I support free software, so anyone has easy access to great software and the opportunity to create amazing things and make another person's life better.
I also support gun rights, so anyone has easy access to guns and the opportunity to end another person's life.
You can make a gun out of a bar of soap if anyone's interested. The benefit of the soap route is you can get though older metal detectors. (The new stuff takes a full 3d scan in high detail)
The author of the Bazaar and the Cathedral, an essay about open source development, wrote a lot about gun rights too, like explaining banning automatic weapons was dumb, as a good shooter would make more damage with a semi automatic.
I'm very, very pro-2A. But... I dunno, man. Yeah, I'm mostly opposed to the NFA of 1934, and the parts of FOPA that prevented new machine guns from getting tax stamps post-'86. But indiscriminate fire into a crowd will absolutely kill more people than a shooter taking aimed shots. If you're aiming, after the first shot, people are going to start running, and aimed shots are going to get much more difficult. If you're shooting indiscriminately on full-auto, you're probably going to mag dump in five seconds or less.
The 2017 Vegas shootings were like that (which was full automatic in practice if not in legal or technical definition).
Most mass shootings, though, aren't like that. People aren't clumped up like they were in that case. Also, most people tend not to be careful about shooting in bursts, which helps control your aim. Even an AR15 (which has relatively mild recoil) will still walk all over the place if you hold the trigger down.
The NFA had organized crime shootouts in mind. In theory, the mob could do the kind of training as a group where full auto makes sense. Even if they would, that's not really the threat posed these days.
Even an AR15 (which has relatively mild recoil) will still walk all over the place if you hold the trigger down.
FWIW, most AR-15s are semi-auto only. Yes, the M-4 is also an AR-15, but most AR-15s are not M4s, etc. Most of the time what happens when you hold the trigger down is that the trigger doesn't reset; that's been the case for every AR-15 I've seen outside of the very few post-ban dealer samples that you can rent at a very limited number of indoor shooting ranges. Yes, it's a nit-picky point. (Edit: I have both an AR-15 and an AR-10. I compete--badly--in shooting matches like PSCL, IDPA, Gun Run, multi-gun outlaw matches, and so on.)
The NFA wasn't really aimed at organized crime, per se; machine guns weren't in common use even by organized crime, although they were used in some very high-profile cases, like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre(which was organized crime), Machine Gun Kelly, and Clyde Barrow (who used a cut-down BAR that he'd stolen from a Nat'l Guard Armory). Bank robbers--which wouldn't generally be classified as organized crime--tended to use them more than organized crime mobs did. The mob didn't really do "training" per se, since para-military operations weren't their area of expertise.
As a fun fact, the only reason that the NFA sailed through the Supreme Court is because the plaintiff of the case had to go into hiding (...or was killed by his former gang; I don't think he ever surfaced after disappearing), and no one even showed up to argue his side in front of the court. It was a "tax" because the US AG was pretty sure that 2A didn't allow banning guns, but taxes were a-ok. And it originally tried to ban pistols as well, which is the entire reason that short barrel rifles and shotguns are included (e.g., it was thought that someone could cut a rifle down enough to be effectively a pistol and that would circumvent the ban). No one knows why silencers were included; there's no record of any debate about them at all. They seem to have just showed up on the bill, and gotten passed through without comment.
AR15 is just the base design that comes in several varients. There are slight changes to the receiver to make a full auto control group fit, and it needs a machine shop to do it, but it's not much.
Oh, I'm aware. It's not the, "BATF hates this one trick! Single drill defeats months of waiting for paperwork!" that people think. I've seen shop drawings somewhere, but the time in federal prison isn't worth it, IMO. I have a hard enough time hitting a sub-33% IPSC target at 50y on the clock as it is, I don't need to mag dump into the berm and still miss. (What are those, 33% A-zone only targets?)
I just got my restricted possession and acquisition license in Canada (RPAL), which gives me the ability to own firearms and ammo.
It was fascinating to see just how different Canada and US laws are in this regard; and how much less likely a widespread 'unrestricted gun rights' movement is here.
How difficult did you find the process? Over here we basically just go to the store and buy it after a simple background check. Even the background check seems to be avoidable if you do a private gun sale. At least this is how it was described to me by friends who have firearms, I don't own any myself.
For (most) long guns and shotguns, you need to take a day-long safety course, followed by both a written and practical exam. If you pass that, then you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years. Then there's a background check and a 28 day waiting period before they process it. (Also, I understand that the background check is far stricter here.)
If you want to be licensed for restricted firearms (handguns and some long guns), there's a separate 6-hour course and exams. Most people do the courses and exams back-to-back, so they can apply for restricted weapons at the same time.
Purchase, storage, transport, and use rules are vastly different as well. Restricted firearms can only be used at a licensed range, and to buy one you need to be a member at a range in your province.
Generally speaking, firearms have to be stored empty and locked. Restricted firearms also have to be registered to a specific address, and if you move, you need to fill out the change of location ahead of time and are given a window in which you can move them between houses.
I also didn't mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.
you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years.
Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don't have a social circle is wonk to me.
I also didn’t mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.
The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they're bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.
Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don’t have a social circle is wonk to me.
In signing, the references are saying that "I have known this person for three years and don't believe them to be a high risk for violence." One might argue that if you don't know two people who don't consider you a risk, you may actually be a risk!
Similarly, the sign-off from partners (current or recent) is in place to protect partners and exes from ending up shot dead. A bad breakup because someone was scared of their partner is probably a good indication that the partner shouldn't have firearms.
The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they’re bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.
Nah, the RCMP has its problems but it's a federal government division, and not in place to make a profit.
I think the difference in both legislation and acceptance thereof is that guns aren't a right in Canada - they're a privilege that carries a lot of responsibility.
At the end of the day, firearm offences in Canada have been rising, partly because of our proximity to the USA. The vast majority of intentional gun injuries and fatalities are carried out with guns illegally smuggled across the border. Even with the recent increases though, the rate of firearms-related deaths per 100k in Canada is 2.24, and in the USA it is 10.84. (In Texas, it was 15 and rising as of 2021.)
So the process is arduous, it's restrictive, ownership is NOT a right, and carrying weapons in public is (mostly) illegal; and consequently, we have 15% of the per-capita fatality rate.
Edit: Just found some accurate stats which shows Texas at 15.60 in 2021, and it's not even in the top half of the states. Conversely, Massachusetts at 3.40, is the lowest rate in the country and the only state that isn't more than twice as high as Canada's rate.
Well, a lot of FOSS advocates are also cyberanarchists. I personally am leaning somewhere towards that, where while I oppose viruses, I don't know if I agree writing one should be illegal.
Most FOSS advocates understand there is a line where your rights end and mine begin--it's why we have the GPL instead of all using MIT or LGPL license. Your right to acess the source is sacred.
Gun advocates don't give a shit. Your death means nothing to their desire to roleplay mad max or zombie apocalypse or cowboy or whatever.
Most FOSS advocates understand there is a line where your rights end and mine begin–it’s why we have the GPL instead of all using MIT or LGPL license. Your right to acess the source is sacred.
I've never seen a FOSS advocate argue that all software should legally be required to be FOSS. Would that include server-side code? Instead they oppose IP protection, so that anyone could simply crack your software and freely distribute it.
Gun advocates don’t give a shit. Your death means nothing to their desire to roleplay mad max or zombie apocalypse or cowboy or whatever.
"Most FOSS gun advocates understand there is a line where your rights end and mine begin"
Because, you know, owning a gun doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.
having been around the block pretty recently with shit related to this. And my personal opinions coinciding quite nicely, i'll leave this food for thought. Have a stroll down in the comments section, see whats going on down there :)
There are problems in the gun community. That much i'll say.
just ask your fellow yarr friends whether there are "open source" gun designs. I'm sure they'll give you a bit of a rough time for the question, and then immediately point you to the materials required to make illegal guns.
Legal mostly, a few states ban them but not many. Just can't sell em, that one is federal. The "illegal" part comes in if the person themselves isn't legally allowed to own them because of age or criminal history.
They don't have to be serialized unless you sell them (for a living, and have a manufacturer's license, hobbyists kinda just can't sell guns they make.) Or if you take them into a gun shop to be worked on, then they have to serialize it.
There's like 6 states that have harsher laws than federal on them, I think in those states they have to be serialized, I don't think they can stop you from making one though, but all other laws apply too so it kinda ends up being a "you can but really not" type thing.
But even then, even in states where it has to be serialized, the only way they'd ever know someone had an unserialized one is if someone was caught in a crime with one or defended themselves with one, and imo crime is already illegal but defense being criminalized because of the lack of a few letters stamped on is dumb, and it really just gives the police another excuse to "crack down" on minorities (as if they need another reason for what seems to be their occupational pastime.)
interesting, i suppose that makes sense. One would think they would be more heavily restricted, but i suppose that's expecting too much from governmental bureaucracy lol.
I mean tbh technology has exploded in the last like, 15yr, it didn't used to be this easy to make em this good. Always been able to make pipe shotguns easily though, but better guns required a bit more skill and it was more niche/rare.
Also they kinda can't stop it, both due to the second amendment binding them and physical impossibility, for instance the guy who invented the LutySMG, P. A. Luty, is (was?) a british citizen. Sure they got him, because he published two books on how to make his guns in protest of the UK gun laws, but his designs live on, and could be reproduced by anyone so inclined over there.
yeah, im not surprised frankly, but one would think that in some capacity, by nature, they would be illegal. Given the regulation surrounding it. I always knew pipe shotguns were technically legal. It's never been a particularly good idea though. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out going forward though. Wouldn't surprise me if something like that did happen tbh.
