http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-07/working-assault-rifle-made-3-d-printer
QuoteGet ready. It's now possible to print weapons at home.
An amateur gunsmith, operating under the handle of "HaveBlue" (incidentally, "Have Blue" is the codename that was used for the prototype stealth fighter that became the Lockheed F-117), announced recently in online forums that he had successfully printed a serviceable .22 caliber pistol.
Despite predictions of disaster, the pistol worked. It successfully fired 200 rounds in testing.
HaveBlue then decided to push the limits of what was possible and use his printer to make an AR-15 rifle. To do this, he downloaded plans for an AR-15 in the Solidworks file format from a site called CNCGunsmith.com. After some small modifications to the design, he fed about $30 of ABS plastic feedstock into his late-model Stratasys printer. The result was a functional AR-15 rifle. Early testing shows that it works, although it still has some minor feed and extraction problems to be worked out.
Don't have time at the moment to look, but the whole thing can't be plastic. It has to have some steel parts.
Getting a machine gun isn't that hard in the States. Granted, it takes lots of time and money - but if you are an upstanding citizen, I believe you can still acquire them legally, after about a year wait for the first one.
You can also get them illegally as well. I guess you can print them now too, although I'm with Drastic... you need at least a few metal parts in there. But even if you can make them, you will still go to jail if you dont go through the right paperwork to own the finished gun. And if you are going to do that, just bring a semi-auto to a machine shop and have them machine out what's needed to accept an auto seer, and end up with a real (aka 'metal') gun...
I was thinking more about countries other than the US and especially states that may have an uprising similar to the Arab spring.
If there is no access to weapons then all it would take is a printer a lump of plastic (and from what youve said above) a little bit of machining a couple of metal parts
Yeah, I hear you but I'm a little dubious...
First, you can't print ammunition, which will be the next hurtle. And second, as someone who has shot thousands of rounds through a variety of full auto weapons, those 'minor feed and extraction problems that need to be worked out' is where the devil lives... and a gun that jams in battle is a surefire way of getting a first class ticket to meet him, quick:)
But I like the idea, in theory, and you're right - a barrel, receiver, firing pin and maybe a few of springs, and you got yourself a 'rebel special'.
Wait, he didn't make the whole gun; he just made this thing...
(https://th3core.com/chat/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthingiverse-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Frenders%2Fed%2Ffe%2Ff8%2Fdf%2F61%2Fstrengthened_AR_lower_display_medium.jpg&hash=afc7462a74d0c10be71db5be1b261d0ad4d815a2)
...that said, he made the most important part; the lower receiver. In short, this is the part you need to take to the machine shop for them to drill out so you can put in the parts that essentially turn it into a fully automatic M-16. This guy just made it out of plastic. From here you just drop in a trigger assembly and other odds and ends and then fit this sub-assembly back into the frame of the rifle.
As far I know, he may be breaking the law right now. Or maybe he needs to put all the pieces together, I'm not sure, but I can tell you the lower reciever is the important part. The rest you can buy in any magazine.
BTW, just to orient you in the pic above, the pistol grip would be on the left... the clip would fit in the right... there is even a little oval hole for the button that would drop the clip just forward of the trigger guard. The part you would need to alter is the empty space above the trigger housing, and the other side where you have the safety.
A semi has 'safe' and 'fire'. The full auto version has 'safe', 'fire', and 'full auto'... and you need to grind off one of the stops so the selector can rotate one more click. (see below)
Semi:
(https://th3core.com/chat/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunblast.com%2Fimages%2FAr-180b%2FMvc-008f.jpg&hash=61ef780afb7482b10a3373b5eb2ef16aaed2bb7d)
Full:
(https://th3core.com/chat/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.pbase.com%2Fv3%2F74%2F53774%2F1%2F44889873.ourm16.jpg&hash=c55c466df3abdc57e8684b4060ad81de6ce78434)
> as someone who has shot thousands of rounds through a variety of full auto weapons
My experience is much much less. I shot a cap gun once :)
I got my first .22 at 7 years old.
Having just come back from Prague and went shooting using a Glock, M-16, AK47 and a sniper rifle I can't imagine (or feel safe) shooting any gun with any part of it being made out of plastic.
But then I'm from the UK and the gun culture is a bit different round these parts.
uh, didn't that Glock have a polymer frame, like that new Sig I just bought? I'm not a Glock owner but I thought they all have metal slides and barrels but the frames are 'plastic'. The M-16 uses a synthetic stock too.
Dogboy, I have no idea and presume that they were all made out of metal - The closest thing I can get my hands on in the UK are replica BB guns that shoot plastic or metail ball bearings - http://www.justbbguns.co.uk/home (the joys of being in the UK :( )
But I'm glad I didn't know that before I had a go. I probably would have had second thoughts and would never of experienced the rush of shooting them!!
No, it's cool, most people aren't familiar with guns. I'm not an expert but I grew up around them.
Like I said, I'm not positive but Glock pretty much invented polymer framed guns, so there is a good chance you were holding onto a 'plastic' gun and didn't realize it. Here is one that helped make them famous...
(https://th3core.com/chat/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F8d%2FGlock17.jpg%2F800px-Glock17.jpg&hash=4312286973c786a564aa7b39c13b2f346227ec73)
...the bottom half (aka lower receiver) is 'plastic'. Which means you could possibly print that part, then buy the trigger assembly, barrel, slide, hammer, etc. and assemble it yourself. But I don't know if the plastic you print with is nearly as strong as the polymers used in gun making. I'm sure it is not.
But no matter what the plastic crowd says, they just dont dry in an oven like they used to...
(https://th3core.com/chat/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.everydaynodaysoff.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FSig-Sauer-Pro-Oven-Melted-1.jpg&hash=ddb03970e98ac0079c1201d775ed9e68b5c980f4)
When I first saw a Glock (decades ago) I thought 'huh, a plastic gun'. After firing a few I have to say that they work incredibly well.
This could be the new zip-gun. The frame made out of printable plastic with a bit of pipe from a hardware store. Being a .22 it won't have the stresses of a larger bullet.
>'zip gun'
heehhe you might have something there, LM. But somewhere in all this the costs just don't work out for me. If you don't have the money to buy yourself a gun then where are you getting a 3d printer from? Plus, dont forget, this is pretty much illegal. If you manufacture a gun, you need to register it's creation and put your name on it and address. Even if its a revolver - it doesn't have to be a machine gun. If its a machine gun you have all sorts of hoops to jump through.
Plus, don't you want something that you can trust your life on? Pay the money. Get a good one that kills the bad guy, and not you, and be done with it:)
but outside the US very few of those apply - I probably couldn't, and nor should I, get a licence for anything more extreme than a shotgun, but I could easily get a 3d printer and start supplying my local gangs with machine guns as a way to earn a bit of cash. In which case the fact they may not e very reliable isn't going to worry me much (obviously I would conceal my real identity with a fake mustache)
Dear internet monitoring service people - I will not do this. Promise.
I think you will find most of your local gangs will already be armed to the teeth with guns made out of metal
>I probably couldn't, and nor should I, get a licence for anything more extreme than a shotgunWhat's more extreme than a shotgun? ;D
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/395553_10151345150470252_73223282_n.jpg)
...That's my 'go to' gun, next to my bed. If you want someone 'dead dead' you can't find a better handheld weapon. It's
massive firepower.
Speaking of crazy cheap weapons, how about one of these $60 badboys for your over the counter flare gun...
Quote(https://th3core.com/chat/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mississippiautoarms.com%2Fimages%2Fscd45_lg.jpg&hash=bf7f79e6f3bfa8bfa163c16847a6a43002c0ce5d)
(https://th3core.com/chat/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mississippiautoarms.com%2Fimages%2Fflareguninsert_lg.jpg&hash=01d513805460a2fbb3dee3b51310e2989b21c9da)
The Sub-Caliber Flare Gun Insert is perfect for boaters, campers or hikers. The insert simply slides into your 26.5mm flare gun to allow you to fire .45 Long Colt/.410 Shotgun Shells or use the other insert for .22. The rifled steel barrel is in encased in a lightweight corrosion resistant adaptor adding minimal additional weight. The offset barrel is positioned to make for a pefect shot every time. To top it off, the insert slides right into your 26.5mm flaregun and is ready to shoot, making installation foolproof.
Dimensions:
Length: 4"
Weight: .10 lbs
Fits in 26.5mm Flare Guns
Please be aware that this product turns your flare gun into a firearm when inserted and all state and Federal laws must be followed. BATFE LETTER INCLUDED. We cannot ship this item to billing or shipping addresses in NJ, MA, NY, CA, or Cook County(IL) under any circumstances.
(flare gun and ammo are not included.)
Gurtie...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD0PKDGlwiw&feature=youtu.be
>>>That's my 'go to' gun, next to my bed
is that pump action ?
I think of them more as four legged pest control. but yes, I know they're pretty dodgy. But they are the most common gun licence in the UK because there are many legit reasons to own/use one whereas there's less reason to need a pistol in your everyday life.
Yeah, Mick. It's a Mossberg 590. It's a civilian version of the military model. (Since that picture was taken, I removed the sling, cut 3cm off the butt, and added my flashlight so I could see at night.)
My guns are all for hunting and self defense... then I take them to the range or the woods to target/skeet shoot. Other guys buy guns strictly for target shooting. These guns are usually set up with lighter triggers and different (more precise) sights. Combat guns have sights that assume closer distance and accomodate the need for quicker target acquisition. Hunting guns are usually more limited in their capacity. The hunting version of that same Mossberg, for example holds 5 shells, but there is a removable plug that limits that number to 3, which is the legal limit when hunting small game in many States. To put that in perspective, mine holds 9.
For self defense guns, I like simple. When I lived in the sticks, I used to carry a S&W .44 revolver in the backcountry, with the sled dogs. All metal, can't jam, doesn't freeze in the cold, no manual safety, can kill anything in North America at close range (if you hit it right). When you need it, you pull the trigger and it goes off. In the shotgun world, the 'pump' is like the revolver - VERY reliable. In fact, that's why the military uses them and the Remington version. It's also quite versatile because you can change your loads from a handful of teeny tiny BBs, all the way to one 1oz lead slugs that are effective to well over 100 meters... or through a concrete block wall, or engine block:)
The other reason I choose the guns I do is because I'm left handed. I need to be able to do everything a right-hander does, although I don't necessarily have to do it exactly the same way. That Mossberg, unlike the Remington, has an ambidextrous thumb safety, similar to my old double barreled hunting shotgun, which I'm used to. The 44 has no safety ...and if I cant kill whatever is charging me in 6 bullets, I'll be using it as a club before I ever have time to reload:)
On the other hand, my new Sig SP2022 (which would not be a good moose killer, but is great on people sized animals) has no safety and a magazine release you can flip to the other side (like the Beretta 92 it's replacing) so I can drop the clip with my thumb and have access to another 15 rounds. My deer hunting rifle is flat out left handed only and holds 4 enormous bullets that allows me to reach out 300+ meters without issue. Usually the other 3 bullets are not necessary and get put back in the box:)
So it all depends on what your needs are. If I lived in an apartment building, I'd still keep the shotgun next to my bed, except it would be loaded with those 'less lethal' rubber bullets that wont go through the wall and kill my neighbor (but would probably kill the intruder at such close range, despite it's name.) Then, on the weekends, I would take it target shooting, and hunting once a year.
...sorry for the digression. I'm going to the range again today and am so excited about that Sig:) But getting back to the manufacturing of guns I still think the flare gun/.410/.45/.22 inserts are pretty awesome. Littleman, can you make a zip gun cheaper than I can buy the flare gun and an insert?
So... when are the tickets available for weekend shooting excursions @ dogboy ranch?
Us UKers live a sheltered life :)
Well, now that I live in Florida, I can't say I can offer you much more fun than any of the other pro-gun States. You can rent pretty much anything you want to try. Once you get the basic safety concepts down, you can pretty much figure them all out on your own, if you are at all mechanically inclined.
Actually, when I teach anyone to shoot, the first couple lessons happen in a house with an unloaded gun, and maybe a few 'snap caps' (aka 'duds') if it is a semi handgun. That way I have the person's undivided attention and they feel relaxed. If you have someone that isn't super confident in themselves and you drag them into a confined indoor firing range, you can overwhelm them. Like anything else, I like to set some expectations so they know exactly what we are going to do, and why, before we ever do it.
I will also say guns, in some ways, are like dogs... each breed was designed for a certain purpose. Before you learn anything about anything, you need to understand what you are supposed to use and when you are supposed to use it. So really when you say you like guns, its like saying you like 'dogs'. It narrows it down a little but it doesn't tell me what you want it to really do. Some guys live and breath to hunt. Some are precision marksman. Defense is all about urban threat vs wild animals, and what is the biggest thing you can realistically carry for the biggest threat you are likely to encounter. Everything is a spectrum.
I am not a video game guy but I have some younger friends that are. They play first person shooter games which have shockingly realistic weapons. But since they have never really shot those guns in real life, or really understand where each gun shines or where it sucks, they don't always choose the right weapon for the situation and it affects their score notably. I find that interesting because it's almost like a simulation model of what would happen in real life. I mean, obviously its not realistic to be able to carry all the guns under the sun with you at one time.... and all the ammunition.... but when you use your MP5 instead of a sniper rifle at 200 meters, or you are using your sniper rifle inside, when you should be using your MP5... it's no wonder you are having trouble.
But surprisingly, just as the flare gun example shows, guns are really pretty simple and most current designs are at least 100 years old in origin. Technology wise we have kinda hit a plateau.
I guess I should also say that stats on guns and violent crimes are a touchy subject because they were concocted by both sides of the fence.
Most people that die of gunshot wounds actually shot themselves in the head. And since suicide in this country is a crime, it now becomes a 'violent crime' that tops some charts, despite its not exactly as some make it out to be. I think it goes without saying, you stand a much better chance at surviving such an 'attack' if you don't intentionally shoot yourself. The other vast numbers of deaths are really related to tough drug laws, not lax gun laws. This is where everyone IMO is screwed up. The war on drugs didn't work. Regulation is not the answer. It's the problem. Make the drugs legal and there will be no money in it for organized crime and gangs. If you go this way, then there will be no need for more gun laws. The criminals using the guns to commit crimes are already using illegal weapons, for the large part anyway, so more laws wont help.
As far as the recent shooting in CO, or the worse one in Norway a year ago, these were meticulously thought out planned attacks, neither would have been prevented by a longer waiting period, etc. Remember, we already have a law that says you cant kill another person. And they are intentionally breaking THAT law. It doesn't really matter when and how. Is it better if they blow up homemade bombs, or drive their car into a crowd of people? Unfortunately it's pretty easy to kill unarmed unaware people, when they aren't expecting it. Psycho loonies hell bent on killing random people are going to succeed, one way or another.
As far as the Second Amendment goes, the last Supreme Court ruling was exceptionally clear when it re-examined this entire case. That's right. In 2008, the Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protected the individual right to keep suitable firearms at home for self-defense. The founding fathers put it in there for a reason. And that reason had to do with the the English Bill of Rights which protected the right of Protestants to own and carry weapons, but denied that right to Catholics. And they felt everyone had a right to defend themselves, independent of religion. And that is also why you don't hear that much about it today... informed people already know the answer, and the politicians found out that Americans like their guns more than the politicians, and anyone that is against guns gets kicked out of office... which caused them to shut up.
..ok, I'm getting off the pulpit, onto my bike, and over to the range and live the American dream for maybe an hour and call it a week a little early today:)
a lad who works for me bought one very similar a couple of months ago and we went clay pigeon shooting last month. its an awesome shotgun, your only allowed to load 3 cartridges due to UK gun laws but when your walking round looking like Rambo is quite cool and the amount of other people there shooting who head turn to look at the gun is unreal :)
it will take 8 cartridges if you removed a piece of card but then it becomes a fire arm
Tell him he should get some Dragon's Breath for it...
http://youtu.be/WwhCygmhbCg
...That stuff looks great:) The first 2:45 seconds are them demoing the ammo. After that they explain zirconium.
I'm pretty sure incendiary rounds wouldn't be legal in the UK without a Section 5 licence. And good luck getting one of those
If you've ever played Black Ops, one of the single player campaign missions starts you with a shotgun / Dragons Breath as one of your starting weapons (Hue City, where you go to "meet Reznov")
just read this article gun stats on forbes...
QuoteWhereas gun control proponents often argue that having a gun put people at risk because a criminal will take it away and use it against them, it seems the reality is more often to be the reverse situation. The Cato data contains only 11 stories out of 4,699 where a criminal took a gun away from a defender, but 277 where the intended victim disarmed the bad guy, although the authors acknowledge that these event reports may be printed more frequently due to newsworthiness.
Still, it should also be remembered that the threatened party often has more motivation to fight back than a criminal hoping for an easy score. There were 25 news reports where armed rape attack victims ultimately got the upper hand, and 65 where this occurred in carjacking attempts.
Then there is the argument that more private gun ownership will lead to more accidents because the average citizen isn't sufficiently trained to use a weapon defensively. While gun accidents do occur, the Cato study indicates that they are the most overstated risks. There were 535 accidental firearms deaths in 2006 within a population of almost 300 million people. Although every lost life is tragic, the proportion is not particularly startling.
On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).
Finally, on the subject of public safety, just how well have gun bans worked in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/
Quote from: dogboy on August 04, 2012, 01:39:28 PM
Quote
Finally, on the subject of public safety, just how well have gun bans worked in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/
I don't quite get their point there - Brits are more often home when burglars break in, and that's because we have tighter gun control laws? OK. But neither our home owners or our burglars are armed, in general, and break ins do not result in personal injury, in general (granted there are tosses who beat up old ladies shockingly but I doubt that's related to tighter gun control laws). So how does it relate to public safety? More chance of treading on broken glass with a bare foot? ::)
I think the point is that US burglars take more care to ensure the target is out, to eliminate the chance of a firefight. If you're burgled whilst out, you have zero chance of injury, so keeping guns at home does protect you, albeit a little indirectly
Right. If someone is going to rob you, and there is a chance you have a gun, they are more likely to try and rob you when you are not there.
There has been a fair amount of studies on this, here was the results of one of them:
QuoteResearch conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi,6 for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, points to the armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:
81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.
Professor Kleck estimates that annually 1,500-2,800 felons are legally killed in "excusable self-defense" or "justifiable" shootings by civilians, and 8,000-16,000 criminals are wounded. This compares to 300-600 justifiable homicides by police. Yet, in most instances, civilians used a firearm to threaten, apprehend, shoot at a criminal, or to fire a warning shot without injuring anyone.
Based on his extensive independent survey research, Kleck estimates that each year Americans use guns for protection from criminals more than 2.5 million times annually. 7 U.S. Department of Justice victimization surveys show that protective use of a gun lessens the chance that robberies, rapes, and assaults will be successfully completed while also reducing the likelihood of victim injury. Clearly, criminals fear armed citizens.
...here's another one:
QuoteAccording to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.
Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.
The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.
Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."
I think guns are like alcohol. Banning them only creates new problems. I know it sounds counter intuitive but peace can only come about by eliminating the need for violence. You can stop the drug wars by legalizing drugs and taxing them. That's what happened to alcohol and tobacco.
(https://th3core.com/chat/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ultrafeel.tv%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimage%2Fhumor%2Fdiverse%2Fmarijuana-peanuts-annual-deaths.jpg&hash=fcb8de4082854dd8cb6286c3049d697882a33695)
Politicians will do what ever gives them the most votes so It will never happen, unless the majority of civilization change their views.
QuoteAccording to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. ... Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S.
Those numbers do not compute.
Somebody is making things up.
I don't see the issue(?)
In England you are less likely to be killed by a gun than in America... but you are more likely to be a victim of a violent crime.
What numbers don't make sense?
oh, and for your daily does of gun violence in America, yesterday a gun carrying man ended stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store.
QuotePolice say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."
[...]
Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
I guess when it comes to numbers, I think we need to look at the big picture. In the big marijuana image above, those numbers for the large part are correct. Notice also that it just says 'homicides', if that said 'homicides by guns' that number would be more like 11,000... and out of all those deaths, the vast majority would be drug related.
Really, stop and look at the big picture... big tobacco has pulled the sack over our heads. All of these people are innocent consumers in my mind. A half million of them a year. That's ALOT of people. LOTS of energy money keeping these people alive. Here is another thing that jumps out at me... guns stop crimes from happening in the first place. They stop rapes and deaths and other violent crime - nothing else on that list can be said to do the same, except maybe aspirin. You have to weigh the bad with the good.
Not sure those homicide figures are right and up to date.
Most recent set of UNODC Homicide Statistics ( http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html ) has the US rate considerably above the UK. 4.4 homicides per 100k of population vs 1.2.
I think that there are way too many other, larger, variables at play to suggest that figure has much to say about gun control. However it does question the argument that you are more likely to get murdered in the UK than the US that seems to come out quite a lot in these discussions.
Jason and I were just discussing this on Facebook.
From what I understand, in England you are less likely to be killed by a gun than in America. However, you are also more likely to be a victim of a violent crime in England than in the US.
...I believe this is still true?
As I said before, "Who has the guns in England? The criminals. Who are you trying to keep the weapons away from? The criminals. Regulation is not the key to this. The act of killing is already illegal. Why isn't that enough? Why isn't that working? Because criminals, by definition, break the laws. That's what makes them criminals."
>I think that there are way too many other, larger, variables at play
I agree. I think most homicides in America are drug related. Either in urban gangs, or mexican drug traffic near the border w Mexico.