Hacker News Reader

Comment by ErroneousBosh | Hacker News Reader

You can't buy firearms parts or tooling on eBay in the UK because quite frankly if you're a gunsmith you're probably not buying stuff on eBay, and it's unlikely that anyone who isn't a qualified gunsmith is buying them for anything legit. Similarly, there are age restrictions on buying bladed items, just as there are on buying bladed items in shops. Turns out that all those 13-year-olds buying 14" butcher knives weren't actually filleting venison with them, who would have thought it?

Yer cheapy Chinese radios though? Baofengs are currently about £19 each on eBay, with a discount for quantity.

View on HN

Why wouldn't a gunsmith buy stuff on eBay?

We buy lots of stuff for our dairy/cheese plant business from eBay.

When I worked in a mechanic shop there were always parts on the way from eBay too.

The amateur gunsmith scene in the UK is pretty small and if you're buying and selling parts and tools, you probably already know who you're buying from or selling to.

It's easier just to speak to someone, bank transfer some money over, and they'll stick it in the post.

You can buy gun parts on ebay in the US. Here's one example, a trigger for a 9mm Browning Hi-Power:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/287616828521

$30.00

Yeah, but you can't in the UK, because the laws are different.

You can, however, buy cheap Chinese HTs (Baofengs are less than 20 quid these days) which are illegal in the US, test equipment that's illegal in the US, and even Tonka beans which are illegal in the US (although honestly if you're buying a poisonous bean to add flavour to a dish you're better buying it from a reputable supplier - a bit like yer gun parts).

Interesting thing about gun laws in the UK vs the US too - apparently if you buy something like a tank with a really massive gun, in the UK "deactivating" it is really just a case of cutting one part off the mechanism. But if you try to ship that to the UK, you've got to basically gas axe off the entire breech and plate up both ends of the barrel, or fill it with concrete or something similar. A "deactivated" weapon in the UK is nowhere near deactivated enough for the US.

Over here, you can actually have a tank with a fully-functioning gun in private ownership. It's expensive to get the right paperwork for it, but it can be done.

Chinese HTs and Baogengs specifically are not illegal in the US. Every ham I know owns at least one

> Gunsmith wouldn't buy parts on eBay

I want to say something mean and sarcastic, but I will tell you that for gunsmithing eBay was (is?) very useful, at least for the gunsmiths I know. It was the best place to find a replacement 92S slide and a lot of second hand Tony Kidd parts before a rimfire carnival, but we live in the land of the free, and I don't need to get on my knees and beg for a loiscene like some people.

If someone wants a 14" blade, one can fetch some steel from a junkyard and apply an angle grinder to it. Best results with leaf springs. Then wrap one end with electrical tape and it'll chop an arm or a head off no problem. A bit more effort with the grinder and you get yourself something like a gladius.

Now, what is the point of those bans? So people feel safer while not being safer?

Eh. I don't like these bans, but I think there are at least two good-faith arguments you can make:

1. People who decide to go on murder sprees are usually not high-functioning individuals, so even modest barriers can improve outcomes.

2. Fewer weapons in homes means fewer heat-of-the-moment acts involving these weapons. For example, there are very few firearm suicides in the EU, compared to the US.

Naturally there are less suicides via firearms when firearms are verboten. Firearms may be more fatal than hanging (the most popular method in the EU), but we’re comparing a death rate of 14/100,000 to 10/100,000 which really isn’t that different (and in fact some EU countries like Hungary and Belgium outpace the US avg dramatically, Idk what is happening in Hungary but it’s comparable to our ‘Suicide Belt’). From what I read, hanging has a 70% mortality rate while firearms have a 90% rate, so when adjusted for failed attempts (since I cannot find the actual numbers of attempted suicides) we get 15.5 in USA vs 14.3 in EU per capita. As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes.

As such, we see little raw change in human behavior. Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so (although, given the health complications of a failed hanging I question whether the ethics of this outcome are truly superior). So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that, when the method of suicide is independent of the reasons for suicide.

As for #1, cars are still widely accessible, and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.

As parent stated, these bans do not meaningfully change human nature, they simply give an air of safety. In fact, I would further say they create bad habits within society that criminals can and do exploit. Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment. Does your place of residence not allow for self-defense? Then that is a flaw in governance that must be addressed.

> but we’re comparing a death rate of 14/100,000 to 10/100,000 which really isn’t that different

Its 40% more.

> As for other acts such as domestic disputes, fists are far more prevalent because the intent is rarely to kill, and all households have knives if the intent is to kill, so I’m not sure if firearms are a major factor in the actual rate of disputes.

It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes, it would be a factor in a dispute that turned into deadly one as opposed to not.

> Firearms do not increase suicidal ideation nor intention, they merely provide a more fatal means to do so

They are also extremely convenient and instant.

> So I really don’t consider the argument that restricting a population from firearms is good just due to that

I don't think people are making that argument.

> As for #1, cars are still widely accessible,

Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them.

> and those who go on murder sprees would have far worse chances if more people carried weapons for self-defense.

"But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer."

"It was twice as common for bystanders to physically subdue the attackers, often by tackling or striking them."

- https://portside.org/node/28842/printable/print

> Do you have a meaningful way to protect yourself if you were attacked? You should, your safety is a God-given right that only you can properly defend in the heat of the moment.

That is not a strong argument for anyone who doesn't feel that they will be likely in a situation which requires them to kill someone for their own safety.

> Its 40% more.

Good job; you can do math. Care to interface with the rest of my argument that you ignored, discussing what that disparity actually means?

> It wouldn't be a factor in the rate of disputes

That was my central point. There is nuance to the way gun legalization could take place in Europe that can help offset fatalities like this, rather than a blanket ban.

> They are also extremely convenient and instant.

Hence the “more fatal means to do so” that you quoted.

> I don't think people are making that argument.

That’s quite literally the entire discussion. “Good-faith” arguments for banning firearms. If you need a refresher of the context, I suggest starting here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50125399

> Cars are only practical for killing more than a few people when there are large, condensed crowds with road access into them.

They are practical for killing whoever is in front of them, physics permitting. They are far more practical than firearms for killing tightly packed groups, but little stops a massive block of metal from killing say a lone cyclist. Everything is situational; it doesn’t make it any less of a threat.

> "But armed bystanders shooting attackers was not common in the data — 22 cases out of 433. In 10 of those, the “good guy” was a security guard or an off-duty police officer."

Firstly, defensive gun use is defensive gun use regardless of owning a badge. Secondly, this is not accounting for gun-free zones (bars, school campuses) where most mass shooters will target because of that power disparity.

“…while 36% of active shooting attacks have occurred in places where guns are allowed, almost half (42.3%) of those were stopped by people who legally carry concealed handguns.”

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3857331

> That is not a strong argument for anyone who doesn't feel that they will be likely in a situation which requires them to kill someone for their own safety.

While I am happy you feel so secure, that is a privileged position. Just because you feel secure in your safety doesn’t mean those who don’t should be without self-defense, nor does it mean you should neglect your safety out of complacency.

It would be nice if you weren't dismissive and belittling. You know there are a lot of good conversations we could be having about the role of firearms in American life, but it seems like whenever the topic comes up, it turns into this debate where facts are pulled out and theories proclaimed and no one is convincing anyone of anything because we aren't talking about anything productive. Do you really, honestly think that that convenience isn't a huge factor when you know that any extra click in an payment process will lose a percentage of potential purchasers, or that a tool designed to be incredibly good at one thing isn't better at doing that thing than something designed for something completely different that can accomplish the same thing if someone is motivated enough? Of course not. Why are you acting as if they are ridiculous?

Let's sit down and have a productive discussion about how we can actually move forward and do practical things to reduce gun violence. I have some ideas:

1. Reporting for lost and stolen firearms: stolen firearms go into the illegal market and make everyone more unsafe. If personal responsibility is the crux of safety, isn't this a no brainer?

2. Training for concealed carry: have you driven on the road with other people? Would you want those people aiming a gun at a crowd of people in a panic situation trying to get a bead on a shooter if they have only fired their weapon twice in their life?

What do you think? Let's drop the patronizing tone and the made up 'what if' arguments and talk about this seriously.

> If someone wants a 14" blade, one can fetch some steel from a junkyard and apply an angle grinder to it.

I'm sure that's what the average 13-year-old wannabe gangster is absolutely going to do, spend 50 quid on a budget angle grinder and traipse around scrapyards for a lorry spring.

Yeah, that makes total sense.

Is there any *legitimate* reason why a child needs to be able to buy chef's knives?

Maybe wind the misplaced sarcasm down several notches please, it's unseemly particularly as knife making is easily one of the more popular goto shop projects in high school (outside the STEM nerd and theatre kids circle, I know) and that "wannabe gangsters" even in their teens have easy access to stolen goods at a discount or often five finger their own.

UK (and Canadian, Australian, etc) weapon disposal schemes frequently land home made weapons eg: https://kk.org/streetuse/english-ownerbuilt-weapons/ from 2006 is barely a trickle of the flood that gets swept up by amnesty programs.

Why isn't a child allowed to practice cheffing on their own? Say kid in a halfway or foster facility where the place doesn't have the knives and no one will buy them for them.

What are you going to tell them? That they're allowed a boning knife that'll easily cut every artery in a human but not a chopper because ooooh those are super duper scary? That they're not allowed any "chef's knife" but the steak knives for dinner are fine?

You know the average 13-year-old wannabe gangster can shave a shank on the sidewalk just as well, right? That a perfectly-capable-of-murder-and-menace device can be manufactured from just about anything? That a common 2x4 or bat or shoestring will do? And that preventing their committing crime with a larger knife is easier to police than a smaller concealable, right?

> Why isn't a child allowed to practice cheffing on their own?

They are, they're just not allowed to go and buy chef's knives. My son is 6 and is actually pretty good at cooking - he can make pizza from scratch, but does still need his old dad to knead the dough, for now I guess, don't know how long that will last.

Can you think of anything you *wouldn't* want your teenager to just be able to go and buy without your permission? USians are pretty weird about alcohol and pornography but equally weirdly permissive about weapons, and I've never heard of anyone stabbing someone to death with a jazz mag or stabbing them with a double vodka.

> Can you think of anything you wouldn't want your teenager to just be able to go and buy without your permission?

I can think of plenty, but I don't understand how "big knife" is worse than "medium size knife".

>Can you think of anything you wouldn't want your teenager to just be able to go and buy without your permission?

Not really (outside of those things that are only dangerous and have no other legitimate use like drugs, guns outside hunting rifles), because I don't believe it is the role of the state to decide what my child should be allowed to purchase. It is my job to raise them such that they don't do dangerous shit; to show them that brandishing a machete in public isn't allowed for anyone, regardless of age, and that threatening someone with a bat is the same as threatening them with a knife.

If the specific concern is "might be used in menacing or as a weapon" a large rock will suffice. Or a baseball bat. Or a sufficiently weighted wooden dowel. Or a crochet needle sharpened for 30 minutes. Or a hammer. Or fishing line. Or twine. Or a sufficiently thick plastic bag. Or a sock full of rocks. Or pantyhose. Or a torn up blanket/towel. If the goal is to eliminate the use of props used in crimes committed by children, you'll need to outlaw their ability to purchase more than half the items in the store, but even that doesn't prevent them from actually having the items. Does the child now require a written note from me to carry their baseball bat with them to practice? So that I get in trouble when they commit a crime with it? Or must they now have two bats so that they have one at the field and one to practice at home to eliminate their need to transport it? Must they be locked up like firearms to prevent any accidental practicing? Because, you never know when they stop practicing ball and switch to practicing crime. Best be safe, surely? Of course, this means that the child cannot practice hardly any hobbies given the large assortment of items that can be used in crime and should be banned, unless they have a supportive parent or there's a community program, but we know 100% of kids have those, so I guess that's no concern.

And what of non-violent crimes and accidents? Matches? Candle starters? Candles? Sewing needles? multi-meters? Soldering irons? Chisels? A printer? A computer? A phone? Hell, paints can be lethal in a closed space. If we're giving the government the task of preventing all injury and damages resulting from children purchasing things, we'd be better off just forbidding children access to purchasing in general than trying to cobble together some list that slowly chips away at the goal.

My child shouldn't be legally barred from purchasing any of the above, including a chef's knife or machete, because they have legitimate uses if the child has particular hobbies.

And my child shouldn't recieve some extra priveledged access to these items because they have a supportive parent rather than an exploitative foster parent.

actually a probe from cheap shit chinese multimeter, an article from wikipedia and a swift stab kills. with some practice on a friendly stuffed animal.

UK approach is insane.

The specific use of the bans is to provide a law that allows the questioning of people carrying knives and the seizing of those knives from those that appear to have no legitimate reason to be waving them about in public.

Like seatbelts they're not foolproof in making people safer, but they do act as a damper on knife crime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com