Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Yes, yes it is. If you can vote and have your vote count, then you are a democracy.
Torga_DW wrote: Yes, i've read the wiki. I say again: USSR was not a democracy, Iran is not a democracy.
The USSR was a democracy because everybody was able to vote either for or against the candidate. They didn't have free elections because the candidates were pre-selected by the communist party, but they were still a democracy.
Iran is a democracy, one with the lowest voting age around actually. People get to cast their vote for whatever candidate they support. They don't have free elections though because candidates are pre-selected by the Guardian Council.
Which doesn't really have much to do with Democracy.
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures
And when the will of the people is that once a decade on the 2376th day of the decade at noon every male that is exactly 5'8 shall be executed then you sill have a democracy.
None of which of course has anything to do with your initial argument that socialist policies =/= not being a democracy.
Smacks wrote: Nor do I blame people for feeling they need a gun to defend themselves. However, if the streets really are that dangerous, then that suggests that there is a wider problem that needs addressing.
There's been plenty of times I've been walking through Camden or Ilford and would have felt MUCH safer if I was allowed to be armed and defend myself. There's bad spots in any country. It's only in the US that I've been able to proactively take steps to ensure I can properly protect myself and my family if some junkie/thief comes at us with a knife or a pistol.
I admit I have felt the same way. But the price of you being armed is that you are more likely to run into armed criminals. Unfortunately, having a gun doesn't ensure your safety. Someone could easily shoot you in the back and take your wallet, and even if you are threatened face to face, you would still be drawing against one or more people who have the drop on you. If a mugger is anticipating a weapon then they might just start shooting first (kind of like the police do).
And plenty of people have access to equipment which could be re-purposed to make guns.
And if a criminal really wanted a gun, he would pay top dollar to a smuggler to get the gun from out of the country. The US has plenty of coastline and border. If little kids from central america can just walk on over it would be trivial for a smuggler to bring in some AKs. We've already got a truly mind bogglingly large, and professional, smuggling system in place on the southern border.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
And plenty of people have access to equipment which could be re-purposed to make guns.
And if a criminal really wanted a gun, he would pay top dollar to a smuggler to get the gun from out of the country. The US has plenty of coastline and border. If little kids from central america can just walk on over it would be trivial for a smuggler to bring in some AKs. We've already got a truly mind bogglingly large, and professional, smuggling system in place on the southern border.
The thing about improvised firearms is that they're much less likely to carry multiple rounds due to the fact that making a reliable system to load the next round is complicated compared to just hitting the primer of the cartridge with a pin. So yeah, they'll be able to shoot one person but then they have to be reloaded (of course that's not the case for all, but a lot).
And having to pay top dollar to a smuggler will have outpriced many criminals from firearms. For example, here in the UK it is possible to buy a handgun on the black market. However it will be expensive and risky, so most common criminals (burglars, muggers etc.) won't do it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/01/04 04:57:44
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
And plenty of people have access to equipment which could be re-purposed to make guns.
And if a criminal really wanted a gun, he would pay top dollar to a smuggler to get the gun from out of the country. The US has plenty of coastline and border. If little kids from central america can just walk on over it would be trivial for a smuggler to bring in some AKs. We've already got a truly mind bogglingly large, and professional, smuggling system in place on the southern border.
The thing about improvised firearms is that they're much less likely to carry multiple rounds due to the fact that making a reliable system to load the next round is complicated compared to just hitting the primer of the cartridge with a pin. So yeah, they'll be able to shoot one person but then they have to be reloaded (of course that's not the case for all, but a lot).
And having to pay top dollar to a smuggler will have outpriced many criminals from firearms. For example, here in the UK it is possible to buy a handgun on the black market. However it will be expensive and risky, so most common criminals (burglars, muggers etc.) won't do it.
You live on an island.
We have thousands of miles of border with other nations that is incredibly easy to cross... Drastically different situations for those smugglers to work with.
And plenty of people have access to equipment which could be re-purposed to make guns.
I think it's hard enough to make a gun that most people don't bother. Even in the UK it is virtually unheard of. Criminals are lazy (almost by definition). Here a mugger is more likely to threaten you with a beating than a weapon.
And if a criminal really wanted a gun, he would pay top dollar to a smuggler to get the gun from out of the country.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The thing about improvised firearms is that they're much less likely to carry multiple rounds due to the fact that making a reliable system to load the next round is complicated compared to just hitting the primer of the cartridge with a pin. So yeah, they'll be able to shoot one person but then they have to be reloaded (of course that's not the case for all, but a lot).
This is not true at all. Google "how to build a machine gun" and you'll find step-by-step instructions for building one out of nothing more than parts and tools from your local hardware store. Guns are really simple objects as long as you don't need flawless precision (and you don't for the vast majority of criminal uses). And of course if you have access to a full machine shop (for example, if you're part of a gang) then you can make any gun you want.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
It certainly won't be a reliable gun, it probably won't last very long if used much, but it will put bullets down range and that's all that matters.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: It certainly won't be a reliable gun, it probably won't last very long if used much, but it will put bullets down range and that's all that matters.
True...
People are pretty damned creative.
Ie... the "cornstarch flamethrower":
Only reason I'd build one is if I start seeing lots of spiders.
I don't think you can actually build a machine gun out of stuff from the hardware store.
A shotgun, surely, a zip gun, no doubt, but a machine gun? I've only ever seen conversion guides for semiautos. While it's pretty clearly against dakka rules to post anything like that (so don't) , I'll just ask - has anyone actually been able to find a guide for how to build a machine gun* on google from parts commonly available at a hardware store? I'll take you on faith if someone says yes, they were able to google such a guide. I'm just wondering if this is a commonly repeated truism, or something someone here was able to actually find and read with their own eyes.
*defined as "Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger" per the ATF. Nevermind, I found one.
Also, flamethrowers generally aren't illegal in the US, awesomely enough. I guess the figure that the kind of person who thinks it's a good idea to make a flamethrower at home is a problem that fixes itself.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/04 06:10:05
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
With a CNC router, it's possible for you to "cut" the lower receiver. That bypasses the need to register the lower receiver with the ATF.
Then, you can build the rest with readily available parts online.
As long as it's semi-auto, it's totally legal.
You can make it fully auto, but that's definitely illegal no matter what.
EDIT: I know one person who has done this and he says it was a pain for him because of all the trial & error he had to go through (and numerous range time for testing).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/04 06:08:31
I'm familiar with an 80% build - but it's cheating for the above defined parameters. Also, you can technically just buy parts kits and a receiver flat for an AK, no background check or registration needed, totally legal.
Also, I did find one a hardware store full auto plan - starting from nothing, parts from the hardware store. So, nevermind, it took 2 minutes instead of one, turned out.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/04 06:11:29
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: I'm familiar with an 80% build - but it's cheating for the above defined parameters. Also, you can technically just buy parts kits and a receiver flat for an AK, no background check or registration needed, totally legal.
Sure it's cheating... but we all like to "stick it to the man" sometimes don't we?
Also, I did find one a hardware store full auto plan - starting from nothing, parts from the hardware store. So, nevermind, it took 2 minutes instead of one, turned out.
I found two of 'em... but, they seems dubious to me.
:shrug:
None of this is "easy" though... I'd be more interested in the 3D printers. That's when things get... hairy.
whembly wrote: I found two of 'em... but, they seems dubious to me.
I don't see what's so unbelievable about it, just look at the sten gun and similar WWII-era weapons. A machine gun is very simple as long as you're using pistol-caliber rounds (low pressure) and your accuracy standards are "hit a man-sized target at close range with automatic fire". And that was a design concept that was good enough to win wars.
I'd be more interested in the 3D printers. That's when things get... hairy.
Not in the foreseeable future. 3d printed stuff just doesn't have the strength to make a useful gun, you'll still need to make at least some of the components by traditional methods.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Yeah, 3-D printers are probably the most overhyped thing since the Fax machine.
They've got some serious limitations.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Ouze wrote: I'm familiar with an 80% build - but it's cheating for the above defined parameters. Also, you can technically just buy parts kits and a receiver flat for an AK, no background check or registration needed, totally legal.
Also, I did find one a hardware store full auto plan - starting from nothing, parts from the hardware store. So, nevermind, it took 2 minutes instead of one, turned out.
Without giving too much away, could you give us a rough idea of cost, tools and skills. Or rather, how easy/difficult a project would this be?
It seems to me that explosives tend to be the improvised weapon of choice for mass murderers. Other criminals tend to go with whatever is available. I just don't see the improvised firearm being very popular. I think criminals choose guns because they are readily available, if they weren't then I think we would see not only a shift in the types of weapons but also in the types of crimes. For example knocking over a liquor store seems to be a fairly bog standard criminal pursuit in the US, but in the UK it's quite uncommon. Armed robbers seem to favour more profitable targets such as banks and post offices here.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/04 07:38:41
Ouze wrote: I don't think you can actually build a machine gun out of stuff from the hardware store.
A shotgun, surely, a zip gun, no doubt, but a machine gun? I've only ever seen conversion guides for semiautos. While it's pretty clearly against dakka rules to post anything like that (so don't) , I'll just ask - has anyone actually been able to find a guide for how to build a machine gun* on google from parts commonly available at a hardware store? I'll take you on faith if someone says yes, they were able to google such a guide. I'm just wondering if this is a commonly repeated truism, or something someone here was able to actually find and read with their own eyes.
*defined as "Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger" per the ATF. Nevermind, I found one.
Also, flamethrowers generally aren't illegal in the US, awesomely enough. I guess the figure that the kind of person who thinks it's a good idea to make a flamethrower at home is a problem that fixes itself.
They are not illegal because they et rid of bee hives really easily.
Smacks wrote: Without giving too much away, could you give us a rough idea of cost, tools and skills. Or rather, how easy/difficult a project would this be?.
If you're referring to building an semi-auto AK from a flat, it's totally legal in the US so I can just show you a tutorial.
US law allows for manufacturing firearms for personal use, so long as you don't intend to sell the final results professionally and you're not otherwise precluded from owning a gun (i.e. a felon). You're recommended but not required to etch a serial number up on there, and in a rather amusing quirk for the AK and other foreign produced rifles, you can't have more than 10 foreign manufactured parts (which has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with trade protectionism).
I priced it out once, and it was around $400 or so. I wouldn't recommend it, you can buy a professionally manufactured AK for about $500 and you'll get a much better end result without needing a drill press or a special jig (which are the special parts and skills, just bending the flat and drilling the holes).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/01/04 08:23:50
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
US law allows for manufacturing firearms for personal use, so long as you don't intend to sell the final results professionally and you're not otherwise precluded from owning a gun (i.e. a felon). You're recommended but not required to etch a serial number up on there, and in a rather amusing quirk for the AK and other foreign produced rifles, you can't have more than 10 foreign manufactured parts (which has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with trade protectionism).
I priced it out once, and it was around $400 or so. I wouldn't recommend it, you can buy a professionally manufactured AK for about $500 and you'll get a much better end result without needing a drill press or a special jig (which are the special parts and skills, just bending the flat and drilling the holes).
And plenty of people have access to equipment which could be re-purposed to make guns.
And if a criminal really wanted a gun, he would pay top dollar to a smuggler to get the gun from out of the country. The US has plenty of coastline and border. If little kids from central america can just walk on over it would be trivial for a smuggler to bring in some AKs. We've already got a truly mind bogglingly large, and professional, smuggling system in place on the southern border.
A criminal's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A criminal with a bat, tire iron, knife, 50 pounds of muscle and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, what ever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to steal or rape or commit other crimes. When you take guns away from a law law abiding citizens, you are indicating to that citizen that he must trust the gov't to protect him, his family, and his property, yet it can be established that the gov't is not capable of providing that protection (and is not bound to provide it). The gun makes it possible for the 130 pound lady to deter a 200 pound rapist. The gun makes it so the 70 year old man can protect his property and life when the knife armed meth head breaks in. It is (and I believe should be) an individual choice as to whether or not you want to accept responsibility for the protection of your family, self and your property, and if you choose to do so, a gun is a fantastic tool. If by threat of force you take that choice and corresponding ability away, you are violating my right. It is that simple. In many countries folks have collectively decided to abandon that right and or have allowed their governments to take the exercising of that right away from them. Fortunately, I don't live in one of those countries.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: The gun makes it possible for the 130 pound lady to deter a 200 pound rapist.
My petite 5'4" mother was able to deter a male intruder much larger than herself with nothing but a leather belt and her fists.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
A criminal's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A criminal with a bat, tire iron, knife, 50 pounds of muscle and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, what ever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to steal or rape or commit other crimes. When you take guns away from a law law abiding citizens, you are indicating to that citizen that he must trust the gov't to protect him, his family, and his property, yet it can be established that the gov't is not capable of providing that protection (and is not bound to provide it).
A law abiding citizen's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A law abiding citizen with a bat, tire iron, inife, 50 pounds of muslce and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, whatever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to protect himself and his loved ones.
Fortunately I live in one of those countries where we don't have a profusion of firearms, and do you know what? It makes no appreciable difference to our quality of life whatsoever.
Our 7 stone grannies are still able to get down the post office without the threat of murder from a 17 stone rapist with a sock full of pennies.
If you live in a society that makes you feel compelled to carry a firearm for a basic level of protection, and you're happy with that, fine, good on you, hope you never have to use it. But please do not sneer or look down on societies where we manage perfectly well without them.
In the UK we simply do not need firearms to make ourselves feel safe, and I imagine that we have favourably comparable incidences of violent assaults and rapes when compared with many other nations.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
CptJake wrote: The gun makes it possible for the 130 pound lady to deter a 200 pound rapist.
My petite 5'4" mother was able to deter a male intruder much larger than herself with nothing but a leather belt and her fists.
And in my opinion it sucks she had to do so. If it was my mom or my wife I prefer they have the ability to end the intruder's life from a safe distance, and that the intruder is very clear of that capability. And, as I very clearly stated, it is an individual choice. You and your mom may be 100% happy with leather belts and fists to protect you. Hooah. I respect that. I ask you respect my choice (and that of my wife and mom to be honest) to not rely on fists and belts.
A criminal's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A criminal with a bat, tire iron, knife, 50 pounds of muscle and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, what ever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to steal or rape or commit other crimes. When you take guns away from a law law abiding citizens, you are indicating to that citizen that he must trust the gov't to protect him, his family, and his property, yet it can be established that the gov't is not capable of providing that protection (and is not bound to provide it).
A law abiding citizen's ability to make or get a gun is frankly irrelevant. A law abiding citizen with a bat, tire iron, inife, 50 pounds of muslce and 6 inches of reach, a sock full of quarters, whatever, can cause damage and kill, can threaten life and health and use that threat to protect himself and his loved ones.
Guns just make it easier for both sides.
And that is where you are wrong, it does NOT work both ways. My law abiding wife won't have 50 pounds and 6 inches of reach. She cannot carry a bat or tire iron around, and does not think a knife is a good defense (a bigger/stronger attacker has to be WAY too close for a knife to work). She is however very comfortable with her ability to use the 9mm.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/04 11:39:34
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
r_squared wrote: Fortunately I live in one of those countries where we don't have a profusion of firearms, and do you know what? It makes no appreciable difference to our quality of life whatsoever.
Our 7 stone grannies are still able to get down the post office without the threat of murder from a 17 stone rapist with a sock full of pennies.
If you live in a society that makes you feel compelled to carry a firearm for a basic level of protection, and you're happy with that, fine, good on you, hope you never have to use it. But please do not sneer or look down on societies where we manage perfectly well without them.
In the UK we simply do not need firearms to make ourselves feel safe, and I imagine that we have favourably comparable incidences of violent assaults and rapes when compared with many other nations.
Fortunately I live in one of those countries where we have access to firearms, and do you know what? Our 7 stone grannies are still able to get down the post office without the threat of murder from a 17 stone rapist with a sock full of pennies.
If you don't live in a society whereby you have the right to carry a firearm for a basic level of protection, and you're happy with that, fine, good on you. But please do not sneer or look down on societies where we manage perfectly well with them.
In the US we do not need firearms to make ourselves feel safe, but they are available for those of us who choose to own them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/01/04 11:41:50
r_squared wrote: Fortunately I live in one of those countries where we don't have a profusion of firearms, and do you know what? It makes no appreciable difference to our quality of life whatsoever.
Our 7 stone grannies are still able to get down the post office without the threat of murder from a 17 stone rapist with a sock full of pennies.
If you live in a society that makes you feel compelled to carry a firearm for a basic level of protection, and you're happy with that, fine, good on you, hope you never have to use it. But please do not sneer or look down on societies where we manage perfectly well without them.
In the UK we simply do not need firearms to make ourselves feel safe, and I imagine that we have favourably comparable incidences of violent assaults and rapes when compared with many other nations.
Fair enough. And I assume you will not sneer or look down on societies where we feel as individuals we want to be able to protect ourselves from violent assault and rape, and at times choose a gun as the tool to do so.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: The gun makes it possible for the 130 pound lady to deter a 200 pound rapist.
My petite 5'4" mother was able to deter a male intruder much larger than herself with nothing but a leather belt and her fists.
And in my opinion it sucks she had to do so. If it was my mom or my wife I prefer they have the ability to end the intruder's life from a safe distance, and that the intruder is very clear of that capability. And, as I very clearly stated, it is an individual choice. You and your mom may be 100% happy with leather belts and fists to protect you. Hooah. I respect that. I ask you respect my choice (and that of my wife and mom to be honest) to not rely on fists and belts.
She had a gun and chose not to use it.
Also, my mother doesn't protect me, considering I am an adult and was not protecting me when this incident occurred, as I was also an adult at the time and she was home alone so you can drop your condescending attitude. Furthermore, I own guns so you can keep your "respect" and nor did I say anything about you not having the choice to use a gun to defend yourself.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
