So yeah you can fire a bullet so many different ways, a rusty nail and hammer will do the trick. Isn’t the real problem the frickin bullet?
I swear in Sweden or something, you can take a gun home but ammo is only sold and consumed at the range and not for taking home.
Sure, you can make this a hollistic approach regulating guns and ammo, but the ammo seems to be the bigger issue here. You can make guns easy peasy, but ammo is much harder to manufacture and easier to regulate.
Terminology is going to matter here. Modern ammunition that you’re probably thinking of is sold as a self contained cartridge with a bullet (the projectile part only) at one end, some powder inside a case (brass or steel or aluminum most of the time), and a primer at the other end. You poke the primer in a very specific way which lights the powder which builds up pressure which causes the bullet to leave the case and down a barrel. The terminology matters because in the past there have been attempts to regulate the bullets by giving them each an individual serial number, or by using “microstamping” on the firing pin of the firearm to mark the case. Those proposed technologies won’t work because just standard usage of the firearm would cause any marks or microstamping to become useless very quickly, and very often the first level of argument against such a law is that the person who wrote it didn’t know enough about the technology to be trying to legislate it.
Please don’t try this. Firing a cartridge this way without the structure of the firearm around it will cause it to go off in a completely uncontrolled fashion. It’s a recipe for risking losing fingers or an eye, or worse.
The person who assassinated the former PM of Japan assembled all of the gear he had from hardware store level parts, even making his own blackpowder. That’s in Japan where gun ownership isn’t common. Since he accomplished it there it’s unlikely to be able to prevented in the US.
The kinds of laws/regulations you’re proposing are currently being used in California with regards to 3D printers. They were unworkable crap that invited government insight into everyone’s home if that person happens to own a 3D printer, and they’ll create a lot of privacy issues without solving any gun problems (the laws mandated 3D printers reject printing anything that might be a “gun part”).
You’re really proposing mandating a firearms technology level at no better than sometime in the late 1800s which won’t work to solve any societal problems we’re having now, but will hamper people banking on having them around for self defense.
Maybe consider the problem from another perspective when considering firearms regulations? Also consider that the internet just estimated that there are at least several hundred billion rounds of ammunition in the US. You won’t design a process that effectively regulates them all without moving everyone into open air prisons devoid of their possessions, and you’d not be able to pull off something like that without a bunch of said ammo. You didn’t get rid of it; you just took it out of one group’s hands.
That’s pretty epic. Didn’t know the Japanese guy built everything from scratch
It’s not intended as an epic story, rather a story about how a lot of people seem to think there’s a huge moat to creating a firearm, but there really isn’t.
I mean I didn’t agree with the whole assassination deal, but the method is interesting
There seems to be some idea that firearm manufacturing is some version of witchcraft when the reality is that it’s closer to the professor with his coconuts on Gilligan’s Island. The arguments tend to go something like: “That’s impossible” when actually it really isn’t. “That’s illegal” when not only is it not, but it’s specifically protected. “You shouldn’t do that” when some people just like to tinker. “That should be banned” without understanding that the regulatory framework to truly ban it would require tracking everything and every one at all times.
That last one is where you get into a lot of very hairy issues. Apps to track women’s periods have been datamined, and some states propose using the data to look for possible pregnancies and termination of pregnancies. You can track every purchase of barstock, milling machines, routers, tampons, router bits, buckets, bags of salt, car batteries, and every web page access, and you’ll still not stop it, but the amount of privacy you lost in trade for the attempt is staggering.
The best comment in this thread, by far, is this one as a proposed solution to the problem, but of course nobody wants to try that. Instead we want to throw regulatory spaghetti against a wall and demand that people accept less durable materials to work with or demand that people be less innovative. History suggests those approaches won’t work.
There’s a pretty massive difference between “I managed to build a simile of a single-shot rifle from scrap and kill a person with it” and “This legal assault rifle allowed me to perform mass murder in a public space”.
You talk about arms for self defense, but the rest of us don’t go around worrying about not having a 9mm or rifle in our car or next to the front door. You guys have built a problem with arms over there, and until something radical is done you’ll keep having an arms problem.