Exactly. See my post about making guns by hand. As a 12 year old boy I was making gunpowder from drugstore items and launching rockets made from rolled-up newspaper.
This stuff ain't hard to do!!
This stuff ain't hard to do!!
What's more likely?
a) He walks around to so-and-sos house with his legally purchased, unlicensed, unregistered semi automatic assault rifle and 1000+ rounds, and kills the whole family, and anyone else unlucky enough to be nearby.
or
b) He spends days (weeks?) making his own gun, gunpowder and projectile by hand, and is still motivated all those days later to walk around and kill everyone, with a small caliber, (probably) non-semi automatic, (probably) small/no magazine.
Gun control won't stop people killing each other with guns. It will make it many times harder for the average Joe, therefore it will reduce the frequency, and the overall homicide rate.
Not having a gun isn't going to stop a person who wants to hurt someone else from doing it. It's just a tool.
How many people would he kill compared to a high-caliber semi-automatic assault rifle with 1000+ rounds of ammo?
> It's just a tool.
A tool that enables the holder to seriously injure or kill many more people than other readily available tools.
Point of fact - a loaded magazine for an AR-15 weighs in at approximately one pound. To carry '1000+ rounds of ammo', you would need to carry something like 30 magazines. Try it sometime - that only happens in video games for a reason.
A large truck driven through a crowded market could kill many more people than your average looney with a semi-automatic rifle. These highly publicized events make up only a tiny fraction of the number of homicides we experience per year, most of which only use a few bullets, and not from a 'high-caliber semi-automatic assault rifle'. Calm down.
As to someone who's really crazy and wants to kill as many people as possible, well, people who use bombs seem be much more deadly than people who use guns, so I'd be nervous about banning guns for fear of channeling them into less visceral but more deadly sorts of mayhem.
You can kill a lot more people more easily and more accidentally with a gun and also with quite a high probability compared to a knife. Guns just require one click to inflict a fatal wound if you know the tinies imaginable bit of knowledge of where to aim.
So you can just shoot another person off the bat but with a knife or another close-range weapon you have someone who realizes that a) you have a knife and b) you intend to fatally use it against him. That means combat.
I don't know which person attacked is more determined or more difficult to stop, a parent with kids or a person who's just running for life but they're both damn fucking hard. You will have to catch your victim first and if you just did, s/he will try nothing but escape again.
Now, with a knife (or a bat or...) you're likely to be able to wound that other person but actually killing him/her always requires an extra mile. All kinds of odds are stacked against not only the victim but the attacker as well, and as stabbing requires an intimate range and takes time, the outcome is far from certain unless you're really, really good.
I'd much rather be attacked by an amateur knifer than an amateur gunner.
Anyways, most likely: he does nothing.
Your option A is silly. First, 1000 rounds of .223 is fairly heavy (that's > 30 magazines of normal size). Second, "Unregistered"? "Unlicensed"? What good is paperwork going to do if he decides to shoot someone? We already have ( http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#background ) federal measures regulating gun sales, so we do try not to make things super-easy for felons and the like.
Also, your option B is dumb. Days or weeks, instead of a fast job with some piping to make a really ghetto shotgun? What does small caliber even mean to you? You are correct that it would be non-semiauto, as the mechanics of an open-bolt automatic weapon are simpler than even a bolt-action weapon (compare, say, the M3 greasegun to a Mauser). I could go on.
Lastly, you omit the option where he attacks them with a knife, or makes a simple blackpowder IED, or what not.
You're just being alarmist and ignorant.
The only firearms in the US (federal level) that are registered are NFA items (machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, etc).
Firearms are not "licensed", people are. And in the US, in a vast majority of the states, there is no required licensing of people wanting to own a weapon. States like Illinois or New York are the exception.
Apologies. I was trying to use a "generic" name.
> Second, "Unregistered"? "Unlicensed"? What good is paperwork going to do if he decides to shoot someone?
I expect he'll be less likely to kill people if he knows the weapon is tied to him. (and he might not have it in the first place, which is the case if I try to buy one in Australia right now)
> What does small caliber even mean to you?
I mean say a .22 instead of a center fire. Less killing power. bolt action also means less killing power (i.e. much slower)
> Lastly, you omit the option where he attacks them with a knife, or makes a simple blackpowder IED, or what not.
knife could harm or kill just a couple of people. IED is in the same range as a homemade gun in that it takes a long time and lots of effort to make.
> You're just being alarmist and ignorant.
Actually, I own a .30-06 and a 12 gauge and regularly go hunting.
No, you were not. It was deliberately aimed as a classist swipe.
I expect he'll be less likely to kill people if he knows
the weapon is tied to him.
I mean say a .22 instead of a center fire. Less killing
power. bolt action also means less killing power (i.e.
much slower)
knife could harm or kill just a couple of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
I won't even waste time pointing out how effective a set of box cutters can be.
IED is in the same range as a homemade gun in that it
takes a long time and lots of effort to make.
Actually, I own a .30-06 and a 12 gauge and regularly go
hunting.
Good point, he might do it anyway due to "blind rage"
> Ah, okay, but why not something like a 12-gauge shell, or just a blunderbuss? Or just normal/common 9mm/.45 ammunition?
I was making the assumption that any home-made rifle would be crude and small caliber, probably bolt-action (at best). I was assuming it would have less "killing power" because of the time to re-load and crudeness of it all. (I was not commenting on the force of the round itself)
> Mankind has been using knives to kill in great numbers since we discovered the first sharp flint. Even in only the past ten years:
The first incident was 8 children killed (and let's be honest, you can kill 7 and 8 year olds with your hands). The second incident was 3 adults killed. That's a lot different that 12 dead and 70 people shot overall with a semi-auto.
> Cool. What models, out of curiosity?
The .30-06 is a Remington 700 XCR. Up here in Yukon by law you must use a minimum of .30 for bison, so it's good for them (we gone one last year), moose (we got two), caribou (still looking). The season opens next week, can't wait.
I seriously doubt you really shoot/hunt/own weapons based on the statements you just made.
I meant "less" because it's so much slower to reload.
I was not commenting on the "power" of the rifle/round itself.
Obviously, a muzzle loading .50 has lots of "power", but I'd wager you couldn't kill many people in a movie theater with one, as apposed to a semi-auto (of any caliber, really).
I understand we should try to prevent them from getting their hands weapons that can harm or injure tens of people in a matter of seconds.
70 people hit by one person in a movie theater with a semi-auto. How many do you think it would have been with a knife? or even a bolt action?
And this kind of simple classist bigotry ("The poor people are dangerous! They aren't like us!") is one reason the people who want to increase firearm regulation have done such a terrible job of it: You can't intelligently impose laws on a culture you have no understanding of, especially if you think it's not important to understand.
Using a stereotyped redneck name is ugly.
Next time use first letter of the alphabet, common name. Second person gets second letter, common name and so on.
"Let's pretend Alice is a heated rage because she found out Bob slept with her wife Carol."
Much better, nu?