gary kreie wrote:I was looking for a technology solution that let's you keep and carry as many guns as you can hold, but offers some disincentive to assume one can easily get away with shooting and killing people you don't like, which is not a Constitutional right, last time I checked. Is the alternative currently being implemented any better -- putting TV cameras on poles to record everything everyone is doing all the time in every outdoor place? Now this really is Orwellian. As far as the technology goes, that might be the easy part. My phone uploads photos over cell towers, not just wifi. And there are whole industries that know how to permanently disable devices that were tampered with. I don't understand why legal gun owners don't try to find a technical solution that allows them to enjoy their Constitutionally protected hobby, but could prevent criminals from killing the rest of us who don't want to carry firearms or wear bullet-proof clothes.
I think that such a goal is generally admirable, and potentially feasible in the very near-term. I think the issue however is that long term, a firearms prohibition is going to be infeasible. Its clear that I'm in philosophical disagreement with people on this board about guns in general, so I suppose the best way to frame it is practical rather than political.
As I referenced earlier in the thread, the technology now exists to manufacture a "real-deal" no nonsense AR-15 at home with no more equipment than a block of aluminum, a laptop and a < $1000 CNC mill (ghostgunner.net is one such example, people are also experimenting with 3D printing firearms). That technology will only get more accessible, not less, and is already in reach of most people today. It has always been the case that people could manufacture makeshift shotguns and "zip guns" at home with supplies commonly acquired at Home Depot, but this is a whole new class of weapon that people can make in the privacy and comfort of their own home, and with an even lower knowledge barrier to entry: its not significantly more complex than printing a Word document.
I don't see a regulatory path to prevent this that isn't absolutely draconion in nature. Censoring the download sites won't work - that's already been deemed unconstitutional (computer code is protected speech and exempt from ITAR - see the crypto wars of the 90's) and even if you did - people could use VPNs or Tor.
I guess you could outlaw aluminum? CNC Machines? That would mess with a lot of people and industries totally unrelated to guns. Same goes for regulating the supplies that go into ammunition (also easily constructed at home with common ingredients). I suppose you could treat it like we do ingredients for meth (like sudafed) and rate limit (and track) how often people can buy it, but we've all seen how effective that has been at stopping people from making meth (read: not at all).
Basically, the cat is out of the bag. Guns are here and no amount of regulation is going to stop criminals from having them. It didn't work for alcohol, it doesn't work for drugs, and it won't work here either. If if you rounded up every gun that's out there on the street today, closed every gun store in the country, and made gun ownership illegal, people would still get guns.
As this sort of technology matures and becomes ever more accessible, I will be very curious to see what effect it has on countries like the UK that have largely eliminated private firearm ownership. I imagine gun related crime rates will start to slowly creep up as criminal elements (likely organized crime initially) begin to realize that they can easily create their own firearms at home totally anonymously.
The reality is, we're never going to be rid of guns - the only real debate is how we deal with that fact.
