Seeking commentary on a paper I'm writing - bigtime RKBA related... [Archive]

1JimMarch

09-18-2009, 07:16 PM

I've just started this after thinking about it for weeks. So far I have a title, executive summary, chapter headings (preliminary) and a few notes on each chapter. Commentary welcome, esp. regarding how this is likely to be taken by "non-gunnie" readers.

The Technological Implications Of Gun Control And Social Policy – A Primer

by Jim March – 1.jim.march@gmail.com

Executive Summary

What happens to gun control as a social policy concept when anybody can order their computer to build them a gun at 7:00pm, go get dinner and a good night's sleep and be fully armed the next morning?

That ability is going to be available to ordinary non-technical home computer owners within 25 years. Low estimate is 10 years, most predictions put such a development at 15 to 20 years.

Nobody who is aware of developments in this field put it at over 50 years, barring serious societal collapse before then.

For more technically minded users, these estimates can be dropped significantly – under one scenario, to as little as 5 years or less.

At present, automated fabrication of machinery in the home is in approximately the same state that private automobiles were circa roughly 1880 – a few homebuilt specimens were in use by hobbyists, and were not exactly practical objects.

There is however one key difference between home-scale fabrication and the automobile: the main project driving home fabrication, the “Reprap”, is being designed in a way that lets one machine build all of the parts for another. Meaning, the moment ONE such device exists to the degree of practicality that, for example, the Ford Model “T” exhibited, the machines “go viral” - one person builds one for another, they each build them for friends, etc.

The growth rate of the technology would not be limited in manufacturing capacity – at all. The growth rate of such a device would more closely resemble a biological infection, and be completely outside the ability of any government to control.

Such a device changes everything – and among other side effects eliminates “gun control” as a practical concept, forever.

The author of this paper intends to show how far along this is now. I also show that given it's inevitable arrival, it is crucial to begin working on issues of cultural violence and personal self defense NOW or we'll face a very, very rocky transition when this technology suddenly hits us.

Chapter One: Introducing The Reprap

(self explanatory...one of the best descriptions is “like having China on your desktop”...)

Chapter Two: Functional Product Examples

(One will be the Dutchman working in high-end plastic who successfully replicated a police handcuff key, hardly something you can score easily, esp. in Europe. Other current examples of functional objects includes sandals, coathangers and the like.)

Chapter Three: “The Fast Path To A Gun For Technical Users”

(The current Reprap machine works in plastic, however deposition heads that can do ceramic are in development now. Finely formed ceramic shapes can be used to build a small forge and highly detailed molds for cast parts. Castings that are more or less “fully ready to go” are often used in guns now. While not as simple as letting a Reprap build a whole gun hands-off, creating the ceramic molds to do firearms parts casting is literally “right around the corner” and could lead to hobby-scale gun production very quickly – likely within Obama's presidency if he wins a second term.)

Chapter Four: What Does A Proper Gun Ownership Culture Look Like, And How Do We Promote It?

(Basically gets into Libertarian “do not initiate force” concepts. We have to societally praise defense, condemn offense. Explain how this contrasts with the socialistic notion of “only the state should be able to do group defense”, etc.)

Liberty1

09-18-2009, 10:29 PM

Our AK flat building parties are doing that right now. No serial number no waiting period no registration...

1JimMarch

09-18-2009, 10:34 PM

Yeah, but it's not as easy, you have to know the right people, you have to be "in the scene". Downloading the plans and printing them yourself in private is a whole 'nuther game.

Meplat

09-18-2009, 11:17 PM

I think you are drinking a little too much high-tec Kool-aid. If the socialists get their way (and they are doing a good job of it right now) that sort of technology will never be in the hands of the common man. I'm not saying it is not possible, I'm just saying we are on the cusp of progress flopping over into digression.

In addition, with such capabilities things much more dangerous than firearms can be produced.:43:

I've just started this after thinking about it for weeks. So far I have a title, executive summary, chapter headings (preliminary) and a few notes on each chapter. Commentary welcome, esp. regarding how this is likely to be taken by "non-gunnie" readers.

The Technological Implications Of Gun Control And Social Policy – A Primer

by Jim March – 1.jim.march@gmail.com

Executive Summary

What happens to gun control as a social policy concept when anybody can order their computer to build them a gun at 7:00pm, go get dinner and a good night's sleep and be fully armed the next morning?

That ability is going to be available to ordinary non-technical home computer owners within 25 years. Low estimate is 10 years, most predictions put such a development at 15 to 20 years.

Nobody who is aware of developments in this field put it at over 50 years, barring serious societal collapse before then.

For more technically minded users, these estimates can be dropped significantly – under one scenario, to as little as 5 years or less.

At present, automated fabrication of machinery in the home is in approximately the same state that private automobiles were circa roughly 1880 – a few homebuilt specimens were in use by hobbyists, and were not exactly practical objects.

There is however one key difference between home-scale fabrication and the automobile: the main project driving home fabrication, the “Reprap”, is being designed in a way that lets one machine build all of the parts for another. Meaning, the moment ONE such device exists to the degree of practicality that, for example, the Ford Model “T” exhibited, the machines “go viral” - one person builds one for another, they each build them for friends, etc.

The growth rate of the technology would not be limited in manufacturing capacity – at all. The growth rate of such a device would more closely resemble a biological infection, and be completely outside the ability of any government to control.

Such a device changes everything – and among other side effects eliminates “gun control” as a practical concept, forever.

The author of this paper intends to show how far along this is now. I also show that given it's inevitable arrival, it is crucial to begin working on issues of cultural violence and personal self defense NOW or we'll face a very, very rocky transition when this technology suddenly hits us.

Chapter One: Introducing The Reprap

(self explanatory...one of the best descriptions is “like having China on your desktop”...)

Chapter Two: Functional Product Examples

(One will be the Dutchman working in high-end plastic who successfully replicated a police handcuff key, hardly something you can score easily, esp. in Europe. Other current examples of functional objects includes sandals, coathangers and the like.)

Chapter Three: “The Fast Path To A Gun For Technical Users”

(The current Reprap machine works in plastic, however deposition heads that can do ceramic are in development now. Finely formed ceramic shapes can be used to build a small forge and highly detailed molds for cast parts. Castings that are more or less “fully ready to go” are often used in guns now. While not as simple as letting a Reprap build a whole gun hands-off, creating the ceramic molds to do firearms parts casting is literally “right around the corner” and could lead to hobby-scale gun production very quickly – likely within Obama's presidency if he wins a second term.)

Chapter Four: What Does A Proper Gun Ownership Culture Look Like, And How Do We Promote It?

(Basically gets into Libertarian “do not initiate force” concepts. We have to societally praise defense, condemn offense. Explain how this contrasts with the socialistic notion of “only the state should be able to do group defense”, etc.)

locosway

09-18-2009, 11:48 PM

People have been making guns at home for some time. Simple machining is required and you can have an effective firearm.

Granted, automated manufacturing is easier, especially since you could download schematics to build anything and have it be precise without technical knowledge.

What would keep people from doing it then is the same as now. It's against the law, so only law abiding would follow it.

1JimMarch

09-19-2009, 12:41 AM

Meplat: you think it's all a pipe dream, huh?

Check this out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/4320759.html

Check the date - just a few months ago. Jay Leno has a $20,000 version of this critter he's already making car parts out of.

Something worth $20,000 today will be worth $2,000 10 years from now - and that's not factoring in the possibility of making these things WITH these things.

Oh no. This is coming, folks.

1JimMarch

09-19-2009, 12:42 AM

Locosway: we can't prevent people downloading DVDs now. How can they keep people from downloading 1911s?

bigcalidave

09-19-2009, 03:15 AM

bigcalidave

09-19-2009, 03:16 AM

btw I like the article so far, but whats the goal with it?

Mulay El Raisuli

09-19-2009, 05:23 AM

Sounds a lot like what the Pashto of the Hindu Kush have been doing for decades. Can't keep guns out of there either.

On a lighter note, could this be the realization of the "Weird Science" approach? IE, after chanting the right 'dark spells' & such, could I scan in the proper pictures & have the thing produce endless copies of Kelly Lebroc?

The Raisuli

command_liner

09-19-2009, 08:02 AM

Sir,

You are touching on an interesting subject, one I have been following for
years on multiple fronts.

Rapid prototyping machines have made great strides in recent years. From
the first ones that squirted super glue into a pile a baking soda, to the
new ones that make near-finished parts at 0.001" resolution, the field
is changing quickly.

There already exist systems that will prototype in sinter-able metal.
They do require baking in a hot vacuum, but that need is fading. Think
of infra red lasers. Millet, close by me in Huntington Beach, already
does sintered metal gun parts. The systems already exist to make
functional handguns from a can of metal powder.

Moving in the other direction, we can make optics. Diamonds are made
of cheap stuff -- carbon. We can make sintered metal silicon carbine
parts. And we can then take those parts and remove the silicon to
make DLC (diamond-like-carbon) optical components. The systems
are not integrated yet, but one can make metal and optical components.

Over on rec.crafts.metalworking we have been following the development
of self-reproducing machine tools. This development is REALLY old, but
now that we have better systems the whole package is getting better.
Start with scrap and software, then end with a machine shop.

Over on rec.guns we went over the details a bit. There are two important
notes. It was Sandra Day Oconner that asked about the limits of
"Constructive Possession", declaring that possession of a hacksaw and a
rifle does not make one a criminal. There is no real, true definition,
yet.

No, I am not a crazy guy, but there is a tie-in with David Koresh. One
of the key points of the search warrant sworn out for his arrest is
that he had an Atlas lathe, which was capable of making machine guns,
and the tools and knowledge to make machine guns. I have the
same lathe, and at least as much skill at metal work as he did, plus a
WHOLE LOT more software experience. Does that mean the Feds can
come in, burn my house down and kill my family?

What if I equip my machine shop with CNC equipment. What if I add some
of the self-reproducing machine tools? If I have a copy of the blueprints
of a M16, am I in constructive possession of an M16? What if I have the
DXF files, the stock on hand, and a tool to execute the DXF files?
Twist a bit more. What if I have access over the internet to a distributed
copy of the DXF files?

Run this issue back in time. The tools in my garage are pretty much the
same ones needed to make the atomic bombs dropped in WWII. Does
that mean I have an atomic bomb? What about a Browning machine gun
from WWI?

I have been pecking at this issue for about 20 years. The issue WILL
be litigated -- repeatedly -- in the next decade. We should get out in front
now if we can.

Mike d'Ocla

09-19-2009, 08:23 AM

Chapter Four: What Does A Proper Gun Ownership Culture Look Like, And How Do We Promote It?

(Basically gets into Libertarian “do not initiate force” concepts. We have to societally praise defense, condemn offense. Explain how this contrasts with the socialistic notion of “only the state should be able to do group defense”, etc.)

This is the really complex, difficult area to deal with. It alone could be a significant contribution to the literature.

But I think your assumptions do not reflect any useful understanding of history. You are making ideological statements, not stating historical facts.

Developing and stating a highly ethical "libertarian" stance regarding personal firearms would be be very useful and interesting. I've seen a discussion or two of such an approach on the internet. I am sure you can find more. I think that gun-ownership advocates need to take the moral high ground away from the abolitionists. I think we have lots of good ideas and we need to get beyond depending on court interpretations of the Second Amendment. As Ted Nugent said in a youtube clip listed in another thread, self-defense and defense of one's family and community lies in rights that are far more profound than any simple legal statement.

Equating "socialism" with the limitation of guns to government alone is not an historically-valid or useful statement. Using this sort of language just gets the hackles up of people who think of themselves as "socialist" in the sense of being community-oriented or interested in how government can help people with such things as public education. Who can be very pro-gun and open-minded. Like me.

Many U.S. conservatives (Republicans) until recently believed that the Second Amendment meant the group/state/militia right to possess firearms, not the individual or personal right. Equating past positions on the Second Amendment with particular political ideologies is not a very useful way to think and leads nowhere in terms of political action. We need to get beyond old ways of thinking. If you are going to write an essay on new ways of understanding, don't fill it up with worn-out non-ideas.

Whatever you think "socialism" is I can't possibly know. But I do know what totalitarianism is, whether it calls itself "national socialism" as in
"Nazi" or "socialism" as in "communism" as in the former USSR. Or whether it is the actions of the recent George W. Bush administration which initiated the largest threats to freedom in our history. Ever fly on an airplane? Ever make a phone call? Ever use the internet? Those nice bureaucrats in uniform going through your suitcase and pockets and emails weren't hired by Barack Obama. They were hired by good old "conservative" Baby George and Darkside Dick. Yeah, the Republicans.

1JimMarch

09-19-2009, 09:44 AM

Mike,

You're criticizing a throwaway line meant as a placeholder for a very serious discussion. And yeah, I'm fully aware of the totalitarian trends of both "right" and "left" (and aware of how laughable those terms really are).

I have done computer repair for and activism work with David Nolan, the guy who invented:

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=9&e=9

So...yeah, this will be a MUCH more detailed thing.

The goal, if possible and I know it's a huge issue, is to get at least a few people on the "left" (again, dumb term but it'll do for now) thinking about these issues. Hell, I'd like to get a copy into Bill Cosby's hands. Forget the comedian part - he's also a psychologist and political activist, and THE top voice so far saying that the "hip hop culture" (not his term I don't think) has to reform from the inside "somehow".

locosway

09-19-2009, 09:51 AM

Locosway: we can't prevent people downloading DVDs now. How can they keep people from downloading 1911s?

If you re-read what I said, you'll see that I was commenting on the fact that only PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW THE LAW, will abide by the law.

There's nothing anyone can do to stop someone from breaking a law if they're so inclined. The only thing that keeps someone from breaking the law is either morals, the fine, the jail time.

People download movies because they feel the rewards is greater than the risk. Also, it's a white collar crime which most people feel isn't a crime. It doesn't make it right, and it's still illegal. However, if you're law abiding you don't do it.

1JimMarch

09-19-2009, 10:01 AM

The only thing that keeps someone from breaking the law is either morals, the fine, the jail time.

Ummmm...actually, that's not true.

On a personal level it is, yeah. But on a societal/cultural level? Oh no, there are definitely societal-level changes that can have huge effects on crime, including violent crime. Criticize New York City's gov't all you want (God knows I do) but the "broken windows" theory is one valid example.

For another, see Clayton Cramer's book "Concealed Weapon Laws of the Early Republic: Dueling, Southern Violence, and Moral Reform" - by far the most important thing he's written, long term MORE critical than the butt-kicking he delivered to Michael Bel-liar.

locosway

09-19-2009, 10:03 AM

So, in a nutshell, what keeps people from breaking the law in your opinion?

1JimMarch

09-19-2009, 12:42 PM

So, in a nutshell, what keeps people from breaking the law in your opinion?

Personal morality, tied to culture. And sometimes religion.

Let's take...well, me, as an example. Based on how I was raised and the culture around me, I've always had a "libertarian" approach to violence. The idea of attacking somebody for pleasure is just flat-out alien to me. The idea of attacking somebody for personal gain is slightly easier to understand, but still personally intolerable - I wouldn't do it even to save my life. Given enough desperation, and it would have to be extreme, I'd probably start to consider theft, but to as limited a degree as possible and with a goal of not doing serious harm. (In other words, the idea of taking or harming somebody's only food supply is as personally intolerable as assault.)

However, if doing so is 100% harmless to others, I damn well CAN conceive of breaking the law. When I lived in California, I at times CCWed illegally. Daily for a considerable period but almost never once I became publicly, politically active (speaking out on the CCW issue). But that wasn't about morality, that was about...well, I'd just publicly criticized a bunch of local cops. Walking around strapped seemed like a really bad idea :) - basically the risk jumped way up on me.

I also owned ferrets in California for the better part of a decade. And if I thought a particular drug that the state had declared illegal could help me in some way with either no risk or risk outweighed by benefits, I'd score it in a heartbeat and damn the law.

(Note that I've never even tried pot, never mind anything stronger. But again, I'm aware that in SOME cases, there is such thing as "medical pot". I think it's been "prescribed" by some docs in California for things that border on silly in some cases, but I hardly care as I'm in favor of total legalization of it. For something serious, like controlling both the pain and nausea during chemotherapy for cancer, hell yes I'd score. I watched my father die of starvation due to lung and brain cancer, pot WOULD have helped him and I didn't know it at the time.)

I know for a fact it's not laws that control me. And I'd wager that's true of more or less everybody if you stop and think.

Remember Clayton's book I mentioned? It's about the horrible levels of violence among whites in the Mississippi river valley between 1812ish and 1845ish. It was an era of duels, drunken bar brawls and violence of every sort. What solved it (well, got it down to something tolerable anyhow) was the rise of the "bible belt culture" - he was able to document cases later in that period where people found the only honorable way out of a duel was basically "I'm too God-fearing to kick your *****".

I'm not saying religion is the only answer, not hardly. I'm an agnostic. But it WAS a massive cultural change.

And that's what has to happen.

locosway

09-19-2009, 12:47 PM

Morals, which I said. Everything that influences you, gives you morals.

1JimMarch

09-19-2009, 01:04 PM

Which is tied to culture. We basically agree :).

curtisfong

09-19-2009, 02:06 PM

So, in a nutshell, what keeps people from breaking the law in your opinion?

Depends on the system of government.

At risk of going 7x57:

For small populations, good will, tradition, "blood ties", and basic altruism (yes, I believe it is built into the human gene) is sufficient.

For larger populations, diversity combines with a larger number of outliers to inevitably generate conflict. Those populations generally depends on threat of force, until a representative government emerges. At that point, the concept of a "social contract" keeps people from doing "really bad things", as long as they feel that

1) the terms of their social contract are "fair" enough (the worst rule isn't onerous)

2) they feel they have a sense of ownership of the "rules" (they feel their rules are not only representative of their personal values, but that their values gave rise to those rules in the first place)

3) they feel rules that conflict with their value systems can be removed (within the constraints allowed by the part of the social construct that governs rule making)

If any of those 3 are not met, you can bet the system is unstable w/o threat of deadly force.

locosway

09-19-2009, 02:09 PM

So it all comes down to the three things I originally stated...

Morales, fines, or jail (punishment).

1JimMarch

09-19-2009, 02:20 PM

And of the two ("morals" or punishment) it's "morals" that matter more.

What puzzles me is that you insist on the term "morals" instead of "culture".

Morals implies a personal set of rules of conduct. Culture on the other hand is (among other things) the jointly understood rules of conduct. (Plus stuff like musical tastes, fashion ideas, whatever, we can mostly discard that although there's sometimes interlinks...see also "hip-hop culture"...)

You don't want to see culture as a factor. I don't understand why?

Here's an example: if I have a daughter and she gets extremely slutty as a teen, I'll talk to her, reason with her, maybe take her to a shrink if I think it'll help. Maybe worst case, I'd consider moving the family out of a big city into a smaller town, try and separate her from the peer group that's got her screwed up.

I would NOT, under any circumstances, kill her. That's absolutely insane, by my moral AND broader cultural standards. (And it's the broader cultural standard that has without question influenced my personal morals and that of the parents who raised me.)

Yet in, say, Jordan, it would be absolutely expected that I (or another male member of the family) would kill her. Not only would the culture support and even demand it, extreme leniency for doing so is built into the legal system there and in much of the Arab world. Even when it's not in the law books, leniency is in fact practiced there as an Arab cultural tradition.

(One that pre-dates Islam by the way.)

Now. Locosway: I want you to tell me why you don't want to factor culture into the equation, and appear to go out of your way to do so?

curtisfong

09-19-2009, 02:26 PM

What puzzles me is that you insist on the term "morals" instead of "culture".

I couldn't agree more, Jim. Morals alone are useless. They are too individualized, arbitrary, and capricious. To keep a population stable (without constant threat of deadly force), the culture itself must be stable. The population must share values embodied in the social contract.

Now, keep in mind, the contract might ONLY specify *how* laws are made and enforced, not specifically *which laws* or *what kinds of laws* are good.

1JimMarch

09-19-2009, 02:54 PM

Curtis, we agree completely.

Here's the other part of all this: when you look at a group of people who are inherently violent, and the inner-city "hip hop culture" is in America THE poster child for that (right now) and dominated by blacks, you have to pick from just two options:

* Either the culture is damaged; OR:

* They're an inferior race.

I categorically reject the second possibility. If Locosway consistently rejects the first, I had to wonder if he embraces the second.

If there's a third or even fourth possibility, I'd like to hear it...

locosway

09-19-2009, 03:17 PM

Because I have morals to not steal. However, I'm very much into the computer culture and have been part of the internet since the 90's.

I choose to not download music or movies because I know it's wrong.

I also choose not to pirate Windows, because I know it's wrong (and winders sucks).

What's popular in culture is to steal music and movies and software. So, does culture influence me? No, my morals do.

locosway

09-19-2009, 03:18 PM

Also, if you think "hip-hop" is dangerous, I guess you've never seen a fight in a country bar, or been to a punk concert.

1JimMarch

09-19-2009, 03:55 PM

You misunderstand several things.

First, a lot of people buck parts of their culture. Everybody on this forum does, esp. y'all living in California - most Californians shriek at the sight of a gun.

Cultural uniformity (or lack thereof) is itself a cultural trait. Japan's extreme cultural uniformity meant that when the leadership went bonkers, the lot of 'em thought it was a neat idea to invade the rest of Asia, bomb Pearl Harbor and while they were at it, take a giant piss on the Philippines and lop off like 300,000 heads in Nanching China alone.

You come from a culture that is ridiculously varied, more than any other in world history I suspect. So do I of course. Difference between us is, I know it.

Second part you don't understand is the term "hip hop culture". It's not just about music, it's about a whole spectrum of behavior including fashion sense, art and, among others, attitudes towards personal violence. It's all tied together in some ways.

If you don't believe me, go google any of "50 cent's" lyrics.

But that doesn't mean hip-hop music is inherently evil. Some are trying to use it to turn things around - see also "Gangster's Paradise" by Coolio, or "Where is the love" by the Black-Eyed Peas.

Unfortunately that voice is outnumbered - a lot.

What's NOT in that culture is an understanding of legitimate personal defense.

locosway

09-19-2009, 04:07 PM

Every music genre has it's extremes. 50 Cent is something we see often as "pop" and "hip-hop" are popular so it's on the radio, it's on TV, and it's in the news. What about all the white power songs? Redneck bar fighting songs?

I don't think you can fairly label any sub-culture as being more violent than another because it's not limited.

I don't "not know" that today we're in a culturally diverse country.

I just refuse to believe that culture has a direct influence on ones ability to know that breaking the law is wrong, morally.

As for Pearl Harbor, do you know about the sanctions the US put on Japan prior to the bombing? Japan didn't go bonkers, they were cornered. Now, before you paint me as being a Japanese sympathizer during WWII, I'm not. I just understand both sides of the story.

1JimMarch

09-19-2009, 07:18 PM

Again: I am NOT limiting the term "hip-hop" to music. Learn to read. I am using that to describe an inner-city subculture. Which is how members OF that culture use the same term ("hip hop").

Here's why it's an issue: last time I checked the data a few years ago, 55% of US murders in which the race of the killer was known, the killer was black. And that has stayed pretty consistent for a while. Blacks make up 15% of the US population. If you exclude both blacks and the murders they commit from the US population, our murder rate equalizes with the average European country or even drops a bit below.

Even if you did limit the term "hip hop" to music, how many whites do you think listen to "white power" racist music? An incredibly small fraction. How many blacks (esp. in the inner cities) listen to hardcore "gangster" rap? One hell of a lot more.

Now, there has to be a reason for the incredibly high murder rate among blacks. In my book, it's a screwed-up culture too many are involved in.

As to Japan, we put sanctions on them *because* they went bonkers. WW2 started in 1937 when Japan invaded China (the second time they'd picked a fight with China, first was late 1800s). And bombing Pearl Harbor was nowhere NEAR the worst thing Japan did - go google "rape of nanking" unless you have a weak stomach. The Nazis didn't go as publicly bughouse insane as the Japanese army went in Nanking. Ordinary German soldiers didn't toss French (or even Jewish) babies up in the air and catch them on bayonets in broad daylight, in the middle of the street. The Japanese did. They piled severed heads in stacks high enough to block traffic for God's sake. Even Hitler thought they were hardcore.

And when did that happen? 1937.

You're damned right we imposed sanctions. We should have done a hell of a lot more.

locosway

09-19-2009, 08:09 PM

Well, it's official, you sir can be a real ***.

Simply because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean you can call them names. I find it amusing how the internet makes some people macho and "big" men.

1JimMarch

09-19-2009, 08:38 PM

If you repeatedly claim somebody is saying something they're not saying, you will piss 'em off.

locosway

09-19-2009, 11:17 PM

I said I don't agree with you. I also don't agree that race plays any part crime.

What I do think plays a part in crime is poverty and lack of education. If you're going to tie culture into those two areas then maybe we can agree.

Meplat

09-20-2009, 12:05 AM

I'm not talking about technological barriers but political barriers.

Meplat: you think it's all a pipe dream, huh?

Check this out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/4320759.html

Check the date - just a few months ago. Jay Leno has a $20,000 version of this critter he's already making car parts out of.

Something worth $20,000 today will be worth $2,000 10 years from now - and that's not factoring in the possibility of making these things WITH these things.

Oh no. This is coming, folks.

Meplat

09-20-2009, 12:07 AM

Locosway: we can't prevent people downloading DVDs now. How can they keep people from downloading 1911s?

Death penalty.

1JimMarch

09-20-2009, 12:13 AM

Locosway:

The reason I said "learn to read" is that you really are missing what I'm writing. You "don't agree" that race plays a part? I said the exact same thing - this isn't a racial problem and there's no such thing as "inferior people". Do I have to quote myself?

you have to pick from just two options:

* Either the culture is damaged; OR:

* They're an inferior race.

I categorically reject the second possibility.

Arright? I've put the important bit in boldface, italics and underlined it. Do you see it now?

I've also told you repeatedly that I'm not using the term "hip-hop" to refer purely to music. You don't seem to believe that I'm saying that either. Do I have to quote myself on that?

Poverty and lack of education are absolutely part of what broke black inner-city culture. A huge part. There's more to it though:

* Black family structures being flat-out trashed in the slave days.

* Welfare laws that were designed to prevent the formation of new families.

* Police attitudes and practices that discriminated against them not just in attacking them directly, but also in not caring when somebody black is assaulted or murdered, regardless of the race of the criminal. The tendency to ignore black-on-black crime possibly did MORE damage than direct police abuse, as it helped foster a culture (there's that word again) of black-on-black violence.

* Job and housing discrimination like you wouldn't believe. If you'll stop stating that I wrote something different than what I wrote, I'll tell you a story about THAT.

* The "war on drugs" was rigged to disproportionately harm blacks. Penalties for having or selling the same amount of cocaine in "crack" form versus powder were far higher for a long time - they're starting to get that under control. But for a long time, it was assumed powdered coke was what whites were into, smoking rocks was a black thing - with the latter punished 10x as much. You can trace that same pattern across lots of drugs, originally with pot. If you prove to people that the courts are rigged against them, they're not going to have any respect for the courts. Right?

* Blacks were illegally cut out of voting, for generations. That also meant they weren't on juries, so they had yet more evidence the entire criminal justice system was rigged full-on against 'em. Well if you know that, you're likely to say "screw 'em". I know I would. (Doesn't mean I'd turn violent mind you...)

* Gun control was applied to the black community far more stringently than for any other, and for longer. This led to an attitude that "only criminals have guns" and destroyed the whole idea of lawful self defense in the inner-city black community.

And that's not even the whole list.

How do we know poverty and lack of education aren't the whole story?

Because violence rates in populations with even more poverty isn't as high. Latino violence in the US for example is actually pretty low, likely because their family structures are in better shape. (Yes, there's Latino gangs perceived as very violent and some are, especially MS-13, but overall they're just not committing murder at anywhere near black gang rates.)

An even better example: look at the Vietnamese "Boat People" influx of the 1970s and early '80s. Those people have mostly thrived in the US. Very, very few turned criminal and fewer turned violent. Most came from a culture with very low violence levels (with the possible exception of the Hmong, culturally a whole 'nuther bunch) and that pattern remained in the US. And they came here with *nothing*; most spoke no English. If you look at their average incomes today versus blacks, there's just no comparison. If it was JUST "poverty and education", the Vietnamese immigrants should be in horrible shape.

They're not. They're (mostly) doing great.

Culture is affected by a LOT of things.

Now. You've heard me say that the "black population" has been affected. What I mean is, their culture has. A whole lot of ugly things have been done to them because of their skin color. That was wrong then and remains wrong now. But all that wrongness has screwed up their culture, twisted it into the single most violent subculture in the US, bar none.

That cultural issue has to be addressed.

Since the politicians don't want to address it, the "solution" they come up with over and over is gun control - which of course doesn't work.

locosway

09-20-2009, 12:23 AM

I agree with everything you wrote. However, I'm undecided if any of that has a direct bearing on the youth of today.

However, I do like this subject, and I love reading. So by all means please carry on.

SKSer

09-20-2009, 12:55 AM

we need a machine that can create AMMO D*MMIT!! Havnt you been following AB962 they dont care about our guns anymore!! ;)

SKSer

09-20-2009, 01:21 AM

somebody needs to break the news to the Governator that if he restricts our ammo that we will not be able to defend the populace when "the rise of the machines" takes place. Some how I think this is familiar ground for him.
I just hope these things dont come equipped with a neural net processing unit, you know, a learning computer. :eek:

Meplat

09-20-2009, 01:23 AM

Locosway:

* Black family structures being flat-out trashed in the slave days.

* Welfare laws that were designed to prevent the formation of new families.

This ignores 100 years of US history. In the 1950s, before Johnson's "Great society" blacks had some of the strongest families in the country. The rate of children born out of wedlock was lower for blacks than whites. The war on poverty was actually a war on the black family.

locosway

09-20-2009, 01:24 AM

This ignores 100 years of US history. In the 1950s, before Johnson's "Great society" blacks had some of the strongest families in the country. The rate of children born out of wedlock was lower for blacks than whites. The war on poverty was actually a war on the black family.

I understand that, I'm just not convinced that it has any direct relation on black youth of today.

Mike d'Ocla

09-20-2009, 10:56 AM

Jim--

You're criticizing a throwaway line...
David Nolan, the guy who invented:
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=9&e=9

The goal...is to get at least a few people on the "left" (again, dumb term but it'll do for now) thinking about these issues. .

I hadn't seen Nolan's scheme and thanks for pointing me to it. It's an oversimplification, but useful to get people thinking out of their often very limiting patterns.

I admire very much your goal of helping "leftists" to open their minds. I've often thought of a parallel goal of helping "conservatives" to do the same. I also know, through many years of political activism, and considerable experience as a family counselor, that change usually requires people to have an emotionally powerful new experience. People who can change their minds through reading and reflection are exceptional. Change also usually occurs in small increments over a long period of time. Last, people cling to their habits of thought and action, no matter how destructive or self-defeating these thoughts or actions may be.

I am not trying to discourage you, but to welcome you into the tilting at windmills fraternity.

A final thought: I think that it's quite possible that gun rights activists have been self-defeating politically because they have not sought, developed or articulated the highest ethical standards. Some of which you are already suggested here, as well as others who have made posts. For example, the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution as a whole do NOT represent the highest ethical standards. They are possibly quite the opposite--they are lowest common denominator ideas which a group of commonsensical citizens all can accept as the minimum level of good thinking and behavior for society to be stable and reasonably fair and free.

For example we have many martial arts practices widely-taught nowadays. Their ethical standards are usually very high--that their practitioners avoid conflict, seek peace and use their martial arts skills only as a last resort. I know that many firearm users have equally high ethical standards, but it's clear from the threatening and violent screen names and signatures even here on Calguns.net that many firearm users do not understand what high ethical standards are all about.

Much more important than anything in the 2nd Amendment is the commitment to protect one's self and one's family, friends and community. Which commitment rests on the understanding that taking another's life or injuring another is a terrible thing which is likely to change or even ruin one's life forever afterward. One defends one's self and family because not to do that would be worse than allowing someone who poses a serious threat to cause harm.

Prancing around with guns and using violent language to show off is adolescent behavior and it won't impress any thoughtful person as being ethically proper.

We also have a tradition in this country of civil disobedience. This is, of course, where someone purposefully breaks a law that he or she considers to be unethical. There are such laws. Jim Crow for example. People who break such laws are prepared to pay the legal penalties in the hope of bringing about change. Civil disobedience takes real courage and very few people are ethically prepared to do it. Civil disobedience does not include causing harm to others, so shooting abortion doctors because you are a right-to-lifer fails the basic ethical test.

You mentioned illegal concealed carry. This could be, I think, civil disobedience in its best, most ethical form. You might want to explore this in your paper because the civil disobedience, Henry David Thoreau, etc., appeal greatly to most "liberals."

1JimMarch

09-20-2009, 12:24 PM

You mentioned illegal concealed carry. This could be, I think, civil disobedience in its best, most ethical form. You might want to explore this in your paper because the civil disobedience, Henry David Thoreau, etc., appeal greatly to most "liberals."

That's a damned interesting point.

Meplat

09-20-2009, 02:56 PM

That's a damned interesting point. I did it for forty years before getting my CCW. Some of my friends now consider me something of a sellout for asking 'mother may I'?

Hunt

09-21-2009, 12:07 AM

oh no I see Nuclear bombs in every garage in 50 years eeks, ban thes things from al kida

Wulf

09-21-2009, 06:40 AM

Its really the same old story.

I forget who said it, but it goes "Its not enough to ban guns, you have to ban knowledge of guns."

Mike d'Ocla

09-21-2009, 07:17 AM

Thinking a little further on the right to bear arms issues generally--it might be useful to deal comprehensively with the problems of regulation. For example: current regulatory schemes utterly fail and may be counterproductive (not cost-efficient, easy to work around for criminals); what conditions, if any, might constitute a functional regulatory scheme?

I know that many if not most people here think that there should be no regulation period. But that just isn't going to happen. So why not design a regulatory scheme which would allow most responsible citizens (who wish to) to carry concealed firearms? It might require some proof of good citizenship and of public service such as work in a helping profession or the military. It might be a national minimum standard, not necessarily to be imposed nationally, since some states, especially rural states, may be much less inclined to regulate. But a rational, national standard might at least trim back some of the more knee-jerk stuff like our current AB 962 threat.

Remember most Americans are in favor of regulation generally: food safety, occupational safety, airline safety, automobile safety, drug safety, etc.

The idea here is to beat the antigun folks at their own game.

1JimMarch

09-21-2009, 07:36 AM

I know that many if not most people here think that there should be no regulation period. But that just isn't going to happen. So why not design a regulatory scheme which would allow most responsible citizens (who wish to) to carry concealed firearms? It might require some proof of good citizenship and of public service such as work in a helping profession or the military. It might be a national minimum standard, not necessarily to be imposed nationally, since some states, especially rural states, may be much less inclined to regulate. But a rational, national standard might at least trim back some of the more knee-jerk stuff like our current AB 962 threat.

Ummmm...I think you're missing the point. Or more accurately, you're not seeing the whole picture here.

When any moderately bright 14yr-old who is today capable of loading "Call Of Duty:Blow Stuff Up" into a PC while configuring sound and video can "print" a gun, as a functional matter "regulations" have just gone flying out the window with it's *** on fire.

At that point, one of two things happens: at a minimum the inner cities turn into pizzas with the toppings ripped off and descend into Liberia-levels of street violence, OR we have a culture of legitimate personal defense in place that makes the changeover "no big deal".

Liberia needs to be the warning as to what happens when everybody has a gun (generally an AK with "da switch") AND the culture can't support that.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40034000/jpg/_40034774_childsoldier_b203_afp.jpg

http://images.forbes.com/media/lifestyle/2006/02/16/8_0216feat2.jpg

Put another way: phrase the whole article in a nutshell as "you'd better HOPE those "NRA gun nuts" win their political battle, because if they do they'll ease the transition to the coming world where gun control is more or less impossible".

--------

Since I wrote the first outline, something bad has occurred to me. There might be a way the state could still attempt gun control - at least "on the street". It would be absolutely horrible, but they might try it: put up those damned metal detecting "X-ray" machines planned for airports at every street corner, the ones that basically strip-search you.

Would they get away with it?

bigcalidave

09-21-2009, 03:02 PM

Since I wrote the first outline, something bad has occurred to me. There might be a way the state could still attempt gun control - at least "on the street". It would be absolutely horrible, but they might try it: put up those damned metal detecting "X-ray" machines planned for airports at every street corner, the ones that basically strip-search you.

Would they get away with it?

No never! The people who don't like guns have far worse things to hide concealed on their bodies, and want their privacy to keep doing them :P I'm not even going to venture a guess to what those things may be...

Kid Stanislaus

09-21-2009, 03:53 PM

The govment will develope ways to track the software and anybody who attempts to acquire it. You'll be a felon if you try.

Larua

09-21-2009, 04:02 PM

Who is the target audience of the paper?

Consider revising Ch.3 a little.

From this

The current Reprap machine works in plastic, however deposition heads that can do ceramic are in development now. Finely formed ceramic shapes can be used to build a small forge and highly detailed molds for cast parts. Castings that are more or less “fully ready to go” are often used in guns now. While not as simple as letting a Reprap build a whole gun hands-off, creating the ceramic molds to do firearms parts casting is literally “right around the corner” and could lead to hobby-scale gun production very quickly – likely within Obama's presidency if he wins a second term.

to this

The Reprap machine can currently create plastic objects. However, versions capable creating ceramic objects are in development. Ceramic can be used to create a forge and molds <citation would be excellent>, which in turn can be used to create cast metal parts. Cast metal parts are often used in current firearms <examples>.

Depending on your audience/focus you might consider reviewing literature that deals with improvised firearms (academic/technical/law reviews???) and/or previous attempts at controlling the production of firearms. Also, explain why this is different from zip guns or pre-reprap home production of firearms.

Not to go all Marxist, but it seems like the future democratizing (i.e. decentralization) of the means of production WRT firearms is a central part of your argument. Might want to develop this theme a bit more.

Also, stress the infotechnology aspect. Internet + peer-to-peer + open-source = potential for rapid, decentralized (unstoppable?) dissemination of firearms blueprints. People don't have to design their own gun, they can follow instructions.

There isn't a perfect fit between the democratization of data/media production (blogs, youtube, MP3 creation, etc.) and your topic, but there are enough similarities that it might be worth pursuing.

I understand that DIY genetic engineering is a field with strong parallels to your topic. Again, it may be worth looking into.

I think your policy analysis/response/suggestions section needs some work. If your basic thesis is "you can't stop people from making guns, then you need to teach them how to safely and responsibly own a gun," you need to first discuss WHY you can't stop people from making guns. Why wouldn't a law against making guns, or having to register any gun you make, or ban all unapproved/untested handguns as structurally unsafe, or against disseminating/possessing gun blueprints, or firmware updates that ban gun production at a blueprint level be successful? Are there previous policy examples or analogies that are germane to this discussion?

If the basic model of your argument is
"you can't stop people from X, then you need to teach them how to safely and responsibly X," you could examine what does/doesn't work WRT existing social policies that match this model: driver's ed, safe sex, etc.

I would avoid using the phrase "gun ownership culture" as it sounds too similar to "gun culture," which has negative connotations in certain circles.

I hate the term but non-gunnies are probably going to want to know if this will lead to an increase in "gun violence" and what measures, if any, should be taken to reduce "gun violence." You should emphasize developing social norms WRT safety, non-aggression, avoiding/de-escalating confrontation, and non-violent problem-solving as well as ways to effectively encourage these norms via environment and education. You need to dispel the "wild west" myth that armed people are more violent prone, that there will be shoot-outs in the streets, etc. Reputable social science statistics will help here.

1JimMarch

09-21-2009, 06:30 PM

It occurs to me (thankfully) that the "whole body strip-search machines" would be challenged (and likely even torched) by various religious fundamentalists including most (all?) Muslims and a heck of a lot of Christians and Jews as well. Yeah. Good.

OK, I'm going to take all the feedback and start both re-writing and fleshing out. We'll see what happens...

1JimMarch

09-21-2009, 06:46 PM

One more thing..."stuff that comes along and changes society" are happening at an increasing pace. Cars and the Internet/PC thing in general are likely the two biggest lately.

But look at just one aspect of the PC scene.

Remember US v. Miller, 1939, the gun case before Heller? The defense didn't even send anything in writing to the Supremes because Miller's lawyer couldn't afford typesetting.

Well THAT is now a non-issue, ain't it? There's not a lawyer in the US who doesn't have access to a PC and laser printer and a document layout template for a USSC motion (or he can get one a download away).

Document production has now gone totally "democratic" if you want to use that term, as good as any I guess.

What we're talking about here is MUCH bigger but, along the same lines.

wash

09-21-2009, 07:18 PM

I have great faith that humanity will find a way to do things that seem impossible but this example is quite far fetched. That machine will not be $2,000 in 10 years. It will still require a lot of training and knowledge to operate. It will not be outlawed or regulated in any way.

People will not be making guns any more than they do today. The AK example offered previously is perfect. It takes a lot less machinery and skill to fold up an AK from a flat than what you are suggesting but I must have missed the thousands of home built AK crime guns in the ghetto. Oh, wait, crooks still buy or steal their guns...

Leave the "social problems" out of any gun debate. Leave Bill Cosby out of it too. The kids will just listen to Chris Rock any way (he and Richard Pryor have said some choice words about Cosby).

If we get second amendment incorporation it will always be easier to just buy a gun than build one. Crooks will still get their guns the same way they do today.

If we somehow entirely lose our gun rights it will be a different type of "criminal" that sets up in his basement and cranks out guns...

Meplat

09-21-2009, 08:00 PM

It might require some proof of good citizenship and of public service such as work in a helping profession or the military. It might be a national minimum standard,

So, the guy who is out there with a shovel watering the crops that feed you is not worthy? He has no time for "public service" he has a family and a nation to feed.

locosway

09-21-2009, 08:03 PM

Ummmm...I think you're missing the point. Or more accurately, you're not seeing the whole picture here.

When any moderately bright 14yr-old who is today capable of loading "Call Of Duty:Blow Stuff Up" into a PC while configuring sound and video can "print" a gun, as a functional matter "regulations" have just gone flying out the window with it's *** on fire.

At that point, one of two things happens: at a minimum the inner cities turn into pizzas with the toppings ripped off and descend into Liberia-levels of street violence, OR we have a culture of legitimate personal defense in place that makes the changeover "no big deal".

Liberia needs to be the warning as to what happens when everybody has a gun (generally an AK with "da switch") AND the culture can't support that.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40034000/jpg/_40034774_childsoldier_b203_afp.jpg

http://images.forbes.com/media/lifestyle/2006/02/16/8_0216feat2.jpg

Put another way: phrase the whole article in a nutshell as "you'd better HOPE those "NRA gun nuts" win their political battle, because if they do they'll ease the transition to the coming world where gun control is more or less impossible".

--------

Since I wrote the first outline, something bad has occurred to me. There might be a way the state could still attempt gun control - at least "on the street". It would be absolutely horrible, but they might try it: put up those damned metal detecting "X-ray" machines planned for airports at every street corner, the ones that basically strip-search you.

Would they get away with it?

This isn't what happens when everyone has a gun. This is from government corruption that runs deep through the citizens.

Meplat

09-21-2009, 09:13 PM

This isn't what happens when everyone has a gun. This is from government corruption that runs deep through the citizens.

One thing to remember is that accurate simiauto fire trumps spray and pray every time. Full auto has only specific and limited usefulness. :D

locosway

09-21-2009, 09:30 PM

Not to mention you're taking pictures from a country that's in a civil war. Couldn't you find images of Americans shooting each other too from our own civil war?

1JimMarch

09-21-2009, 10:21 PM

This is from government corruption that runs deep through the citizens.

Like, say, Detroit? (And I'm being at least semi-serious.)

I've lived in nasty inner-city areas. The plain fact is, they're on the verge of blowing up. Look at the Rodney King riots, or the Watts riots of 1966. They're tinderboxes waiting for a spark, some of 'em.

These artificially created crapzones here in the US aren't culturally ready for an unlimited influx of more or less free guns. Call me a grabber if you want. Where I differ from a real grabber is that I believe the people in those communities who can pass a background check CAN be trusted with CCW. California's sheriffs and police chiefs (and a lot of the rank and file) disagree - their jobs have turned them into racists.

I'm not a racist. I am however a "culturalist". I believe entire cultures at a time can be graded on their effectiveness in a lot of areas, including violence levels.

locosway

09-21-2009, 10:24 PM

Considering anyone can buy a gun on the street for $50 I don't think spending $5000 on a machine to make a "free" gun is going to change anything.

If anything it may give people a means to an end. They can own a gun any time they like without having to deal with "what people think" or jumping through legal hoops like DC.

1JimMarch

09-21-2009, 10:45 PM

I don't think spending $5000 on a machine to make a "free" gun is going to change anything.

Can't wrap your head around it, huh? You know, we just went round and round on something similar. You don't read what people wrote, so you argue as if they're saying something they're not. Somebody must have told you it's a good debate technique or something. It's not. For the love of God, stop.

I'll try again, real simple this time: if anybody you know has the machine, he or she can push a button and crank out the parts you can assemble into another maker-machine.

The machine is free, minus some raw materials. The gun is free, minus some raw materials. In both cases, the raw materials can be easily recycled from scrap.

It's a free gun or close enough it hardly matters - $5 tops in scrap iron, maybe another $10 tops (in today's money) to buy pre-treated raw steel from the guy in neighborhood who's set up to do high-temp smelting of scrap you bring him. Past that, as many free guns as you want. And more or less anything else free while you're at it.

Yeah.

*Everything* changes.

Mulay El Raisuli

09-22-2009, 08:57 AM

wash

09-22-2009, 09:21 AM

Can't wrap your head around it, huh? You know, we just went round and round on something similar. You don't read what people wrote, so you argue as if they're saying something they're not. Somebody must have told you it's a good debate technique or something. It's not. For the love of God, stop.

I'll try again, real simple this time: if anybody you know has the machine, he or she can push a button and crank out the parts you can assemble into another maker-machine.

The machine is free, minus some raw materials. The gun is free, minus some raw materials. In both cases, the raw materials can be easily recycled from scrap.

It's a free gun or close enough it hardly matters - $5 tops in scrap iron, maybe another $10 tops (in today's money) to buy pre-treated raw steel from the guy in neighborhood who's set up to do high-temp smelting of scrap you bring him. Past that, as many free guns as you want. And more or less anything else free while you're at it.

Yeah.

*Everything* changes.
Are you a machinist?

I've worked as a metal fabricator doing mill and lathe work, welding, sheet metal, etc.

I've worked with 3D CAD products like ProEngineer and Solidworks.

It's been a while but I've worked with programs that create CNC tool paths and I've written simple CNC G-code tool paths.

To make a gun with the machine you're describing you would need to know most of those skills at a much higher level than I do.

That requires either a very very smart person or a very dedicated person that can spend a whole lot of time on this.

It's not going to happen the way you think it is.

The other alternative is that a gang-banger buys an AK parts kit for about $400, a flat and rivets for about $40 and $1,000 (quite possibly less) on tooling and starts turning out AK's. If he wants to build a bunch I bet he could crank out at least 10 a week after some practice.

There is nothing stopping people from doing that today but it's not happening. The reason why is that the people sharp enough to do it are not in gangs and they are too busy taking care of them self and their family. They are also not criminals so they just go to a gun store and buy a Saiga or something and have fun shooting at the range instead of sweating over AK flats in some clandestine machine shop.