[HN Gopher] Czech gunmaker CZG buys Colt in cash and stock deal
___________________________________________________________________
Czech gunmaker CZG buys Colt in cash and stock deal
Author : lazycrazyowl
Score : 188 points
Date : 2021-02-12 16:25 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (reuters.com)
| ed_blackburn wrote:
| Doesn't seem like a lot of money. Shame somebody didn't buy it
| and shutter it. Less guns in the world is better for everyone.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| It seems incredibly optimistic to assume that one gun company
| shutting down would meaningfully change the number of guns
| available. The demand is still sky high; at best this would
| delay consumption until other manufacturers add more capacity.
|
| More realistically it would change what type of guns people
| own. Fewer Colts, more Glocks, I presume. From a public policy
| perspective that's no change at all.
| DamnYuppie wrote:
| The dream and goal of every tyrant and despot ever is to reduce
| the martial capacity of their "subjects".
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| It's true because invariably the more well-armed a country's
| civilians are, the more democratic it is!
|
| Oh wait, actually they're unrelated and you're being stupid.
| injidup wrote:
| The dream of every gun nut is to imagine they live in a world
| where they gotta pack that go bag and ammo and head down to
| the Capitol to stop the steal.
| black6 wrote:
| Her name was Ashli Babbitt, and she wasn't killed by a
| citizen with a gun, but rather a government employee with a
| gun.
| smokelegend wrote:
| She died because she broke a window to the US Senate
| chamber floor during a proclaimed riot on the US Capital.
| She was shot once, center mass by a trained US Secret
| Service officer. She died because of her belief that her
| white privilege would save her. She died because of her
| poor judgment of her own actions. Nobody told her she has
| a right to storm the US capital and attempt to break into
| the US Senate chamber. There are consequences for your
| actions. She died because of her actions, it's not the US
| Secret Service officers fault for doing what he was
| trained for, swore duty to and paid to do. Do not attempt
| to glorify stupidity.
| MrZongle2 wrote:
| It was definitely _stupid_ to storm the US Capitol
| Building. No argument there.
|
| But she was shot and killed _for breaking a window._
|
| Thank God she was put down before more glass was harmed!
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| It's the second amendment for a reason.
|
| Modern America is a historical anomaly.
|
| And as inequality grows here in America and we slowly but
| surely descend back to what has been the default state of
| humanity for thousands of years...with a few rich and
| powerful with their neck on the rest of society who is
| poor...we'll be glad the average citizen has guns to fight
| back at some point.
|
| There's a saying: History repeats itself.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Modern America is an anomaly in a different sense: AFAIK
| it's the only country with a constitution that guarantees
| the right to bear arms.
| rancor wrote:
| Per Wikipedia Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala also have
| constitutional protections of varying strength.
| Acrobatic_Road wrote:
| They do, but in practice they don't. Many European
| countries which don't have a right to bear arms still
| manage to have better gun laws than those three Latin
| American countries (and I should add, a number of
| American states).
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| The other countries haven't become provinces of other
| less Democratic countries thanks to America's protection.
| pwlb wrote:
| Is there any country in history that prevented its
| downfall because its civilians are armed to the teeth?
| linksnapzz wrote:
| The last person to successfully invade Switzerland was...
| Napoleon?
|
| Likewise, while it may not be to your taste,
| Afghanistan's polity has spent the last 200 years
| stubbornly being Afghan, to the surprise and annoyance of
| the British, Russians, Americans, etc.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Switzerland has the loosest gun laws in the world next to
| America.
|
| They have laws REQUIRING able bodied males have a gun.
|
| Also, The Swedes inteternally had a coup to overthrow the
| monarchy.
|
| I can't imagine the monarchy turned over it's power due
| to love or because someone asked nicely.
|
| I imagine there's a significant possibility the threat of
| weapons may have been present.
| moate wrote:
| Point of order on both nations: They also have protective
| geography that helps a great deal. The Afghani culture
| and being very well armed does contribute though, but IDK
| that we can say it's the sole reason.
|
| Switzerland has been a neutral state during the entirety
| of modern aerial warfare era, so I'm going to put that
| less on the guns and more on the "why would I want to
| attack Switzerland?" attitude of the last ~100 years.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Belgium was neutral in WW1 but that didn't stop the
| Germans from invading it im order to try and circle
| around the French frontline. Switzerland being a
| mountainous hellhole (from a military perspective) is
| probably a big part of why, but it's also perfect terrain
| for an armed insurgency.
| EdwardCoffin wrote:
| Who has tried since? I understood that in WW2 for
| instance it was their strict policy of neutrality that
| kept them from invasion, and the fact that Germany
| thought it was more beneficial to have them as a neutral
| rather than occupied country.
| linksnapzz wrote:
| Keeping Zurich industrialists on their side was essential
| to helping supply German war efforts-that's how Dehomag
| laundered its purchases of Hollerith cards from IBM, and
| I think how GM Europe's part-ownership of Ethyl
| Inc.facilitated getting TEL to the Luftwaffe.
|
| In addition to losing all that, it would be a costly and
| drawn-out war against an entrenched enemy on hideously
| unsuitable terrain. The desire was absolutely there,
| Hitler _hated_ Swiss Germans, but cooler heads prevailed,
| apparently.
| EdwardCoffin wrote:
| They didn't _try_ though, that 's the point. You have to
| _try_ in order to _succeed_ or _fail_. I mean, the USA
| famously had a _plan_ to invade Canada - but they never
| _did_.
| EdwardCoffin wrote:
| I think this one is hard to answer because it is hard to
| know whether the armed-to-the-teeth aspect was essential.
|
| I'm more interested in the list of countries that
| prevented their downfall _despite_ their civilians _not_
| being armed to the teeth.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Western democracy wouldn't exist without citizens who
| were armed to the teeth.
|
| Do you think the monarchys would have happily and
| peacefully turned over their power because of the power
| of love?
|
| Because someone said please sir?
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > Western democracy wouldn't exist without citizens who
| were armed to the teeth.
|
| Citation needed. I can't think of any good examples,
| except maybe for the Revolutionary French "Sans-
| culottes", who, as the name suggests, were _famously_
| well-equipped.
| yellowapple wrote:
| And to expand on this, there's a reason why even Karl
| Marx understood the necessity of an armed working class:
| "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be
| surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be
| frustrated, by force if necessary."
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| That's awesome. Did not know that about Marx.
|
| Any educated person who looks at cumulative human history
| can see this.
|
| History as a rule is filled with subjugation by the
| powerful for thousands upon thousands of years.
|
| There's the argument that policy cant reduce inequality,
| only plague, revolution, war, and state collapse, have
| ever reduced this.
|
| What we have now in modern America is an anomoly... and
| if one looks carefully at the growing inequality...we're
| moving back towards equilibrium.
|
| Wish history was taught better in schools.
| kbenson wrote:
| In the UK the Monarchy was stripped of powers by other
| nobles, not regular citizens. I'm not sure about other
| places, but I wouldn't assume it was always a popular
| revolution of some sort. I would guess in many cases it
| was slowly ceded to other parts of the government.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| I am guessing if the nobles did not have weapons and
| troops the monarch would not have given up some power.
| kbenson wrote:
| Of course they had military might. But the point is it
| wasn't exactly "citizens", and whether regular citizens
| can bear arms has little to do with whether the standing
| armies of nobles can. The nobility of that period is not
| what I would consider regular citizens. The original
| assertion I replied to is obviously not as absolute as it
| was presented.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Sorry I wasn't very clear.
|
| I am not sure if you consider soliders to be "regular
| citizens" but many of the troops would have been been
| subjects or lower nobles. If strictly the nobility
| (without their troops) were going against the king he may
| have been able to resist if he had his own troops.
|
| I am not sure how possible it would have been to run
| England without the nobility so it is possible that
| troops were not strictly needed, but I am guessing the
| threat of the use of the nobility's troops at least made
| the whole process easier.
|
| It of course wasn't a civilian uprising or something like
| that which may have been more of your point?
| kbenson wrote:
| The Monarchy, like all rulers, is able to rule because
| they have the backing of powerful factions. No matter how
| powerful you think a ruler, ultimately they have to
| delegate a lot of control to those they want to carry out
| their orders. There is no difference in any country. Even
| in the US, were the DoD and some other departments able
| to successfully coordinate, they could easily take over
| the government, at least for a short while. That they
| don't is more a nature of how problematic it would be to
| do anything useful after that was accomplished, and that
| it would likely be short lived.
|
| My minimal understanding of the Magna Carta, as taught to
| an American in middle school, is that the Nobility forced
| the monarchy to sign a document ensuring they are subject
| to certain laws like others are (but not necessarily all
| the laws the average citizen is subject to), which in
| essence increased the power of the Nobility. They were
| able to do this because most the military might of the
| time was in the hands of the nobles. The Monarchy might
| have had a larger army than any single noble, but the
| combined military strength of the nobility dwarfed the
| Monarchy (wars were generally fought by calling on the
| nobility to supply soldiers).
|
| My point was though that the loss of powers of the
| Monarchy in the UK had little to do with the citizens, it
| was a power grab by the nobility. And then I assume
| eventually much of the strength of the nobility was ceded
| to parliament and then parliament was eventually opened
| to commoners (I'm getting into speculation here, but
| speculation based on snippets of history I do know so I
| think is likely not far off the mark).
|
| In the end, the ability of the citizens to have guns
| specifically had very little to do with it I think. AIUI,
| there are other countries with mostly figurehead
| monarchies which I suspect had a more gradual shift in
| power as well, and wasn't explicitly at the threat of
| violence. It may have been spurred by the sight of that
| happening in other countries, but really that's more a
| realization that the populace is learning that they have
| power in quantity, guns or not, and those ruling them
| needed to contend with that reality.
|
| Attributing it all to guns is a vast oversimplification
| in my eyes. It may have had far more to do with the
| printing press.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| A tyrant and despot doesn't have to decrease your "martial
| capacity" but simply make sure theirs is more than yours. If
| a tyrant/despot secures control of economic resources this
| isn't overly difficult.
|
| Furthermore: rising up against a tyrant/despot is only
| possible if the population is very united; but a
| tyrant/despot, with enough economic power (or oppression of
| others) can make sure a population is ideologically or
| otherwise fractured/disunited and cause infighting.
|
| This will actually make benefits of being well armed a
| liability as now you have a tyrant/despot and also can't walk
| safely in your neighboorhood.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Yeah, because history isn't littered with instances of
| David beating Goliath...
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| You present a logical fallacy called a false dillema.
|
| Guns are legal in America and it's safe to walk in my
| neighborhood.
| chordalkeyboard wrote:
| > A tyrant and despot doesn't have to decrease your
| "martial capacity" but simply make sure theirs is more than
| yours. If a tyrant/despot secures control of economic
| resources this isn't overly difficult.
|
| And one major way of doing this is by reducing your combat
| power, and by securing control over the means of providing
| defense.
|
| > Furthermore: rising up against a tyrant/despot is only
| possible if the population is very united;
|
| Historical counterexamples proliferate.
|
| > This will actually make benefits of being well armed a
| liability as now you have a tyrant/despot and also can't
| walk safely in your neighboorhood.
|
| Fortunately possession and carriage of armaments mitigates
| both those ills.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| well..by your logics the US founding fathers should just
| gave up 'cause at that time, the British Empire is stronger
| than whatever two-bits army that the founding fathers can
| scrap together.
| analog31 wrote:
| In my view, that's survivor bias. I think that an
| insurrection can render a country or region un-
| governable, even with a numerical disadvantage. But it
| can't necessarily establish a new government, either a
| good one or a bad one.
|
| The two-bits army was ideologically and organizationally
| aligned with an already functioning colonial government.
| But that's survivor bias too. I don't know if there are
| any reliable rules for the long term outcome of a
| successful insurrection.
|
| The British didn't need to be defeated, they only needed
| to realize that they could no longer govern the colonies.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Lots of tyrants have implemented strict rules against theft
| as well. It's really not a great argument on its own.
| leesalminen wrote:
| It's unclear to me how enforcing laws on theft pertains to
| a tyrant retaining power over their citizens.
| tshaddox wrote:
| The argument was of the form "tyrants do this, therefore
| it's bad."
| chordalkeyboard wrote:
| I read it as "Tyrants do this because it enables their
| tyranny."
| frongpik wrote:
| Well, you probably want to keep some guns around for private
| guards for the rich - respectable citizens deserve safety.
| La1n wrote:
| I guess giving money to the people selling a gun company, then
| firing most their workers just sets up a situation where they
| can rehire them all, and use the money you just spend on making
| more guns.
| vageli wrote:
| "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in
| his heart he dreams himself your master." With 3d printed guns
| already a reality (I have seen designs for completely printed
| models, including the bolt carrier), the cat is out of the bag.
| alex_young wrote:
| Don't 3D printed guns have a not insignificant chance of
| blowing the user up?
|
| Seems like a big commitment to using one.
| yc-kraln wrote:
| No, actually, they don't. Typically the barrels are
| machined using electricity and the pressure-sensitive parts
| are hardened steel. Many firearms are made out of plastic
| anyway (Glocks, to name one you might be familiar with).
|
| It's not hard to build a reliable firearm with fairly
| little skill. In the United States, it's not even illegal
| to do so.
| moate wrote:
| I think we have a lot of people having very different
| discussions about what "3D printed gun" means. This can
| be anything from a fully plastic weapon like the
| Liberator to what you're describing (more 3D components
| and home assembled traditional components coming together
| which really just feels like the "80% receiver" style
| ghost guns) to a fully metal 3D printed 1911 off a
| machine that itself costs at least half a million dollars
| to acquire.
|
| Point being: Yes they do, but also no they don't, because
| you're having different conversations about different
| types of weapons. Are fully plastic weapons commonly used
| for anything? Doesn't seem to be, and I would suspect the
| reason is because they'd be inclined to blow up/warp
| after a single fire.
| m0ngr31 wrote:
| Typically you print the lower receiver - not the part where
| the explosion happens.
| snake_plissken wrote:
| Dank Alpha Centauri quote!
| einpoklum wrote:
| The fact that it is possible to make a gun using 3D-printed
| parts does not make it a significant contributing factor to
| the prevalence of guns (for non-recreational use) in the US.
| yellowapple wrote:
| Correction: it's not a significant contributing factor
| _yet_. It takes a pretty advanced case of myopia to not be
| able to foresee home firearm manufacturing growing.
|
| At the current rate of development, I give it 10 years,
| tops, before European and Australian gun control measures
| are effectively meaningless.
| philipkglass wrote:
| If the guns themselves become easy to manufacture I think
| that there will be more emphasis on controlling and
| tracing ammunition, including primers and propellants for
| handloading. Making stable, uniform smokeless propellant
| starting from raw cellulose and over-the-counter
| chemicals is a huge investment of skill and effort.
| Making black powder is more tractable but still a lot of
| effort.
|
| Most aspiring firearm enthusiasts who are not criminals
| could get legally permitted in Europe if they were
| willing to invest as much effort as it would take to make
| their own guns and ammunition from scratch. Most
| criminals who want guns just as crime accessories don't
| have the discipline and drive to make weapons that they
| can't buy. (Thank goodness, or homemade bombs with
| wireless command detonation would already be common
| instruments in areas with gang rivalry.)
| notahacker wrote:
| But they're not "meaningless", because the average person
| in Europe and Australia has no interest in owning a gun,
| never mind figuring out how to print one, and even the
| average hardened criminal has to consider the possibility
| that since it isn't necessary for them to preemptively
| shoot anybody who challenges them, possessing guns might
| not be worth the risk of additional penalties. Those are
| much bigger factors in low gun deaths somewhere like the
| UK than the difficulty of obtaining one on the black
| market
| emteycz wrote:
| Every tenth adult in Czechia carries a gun. Last time I
| checked, Czechia was safer than UK.
| pauke wrote:
| Nope on the first part. 8M adults, 300k gun permits. And
| that's including almost 100k active police/military. As
| for the latter part, maybe, but there is way more guns in
| US than in CZ. And last time I checked.. Let's say I
| don't think there is any correlation between the two
| statements.
| emteycz wrote:
| You're right about the stats, the news article I was
| referring to was wrong. It's not including
| police/military service permits though, the 300k is
| purely private permits (which can have overlap with
| police/military - they can't use guns for private
| purposes without a private permit); and there are 900k
| private guns.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > But they're not "meaningless", because the average
| person in Europe and Australia has no interest in owning
| a gun
|
| You've just described yet another reason why gun control
| measures are meaningless. The desire to kill oneself
| and/or others (with or without a gun) doesn't exist in a
| vacuum; guns don't magically make people suicidal or
| homicidal. That desire happens due to a combination of
| socioeconomic pressures and inadequate mental healthcare
| - two angles that gun control proponents chronically
| ignore, instead pushing for band-aids like gun control
| because those band-aids are "easier" and don't involve
| confronting the painful realities of socioeconomic
| inequality.
|
| Hence, my point: as home manufacturing of firearms
| proliferates, that band-aid loses whatever tenuous
| effectiveness it has. People concerned about "gun
| violence" are then forced to consider _why_ people are
| killing themselves and each other (hint: because the
| average person is broke and depressed).
| notahacker wrote:
| Guns don't magically make people homicidal, they just
| make it magically easy and efficient to kill people in
| the heat of the moment, or by mistake, or because they
| fear if they don't pull the trigger first the other
| person might, or when too mentally ill to know what is
| going on.
|
| The actual difficulty for a _sufficiently motivated_
| person to obtain a gun (legal or otherwise) under gun
| control in the UK is not that high, but the incentives to
| do so are reduced, the disincentives increased, and the
| average person with the potential to carry out _non_
| -premeditated shootings never considers buying one. The
| ability to learn all about how to 3D print a gun instead
| of learning how to license and modify a shotgun or how to
| find black markets that will sell you illegal firearms
| does not change that calculus very much.
| kbenson wrote:
| I think the point was to note that shutting down
| manufacturing us no longer a useful way to prevent firearms
| from being made. They don't _need_ to be 3D printed right
| now because there are factories. If all the factories shut
| down tomorrow, that wouldn 't stop new guns from being
| produced.
| einpoklum wrote:
| > I think the point was to note that shutting down
| manufacturing us no longer a useful way to prevent
| firearms from being made.
|
| And I'm saying that's incorrect. It's not wrong in the
| binary sense of "no firearms made" vs "some firearms
| made", but rather in the sense that if the mass-
| production output were to drop significantly, prevalence
| and use would also drop significantly (although this
| would be mitigated by there being a huge stock of
| existing guns).
|
| And just to clarify - I'm not saying that this is the way
| to "solve the gun problem" in the US though.
| kbenson wrote:
| > if the mass-production output were to drop
| significantly, prevalence and use would also drop
| significantly
|
| I'm not sure that can be assumed anymore. The 3D printer
| market has been absolutely exploding. I and my siblings
| got one as a present from my father for Christmas in
| 2020. Some reports[1]state there was a 68% increase
| globally in personal desktop 3D printer units in 2020,
| and that's after there were manufacturing problems to
| overcome.
|
| If if shutting a factory _today_ might suppress supply
| slightly in the future, I suspect that within 5-10 years
| the point will be mostly moot.
|
| 1: https://www.tctmagazine.com/additive-
| manufacturing-3d-printi...
| minikites wrote:
| Might as well not have any laws or regulations ever,
| then.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Or you could simply add additional penalties for
| commiting actual violent crimes with weapons, which we
| already do. See, for example, strongarm robbery vs armed
| robbery. That way criminals are punished for misuse of
| firearms while law abiding owners don't have their rights
| infringed.
| sofixa wrote:
| And how is that working out? Last time i checked, the US
| was leading in violent crime, death and suicide by guns,
| mass shootings, etc. among developed nations, _by a lot_.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Why does it matter if someone is murdered by a gun vs.
| cut into cubes by a cartel or brained with a hammer or
| anything else? If you don't limit it to murders and
| suicides _by guns_ , your claim is flatly untrue. Japan's
| suicide rate is greater than the US's murders and
| suicides combined. Russia has far more murders despite
| having fairly restrictive gun laws.
|
| In any case, the US is inherently more violent and
| criminal than other nations in general independent of
| guns. It also has extremely violent subpopulations
| centered in major urban centers that tilt the numbers
| significantly. Outside of a few specific cities like
| Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago, etc. the US is extremely
| peaceful and low in crime.
| leesalminen wrote:
| Don't forget about acid attacks which from what I
| understand are far more prevalent in the UK than the US.
| curryst wrote:
| > I have seen designs for completely printed models,
| including the bolt carrier
|
| Are these parts functional? I would be literally stunned if
| you could 3D print a bolt carrier group that lasts more than
| a clip.
|
| The last I looked (and it's been a couple years), the designs
| exist, but are largely non-functional and/or still require
| several parts to be made of steel.
|
| The barrel is another problematic piece. I get that with
| enough plastic, you might be able to make it handle the
| pressure (and that's a pretty big might). Even presuming you
| do, plastic is not hard enough to allow rifling, so we're
| back to smoothbore rifles, which practically haven't been
| seen since the Civil War. Worse yet, every time you pull that
| trigger, the heat and pressure will blast more of your
| plastic out the end of the barrel. That's going to ruin your
| accuracy, and at a certain point, you'll start losing muzzle
| velocity because the barrel no longer seals around the
| bullet.
| dirtyoldmick wrote:
| https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4380813
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| There's been a lot of progress doing home ECM rifling of
| metal barrels. The objective is accessible firearms
| personal sovereignty, not specifically plastic barrels
| necessarily.
| njharman wrote:
| Search youtube. You'll see firing examples of state of the
| art. Couple years is long tine.
| goles wrote:
| My observations of how 3D printing is evolving doesn't
| align with OPs. Why go to great lengths to print pressure
| bearing parts while many of them can be crafted from off
| the shelf parts from your local Home Depot? Stock steel, a
| welder, and some airsoft parts can all be used as
| functional substitutes and a lot of creators have
| functional models from these methods.
|
| In most parts of the United States a barrel (or anything
| other than the frame/receiver for that matter) is not a
| regulated part. You can order it online and have it show up
| at your door without ID or signing for it. Even in areas
| where barrels are regulated it only requires a few
| materials to electrochemically machine a barrel.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| That's why instead of 3d printing barrels, diy gun
| enthusiasts have been making them out of metal using ECM
| (with a 3d printed mandrel).
| ggreer wrote:
| Current 3D printed guns like the FGC-9[1] make use of
| standard metal parts that can be bought at a hardware
| store. The bolt requires a single weld, though people have
| made weldless bolts[2]. The barrel is a metal tube that you
| can buy at a hardware store and rifle with ECM. Ammunition
| can be manufactured from blanks or deactivated ammo (both
| of which are legal in many parts of the EU).
|
| The end result is a firearm built entirely with parts that
| are legal to purchase in the EU.[3] This will only get
| easier as 3D printers improve and weapon designs are
| refined.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGC-9
|
| 2. https://imgur.com/gallery/xZqXXuE
|
| 3. The FGC-9's designer lives in the EU. He manufactured
| the gun & ammo himself and shot it in his basement:
| https://twitter.com/freegunzone/status/1309896256760709128
| samatman wrote:
| Let's put it this way: producing the parts of a gun which
| simply must be made of metal, in a machine shop, is
| substantially easier than synthesizing methamphetamine.
|
| 3d printing everything except the parts you mentioned is
| quite tractable, and constantly improving from an already
| acceptably-high standard.
|
| No, the chokepoint here is primers. Which are scarce on the
| ground at the moment, and I expect will receive significant
| regulatory encumbrance in the near future.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| In addition to priners, smokeless powder is also
| difficult to home manufacture. Black powder is easy
| enough, but it's not powerful enough to cycle most modern
| semi-automatics and fouls up the barrel something awful.
|
| Something like ammonpulver would be comparable in power
| and cleanliness to modern smokeless powder, but is pretty
| corrosive and gets ruined if it absorbs too much water.
|
| The same types of people eho develop 3d gun models are
| also putting effort into developing alternatives for
| primers, powder, and cases. Homemade metal barrels were
| an issue a few years ago but ECM barrels made it easy to
| make them at home with only a couple hundred dollars in
| tooling.
| Bancakes wrote:
| Okay but let's see the EU, China, and Russia disarm themselves
| first.
| jaywalk wrote:
| It's funny that you think it would somehow come out to less
| guns in the world, when in reality it would just mean that the
| rest of the companies which still exist would take up the
| slack.
| suifbwish wrote:
| You have no idea how capitalist markets work apparently. If the
| DEA decided to buy up all the street drugs and burn them it
| would create a million new drug dealers overnight as the prices
| would spike. Less guns is not the solution. The solution is to
| round up all the humans and cut their thumbs off so they can't
| use tools to kill each other.
| njharman wrote:
| The true mission of Elons brain interface. Save us from our
| thumbless future.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| conversly, if you flooded the market with cheap "safe" drugs,
| the market would drop out entirely.
|
| as for guns, the solution is societal change.
|
| However removing handguns, and limiting the legal reasons to
| be wondering around the streets with a gun would also help.
| frongpik wrote:
| That's a solid solution, actually, and it would prevent fist
| fights as well.
| yellowapple wrote:
| If anything it'd make fistfights easier, since there's no
| thumb in the way.
|
| Not to mention kicks, slaps, and karate chops.
| rayiner wrote:
| No it's not. The British disarmed colonial India to make it
| easier to control. This resulted in tens of thousands of
| unnecessary deaths in Bangladesh, when the Pakistani army was
| able to commit genocide against a disarmed populace:
| https://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/bangladesh-liberation-...
|
| > Most of the weapons used by the Mukti Bahini were taken from
| defeated soldiers. Then, there were homemade bombs, knives and
| even instances of the use of bows and arrows.
|
| > Walking along the gallery of the Liberation War Museum in
| Dhaka where a number of weapons, including rifles and
| machineguns used in the Liberation War of 1971, had been put on
| display, Shahzaman Mozumder Bir Protik, a guerrilla freedom
| fighter, reminisced saying "They had to earn their weapons."
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| We've all grown so comfortable in modern America that we forget
| that default state of human nature is subjugation and
| repression and has been for thousands of years.
|
| Modern America is a historical anomaly. The powerful aren't
| peaceful by choice.
|
| It's the SECOND amendment in the constitution for a reason.
| Bakary wrote:
| The number of prisoners per capita in the US is indeed an
| impressive anomaly
| yoz-y wrote:
| There are a lot of countries where the populace isn't
| generally armed and they are doing just fine. It's not like
| America is the only free country out there.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Yeah a good part of the reason those countries aren't
| Chinese, German, or Russian provinces right now is America.
| sofixa wrote:
| Citation needed.
|
| If anything, a lot of nations were subjugated with the
| help of or by the US.
| orange_tee wrote:
| > Less guns in the world is better for everyone.
|
| If the defenseless had guns they would be able to protect
| themselves. I am not sure if that would result in more peace or
| more war, but it would definitely be a more just world.
| wassenaar10 wrote:
| CZ is a really good company. Colt, on the other hand, hasn't been
| good in decades. It will be interesting to see what they do with
| the acquisition.
| exabrial wrote:
| CZ has handled it's past mergers pretty well. I was pretty bummed
| with the Dan Wesson purchase, but overall I don't think much
| changed other than the logo.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| SmallArmsSolutions used to work for Colt, he's got some
| insightful thoughts on the whole thing:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSMQ7S0NNNU
| chmod600 wrote:
| "God Created Men and Sam Colt Made Them Equal!"
|
| https://www.historyandheadlines.com/march-5-1836-god-created...
| Proven wrote:
| Excellent news, I hope to buy Colt products in the EU!
| bluedino wrote:
| Better than Remington's fate: being bought out by Cerebus
| yellowapple wrote:
| A bummer that the Navajo Nation didn't buy 'em.
| aksss wrote:
| That would have been interesting for many, many reasons, the
| poetry of which being the least interesting. They're a
| sovereign nation so what happens when you manufacture guns in
| Indian country? How beholden are you to the BATF's regs,
| assuming you build with the intention of the firearm never
| leaving the res?
| m0ngr31 wrote:
| That is an interesting question... Not sure what the answer
| would be. But I'm pretty sure they are still under federal
| law, just not individual states. So probably personal
| manufacturing fine, for sale (even on the res) would
| require an FFL.
| aksss wrote:
| Seems the BATF thinks tribes are under their thumb, but
| then, that's no different than how they regard everyone.
| These aren't exactly applicable but seem to demonstrate
| that BATF has no problem enforcing its regs and the
| federal laws in Indian Country.
|
| "tribal police departments generally do not qualify for
| the exemption from payment of the transfer tax for NFA
| firearms, are not eligible to receive firearms
| interstate, and can not possess a 'post-1986'
| machinegun."[0]
|
| "federal authorities alleged Ho-Chunk Inc. and its
| subsidiaries had violated federal tobacco laws by
| shipping and selling "untaxed, unstamped cigarettes to
| businesses in Nebraska other states."[1]
|
| [0] https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/nfa-
| transfers-trib...
|
| [1] https://www.indianz.com/News/2019/02/04/winnebago-
| tribe-stil...
| zhengyi13 wrote:
| Work to get every of-age tribe member a class 2 SOT.
| They're their own local law enforcement. Done.
| m0ngr31 wrote:
| Works for me. Full-auto for the whole tribe!
| dmix wrote:
| The CZ Scorpion EVO subreddit is one of the more active firearm
| ones on Reddit, not surprised here.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/czscorpion/
| Erwin wrote:
| That's one cool looking gun. Like that futuristic FN Herstal's
| P90, featured in Stargate.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| It's their modern omage to the CZ vz61 Skorpion, which
| appeared in GoldenEye 64 as the Klobb.
| dmix wrote:
| A famous "bad guy" gun like the AK.
| dmix wrote:
| It's known for being customizable. They had a good hold on
| one of those (expensive) hobbyist markets.
|
| One of my favourites almost has that sci-fi look too
| https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-
| content/uploads/2015/...
| anonlawyer wrote:
| I'd say $220 mil is a pretty good price for a company that hasn't
| introduced an innovative product in 50 years. Colt's main
| products are the AR-15 (introduced ~1963), the various 1911
| models (introduced in--duh--1911), and the single action army
| revolvers (introduced in 1873). It must be a hell of a marketing
| effort to keep flogging 50-150 year old products.
| kec wrote:
| Can you name _any_ small arms manufacturer who has introduced a
| successful, innovative design in the past 50 years? The design
| space seems pretty well explored at this point.
| anonfornoreason wrote:
| Sig p365, ultra compact with 10 round capacity, hadn't been
| done before.
|
| Any of the suppressor manufacturers.
|
| Ultra long range bolt guns from a variety of manufacturers
| (notably not Remington, colt, etc).
|
| Several novel application PDW systems (personal defense
| weapon). B&T, FN, Sig, HK, and others.
|
| Optics have rally stepped up. Always on 8 year battery life
| 300ft submersible red dot sights from aim point. Crazy
| precision scopes from vortex, nightforce, a few others.
|
| It's certainly a hobby that you can spend $100k on really
| easily exploring a variety of styles of defense and sport
| shooting.
| philwelch wrote:
| Glock is a fairly obvious one.
| zhengyi13 wrote:
| Sig's recent P320 system is another obvious example, where
| they've completely modularized the fire control group,
| allowing that to be swapped freely between multiple grips,
| calibers, and even form factors.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| Yeah but that's only made convenient by dumb laws.
| handedness wrote:
| Vouched for this as it's a good point for anyone who
| understands the P320 FCU and the legal framework which
| inspired its creation.
|
| The FCU concept would still have value were the legal
| framework less Byzantine, but its practical value would
| be significantly diminished.
| kec wrote:
| The Glock 17 was introduced 39 years ago, not quite 50
| years but still.
|
| It's also worth pointing out that while the manufacturing
| techniques used by Glock were new the actual design is
| essentially identical to the browning hi-power.
| handedness wrote:
| For the unfamiliar, the Heckler & Koch VP70 was the first
| polymer frame, striker-fired pistol, which predated the
| Glock by 12 years.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_VP70
| philwelch wrote:
| Materials are an incredibly significant element of
| design. Some of the most significant innovations of the
| AR-15 were in terms of materials. The Hi-Power also uses
| a single-action hammer rather than a striker, so I'm not
| sure how the striker-fired Glock is "essentially
| identical" to it.
| chordalkeyboard wrote:
| > essentially identical to the browning hi-power.
|
| BHP is hammer-fired, Glock safe-action is striker-fired.
| koolk3ychain wrote:
| This is likely a move so they can continue to either a) import
| firearms from outside of the US for sale or b) to gain traction
| and tooling to produce CZ products domestically in the case that
| the Biden Admin actually gets some form of "assault weapon" ban
| passed. It's important to note, they'll include pistols that hold
| more than 15 rounds as "assault weapons".
| floren wrote:
| CZ makes damn fine guns, so this seems like one of the better
| outcomes--better than being bought by a maker of crap who wishes
| to apply a veneer of respectability through the Colt name.
| mmaunder wrote:
| Indeed. Their 17 HMR with varmint barrel is a whole lot of fun
| and really accurate. (Same caliber as a BB gun but with a lot
| more powder, in case you're not a gun geek)
| hoppla wrote:
| Got a CZ455 varmint with interchangeable 22LR and 17HMR
| barrels. Good for practice shooting and hunting small game.
| The weight of the rifle also gives me good training as it's
| heavy as my bigger 308 rifle (Sauer 202).
| CydeWeys wrote:
| It really is a damning indictment of how badly Colt has been
| mismanaged over the past few decades, what with firearms sales
| in the US at all-time highs starting with the Obama
| administration. They have unbelievable brand value, probably #1
| in the world, but they failed so spectacularly to capitalize on
| it that they went bankrupt 5 years ago.
|
| There's a lesson here that's universally applicable well beyond
| gun manufacturers: You can't rest on your laurels and attempt
| to coast on brand value, even #1 brand value. You still always
| have to be competing.
| jcims wrote:
| Either would be better than some gross private equity firm
| gobbling them up and sucking whatever meat remains off the
| bones.
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| Cough cough, Remington, cough cough.
| jcims wrote:
| preeeeecisely
| dirtyoldmick wrote:
| Czech guns are the best guns.
| [deleted]
| throwawaysea wrote:
| Can someone more familiar with this world explain where the law
| ended up on building your own guns? I recall a controversy around
| whether you can even share open source 3D printing plans (which
| to me felt like a violation of the first amendment) but leaving
| that aside, I've also heard that it is possible to do so using
| more traditional methods.
| m0ngr31 wrote:
| In a majority of states you can manufacture your own firearms
| as long as you didn't build them with the intent to sell. To do
| that would require an FFL.
|
| I can't remember exactly, but in California you can make your
| own, but it has to have a serial number. I can't remember what
| other restrictions they have.
| aksss wrote:
| The State department tried to ban the exchange of digital plans
| for very simplistic, rudimentary 3d-printed pistols under ITAR
| regs. It was an over-reaction to an exaggerated fear that
| everyone could print guns out of plastic now, and I think the
| last administration (Trumps') finally revoked the rule. You
| can, in fact, print a gun out of plastic that will work, but it
| may be cheaper and more effective to build one out of parts
| from home depot if you're so inclined.
|
| For the most part it's always been legal to build a firearm for
| your own use (not to sell - that would be regulated under the
| Fed's commerce powers). Some states make it more burdensome
| than others. Making a high quality anything requires skill, but
| guns are very primitive mechanical devices, so the bar is very
| low to make something of effective working order. You won't be
| hitting a gong at 1000 yards, but you'll hit a pie plate at 20
| pretty easy.
| blisterpeanuts wrote:
| I have a memory that around 10 years ago, Australia banned the
| very act of downloading and possessing 3-D files to make
| firearms. Theoretically, if your computer is seized and found
| to contain the SolidWorks files to make a Ruger, for example,
| you can be prosecuted. However I don't know that this was
| enacted into national law or later struck down.
|
| A man in Queensland was given a suspended sentence for printing
| _parts_ of a gun that did not together constitute a usable gun
| without some additional pieces[1].
|
| Apparently there have been efforts there to ban 3-D printing of
| guns but so far they have not been successful.
|
| In the U.S., while it is physically possible to do anything
| within the privacy of one's home, it is technically illegal to
| print a gun if you are not legally permitted to possess one.[2]
|
| There are also existing laws on the books against
| plastic/undetectable guns which presumably would apply as well
| to resin/PETG/PLA printed firearms that have few or zero metal
| parts. Actually, one wonders why there haven't been more
| incidents of plastic guns smuggled onto aircraft in recent
| years, perhaps because K9 teams of bomb sniffing hounds are
| randomly used to detect bomb-making ingredients while standing
| in line at security. They are trained presumably to smell
| gunpowder as well as other chemicals. Leave your "Gunpowder
| Solid Men's Cologne" at home.
|
| 1. http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/science-and-
| te...
|
| 2. https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/legal-3d-gun
| elsonrodriguez wrote:
| > Actually, one wonders why there haven't been more incidents
| of plastic guns smuggled onto aircraft in recent years
|
| The root cause of this is that very few people want to
| smuggle guns onto aircraft. I think the biggest group of gun
| smugglers at this point are TSA penetration testers.
| m0ngr31 wrote:
| Well it'd be almost impossible to sneak brass or steel cased
| cartridges through a metal detector (also the copper jacket
| on the bullet itself). Not to mention that you need a metal
| firing pin to hit the primer.
| lutoma wrote:
| Honest question: How is this relevant to Hacker News? As a non-
| American i was rather bewildered to find this here. Is there a
| serious overlap between gun enthusiasts and the IT community in
| the US?
| arkitaip wrote:
| HN is much more conservative and libertarian than you might
| think.
| [deleted]
| blaser-waffle wrote:
| > Is there a serious overlap between gun enthusiasts and the IT
| community in the US?
|
| Anecdotally, but yes. Same with cars, AV & musical gear, other
| technical-ish stuff.
|
| I chalk it up to technical / engineering mentalities,
| disposable income, and US culture. Give nerds money and the
| ability to blow stuff up... and they'll blow stuff up.
| Teknoman117 wrote:
| I'm an American working as a software engineer for a tech
| company and I'm a gun enthusiast.
|
| Do I carry one with me? No. Do I have any set up for home
| defense? No. Do I enjoy shooting high power rifles at the range
| on the weekend? You bet I do.
|
| FWIW I own more tech stuff by value than guns, so, there's
| that.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| I don't think it matters where you're from, I don't see how
| hackers/start up entrepreneurs would be particularly interested
| in this story or how this even gratifies one's intellectual
| curiosity, either. But I feel that way about many articles that
| find their way to the front page. I checked the comments
| expecting that I missed some interesting context, but I didn't.
| In any case, it's not too much of a burden to flag/hide and
| move along.
| haunter wrote:
| You can put this question pretty much under every 2nd post on
| the front page
|
| Anyways there are lot of SV entrepreneurs on HN so an (old)
| american company sold to a European (especially from the former
| Eastern block) is always relevant.
|
| Also HN is much more than an "IT community" I think, much more
| diverse
| KAMSPioneer wrote:
| I'm originally from the Great Plains area (center of the US
| and, in fairness, a rather conservative region) and work IT.
| I'd say about half of my American coworkers were some level of
| gun user (from "I own one and know how to use it" to "don't
| tell my wife I bought another one").
| mikestew wrote:
| I would probably fit the description of "typical West Coast
| liberal" were it not for the Colt 1991 factory customized we
| have in the gun locker (along with a couple other boom sticks).
| Reformed Midwesterner who didn't sell all of the guns after the
| conversion. Don't carry that Colt, and don't even shoot it much
| anymore, but the story _does_ interest me because I can admire
| fine mechanical things, and it is good to know that Colt isn 't
| going to some private equity firm like Remington.
| yongjik wrote:
| Not me, but a large fraction of the HN community is
| ideologically libertarian-leaning, and they like guns.
|
| (From my experience, I don't think US IT workers are
| particularly pro-guns any more than average Americans.)
| lazycrazyowl wrote:
| In my opinion Hacker News isn't strictly an IT community but a
| platform that focuses on technology, startup culture and
| entrepreneurship that allows followers with a mix of technical
| obsession, business ambition, and aspirational curiosity to
| discuss among themselves to have some sort of intellectual
| reasoning.I may be wrong.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| I think the link is startups and the closely related
| libertarianism which then spills into gun ownership
| sorokod wrote:
| Only in US
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| Is libertarianism of any notable popularity in other
| countries?
| jbob2000 wrote:
| I'm so torn on guns. If you had asked me about them when I was
| younger, I would tell you that I don't think they have a place
| in society and that we should ban them.
|
| But as I've aged, I see class structures and the power of the
| elites much more clearly. I see how systems can be more violent
| than people. And that individuals do not have a lot of power
| these days because society is filled with so many systems.
|
| Owning a gun returns some power to the individual. I don't want
| my power for defense given to the police, I want to control
| that power. I don't care if the situations I want it for will
| never happen, I want the comfort of having that power.
| chordalkeyboard wrote:
| > Owning a gun returns some power to the individual. I don't
| want my power for defense given to the police, I want to
| control that power. I don't care if the situations I want it
| for will never happen, I want the comfort of having that
| power.
|
| This, exactly. But also:
|
| > we should ban them.
|
| That "we" does a lot of heavy lifting to obscure that fact
| that the prohibition of guns consists of people with guns
| telling other people when they may and may not have guns.
| Guthur wrote:
| Considering the number of comments, yes.
|
| Seems more relevant than the homeless grant article tbh.
|
| For the record I don't mind either article and clicked on both.
| pjkundert wrote:
| There is a large overlap between any serious engineering
| discipline and firearms enthusiasts.
|
| The engineering and physics involved in building/tuning guns
| and shooting accurately is very interesting.
|
| Furthermore, the "renegade" spirit required to reject the
| status-quo and push the envelope in science and engineering
| attracts quite a few of the same types of people.
|
| Finally, the idea of "banning" guns -- which _every_ basically
| qualified engineer or physicist should be capable to building
| from readily available materials and tools -- makes them even
| more interesting. If for no other reason than to illuminate
| preposterous and insulting nature of the idea.
|
| IMHO. ;)
| gambiting wrote:
| >>There is a large overlap between any serious engineering
| discipline and firearms enthusiasts.
|
| Again, surely you mean _in the US_? All engineers I have ever
| worked with or met are almost the exact opposite of this.
|
| IMHO ;-)
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Some European countries have more guns than you'd think.
| Iirc it's estimated that some countries like Switzerland
| have more guns per capita than some US states (New Jersey
| is usually the lowest per capita).
|
| The difference is in gun culture. Very few Europeans
| identify with guns as much as Americans occasionally do.
| soneil wrote:
| I believe gun ownership in Switzerland is very closely
| tied to compulsory military service. It's very much an
| outlier as statistics go - issuing every adult male a
| rifle isn't so much a gun culture as a military strategy.
|
| (Czechia does has a strong civilian ownership, however)
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Finland also has a lot of guns, about 1.5mil out of a
| population of 5.5mil. Compare this to the 57,000
| registered guns among New Jersey's 8.8mil residents. It's
| not just military service, even if that explains
| Switzerland specifically.
|
| Europe is a more diverse place ideologically and socially
| than most Americans tend to imagine it. The place is
| bigger and more complex than just Paris or Berlin, just
| like how America is not just NY or Houston.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| The reasons and culture vary. Finns go hunting, Americans
| going to a gun range is a sport. And most of those
| finnish guns are probably decades old and long out of
| use.
| rayiner wrote:
| > The difference is in gun culture. Very few Europeans
| identify with guns as much as Americans occasionally do
|
| It's an issue that's become culturally politicized. I bet
| folks in Switzerland don't say stuff like "people in
| other cantons cling to their guns and religion."
| riffraff wrote:
| I am betting that 90% of those are hunting rifles, and
| the overlap between computer geeks and people who hunt
| these days is pretty low based on my personal experience.
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| It's growing though! Growing right alongside the Farm to
| Table movement is the Catch, Clean, Cook movement.
|
| There's also a significant, separate overlap between
| computer geeks and people that like to exercise their
| rights (See: Crypto Wars) which results in non hunting
| gunowners.
| s5300 wrote:
| US Mechanical engineer here from a very left leaning
| University
|
| Can confirm we love our guns from the engineering aspect
| among other reasons
| calyth2018 wrote:
| Canadian. I think it's interesting. Canada buy some stuff
| from Colt Canada, apparently, occasionally require designs
| to be manufacturered by Colt Canada for service rifles,
| such as the one used by the Rangers in the North.
|
| If CZ ends up picking up Colt Canada too, seems like they'd
| be in good hands.
| barnaclejive wrote:
| That is an interesting anecdote. Here is another - No
| engineers I've worked with cared about guns at all.
| rayiner wrote:
| Anecdote: I went to science/tech magnet school, and quite a
| few of us were interested in guns. Same thing in
| engineering school (though that was GA Tech, so kind of a
| gimme).
| pjkundert wrote:
| Unfortunately, most of your "conservative" coworkers have
| also learned to keep their non-woke beliefs to themselves,
| lest they lose their job.
| perl4ever wrote:
| Potato guns?
| jhgb wrote:
| Heh. Purely coincidentally, the only people I've known to
| have any guns were my engineering schoolmates (brought them
| to school -- apparently that would be a cause for panic and
| a SWAT deployment in the US but it's kind of a "meh,
| whatever" thing around here in .cz.)
| Acrobatic_Road wrote:
| Depends which part of the U.S. you're talking about. In
| 10 states campus carry is allowed. In a number of other
| states, the campuses can choose to allow it.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Campus_carry_map_of_US
| _st...
| beerandt wrote:
| There's also some overriding laws, depending on the
| state. For instance, some states consider dorm rooms or
| personal vehicles to be an extension of ones private
| residence, and therefore not subject to firearm
| restrictions.
| ggreer wrote:
| Are you sure? Most gun enthusiasts at tech companies are in
| the closet. Had I known just how much my bosses hate guns
| (all the way up to the CEO), I would have kept my mouth
| shut about my hobby.
|
| It would be an amazing coincidence if none of your
| coworkers were interested in guns. Around 30% of
| Californians have at least one gun in their home. Naively
| extrapolating: that means if you have 15 coworkers, there
| is a 99.5% chance that at least one of them owns a gun.
| Even if only 10% of bay area techies have guns, the odds
| that at least one of your coworkers has a gun is still over
| 80%.
|
| When my hobby became publicly known at work, I suddenly
| discovered I had quite a few coworkers who liked guns. They
| were quiet about it at work because they were afraid
| (rightfully) of hurting their careers.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Back in the early 2000s I worked at a company where we
| did a fun "Bring Your Gun to Work day" on Wednesdays.
| Instead of going to a restaurant at lunchtime we went to
| the shooting range instead. Was a really popular
| activity, probably 1/3 of the office participated. Some
| people brought several guns to try.
|
| Good times! Could never do this these days in Silicon
| Valley though :(
| sushisource wrote:
| > Finally, the idea of "banning" guns -- which every
| basically qualified engineer or physicist should be capable
| to building from readily available materials and tools --
| makes them even more interesting. If for no other reason than
| to illuminate preposterous and insulting nature of the idea.
|
| This makes no sense. Assaulting someone is illegal, but
| anyone can do it. It's still illegal.
|
| What?
| chordalkeyboard wrote:
| Hurting someone is _malum in se_ whereas owning guns is
| _malum prohibitum_ when prohibited. This is the relevant
| distinction.
| TedDoesntTalk wrote:
| Software engineer here. I am also a gunsmith with a wide
| variety of tooling. Not interested in hunting in the
| slightest and only use handguns.
|
| I am glad this article was posted. Thank you.
| yaacov wrote:
| > Finally, the idea of "banning" guns -- which every
| basically qualified engineer or physicist should be capable
| to building from readily available materials and tools --
| makes them even more interesting. If for no other reason than
| to illuminate preposterous and insulting nature of the idea.
|
| By this logic, almost nothing should be banned, do you
| endorse that position?
| exolymph wrote:
| This is one of those questions people often ask 2A people
| as if the answer isn't going to be yeschad.jpg
| whomst wrote:
| Something to note is that most physical things that are
| banned are one-time-use (drugs, organs, etc), whereas the
| shelf life and resale value of the gun are much longer.
| Also the classification of "gun" is much wider than
| classifications of most other illegal things
| throwaway_oil wrote:
| Trivial counterexample: I can't make an Apple M1 chip in my
| garage. I can't make (good?) LSD in my garage. I can put a
| metal pipe on a board with a nail and have a simple,
| reliable 12ga shotgun. I can 3d print a 22LR pistol, or
| even a 9mm subgun (just add pipe for barrel, weight for
| bolt, and some common springs).
|
| I assume your response was probably born out of some
| political frustration, and I respect that. Happy to discuss
| specifics of the this position on the practicality and
| effectiveness of gun bans.
| setr wrote:
| take a look at https://animagraffs.com/how-a-handgun-
| works-1911-45/ and tell me this ain't ENGINEERING
| NoOneNew wrote:
| Dont forget the hundreds of years of engineering required
| just to get to the 1911. It's not like the 1911 was pooped
| out one day. Pistol and revolver engineering is amazing for
| the fact reliability and predictability are the forefront of
| needs. Everything else is technically optional. It's and
| industry that's standing on the shoulders of giants without a
| doubt.
|
| To be faaaaaair, without Colt's revolutionary wheely gat, the
| 1911 may not have happened when it did. Let that marinate.
| mikecoles wrote:
| Microcontrollers to webapps. Security and networking in
| between.
|
| The prior things pay the bills. Guns are for pleasure. Long
| range shooting beats meditation and yoga.
| wwww4all wrote:
| Early computers were created to calculate ballistic tables for
| artillery fire support in military.
|
| Most of the innovations in computers and tech are direct
| results from military arms research.
|
| Silicon Valley didn't just sprout from nothing. There were lots
| of engineers in the area that worked to support military
| contract making weapons, and their kids started computer
| companies.
| vmception wrote:
| Relevance:
|
| A) A pulse on market frothiness
|
| B) A pulse on who is opening their purse and looking
|
| C) National security implications from the foreign purchaser of
| American munitions creator
|
| D) C but with Eastern Europe. A lot of Silicon Valley is funded
| by funds with Russian general partners using British Virgin
| Islands entities which have Russian limited partners who made
| all their money with all the underpriced public assets in
| Russia, aka Oligarchs. Our salaries in a lot of startups come
| from Russian oligarchs. We consider that controversial because
| so much energy is also spent vilifying Russia and their money
| and its also hilarious that we are making them wealthy too,
| while they provide the capital to make us wealthy. So people
| pay attention to other constructive ways of getting Russian
| money into US assets. Soviet Union and satellite states are
| just too obvious. Even though one might as well use the Cayman
| Islands or British Virgin Islands.
|
| E) No national security implication and just liking CZG and
| their quality control, and how that affects the general Czech
| gun image and brand.
|
| F) Americans have a general consensus in favor of gun use, gun
| trading, gun modification, for vary wide ranges of reasons.
| Similar to computers and tinkering. So it will be rare to find
| a US-centric forum that fairly often posts culture related
| articles that would ignore this.
|
| So this headline is a perfect storm. To the top, boys!
| foofoo4u wrote:
| I do think there is a large overlap with American IT workers
| and gun enthusiasts. I happen to be one of them. But I do agree
| with your comment. As much as I may find the topic "Czech
| gunmaker CZG buys Colt" interesting, I believe it does not
| belong on Hacker News. Little by little Hacker News is turning
| into reddit. There is a reason why I come here and not reddit.
| The mods should take this post down to ensure the integrity of
| Hackers News.
| tpmx wrote:
| When you say IT workers, do you mean mostly the people we
| used to call sysadmins?
|
| (The term "IT worker" doesn't translate well globally.)
| blaser-waffle wrote:
| "IT" in this context I suspect refers broadly to "tech".
|
| But yeah, the in-industry definitions are that "IT" is
| business-side support & project roles, while CS / Dev are
| coders.
| foofoo4u wrote:
| "IT" is an overloaded term, so I don't blame the confusion.
| When I say IT, I am referring to jobs like Software
| Development, sysadmins, technicians, data scientists, etc.
| csunbird wrote:
| I do not know much about how good Colt is doing, but isn't 220mil
| plus 18mil in stocks a bit cheap?
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| Colt has basically been milking the 1911 and AR-15/M-16 for
| decades. And they lost the M-4 contract to FN a while ago, so
| they have very little going for them but the name.
| woofcat wrote:
| I'd think so given the number of Government Contracts. Looks
| like this includes things like Colt Canada which is the
| provider of small arms to the armed forces. C7, C8 etc.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The company was recently bankrupt.
| csunbird wrote:
| Oh, that explains a lot! Even though I am not a gun
| enthusiast, I have heard of their name, they are quite
| famous.
| milesdyson_phd wrote:
| I think FN has a lot of the US military contracts now, so it
| that might help explain why
| cinntaile wrote:
| But FN is a Belgian gun manufacturer, how does this relate to
| CZG from the Czech Republic?
| sueders101 wrote:
| Colt used to sell many rifles to the US military. They lost
| that business to FN. And with that they lost a lot of
| value.
| mallomarmeasle wrote:
| As pointed out downthread, Colt lost military contracts to
| FN, decreasing stock value
| groby_b wrote:
| How does FN enter here? I thought they're owned by the
| Belgian government?
| aksss wrote:
| reduced valuation of Colt
| LeonM wrote:
| The billion dollar valuations of silicon valley startups may
| cloud your judgement a bit.
|
| 220 mil is a lot. Most companies won't be worth this much.
|
| Except for the US, guns are mostly sold to governments (policy,
| military) so the gun market isn't that large, and there is lots
| of competition.
| SilasX wrote:
| But still, that means several of those highly-valued SV
| companies could afford to buy most gunmakers in existence...
| tdy721 wrote:
| If they have a liquidation event, or just do a stock trade?
| IDK... Valuation !== Value
| nostrademons wrote:
| Yup. The largest ones could afford to buy a mid-size
| country. (AMZN revenue = $386B, AAPL revenue = $274B, GOOG
| revenue = $182B, Norway GDP = $366B, Vietnam GDP = $340B,
| Chile GDP = $245B).
|
| Note also that SpaceX has more accurate ballistic missiles
| than the U.S. and Russia (PeaceKeeper CEP = 40M, while
| SpaceX routinely lands rockets upright within a ~10M radius
| on a drone ship), and Google has more data than the CIA &
| NSA (why else did the NSA try to wiretap them?). The
| microchip revolution put enormous capabilities in the hands
| of those organizations that know how to code effectively,
| such that Silicon Valley startups can often do things that
| were the sole province of national governments for decades.
| dsr_ wrote:
| Surely one would expect to pay at least a few times
| annual revenue for a country?
| noitpmeder wrote:
| Not if you use a community adjusted ebitda valuation.
| nostrademons wrote:
| That's revenue <=> GDP, and roughly earnings <=> tax
| revenues. I believe those are equivalent comparisons:
| revenue and GDP both include all internal transactions,
| while earnings and tax revenue reflect what's available
| for management/government to spend at their discretion.
|
| If a tech company were buying the country, market cap
| would be the appropriate metric, and market caps for
| those tech companies are in the $2T range, more than
| enough to pay a few times annual GDP.
| ISL wrote:
| Agreed with the sentiment that modern companies are
| capable, but disagreed on the rocket comparison -- the
| comparison is difficult at best.
|
| One is travelling at tremendous speed (Mach 5 or
| something?) and has milliseconds for course-corrections,
| the aspires to come to a gentle halt and can close some
| feedback loops over and over again for thousands of
| milliseconds.
|
| Edit: If you wish to make a weapons comparison, one might
| note that SpaceX can launch the mother of all MIRVs over
| and over again. The lower cost-to-orbit changes the
| economic calculus of rods-from-god, opening a possibility
| of a conventional-weapons bombardment from the other side
| of the planet for the first time.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| > One is travelling at tremendous speed (Mach 5 or
| something?)
|
| Much higher, about mach 20 to 25. They are moving
| seriously fast.
| ISL wrote:
| Oh, you're right -- it has been ages since I've read
| about things like ABM intercept problems.
|
| That does a great job of placing the accuracy problem in
| context: That's ~7 km/second, or perhaps a mile per
| eyeblink.
| jabl wrote:
| ICBM's also can't use GPS or equivalent navigation
| satellites, as those will likely be the first to be taken
| out in a nuclear exchange. They use inertial guidance
| (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30254/this-isnt-a-
| sci-... ) maybe together with some star navigation system
| for mid-course guidance.
| [deleted]
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| An ICBM hitting a target purely on internal guidance is
| an entirely different level of problem from what SpaceX
| is doing with cooperative positioning systems at the
| target. Also keep in mind that the "wikipedia numbers"
| for classified weapons systems are usually "at least"
| numbers, not exact.
|
| It's not at all clear who has more data between GOOG and
| NSA. Both don't exactly declare the numbers, but it is
| known that in several recent years NSA has been the
| largest single buyer of spinning disks in the world.
|
| Tech companies have indeed become powerful, but let's not
| get hyperbolic. The world hasn't become shadowrun quite
| yet.
| nostrademons wrote:
| "in several recent years NSA has been the largest single
| buyer of spinning disks in the world."
|
| The rest of the world moved to SSDs in ~2010. Google's
| been storing the whole web on flash since then. (I guess
| if you're archiving for slow-speed retrieval disks are
| still useful, but if that's your use-case, why wouldn't
| you use tape?)
| _jal wrote:
| > why wouldn't you use tape
|
| Because there are many orders of latency magnitude
| between spinning rust and tape.
|
| We still use a lot of spinning disk for precisely this
| reason - you get roughly 5x the online capacity for the
| same cost and automation does not whine about wanting the
| new shiny.
| nostrademons wrote:
| That was why I mentioned SSDs - there are orders of
| latency magnitude between SSDs and spinning disk.
|
| I guess it fits the NSA's use-case though, where they
| have ~thousands of analysts running complex queries but
| no external users, rather than ~billions of external
| users running well-defined queries.
| magila wrote:
| I left the storage industry about 5 years ago, but at
| least as of then the big cloud providers were still
| buying lots of spinning rust and showed no signs of
| stopping. These companies store a _lot_ of long tail data
| which needs to be available but doesn 't need super low
| latency access. It's still much more economical to store
| such data on disks than in flash.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| I wasn't really trying to get into some sort of debate
| about storage technologies, just illustrating that the
| NSA does have a whole lot of data.
|
| Spinning disk is cost competitive with tape robots these
| days, while offering much better access performance.
| There's a few different vendors that supply this sort of
| setup, or you can build your own backblaze style. The
| core idea is you build storage servers that can hold more
| disks than can be active at any given moment. Powering up
| a drive and doing a seek is a lot faster than a tape
| robot.
| rob74 wrote:
| Yeah, they _could_ , but why would they? There are lots of
| less controversial fields to invest in...
| Covzire wrote:
| Companies that attack and manipulate 1A to their
| advantage in every place they hold power have no reason
| to support 2A, that's definitely true.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Apple could just have bought the music industry when they
| launched iTunes. The value, and in some cases the profit,
| of tech companies are weird outliers in the business world.
| TecoAndJix wrote:
| I'm now trying to picture what an Apple handgun would
| look like
| zepto wrote:
| https://blog.emojipedia.org/apple-and-the-gun-emoji/
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| They would change the magazine design every few years and
| it would only fire Apple ammunition.
| bitwize wrote:
| Even if detachable magazines were legal (which it now
| looks like they soon will not be, with the possible
| exception of grip magazines in pistols), an Apple firearm
| won't include one. If the gun ever jams you have to take
| it to a Genius Bar to get it unjammed. Because it
| features Touch ID, it will be the only firearm to comply
| with Biden's proposed smart gun requirement at the time
| the requirement passes, and thus the only legal gun in
| America until other manufacturers follow suit -- but a
| gunOS mandatory security update causes the gun to squirt
| water instead of firing ammunition.
| junipertea wrote:
| I would be a big fan of planned obsolescence for guns
| along with proprietary, not easily available ammo,
| actually.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| Unfortunately ammo is easy to make. Many people make
| their own to varying degrees of complexity.
| yoz-y wrote:
| Changed the charging cable once, after 9 years. People
| still bring that up. Lightning has been around for 9
| years already.
|
| (Sorry if the changed magasine design was about something
| else.)
| joshspankit wrote:
| Incorrect: They also changed the 30pin standard while
| keeping it 30pin. Many people found that they could not
| charge or play music with their new iDevice when plugging
| it in to a factory-wired (and non-removable) 30pin cable
| in their car.
| joshspankit wrote:
| There have also been multiple iOS updates that block 3rd
| party chargers through software even though those
| chargers use the lightning connector.
| baybal2 wrote:
| An iGun will only fire specially made square iBullets
| with DRM chips
| mrweasel wrote:
| Well, it can only shoot at other iGun owner, so that
| kinda limits it's usefulness.
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| > square bullets
|
| But only at the Turks!
| Ancapistani wrote:
| Thanks - I had a good Puckle at that one.
| SilasX wrote:
| Wait, really? I had to look that up. From their share
| price chart, get AAPL as being ~0.33/share then vs ~133
| now and market cap $2.2T, which backs out to ~$5-6
| billion in mid-2001.
|
| I can't easily find the valuation of Sony BMG or EMI at
| the time.
| pvarangot wrote:
| Yes if they buy with stock, and if the stock doesn't tank
| when they announce their intentions. So, no.
| ISL wrote:
| It stands to reason that if Colt's owners could have gotten a
| significantly better deal they probably would have.
|
| In particular, Colt may have substantial liabilities, making
| the cost of the purchase to CZG larger than the amount of money
| that changed hands.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Their bankruptcy several years ago kept them alive but didn't
| really solve their problems. They're little more than a brand
| (not an entirely positive one) and manufacturing capacity.
| Their revenue is offset by their expenses.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I'd argue it's still a little high, most of these companies are
| on the wane.
|
| Guns in the US are near saturation from a market perspective
| and regulatory changes will eventually kick the floor out. Time
| to cash out... It's like when Phillip Morris bought Kraft and
| General Foods in the 80s to spin them off later when tobacco
| regulation came.
| NoOneNew wrote:
| There were between 2 to 5 million new gun owners (fbi and atf
| cant agree on much) in 2020. Legal gun ownership in the US is
| around 20+ million now.
|
| Where do you get your ideas that the market isnt interested
| in guns? The issue with colt and Remington has been zero
| innovation and updating with the times. At bass pro shop, you
| could take a brand new Remington bolt action and need a
| sledge hammer to pull the bolt. A same class benelli needed
| barely a pinkie's worth of strength to do the same. Buttery
| smooth while the new Remingtons were already acting rusty.
|
| The market has been going striker fire as well. I haven't
| noticed a big push from colt or rem before they shut down.
| Maybe they did, but it was too little too late.
|
| Theres a lot more going on than just gUnS bAd. I'm happy for
| the hit on chemicalized tobacco. Makes it easier for the
| organic, natural market, mostly cigars and cigarillos. Let
| that marinate.
| rayiner wrote:
| Monthly gun sales have about tripled since 2000, and we had a
| lot of guns even back then: https://www.google.com/search?q=g
| un+sales+per+year&client=sa...
|
| As to regulatory changes: support for a handgun ban is the
| lowest its been since Gallup started tracking the statistic
| in 1959: https://news.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-
| favor-handgun.... It's just 26% today, versus 60% in 1959.
|
| Unlike with tobacco, there's no big scientific study or
| educational campaign that's going to drop. Guns are a well-
| ventilated issue.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Even smartphone demand slows down. And that's a device with
| daily utility with a 2-5 year life.
|
| Seriously, I'm coming at this from a perspective of a
| country boy who went shooting 3-4 times a month as a teen,
| and earned a bounty for shooting pigeons on a farm. How
| much more demand can be filled for more guns the mostly sit
| around and gather dust? It's a market driven by ignorance
| and fear -- folks are treating these things as investments
| for a doomsday that will never come.
|
| I'm not an anti-gun guy... I own two shotguns, a hunting
| rifle and a .22. What's the point of adding more? Pistols,
| AR-15 fetishization, etc aren't for me. What I have will
| probably be in great shape beyond my lifetime; if anything
| I might trade up if I got into skeet again.
|
| Say you are right and no regulatory changes take place....
| you're still going to have a cohort of old people who hit
| the gun hoarding profile start to die off and flood the
| secondary market with estate sales. My parents have a
| neighbor in the country that probably has >250 rifles, and
| there are way more people like that than the WW2/Korea
| generation that has mostly left us. What's the collector
| value of yet another AR-15 clone?
| CydeWeys wrote:
| > Even smartphone demand slows down. And that's a device
| with daily utility with a 2-5 year life.
|
| How many people do you know who collect smartphones?
| Also, waaaaaay more smartphones are sold per year in the
| US than guns (it's roughly two orders of magnitude
| difference), so if that represents some kind of ceiling,
| then it's a very high one that guns are nowhere near.
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| Population continues to grow, and there are many
| Americans who don't own guns who represent a big market.
| Many have purchased their first in the past year. And
| yes, lots of people like collecting a shooting a wide
| variety of guns. Most of then do it for reasons other
| than or in addition to prepping. The new firearms market
| is not going to die; the idea that it will is fudd
| nonsense.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Gun ownership in the US has gone down over the past
| ~30-40 years, but the number of guns per capita has gone
| up, which indicates that fewer people are buying guns but
| that those who do are buying more guns than they used to.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| The point is that manufacturers aren't really producing a
| wide variety of guns. I wouldn't be surprised if 3/4 of
| new guns in the country are black polymer-and-aluminum
| AR-15s or black polymer-framed tilting-barrel striker
| fired pistols.
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| There's a reason the tilting barrel polymer fired pistol
| is basically universal.
| megameter wrote:
| Although I find firearms a bit scary in practice, I've
| been around enough gun nuts to get where they're coming
| from, and also been around to hear voices from different
| countries with different rules...and I agree that there
| is a "gun pollution" problem here that deserves a
| different framing from the form that has been around in
| the US my whole life.
|
| If you have two guns, it's simple to keep them
| maintained, cleared and secured when not in use. If you
| have 250 guns, you are extremely likely to lose track of
| them. And when you lose track, accidents happen. That's
| nothing to do with crime or responsibility or freedoms or
| the design of the gun - it's there in the statistics that
| country by country, there are more accidential gun deaths
| when there are more guns, and bringing our market to
| saturation is not serving anyone.
| groby_b wrote:
| Like with tobacco, big studies have been suppressed. Guns
| are far from a well-ventilated issue, they're just well-
| entrenched.
|
| The Dickey amendment got clarified in 2018, and the first
| earmarks for research were for FY2020 - so, I'd say we wait
| with those proclamations a few more years.
| aksss wrote:
| The Dickey Amendment didn't ban any studies or doing
| research, it banned the CDC from advocating gun control
| policies at a time when the administration was pushing it
| to use its authority/reputation to do so. It would be
| like me saying you can do all the research you want on
| teenage pregnancy and the like, but we're not funding
| your department to do political advocacy campaigns for
| abstinence. Stick to the science.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| ...and yet, where are these publicly funded studies on
| gun violence since? It's a ban in fact, if not a ban in
| law.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Here's a CDC-funded study on gun violence from 2013:
|
| https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
|
| You've been repeatedly and blatantly lied to by the media
| and politicians about the CDC being "banned" from
| researching gun violence. The ban was on the use of
| public funds to _advocate for specific gun laws
| /policies,_ not on research into the subject itself.
| rayiner wrote:
| What difference are those studies going to make? If
| Columbia University in the City of New York discovers you
| can use guns to kill people, are voters suddenly going to
| go "oh, well then!"
| 1MoreThing wrote:
| That's clearly not the kind of research that's going to
| be done.
|
| Funding of gun studies means we can make arguments backed
| up by data instead of partisan bickering. Calls to arm
| teachers in classrooms or mandate trigger locks on guns
| have real world effects, and both sides think they're
| right about it. Funding for studies of specific actions
| and policies help us as a society make more informed
| decisions.
|
| More info:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993411/
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| You will find that many of us gun rights supporters don't
| care what data comes out. I don't support 2a because
| fewer than n people die per year from guns.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Your honesty is refreshing, and psychopathic.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| Some people value principles higher than human life and
| that is noble not psychopathic.
|
| Millions of men died for their principles so you could
| sit here, and call having principles psychopathic.
|
| Are the millions of men who purposefully sacrificed their
| own lives for this idea we call liberty psychopaths?
|
| Modern Liberty is an anomaly in human history where the
| rule has been repression and subjugation for millenia.
|
| People forget so easily. The decisions we make when we're
| comfortable will comeback to haunt us when things get
| uncomfortable.
|
| Also, I'm flagging you for blatant personal attacks which
| violates like every HN guideline.
|
| Without a coherent argument it's just an emotional
| attack.
|
| You need to think about how unaware you are and maybe get
| some principles yourself.
|
| Please keep the personal attacks to yourself and discuss
| ideas.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| Flag away, it's a free country. I don't think it's a
| personal attack to call a sentiment psychopathic that
| values one's unfettered freedoms to be more valuable than
| human life.
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| > psychopathic
|
| That is a needless personal attack, and I notice that you
| fail to make a coherent argument against what I said. Do
| you favor protections against unreasonable search and
| seizure only until too many criminals benefit from it? My
| point is that some people value liberty higher than life.
| If you think I'm wrong, feel free to say why, though I
| honestly don't know that you'll change my mind on that.
| 1MoreThing wrote:
| > Psychopathy is a condition characterized by the absence
| of empathy and the blunting of other affective states.
| Callousness, detachment, and a lack of empathy...
|
| That doesn't seem like a personal attack so much as
| pointing out that this belief lacks empathy and is
| callous, which I tend to agree with. The standard
| argument, which I'm sure you're aware of, is that some
| controls and regulations on the ownership of firearms is
| a net good for society by reducing accidental deaths,
| suicides, and murders.
|
| Guns aren't responsible for any of those things, people
| are. But guns dramatically change the scale at which they
| happen. Ignoring that because of a belief in absolute
| freedom from regulation for machines designed to kill is
| callous and un-empathic. Or, to use a synonym,
| psychopathic.
|
| https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/psychopathy
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| So the millions of men who sacrificed their own lives to
| defend this principle of liberty psychopaths?
|
| Being principled and having higher ideals is not callous.
| It's the most noble thing a person can do.
|
| The fact that people view it this way is very bad sign
| for how selfish and callous Americans have become.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Being principled and having higher ideals is not
| callous. It's the most noble thing a person can do.
|
| Having ideals is exactly noble, or ignoble, as the
| ideals. There is nothing noble about devotion to ideas
| independent of the ideas one is devoted to.
|
| "A world free of Jews" is an ideal people have been
| devoted to. People who were more devoted to that idea and
| willing to sacrifice more for it are not more noble than
| those less devoted by reason of their devotion.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| That's not cool, it's not psychopathic to hold a
| different principle.
|
| IMO, this is similar to things like unreasonable search
| and seizure, where there is a robust set of laws,
| regulation and court judgements to guide government
| activity.
|
| Until relatively recently, the notion of having a well
| regulated environment in this area was broadly accepted.
| But... many of the pro-gun-sales crowd peddles in doom in
| the name of selling stuff.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Facts often drive behavior and understanding.
|
| Examples:
|
| - Are there correlations between outcomes and specific
| brands, configurations, or other attributes of firearm?
|
| - Are there correlations between sales at specific
| outlets and outcomes?
|
| - Is age and/or experience correlated with negative
| outcomes?
|
| The assumption is that studying this would negatively
| impact gun ownership. I don't think that's true. Consider
| that anti-gun rhetoric over the .50 Barrett rifle. You
| may find that it's really a collector's item that isn't
| associated with crime. I'm sure there are many examples
| similar to this, that are blocked by black and white
| opinion on the matter, fueled by mutual ignorance.
| pjc50 wrote:
| And covid has made the mass shooting argument irrelevant.
| It's killed about ten times as many americans. The US can
| sustain 10k gun casualties a year without moving the
| politics at all.
|
| Until it comes to the Capitol, I suppose.
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _Guns in the US are near saturation from a market
| perspective_
|
| The statistics show record gun sales. More and more Americans
| are becoming firearms owners for the first time, and existing
| owners are expanding their collections.
| thom_nic wrote:
| From my anecdotal observation this is true. Gun sales are
| also growing among demographics not typically associated
| with gun ownership (non-white, non-conservative.)
| aksss wrote:
| What's interesting (to me) about this stat is that _retail_
| sales are up, meaning mostly newly manufactured firearms,
| at a time when we 're seeing a "rolling over" of one
| generation's possessions to another - baby boomers are
| actively passing their collections on (or selling) to the
| next generations in private transactions. So there are a
| lot of firearms changing hands to new owners now (for the
| last and next 5 years) that are unseen by these retail
| stats. Guns are a very durable good.
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _at a time when we 're seeing a "rolling over" of one
| generation's possessions to another - baby boomers are
| actively passing their collections on (or selling) to the
| next generations in private transactions. So there are a
| lot of firearms changing hands to new owners now (for the
| last and next 5 years) that are unseen by these retail
| stats. Guns are a very durable good._
|
| It's a matter of changing tastes as well. A Gen Z would
| cherish her mom's old M1911A1 as a family heirloom but
| she'll want a tricked-out Combat Master for her own use
| cases.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-12 23:01 UTC)