Australia!!!

err!
riprjak

Lawyer: "So, you state, under oath, that you did not kill the victim with your firearm.
you: "Thats right, I killed him with physics!! chemistry is for wimps and wierdos"

Re:Hrmm

[smartfart]

Um, we did that already. We call it the United States of America. Google for it.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that the right to own a gun is to be a member of a government sponsored military organization then you are a bug fragging nutjob.

Read it the way it reads. Word for word, verbatim. A well regulated militia is a group of citizens with concern for their country. Not a government agency. That's the army, if it meant the army, it would have read "army".

And yes I'm not a registered member, I don't come here except when linked by various websites. Try www.kimdutoit.com for some fun.

Love and Kisses,

Duncan
Lexington, Ky.

Re:Hrmm

[pete-classic]

Coca can not be grown in the US.

Crack can be purchased on any street corner in any city in the US for, what? Three bucks or head?

Prohibition made Al Capone a very rich man. Oh, and JFK's pop too.

Making something illegal only makes it unobtainable to those unwilling to break the law.

Welcome to reality. I hope you enjoy your stay.

-Peter

Re:Hrmm

[bigsmelly]

Heh heh... so is the climate wrong or something? Does the Coca plant wither and die?

How much do you think the Crack costs to produce?
How much do the imported raw materials cost?
Then consider the percentage profit that each indivdiual, from the importer, to dealer slaps on it....!

so.. I'm making this up off my head. But let's say that an ounce of pure cocaine costs less than a buck in Columbia. By the time it hits the streets, cut by 100, at $10-$15 per hit, you're looking at $1500 for the same ounce. A big
commercial firm could put the same ounce out, in better purity, for $5.00 per hit, thus charging an exorbitant markup, but still undercutting your corner pusher.

Think about that for the cost of a handgun.
I'm guessing here, but let's say you could knock out a gun in some country for $50.

Using the example of the crack cocaine, then that's a cost of 75000 dollars...

okay. so that proves my numbers are way off, but it illustrates my point, I hope. Handguns would be too expensive for the average small - time criminal.

Also in reply to the poster above (about constructing guns from pipes and stuff) - it would be possible, but you'd end up with an unreliable one shot ( or perhaps a derringer). Which would also cost a fair whack because someone with some skills would have to take at least a few hours to make it. Nobody could hand-make a weapon to the tolerances needed for an automatic.

in that case, it's more reliable to fall back on a knife. -- Of course, with a knife you have to get near your target.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Desert Eagle is for CS fagots who don't know what a real gun is and just want a flashy name.

Re:Hrmm

[BitGeek]

Thanks for brining up another example of idiot pacifists failing to do their duty-- why the hell were none of those teachers armed?

Clearly they were derelict in their duty, as they didn't even attempt to protect those kids properly.

Shame on them.

Re:Hrmm

[BitGeek]

In the US, Kalisnakov style hunting rifles are uses in way less than %1 of murders, its a fraction of %1 as far as anyone can tell. Certainly not enough to be worth banning (AS our congress people have done.)

All rifles are a small fraction of firearm murders, an firearm murders are a fraction of total-- many people are killed by knives ,cars, etc.

Re:Hrmm

[BitGeek]

When was the last time you had to get permission from the FBI to buy a car?

Never?

Well, you do every time you want to buy a gun.

This "cars are more regulated than guns" crap is just non-sense you guys use to try and justify violating basic human rights (respected, but not GRANTED, by the second ammendment.)

BTW- there is no "three guns a month" law.

Re:Hrmm

[BitGeek]

Except that the cops you're talking about are criminals-- they took a pledge to uphold the constution. The minute they violate it (by busting someone for drugs) they became the criminal in the situation.

I don't think there are any clean cops in this country anymore. They are addicted to "cocaine money" that they sieze from people who have never done cocaine in their lives- let alone dealt it, or any other drug.

Re:Hrmm

[BitGeek]

Ah, so proud of your ignorance.

For your edification, its far easier to produce ammunition than it is heroin. For one thing, it can be made anywhere, anytime. Heroin comes from a crop. For another, ammunition is made with common items readily availible, unlike heroin.

At any rate, whether you want to shoot at targets or shoot up heroin, its an inalianable, fundamental human right to do so. And to advocate the criminalization of either is to show yourself to be a fascist.

Re:Hrmm

[Guipo]

We have photoids and licenses for automobiles urmmm...owning a gun is a right, while driving a car is a privilage.

Re:Hrmm

[whatch durrin]

Illegally executed searches is a big cause of death of innocent people by police men.

Can you provide any official statistics for this, or are you making a baseless blanket accusation based on the last cops-and-robbers movie you watched?

If a police man charges into your house without a warrant, or illegaly breaks down your door, you as a home owner have EVERY (legal) RIGHT to kill that man, whether he is a cop or not. Period.

No shit. The parent post said nothing about illegal searches. The poster simply wanted to be able to scare a cop with his massive arsenal, thereby enabling said poster to continue his pot smoking.

And yes, this kind of illegal search happens every single day across this country.

Again...any official statistics you can cite to back up your argument?

Re:Hrmm

[whatch durrin]

Except that the cops you're talking about are criminals-- they took a pledge to uphold the constution. The minute they violate it (by busting someone for drugs) they became the criminal in the situation.

How are someone's constitutional rights violated when they are busted for drugs? Please show me the amendment that makes our drug laws unconstitutional.

I don't think there are any clean cops in this country anymore. They are addicted to "cocaine money" that they sieze from people who have never done cocaine in their lives- let alone dealt it, or any other drug.

Where do you people get this shit? Movies?

Do you personally know any cops or have any in your family? Do you know them to be "dirty?"

There are bad apples in any profession in the world - always have been, always will be. But to say there are no "clean" cops left at all is a remarkably ignorant statement.

Re:Hrmm

[KrispyKringle]

I am aware there is no "three guns a month" law. That's because it was staunchly opposed by the NRA. My question was not, "why do you guys not support the existing three guns per month law," but rather, "why do you fight over every little regulation which really does not impact your legitimate gun usage at all but does limit that of psychopaths and criminals?"

As for registration with the FBI; my car has a unique VIN number on all parts of it. Suggest fingerprinting guns and the NRA nuts get upset over--what? The possibility that if they shoot someone, the bullets will be tracked to them? I thought they only defended legitimate usage anyway, that shooting a burglar in the act was an act of courage and heroism! So why would you not want the shooting tracked to you? How else will you claim your medal?

My photo, height, weight, address, prior criminal record, prior driving record, birth, social security number, residence, and so forth, are all available with the swipe of my driver's license. Does a gun license even have a bar code?

Many cars contain GPS systems, electronic locks, "black box" data recorders, and the like, to prevent unauthorized use and to track legitimate use. Suggest mandatory trigger locks and NRA nuts say it will prevent them from being able to quick-draw and shoot burglars on sight.

If I screw up with my car, it goes on my record; if I do something serious enough (or often enough), I have to go through retraining and risk losing my license. Now, I know you are going to say, "well, with a gun, if I shoot someone, I face risks, too." That's correct, but, in fact, there are regulations concerning non-criminal misuse of a car. If you accidentally discharge your gun into your foot--something the NRA are quite good at doing metaphorically, at least--are there repurcussions?

With a car, if I use it drunk, I then may face having an electronic breath-tester installed. If I have a history of using a gun drunk--non-criminally, mind you--do I face the same consequences? In other words, is the crime misuse of a gun itself, even if I was lucky enough not to hurt anyone?

With a care, I must have insurance to cover any injuries I may accidentally inflict. Do I need to have insurance for my gun use?

With a car, use is strictly regulated. I am told where I can operate, how I can operate, how much training I must have before I can operate. I am strictly liable for anything stupid I do while operating my car. Information is retained and collected; with EZPass, closed-circuit camers, GPS, license data, and so forth, my driving patters, past criminal behavior, medical history, family history, and whether I am a good citizen are all immediately evailable. Guns are, despite your claim, far, far more laisse fair.

Re:Hrmm

[KrispyKringle]

By the way, how is the gun a "basic human right"? Guaranteed by our Constitution? Perhaps. Fundamental and inviolable? Certainly not.

If guns are merely tools, what makes them a basic human right and not hammers or screw drivers? And if they're so fundamental, why are we just about the only, if not the only, industrialized nation to approve their widespread use? Are we the only haven of liberty left in the world? Or have we gone astray?

Re:Hrmm

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

"Illegally executed searches is a big cause of death of innocent people by police men.
Can you provide any official statistics for this"

I don't need to provide official statistics for this point to be true. I only need to show examples. Many can be any significant number, and below are a list of some examples. I cannot think of any other cause of death by police of innocent people that outweighs this cause. Even if I could, it would not disprove my above point.

Here are some examples of police murdering innocent people. This in my opinion counts as "many" (and this is not ment to be a comprehensive list, there is a significant number of cases. These are just a few examples):

Link
Link

"If a police man charges into your house without a warrant, or illegaly breaks down your door, you as a home owner have EVERY (legal) RIGHT to kill that man, whether he is a cop or not. Period.
No shit. The parent post said nothing about illegal searches."

If you notice, I actually said:

I think his point is about how there are countless instances where pot smokers were murdered by cops who were on a mission from god to destroy all pot smokers. Knocking down doors without warrants and shooting a family of innocent bystanders because you think they have pot is not legal, and cops get away with it every year.

So the parent's lack of this "illegal searches" keyword has nothing to do with my argument. I was simply elaborating on my point of what I think the parent ment when cops should think twice before busting down a door of a house full of people with (what the cop thinks) tons of drugs. I never said that is the parent's intention, just that I think that is what he was trying to get at. Since he didn't reply, I believe my reason is the first thought that should come to one's mind when we are trying to scare cops with our arsenal of weapons in our houses. Cops SHOULD be worried about them, because if they aren't, they will wind up dead after knocking down an innocent bystander's door. That is my point.

BTW, it is illegal to posess drugs and guns simultaneously. That does not make it illegal to defend oneself with said weapons from illegal searches. if a search is illegal, you have every right to defend your home, and your family from ANY intruders, whether they be the CIA, FBI, DEA, Sherif, or the terminator. This is why cops should think twice before entering a household illegally (and yes, this DOES happen every day, I'm not making any claims that people die b/c of it every day tho, which you implied with your final sentence. No, I don't have any statistics but I read about it in the papers every single day about how a drug dealer got off b/c of illegal searches. And I'm sure you do too, if you happen to read it.)

Re:Hrmm

[whatch durrin]

No, I don't have any statistics but I read about it in the papers every single day about how a drug dealer got off b/c of illegal searches.

1. If you read about it "every day" in the paper you should be able to point to very many cases of this happening. Where are they?

2. You yourself noted that drug dealers get off b/c of illegal searches. Now, I have heard about situations like this, but not on a daily basis. In fact, I hear more about it from TV shows than reality. Regardless, the fact that they get off implies the cops didn't get away with the illegal search, doesn't it?

Finally...you should probably quit listening to the pot-smoking grapevine gossip (or TV shows/movies). Due to the abundance of lawyers and civil suits filed in this country on a daily basis, police departments tend to be very careful when it comes to following the law so that the perp can be prosecuted without problems such as illegal searches arising during trial.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

They already do this. They're called "gangs". Funny thing is, gangs are much worse in places that have strict gun laws.

Re:Hrmm

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

"it's totally another to think you're above the law"

We, as citizens of the United States, ARE above the law. How do you think laws get overturned? The reason we have a second amendment is to keep the government in line. How it got watered down to 'only guns that could be used for hunting, even while the govt has much better' is purely an act of public stupidity, manipulation, and good ol' FUD.

Back when the laws outlawed alcohal, did we all just stop drinking and start writing our congressmen? Hell no. We faught back, and the law was repealed.

Re:Hrmm

[Lordrashmi]

The reason I have guns is not to keep the government away. It is for home defense. You might be fine with getting killed while waiting for the police to come stop the crack addled burgler, but I would much rather put a .357 slug in his chest.

Re:Hrmm

[whatch durrin]

We are above the law in the sense that we can change it, yes. But the law is above us in the sense that it applies to everyone, equally.

Yes, people routinely violated the Prohibition laws and they were eventually overturned. Maybe the same will happen with marijuana some day.

The difference in violating the law in protest and what the parent poster implied is quite large, though. He wanted a cop to be afraid for his life when coming to arrest him for drug use (a violation of law). To simply violate drug laws - but accept the consequences when you get caught - is different.

My point was if smoking pot is more important to you than threatening the life of a cop you're one sorry-ass SOB. There are many rights worth shedding blood over, but the "right" to smoke weed isn't one of them.

Re:Hrmm

[ErikZ]

No guns for anyone?
If I were to form a group of people, all armed. How would you arrest us and take away our guns if you're not allowed to have them?

Oh, I see. What you mean is "No guns for anyone, unless you're the police. Or the military."

Don't forget public figures. Even if they can't own a gun, it would be ridiculous to not give them armed guards as protection.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

"Death penalty laws don't keep people from killing each other either, should we get rid of those?"

Yes.

Unless you can explain why Europe, with no death penalty and restrictive gun laws, has a lower level of gun crime than our beloved USA, with lax gun laws and state-sanctioned murder?

Re:Hrmm

[vanix]

Yes, people routinely violated the Prohibition laws and they were eventually overturned. Maybe the same will happen with marijuana some day.

Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment to start it, and another one to end it. Tell me, which Constitutional amendment authorizes prohibition of (some) drugs?

Nobody is under any obligation to obey laws that violate individual rights, whether they have been declared "unconstitutional" or not, and the enforcement of such laws is itself a grievous violation of individual rights.

I'm no goddamned paper-worshipping Constitutionalist. The one and only purpose of the Constitution is to protect and defend individuals against the government, and protecting and defending individual rights is supposedly the sole purpose of the government "authorized" by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is a failure. It has merely slowed the descent of the U.S. into tyranny, and will be no obstacle to the rest of the slide down this greased hill. It has also had at least one very bad effect--it seems to have caused many people to think that our rights are "granted" to us by the U.S. Constitution and/or the U.S. government. Many people seem to think that if some right is not explicitly named in the Constitution that it does not exist. Many people seem to think that non-U.S. citizens have different rights from U.S. citizens. I imagine part of the problem is the dilution of the word "right", which has been used as a synonym for "privilege" or "entitlement" by politicians so often that it has lost all meaning.

Re:Hrmm

[whatch durrin]

Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment to start it, and another one to end it. Tell me, which Constitutional amendment authorizes prohibition of (some) drugs?

You are right that no Constitutional amendment exists banning particular drugs. But this can be said for many laws that don't carry a Constitutional amendment. What do you propose is the solution?

It has also had at least one very bad effect--it seems to have caused many people to think that our rights are "granted" to us by the U.S. Constitution and/or the U.S. government. Many people seem to think that if some right is not explicitly named in the Constitution that it does not exist.

Have you ever heard of the Federal court system? Federal judges daily "interpret" the Constitution to grant rights to individuals that the Constitution doesn't explicitly list. Surely you are aware of this, or you've been living in a cave your entire life.

Many people seem to think that non-U.S. citizens have different rights from U.S. citizens. I imagine part of the problem is the dilution of the word "right", which has been used as a synonym for "privilege" or "entitlement" by politicians so often that it has lost all meaning.

Non-US citizens are entitled to basic human rights. This does not mean, however, that non-citizens should have all of the privileges of a US citizen.

Re:Hrmm

[ErikZ]

Total deaths by gunshot: 28,663

Circumstances of gunshot deaths:

1. Suicide: 16,596 (53%)
2. Homicide: 10,806 (38%)
3. Accident: 774 (2.7%)
4. Police: 258 (0.9%)
5. Unknown: 229 (0.8%)

They never, ever, mention that more than half of all gun deaths are by suicide.

Re:Hrmm

[ErikZ]

The police do not exist to protect us. Get that through you head. You can be beaten to death in front of an officer, and he doensn't have to lift a finger to help you. There was a supreme court ruling on this matter.

Only you can protect yourself and your family. But I suspect that if a thug came into your house and killed a member of your family, you would blame the police for not getting there in time.

You might want to let your family know that if something bad happens, you have no intention of protecting them.

Re:Hrmm

[ErikZ]

So then, why the hell did you say anything?

Re:Hrmm

[FreakerSFX]

Canadians do possess a sense of humour and Canada produces many actors and comedians (see this site ) so I have to assume you're trying to make a bad joke, don't know what you're talking about or you're just a knob. And now you'll post a defence about how you meant it as a joke. If you find that funny I see why no Canadian ever laughs at your jokes.

Re:Hrmm

[jhoffoss]

Uh, you quoted me saying "No, not crime free." I'm not a complete moron, just a bit idealistic. And at least if I'm being beaten to death, I stand a slight chance. If someone pulls a gun on me and I move, chances are I'm dead (if they can shoot...)

I prefer those odds. And I prefer a reduced chance that someone around me at work is packing heat. I work with some crazy mofos, several of which have carry & conceal licenses.

Re:Hrmm

[jhoffoss]

Just because a piece of paper (albeit an important one, on which a lot in our country is based) says something is a right does not make it so. A "right" is something that every human being deserves. If HUMANS (NOT Americans) have the right to bear arms, then why are we disarming Iraq? They are human, and by the ideals set forth in our Bill of Rights, we are depriving the Iraqis of this right.

Carrying a weapon is a PRIVELEDGE set forth by our government. If you think otherwise, get off your high horse and think it over again.

As for self-defense/tyrannical government, I don't really care how many small arms you have, you'll lose against our army today. Vietnam was lost (yes, lost) because we were in a foreign nation in very hostile conditions which few American soldiers were prepared for. The same is not true of your back yard, should you decide to fight our tyrannical government.

Re:Hrmm

[jhoffoss]

Yeah, because there's no way to defend myself apart from shooting someone. Being trained in hand-to-hand combat won't help. Nor will high-quality locks on your doors and windows. Keeping lights on in and around my house won't do anything. Security systems have never helped, either.

How many times has your house been broken into where you had to use deadly force? How many others have had to use deadly force to deter a criminal? How man of those criminals would have run off immediately had they not been shot? And if I can be sued for taking precautionary measures like tacks and razor blades inside windows to cut a would-be-burgalar, why can't I be sued for shooting him? And I know it is cliche, but how many children have been shot by firearms purchased for "self-defense?" I know of at least two myself.

Re:Hrmm

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

"Due to the abundance of lawyers and civil suits filed in this country on a daily basis, police departments tend to be very careful when it comes to following the law so that the perp can be prosecuted without problems such as illegal searches arising during trial."

To fight fire with fire... Got any stats to back this up? If not, your entire post was without point.

Have a nice day and quit being blinded by the drug war and especially the anti-marijuana propaganda.

Re:Hrmm

[KrispyKringle]

Statistically, you or your family members are far more likely to be shot with your own gun than with that of a crack addled burglar. But no one ever said the NRA cared about logic.

Re:Hrmm

[ErikZ]

That's great. All those things help. Being trained in hand to hand combat can help, got several years and a few grand to put aside? Also, make sure to never get old or weak or crippled.

What is the favored hand to hand combat style for someone in a wheelchair anyway?

How many times has my house been broken into where I had to use deadly force? No where I've lived has the house been broken into. What's your point? Are you saying that it will never happen? Wow, I'm glad that worry has been taken off my shoulders.

Yes you can be sued for killing a burgler. You can be sued for kissing a burgler. You can be sued for breathing funny. Are you going to assume a fetal position and hope that no one sues you?

Do you have a point to all these questions? You seem to just ask questions without establishing a point. I'd appreciate it if you'd spell it out for me.

My point was clear. You have to assume responsibity for your safety. Seeing how none of your questions dispute this basic point, I'm glad you agree with me.

Re:Hrmm

[Daimaou]

But the odds are not that you will be beat to death by a single person. More likely, you will be beat to death by 20 or so high school kids out looking for kicks; or cut up via knives by the same group of kids.

Another fun way to go, that happened last year, was two women were tied up, placed in barrels of gasoline and lit on fire. The guy who did it claimed that their screams drove him nuts and he couldn't get them out of his head.

Having your throat cut or being beat to death by a bat are also fun ways Japanese people commit murder. Of course, you could just be shot with a gun too since there are many of them in the country.

You don't even have to look at murders to see the violence over there. For instance, a high school girl was mad at another girl for stealing her boyfriend, so she and a few of her friends held down the one they were mad at and shoved a bunch of crushed glass up her vagina.

I could go on, but won't. The point is guns don't cause violence; people are violent by nature. If you make guns illegal, then you place guns in the hands of criminals and provide no way for innocent citizens to protect themselves. If you think there are no guns in Japan, you are sadly mistaken.

If a criminal suspects a victim may have a gun, he/she is less likely to commit the intended crime. If the criminal knows the victim doesn't have a gun, then there's really no reason not to commit the crime.

Re:Hrmm

[aligma]

Or possibly, a solar powered one... Too bad if you want to shoot it when its cloudy, or if you don't want to have to charge it for 3 hours ;)

Re:Hrmm

[harry_covert]

You know, you're right! Shatner DID come from Canada

Re:Hrmm

[Fastolfe]

Keep in mind that the definition of "infringed" has changed very slightly. Back then, it literally meant something to the effect of "invalidate".

Other posters have some really good points, relating to the rationale behind the second amendment:

1. The public needs to be armed to defend itself from foreign invaders

2. The public needs to be armed in the event their government becomes oppressive

3. The average citizen should be allowed to bear arms to defend himself from local crimes

Point #1 is fairly moot, now that we have a standing army and have no need for a militia.

Point #2 is controversial, since we do have a standing army that no private arsenal would likely be able to compete with. In any event, this point might require/allow citizens to possess most any form of weaponry the federal government wishes to use.

Point #3 is still very much valid, but doesn't require large-scale weaponry prohibited by most gun control laws.

An amendment altering the second, bringing it more in line with point #3 seems logical, but I guarantee those that feel strongly about #2 aren't going to let something like that pass quietly (or peacefully).

It's a little difficult for a government to take steps to ensure that its people have the ability to violently rise up against it.

Re:Hrmm

[confused one]

You sir, seem to want a broken wrist...

Re:Hrmm

[d34thm0nk3y]

hehe... at least you agree with my technique for dealing with muggers I guess...

Re:Hrmm

[BitGeek]

Your ignorance of the law, and facts about firearms is only exceeded by your desire for fascism.

Firearms are far more regulated than cars. There is no such thing as "fingerprinting" ballistics-- the ballistics change every time the item is fired.

Historically, gun registration leads to gun confiscation. Gun confiscation leads to holocausts.

That's why the "gun nuts" care about guns. You take away the guns, and there's nothing to stop the state from firing up the ovens.

Re:Hrmm

[BitGeek]

You have the basic human right to defend yourself. IF you don't have that right, then you don't have the basic human right to live.

The right to life is meaningless without the right to defend yourself-- which derives from it.

This is more fundamental than the second ammendment or anything else-- either you have the right to defend yourself, and can thus claim ownership over your body, or you are a subject- a slave- and do not have that right.

The day we loose the right to own firearms is the day we're fully enslaved (we're already working over %50 of our lives for the government.)

We are one of the last havens of liberty in the world, and we have gone astray-- over the last 30 years the right to self defense has been attacked and whittled down by people such as yourslef who don't respect or understand basic human rights.

Yes, you also have the basic human right to screwdrivers and hammers.

By the way, if guns are worthy of regulation, why not knifes? Far mroe people are murdered with knives each year-- shouldn't they require registration first?

Also cars-- cars kill more people each year. We should get the FBI in there deciding who gets to have a car and who doesn't, with their half assed comptuers that get it wrong half the time.

Re:Hrmm

[surprise_audit]

That cop thinking about arresting me for smoking a joint needs a moment of pause to think about drug policy.

The cop wouldn't hesitate - if he believed you had superior firepower he'd call for backup. Don't you people learn from things like Ruby Ridge and Waco?

Re:Hrmm

[Snowdrake]

If you want to reinterpret it, you need to get a constitutional amendment.

Er, no, that's actually the express function of the courts. The very flexibility of the Constitution is the only reason that we've got one that's lasted >200 years while many (mostly third-world, yes) countries are literally rewriting them from scratch every 5-20 years. There have been far more changes in the law, even in those areas protected expressly by the Constitution and its amendments, than are encompassed in 27 Constitutional amendments.

All of this said, there are people in Europe laughing at us, and rightly.

Re:Hrmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the reason why they had 2nd Amendment, was to justify their armed conflict with the "tyranny" of the English

Re:Hrmm

[Gunnery Sgt. Hartman]

Enough laws are already on the books. We need less legislating and more enforcing.

Re:Hrmm

[cha0sadddddddd]

Critical mass
If I rise up by myself, I'll not be remembered as a patriot but "that fucking wacko" ala T .McVey

If "We the people" rise up it's a little different story.

Re:Hrmm

[sjames]

It's a contradictory sentence open to wildy opposing interpretations, but that's somewhat the point.

That's quite true. Very few people seem to examine the reasons for the ammendment and it's implications. The idea was that it is necessary for the government to have an army, but at the same time, having an army can allow a government to get out of control. The compromise was that the People should have a protected right to carry weapons so that should the army or government get out of control, the People could band together and put them down.

Of course, at the time, if you had a musket, you were about as well armed as any soldier and it was quite believable that a cooperative effort by the citizens could defeat the army using those muskets. Unfortunatly, that doesn't scale well to tactical nukes and stealth fighters (Though in theory, we're to be allowed to posess them, in fact, I don't want nuts running around with nukes).

Re:Hrmm

[Chrontius]

Alternately, a simple flywheel would work wonderfully. And they're far more efficient than chemical batteries, under ideal conditions.

Re:Hrmm

[Chrontius]

For the record, a derringer that fires .50BMG has been built - someone cut down a Mardi-Gras anti-material rifle, and it seems to have manageable recoil - the woman firing it in the photo I have isn't flat on her ass, and most of the muzzle flash had dissipated by that point.

Re:Hrmm

[Tassach]

I don't love guns, I loathe them.

Love them or loathe them, that's your decision. The right to decide whether or not to own a gun, is yours and yours alone -- not mine, not the NRA's, not Sarah Brady's, and certianly not Congress's. Conversely, you have no right to prohibit others from making that decision for themselves. Your right to exercise or not exercise any of your rights, be it speech, religion, or any other, is protected. It's when you try and trample on the rights of citizens by supporting and lobbying for un-Constitutional laws to advance your personal agenda, that there is a problem.

We live in a country that gives us the right to choose whether or not we'd like to own guns

Not exactly. You possess a common misunderstanding. Since you appear to have slept through Civics 101, let me provide a refresher. The Constitution does not GIVE us any rights at all. What it does do is limit the ability of the US Government and the governments of the various States to infringe on those rights which all humans already possess. Some rights are so sacrosant that they are explicitly protected, and the government is totally denied the power to take them away (EG "Congress shall make no law...", "... shall not be infringed"). In other cases, rights are protected less vigorously and the government is granted the power to violate them within some rigidly defined parameters and under certian explicit exceptions ("..but upon probable cause...","...without due process...", "...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces..").

What many people (including Congress and even the Supreme Court) seem to forget is this little beauty:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

. Commit it to memory.

So... what does it do, blur your target out?

[Qzukk]

Sort of a new meaning to rubbing someone out ;)

Re:So... what does it do, blur your target out?

[thbbpt]

Um... First I thought someone left out the de- prefix. On second thought, it would probably be a bad idea to use this on a computer monitor...

Found something better in a google search

[adzoox]

So I could find out what the heck a gauss gun is .... it's a magnetic propulsion gun icase some of you were wondering like I was.

This is a do EASY do it yourself I found:

http://www.scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/g auss.html

Re:Found something better in a google search

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/gau ss.html

Re:Found something better in a google search

[jsse]

To put it more simpler, this is the first weapon used by the robotic grinning lady in T3. :)

Re:Found something better in a google search

[Master of Transhuman]

URL doesn't work. /.'d again by evil /. magnetic terroristas, probably.

In other news, /. spud-gun terroristas threaten /. magnetic gun and nuclear terroristas with BMD (Bandwidth of Mass Destruction) weapons.

Re:Found something better in a google search

[schotty]

Myabe that is why she is grinning ?

They don't exist?

[cyranoVR]

Using a series of magnets to accelerate a metal slug - it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to do. Right?

Also, aren't "Guass Guns" are more widely known via the games (both board- and PC-) BattleTech and Mechwarrior?

Re:They don't exist?

[SkArcher]

Gauss Rifles are from battletech.

Interestingly, I don't think the mass of the slug makes all that much difference to the eventual damage - force = mass * acceleration

So using lighter weights would be advantageous, up until the point where the projectile becomes too light to keep a decent trajectory in a cross wind.

And of course, there is the Particle Projection Cannon, with a charged particle instead of a magnetic slug...

Re:They don't exist?

[the_2nd_coming]

I think the Millitary has experimented with Ship sized prototypes.

Re:They don't exist?

[Mostly a lurker]

Evgenij Vasiljev does not claim this is a new concept. What he claims (and I do not know enough to validate this from his data) is that his prototype is the most efficient (by which I think he means velocity relative to power input) yet developed. It is dangerous to judge a book by its cover but, based on his site, it looks like a very interesting project.

Re:They don't exist?

[Aliencow]

And Metal Gear Solid.. If you haven't played, the story is...I don't remember but there's a big mech with a slug type of "missile" launcher... that would allow a country to bypass treaties since they're not realy nuclear MISSILES but more like nuclear death rocks..

Re:They don't exist?

[leshert]

So using lighter weights would be advantageous, up until the point where the projectile becomes too light to keep a decent trajectory in a cross wind.

Not just cross winds, but also deflection due to things like brush or light cover. Same reason my .243 is a poorer 'brush gun' than the .32 I've used on occasion. Smaller slug goes funny when it hits a leaf.

Re:They don't exist?

[Luigi30]

Yes, but the PPC blows stuff up. The Gauss Rifle blows arms off and stuff.

Re:They don't exist?

[Zirnike]

I would have said GURPS. The Gauss Battle Rifle rocks.

Remember (as was mentioned) crosswind and deflection, and what wasn't, air resistance. A heavier ball bearing drops faster in water than a lighter one, even though it's a bit bigger (increasing drag)

Re:They don't exist?

[SkArcher]

In theory it should take the same amount of energy to accelerate a helium nucleus (which is what I think they are described as being in the game) to 1/10th C as it takes to accelerate something 1,000 times heavier to 1/10,000 C, and the impact would have the same resultant force.

Mind you, that assumes perfect conductivity and no loss of kinetic energy to friction, but you get the idea.

Re:They don't exist?

[EvilSporkMan]

Actually it lets them bypass treaties because you can move a Metal Gear into a NEIGHBORING (or at least different) country to launch a nuke, then leave. It removes the function of nuclear weapons as a deterrent because you can't tell who to hit.

Re:They don't exist?

[NeoSkandranon]

Interestingly, I don't think the mass of the slug makes all that much difference to the eventual damage - force = mass * acceleration

This does not quite translate into how a round will effect a target. Particularly a soft one. A light projectile travelling extremely fast will penetrate a human (for example, lets take the NATO 5.56x45mm round) and do significant damage, but won't always be lethal, because the high velocity causes it to penetrate and keep going, rather than transfer all its energy to the target. Compare to a 7.62mm round, which is traveling slower, heavier than a 5.56, but it does LOTs more damage

Re:They don't exist?

[Evil Parakeet]

SkArcher (676201) : >Gauss Rifles are from battletech Though that's a fairly well known usage, the Gauss Rifle and Gauss Pistol (and VRF Gauss Gun) date *at least* to 1978, when they appeared in the aforementioned SF RPG "Traveller" by GDW. FASA later "adopted" the Gauss Rifle for use in Battletech, but FASA got its start as a licensed producer for Traveller... Chirp.

Re:They don't exist?

[jargonCCNA]

X-COM: Terror From The Deep featured Gauss weaponry as the most basic weapon type. Then you research alien weaponry and start using Sonic weapons.

Re:They don't exist?

[podperson]

Contrary to some replies, Gauss Rifles (under that name) were originally in the Traveller Book 4 "Mercenary" which predates BattleTech by quite some time. (Indeed, I think the term "Gauss Rifle" predates the oft-used term "Railgun".)

BattleTech was a far more commercially successful game than Traveller, though.

Re:They don't exist?

[xihr]

The damage caused when a bullet hits a victim is caused by both the momentum and kinetic energy of the bullet, as well as how bullet deforms when it strikes tissue. The dynamics involved here won't really be any different for normal bullets. The only difference here is how the bullet gets up to speed.

Re:They don't exist?

[SkArcher]

I bow before your superior knowledge of Role-Playing game history. I wasn't born until 1978.

Re:They don't exist?

[Trailer Trash]

Using a series of magnets to accelerate a metal slug - it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to do. Right?

If the metal slug is made out of something that isn't attracted by magnets, it'd be a complete bitch...

Re:They don't exist?

[$uperjay]

The helium nucleus will blow all the way through its target, however, meaning that not all of its kinetic energy will be transferred - lots of it will be given to the wall behind the target, for example, or the air.

In theory, you want your slug massive enough that it doesn't make it all the way through the target.

Re:They don't exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interestingly, I don't think the mass of the slug makes all that much difference to the eventual damage - force = mass * acceleration

right, but the article says

weight is 2,75 g.
Muzzle velocity about 33 m/s. Destroy energy about 1,5 J.

Destroy energy.. as in, energy.. assuming that um, most of that energy is kinetic, that would = half * mass * velocity ^ 2.. in fact giving this a little thought, it's plain to see how the acceleration the projectile undergoes is totally irrelevant to its energy. or its momentum for that matter ( mass * velocity ). and if you want to talk about force, for some reason, then you can't talk about the force in terms of the rate at which the projectile was accelerated, because then you're talking about the force that the projectile was accelerated by, not the force it will exert on its target, which is what i assume you meant by damage.

i figured some physics crackpot would've beat me to pointing all this out.

Re:They don't exist?

[Tassach]

The real-world lethality of a round of ammo is highly complex and often counterintuitive; not all of the mechanisms that increase or decrease lethality are well-understood.

While the kinetic energy (KE = 1/2 M V^2) and momentum (P = MV) have an undeniable relationship to lethality, they are demonstrably not the only factors, as there are real-world comparisons which show rounds with lower KE and momentum which are more lethal than ones with more KE and momentum.

Personally I shoot 9MM; my preferred ammo is 147gr@980fps, compared a more conventional loading of 125gr@1160fps. Real-world statistics show that the 147gr loadout has a slightly better track record of one-shot kills than the 125gr, even though the 147gr has roughly the same momentum and 20% less KE.

The M-16, firing the 5.56 nato round, has roughly 70% as much kinetic energy and momentum as the 7.62 Russian round used by the AK-47. Yet, pradoxically, battlefield statistics from show that the survival rate of people shot with 7.62Rus is significantly higher than that of people shot with 5.56NATO.

Re:They don't exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gauss rifles are used in Starcraft by Terran Marines. On a side note, Starcraft is superior to Battletech.

Re:They don't exist?

[Evil Parakeet]

no bowing, now. My geekitude pales before those who were, just last week, discussing the merits of Traveller's gauss weapons in regards to the precise nature of recoil. Not being a rocket scientist like at least one of the active discussers, I just sorta watched...

As noted, the basic idea of the magnetic gun has been around a *long* time, and I've seen bits on working railguns that can throw a brick a country mile (or through a country house) with only two feet of "barrel" and a large electric bill...

Re:They don't exist?

[Cpt_Kirks]

IIRC, the light 5.56mm slug is unstable, and tumbles when it hits an object. It spins in the body like a circular saw.

The new, heavier round used with the M16A2 is more stable, hits and penetrates better, but is less lethal.

Re:They don't exist?

[Jester99]

The M-16, firing the 5.56 nato round, has roughly 70% as much kinetic energy and momentum as the 7.62 Russian round used by the AK-47. Yet, pradoxically, battlefield statistics from show that the survival rate of people shot with 7.62Rus is significantly higher than that of people shot with 5.56NATO.


Does that study take into account hit location? AK-47s are used a lot by terrorists and other para-military types, M-16s tend to be used by highly trained US Army soldiers. Are the latter just plain better shots?

An M-16 round through the heart, despite its lesser force, will do a bigger number on you than would an AK-47 to the leg...

Re:They don't exist?

[joto]

It also depends on your purpose of shooting, of course. For both military and terrorist operations, it is much more effective to damage your opponent than it is to kill him. In a battle situation, damaging one opponent, means at least two is out, because at least one other soldier will be needed to carry the wounded soldier away. And for terrorists, it creates a lot more fear in the victims having some of the victims bleeding and screaming, than simply being dead.

Re:They don't exist?

[Usquebaugh]

Bollocks, real world lethality is well known, there are other decisions involved when choosing ammo. Calculate not when the round leaves the barrel but when the round hits the victim.

In Boar war the UK troops discovered that many tribes men had multiple gun shot wounds, they also saw that one round could pass through a target and hit another. The solution was to cross hatch the round. On impact it opened up.

In modern terms they created dum-dum or soft points. The idea is you create a larger hole and transfer more enegry. Hit something vital OR hit hard and cause shock. either way the victim stops.

Modern military arms are covered by the Geneva convention, I think you can only use FMJ on the battle field. Certainly no DD or soft point. A 7.62 will punch through where a 5.56 will lodge or tumble. Curiously, police forces are not covered by the GC.

If you want to stop somebody who is within 100yds of you, put the rifle and pistol away, load a shotgun with 1oz slugs or Hatton rounds. Work out the energy transfer and wound size and you see nothing comes close. It ain't sexy but it does the job.

Re:They don't exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's not suprising at all. The .223 round (5.56nato or whatever) is designed to be a fragmentattion round. Once it hits a soft target it spins inside of the body and quickly shatters leaving a wide wound trail. If you look at diagrams showing the wound trail it looks like it explodes inside the body.

The 7.62 on the other hand stays in one solid bullet with very little distortion to the projectile. Lots of times it would just go straight thru a person and thus loose the advantage of kinetic energy it has over the nato counter point... By the way Russia stopped using the 7.62x39 in the seventies/eighties as the main weapon of choice when they made the Ak-74 (as apposed to ak-47.. one was made in 1947 the other in 1974). It uses a cartridge very similar to the .223

BTW other advantages of the .223 over the 7.62x39 is it's flatter shooting and has a longer effective range (slightly that's debatable), also a soldier can carry more ammo and it's cheaper to produce.(both due to it's smaller size)

Re:They don't exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow ! 980 FPS ? 1160 FPS ?

That's one bastard rendering speed ! What resolution is it ?

Re:They don't exist?

[dtr21]

Not true. KE = 1/2 * M * V * V. Therefore, if an object was 1000 times heavier, it would have the same amount of energy if it was going sqrt(1000) times as fast.

Conversely, if an object is going 1000 times as fast, it has 1,000,000 times as much energy (== the amount of energy required to get it to go that fast). Hence the use of very light things in particle acceperators.

Your equation linking the resultant force is also wrong. The force applied depends on the mass times the acceleration. The acceleration (or deceleration in this case) depends on how quickly the object slows down (larger peak force if it hist concrete and stops instantly vs hits foam and stops over a longer time). If you're interested in the damage that the object will do when it hits something, you've also got to consider the suurface area of the object that will hit the target during impact. This will determine the pressure applied to the target by the impact, and will tell you whether the object will bounce or penetrate the target. This again depends somewhat on the mass of the object :)

Re:They don't exist?

[Lumpy]

The site is completely hosed so I cant debunk his claims.

Back in college I made one of these for a semester grade.

I simply used low end logic chips coupled with my own hand wound coils spaced at a semi-logarythmic spacing along the 5 foot barrel. my barrel was clear plastic for ease of troubleshooting and I found steel balls that fit well with a slight bit of lube.

I used led's and photo transistors at the center of each coil to detect when the projectile was at the end of the attraction and was before it was slowed by that field to disengage that coil and trigger the next coil.

then I simply had a 555 timer to set the trigger delay, giving me a simple knob to adjust the trigger sweep timing.

On my 10th firing test, I was able to fire a steel ball 1/2 way through a concrete block from 20 feet away (accident! It was supposed to stop at the foam+plywood target)

adding more sensors and a CPU with the right software could easily increase my design to very powerful velocities...

the problem I found was rifling of the barrel and finding a non-magnetic but durable barrel that can withstand the abuse of this thing.

after 30 firings I wore a significant groove in my clear barrel.

adding a variable field for each coil, doubling them, and even adding some steel cores to the coils to intensify the field would make a huge difference...

Re:They don't exist?

[cybercuzco]

Just remember, Guns dont kill people, transfer of momentum kills people.

Re:They don't exist?

[Jester99]

I'm not debating the merits of lethality.

The parent post said that NATO rounds were more lethal than AK-47 ammo. I was just curious if that was the ammo, or the shooter.

Re:They don't exist?

[schotty]

I recall that the M16A2 was designed to be less lethal. I forget the extent, but the Discovery/History/Learning channel had a thing on less than lethal wepaons and the current M16A2 revision was listed. IIRC it had something to do with not wanting to kill the soldiers, but to arrest their leader. We can take the injured soldiers prisoner and move on. I suppose that is nothing more than heresay ... but thought I would throw that in there.

Re:They don't exist?

[TheLink]

Sure a shotgun might conceivably be more effective on a per shot basis, but who fires just a single bullet from a M1A2 in order to stop somebody?

Re:They don't exist?

[Drestin]

Wrong on all counts. The 5.56mm round is a VERY stable and accurate round. That it "tumble" after it hits something is not uncommon for ANY round but being lighter may provide for a bit more "bounce" if you will.

The M16A2 fires exactly the same round as the A1 and original M16.

A round that is more stable, hits and penetrate better, in my opinion, can only be MORE lethal.

Re:They don't exist?

[TheLink]

So this big huge mecha with nukes is going to tip toe into a neighbouring country in the middle of the night, and fire a few nukes and then tip toe back, and everybody would think the suckers did it...

Hmm. I'd figure that submarines would be a better bet. ;). Even so during the Cold War I doubt pretending someone else did it would have helped.

Re:They don't exist?

[Drestin]

You recall incorrectly. The M16A2 is every bit as lethal, and possibly more, than the M16A1 or original M16.

And what you are sorta remembering is that in war it's better to seriously wound a soldier, enough that he cannot fight but not enough to die immediately so that his buddies have to help him and spend energy and supplies on saving him. An enemy that just dies is just one less enemy, no further cost really. But one that is wounded, oh man, now you gotta try to save them, then take him to medical care then fix him then wait for him to heal and give him a medal and medical care forever etc...

Re:They don't exist?

[Lord Kano]

Compare to a 7.62mm round, which is traveling slower, heavier than a 5.56, but it does LOTs more damage

7.62mm WHAT? &.62x30mm like an AK-47 or an SKS or 7.62mm Nato(.308) like the AR-10 or 7.62x54mm or 30-06 with is 7.62mm as well?

Each of those calibers have different powder capacities and as a result different weight bullets are used, meaning different muzzle velocities.

LK

Re:They don't exist?

[Lord Kano]

IIRC, the light 5.56mm slug is unstable, and tumbles when it hits an object. It spins in the body like a circular saw.

Not exactly. Because of the light weight, there is less inertia that can cause the bullet to glance off of bone. When that happens, quite often the bullet tumbles. The 5.56mm round is also easily influenced by wind.

The new, heavier round used with the M16A2 is more stable, hits and penetrates better, but is less lethal.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that that you are simply misinformed. The M16/A1/A2/AR-15/Et Al fire the exact same ammunition 5.56mm Nato also known as .223 Remington. The A1 and A2 are more reliable than the original M16. Ask any vietnam vet who was there in the late 60's the original M16 didn't do well in the adverse conditions that tends to find anywhere off of a firing range.

LK

Re:They don't exist?

[good soldier svejk]

You recall incorrectly. The M16A2 is every bit as lethal, and possibly more, than the M16A1 or original M16.

I suspect that by "original M16" you mean the M16E1, the first model adopted by the US Army. In combat it proved quite a bit less effective than the M16 (original Stoner AR15 design) previously adopted by the Air Force. Most people atribute this to the introduction (against Stoner's advice) of a "fast" 1 in 12 twist barrel. Faster twist rifling increased the projectile's stability upon penetration, thus decreasing its destructiveness.

The M16A2 uses even faster 1 in 7 twist rifling. All else being equal it should be less lethal than the M16A1. However, it is unlikely all else is equal.

BTW, the M16E1 was also much less reliable than the M16/AR15, mainly due to a change in powder (also contraindicated by Stoner).

Re:They don't exist?

[Cpt_Kirks]

NATO M8551SS 109 5,56 x 45mm

The slightly longer and heavier American M855 bullet shot from the M16A2 assault rifle is replacing the M193 bullet shot from the M16A1 as the standard bullet of the US armed forces. FN Herstal originally developed this bullet type [which has a steel penetrator" as the forward part of its core] designating its bullet the SS109. The wound profile is very similar to that produced by the M 193 bullet.

Although the SS109 and M855 are not the same bullet, their differences are small and one almost needs a magnifying glass and a side-by-side comparison to differentiate the two. There is little difference in their performance in tissue. The abdominal and thigh wound produced by the M855 or the SS109 bullets would essentially be the same as those described above for the M16A1 M193 bullet.

The longer 5,56mm bullets [M855, SS109] need a higher relational velocity to maintain stabilization in air. FN claimed that this faster rotation also causes the SS109 to have a significantly longer path in tissue before marked yaw occurs, thus producing wounds of less severity. This is simply untrue. Additional rotation beyond that needed to keep the bullet straight in air appears to have little or no effect on the projectile's behaviour in tissue.

However, there is a situation concerning rotation rates whereby these longer 5,56mm bullets can cause increased wound severity. Shooting the SS109 or M855 in the older M16A1 rifle [they are not intended for use in this 1-in-12in. twist barrel, but iii the newer l-in-7in, twist] produces a bullet spin rate insufficient to stabilise the longer bullets. Such a bullet will yaw up to 70 degrees in its path through air. Striking at this high yaw angle [essentially travelling sideways], these bullets break on contact and the marked fragmentation, acting in synergy with the temporary cavity stretch, causes a large [over 15cm] stellate wound with the loss of considerable tissue.

Re:They don't exist?

[Cpt_Kirks]

I never said it wasn't accurate. I have an AR-15 and it's damn accurate.

The light bullet *IS* unstable. Hit a leaf with one and off it goes. It's not as lethal as a .30 caliber round, but it's not supposed to be.

Penetration is not lethality. Granted, you have to penetrate to kill, but LESS penetration is better. A jacketed round will often pass right through, doing minimal damage. A soft nose round will mushroom, transfering more force into the body and making a hole big enough to throw a cat through.

Re:They don't exist?

[cmpalmer]

The name Gauss rifle came to Traveller by way of Harry Harrison (in the Stainless Steel Rat books). I also think H. Beam Piper used the name back in the 1950's.

Re:They don't exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, sorry, the gauss pistol (& rifle) first appeared in the (never-made-into-a-movie-or-television-series) Stainless Steel Rat books by Harry Harrison. Battletech was also pre-dated by the RPG "Traveller"

If you haven't read the Stainless Steel Rat series, its worth a look.

Re:They don't exist?

[Lord Kano]

The US military may change the specs on the ammo, but the cartridge is still 5.56mm Nato. The outside dimensions of the round are still the same. They can use a longer bullet, but the extra length is inside of the cartridge case. The same ammo can be chambered and fired from any 5.56mm Nato or .223 Rem rifle.

LK

Re:They don't exist?

[Cpt_Kirks]

The external dimensions are the same. The projectile itself is different. It's heavier and a steel core. It penetrates better and has a longer effective range.

The SAW and M16A2 barrels are rifled to use the new round. They can use the old round, like the M16A1 can use the new round, but accuracy is lower.

Re:They don't exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they compare the training of the gun users. An russian AK-47 users is likely to be poorly trained compared to a M-16 NATO user. Leading to the Black Down effect of having a kill ratio of 50/1 because they have no training whatsoever.

Re:They don't exist?

[confused one]

A portable, reliable, effective gauss rifle has yet to be (mass) produced.

The damage isn't all related to force (or more correctly transferred momentum ( = mv)); but, also related to energy (= mv^2). There are numerous factors like cross sectional (frontal) area, Type of projectile (jacketed vs not, solid vs hollow point, hardness of metal, etc.), shape of the bullet, etc., which will determine how the projectile affects the target.

Re:They don't exist?

[Anonymous Coward]

15 years ago I had the notion to make a nail gun using the repulsion of magnetic coils when a high-voltage capacitor is discharged through them. I discovered that the physics of the process is such that the turns of a coil of wire want to separate with great force when a capacitor is discharged through it, never mind the additional reaction forces involved in accelerating a projectile with it. Spirals make forces on adjacent turns of wire which tend to blow the coil apart radially. Helices (solenoid coils) tend to blow themselves apart in the axial direction. It's in the physics.

I was unable to find a design inherently rugged enough or construction technique which would glue copper together strongly enough that the coil would hold up long enough to drive even a few nails, let alone the 10,000 I estimated would be necessary to make the nail gun competitive with air- and combustion-powered nail guns. (Part of the problem was that I attempted to give the hammer (projectile) its entire impulse essentially instantly, rather than spread the acceleration out over the length of its stroke. Think about that; it requires the impulse force to be infinite. But even spreading the force out over the length of the stroke would still require far stronger construction of the coil than I could devise.)

You might be able to build some sort of rail gun that would accelerate a projectile to sufficient speed to kill someone, but it would cost a lot, weigh a lot more than a saturday night special, and would tear itself apart after firing just a few projectiles.

The old ways are the best ways. Use a .44 Magnum.

Re:They don't exist?

[Chrontius]

Actually, the 5.56 round has a tendancy to either break up or tumble in a target. A 7.62 (IIRC, the russian-made flavor is an exception, and exceptionally nasty) tends to tumble after traveling nearly a foot. IE, all the way through an average human target. Assuming nothing critical got in the way, and access to modern medicine, such a simple penetration wound should be quite fixable.

Re:They don't exist?

[Chrontius]

It's also heavily dependant on the deposition of its energy on its target, which is determined by those numerous factors you mention

Re:They don't exist?

[Tassach]

The study I read (can't find the link now, sorry) used battlefield statistics from every major US conflict from Vietnam on up to Desert Storm. They used basically the same methodology the FBI uses for their lethality statistics: in order to be in the study, it had to be a single shot to the chest or abdomin and have killed the soldier on the battlefield (EG, people who survived long enough to make it to the aide station were excluded). Within these paramaters, the M-16 was (IIRC) about 85% lethal, while the AK/SKS family of weapons was down around 70% lethal under the same conditions.

I wish I could find the article again, it was very interesting reading.

No sound!

[Phosphor3k]

Niiiiiice. Ramp up the power a bit more and you have the perfect sniper gun. You could shoot someone and people around them would not even know a shot had been fired, let alone what direction it came from.

Re:No sound!

[DrWho520]

Yeah, ramping up the power a bit would be a good thing. But I guess Shot can crash bottle or pierce tin.[sic] is as good a place as any to start.

Re:No sound!

[f97tosc]

No sound! Niiiiiice. Ramp up the power a bit more and you have the perfect sniper gun

Except for the fact that the bullet (~1000m/s in most rifles) will break the sound barrier (~340 m/s).

Tor

Re:No sound!

[NeoSkandranon]

Cute, but the round still has to be subsonic to be silent, which limits the velocity and thus the range.

Also consider the power modern military sniper rifles impart to a projectile weighing 168 grains or so.

Re:No sound!

[the_2nd_coming]

1) a good sniper rifle can hit a target at around a mile away or more....you will here no sound

2) a good sniper will position him/her self in a place out of the site range of his /her target

3) people know the general direction a shot comes from when a person is hit.

Re:No sound!

[BWJones]

Except for the fact that the bullet (~1000m/s in most rifles) will break the sound barrier (~340 m/s).

While the parent post is disturbing, I will respond regarding this post. Sub-sonic ammo with silencers take care of most of that problem with traditional guns, while coil guns are tunable with the desired weight and size of the projectile used in them to keep the round sub-sonic.

There are very active research programs going on in a number of defense groups concerning rail guns at all scales from personal defense to large scale cannons.

Re:No sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Shut the fuck up.

2) Shut the fuck up.

3) Eat my ass.

4) Profit.

Re:No sound!

[Almost-Retired]

Ahh, yes, silence, nice concept. Nice but flawed. Once the power is ramped up to achieve more than paint gun power, the noise will come along with the bullet speed, getting several magnitudes louder if the bullet can actually be made to move at or above mach 1. That part of physics cannot be made to go away unless one could build a soundproof pipe for the bullet to travel inside of on its way to the target.

And that is going to be a hell of a lot harder to hide than the gun itself.

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:No sound!

[gfody]

mention something covered in a howstuffworks article and sudenly every geek is an expert on gun silencers

Re:No sound!

[Mostly a lurker]

the perfect sniper gun

A typical sniper gun needs to have a kill range of at least 1km. This would need a major power increase. As the author suggests, however, this could be a great hunting weapon. Fire at the quary; if you miss, wait a few seconds and fire again -- the target has not been spooked because of the lack of noise.

This would also be great concept on a firing range. Imagine being able to have a bunch of people firing away and not even need ear muffs.

Under existing US laws, I do not see there would be any problem with owning one of these. It is not an automatic weapon and does not have an add on silencer.

Re:No sound!

[f97tosc]

While the parent post is disturbing, I will respond regarding this post. Sub-sonic ammo with silencers take care of most of that problem with traditional guns, while coil guns are tunable with the desired weight and size of the projectile used in them to keep the round sub-sonic

Of course it is possible to keep the bullet subsonic, but then your weapon is pretty useless as a sniper rifle.

There are very active research programs going on in a number of defense groups concerning rail guns at all scales from personal defense to large scale cannons.

Yes, and of these I think the cannon are promising but the personal not. For example, by putting the this into artillery on an aircraft carrier you can shoot further and more accurately and you get power from the nuclear plant.

But for a personal weapon, you have just exchanged a small case of gunpowder for a big battery, and you have gained...what? Not range and accuracy; these are limited by the markmanship of the user and not by the speed of the bullet.

Tor

Re:No sound!

[f97tosc]

mention something covered in a howstuffworks article and sudenly every geek is an expert on gun silencers

I served in the Swedish artillery, so I actually know my stuff. :)

Tor

Re:No sound!

[josh crawley]

Um, yes, but if the bullet is going faster than the speed of sound, then the fuckers head will already be exploded by the time he hears it!!

Re:No sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

So when is the Q3 mod coming out?

Re:No sound!

[Homology]

While the parent post is disturbing

Some juveniles confuse Counter Strike with real life.

There are very active research programs going on in a number of defense groups concerning rail guns at all scales from personal defense to large scale cannons.

A handheld rail gun need quite some strong batteries if it's gonna match an typical ordinary handheld gun available today. Likely the weigth of the batteries will not make the gun handheld anymore. But shooting darts at close range might be practical.

Re:No sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

idiot, you dont know what your talking about so shut up

Re:No sound!

[f97tosc]

the fuckers head will already be exploded by the time he hears it!!

Yes, this is the case for all sniper rifles. But the as the original poster was aware it can be pretty useful to snipe silently anyway, because the fucker may have friends (with weapons).

Tor

Re:No sound!

[bobbozzo]

Well, AirSoft and PaintBall guns can break bottles too.

Re:No sound!

[BrookHarty]

A hand held rail gun need quite some strong batteries if it's gonna match an typical ordinary handheld gun available today.

Why not just plug it into the wall, and ramp up the voltage? A Rifle not a pistol, with a long enough barrel and and the power pack with a cable, not to interfere with the weight of the weapon.

Also, since it fires a slug, couldnt you use a propellant to go off after, so at a distance it can then go past sub-sonic and hit the target. No need to use plain slugs, you can use all types of devices. Need for black powder makes some room for the payload. Whatever that payload is. Same reason they want to use a coil gun for launching satelites in space.

I read somewhere, New York is going to put sensors on the top of some buildings, so they can triangulate the sound of bullets being fired, so they can pinpoint the shooter. They already have machines that can scan the air for bullets and triangulate within seconds where the shooter is located.

Wonder when they finally deploy these types of devices in NY, after all these years of funding, must be soon.

Re:No sound!

[josh crawley]

Don't try to fool me because I'm a seasoned expert at this. If you just use an AWP with an aimhack you can waste all of them before they turn around.

Re:No sound!

[karnal]

I wonder what would happen if you shot one of the "sound triangulators"... would it give false readings, since the sensor would be destroyed before it got a chance to report back?

Maybe it would get a loud "click" short or something, and tell the log "I'm dead"... :)

Re:No sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

actually there is an artillery round similar to what you decribe its called "RAP" rocket assisted projectile. Howitzers use them now but i couldn't imagine it being so hard as do it to a regular round either.

Re:No sound!

[Wingnut64]

Why not just plug it into the wall, and ramp up the voltage? A Rifle not a pistol, with a long enough barrel and and the power pack with a cable, not to interfere with the weight of the weapon.

I'm picturing a sniper on top of building swearing madly because he can't find an outlet and the parade is passing by.

Re:No sound!

[be-fan]

Some juveniles confuse Counter Strike with real life...
A handheld rail gun...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh, so Counter Strike is juvenile, but Quake is just fine???

Re:No sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... another brilliant /. rebuttal :)

Re:No sound!

[IWannaBeAnAC]

True. The only long-term danger with handgun technologies (and I use the word 'danger' quite deliberately) is directed energy weapons. They are completely impractical nowdays because there exists no such compact energy source. Now, IAATP (I am a theoretical physicist) and I know of no 'emerging' ideas that would permit such a weapon; but there are no laws of nature that forbit it either; therefore it is probably only a matter of time (if we are very lucky, hundreds of years or so).

Of course, if the USA get a large enough laser in space, or on a 747, then all these arguments are moot.

Re:No sound!

[ScuzzMonkey]

I just got this crazy mental picture of a crew of burly blonde men trying to heft an oil drum sized silencer onto a 155mm howitzer.

Forgive me, but where on Earth would you use silencer in the Swedish artillery?

Re:No sound!

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Of course it is possible to keep the bullet subsonic, but then your weapon is pretty useless as a sniper rifle.

Wow. I never ceased to be amused by people who pop off so confidently about things they obviously know so little about. What on earth makes you think that supersonic projectile velocity is necessary for a sniper rifle? The whole family of Whisper cartridges are astonishingly useful while deliberately being designed to stay subsonic. In fact, it's become clear from some long-range shooting sports that holding velocity below the sound barrier avoids certain wind drift problems. Try reading Understanding Firearm Ballistics by Robert A. Rinker. If you can hack the math, his explanation of the characteristics of transonic bullet flight make very clear that low velocity rounds can be highly useful in a number of applications.

Re:No sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you shoot a mime, do you need a silencer?

Re:No sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

On top of the building is the WORST place to be, helicopters see ya. ;)

Also snipers check the area out before they shoot.

Re:No sound!

[dunkelfalke]

sure they are. but even if we don't count a much straighter trajectory for fast bullets, just think about one thing. you fire at a moving target, say 600 meters away. you have got a subsonic bullet. so the target has TWO seconds to move. see what i mean?

Re:No sound!

[CrowScape]

Actually, slashdot did have an article a while ago about a laser rifle here. The design calls for a Polonium-210 power cell that would allow the unit 60 days of effective operation. Of course, with all things too good to be true (if you can call it that) it probably is.

Re:No sound!

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Yes, I remember the story. It is interesting as a physical device; as an engineering task it is completely impossible. No one in their right mind would want that much Polonium-210 that close to their brain. The environmental damage alone from a dead soldier would be enough for an emergency session of the Geneva Convention to be convened, the first time one was fired :-)

Re:No sound!

[nelsonal]

Are they still using largely those .50 cal behemoths. I saw one in the sporting goods store the other day and was amazed by the size of the gun. The rounds are bulky and heavy too. I was the AG (assistant gunner, glorified pack rat and ammo carrier) for an M60 once (in a force on force with the miles gear) and that was an impressive bulk.

Re:No sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

Also snipers check the area out before they shoot.

Well, bad snipers don't. =p

Re:No sound!

[gmby]

and you have gained...what?

Well you can always use guided bullets. This type of mass accelerator can accelerate bullets slowly and not destroy your electronics/mechanics in your guided bullet. Maybe?

Oh and Sound = Wasted energy.

Of course the simplicity of Cold Rolled Steal and Gun powder is just so cool. ;)

Re:No sound!

[Locmar]

In WWII, the British developed a little gun specifically for commandos called the Delisle Carbine...it's basically a Lee-Enfield rifle mated with a Colt 1911 which has a silencer built in as an integral part. It was rechambered from the Enfield's .303 to the Colt's .45 ACP so that it would be subsonic, and commandos could use it as a sniper rifle (despite the fact that it was essentially a large pistol).

Re:No sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

>> the fuckers head will already be exploded by the time he hears it!!

Trying hard to make Americans more loved all around the globe, huh?

Well, son, it ain't wor-king!

Re:No sound!

[xihr]

Don't forget that coilguns (or Gauss rifles, what's being discussed here) and railguns are not the same thing. Coilguns use changing magnetic fields to accelerate the slug via electromagnetic induction.

Railguns use a projectile that makes physical contact with two rails so that they form a current, and an enormous current is pumped through the rails (and thus the projectile) which results in the projectile being accelerated down the rails. So far it's been difficult to build railguns that don't melt the rails to slag after each firing.

They're both electromagnetic, but they're quite different approaches.

Re:No sound!

[buck_wild]

"...because the fucker may have friends (with weapons)."

Or perhaps...witnesses.

Too bad you can't 'throw' the sound of a convention gunpowder weapon so as to make it appear from another location. Hm. Perhaps some kind of simple reflector plate would do the trick...

Re:No sound!

[AtariDatacenter]

Actually, the paintball brings up an interesting notion. Instead of launching the projectile itself, you could go back to the more common solenoid type device. That could be used to launch paintballs, without the need for compressed canisters. (Or to simply replace air pump rifles.)

Re:No sound!

[f97tosc]

What on earth makes you think that supersonic projectile velocity is necessary for a sniper rifle?

Well, sniping is often done at long ranges. If you are firing at 600 or 1000 m that is a 2 or 3 seconds that pass before the bullet reaches the target.

...that low velocity rounds can be highly useful in a number of applications.

I don't doubt that at all, but now the issue was their benefit in sniper rifles, in particular those made out of Gauss guns. And I think my point still holds, that subsonic is not your typical method of choice for sniper rifles (and if you really were prepared to go subsonic, then as your examples show you wouldn't need a Gauss gun).

Tor

Re:No sound!

[f97tosc]

I just got this crazy mental picture of a crew of burly blonde men trying to heft an oil drum sized silencer onto a 155mm howitzer. Forgive me, but where on Earth would you use silencer in the Swedish artillery?

No, we actually never used silencers, and I don't know much about them. I should have read your post more carefully, I thought you cracked down on my mentioning of bullet velocities and the speed of sound - but those are things that every nerd knows...

And btw, we actually did use 155mm howitzers, and there were a bunch of burly blonde men (and a few women). Good stuff. ; )

Tor

Re:No sound!

[joto]

Yes, of course. But why do you wonder about that?

Re:No sound!

[BenEnglishAtHome]

think about one thing. you fire at a moving target, say 600 meters away

Arg!

We're talking about snipers! Where in the bloody hell did you ever get the idea that real snipers shoot at moving targets? (To be fair, yes, it is done in very limited circumstances where accuracy requirements aren't stringent, e.g. anti-materiel applications and perhaps massed troops. But in those circumstances, subsonic bullet velocity isn't necessarily a factor, either.)

I repeat: I never cease to be amazed and amused at the way Slashdot readers will pop off about stuff they obviously have no experience with. Firearms-related subjects are about the worst. You'd think most Slashdot readers know no more about ballistics than what they gleaned last weekend when they thumbed through a copy of Guns and Ammo at the local newsstand. This is really getting hilarious.

Re:No sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or two heads!

Re:No sound!

[The Creator]

I'm sure subsonic bullets are fine and all, but i don't they designed the psg-90 to have a 1400m/s muzzle velocity because they where struggling for pessimal performance. They even chose a sabot, sacrificing accuracy, just to get more velocity.

Re:No sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would a bullet breaking the sound barrier produce any sound? Because of accumulated noise from the jet engines?

Re:No sound!

[Avakado]

Don't try to fool me because I'm a seasoned expert at this. If you just use an AWP with an aimhack you can waste all of them before they turn around.

I challenge that! What server are you playing on?

Re:No sound!

[nettdata]

I don't doubt that at all, but now the issue was their benefit in sniper rifles, in particular those made out of Gauss guns. And I think my point still holds, that subsonic is not your typical method of choice for sniper rifles

Hmmm... some people/snipers would beg to differ with you.

You may wish to check out these titles for some interesting concepts/tidbits:

The Ultimate Sniper"

or

US Army Special Operations Target Interdiction Course"

They are very interesting reads.

Re:No sound!

[dunkelfalke]

funny thing so, i do know a sniper, russian army.

don't be so us-centric

Re:No sound!

[Spokehedz]

Nicola Tesla (yes, the same guy who made those nifty lighting storm things, that are _so_ overused in 'science museums' where you can light up a florescent tube with them) came up with a device that--when properly configured--would be able to kill anyone from anywhere in the world.

How? By using the earth's electromagnetic field to 'bounce' the beam all over the place, before it hit its target.

The US government built the device. They haven't tested it yet. Why? well...

Upon some very preliminary calculations, it seems that Tesla neglected some trivial calculations according to safety (wouldn't be the last/first time either.) and that the gun--while completely correct in its design...

would most likely kill everyone on the planet the first time its fired.

But we built one anyway, and its sitting somewhere (*cough*area51*cough*) and you bet that if they can ever figure out how to get it to not kill everyone on the planet--or just a small area around the actual target--then they'll start using it first chance they get.

Hell, they also built a Cobalt Bomb--which is like a Hydrogen Bomb, only about a bazillion times more powerful (look at the atomic weights of Hydrogen and Cobalt--which one is heavier? Heavier atoms go boom much more gooder...) and while it would make a nice crater on the planet--and also sprinkle Fallout all over the place (as well as ejecting lots of it into space to contaminate other worlds)--but it would also rip the entire atmosphere off of the planet it was detonated on.

I'm almost positive we have one of these... I think Regan ordered for one to be built, when he thought that 'Space Invaders' might attack someday... but I'm not sure about that, and I make NO claims to be right on this. Or any of this, for that matter.

Now... if I could only get access to this site. I want to make a Railgun. Anyone got a mirror, or is it gone for good?

Re:No sound!

[jafiwam]

2 to 3 seconds eh? So a Guass Sniper rifle could then shoot one subsonic, and one hypersonic and hit the guy TWICE with the same gun at the same time with one barrel. Once from a slight downard angle, and once straight in the face!

Yummy!

[Incidentally, the Naval "Proceedings" magazine has had articles about the Navy's interest in Gauss Cannon carrying Nuke Ships, they seem to think it is something worthwhile looking into. Likewise, there are fire control systems that can "dial in" salvos of artillery to hit in sequence, walk a pattern or hit all at the same time, all with one rapid-fire turreted cannon.]

Re:No sound!

[evilempireinc]

Oh yeah, the cobalt bomb. I think I saw it in that excellent documentary, "Beneath the Planet of the Apes"

Re:No sound!

[Sly Mongoose]

There are very active research programs going on in a number of defense groups concerning rail guns...

Technically, this is not a rail gun, it is a coil gun. I admit the distinction is frequently blurred, but while both are electro-magnetic in operation, they are significantly different in method of operation.

Re:No sound!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, if the ammo is travelling faster than sound; then they're fsck'd before they hear the sonic boom.

Wow, deep logic.

Re:No sound!

[ElderKorean]

There are very active research programs going on in a number of defense groups concerning rail guns at all scales from personal defense to large scale cannons.

Yes, and of these I think the cannon are promising but the personal not. For example, by putting the this into artillery on an aircraft carrier you can shoot further and more accurately and you get power from the nuclear plant.

Very good - and in a few years scientists will perfect the 'Wave Motion Gun' and then we can run Star Blazers again.

Re:No sound!

[hplasm]

The concept of the Cobalt bomb is a dirty nuke. An A-bomb is surrounded with Cobalt 60, which produces a nasty, long-lived fallout. The Cobalt itself doesn't go bang.

Re:No sound!

[Snowdrake]

This type of mass accelerator can accelerate bullets slowly and not destroy your electronics/mechanics in your guided bullet. Maybe?

Unfortunately, the EMP involved in kicking the thing off is likely to vape the electronics anyway. Big capacitors + f-load of copper wire == BIIIIG electromagnet, yeeeeessss...

Re:No sound!

[gmby]

How about using gyros in the bullet and not electronics. Hence "/mechanics". Build the gyro wheels with wire and use the magnetic field to spin it. Or maybe just shield the electronics. Lots of options...Hire me and I'll look into more... ;)

Weapons are the heart of other freedom!

[Thinkit3]

We need to embrace weapon technology. For what is keeping these illogical "intellectual property" laws in place? Their weapons. All technology is cool, but weapon technology is cooler right now.

Re:Weapons are the heart of other freedom!

[anubi]

" For what is keeping these illogical "intellectual property" laws in place? Their weapons."

I think its complacency.

Watching business antics is like watching cats eat.

I go out and get some food to feed to my cats.

The ferals are hungry too. If I don't watch them closely, they sneak up on my cats, distract them, a quick paw snatch, and the food's gone.

My cats survive either as long as I continue to protect them, or they learn to guard their food.

As I watch, people are much like my cats, I am watching freedoms our ancestors fought for disappearing pawsnatch by pawsnatch. And the ferals are getting bigger and stronger as the ones who never had to fight for their food laze back and let it happen.

There's still time to control this at the polls, before anything more drastic must happen to restore freedom of the people. But I don't think this is gonna happen.

Slashterrorist?

[eric434]

Lots of dangerous DIY type sites, two in a row in fact...

Note to self: Call off team planning to burglarize Slashdot Headquarters.

Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

The next thing you know, these will come standard in every computer sold, to protect the RIAA's IP.

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

Attach on of these to the computer monitor for the RIAA to use against pirates. After all they'd be destroying evidence if they destroyed your computer. This way it will definitely eliminate the person from ever pirating mp3 again.

Gauss driven pistol

[Almost-Retired]

Interesting concept. Just one Q though, as it doesn't seem to be discussed on the site in the link, and that is how does it achieve the effect of a normal rifled barrel in causeing the iron bullet to spin and therefore be stabilized in flight?

Re:Gauss driven pistol

[d3faultus3r]

Magnetism, the electromagnet causes it to spin while also propelling the bullet forward. At least that's what I think it is.

Re:Gauss driven pistol

[Zirnike]

APDSFSDU ammo, used in tank rounds: Armor piercing discarding sabot fin stabilized depleted uranium (I'm almost sure that's the right order for the acronym...)

Alternately, you could use magnets that are 'twisted' in pole (I can't get to the site to see the actual design, so bear with me). For example, you could use 3 rod magnets in each 'stage' (or 3 e-mags, whatever) and then rotate them relative to the previous row, giving you a triple helix. Then 'lobe' the slug. The magnets will 'draw' the lobes along and spin it.

Re:Gauss driven pistol

[Anonymous Coward]

You could also shape the projectile to allow the aerodynaimics to give it spin. Gerald Bull did this w/ regular tank rounds. The shape was not unlike one of those nerf areo-footballs.

Re:Gauss driven pistol

[IWannaBeAnAC]

I admit: I havn't read the article. How do you get a cylindrically symetric object to rotate using only magnetic fields?

Re:Gauss driven pistol

[Zirnike]

Umm... I believe I covered that under 'fin stablized', actually.

Re:Gauss driven pistol

[Repran]

The propulsion does not determin the spin of the projectile - the barrel does.

Re:Gauss driven pistol

[Almost-Retired]

'scuse me? in the normal gas from burning powder pushed situation, yes. The peak chamber pressure at the point of the bullets being pushed into the rifleing is going to be 15,000psi+ or you have a stuck bullet. And this with soft, copper clad, lead core bullets in sporting arms.

There is no way in hell that thing can get up enough energy to engrave the barrels rifleing into an iron bullet. First, the barrel has to be magneticly transparent & very thin so the coils can be as close as possible. There are some stainless alloys that are transparent for low frequencies, but for the frequencies that uses, 2/3rds of the energy would be wasted generating eddy currents in the barrel if it were conductive. throw in the fact that those types of stainless are softer than the iron in the bullet, the bullet would more than likely just make the barrel bulge to fit the size of the bullet.

In other words, the bullet is as tough as any potential barrel materiel, and barrel wear and tear would be very high, much like our military cannon in multi-inch sizes are. Some of those have to have the powder charge raised a few pounds with each and every fireing because the wear rate is so high. Ask any retired navy gunners mate, or dig up Col. Townsend Whalen, who wrote the definitive book on the subject.

No, IMO the iron bullet precludes a conductive barrel materiel, and rifleing of any kind unless there is a thin sabot involved, and I saw no references to that in the rather thin web page. Adding the sabot also increases the distance to the coils, fubaring the efficiency at the same time.

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:Gauss driven pistol

[confused one]

Guns don't use iron bullets. They use softer metals like copper, lead, uranium...

Just thought you'd like to know.

Re:Gauss driven pistol

[Almost-Retired]

Guns don't use iron bullets. They use softer metals like copper, lead, uranium...

Except that this method requires an iron bullet due to its use of strong magnetic fields to move it, not the normal high pressure of burning gunpowder. You should have read the parent article, which tries to explain that, albeit not terribly well in laymans terms.

A normal guilding metal clad lead cored bullet would in this case, not do much except heat the bullet due to eddy current losses. Possibly enough to melt the lead, and certainly enough to cause heat damage in the surrounding parts of this type of gun.

Also, depleted uranium isn't terribly soft and usualy is equipt with both a base banding of some softer metal in order to properly engage the barrels rifling as its sized a few thou smaller than the barrel, and a forward band to help guide it. Its main claim to fame is that its heavier than lead by quite a bit. So its harder to launch it, requiring carefully profiled burn rates in order to maximize the total push without causing excessive barrel erosion from the hot gases, always a problem in larger cannon as it can litterally change the barrels perfomance on a shot to shot basis.

By the same token, holds up its velocity better than lead, making it capable of penetrating the average tanks armour plate where a steel cored 'AP' bullet would knock out a good sized cookie of armour and bounce back at the source of the shot even if the impact is at an angle, making the richochet dangerous to the shooter. We're talkng about springback in the struck surface, which will always bounce back on the same path as the incoming one. Mirror type analogs aren't valid here where the surfaces lock together for a few microseconds...

If you can penetrate, then no richochet to worry about, except inside the tank, which is where you want it to do maximum damage anyway :)

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:Gauss driven pistol

[confused one]

I had read the article; but, simply hadn't had enough coffee yet. When I replied I thought you simply didn't know... My apologies.

Actually Lead is slightly para-magnetic (repells magnetic fields) so, based on the design of the gun, it would be pushed back into the chamber slightly.

Re:Gauss driven pistol

[Almost-Retired]

I know, I've suffered from the not enough coffee myself for quite a few years, the green tea I use for that just doesn't have the kick in terms of the caffiene content that a good cuppa joe has.

But that good cuppa joe had taken to keeping me up all night, instead of just half the night, hence the switch. The accumulated years tend to do that, and not much I can do about those, they just keep adding up.

I suspect I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather too, at 68. Hence the years to have learned as much about ballistics, both internal and external as I have. Thats been one of my hobbies while making a living in electronics for the last 55 years, the last 39 in broadcasting.

I'm the guy yhou never see, but who makes it all work when again after somebody else has let the smoke out or broken the mirrors, both of which is required to make it all work.

--
Cheers, Gene

sonic boom...

[Thinkit3]

It'd have to be subsonic, and if it was, it'd be no different than a silencer today.

Look at all the pretty pictures...

[n0nsensical]

...I give it five minutes before you don't see them for another week.

Re:Look at all the pretty pictures...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'm done with attempts at humor non-anonymously. It doesn't help your karma, and chances are someone's going to mod it offtopic or flamebait no matter what the content is.

5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[homer_ca]

"Bullet is iron, diameter is 5 mm, length 25 mm, weight is 2,75 g.
Muzzle velocity about 33 m/s."

In comparison, an air rifle shoots a 4.5mm pellet at about 800 ft/s.

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[cryms0n]

I don't understand, can you use real units please?

Like how many supercomputers this pistol take out in one shot.

--

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[Anonymous Coward]

you could at least use the same units

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[genevaroth]

5mm=5mm
33m=108.26 ft/s or feet per second

4.5mm=4.5 millimeters

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[Xeger]

He's claiming that an air rifle pellet travels at ~250 m/s.

The problem is, pellets are light, hollow structures. An air gun pellet masses much less than a metal sphere. Low mass means less inertia, which means less hurtiness.

I don't know about air guns, but I know that an 8mm paintball travels at no greater than 100 m/s (and that's a very fast paintball indeed). Those things hurt! Furthermore, they hurt the most when they fail to break; their breaking gelatin shells dissipate some of the energy. The most painful paintballs are those frozen by sadistic fucks to deliberately cause more pain.

I imagine a metal BB hitting you travelling at 33 m/s would at the very least sting something fearsome.

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[Anonymous Coward]

use the same fucking units, asshole

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[GnarlyNome]

Depends on the airgun a Daisy punches the .177 pelet ot at about 250 f/sec the Sheridian .22 has a muzzle velocity of up to 500 ft/sec
my 1883 Swiss Military Air rifle pushes a .50 cal conical bullet (similar to a Minie' ball at about 450 ft/sec (prety good for its day

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[Auckerman]

You must work for NASA. Hint, if you want to land on Mars, learn to use only metric...

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[Xeger]

Do you have an idea of the mass of any of those? The conical bullet model sounds like it might pack a wallop.

I've always thought the most effective pellet would be one with a needle tip. You could use it to deliver a drug, and since the air gun is more of a nuisance weapon that a lethal weapon, tiny pellets sticking into the target would be a very effective nuisance.

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[GnarlyNome]

The swiss jobbie was an actual military weapon an was used by snipers a sojer caught with one was executed The round is about 300 grains us it is an antique and no you may not shoot it :)

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[loraksus]

Actually there are marbles that work quite well in paintball guns. Not that I would _EVER_ condone such an evil thing, but it is possible. I haven't checked the speed of the marbles, but they do shatter on impact and leave small dents in concrete. I believe "fast enough" is the term you are looking for.
I suppose a properly sized ball bearing coming out of more or less a stock paintball marker would hurt like a bitch too.
Most paintball guns can be modified to shoot faster (or slower) by replacing certain springs in the mechanism - which I would think make a pretty good "home defense" weapon.

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[LS]

As already mentioned, you should use the same units in comparisons.

Also, is 4.5 mm the diameter or length of a pellet? I would assume the length. My recollection of pellets is that they are much smaller than the bullets used in the gaussian gun.

LS

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[paganizer]

3 words:
Frozen Gelatin Dart

Doesn't work well except in the winter, but best assassin tool ever designed, IMHO.

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[khallow]

A 4.5 mm pellet air rifle shoots a 0.5g pellet about 240 m/s. Momentum is 0.12 kg m/s, energy is 144 J (Joules).

In comparison, gauss gun shoots a 2.75g projectile with a velocity of about 33 m/s. Momentum is 0.09 kg m/s, and energy is 1.5 J. To get the same energy release as an air rifle, the gauss gun needs 100 times as much energy.

According to the site, the batteries have power for 50 shots. Hence, you need twice the batteries to provide power for one air rifle equivalent shot. That's assuming that no improvement in gauss gun efficiency occurs.

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[DrMrLordX]

There's always room for J E L L O

Hey, out of curiosity, what does silly putty do at high velocity? I've wondered what it would be like to fire this stuff out of a 12-guage or something. Sabot rounds maybe?

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[Sycraft-fu]

Diameter. That is the standard mesurement when talking about bullets with a sinlge number. If I say I have a 9mm gun, I mean it has a barrel 9mm in diameter, likewise a .223 is a gun with a barrel 0.223 inches in diameter. If you want length then a second number is specified. For example standard 9mm amuniton is 9x19mm (that includes the length of the case). However, for much ammunition, it is assumed form the name that the length is known. If I say 9mm Luger, .45ACP or 5.56 NATO, I am talking about a standard type of ammo and the length is known.

In the case of pellet air guns, you are generally talking about a plastic sphere for a bullet, and so a uniformsize in all directions.

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the math yourself and multiply 33 m/s by 3.3 to get f/p and then compare that to 800.

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[caffeinated_bunsen]

I've wanted to try putting silly putty in a potato gun for a while now. If you try it, let me know how what happens.

Re:5mm bullet, 33 m/s muzzle velocity

[confused one]

The most powerful readily available airguns will produce a muzzle velocity of > 1000 ft/sec (300 m/s) with a 25 cal. (6.3mm) pellet.

great

[DNS-and-BIND]

Oh yeah...a .ru site. That won't get slashdotted...

Paint-ball still has place

[Anonymous Coward]

In Las Vegas, you can pay $1000 (or something) to hunt naked women in the desert with your paint-ball gun.

I don't think you'll want to do that with a Gauss gun.

So as cool as it may sound, it doesn't solve all our entertainment needs, now does it.

Carnival Rides

[double_plus_ungod]

Superman: The Escape uses magnetic propulsion and mag-brakes. nice to see the idea slimmed down.

all we need now are high-tech voltrons that fire the plastic pellets with a gauss gun. THAT would be cool.

Re:Carnival Rides

[Jack Comics]

Why would Voltron need a gauss gun? He has the Blazing Sword(TM)! Duh!

Metal Storm

[Squidgee]

This has been done, and is now recieving military funding. Check it out here.

Scary stuff.

Re:Metal Storm

[justins]

That's not a gauss gun. RTFM:
http://www.metalstorm.com/10_technology/tec hnology .html

Re:Metal Storm

[peacefinder]

"This has been done, and is now recieving military funding."

Sorry, no. Metal Storm is something entirely different. (And, incidentally, *way* more powerful and practical at this point.)

The Metal Strom projectiles are powder-driven, although the ignition is electronic. In the gauss gun, it's all electromagnetic.

Re:Metal Storm

[evilWurst]

If you had read your own link, you'd realize that Metal Storm's guns aren't Gauss guns. They're using chemical propellant... the electronics are just for ignition.

Re:Metal Storm

[Squidgee]

Oops! Looks like Metal Storm does use some explosives.

Sorry! =/ For once, I was wrong.

Re:Metal Storm

[JaredOfEuropa]

Metal Storm is not a Gauss gun. It's simply one or more barrels, each containing multiple bullets with a propellant stacked in between the bullets. Electronics set off the propellants in a timed fashion, allowing incredible rates of fire.

The use for Metal Storm seems to be rather limited though. Large caliber and/or explosive or armor-piercing rounds are more efficient against hardened targets, and a Gatling seems to do just fine against fast moving targets (Goalkeeper / Phalanx antimissile systems). The only interesting application I saw was in underwater anti-torpedo systems.

Re:Metal Storm

[GnarlyNome]

Read "Hells Faire" by John Ringo
He uses the metalstorm concept quite well
suckers a bitch to reload

Re:Metal Storm

[argStyopa]

Metalstorm = TOTALLY different tech.

Gauss gun (incidentally theorized in Traveller long before Battletech was a gleam in FASA's eye; envisioned in Sci Fi before that - I'm guessing in The Weapons Shop, off the top o' my head): using electromagnets to accellerate a ferrous projectile without chemical explosives.

Metalstorm: a single barrel with multiple projectiles in it; each is propelled by a standard (essentially) propellant which is layered between the slugs. First the one closest to the muzzle fires, then the next, etc. They are electronically fired, but that's it, otherwise it's pretty much a normal gun. (*and as regards their silly "million rounds" claim, well, yeah, it's a huge ARRAY (not a beowulf cluster, calm down....) of these things, all firing simultaneously. So sure, I could weld a thousand machine gun barrels together and get a 2 million rpm weapon for a VERY short period of time.

But yes, the defense department is funding research into metalstorm (a waste, IMO) AND 'gauss' weapons.

Re:Metal Storm

[khallow]

I think the metal storm technology would make very effective mortars or grenade launchers. The rapid fire rate is supposed to be for an anti-missile screen. Ie, you need that rapid fire rate for a small fraction of a second. The idea being that you throw enough junk (presumably well targeted junk) in the way, the missile will get taken out. Same philosophy as the Phalynx system.

Re:Metal Storm

[Anonymous Coward]

Reloading is easy. Just swap out the barrel.

Re:Metal Storm

[GnarlyNome]

Pretty heavy for that poor grunt don't you think?

Re:Metal Storm

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite, it was first thought of by Mr. Gauss, from whom it takes it's name.

Traveller doesn't deserve any credit for that one, nor does Sci-Fi as a whole.

NT

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I'm not sure if this was already posted to slashdot already, and I'm too lazy to write about it :) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92351,00.html

I will be more impressed...

[craenor]

When they build the first Gauze pistol!!

ah you know not of gun nut geek wing?

[Thinkit3]

The libertarian kind toting automatic weapons? Talk about an open source, on the targets body!

Re:ah you know not of gun nut geek wing?

[GnarlyNome]

The Libertarian kind likes weapons even the geeks
an unarmed Libertarian is a contridiction in terms

Airports

[www.sorehands.com]

Will the airport security start taking away your magnets, and wires?

Instead of propelling metal slugs, you can propel paper clips -- "you can take an eye out with that thing."

Re:Airports

[Hanzie]

Will the airport security start taking away your magnets, and wires?

Do you seriously think you could sneak one of those on a plane? did you see the pictures? It would be confiscated on sight, while you were arrested. If you tried to hide it in your luggage, it would look to the x-ray tech like you were trying to disguise a bomb as a gun.

Yes, airport security will take away your magnets, wires, batteries and pointy slugs. And you too.

Re:Airports

[Anonymous Coward]

it would look to the x-ray tech like you were trying to disguise a bomb as a gun.

That phrase alone deserves to be modded up to 5, Funny.

Re:Airports

[(H)elix1]

Will the airport security start taking away your magnets, and wires?

Yes, and worse.

I do way to many trans-Atlantic flights. Before 9/11, I pulled out the breadboard and iron and made an external battery pack for my iPaq. Lets just say it was not well received when they scanned it at the airport, and again on the way back. No humor at all...

Re:Airports

[Anonymous Coward]

Muh-huh. Give me a couple of days and I'll have that thing looking just like a CD player and not a pistol. Not to mention one would probably be able to assemble most of the pieces on the plane...

Re:Airports

[confused one]

A rapid fire gun propelling paper clip wire sized needles would be quite effective... Dead is dead.

Artillery

[f97tosc]

I think there will be quite some time before we get Gauss handguns. In terms of energy content, batteries are much more cumbersome than gunpowder.

Artillery is another matter, the next generation carriers (in 10-15 years) are planned to be equipped with Gauss cannon, with superior range and accuracy. Then of course you have the energy from a nuclear power plant.

Tor

Re:Artillery

[NewtonsLaw]

And not only will such a cannon hurl its projectile a long distance to the target -- it will also hurl your metal fillings, belt-buckle, wrist-watch (probably with hand still attached) and any other nearby electrical conductors as well ;-)

Re:Artillery

[prepp]

linkage!

Re:Artillery

[Anonymous Coward]

In the future, all sailors will wear nothing but spandex and rubber boots.

Re:Artillery

[IWannaBeAnAC]

I agree completely. The web has been around for a long time now, why is it still possible to make unsubstantiated claims with no links???

Re:Artillery

[cybermace5]

Then of course you have the energy from a nuclear power plant.

With the toys discussed in the previous Slashdot article, that's not a problem for handguns either.

It's just a question....

[Homology]

... of how much energy you have available. A slug from this gun will never have any high velocity nor any significant penetration power. The energy released by the handheld batteries are quite simply not enough.

Re:It's just a question....

[Sly Mongoose]

A slug from this gun will never have any high velocity nor any significant penetration power.

So you need a back-pack power supply or better battery technology. The weapon is still viable.

Re:It's just a question....

[iggymanz]

or a very long extension cord

Not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Metal storm still uses electricity to trigger the firing mechanism (which is how it can fire so quickly) - but explosives are discharged to push the projectile forwards and out of the barrel.

The gauss pistol presented here uses magnetic propulsion that is completely silent - no explosives. The only moving part is the projectile itself.

Thank you Slashdot!

[PseudoThink]

Now I have all I need to build my own NUCLEAR POWERED GAUSS CANNON!

Pls post more info on how to refine radioactive materials...oh, wait, you've already got my back.

Slashdot...news for terrorists. Stuff that works.

Re:Thank you Slashdot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cannon?

I want an orbital mass driver!

Because pounding it from orbit is the only way to be sure.

It explains why...

[cliffy2000]

Gauss looks evil. I suggest that he knew that his math theories would eventually be used for cool weaponry.

Do you feel lucky punk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-huh. I know what you're thinking. Does he have six AA batteries or only five AA batteries in that thing?

Re:Do you feel lucky punk?

[kfg]

Is that a six sub-D cell R/C stick pack in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

I'll be bahck. . . I've got to go get a recharge.

Yippee-kay-ay, motherfucker, I've got the Energizer.

Chemical propellant? Chemical propellant? We don't need no steenking chemical propellant.

Gaaaaaaus me to the moon. . .

KFG

WOW

[Mattwolf7]

That is so cool, I want one for my birthday!

Me: "Hey mom can I get a Gauss Pistol?"
Mom: "Sure whatever"
Me: Shoots brother. (Silent but deadly) =)

Sidetracked.

[chendo]

What is a Russian software developer making gauss guns for? Isn't he supposed to be making lethal software?

Re:Sidetracked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, boy, Sklaryov is getting himself into MORE trouble? *sigh*

Re:Sidetracked.

[Anonymous Coward]

He was originally cracking copy protection but was worried the US might jail him so he moved to creating firearms.
God bless America

Re:Sidetracked.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait until some outsourcer gets ahold of him. Lethal software won't be far behind. Lethal for the maintainers, that is.

In case of /.ing...

[n0nsensical]

...which seems to be taking place as we speak...
Link to more theory than you probably care to know
More Prototypes
Links to more than more than you probably care to know
Barry's Coilgun Design Site

Lame

[iomega]

anyone who has played xcom knows just how much better the alien stuff is than that lame human built gauss garbage. Just tides u over till u get some sonic pulsars

~~ unimpressed

Re:Lame

[pdbogen]

Damn, man, you fucked this shit up all crazy-like.

Humans research laser weapons.
Aliens bring us plasma weapons.
The Heavy Plasma Cannon is the best infantry weapon in the game, except that it's heavy.
Laser weapons are actually quite good- The rifle is accurate, doesn't use "ammo," and is relatively light.

Re:Lame

[iomega]

but you do have to admit, other than killing a lobsterman with a vibroblade nothing is more satisfying than detonating the whole bottom floor of a house with 2 or 3 well placed pulsars..

and anyway,,
snap shots with the harpoon gun are the way to go :-)

Re:Lame

[ThereIsNoSporkNeo]

Personally, I prefered taking my designated Sniper and flying him onto the roof of the ship. Then I'd wander around with all the others while killing all the enemies from the top of the ship.

(Beat Xcom II in superhuman)

And just to keep this -slightly- on topic...

The gauss weapons suck compared to the laser weapons of the original.

the origin of the Gauss Pistol

[kurosawdust]

Oh wait, wait, I know this story, a math prof of mine told me in class once...Gauss's elementary school teacher wanted to keep his class busy so he told them to sit at their desks and sum the integers from 1 to 100 so Gauss got pissed off and shot him! ...right?...why is everyone staring at me like that?

Re:the origin of the Gauss Pistol

[ugly_a]

Because... I'll be shooting SOMEONE pretty soon.

That's nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Potato launchers are better. You take
a long plastic pipe. At one end you can
put in some explosives light it and boom,
Spuds ahoy!

Actually, what happened to my friend is
he tried that and it got him into some trouble with the police.

Re:That's nothing

[NewtonsLaw]

Actually, what happened to my friend is he tried that and it got him into some trouble with the police

Well maybe he should have aimed it the other way - duh!

Did they return "frier"?

That's amazing...

[NanoGator]

... I was just thinking about what a big attractive target my office mate's ass can be.

Re:That's amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why dont you tell your office mate that you find their ass attractive?

Re:That's amazing...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot. You are expected to find your male office mate's ass to not only be attractive, but also inviting.

Is this how...

[EverDense]

Is this how that big ball in Raiders of the Lost Ark worked?

Russion?

[momerath2003]

A Russion software developer...

Dang, those Russ charged particles. They'll get you every time. Or did you mean Russian? I suggest a slight change of vowels.

;-)

In Soviet Russia...

[d3faultus3r]

Gauss guns make you.

just....

[Anonymous Coward]

....to get my daily dose of weenie points, you should've probably used http://www.farfuture.net/ for the traveller link.

I guess he figured that Slashdot readers had. . .

[kfg]

these, ya know, computers, and could use them to perform a simple arithmatic unit conversion such as you might find on a 7th grade flash quiz.

Judging from the response perhaps he overestimated his audience.

P.T Barnum lives!

KFG

Re:Metal Storm for the NES

[joe_bruin]

i remember metalstorm, it was a pretty good nes game. your weapon was the m308 gunner, however, and had nothing to do with gauss guns (it did have and antigravity unit, though).

here is a graphic of the original box:
http://www.atarihq.com/tsr/nes/metalstorm-b.jpg

here is the story line, right from the manual:

STORY

The year is 2501, and the dawning of a new century has brought mankind to the
brink of disaster. The powerful LaserGun on the planet Pluto's battle station
"Cyberg" is wreaking havoc. It was originally designed to protect Earth from
hostile aliens, but, due to a computer malfunction, is systematically
destroying all the planets in the Solar System! Most recently the Earth Nation
watched helplessly as Neptune exploded.

The system's self-destruct device could stop the LaserGun, but it has
mysteriously jammed and is aimed at Earth. Even if the device can be manually
activated, there is still only a slim chance that Earth can be saved. Your
mission is to enter Cyberg using the most sophisticated weaponry available, the
M-308 Gunner, and unlock that self-destruct device!

(Picture of the M-308 Gunner)
M-308 Gunner
Height: 9 feet
Weight: 2100 lbs.
Material: Geopolyum Alloy
Generator Power: 1300 KW
Special Function: Gravity Flip

I Still Prefer the Lepage Glue Gun

[good soldier svejk]

"What "Lepage gun?" Colonel Korn inquired with curiosity.

"The new three-hundred-and-forty-four-millimeter Lepage glue gun," Yossarian answered. "It glues a whole formation of planes together in mid-air."

- Catch-22, Joseph Heller

All kidding aside, the Germans did have Gauss gun research projects among their myriad secret weapons. Back then they called them "rail guns" as often as not. Not to be confused with these.

Ah, vindicaiton

[Coilgun]

I've wanted to build one of these things for a while (see my name), but I've never gotten around to it. I especially wanted to try to use liquid N2 to cool the solenoids and increase conductivity. Fun with massive amounts of electricity AND potentially disfiguring chemicals. Any thoughts (maybe from physics gurus out there?)

Sorry, have to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, Gauss Gun Shoots YOU!

Re:Sorry, have to do it

[AntiOrganic]

Haha, Soviet Russia. I get it.

Seriously, you people need to stop saying the same things over and over again.

Re:Sorry, have to do it

[lowe0]

Umm... anyone who passed freshman physics already knew that.

Newton's laws, baby.

Wow...

[TopShelf]

Talk about a blast from the past - a link to Traveller on the net! You've gotta love a game where your character can be killed off during the character generation process...

Re:Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean there's an actual GAME? Holy crap, no wonder why my 92-year old Navy dude kept on croaking...

einstein on war

[Anonymous Coward]

einstein hated war and militarism

On the subject of silencers...

[BlackJac]

In a sniper rifle, subsonic bullets wouldn't be a huge concern... the projectile breaks the sound barrier _after_ it leaves the gun, so they wouldn't hear the muzzle blast, just the sonic boom.

Oh, yeah! Also, it is perfectly legal in the United States to build a firearm for personal use as long as it isn't full-auto or you intend to sell it. But, as has been pointed out, I'm not even sure this would classify as a firearm.

And, for the record... I WANT ONE!

--Another libertarian/anarchist "geek-with-a-gun"

Re:On the subject of silencers...

[August_zero]

the projectile breaks the sound barrier _after_ it leaves the gun

Please explain this, I admit that I don't know all that much about fire arms per se, but how can the projectile accelerate after it leaves the barrel? If its not carrying its own propellent the only force acting on it is drag which would decelerate it.

Re:On the subject of silencers...

[BlackJac]

It doesn't accelerate after leaving the barrel, but it doesn't break the sound barrier until after. Think of it this way:

(suppresed rifle fires here)------------(bullet reaches speed of sound here)---------(people here)

Therefore, people will only hear sound from the direction the bullet was at when it broke the sound barrier. With short range shooting, this is irrelevant, but with long range sniper situations, it comes into play. Especially in urban areas where there are structures to deflect the sound waves from the sonic boom.

Also, on the subject of 'tater guns and such... You're probably right, but I think that has to do with local ordinances. Last I checked, under U.S. _federal_ law, it is legal to build a weapon for personal use, as long as it isn't a "destructive device" or a full-auto or whatever.

oooo....

[MoFoQ]

take a syringe/needle and eject an iron mixture into eggs and boom....egg gauss guns....perfect for long-range egging.

Russion?

[Anonymous Coward]

What language is that in?

roflmfao

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know that gullable is not in the dictionary?

Re:roflmfao

[Anonymous Coward]

Really??

design nitpick.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen the picures as well as the ones from other sites. My question is, why the hell do they think that the capacitors NEED to be IN the gun ?

A beltpack would allow more capacitors and batteries to be carried. A light, thin wire could connect both the gun and the beltpack.

Thinking of a pun (rhymes with gun... hrmm...)

[ToadMan8]

SO I was readin' this guy's webpage and was thinkin' "Wow, this guy's site is bulletproof; his server is solid man..." then I was thinkin' "hey, good thing - the guy makes gauss guns..." Get it? Good thing server is bulletproof, makes gauss guns... Ya know, like 'cause the guy better have a bulletproof server 'cause it could get all accidentally shot up and stuff with those Gauss guns he's makin'?! Heh... Bedtime. Please karma gods be good to me.

Gauss guns...with lasers attached to their heads!

[Xeger]

If the technology gets good enough, I imagine air resistance will become a problem, which will necessitate a pilot laser whose beam path lies along the barrel. The pilot laser flickers on, ionizes all of the air in the barrel and creates a semi-vacuum inside the barrel and along the bullet's flight path. Then the bullet fires, attaining higher top speeds because of the negligible air resistance.

Maybe eventually the laser will grow powerful enough to vaporize the bullet before it hits the target...so it turns from a gauss gun into a pulse plasma gun!

I'm sure power supplies will need to improve by four or more orders of magnitude before any of this happens. They'll need to get smaller as well, and generate far less heat.

No, it shouldn't

[Anonymous Coward]

E = 1/2 * m * v^2. Do the math.

The people that post to /. these days... sheesh.

Your arguements are moot.

[SaDan]

http://www.airbornelaser.com/

It's going to take more than tin-foil hats to hide from this thing. :-)

Read Snow Crash, if you haven't allready

[el_munkie]

Of all the cool shit in that book, the second coolest was Reason, a nuclear-powered, multi-barreled railgun with badass computer targeting.

The coolest was the nuclear powered dogs, so I assume there will be a Slashdot article tomorrow on picking up strays, extracting their brains, and putting them in supersonic-capable carapaces.

Re:Read Snow Crash, if you haven't allready

[PseudoThink]

lol, hell yeah man. I've read it twice, and I'm on my second trip through Cryptonomicon now. Don't forget the coolness factor of the glass knives, the smartwheel skateboards, the magnapoons, etc. I actually tried to get a personalized license plate that read "POON ME", but it didn't make it past their damned vulgarity censors. Man, that book was great.

From an avid paintball player...

[Skevin]

With a tight spring and the velocity nut dialed real close to the hammer, my Autococker can put frozen Reese's Peanutbutter Bites through a few coffee cans. Slapping a Sandridge kit on this puppy lets me go full auto, assuming that the odd shape of certain candy doesn't cause the gun to jam...

Solomon

You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Cordath]

Interestingly enough, the per capita number of guns in Canada is a mere fraction of that in the U.S.. Coincidentally, so are violent crimes and home firearms accidents. Heck, even our military is pretty touchy feely. Half the time we're not sure whether to call it an army or a "peace-keeping force"! The world knows we're F'ing peaceniks, but our biggest fear is the nuclear fallout we're going to get when some pissed off terrorists finally nuke our Southern neighbors.

There is a fine line between a fun hobby and weapons research. The weapon described in the above article is powerful enough to cause severe injury or even kill a target, is silent, and is small enough to be concealed. It's a gun, not a toy. Construction parts and ammunition for these guns are not currently controlled, unlike conventional firearms ammunition. It is quite likely a round fired from one of these guns cannot be matched to the gun that fired it, as with conventional firearms. To sum up, what we have here is a recipe for a gun that can be made from readily available parts and may also not leave incriminating evidence on every round fired. Ammunition for these suckers could be as simple as some batteries and ball bearings. Sounds like a tailor made gang weapon to me.

Is this man's website then, evil? I'd say it isn't. He's an innocent. He has no idea what people will do with his small evolutionary contribution to gauss gun technology. In this sense he's a lot like Pandora. However, the box was probably already open. There are probably several other similar and perhaps even more advanced designs out there anyways, some possibly on the net.

What is important is that theis site's readers realize that designs as refined as this one are not fun projects. They're dangerous weapons. If you build one, make sure you have adequate firearms safety training and follow the proper safety precautions when storing it. Sooner or later somebody's kid is going to shoot themselves with one of these. Don't let it be yours.

think, silly!

[twitter]

,i>Sorry, no. Metal Storm is something entirely different. (And, incidentally, *way* more powerful and practical at this point.)

Duh, why don't you put the two together. Loading mechanism suck regerdless of propellent.

Nothing too revolutionary here, anyway. "Metal Storm" is no more sophisticated than a Roman candle. Military minds move so slowly. It has something to do with distrust and paranoia.

Well, after Skylarov

[roystgnr]

Perhaps he's planning to visit a conference in the United States and wants to be able to escape again.

ERgghhhgg

[djupedal]

I'll see your gauss pistol and raise you my degauss automatic....wanna see it again?

Suburban Varment Gun!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the thing for discuraging the Racoons, cats, woodchucks and squirrels form invading my garden. I don't have the neighbors pissed from the .22, and since I just give them a nasty whack at 33m/s I don't have to bury any carcases. My Zuchini is Safe!

SOUNDLESS HUNTING GUN? rrright

[xpnd]

oh man, this is freeky.. soundless hunting gun... rrriiigghhhtttt. hunting..... PEOPLE!!!!

Re:No sound! Whaaa!

[ratfynk]

What a moronic concept no sound my butt, The sound of projectile reaching the speed of sound is noiseless? If you attach a sound buffering device, (silencer) the thing would require much more energy to reach the same muzzle velocity.

When you shoot something, It does not hear the sound first. What a concept. This toy is firing iron projectiles so accuracy will be dependant on wind, projectile balance,and stability.

In short it is useless as a sniper or hunting weapon and will remain so. It is obvious that few of the good readers on slashdot know squat about hunting either. You do not shoot unless you are going to kill with one shot any experienced game hunter will tell you that.Leave it to Americans to concieve of a second shot for hunting. In Canada we joke big time about sound shots made by dumb Yankies. No wonder the animal rights people are so set against hunting, Americans hunting deer with assalt rifles. What a concept.

All Americans are not that stupid it seems that is a majority situation though. Mod me down I am flaming you guys for being silly.

Build your own Weapons of Mass Destruction

[EqualSlash]

Weapons of Mass destruction

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Kintanon]

You know what else is small, silent, and powerful enough to kill a man? A rock.
And I can fit a whole shitload of rocks in my pocket.

Watchout! I'm an arms dealer!

Kintanon

Now laws against arrows

[NotQuiteReal]

Apparently you can loose arrows without a problem. sheriff shot by arrow

I also suspect there aren't many laws against whacking golf balls around or smacking rocks with a tennis racket. Both of which are activities I participated in as a kid.

Coincidentally, as a kid (14-ish) I walked around residential neighborhoods with a .22 rifle to and from the local "open space" (before it was a "park", where you can't even pick the flowers now) and never did anything stupid with real guns. This was mid 70's California.

We were once stopped by cops and they just said unload the guns and go home. heh. Those were the days.

Re:Metal Storm for the NES

[Zerth]

Sweet, I've been trying to remember the name of that game for a while now.

Yay, emu!

Here, have a mirror

[Biogenesis]

http://members.optushome.com.au/dbsite1/www.pskovi nfo.ru/coilgun/index.htm

abount time i used the webspace my ISP gives me for something usefull.

Dumb seppos

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go on keeping shooting each other, the rest of us living in sane countries will keep on laughing at you.

Re:Dumb seppos

[Anonymous Coward]

amen, fukking dum ass yanks

Where did the rabbi go?

[jerryasher]

What happened to the rabbi at JPFO? The Ask the Rabbi column was wonderful stuff.

Re:Where did the rabbi go?

[Rolo Tomasi]

He had a horrible accident while cleaning his gun.

Re:Where did the rabbi go?

[jerryasher]

How do I fertilize my lawn with used motor oil? Are you serious?

How safe is that environmentally?

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[CAIMLAS]

Interestingly enough, the per capita number of guns in Canada is a mere fraction of that in the U.S.. Coincidentally, so are violent crimes and home firearms accidents.
</I>
Interstingly enough, the per capita number of people in Canada is a mere fraction of that in hte U.S.. Coincidentally, so are the number of homes and people living in them that have accidents.

Really now. Using your train of logic (which is to say, one without an engine):

Interestingly enough, I had eggs for breakfast. Coincidentally, I had chicken for dinner. Of course this means that I consumed a hen and her offspring, even though I have nothing more than circumstantial and seemingly mutually supportive facts, they don't necessarily coincide to prove anything.

Go take a college course in symbolic logic, or something. Please. At the very least, before you're old enough to be legally independent.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[ShavenYak]

Interstingly enough, the per capita number of people in Canada is a mere fraction of that in hte U.S.. Coincidentally, so are the number of homes and people living in them that have accidents.


No, the per capita number of people anywhere in the world is by definition 1, unless there are NO people there, in which case it is undefined.

Go take a college course in symbolic logic, or something.

Perhaps you should learn what per capita means before advising others on their academic needs.

People per capita?

[pkhuong]

Interstingly enough, the per capita number of people in Canada is a mere fraction of that in hte U.S..

Less people per capita in Canada than in the US, eh? I guess we tend to have heads more often than most Americans you know. Go read a dictionary.
(Canadian, and proud of it - currently in the US, and happy to be able to travel more or less freely)

Here's a hint: 'per capita'=='per head'='per person'. There are less guns per people here (in the country where BB replicas are now mostly banned), and less violent crime victims per 1000.

To the grandparent: It may be so. However, if someone wants to kill, he or she will either: -do so impulsively (Use a knife or a gun. who cares?) -plan it. Triads have no problem doing violent crimes in Montreal and Toronto, afaik.

I dare advance that the problems might be in population concentrations.

In any case, i prefer knowing that if anything happens, the current greatest power on Earth has less chances of turning into some sort of dictatorship. Noticed how many of those 'revolutions' were led, in part or fully, by military and police leaders?

When only a few people have better ability to defend themselves and attack others, this is where power truly lies - not in the politicians, but in those who have the right bear arms. This power is dormant and easily forgotten in industrialized countries, since those people themselves seem to forget their own power, and, more importantly, believe in the current system. However, the moment they decide to organize themselves and become the leaders, it surely won't be MADD, or the general unarmed public that will stop them.
--

Re:People per capita?

[CAIMLAS]

In any case, i prefer knowing that if anything happens, the current greatest power on Earth has less chances of turning into some sort of dictatorship. Noticed how many of those 'revolutions' were led, in part or fully, by military and police leaders?

When only a few people have better ability to defend themselves and attack others, this is where power truly lies - not in the politicians, but in those who have the right bear arms. This power is dormant and easily forgotten in industrialized countries, since those people themselves seem to forget their own power, and, more importantly, believe in the current system. However, the moment they decide to organize themselves and become the leaders, it surely won't be MADD, or the general unarmed public that will stop them.


Wisely said and insightful.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Dolohov]

The "per capita number of people" in Canada is ONE, just like in the United States. I suggest you look up the term "per capita" before you look like a complete retard using a phrase like that again.

Kinetic E = 1/2 mv^2

[pkhuong]

F=ma
Work=F*l=mal

If acceleration is constant no matter what, then higher mass=more kinetic energy.

OTOH, if WORK is constant, well, kinetic energy is the same(as long as the projectile has a mass, i guess :).

Great

[ParticleMan911]

Who needs to sneak a gun on a plane now, when you can just build it while in the air?

The US citizen might know what foot are

[aepervius]

But to think that the rest of the world would even care what imperial unit is, well maybe he was a bit foolish. as for overestimating the audiance, care to explain how he was overestimating it ? I rather think it was "prejudicing" it against americo-UK centrism (the two main country using imperial units).

Thomas Jefferson say, "You are an idiot!"

[Anonymous Coward]

The first part, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", is a subordinate clause. It cannot stand on its own. It is subordinate to the independent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". This clause is a complete sentence and is the message of the Second Amendment. The subordinate clause is an important justification to support this message, not the only one.

Also, the founders' messages are clear:
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." --Thomas Jefferson

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. --James Madison, Federalist, No. 46.

But your buddy Clinton agrees with you,
"The Constitution is a radical document. It is up to the government to reign in people's rights."
-President Bill Clinton

You, my friend, are an idiot and a likely troll.

put into perspective.

[Vellmont]

The article says the muzzle velocity is a mere 33 meters/second. For comparison a slingshot is about 95 meters/second, and a BB gun shoots at about 100 meters/second. High powered BB guns are available that fire at around 240 meters/second.

In other words this "dangerous weapon" has 1/3 the velocity of a slingshot. Yes, slingshots are dangerous if miss-used, but this thing is hardly as dangerous as you're making it out to be. Do you think we should have regulations on slingshots too?

Re:put into perspective.

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as actual firearms go, a .22 Long Rifle has a muzzle velocity of around 955 feet/second, or 318 meters/second. A .25 ACP, which has been known to bounce off foreheads of people who've been shot with it, has a muzzle velocity of 760 feet/second, or 253 meters/second.
If you tried to use this toy as a weapon, you would probably be best served using it as a club

Interesting case in point: IRAQ

[homb]

I like the James Madison comment:
The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Federalist #46.

Look at where we are today:
The US invades Iraq. Every Iraqi is armed, with a AK47/74 or even RPG-7. See the problems the US army has in controlling the country. Therefore, the civilians bearing arms works very well. See also the Swiss.

Now let's look at the US today. Imagine that Iraq invades the US and manages to wipe its regular army. Then what? Bow down to the invader? Hell no, right? So you pick up a gun and get into a guerilla cell. But where can you get that damn gun? The government had convinced everyone that they weren't responsible enough to own guns....

Re:Interesting case in point: IRAQ

[Lars T.]

Every Iraqi is armed, with a AK47/74 or even RPG-7.

Ahh, so why didn't they do anything against Saddam? Didn't Bush claim that almost every Iraqi hated him? Yet they wait to start fighting until the Americans come?

Re:Interesting case in point: IRAQ

[Anonymous Coward]

Good point. There are only two answers: Either the guns did not exist, or Bush was lying.

Re:Interesting case in point: IRAQ

[homb]

Ahh, so why didn't they do anything against Saddam? Didn't Bush claim that almost every Iraqi hated him? Yet they wait to start fighting until the Americans come?

2 reasons:
1- there are many ways to keep a people controlled, including incredible brutality
2- the Sunnis were the ones armed, mostly. And they had quite a few privileges under Saddam, and were much better off that their Shiaa brethren.

Re:Interesting case in point: IRAQ

[Lars T.]

Ahh, so Americans need to be armed so they can defend themselves against an evil gubmint - let's just hope it doesn't get too brutal or it's all in vain.

Re:Interesting case in point: IRAQ

[JavaLord]

IRAQ is an interesting case study. The problem (or America's good fortune) is that not every Iraqi was armed. For the most part, only Sunni's were, which are a small percentage of the overall population (somewhere in the 20% bracket?)

If every Iraqi citizen was armed, Sadaam and his sons would have been dead long ago because the majority of the people would have had the correct equipment to overthrow him.

If they didn't want to overthrow him, and America or any other army came in they would have a hell of a time trying to occupy Iraq.

I think this was the point our founding fathers were making, if the citizenship is armed the government will always have to do the will of the people and any invading force will have one heck of a time.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[AvitarX]

The Grandparent is an idiot, I won't deny that. But the per capita insedense of violent crime in the US is strongly linked to the population density.

So I could argue that the lower rates of crime in Canada is less because of population density.

If someone want sto debunk me all you need to do is find the crime rate of Montreal and an equivently dense US city.

Of course I could say "well everyone know the canucks are peacenics" (as the great grandparent said) and that is the cause of low crime high gun control and not the gun control causing everything else.

Or I could say that Canada is so fucking could that there is no way on hell you are going to have any kind of a street life.

I could also argue that the existance of large peacenic countries has been sustained by us warmongering Americans, and while you were busy implementing universal healthcare we were busy making sure that no other country got powerful enough to start another world war (thank you nukes and anti starwars treaty).

In the end my point is that comparing two countries is kind of pointless. In the US when gun restrictions are slightly losended (carying allowed) crime drops. That is not to say that insane gun control laws would not also drop crime, it is just to say insane restrictions would not also drop crime, just that it is not the only way.

Lastly, I read in another post that this thing has 1.5J of energy. I can punch a hell of a lot stronger then this, and probably with a litle bit a training throw a knife far more deadlier. I did not RTFA but it loked from the pictures to be about like a BB gun, which is actually considered a dangerous toy, but a toy none the less.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[r00zky]

Heh, good catch
But I think he's somehow right, per capita number of people in the US is >1 due to overweight problems ;)

Disclaimer: It's a joke, I'm fat too...

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Ibn al Arabi]

ROFLMAO

I'm sure those crip electricians are working overtime on this one. Why blow $25 on a saturday night special when you can build your own gauss gun, not to mention ammo? Are you aware that they generally don't get caught killing people anyway? The cops couldn't care less, as long as they are blowing away other gang members, get a clue.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[cei]

Small, silent and powerful enough to kill a man? Flatulence!

Myth

[Mark_MF-WN]

It's a fraction, but it's a pretty big one -- something like 1/3rd per capita. That's not actually a whole lot less -- Canada is better armed than most nations other than the US. What do you expect from a country where everyone's descended from hunters and trappers?

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Type-R]

Sure enough, the number one weapon used to kill fellow human beings in the city in Canada where I live is..... A knife.

I'm waiting for the day where I have to carry registration to cut my steak... I'll feel so much safer <sarcasam>

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hrmp. The funny thing is that in Europe the suicide rate is much higher then the US. If fact if you add up the gun deaths and suicide rates in the US vs the suicide rates and gun deaths in European countries they come out roughly equal.

So which would you rather be? Be free or be depressed?

Anyways in every instance were people pass more restrictive gun laws the violent crime rates go up. In every instance were they pass legistation for concealed weapons the violent crime rates go down. If you look at britian or australia they're rates go up and they pass stricter laws and they have no effect. If you look at texas (or any other state) that passes concealed weapon laws that allow people to carry weapons violent crime goes down.

If you make it illigal to carry guns then only criminals have guns.

Anyways in the USA if you look at the levels were firearm ownership is the highest density per person the amount of people getting shot is the least vs areas were gun ownership is the least the deaths from gunshots are the highest.

The gun death statistics are indidicative of sociatal problems not gun control problems.

2nd amendent

[Mark_MF-WN]

Sure has done a heck of a lot to keep illegal guns off the street though. As a law abiding citizen I'm glad to know that I can't buy the same kind of firearms that my coke dealing cousin can illegally. Makes me feel real damn safe at night.

As a law abiding citizen, you can't legally buy the coke he buys either. What on earth is your point? Some wierd sense of entitlement? SHOULD you be able to do what a coke dealer does?

Other factors

[Mark_MF-WN]

Other factors, like whether the bullet tilts as it travels, whether or not it fragments, and other interesting things also make a difference.

Where's my

[Mark_MF-WN]

Where are our computer-aimed rail-gun turrets? Video games have made it quite clear that we should have these things by now!!

Yay.

[hoggy]

Nice, non-chemical slugthrower that should appeal to fans of Science Fiction and related games, like Traveller and many others.

Dude constructs new silent killing device. Slashdot celebrates geekiness.

And this rock keeps tigers away.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you see any tigers? No? That's because this rock keeps them away.

Don't you think that there's even the slightest chance of the difference in crimes between Canada and the United States is caused by cultural differences?

I lived close to the border of Canadia before. I've even gone there a time or three. I've spoken to random Canadians, both online and offline. You know what I've discovered? The lot of you seem just a wee bit less.. Well, you don't seem to have the high asshole to human being ratio we have down here in the States. ;)

I've known plenty of people who own guns. Not surprisingly, I don't know anyone who's shot a person with a gun, aside from veterans of the military in times of war. Hell, I own one myself, and I've never shot anybody.

One can't just say, "Guns cause violent crime." One must look at other factors. Look at our inner cities, for example. If we somehow managed to strip guns from gangs and such, they'd go at it with baseball bats and knives. Now, if we somehow managed to get rid of gangs (here's a random thought - maybe we should try educating people. Wouldn't that be fun?) - I'm willing to bet that would take a large chunk out of our fun happy violent crime rating.

As for accidents in the home, eh, Darwin lives. I've read plenty of stories about home accidents, and some of them are so ridiculously unbelievable it isn't funny. Stories of people leaving loaded guns just laying around, and having never taught their children that a gun is something to be respected and not a toy.

People cleaning guns without first checking to make sure the weapon isn't loaded. (Um.. Duh?)

"They're dangerous weapons. If you build one, make sure you have adequate firearms safety training and follow the proper safety precautions when storing it. Sooner or later somebody's kid is going to shoot themselves with one of these. Don't let it be yours."

I think this is the best advice I've ever read in a Slashdot post.

Unfortunately, such advice is in vain with regard to the United States. There's a fast growing trend (and has been for some time) of parental irresponsibility down here. If little Johnny shoots himself or a friend, it won't be the parents' fault, it'll be the fault of Smith and Wesson, or the NRA, or society. It's never the parents' fault, no.

Guns attract burglars - valuable swag

[JimmytheGeek]

Put "Valuable Gun Collection Inside" on your lawn. Put a sticker "This vehicle protected by Smith and Wesson - easily pawned pistol in glovebox" on your bumber. See if your localized crime rate goes up or down.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[arose]

I know that it is possible to defend yourself against a knife. Try that against someone 10m away from you who has a gun.

Check your local laws.

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's illegal to build a friggin' potato gun (which, coincidentially, it is in many areas now), I'm sure they can make it illegal to build your own gauss rifle.

Of course, if you build a suitable battlemech to mount it on, I'm not sure they'd be able to stop you. :P

Re:Check your local laws.

[BlackJac]

"Sandrail with Gauss cannon mounted on it ownz ATF SWAT team. Pictures at 11." :-)

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Type-R]

That mentality is the number one thing that gets people killed in knife fights here... What exactly are you going to block that knife with?

Defence seems to boil down to the same ideas as a gun fight. a) Don't get into it. b) if you do, make sure you have a knife with you, the one with out the knife is the one that ends up bleeding to death. c) if you both have knives/guns, and refuse to stop the fight, at least one will probably end up with serious injuries.

The local law enforcement here it taught to keep at least 10m from the guy with the knife, unless they've already shot him. Inside of that, and you don't have many choices if he rushes you. Of course our city cops are amazingly bad shots as well. ;)

"hopelessly irrational mind"

[mfehrenbach]

the second amendment in no way protects the individual's right to bear arms. you should read it sometime before using it as a base for your arguments.

Re:"hopelessly irrational mind"

[Thoth Ptolemy]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Heh...so is that saying you have a right to bear arms, assuming you join the military AND supply your own firearm? Hmm...

Re:"hopelessly irrational mind"

[Thoth Ptolemy]

Heh...so is that saying you have a right to bear arms, assuming you join the military AND supply your own firearm?

Hmm...

Re:"hopelessly irrational mind"

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringe..."

I believe "people" refers to those who are governed and "shall not be infringed" means shall not be infringed. It would be kind of pointless to say that "people" means people in the army/militia, wouldn't it? They already have weapons.

Re:"hopelessly irrational mind"

[Country_hacker]

US Code Chapter 10 Sec 311
EXPCITE TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

HEAD Sec. 311. Militia: composition and class

STATUTE (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

So basically if you're a male American citizen between the age of 17 and 45, you're in the militia. No formal declaration of military intent needed.

Re:"hopelessly irrational mind"

[Anonymous Coward]

The millitary is classified as an "Army", which is in no way shape or form a millitia. The National Guard is closer, but still not the same. Notice the "right of the people" part?

Militias are groups of civillians (NOT paid soldiers) with the intent of defending thier homes and/or homeland. They are not an official part of thier host government (Although they may agree to follow orders if they so desire, they are not at all obligated to do more than expected of an ordinary citizen)

Re:"hopelessly irrational mind"

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be kind of ridiculous, since every other right listed in the bill of rights applies to individuals. Individuals have a right to free speech, not the militia,...individuals have a right to assembly, not the militia...the militia doesn't have a right to practice whatever religion they want, individuals do. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure? Oh, that's indivduals, too, not the militia. So, every right listed in the bill of rights applies to individuals, except the right to keep and bear arms, which lists a right for the government. Riiiiiight...sorry buddy, that dog won't hunt.

Re:"hopelessly irrational mind"

[mfehrenbach]

it specifies organization and regulation. also, a militia is not the army, but it is also not individual citizens.

Re:"hopelessly irrational mind"

[mfehrenbach]

military law doesn't define things in america, sadly.

Slashdoted

[Endimiao]

Site says: Bandwidth limit exceded

kids!

[koekepeer]

jezus christ just state the word 'gun' in the presence of a bunch of americans and let the flamewars begin...

methinks that for this kind of topic, moderators should be negative, negative, negative. >95% of the discussion of this topic is not about the topic at all.

that's a high score, even for slashdot. bunch of kids!

PS. i am aware of the fact that this post is off-topic ;)

Summing

[maroberts]

Gauss should've shot himself, as being the genius he was, he would have been able to do this in seconds.

Integers from 1 to 100 is easy, as each pair makes 101

So we have
1 + 100 = 101
2 + 99 = 101 ...
10 + 91 = 101 ..
40 + 61 = 101 ..
50 + 51 = 101

The result (50 * 101 = 5050) is simplicty itself.

waits for someone to point out flaws...

Re:Summing

[wirelessbuzzers]

Yes. He did do it in seconds. But it wasnt 1-100, it was some weird arith sequence.

Coolest line

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm sure they'll listen to reason"

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Anonymous Coward]

You looked at the pictures did you? Well that just about makes you an expert then!

It looks like something else that is considered a toy, ergo it must also be a toy.

Hey, some BB guns are pretty good replicas of proper guns. Therefor those proper guns must be toys as well!

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Anonymous Coward]

The world knows we're F'ing peaceniks

Umm...

Just what I needed

[SEWilco]

I hope I can use it in my city so I can shoot some of these wild gauss which are becoming too common. They're around every pond, wandering across golf courses. The canada gauss are even ignoring cars passing nearby.

Hmm?

[wberg]

The page dosen't work for me :( Bandwidth Limit Exceeded The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later. Gah, i wanna look :(

Recoil

[plexxer]

I thought the biggest problem with making handheld versions of this was recoil - using mulitple magnets to accellerate the target and the weapon recoils at each magnetic acceleration point, making it rather difficult to hold (at least, that's what I was told by my 12th grade Physics teacher when me and a couple of my friends got it into our heads that this would be easy to build and the coolest thing -ever-) :)

I haven't read the article (./'d), so maybe he's come up with a way aroudn this or only uses one magnet?

I'd like to talk about guns and ammo too

[Rogerborg]

But I've just cum in my pants, and I think I hear my mom bringing my lunch down to the basement.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[plugger]

Well, you could argue that running away is a way of defending oneself against a knife. I don't have any personal experience to back this up, but I imagine that running away is a far more effective defence against a knife than a gun.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[AvitarX]

Actually I was revering to what looked like tiny wholes in tins cans.

Not the appearance of the gun itself.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[SmackCrackandPot]

Unless the crazy guy decides to throw the knive.

"Crazy Americans"

[fantomas]

"Thank you for officially beginning the obligatory Second Amendment flame-war. I will counter by making the obligatory mention of Columbine. "Columbine". Your turn."

... And I in turn will make the obligatory rest-of-the-worldian observation
"wow, aren't these crazy Americans obsessed by guns?"

Re:"Crazy Americans"

[Anonymous Coward]

I shall then provide the American defense to that accusation: "Commies. Nazis."

Re:"Crazy Americans"

[josh crawley]

You almost forgot: "You'd all be speaking German or Japanese if it wasn't for us."

Re:"Crazy Americans"

[acousticiris]

I think you'll find we're quite crazy about a lot of things.
We take our civil liberties very seriously. Case in point, in our country (unlike many others) racist hate speech is not outlawed. Even though it is evil and wrong, it is not illegal.
Our rights are being withered away by political correctness and "government will solve my problems" kind of attitudes. Filter mandates, attempts to make the internet child-safe rather than parents child-responsible, and other attacks to our freedoms are in our midst right now.
I personally don't care about Gun Rights ideologically, and I'm against abortion. But the reality is, the last thing we need is more laws to take away more rights.

Re:"Crazy Americans"

[confused one]

Why, yes we are, thank you very much....

All the better to dominate the world with Muhahaha

Did I say that out loud? Gosh, I hope not...

Re:"Crazy Americans"

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as Europe is concerned, it would be Russian and German. In whose picture's was Japan, anyway, as far as Europe and Asia was concerned? The "old world" couldn't care less for Japan...

IN SOVIET RUSSIA...

[Anonymous Coward]

...their sites Slashdot YOU!

Re:No sound! Whaaa!

[Avakado]

The sound of projectile reaching the speed of sound is noiseless?

Yes. The projectile doesn't produce any sound, hence no sound waves can accumulate. (Howstuffworks article)

If you attach a sound buffering device, (silencer) the thing would require much more energy to reach the same muzzle velocity.

A silencer works by decreasing the pressure caused by the hot gas resulting from firing normal ammunition. It's completely useless on magnet-fired weapons, which produce practically no heat, and hence very little pressure. (Howstuffworks again)

Re:No sound! Whaaa!

[Avakado]

Yes. The projectile doesn't produce any sound, hence no sound waves can accumulate.

Okay, this was just nonsense. See here for details.

Even more fun!!! Non-weapon Phaser!

[SharpFang]

go.to/phaser This non-military device easy to build at home will provide you with a lot of pleasure! Literally!

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[MrMr]

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/now/jun28/data.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/962721.stm

etc.

why did I even bother to check

IN SOVIET RUSSIO

[xyloplax]

Comeon, this is the 21st Century and a technical site, WHY are there speling eror?

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[sllim]

Actually the reason the violent crime rate in Canada is lower in the US has nothing to do with guns.
Canadians are a bunch of pussies.

It is a fact. Look it up.

when i hear the word gun, i reach for my culture

[gobbo]

I remember being a spry 19 with a Eurailpass and a girlfriend living in Switzerland. When I got there to visit, I was profoundly struck by the culture around guns. I'd go to restaurants and there'd be rifles leaning up against the umbrella stand, and other kinds of casual behaviour with the weaponry of those in military service.

Maybe someone Swiss can throw perspective on this. The Swiss murder rate is low, gun ownership is very high [the stats I've seen are for handguns, but as in Canada a higher proportion of guns are rifles than in USA]. (I'm not going to karmawhore with links to stats--the gun debate uses stats like bullets, anyway--google away.)

Even in Canada, where we have very low handgun murder rates compared to our neighbour, we don't just leave rifles unattended in public spaces. What that spoke to me of was a trust that everyone else around is more or less responsible, understands and respects the rules around guns, and is not desperate.

Since the country has survived with great stability through some incredible historical pressures, I figure the trust wasn't naive. (Maybe things are different in the EU now.) They had/have a cultural understanding around guns and poverty, about getting along politically, perhaps, an expectation of honesty, smaller town sizes...?

Everyone was involved in public military service in some way, at various times. They certainly weren't a big melting pot at the time. Who knows. But it's obvious that gun proliferation is damaging to US society... Not because of the arming of the people, but what they're arming with, and why. Maybe gun advocates should also be anti-poverty activists, in order to achieve their goals.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Salgak1]

Haven't you ever seen "Wonder Woman" ?? All I need is training anf The Golden Bracelets (g)

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Wolfrider]

--Admittedly, but then you have two problems, actually 3:

o You have to be close enough for the rock to be accurate AND do damage

o Good luck getting RID of the rock effectively, for now it has some of *your* DNA on it (use gloves?)

o Witnesses

--Almost all of which are abrogated by using a high-energy projectile weapon fired from, say, a window. Comments?

You "wouldn't precisely know"?

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's a lot harder to mass-produce reliable ammunition
> than it is heroin. Or so I'd suspect. No being a drug
> dealer or gun-nut, I wouldn't precisely know.

Then maybe you shouldn't comment on that particular topic. Ammunition was mass produced before the amercian Civil War. The name Gattling ring a bell for example?

Or how about he Spanish Conquistadors who brought barrels and barrels of gunpowder and ammunition to the US about 500 years ago?

Or do you think basic chemicals and metal are hard to find/buy/make now than they were then. This isn't Star Wars where technology gets more advanced in the past.

If you want to make guns, you can do it with wood for the barrel, batsh-t (guano) and the sulpher from rotten eggs. You can't stop people from making weapons - even the Old Chinese empires failed when they didn't have to worry about any technology more advanced than a shiny club - the rise of kung fu and the martial arts.

Or do you think that only the police should have guns? Because they've never done anything wrong, like sell weappons and drugs to criminals. Or at least if they did, they'd be punished and not, say, made the head of some sort of home land security...

Re:You "wouldn't precisely know"?

[KrispyKringle]

I hope you read this. Because I'd just love find out what possible connection Tom Ridge has with corrupt police officers selling drugs and weapons.

yes yes yes

[xintegerx]

It's $10,000 to hunt naked women in the desert, and you get to drag them back thank you very much. Damn the cell phone reception on this wireless pda is good even in these dense woods in the middle of nowhere. Now, where was I... AFK

Oooh! Pick me! Pick me!

[wirelessbuzzers]

Forgive me, but where on Earth would you use silencer in the Swedish artillery?

Ummm... Sweden?

I'll raise you

[Firethorn]

Erfurt, Germany. 17 Dead Victims, 6 wounded. The lone gunman shot himself. Columbine only had 13 dead victims, with 2 dead shooters. (more gun control is not necessarily effective)

Preventions: Granite Hills High School in El Cajon, California. A former police officer entered the school when he heard shots fired, preventing further injuries and deaths.
There was a case where the vice principal of a school obtained a gun from his truck (parked more than 1,000 feet from the school per state gun law) and ran back to disarm the attacker. http://criterion.uchicago.edu/issues/iii4/naud.htm l

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[Anonymous Coward]

"Who knows. But it's obvious that gun proliferation is damaging to US society... Not because of the arming of the people, but what they're arming with, and why."

It has nothing to do with what they are arming with, your visit to Switzerland proves that. There is an automatic weapon in nearly every home there and they don't have the murder rate the US does. By contrast automatic weapons are illegal here (since 1934) and we have a higher murder rate. I think your last sentence is a good summation the problem has more to do with poverty and intelligence than access to firearms.

Re:Cars and Bicycles more deadly to children than

[simstick]

http://www.alfnra.org/carsvsguns.htm

I knew it but my first search query showed the numbers well.

This comparison gives the false impression that such deaths are a huge problem and that buying back guns from private owners will save a lot of lives. But gun accidents in recent years have killed fewer children under 15 than bicycles. In 1997, two hundred kids were killed by bike accidents compared to a hundred and forty-two by firearms accidents. But two-thousand, nine hundred children under fifteen died in automobile accidents.

If we want to reduce accidental deaths of children, it obviously would make more sense to spend the money on measures that will reduce car accidents, not gun accidents, because car accidents kill twenty times as many children. No one is proposing to spend $15 million to buy back cars in hopes that would reduce the number of accidents significantly. Since so many car accidents are caused by drunk drivers, a program to reduce drunk-driving would make a lot more sense.

Gun-buy-back programs will not reduce gun-related accidents. They may increase violent crime. Those who turn in guns give up the protection they have from criminals. This is especially true in the high-crime areas that the federal buyback program will target. John Lott of the Yale Law School has done research that shows that the thirty-one states that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons have seen their violent crime rates drop significantly more than in the states that restrict this right. Lott says that law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons increase the hazard for criminals, who prefer to prey on the defenseless. His book, "More Guns, Less Crime," offers persuasive proof of that, but the media have paid little attention to it.

©1999 Accuracy In Media, Reprinted with Permission from Don Irvine

Less lethal is a good thing

[Nf1nk]

Less lethal is a good thing and not from a peace-nic humanitarian view point.
A dead soldier elemenates one soldier and needs no assistance. This can cause his compatriots to fight harder.
While a wounded solier needs assistance of two or more soldiers and his screams of agony will dihearten his allies.
Thus:
dead lose one soldier
wounded lose three or more

Clearly wounding your enemies is more effective than killing

Re: "Lame non-Americans"

[Drestin]

Because we Americans still have our balls intact. We haven't had our gun rights (and other rights) stripped away by governments and by official who themselves can own guns and have body guards. We are not obsessed with our guns - we just like to have the OPTION to enjoy using a firearm IF *WE* CHOOSE to.

If I am to be accused of anything, by simply being an American and have "obsessed" thrown in there, then please treat me with the respect we deserve and ask "wow, aren't these Americans obsessed by their rights?" - because we are. We do not like having governments (especially not foreign ones) try to take away our rights. The rights that define our country as what freedom is.

Ask the English or Australians how their gun-rights are doing these days and what the net effect has been since losing them?

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Anonymous Coward]

Some would-be mugger did that to me once.
The look of shock on his face as I charged at him with his own knife was priceless.
He ran, I got to keep the knife.
Apart from the near heart attack I think that was a fairly good result.

waiting

[andy1307]

Still waiting for the obligatory reference to a beowulf cluster of this..

Re: "Lame non-Americans"

[smeenz]

I live in New Zealand. You can buy guns for hunting and so forth, becuase we do have a lot of bush and people do like to go into said bush and kill things in there.

The New Zealand police do not carry guns under normal circumstances, because 99% of the time, they don't need to. The other 1% of the time, they call in the Armed Offenders Squad, which is a group of firearms trained officers distributed throughout the country (who also get to wear black and look cool)

Whenever they are called out to deal with something, it makes national news. If they actually use their guns, it makes front page news.

That should give you Americans some idea of how often criminals are armed here, and what people think of it when they are.

Re: "Lame non-Americans"

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick, a bucket, I must hurl.

Re: "Lame non-Americans"

[Drestin]

Help me under the 900% increase in firearms related killings since the almost total ban on firearms then? Just that and you'll have a point.

A rant I actually agree with!

[purduephotog]

Thanks for saying it nice and concisely!

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[ltkije]

Maybe someone Swiss can throw perspective on this. The Swiss murder rate is low, gun ownership is very high.

Simple... The Swiss state is founded on the principle of permanent armed neutrality. That means a long history of successful defense against invaders and universal military service today. In some Swiss cantons, it is traditional to wear a sword when voting.

John McPhee wrote a fascinating book about the Swiss Army, La Place de la Concorde Suisse, that sheds light on the Swiss view of firearms. Not much of it transfers well to American society, though.

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[Anonymous Coward]

The US murder rate is a function of ethnic diversity , cultural diversity, and the self-destructive cultures of non-Whites who commit most crime.
Switzerland is a vastly more self-disciplined nation.

Wow this has gotten way off topic

[A55M0NKEY]

So go ahead an mod me down for replying - i deserve it.

You can't neccesarily say that a weapon the was eventually sold/given/whatever to a minor was bought with the intent to provid it to a minor. Thy guy may have bought it years ago, but needed the money for beer.

Also, if the weapons were your run of the mill hunting rifles then it is legal for someone over the age of 16 to own them if their parents give them as a gift or something. Lots of kids have their own gun for hunting. You could have an AK-47 or SKS at 16. A used SKS makes a good cheap hunting rifle if it hasn't been used with steel jacket ammo so the rifling is screwed up. You have to be over 18 to buy rifles or ammo at WAL*MART

Pistols, however are limited to the over 21 crowd. Even ammo that is primarily used on pistols can not be sold to a under 21 year old. This is dumb because there are many 'plinker-type' pistols that use 22-long rifle ammo. 22s are the best for plinking because the ammo is dirt cheap. There are probably rifles that take pistol ammo too. This is the same kind of dumb law as the one that says you can sell matches to under 18 year olds but not lighters. An under 18 year old might want to buy a lighter to start a wood fire in his parent's stove after school so the place isn't frigid when their parents get home. And of course ciggarettes can be lit with matches as easily as with a lighter and also with a toaster. Radio shack would sell a butane soldering torch to anyone complete with flint sparker.

Kids have hobbies. Some kids like guns. This is an appropriate hobby for a 16-17-18 year old. Hell, when I was 13, my parents let me play with explosives/homemade fireworks. Sure fireworks were illegal in my state but they encouraged my interests. I wanted to make fireworks for a living at that age. The difference between me and the columbine ppl was that I had no interest in hurting anyone - especially myself.

The actions of any individual are their own responsibility. Attacking parents supportive of their children's interests when it is the children that go nuts and kill people - not the parents is stupid. If someone knows their parents would not let them do something they would still do it, they would just be careful to hide it. I could, and would have still made home made firecrackers and mortars if my parents had forbidden me from buying chemicals. By giving sanction to my actions my parents gained the ability to monitor my safety practices. ( I still have all my apendages and all my original skin )

If your kid is a gun freak, they will own guns. You will limit your liability if they go nuts and kill people if you make them hide them, but they will still have them. Better to know where your kids guns are unless all you are thinking about is covering your own ass.

Re: "Lame non-Americans"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ask the English or Australians how their gun-rights are doing these days and what the net effect has been since losing them?"

Well, I can't speak for the English, but as an Australian I can say that we never had gun "rights" to begin with (but then, we don't have a constitution that garantees free speech, either). But we have had changes in legislation recently banning semi-automatic weapons.

Before the changes:
Our government lied to us;
Criminals disobeyed the law;

Since the changes:
Our government lies to us;
Criminals disobey the law;
Redneck yahoos now have to reload manually before shooting road signs.

Net effect: fewer holes in road signs. Excuse me if I don't feel like I'm living under the yoke of oppression here.

If you have a genuine use for a firearm you can get one (even if it is for "sport"; but the word sport implies concepts like "competition" and "fairness". Donate to the "Guns for Deer*" program!), but you have to undertake a number of security measures, including double-locked storage, before you can get a licence. This is not really an onerous task,
and does go some way to prevent accidental deaths and "crimes of passion" (check the Australian Bureau of Statistics, "Gun related deaths or accidents"; you'll find the number of deaths has decreased since 1999).

"Because we Americans still have our balls intact. We haven't had our gun rights (and other rights) stripped away by governments and by official[s] who themselves can own guns and have body guards"

In Australia being a Member of Parliament or an employee of Commonwealth or State government does not qualify one for ownership of a firearm. The laws apply equally (a concept that may be new to a freedom-loving American). As for body guards: our Prime Minister goes on morning walks through Kirribilli (the suburb of Sydney where he lives) escorted by only two armed Federal Police officers, not private body guards. Lets see George W. do that without every malcontent with a belief in their "right to bear arms" taking potshots at him. Also, good to see you equate your genitalia with guns; I thought I was going to have to bring up that tired stereotype myself, but you beat me to it.

"The rights that define our country as what freedom is."

Your country is not the definition of freedom (Patriot act, DMCA, ever lengthening copyright durations, the home of TIA and Echelon, RIAA lawsuits against students, the list goes on), it is merely what you view as freedom. I do not like having your concept of "freedom" forced upon me any more than you like having my idea of gun control forced upon you. Try to understand: yours is not the only point of view, and it is not the point of view that suits everyone. Personally, I feel more secure in a country where guns are restricted but everyone votes than I would in a country where guns are easily available but only 1/3 of the populace votes. Are Australians sacrificing freedom for security? Well, we've never had a revolution (unless you count the Rum Rebellion or Eureka Stockade, which were more like serious industrial relations disputes), yet South Australia was the first place in the world to give women the right to vote. We are an independent nation (even if Queen Elizabeth is our Head of State), with no more connection to the legislative process of the UK than the US has, but nobody was shot and no tea was lost in the process. So guns=rights does not tally with Australian history.

"We do not like having governments (especially not foreign ones) try to take away our rights."

I'm really trolling here, but for a translation of this phrase into Arabic, watch CNN, any story from anywhere in the Middle East showing people protesting against America.

*We don't have deer in Australia, so the usual target is either feral pigs or kangaroos. The named species has been adapted for the American audience.

posters of gun

[szczym]

One time we printed similar guns for china...
now it's look like --> that

Parts cost

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're lucky to have a well-stocked "junkbox", nothing. The SCRs are critical. Fast-recovery diodes, too. You *do* need to know what you're doing, and wear goggles always. The energy stored in those capacitors could kill several people at once.

Purchased new, all parts would probably be under $150, maybe well under.

Enby in Waltham

Projectile spin

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple answer: More than likely, his projectile doesn't spin.

Enby in Waltham

It's not (directly) energy from batteries.

[Anonymous Coward]

The energy for firing comes from capacitors that are charged by the batteries. Large capacitor banks
can release megajoules. If you didn't see the images, have another try; around 16:00 Sunday 20 July, I had no trouble.
("Accu", short for "accumulator", is the Euro. term for rechargeable batteries; concise!) The batteries are green.

Enby in Waltham

Better educational system

[Anonymous Coward]

Russians know something outside their specialties; less true in the USA, comparatively, I'll bet.
The US educational system does its damnedest to make us equivalent to stupid sheep, so we are ripe for a fascist takeover.

Born in the USA

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[NerveGas]

The answer is extremely simple, really.

In Switzerland, pretty much *everyone* has a firearm. Now, think to yourself: Are you going to cause trouble in a society like that? You certainly wouldn't think of sticking up that cafe, now would you?

Now, move your thoughts to America. The gun laws serve only to take guns away from honest citizens, while doing very little to keep them away from criminals. Think about it: You're a criminal, you've got your gun. You know that the honest folks don't. Now how scared are you of sticking up a cafe?

There are still places where guns are common-place. Guess what! Things go along without problems.

I've also lived in countries where guns were extremely difficult to come by - if the laws didn't stop you, the economics of the situation probably would. Guess what! The murder rate was astronomical compared to the United States. Serial killings, mass killings, murder/suicides, family dispute killings, they all happened - and they happened a lot. Just because a gun isn't available doesn't change a person's predisposition to violence.

FOLLOW UP POST

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, mods.

Hey... a classic "Adequacy Style Troll"

[RedCard]

Well well well, I was just reading kuro5hin earlier today, and this appears to be a classic adequacy-style troll.

Nice.

Re:Metal Storm: you idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Every one of you idiots just didnt read the link for the smart gun embeded in the Metal Storm. You took one look at metal storm and jumped all over the guy without reason. Read it again and follow the link. The VLe Smart Gun. Its there with pictures for your simple minds to see. It is also a housed in a beatutiful real gun case and uses 4 barrels.

Looks good - works...

[yabHuj]

...not really. 1.5J is just double as much as an average "SoftAir" pistol.
These are good enough for a "ouch", but cannot even penetrate bare skin.
For a "real" weapon you need a muzzle velocity that is ~3 orders of magnitude higher than in the current model (i.e. km/s instead of m/s).

Cudos to the design though - the gun looks nice. Much nicer than all the other Gauss-thingies I have seen so far...

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[Kintanon]

The rock comment was SPECIFICALLY aimed at the paranoia over this guys little pathetic toy.
The toy in the article is about as dangerous as a rock. And it's only that dangerous because after you fail to injure them by shooting at them with it you can fling the weapon at your opponent and hopefully hurt them.
But, if you want to talk about projectile weapons in general then what you say applies to conventional firearms as well. It is NOT easy to shoot someone from a window even with a scope. If you go running down the street afterwards carrying your rifle people will notice, if you ditch it then you have the same DNA issue as the rock. Witnesses, people seeing you enter or leave a building with a bulky object or noticing other suspicious things about your behavior. It's not like you can just stroll in to the nearest highrise apartment building and stand on the balcony popping pedestrians without someone noticing.
So yeah, guns are a couple of steps up from rocks. But that doesn't make a rock any less deadly.

Kintanon

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[gobbo]

In Switzerland, they don't carry guns around on their hips! What are you thinking, the wild west? The answer is NOT "extremely simple" -- and I think you've never lived there. Plus, the murder rate by guns isn't as low in Switzerland as other places that have restricted access to handguns, like Canada (I guess Canucks prefer knives or broken beer bottles).

I would be interested in knowing just which countries you've been in where the murder rate is astronomical compared to the USA. If you mean places that are an economic disaster, with widespread desperate poverty, well big surprise! But if you mean heavily industrialized nations, please enlighten.

"You're a criminal, you've got your gun. You know that the honest folks don't. Now how scared are you of sticking up a cafe?" -- Well, thank you for illustrating my point about culture perfectly. You exhibit an acceptance that crime carries an acceptable risk of lethal violence. I think that that is a cultural attitude that suggests societal immaturity, rather than an abhorrence of lethal violence... in other words, a culture where someone wants/needs to steal but is more likely unwilling to kill, will have a different relationship to guns -- "you" would be scared of sticking up a cafe because of the risk of killing someone! No it's not naive to think this, but it is dependent upon social and cultural conditions, everything from income disparity to racism to what's on the tube.

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[gobbo]

"It has nothing to do with what they are arming with, your visit to Switzerland proves that."

IANA[Sociologist], but your research method leaves something to be desired! It's easy to hypothesize that handguns carry a different level of physical and mental accessibility... automatic rifles are for coordinated defense/assault, handguns are for personal defense/assault. My suspicion is that it is more than an issue of a culture that accepts poverty [and I DIDN'T intend to suggest individual intelligence, you misquote me] and violence, but also is strongly influenced by a particular relationship to guns, one that includes the ideal of everyone with a piece at all times, with no acknowledgement of the laws of escalation.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[BitGeek]

Oh, that's easy.

You just have to remember the first rule of gun-fighting:

Bring a gun!

This is why all those gun laws are really idiotic-- people can always have guns -- they can fashion them at home as they are now in britian-- gun laws only disarm the VICTIMS.

The majority of murders in the US are stabbings as well. Meanwhile the vast (and I a million to one) majority of ammunition in the US is used for target practice.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[BitGeek]

Both of you should recognize that canada does not have far lower incidence of murder than the US.

These "statistics" are just a repetition of hte stuff from bowling for Columbine, which were all fabricated by Michael Moore. (They do not fit the FBI stats, and Moore refuses to say where he "got" them from.)

Re:No sound! Whaaa!

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you have never hunted with a bow.

Does Robin Hood do Buck Rogers.. What?

[ratfynk]

No I do not bow hunt, want to try it some day though. I have friends who hunt bears with bows. I personally think they are nuts. They usually have someone with them with a minimum 300 mag with atleast 180 grains softtip standing by. It doesn't matter you still do not take a shot unless you are certain! Sure bows are quiet but bears are very preceptive creatures and have been known to get a little pissed if you wing them. My point was this gun will be less usefull than a sling shot for hunting. How you would even chuck a paint ball with it is beyond me. Iron jacket paint balls, not a bad idea I know some paint ball freaks you should try it out on, and a few of the bad American gung ho hunters I have met! You might have come up with the germ an idea with your statement however.

It might be possible to combine a bow with this tech including skookum battery packs, using iron empregnated graphite arrows. Result might be a very interesting power assisted bow. Kind of Robin Hood meats Buck Rogers, or a high tech Hiawatha, or Conan the battery boosted barbarian, who knows might even work!

Re: "Lame non-Americans"

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent answer, couldn't have said it better. But maybe you have to be a non-American to be able to view it this way (I'm European).

I'm absolutely baffled that this country, a country that always has been quick with ridiculous oppressive freedom-restricting laws as long as they were "politically correct" (someone remember prohibition? Or McCarthy area?), that this country which is a shiny example of a country where personal rights are being stripped one by one while everybody applauds, that this near-fascist country is contempt with anything as long as the average idiot is allowed to carry guns and fire on everything that moves. Wild West psychosis?
Go care for your REAL freedom before acting like this here, and PLEASE don't try to force this "American Freedom" on other countys, NOBODY outside USA wants it. Not even Iraq.

Apparently you guys didn't read the specs on this

[StormKrow]

While I'm a staunch 2nd ammendment supporter, you anti-gun types need to quit getting your knickers in a twist. First of all the weapon only fires @ 33 m/s (that's 107.25 ft/s). While this is dangerous, it's hardly deadly or leathal unless you walk right up TO someone and shoot them in the ear or in the eye. Second, it only fires a 2.75 gram slug, (that's 42 grains)...at 107 ft/s, this will hardly be overtly dangerous, and I'd wager that a person could catch the projectiles and throw them back and cause more damage. Furthermore, it takes 25 seconds between each shot, do you really think a person weilding this weapon is going to get a change to get a second shot in 25 seconds? puuuleaze...I for one could take it away from that individual and shove up their arse in less time. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking Vasiljev's work, I think it's great that someone's actually getting off their ass and trying to build the thing, but come on, do you tree-hugging nature nazi's really think this gun is a threat? Do the math....after all, you liberal anti-gun types *do* consider yourself more intelligent that those of us that prefer to maintain our right to keep and bear arms. If that's the case, why are you so worried about this? Sure it has the potential to be a weapon of contraversy, but the technology has quite a ways to go before we'll ever see a practical application, and chance are, you and I will both be long dead, so stop worrying about it. (and stop comparing it to columbine, that's the most idiotic and contrived reference I've ever had the misfortune of reading.) Vasiljev's work is a great step forward, but for the time being, it's still just a novelty. (you know, it's funny how liberals never complain about someone with a concealed carry permit saves them from a mugging, but they're always the first ones to try to tell a person you don't have the right to own a firearm.)...bollocks I say.

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[hughk]

In Switzerland, pretty much *everyone* has a firearm.

They are usually military rifles because almost every adult male is serving in the militia.

I have no problem with everyone having a gun who is properly trained and on a regular basis.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[CAIMLAS]

True enough. Not sure why I made such a foolish flub.

Substitute "per mile" and you've got my intent.

Elaborate hoax? I think yes ...

[fygment]

The target cans have the holes in nice little circles. I would have expected more deformation of the can that would preclude such a tight (and pretty uniform) grouping especially if the projectiles aren't travelling as fast as a bullet. Consider too: such a catchy idea with no patents, posted on the web. I mean, this ain't no potato gun! Governments and industry would be wildly interested in this.

I think it's an elegant fishing expedition for a job with someone who's interested, say someone with government research money. Free software movement not withstanding, this is far too attractive an idea to be posted for free.

*bzzzt* Wrong!

[turgid]

People do illegal things. Therefore, laws are ineffective. Therefore, we should get rid of all the laws (except the 2nd Amendment) and just carry a DEagle 5-0. Anyone who thinks differently is a whack-job.

The obvious solution is to fix the problem at the source, not to try to patch up the system.

Eliminate all people

No more laws broken.

CRAZY GUN MENTALITY

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most of the world knows that the USA tends to be the most unsafe with its use of weapons (the most murders BY FAR with guns BYYYY FAARRR) People are always using the little-kid mentality that 'its my right! So I get to sleep with a .44 Magnum under my pillow!!' That doesn't mean that you should or have to. But since its your right, you can!!! Yay!

I have seen your War on Drugs commercials about the kids sitting in their dads office smoking a bong.. the one kid pulls his dads LOADED HANDGUN out of his desk and accidentally shoots the other kid. Ofcourse this means marijuana is bad, but KEEPING A LOADED HANDGUN in your desk drawer when you have kids in the house is just fine.

Everyone always gets scared of the big bad government stripping your rights to bare arms. In Canada we can have guns if we want to, we just don't shoot other humans with them. I get a laugh at all the people in the USA that buy semi-automatic assault rifles when they live in an urban setting just to feel 'safe.' You have militia groups that sit around blowing shit up to 'protect the nation.' Aren't you relying your insane military to do that? Why have these dumb-ass militia groups that like to think they are helping in some way... are these kids who never grew up and live in a fantasy-land where they think they are protecting your nation somewhow? Oh, excuse me... they are forever training *just in case.* Come to Canada and learn some lessons.. generally we are friendly people who don't lock ourselves inside our homes with assault rifles.. we go out and have a conversation with our neighbour (instead of fearing them), keep our doors unlocked, and don't have to worry about the crazys next door playing with his gun while our kids are out back playing in our backyard.

But the Real Issue Here is . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . that this man's picture is FABULOUS. The fake sky background? Totally incongruous to a site about making your own guns. But very, very vital.

Reality Check

[JavaLord]

Also as a moral equivalent, would you allow Iraq to have WMD due to your view of the second amendment? Should the second amendment apply to only non-crazy people? Or should crazy people also be allowed to have WMD?

The constitution only applies to US citizens. I'm not trying flame you, but I don't know why so many people don't understand that.

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[CAIMLAS]

Um, buddy, that's the opposite of what Moore said in Bowling for Columbine. Everything he fabricated was pro-Canada, anti-US, which is the exact opposite of the statement.

Re:Elaborate hoax? I think yes ...

[diaphone]

The prototype looks viable to me. I'm not a coil gun builder at all, but back circa 1986 I was doing my 7th grade science fair project on strobe and flash units. I tried discharging the a photoflash unit's capacitor bank through a coil I removed from a small solenoid, and I was able to launch 10D nails with velocity that I definitely would consider hazardous. I was able to imbed the nails a about 1/4" into the walls of my dad's workshop--enough that they stuck into the plywood. This is not weapons caliber performance of course, but this was a hack experiment held together with radioshack clip leads, without any endeavor on my part to evaluate and improve performance. Based on what I saw with my own eyes, I have no doubt that a handheld unit could be refined to produce a 33 m/s launch.

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming that in countries like Great Britain, getting mugged does not carry a risk of death. This assumption is false. You are also assuming that crime is committed out of necessity. This is also false.

I would assume that if someone mugs me, they intend to use some force to back up their assertion that I hand over my wallet. Why else would I do it unless I thought refusing would involve physical violence?

Re:You got one thing right. This is a *WEAPON*.

[rjwhitney]

A couple things I thought about when I read this guy's site (besides the fact it is, in fact, very interesting).

1. The slugs fired from this weapon would not be able to be matched to any weapon. Ballistics matching is usually done by matching deformities caused by the firing of a conventional chemical based round.

2. The weapon is completely covert...no sound, no muzzle flare.

3. There would be no GSR left behind by the firing. No way to tell that it had been fired.

4. The muzzle velocity of the projectile is comparatively slow. It is so slow that it would not be classified as a firearm. I seem to remember (and someone out there might have a more accurate figure, please share if you do) that in order to actually be classified as a firearm a weapon must fire a projectile at 200m/s or faster. 33m/s (and this is really really fast compared to other coilgun experiments I've found...most of those are under 6m/s) is nowhere close to this...however I'd like to see anyone dodge a projectile moving at that speed.

Interesting.

Anti-gauss gun weaponry

[Bushcat]

With his recharge time of 25 seconds, I reckon my trebuchet and I would stand a good chance against his gauss gun. Plus, by replacing the payload with my baggage, it could easily get through airport security as a slightly complex baggage trolly.

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[waferbuster]

I believe his point was not that a thief is unwilling to kill someone, but that sticking up a cafe where people might have guns is *unhealthy* for the thief!

Sort of like the poor success ratio of robbers who try to stick up a bar patronized by off-duty police. It's just not effective to wave around a gun when everyone else has them as well.

a few points

[itzdandy]

Americans are disgusted with the idea of a foreign nation marching on them moreso than ANY OTHER COUNTRY ANYWHERE. If Canada looked at us funny, we would are and be ready! This ideology requires citizens to have guns, to feel safe. Also, the "only criminals have guns" idea is very sound here. Being the melting pot of the world, the worlds largest populous nation and by far the most imigrated to nation.

Now imagine keeping all of those people in check. Can you see why Americans like their guns soooo much?

It would also be impossible to take guns from Americans, our constitution guarantees our ability to own guns for personal protection. Americans would see that as the government breaking some holy vow or something and you'd have armies of people fighting the government.

---

now, jumping the fence a little, i despise guns. I think its rediculous that any civilized society NEEDS GUNS! killing other people should never be an issue. A civilized country should have vitually no crime that a civilian needs a gun to protect themselves from. People should both fear and respect the law as if it were ordered by God/a god/The One god/Buddah said it/Mighty Thor demands it, whatever....

I have spent enough time thinking about all the wrongs that "civilized" nations do everyday and know that Guns have no positive benefit to the masses.

how about the money that you spend on your gun, instead gets spent on a starving child somewhere. and the money governments spend to keep guns in check is also spent on that. How about Europeans that have nothing better to do that say Americans are gun toteing yanks spend a little less on other indulgences like inconceivably high consumption of alcohol and cigarettes and other various drugs that promote crime and the need for guns, and do a little charity work instead of "talking about policing the world, then letting America do the work, and the bitch about America trying to police the world"(where did that come from!) Guns rate right up their with Sadam Hussien, Nukes, Bio Weapons, and slavery. Almost as high as Capitol(hypocritical) punishment.(punish someone for killing someone, and then go and kill someone to prove how wrong it is)

yeah, i think my rant is over now. hell, i didn't like karma anyway, just slavey by a different name!

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[Arker]

But it's obvious that gun proliferation is damaging to US society...

That's not obvious at all. When we had more 'proliferation' of weapons, we had far less crime. Those areas where weapons are still prolific still have far less crime.

Take away the violence associated with the 'war on drugs' and the US is still one of the most peaceful places on earth. Weapons are a red herring.

Re:when i hear the word gun, i reach for my cultur

[stanwirth]

In Switzerland, pretty much *everyone* has a firearm. Now, think to yourself: Are you going to cause trouble in a society like that?

Nah. Only the men are given guns which they keep in their homes. Their wives wouldn't have caused any trouble at all -- they weren't even allowed to vote until the mid-80's in some places, and still don't have basic reproductive rights. These facts may not be mere coincidence, as you well note.