??? we're talking about the economic cost and carbon output of energy vs. how it is generated. Do you think there's some other common factor that explains France using lots of nuclear power and having a low carbon footprint and energy costs?
So you are comparing two energy sources, one that provides constant power 99.999% of the time and one that provides volatile power ~35% (if best) of the time?
These price graphs hide the obvious fact. Normalize solar and power by adding the price to make the source constant(shitload of ESS maybe?) and removing government incentives.
Yeah, I, too, read slashdot when those arguments were still current. Now, they just aren’t. The stats above are already levelized. The change in output is also smaller than what people believe: with solar and gas as two independent systems, some improvements to interconnects to allow averaging over larger regions, smart devices on the consumer side picking the right times to recharge (and maybe even de-charge when it’s useful), and the improvements in battery tech, the path is all but inevitable.
It also wasn’t solar or wind power that lead to blackouts in France last summer, but nuclear plants that ran out of cooling opportunities because the rivers they use were overheating. And in Texas, it was natural gas that failed.
Not a single one of the power source/price studies I've seen has normalized the price in regards to making the source constant or government incentives. Not one.
Energy sources have their caveats. Nuclear plants using rivers decrease output when rivers overheat. Solar panel efficiency falls 0.38% per degrees celcius under and over 25. We think failing nuclear and gas is a big deal because it's reliable most of the time. We do not think failing solar panels in night (because they can't produce energy) or hot and cold weather is not a big deal because it's designed to be that way. If that's the case, how is it viable to compare the prices?
Comparing the price of unreliable energy with the price of reliable energy is like comparing the yield of a bond without taking default risk into account. It's just terrible.
Similarly thinking you can combine a bunch of unreliable energy sources and "tranche" them in order to get a smaller stream of reliable energy is very much like the gaussian copula problem that got us into the financial crisis. Yes, it's possible to do it in theory, but very hard to do so in practice due to the financial incentives involved and lack of knowledge about risk.
The level of discourse in our energy markets really needs to be improved, and quickly, otherwise we are going to make a lot of foolish choices.
Nuclear is clean, it is safe but it is not cheap. It's safe and clean because of it's moderately priced. I stand by nuclear because it's cleanness and safeness which can't be compared to anything else.
What will we generate electricity with in non-windy cloudy days? Coal? LNG? ESS? Note that all of those options are more dangerous, more expensive and more dirty than nuclear.
Not sure about Europe, but nuclear seems to be expensive in the US because construction costs are high because of overcautious regulation[1]. It was considerably cheaper in the 50/60s here, and it seems like mostly a policy issue
The reason nuclear regulation in the US is stricter these days is because companies used to do things like routing all their supposedly-redundant control and monitoring wiring through the same shared duct, stuffing it full of flammable foam, and then testing that for air leaks using a bare candle whilst the plant is operating. This is not a hypothetical problem - it was apparently standard practice in the era you're talking about and nearly caused a major catastrophe, and the fire regulations that stop practices like this are cited as a major cost making it hard to build nuclear power plants by companies in the business.
That's the point. Nuclear is getting over-regulated to be safe, not to make any mistakes. I don't disagree with the regulators. I disagree with overly cheap nuclear. Overall, no power generation method can replace nuclear's steady output with its level of cleanness and safeness.
On the other hand, nuclear is far, far safer than almost every other kind of energy source. If we allowed nuclear to be as unsafe as coal, how much cheaper might it be?
Nuclear is expensive with a $200 million liability cap for accidents. By comparison, that's roughly 0.2-0.5% of what the total cost of dealing with Fukushima will cost.
If we think it's over-regulated the first regulation that should go should be that $200 million liability cap.
Then perhaps private insurers can decide for themselves what level of safety is required to protect them from a potential $1 trillion cleanup cost they'd be on the hook for.
If the nuclear industry can convince them it's worth it at all, that is.
Do cars pay for the possibility of crude oils spilled in the ocean? Was the Deepwater Horizon insured for the full amount of dealing with the disaster? Does coal energy plants pay for future diseases of people breathing air from their chimney? Does wind turbines pay for people that suffer from low frequency sounds and solar flickers?
All energy sources have uncertainties. We've been using much much more dangerous energy sources than nuclear. So the question is yours; why do you assume the worst only for nuclear when nuclear is the only source that is preparing for the worst?
The same applies for others like wind and solar. Do they really calculate all the costs? It was easy for nuclear to cook books in the past. I feel other energy sources are doing it nowadays.
I think in order to set things straight, they should apply the cost of uncertainty to wind and solar.
I doubt the cost figures for wind, solar, and nuclear are off by much, or rather, they could be off by hundreds of percents and still be more accurate than fossil fuels cost estimates which fail to account for pollution entirely.
Is it safe considering the 1000 square miles of Ukraine that Chernobyl made uninhabitable? How safe are they against terrorist attacks, an attack by a rogue state or in a conventional war?
Yes because we learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima. The reason nuclear is expensive is because they protect themselves from war or terrorist attacks by drills, policies, strengthened structure and alertness.
Actually, if you are in a war or you are a terrorist, there are much more high value targets than a structure with 1.3m thick re-enforced concrete plus 1cm thick steel dome.
We didn't really learn (enough) - Fukushima made that very apparent. As an example, Angela Merkel, who used to be pro nuclear, changed position after the disaster.
The reason is that ever since Chernobyl there has been an active debate in Germany pro/contra nuclear (where in some parts there are still consumption limits on certain types of wild mushrooms and game due to contamination with caesium - 30 years later, 1000+ km away!). And the core argument pro was the same it is today: We learned from Chernobyl, nuclear reactors are way safer, Chernobyl will never happen again.
But if you followed Fukushima closely while it happened, the fact that Fukushima wasn't Chernobyl was sheer luck - had the wind blown southwards towards Tokyo (and not eastwards out to the sea like it did) Fukushima would have been worse.
I'm in no way saying that we have not advanced massively in science and technology - in fact, we have - I'm saying there are tricky biases at play here that make it very difficult to estimate whether we have learned enough.
Yes, even including Chernobyl and all the other accidents, nuclear power causes less deaths per GWh and less environmental damage than coal (which is the type of electricity used to fill in the gaps when e.g. Germany stopped it's nuclear plants). If you're worried about the habitable land, Hydro power is relatively "green", but each major hydro plant wrecks habitability and ecosystems in an area that's smaller than but comparable on scale with the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
Like, this is a reasonable question to ask, but it has been asked and analyzed a lot and the practical answer to it is overwhelmingly against fossil fuels, it's not even close. Coal causes far more cancer than radioactive disasters, but we simply aren't (yet?) holding them accountable for this damage.
If we had any sense we would establish similar perimeters around coal plants. There are also thousands of nuclear power plants around the world and I can't think of any that have suffered from terrorist attacks.
I remember Van Jones saying American people's vote for Trump was a "whitelash". And Bezos is saying he tried to be a unifier in a divisive world. We live in a strange society.
At the same time, the S3 api is so ubiquitous that there implementations for it in multiple clouds, it frequently comes with hardware storage vendors as well, and there are projects like minio that provide a solution to host your own s3 compatible data architecture.
All things considered, I’m much more concerned about the centralization of eg browser technologies than this.
Eh… the thing about cloud storage is that it can be efficient in ways that smaller players cannot. A system like Amazon S3 can pack its hard drives to the brim with data and pay a fairly small overhead for replicas & unused drives.
If you try to decentralize the data, or keep your data yourself, you end up with something that uses more resources, has worse durability, or is worse along some other axis.
I am not so worried about centralization yet. There is still healthy competition between different cloud storage vendors. My impression is that cheap storage is used to make other cloud services more attractive—which means that Amazon’s incentives here are somewhat aligned with mine (as a customer). Personally I am much more worried about the centralization of the shopping experience.
I think it’s fine as long as people know what they’re getting themselves into. I’m sure I would’ve found whatever was happening on Parler abhorrent, but in the same way Merkel and Macron were concerned by the tech deplatforming that followed the capitol riots, so am I.
I don’t think filecoin will ever demolish a fantastic business like S3 based on stealing away customers. The interesting value proposition from the protocol is probably more about censorship resistance and adjacent issues.
Guns are most needed in African American neighborhoods. Banning them will criminalize more African Americans who need guns for their protection. If you can't provide quality public safety services, at least keep self defense legal.
"Better police" does provide more "public safety". This argument has been used to create the system that we have now, caging people you don't like or don't look like you; it can never be "reformed" in any meaningful manner. I'd rather have a 20% greater chance of being randomly shot than to continue with this push for a system that cages people for victimless crimes or creates more criminals because Karens' across the country feel that they need to control everyone and everything. Everyone should have the right to defend themselves against any threats against themselves or their neighbors; this is not negotiable.
> caging people you don't like or don't look like you
This is such a toxic, false statement. It denies reality: people are getting jailed for their actions. Due process is still in effect, you understand; and if anything, far fewer people are jailed than probably should be due to overcrowding, high costs, etc. Recidivism rates are very high.
Pretending that people are being jailed because of the color of their skin is ridiculous, especially considering that in many cities the jury, lawyers, judge, clerks, etc. are also of the same skin color. People are being jailed for committing crimes; and yes, these crimes are being disproportionately committed by some groups - as statistics have consistently shown for decades.
Statements like yours throw the entire justice system under the bus. You essentially call into question the entire appartatus that remains to protect normal folks in the burnt out husks of cities like Baltimore and Detroit.
> Karens' across the country feel that they need to control everyone and everything
Karen is an anti-white slur. "Karen" expects people to follow the rules and to be pro-social, and gets mad when they do not; this used to simply be good, mutual enforcement behaviour that everyone engaged in to keep people honest and to fight corruption. Stereotyping middleaged white women who simply want the process to be observed as written is offensive, and as sexist/racist as any other single term you could use these days.
Police need to enforce the laws in economically depressed neighborhoods where crime, gangs, and drugs are much more common. However, police are also abusive in that environment, and the criminal justice system perpetuates economic and social hardship in those neighborhoods by disrupting good home/family environments.
Both forces — neighborhood criminality and an overly harsh criminal justice system — work against true social justice. One of the worst consequences is poor psychosocial development in children growing up in that environment (constant stress and fear, broken families, etc). For a somewhat anecdotal view of this sociological phenomenon, see Alice Goffman's book _On the Run_ (she's the daughter of Erving Goffman).
>
Pretending that people are being jailed because of the color of their skin is ridiculous, especially considering that in many cities the jury, lawyers, judge, clerks, etc. are also of the same skin color.
That is not the point. People should not have to sit in a cage and then be "judged" by a system that is no longer blind and is stacked against anyone who goes through it. How long do you want to sit in a cage for "something you did not do"? It's no longer about "justice" or "reform", it's about revenge and benefiting those who make it up.
>
Statements like yours throw the entire justice system under the bus. You essentially call into question the entire [apparatus] that remains to protect normal folks in the burnt out husks of cities like Baltimore and Detroit.
The system needs to be thrown out because of how it was created and what it has become. Instead of only being used to "reform" the most reprehensible individuals in society (violent crimes, theft, fraud), it has become a weapon for use against anyone the two parties did not like. First it was the racist Democrats who used it against those who did not look like them and then the fundie Republicans pushed it even further to use it as a tool for the things the church did not like. Many people sitting in jail right now should not be in jail because their "crimes" never affected anyone else or society at large.
>
Karen is an anti-white slur. "Karen" expects people to follow the rules and to be pro-social
Being a cunt is not limited to any one group or ethnicity. "Karen" is applicable to any busybody who should mind their own business and leave people alone.
>"Karen" is applicable to any busybody who should mind their own business and leave people alone.
If there was a meme name for an angry woman would you have an issue if it was a predominantly black woman name? There is a sterotype of the angry black woman, so even if you would be fine it would immediately be called racist.
> If there was a meme name for an angry woman would you have an issue if it was a predominantly black woman name?
This is a pretty ridiculous way of talking about this. Let's be concrete about it: if the name was "Shaniqua", we'd all know that it was intended to be insulting toward Black women, right? Are you implying I'd be okay with that one? I'm not.
"Karen" has evolved into being an anti-white slur, and I'm not okay with either option, nor any other slur of this sort. It degrades the conversation and makes it impossible to discuss actual problems that have highly predictable demographic correlations.
I either wasn't clear or you didn't read my post well. I agree with you. I think Karen is anti-white just like Shaniqua would be anti-black. I am against both.
> People should not have to sit in a cage and then be "judged"
Reads like the words of someone who has never experienced life in a high-crime area. Likely, your sentiment about this is entirely created by false premises, an illusion from Hollywood about the nobility of gangsters. Life is not like that. Scary, sociopathic or even psychopathic people abound; violence is a daily fact of life; everyone has a mugging story.
The vast majority of these people sitting in cages have broken the law. Do you remember the law? The list of things you may not do, the list of things you will be punished for doing. A 2-year-old can understand this: do bad thing, sit in the corner as punishment. I'm not sure what happens in the brain of a mature adult to make them forget these basic mechanics; it really feels like you must have been sold sob stories that make your mushy heart over-empathize with a media construct. In reality, there are people out there who will stab you for $20.
> Many people sitting in jail right now should not be in jail because their "crimes" never affected anyone else or society at large.
There are certainly some such people, but have you looked at the 'revolving door' phenomenon where police arrest people who are punted back out onto the street hours or days later? They learn that there is no real lasting consequence for their actions besides an uncomfortable few nights (albeit, out of the rain and cold, and with free food). There are not that many people who end up in prison for crimes that don't affect others - and when they are in jail for a minimal offense, oftentimes that's the only thing that police and prosecutors could concretely nail them on, despite knowing or believing that they're involved in far worse actions that they haven't been caught for.
The other thing is, many actions do affect society at large. Drug use does; advocates for Legalizing Everything pretend otherwise, but opiates have a massive effect that cannot be mitigated just by making them legal. The addiction doesn't go away; the cost of the drugs doesn't disappear; and the actual impact of being a junkie doesn't stop. You don't end up all-of-a-sudden being able to hold down a job reliably just because your risk of arrest goes away. You don't remove chances for fentanyl to kill people by turning a blind eye to the problem.
> it has become a weapon for use against anyone the two parties did not like.
Guess what, Yank; these problems exist outside of your country and your two-party bubble bullshit too. Every major city in the world faces these problems, in predictably direct proportions to demographic factors that may not be politely discussed. The problem is endemic, it's not a function of the system except to the extent that the system finds ways to profit off of corruption and drug money.
> Pretending that people are being jailed because of the color of their skin is ridiculous, especially considering that in many cities the jury, lawyers, judge, clerks, etc. are also of the same skin color.
The extremely abbreviated way to make this point is to say "racism is over because Obama, and Kamala, and black faces in high places".
No, you're stuck at some kind of 2008 view on the topic.
The conclusion here is actually "these things are not caused by racism, because you can completely remove white people from the equation and yet the situation only ever gets worse".
Social policies combined with demographic realities are the proximate causes here. Continuing to paper over the latter with the former just entrenches the issue generationally.
What evidence do you have for "these things are not caused by racism, because you can completely remove white people from the equation and yet the situation only ever gets worse"?
"see what happens when white people are completely removed from the equation" is not an experiment that is possible to run.
So, no, you can't empirically do what you're saying you can do.
If you have a thought experiment or an approximation in mind, do share.
Here's a thought experiment: every judge, lawyer, jury member, and police officer is now black. If you think that is akin to white people disappearing, then we disagree. e.g. who wrote the laws? who stands to profit the most from incarceration?
The solution to homelessness is free mental health services, better safety nets (easy to get, unconditional unemployment benefits) and a public health system that doesn't bankrupt people.
In the bay area "there are no homes" is a real problem, but the systematic reasons for homelessness are even more important to solve.
Homelessness is generally not caused by a lack of homes. Providing homes works well for those who are homeless for economic reasons. It works very poorly for those who are homeless for reasons of drugs/alcohol or mental illness.
Have you looked into response times to your neighborhood? Even in a police state, police would not be so omnipresent that they could replace self-defense.
Reducing poverty would also reduce crime, and have other positive effects. A better welfare state, especially with regards to infant/child care and early childhood education, is probably a better ROI.
There are no such examples among the rich nations of the world. As such the example of Brazil is not apt. Even if you persist in it being apt you must all compare the number of such examples to the number of examples where gun ownership is illegal and where criminals rarely have guns.
Through buyback programs and legal penalties for possession, the amount of weapons in meaningful circulation would likely decrease substantially over a period of years.
As that process occurred, the value of the weapons would spike as scarcity took hold, and tactically-useful firearms (e.g. semi-auto) would become expensive on the black market. This would mean that criminals would need to be far more judicious with how they carried and used them.
It is very plausible that this scarcity effect would lead to a meaningful reduction in the possession and use of firearms by low-level street criminals, which would also by extension lead to a reduction in levels of firearms-related homicide, assault, and intimidation.
A low-level narcotics broker is less likely to carry around a Glock that costs $10,000 (which they have to dump off of a bridge or in a storm drain every time it's used in a homicide), than they are to carry around a black-market stolen Glock that cost $600.
> As that process occurred, the value of the weapons would spike as scarcity took hold
This seems implausible. The number of guns used in crime is in the tens of thousands each year.
The number of guns sold this year was more than 20,000,000.
The number in circulation is greater than 400,000,000.
Even in Australia compliance with gun buybacks wasn’t much more than 50%, and they didn’t have a second amendment.
The idea that Guns will become scarce in the US any time soon is simply unrealistic.
As for the 10,000 glock, that situation is also just a fantasy.
In London criminals can simply rent guns, fairy cheaply but with a high deposit. They only discard them if they fire them in a crime, otherwise they return them and get their deposit back.
This way, even just one gun can be used by hundreds of criminals at minimal expense, and with little risk of being caught possessing an illegal weapon.
One thing is, you have to subtract bolt guns, and bolt gun calibers from circulating firearm and ammunition totals. That should cut the number down quite significantly.
The guns wouldn't instantaneously disappear overnight in this scenario. It would take 10-20 years to see a sizeable impact.
I have an interesting quote related to the UK and gun laws:
Gun deaths remain extremely rare in Britain, and very few people, even police officers, carry firearms. But the growing presence of American weapons on the streets, which has not previously been widely reported, comes as serious violent crime, like murders and stabbings, has risen sharply.
So, hey, U.S. firearms restrictions might have some very positive outcomes for the U.K. (and Mexico as well).
I'd love if you could share an article about that firearms rental operation, how prevalent those weapons actually are, and if they're coming in from the United States.
I could theoretically manufacture a pistol-caliber carbine myself for under $1000, including the 3d-printer. As in, from bar stock + hydraulic pipe + DC current source + 3d printed components. Look up the FGC-9 - it's pretty impressive.
That's with current tech, and I don't think the tech of 20 years from now is going to be worse. If anything, 3d printing will be even better.
Now, that FGC-9 isn't nearly as concealable as a standard Glock. But I'm sure there's ongoing efforts to make a home-manufacturable semiauto pistol, too.
The more interesting thing to manufacture yourself is ammunition - smokeless powders are rather flammable, primers take that and scale it to 11 with a side of toxicity, and case manufacture has a lot lower tolerances than you'd think. (Bullets are comparatively easy, if you have a source of lead stock and can make a mold) But the number of guns in circulation in the US pales in comparison to the amount of ammunition stockpiled - estimates generally put annual sales at 8 to 10 BILLION rounds of ammunition. A lot of that is fired each year, but that's still a hell of a stockpile to go through first.
I think you raise a really interesting point with this, and I want to offer a counterexample that I managed to come up with.
So, yes you can make an FGC-9 in your garage. Fair enough.
But are the barriers to manufacturing one in the garage sufficient to significantly reduce proliferation?
So, my example is the widespread absence of fully-automatic weapons in U.S. crime. Any schmuck with a lathe and a milling machine in the garage can crank out fully-automatic sub guns like it's Christmas in Sarajevo in 1993. But nobody does. You only very rarely hear about full-auto being used in the commission of crimes. Why? Perhaps the illegality, expense, and manufacturing hurdles (however small they might be) are just good enough to prevent meaningful proliferation in the way we see with semi-autos today.
The ammo thing is an interesting point too. I would think one of the biggest hurdles would be to homebrew ammo that was clean-burning enough not to immediately jam something like an FGC-9 in small calibers. I looked into cartridge case manufacturing and I guess there's a brass drawing process or something. I wonder how difficult it would be to base a design around CNC machined cartridge cases instead?
There are valid reasons to believe that gun prohibition will not significantly decrease the use of guns in crimes in the U.S. Believing that gun prohibition won’t work because drug prohibition hasn’t worked is as invalid as the argument that gun prohibition will work because slavery prohibition worked. There are examples of countries that suddenly implemented strict gun control laws successfully whilst unsuccessfully prohibiting illicit drugs. Therefore it is not valid to reason that gun laws won’t work because they haven’t worked with drugs.
That, but also Swiss are rich and are an exception in the entire World.
But looking at the numbers to add more context: Switzerland is very different from USA.
First of all gun ownership in Switzerland is around 25%, it's over 40% in USA.
Secondly, 25% of Swiss own a firearm, not a gun, in USA gun ownership (meaning a gun) is at 22℅
In Italy gun ownership is at 12% and gun deaths are almost zero, as in Switzerland most of the legally owned firearms are rifles for hunting purpose, kept locked in a cabinet.
Nobody in Switzerland sleeps with their gun under the pillow and nobody thinks it's a solution to crime, that's the biggest difference.
I am sorry what? You predicate your statement by saying Switzerland is rich... I am sorry but those who are not “rich” should also be allowed to own firearms. Predicating ownership by wealth is just classist.
Secondly: Americans own too many guns and that's stupid.
third: USA is the richest country in the Worlsd and the largest owner of guns on the planet, so please don't make it a class issue, because it's really not.
Finally: Swiss are rich, they have an higher education on average so they don't end up shooting each other on the street like in the USA, were they think that owning firearms is a solution to poor education.
The only 2 places in Europe where there have been domestic mass shootings that were not terroristic attacks are Switzerland and Norway, not surprisingly the two countries that own more firearms.
africanboy says>"You really thought that an African boy couldn't possibly know? Seriously?"
It has nothing to do with "an African boy". You could be a 10-year-old South American pogo referee and I still would not believe that you have the slightest idea of how many Swiss sleep with or w/o pistols beneath their pillows! Seriously!
That's a counterfactual argument. It is by definition unprovable. I said that Europe shouldn't be considered a gun control success, not that if there were guns, WW2 would have been prevented.
During the Weimar era and the Nazi era, gun control laws were put into place. That is a historical fact.
Also, hint: saying that Hitler was voted into power as if it were an average democratic vote deeply misunderstands the situation. I suggest reading more about the era, specifically Ian Kershaw's book.
I might have miss understood your argument, but to me it reads like you wanted to imply that the implementation of gun controls ~lead to~ supported fascism and ultimately lead to WW2.
> I always find it odd how Europe is used as an example of gun control success. Especially when it comes to the issue of oppressive governments.
> World War 2 happened less than a century ago. During Weimar and the 1930s, pretty strict gun laws were put in place.
I live in Canada, we have very strict laws about who can get and how to get guns. 80% of gun crime is committed by people that don’t have a license, and got them from unauthorized places. Making something illegal doesn’t make it go away, just creates a black market. Criminals also don’t give a hoot about laws, by definition.
The relevant statistic is not the one you mentioned. One expects the outcome you cited. What is the frequency of gun involvement in crime in Canada vs. the United States? That’s the relevant comparison.
It’s easy to grow marijuana, for instance. I can do it. I can not manufacture a gun easily. In countries where legal gun ownership is hard to obtain they have much lower rates of crimes involving guns while at the same time having ready access to illegal drugs. Your counterpoint is not apt.
Not only can you make a gun easily, 3d printed or not, you can even bootstrap (I don't just mean handload) ammo now. Criminals will hella have hella guns and the cat is too far from the bag to put it back. Even individual manufacture isn't a real hindrance as long as your network contains someone who can make a gun.
The old Improvised Munitions handbook has instructions for how to make a "zip gun" with little more than pipe and a nail. Guns are easy. Safe, reliable, long-lasting guns require a bit more work.
Guns are not hard to make yourself, now, if you have a little competence with tools. In ten-twenty years, you'll be able to print off as many as you want with absolutely no technical skill.
Stopping people from killing others with guns is a cultural and social issue. Trying to fix it by blocking access to guns is an ever-more losing strategy.
There are lots of examples of countries whose ban on guns work and whose ban on drugs doesn’t work. Therefore it is a bad argument that guns can’t effectively be banned since our ban on drugs hasn’t worked.
Easy enough if you have access to the necessary power tools (usually a drill press or a router). There are a number of companies creating unfinished lower receivers and providing kits for one to finish it themselves. It's also legal in the US.
It's as easy to smuggle guns into the US as it is to smuggle in drugs that aren't grown there. It's also pretty easy to manufacture them. I suspect the latter is just your perception from never having tried.
I don’t know much about gun smuggling. Do you have sources or experience in this area to know that gun smuggling is as easy as drug smuggling? My impression, not based on experience, is that gun smuggling can’t occur at near the level that drug smuggling does. For one it’s far easier to track the manufacturing of guns as the location of factories is well known and public knowledge.
Is it your contention that any old fool like myself can produce useful guns (ones that don’t explode when I shoot it) and ammunition? Does this ability scale the same way that growing marijuana does?
You might know where the factories are, but what does that matter if manufacturing guns isn't illegal in those places? At present, guns are smuggled _out_ of the US quite effectively [1]
As for whether it's easy to produce a working gun: well, generally you can purchase the component parts of a gun on some continuum between raw materials and final product. The exact point on the continuum that you make your purchase depending on your risk level and how restrictive gun component laws are where you live. After that it's a case of following schematics and a little machining skill.
However, it seems unlikely that individual criminals would manufacture their own guns, in the same way that drug users don't typically manufacture their own drugs. It would require investment into machinery and minor expertise, but the barrier to entry is low enough that suppliers shouldn't have much problem stepping in to meet demand. I would assume that the US has the highest prevalence of gunsmithing expertise of almost any nation at this point. Those skills won't vanish overnight.
If you're really interested in making a home made gun, without involving a supplier, there are already ways to do that [2]. It seems unlikely a ban on 3D printing or other machinery and raw materials would work out.
I’m aware of 3D printing. At this time it is not ubiquitous or cheap enough for mass consumption. When it becomes so then the comparison to the drug trade will become more apt.
There are lots of examples of countries with effective illegal drug operations and effective gun control. Therefore the belief that banning guns will necessarily be as effective as banning drugs is provably false. As such it’s a poor argument. There are lots of valid reasons to believe that banning guns in the U.S. won’t work.
Your first half is somewhat valid (sans DIY culture). A portion of drug consumption is domestically produced. But you’re ignoring the international and inter-state drug trades.
I.E. Columbia accounts for 43%[1] of the global coca supply. Taking your argument at face value, Colombians would consume 43% of the worlds coca supply having no impact on your ability to purchase cocaine in, say, Miami.
Comparing other countries success on one form of prohibition doesn’t give much insight. Compare it to America’s success on current and historical prohibition. American’s don’t honor prohibition.
Comparing across generations is not valid as times and perceptions and social values change. What didn’t work in the past may work in the future.
I’m not ignoring the nature of the drug trade. I’m claiming that the drug trade and drug smuggling are not apt comparisons to illegal gun manufacturing and smuggling. I don’t have any other claims. The argument that making guns illegal can’t work because it didn’t work for drugs is a dumb one.
> Comparing across generations is not valid as times and perceptions and social values change.
No need to look across generations. There are plenty of prohibitions to choose from today. Like automatic rifles and opium.
> I’m claiming that the drug trade and drug smuggling are not apt comparisons the illegal gun manufacturing and smuggling.
I’m going to hazard a guess that you don’t come from a gun culture.
Otherwise law abiding citizens smoke weed. Likewise they source fully automatic mods for their rifles and hoard bump stocks.
And these are just hobbyists.
Add in the game theory incentives of organized crime and their already established distribution channels (the same distribution channels they’re using to move drugs). I don’t understand how it isn’t close to apples-apples.
So let me try another explanation for why I think the comparison with the drug trade is not valid. We have many examples of European countries where guns are effectively illegal to own in the sense of being hard to legally obtain. These same countries have well developed illegal drug operations. These same countries have much lower use of guns in crime. These countries are counterexamples to the argument:
Making guns illegal won’t be effective because making drugs illegal hasn’t been effective.
As such this argument is not valid. A person who wants to intelligently argue why banning gun ownership in the U.S. won’t work must use a different argument.
All criminal laws have as their aim to make prohibitions of certain behaviors. All fail at 100% efficiency but most do well in terms of regulating acceptable behavior over time. The prohibition on slavery was quite effective in the U.S. If you want to argue that banning guns in the U.S. won’t work go ahead and argue that. Just don’t use the foolish argument that since banning drugs didn’t work in the U.S. then banning guns won’t work. It is sloppy thinking.
I can think of a lot of reasons why banning guns in the U.S. won’t work. You alluded to one of the reasons why I think this. None of my arguments on why this won’t be effective in the U.S. have anything to do with the ineffectiveness of the war on drugs.
Yes. I ought to have specified that I was referring to countries with the same level of socio-economic development. I intended to compare like to like so to speak.
In countries where gun ownership is hard to obtain legally criminals have much lower rates of gun ownership. Banning legal gun ownership does not prevent all criminals from accessing guns but it does prevent most of them from accessing guns. Importantly it prevents for the most part gun involvement in crimes of passion.
Even more importantly, it discourages even habitual criminals from accessing and using guns. It is certainly possible to obtain black market handguns in the UK, but criminals know that (i) possessing them risks much more severe penalties, and convictions even if evidence of the other crimes they were involved with is inconclusive (ii) the risk of them being shot if not able to shoot someone disturbing their criminal activity first is usually negligible and (iii) more police resources are devoted to rumours of buying guns than rumours of selling drugs or other black market goods. So the average British burglar doesn't own a gun, the black market isn't a huge one and even many gangs that pride themselves on violence mostly or exclusively use less efficient weapons.
Of course, culture also plays a role: the UK never had many handguns or shootings before stricter regulations came in, and when they did gun owners generally complied.
Even if the USA banned gun ownership, which would require a constitutional amendment and given views on the issue by majorities of the populations of some states, would thus be quite impossible, even then there would be the practical issue of enforcing that ban.
Immediately after the ban, there would still be gazillions of guns floating around the US. It would take multiple decades after the ban until the positive effects can be felt. During this time, the criminals would absolutely still have guns while the law abiding citizens would not.
Furthermore, there are huge smuggling activities at the US's southern border, making it possible for guns to enter on that route. Maybe if a strong border wall is built, it can be pulled off somehow.
Also don't forget that there are wild animals in many parts of the US, like say in Alaska. Sometimes you need to have a gun.
Not to mention the country would almost certainly split if guns were banned. I have zero doubt a large chunk of the states would secede so the ban would only effect states that don't leave.
My point was that it takes decades until the point you responded to becomes invalid. Even if Biden banned all guns tomorrow, it's likely that criminals will keep having guns during the life span of everybody alive today.
Yes, it seems like the gun issue in the U.S. is cultural. You couldn't make the same arguments for gun ownership in the U.K. or Japan, because gun ownership was not as strong a part of the culture the whole period since their founding. It took two mass shootings in the span of a decade for the U.K. to ban almost all gun ownership.
I would prefer if nobody had guns (as an unrealistic utopian ideal), and if people were disincentized to obtain them illegally. But repealing the Second Amendment is both a lost cause and would do more harm than good. There is no undoing centuries of cultural propagation and convincing tens of millions of people who have already accepted the idea to cooperate.
If I wanted to minimize my chances of encountering gun violence as much as possible, I'd have to move overseas.
if guns are illegal their cost will go up. the cost of the weapon itself, plus the fee for smuggling obvious contraband. It will also be much easier to spot and arrest people carrying guns, as there will be no legal concealed carry permits. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US, people will always be able to get them. but illegalization will make it more of a pain in the ass
The overwhelming majority of Americans, I'd guess over 90%, do not live in places where they need firearms to protect them from wild animals. Why should hundreds die from gun violence in cities every year because of the off chance that someone in Alaska will encounter a bear?
Your stat shows that (i) Myanmar's citizens were not unarmed and (ii) privately owned firearms were more widespread in 2007 when the country had been under the control of an autocratic military junta for decades than in 2017 when it appeared to be transitioning to semi-democracy. Myanmar is certainly not well functioning, but it is also certainly not an example of effective gun controls, or an example of widespread private firearm ownership preventing autocratic regimes from doing what they like.
All I said was that it is possible to enforce gun laws if the government is well-functioning, which was probably an overstatement.
All I'm trying to say is that if the government is serious about gun control and has control of it's law enforcement (which was a proxy for 'well-functioning', outlaws will not have them)
There are a number of countries that have laws on the books, but does a terrible job of enforcing those rules.
All of this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the laws should exist or not.
For my needs, Myanmar isn't a country worth discussing in terms of gun control because it's not like the citizenry has a voice in drafting policy and owning small arms has been a way of life there for decades, and does it seem to have resolved their issues with "representation"?
Correct, the initial transaction is from a legal dealer or private seller to a legal buyer who will pass a background check. The legal buyer then turns around and illegally sells it to someone who cannot legally own a firearm. This is called a straw purchase.
Only because all criminals have guns. Because guess what. Guns are legal.
There were many stories during the "firey but mostly peaceful" demonstrations last year of people who were ordinarily liberals trying to buy guns for personal and home defence and discovering to their horror that that actually there is a background check and a waiting period, you can't just buy one on a whim. Nor can a friend legally just lend you one.
