To a point. Once the magnetic field gets to a certain strength, the projectile magnetically saturates and the only way to really get more kinetic energy into it is to make the barrel longer. If they can demonstrate this firing the equivalent to a .22LR, it would be really amazing.
Non-firearms guy reading, was just looking at muzzle velocity, ~245fps (75m/s), where a .45ACP round goes ~500fps. - but joules would be the way to compare the physics. In terms of energy/silence, for hunting, it seems like you can buy more powerful crossbows at a camping store.
Additional energy just seems like an optimization problem that could be solved with an external power pack source.
However, the real game changer may be in the economics of EMP shielding and weapons, where if all legal civilian firearms are electronic, they are also remotely manageable via DRM and less user servicable. The analogy could be like what electronic fuel injection did to carbeurators and the autonomy of drivers to service their own vehicles.
This rifle seems like a bit of a gimmick, but from a political perspective I could see some people saying, "let them hunt with coilguns, nobody needs gunpowder anymore," which will be a new leverage point on 2A limitations whereby this product is a managed substitute. Independent of where one stands on that issue, the product is a technology that could change the dynamic of that discussion.
Subsonic is anything under 1125fps, with some variance for local weather conditions, and .45 ACP is popular to use with a silencer because standard loads are almost always subsonic. 500fps seems consistent with the absolute low end of some target loads.
"The GR-1 is capable of accepting 3 different standard projectile lengths (32 mm, 42 mm, and 52 mm) with a unique variable magazine system"
"Muzzle Velocity: 75 m/s."
75 m/s is slower than a lot of bows, and those are fairly big slugs, as compared to a .22 bullet.
What you should expect with this gun is a very curved trajectory and, likely, low accuracy. At the very least, it will need sights similar to what's available for bows, since a few meters of distance in range will have a large impact on where the bullet lands.
The large size of these bullets means they might actually not penetrate much, if at all. (I'd appreciate more spec's than just their length). Yes, they have half the kinetic energy of a .22 round, but that's going to be spread over a much larger impact area.
You could easily put a point on the slug and give it some penetrating ability. It might not blow a hole through you but could at least break a bone or puncture some blood vessels.
It would be great if they had a video of it in action. Also the ammo looks like you can make it yourself, that's cool.
(Does it bother anyone else that they say "Gauss" to rhyme with "paws' instead of "mouse"? It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but in my experience it's one of the names even physicists will pronounce properly.)
Yes, unsure what they mean. For context it was developed in part by a guy from AFRL (Air Force Research Laboratory[0]); maybe it's a commercialization of some of the miniaturized railgun/coilgun tech from the secret programs that were 'abandoned'? I'm thinking that's maybe what they mean by free of infringements; as in patent infringements, but I don't know. Your guess seems plausible too.
TIL the legal definition of “firearm” includes the stipulation that the projectile be propelled by “explosives”[0]. ATF probably would need to go to Congress to get the relevant section of law updated to be more tech-agnostic (maybe based on muzzle energy?)
The battery pack probably puts off a good amount of heat. If "flipping a light switch" is close enough to fire for Orthodox Jews, it's probably close enough for the ATF.
search-replace the word for some other term in all the laws at the same time if you feel that's important, although legal terms not 100% mapping with other definitions is not exactly unusual. Or read it as "projectile-firing weapon".
The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B)any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C)any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
From (B): "expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant"
I would say here that a "propellant" would have to refer to some kind of chemical (even boring pressurised gas) and that it couldn't reasonably be extended to a magnetic field (or series of virtual photons or whatever). I'd like to know if that's likely to be the view the legislature or judiciary would take though.
B) has to be read with the "and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter" clause included, though; the projectiles in the video look narrower than that.
I fully expect the ATF to be able to find some definition to work with, though, as with bump stocks.
They are indeed narrower, as the designed bore diameter is half an inch. Maybe that was deliberate in reference to this rule then. If so it would seem that the designers may have thought the device would otherwise be covered.
Given that catapults and muzzle loading cannon[0] are generally held to be exempt from DD status, I would estimate that a EM cannon of whichever variation don't count as destructive devices.
> Muzzleloading cannons manufactured in or before 1898 (and replicas thereof) that are not capable of firing fixed ammunition are considered antiques and not subject to the provisions of either the Gun Control Act (GCA) or National Firearms Act (NFA).
The answer at your link doesn't seem to apply here.
Air rifles don't fall under this definition (in the US, felons can own them). Air rifles are pretty serious, like guys are hunting bears with them in some larger calibers.
I have no idea if it's been tested in court, though.
Hm, I suppose common denominator is correct. But, the gauss gun falls pretty easily withing the overall definition you've quoted. There are plenty of "and similar" stipulations that pretending it doesn't would seem a bit silly.
It seems analogous to air guns, which use compressed air to expel a projectile. Yes, the ATF says "welp, not a firearm". About half of US states have some kind of explicit regulations though...
> The Offensive Weapons Act 1996 says, “any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him (or some other person)” (https://www.slingshotworld.co.uk/slingshots-law/)
Yeah, and the weird part is that somehow it completely misses the point that society might actually want 'infringements' (infringing on what?), and that most of the world doesn't like the idea of making it easy for people to apply violence to other people.
What I find weird, and interesting, is that you seem to summarily correlate a weapon with applying violence to someone. Weapons are frequently used in self-defense, specially among minorities and women abused by their partners. Weapons create a balance to an otherwise unfair and cruel power relationship.
As a matter of fact, those "infringements" already caused the death of an abused woman:
I invite you to broaden your perspective on the concept of gun ownership and the principles behind the 2nd Amendment. Black men and women bought 58% more guns in the first six months of 2020 than they did in 2019. Black women are being empowered all across America, along with another vast diversity of people, by the right to keep and bear arms.
Touché. I wanted to understand the perspective and show a different one, though, not correct or debate his point. There are other uses which I could have presented to counter that point: sports, rehabilitation, recreation. However, I find that this would deviate from my point of trying to show the diversity of gun owners and the many uses of defensive gun use.
I do understand that different people from different upbringings, as well as different parts of the world, might have a difficult time seeing how a gun can be seen as a good thing. Which I why I'm trying to present different perspectives.
No that's not how it typically works. In the vast majority of cases where a firearm is used for self defense the weapon is merely brandished and there's no actual violence.
In fact I see it as you splitting (or rather melding) the hairs, so if you're going to do that, you should be able to take it, too, right? :)
Your point was violence in response to violence, as if the two are interchangeable, but there is a huge difference, both legally, morally and practically I think. One the one side you have, the primary aggressor, the "attacker" and they presumably can have the element of surprise. On the other side you have self defense and (in some places) "stand your ground", where you are "a true victim, defending yourself against an attacker". So you seem to say there's no much difference, but there's a huge difference.
In the second case, where you accuse someone of splitting hairs, not only have you already done it (in a reversed way, by making a (as you admit) "pedantic" (but i'd say, incorrect) statement about two types of violence, where you conflate, rather that split, them), the point you are again conflating, "between violence actualized and violence only threatened" is also huge, and something I didn't know.
I was grateful to learn that, and it's fascinating. I think that's something about guns that is ignored often in, is that they can be an effective deterrent. The effect of which, actually makes it, possibly that violence is less likely to be effected, perhaps precisely because, major violence is so easily applied.
Anyway, aside from all these down in the details stuff (which are important in this topic, the semantics and nuance are key here), I'm sure you have good ideas and thinking for why you are anti-gun. It's not an easy topic for either side to argue, I think.
In case you were asking seriously, infringing on the 2nd Amendment right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. The amendment specifically uses the word, ie "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So the word "infringe" is commonly used in that context.
> making it easy for people to apply violence
Not to delve into politics, but IMO it's easier to "apply violence" without a weapon, or with less complicated weapons. I'm sure most of us can infer your actual point, but it might be worth it to come up with a less-easily-defeated argument.
>In case you were asking seriously, infringing on the 2nd Amendment right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. The amendment specifically uses the word, ie "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
IANACS, but to me the 2nd Amendment doesn't objectively imply the right to keep and bear all possible arms, rather it prevents the infringement of the right to bear any arms. You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home from burglars.
>Not to delve into politics, but IMO it's easier to "apply violence" without a weapon, or with less complicated weapons.
Tell that to the Las Vegas shooter, or any mass shooter.
There's a reason wars are no longer fought on horseback with melee combat and bows and arrows. The purpose of guns is to force-multiply the capacity of violence (both in power and in range) beyond what an unarmed body can commit. Yes, it's technically easier to apply the violence of a closed fist or a knife but that violence is also more contained and easier to control.
I'm hoping to avoid a tedious quagmire about gun classification here.
A rifle might be appropriate in some situations, like defending against bears or big cats in a rural environment, but not necessarily an urban setting. An RPG would be inappropriate for both.
But my point is that self-defense doesn't require access to arbitrary firepower.
Depending on the scenario, but I'd want a rifle in a lot of self-defense scenarios against humans.
Attacker has a rifle? I want a rifle.
Multiple attackers? I want a rifle.
Attacker is extremely motivated to hurt me and won't quit until they're dead? I want a rifle.
One guy breaks in my house with a knife? I guess a handgun will do, or preferably a shotgun.
You interestingly just chose a rifle that is a semi-automatic rifle like most other long guns in the US (those that aren't bolt guns). An AK-47 is comparable to an AR15 is comparable to a Remington 742 Woodmaster, which is a nice deer rifle. It's unclear if you think the caliber is a problem, or if you've just decided they're all full-auto or something. I guess it sounded scarier.
More importantly, self-defense is not the reason for the amendment. Gun classification is not mentioned. At the time, the founders wanted the citizens to have equal access to arms as the government. I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them.
> I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them.
An interesting thought exercise. I wonder how that would have played out, had it been anticipated: changing the nature of the defense contractor market, and maybe Ford would have ads for "SUV APC" or "Sport Model Tank".
On some level the mental demarcation between "civilian tech" and "military tech" is so visually clear for me, it's hard for me to imagine a world where those things are fluidly interchanged, that doesn't seem satirical or dystopian. Doesn't mean it would be tho...Strange utopian possibility is, post WWII with civilian market for military armaments exploding, maybe the "start more wars, sell more weapons" motive for war (if that's a real thing) would have disappeared, and US wouldn't have been in any war in 70 years, because the defense industry would be too busy reaping profits from the consumer sector.
Wouldn't you agree that, without frequent training, it is very difficult for a person, under heavy stress, to engage a target at 10 yards with a pistol? What about follow up shots? Wouldn't you agree also that, if handgun efficiency in urban environments was higher than rifles, studies conducted by the PPSC wouldn't indicate that even law enforcement officials lack training? (http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf)
Seems like a difficult skill to master, specially given the important variables surrounding defensive gun use (bullet over-penetration, stopping power). A rifle, specifically AR-15-style rifles, in a CQB configuration seems to be ideal for self-defense, knowing that efficacy is drastically increased by ergonomics, recoil management, longer barrel length, and the terminal ballistics of the 5.56 and 300 BLK rounds. LEO's seem to agree with that rationale, knowing that most urban defense task forces are outfitted with AR-15-style rifles with shorter barrels.
If you are in a situation of stress, with your life on the line, you want a tool best suited in protecting you in that moment. If LEO's, and studies carried by their departments prove that, employ rifles rather than handguns to defend their lives and the lives of the people they are defending, I'm under the assumption that it is the best tool for self-defense.
Except that they will be in situations different from a person in their home defending against an invader. They will need accuracy and effect at 50 meters, you only need 5. They will be laying down cover fire to allow repositioning etc.
As far as accuracy goes, a rifle’s size might be an issue in close quarters. And once you’ve fired off a few rounds, even if you missed, the intruder now knows you have a loaded gun, you might land the next shot, and the neighbors are allready calling the police.
> They will need accuracy and effect at 50 meters, you only need 5.
Do you think a defender, under heavy stress, will be more accurate and effective with a handgun or a rifle?
> As far as accuracy goes, a rifle’s size might be an issue in close quarters.
That's precisely why I mentioned CQB. Short-barreled rifles are extremely effective in close quarters. 10.3 and 11.5 are popular lengths. For 300 BLK and 7.62x39, 8.3 and 8.5 are also very effective.
> And once you’ve fired off a few rounds, even if you missed, the intruder now knows you have a loaded gun, you might land the next shot, and the neighbors are allready calling the police.
Not sure what the point of this statement is. Can you elaborate?
Here in the (quite safe) city I live in, in the SF bay area (strongly anti gun), there was an incident last year where someone came up to a couples house in the middle of the night, knocking on their door asking to use their phone because their car broke down. Luckily the couple had a decent security camera on the front porch, because almost out of frame was another person waiting.
It turns out that person (visible later in the video) had what appeared to be a AK-47 with a drum magazine on it. Both illegal in this state.
The couple luckily checked the camera and called the police, and the police actually showed up (though the two people had already left), and those people didn’t try to break the door down or force their way in before the police showed up.
Because criminals tend to not follow laws, and these things are not that hard to get ahold
of if someone wants one - and doesn’t care if it is legal or not.
And if those two people had been a bit more aggressive, the only thing that would have been useful is something like an AK-47 with a drum mag or better, or a ton of luck.
The 2nd Amendment is not about defending yourself from burglars -- it's about defending yourself from the government itself. It's essentially the right to revolt.
Of course, it'd be a dark day when a sufficiently large portion of the population feels the need for revolution against the standing government -- but that's the point. The government can't get that bad (as say, a violent dictatorship), because the population is itself armed and able to take back control as necessary. The US in general operates on a distrust of centralized government -- a necessary evil -- and even today it's visible on both fronts of politics; both the defunding of the police on the left, and the populism of the right.
And in that respect, it's important for the population to be equivalently armed as the armed forces that may one day turn inwards -- though by order of numbers, equivalently armed doesn't necessarily require equivalent capability to reign death and destruction -- a thousand men with a pistol will eventually defeat a single man with a nuclear bomb (assuming they're smart enough not to cluster..) -- but to do so, the population must bear arms.
The other side of the problem however is that the US military is becoming continuously more effective at waging war against native populations and poorly armed/trained militia. They may not have succeeded in many of their goals in the Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq, etc wars, but they're definitely getting better at it -- and they're getting a lot of practice.
> The 2nd Amendment is not about defending yourself from burglars -- it's about defending yourself from the government itself
Kind of, though not in the way its usually sold.
> It's essentially the right to revolt.
No, its supposed to be a guarantee against needing to revolt by providing a preventative against the situation where the government is able to use the unreadiness of the citizenry as an excuse to establish a large standing armed force for internal and/or external security (the latter being a problem because it, historically, often gets used for the former; purpose built forces for the former purpose were rare at the time of the founding, but the Founders had first-hand experience with external security forces turned to internal security use) with the distinct and separate culture and loyalties from the general population that such standing forces always entail.
Since the people as the militia are then expected to be the security services, with only a minimal permanent cadre, there is nothing to have to revolt against.
I suppose if you live in the US, keep busy with the US government and do weapons/violence related things that might be a default go-to. In the rest of the world, not so much.
Weapons exist for one reason: easier application of violence. That is their only purpose.
Yes, with the caveat that it's a pretty widely held opinion that it is okay to "apply violence" in a few scenarios, a couple of which are to procure food via hunting, and to defend oneself or others from entities who intend to do (egregious enough) harm.
As mentioned in a sibling comment, force multipliers like firearms allow relatively equal footing for people that would otherwise just be victims in a violent encounter.
I don't think everyone has to agree on what is a reasonable amount of freedom wrt firearms.
Agree. It's easier to just go up and and hit someone in the head with a rock or knife them. But possibly harder for an untrained person to kill someone else like that, particularly with other people around. Guns make it easier to cleanly defend yourself, rather than having to rely on rocks or knives, but also easier to murder other people.
I think the self-defense and defense of the people against a tyrannical government is a worthwhile tradeoff, tho. And, apart from anything else, the 2A is the law, and even if the law is not always comprehensible to people, as long as it remains the law I believe it should be respected and protected. So there's that, too.
I think there's an argument to be made, too, for guns as a tool of true political feminism, in the sense that, if there is violence against women happening, guns 'correct the imbalance' of asymmetrical physical strength, giving women ability to defend themselves.
I have one extreme idea, tho. I think if a society allows guns, then every citizen of age, whether or not they own a gun, must undergo a gun training course. I don't think we should mandate everyone must own a gun...while that could work in theory, it seems too extreme, but I think everyone should be trained to understand and respect what guns can do.
as a tech demonstrator is great, but we're a few technology generation away from replacing the good old rifle, both because of power density (40+ shots per charge so you're going to ferry a few of these and battery pack are heavy) and capacitor (2 seconds/round isn't stellar)
given the coil/power constraint I think the natural evolution of this tech is probably going to remain a niche application for slow firing and high powered applications, not a tout-court gunpowder replacement; railguns seems to be a better candidate for rifle replacement.
totally agree. that seemed like marketing schtick. we are still very much in the gp/chemtech age of ballistic propulsion. alternative propellant is not better than electric vehicles are to oil vehicles, for now...
but i feel that with higher power density battery tech, warmer superconductors, stronger magnets, and metamaterials with exotic electrical properties, maybe this category isn't something we should totally write off for not just niche 'artillery' applications but something like this hand-held category but gamechanging?
So how much do batteries have to improve to make small electric energy based weapons practical? If Li-Ion could store double the energy in the same weight and volume would that change the nature of small guns? Just wondering how close we are to a major change in weapons technologies if it all depends on batteries. Maybe there is a certain limit beyond which batteries should start becoming controlled technology? Even current lithium batteries of all kinds are close to being explosives (at least chemically) which is an indication of how much energy is stored in them.
Site returns 500 for me. But this reminds me of my own coilguns I made as a kid. Disposable camera flash circuits connected to a set of solenoids wrapped around a thin pvc pipe. Accelerated using a cascade triggering of each solendoid in series. Contact pairs directly in the pipe to close the next solenoid circuit when the metal slug reaches them.
Look into "Varmint Shooting" stuff; they make stuff like .17 caliber with a muzzle velocity of 5k+ fps... About as close as we get under tank or battleship sizes.
I also got that vibe. The video is not great production values, and it's unclear to me how much they really took it serious and thought "fuck yeah! this is awesome!" and how much they thought they're doing it ironically or satirically while still projecting "tough" (which is a trope in amateur 'tough guy' antics, sorta like humble bragging).
But in general I think that incorrect conflation of 'real manly men' and guns is wrong, because, first you got the stereotype of 'real manly men' you shouldn't pigeonhole people like that, and second, if anything guns are much more feminine because of how relatively asymmetrically they can empower women. So paradoxically, a really feminine man can benefit more from a bun (edit: heh, 'bun', ie, man bun?--typo, meant gun, but leaving it ;p ;)) than a 'manly man', which makes it quite weird the association we have in the discourse.
Also, we might be able to establish guns' femininity from a purely cis-hetero point of view: the gun is a phallic metaphor, priapic and ejaculatory, so it's "natural" that all these women want to run around clutching them, as that's what they do in heterosexual life anyway, but it's funny that all these cis-hetero men want to do so, unless we either consider it is an "acceptable" expression of "latent homosexual desires" (maybe we're pushing it too far, here), or if we view the gun as only superficially masculine, but somehow deeply feminine, which would explain man's loving care, attention and desire to run around clutching them under their arms. How might a gun be deeply feminine? In the same way that you can see all weapons as deeply feminine from the point of view of feminine being openness, vulnerability (in the true strength sense), permeability and being receptive. A gun, or any weapon, acts as a propagator of these "permeability values" by perforating its targets making them more perforated, permeable, and vulnerable and open, if not in the "psychological" sense, then definitely in the gross anatomy sense. So a weapon is nothing more than a physical manifestation of the enforcement of feminine values, an instrument to aggressively spread feminine values around the world: turning otherwise obdurate and resistant flesh into flesh which is permeable, vulnerable, perforated and open. Pretty fucking weird when you think of it like that, but I think there's something to it, especially if you want to take other critical and sociological theory ideas seriously, then there's something to this, too.
82 comments
[ 12.9 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadEdit: They claim "up to" 75 ft-lbs muzzle energy, which is in the realm of .22LR. Check out this chart: https://www.mcarbo.com/22LR-Ballistics-Chart
However, the real game changer may be in the economics of EMP shielding and weapons, where if all legal civilian firearms are electronic, they are also remotely manageable via DRM and less user servicable. The analogy could be like what electronic fuel injection did to carbeurators and the autonomy of drivers to service their own vehicles.
This rifle seems like a bit of a gimmick, but from a political perspective I could see some people saying, "let them hunt with coilguns, nobody needs gunpowder anymore," which will be a new leverage point on 2A limitations whereby this product is a managed substitute. Independent of where one stands on that issue, the product is a technology that could change the dynamic of that discussion.
https://www.scribd.com/document/342603372/45-ACP-Ammunition-...
So he could have sourced that info from a subsonic load out of a short barrel? But even then, it would be in 600 zone.
"The GR-1 is capable of accepting 3 different standard projectile lengths (32 mm, 42 mm, and 52 mm) with a unique variable magazine system"
"Muzzle Velocity: 75 m/s."
75 m/s is slower than a lot of bows, and those are fairly big slugs, as compared to a .22 bullet.
What you should expect with this gun is a very curved trajectory and, likely, low accuracy. At the very least, it will need sights similar to what's available for bows, since a few meters of distance in range will have a large impact on where the bullet lands.
The large size of these bullets means they might actually not penetrate much, if at all. (I'd appreciate more spec's than just their length). Yes, they have half the kinetic energy of a .22 round, but that's going to be spread over a much larger impact area.
(Does it bother anyone else that they say "Gauss" to rhyme with "paws' instead of "mouse"? It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but in my experience it's one of the names even physicists will pronounce properly.)
The idea that the ATF is gonna shrug their shoulders and go "welp, not a firearm" seems... iffy.
[0]: https://www.afrl.af.mil/
[0]: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-ver...
The battery pack probably puts off a good amount of heat. If "flipping a light switch" is close enough to fire for Orthodox Jews, it's probably close enough for the ATF.
it's a stupid pedantry-thing to mention, but arms were arms until the gunpowder explicitly added the fire.
bows were never considered firearms, even if they too were missile/projectile weapons that 'fired' ammo.
fire in firearm refers to the combustion/heat/ fire of gunpowder usage.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.
(4)The term “destructive device” means—
(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas— (i)bomb, (ii)grenade, (iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v)mine, or (vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B)any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C)any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
I would say here that a "propellant" would have to refer to some kind of chemical (even boring pressurised gas) and that it couldn't reasonably be extended to a magnetic field (or series of virtual photons or whatever). I'd like to know if that's likely to be the view the legislature or judiciary would take though.
I fully expect the ATF to be able to find some definition to work with, though, as with bump stocks.
0: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-muzzleloading-cannons-co...
The answer at your link doesn't seem to apply here.
I have no idea if it's been tested in court, though.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun_laws#United_States
> The Offensive Weapons Act 1996 says, “any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him (or some other person)” (https://www.slingshotworld.co.uk/slingshots-law/)
Woof. America...
As a matter of fact, those "infringements" already caused the death of an abused woman:
https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases16/pr20160408a.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Carol_Bowne
I invite you to broaden your perspective on the concept of gun ownership and the principles behind the 2nd Amendment. Black men and women bought 58% more guns in the first six months of 2020 than they did in 2019. Black women are being empowered all across America, along with another vast diversity of people, by the right to keep and bear arms.
To be pedantic, you're still applying violence in this case. It's just violence in the response to potential or actual violence.
Some stats on defensive gun use: https://datavisualizations.heritage.org/firearms/defensive-g...
I do understand that different people from different upbringings, as well as different parts of the world, might have a difficult time seeing how a gun can be seen as a good thing. Which I why I'm trying to present different perspectives.
Your point was violence in response to violence, as if the two are interchangeable, but there is a huge difference, both legally, morally and practically I think. One the one side you have, the primary aggressor, the "attacker" and they presumably can have the element of surprise. On the other side you have self defense and (in some places) "stand your ground", where you are "a true victim, defending yourself against an attacker". So you seem to say there's no much difference, but there's a huge difference.
In the second case, where you accuse someone of splitting hairs, not only have you already done it (in a reversed way, by making a (as you admit) "pedantic" (but i'd say, incorrect) statement about two types of violence, where you conflate, rather that split, them), the point you are again conflating, "between violence actualized and violence only threatened" is also huge, and something I didn't know.
I was grateful to learn that, and it's fascinating. I think that's something about guns that is ignored often in, is that they can be an effective deterrent. The effect of which, actually makes it, possibly that violence is less likely to be effected, perhaps precisely because, major violence is so easily applied.
Anyway, aside from all these down in the details stuff (which are important in this topic, the semantics and nuance are key here), I'm sure you have good ideas and thinking for why you are anti-gun. It's not an easy topic for either side to argue, I think.
In case you were asking seriously, infringing on the 2nd Amendment right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. The amendment specifically uses the word, ie "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
So the word "infringe" is commonly used in that context.
> making it easy for people to apply violence
Not to delve into politics, but IMO it's easier to "apply violence" without a weapon, or with less complicated weapons. I'm sure most of us can infer your actual point, but it might be worth it to come up with a less-easily-defeated argument.
IANACS, but to me the 2nd Amendment doesn't objectively imply the right to keep and bear all possible arms, rather it prevents the infringement of the right to bear any arms. You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home from burglars.
>Not to delve into politics, but IMO it's easier to "apply violence" without a weapon, or with less complicated weapons.
Tell that to the Las Vegas shooter, or any mass shooter.
There's a reason wars are no longer fought on horseback with melee combat and bows and arrows. The purpose of guns is to force-multiply the capacity of violence (both in power and in range) beyond what an unarmed body can commit. Yes, it's technically easier to apply the violence of a closed fist or a knife but that violence is also more contained and easier to control.
Could you elaborate on this? Why not a rifle?
A rifle might be appropriate in some situations, like defending against bears or big cats in a rural environment, but not necessarily an urban setting. An RPG would be inappropriate for both.
But my point is that self-defense doesn't require access to arbitrary firepower.
Attacker has a rifle? I want a rifle.
Multiple attackers? I want a rifle.
Attacker is extremely motivated to hurt me and won't quit until they're dead? I want a rifle.
One guy breaks in my house with a knife? I guess a handgun will do, or preferably a shotgun.
You interestingly just chose a rifle that is a semi-automatic rifle like most other long guns in the US (those that aren't bolt guns). An AK-47 is comparable to an AR15 is comparable to a Remington 742 Woodmaster, which is a nice deer rifle. It's unclear if you think the caliber is a problem, or if you've just decided they're all full-auto or something. I guess it sounded scarier.
More importantly, self-defense is not the reason for the amendment. Gun classification is not mentioned. At the time, the founders wanted the citizens to have equal access to arms as the government. I'm not sure they could foresee tanks and fighter jets, so it's hard to say where they would have drawn the line if we asked them.
An interesting thought exercise. I wonder how that would have played out, had it been anticipated: changing the nature of the defense contractor market, and maybe Ford would have ads for "SUV APC" or "Sport Model Tank".
On some level the mental demarcation between "civilian tech" and "military tech" is so visually clear for me, it's hard for me to imagine a world where those things are fluidly interchanged, that doesn't seem satirical or dystopian. Doesn't mean it would be tho...Strange utopian possibility is, post WWII with civilian market for military armaments exploding, maybe the "start more wars, sell more weapons" motive for war (if that's a real thing) would have disappeared, and US wouldn't have been in any war in 70 years, because the defense industry would be too busy reaping profits from the consumer sector.
Seems like a difficult skill to master, specially given the important variables surrounding defensive gun use (bullet over-penetration, stopping power). A rifle, specifically AR-15-style rifles, in a CQB configuration seems to be ideal for self-defense, knowing that efficacy is drastically increased by ergonomics, recoil management, longer barrel length, and the terminal ballistics of the 5.56 and 300 BLK rounds. LEO's seem to agree with that rationale, knowing that most urban defense task forces are outfitted with AR-15-style rifles with shorter barrels.
If you are in a situation of stress, with your life on the line, you want a tool best suited in protecting you in that moment. If LEO's, and studies carried by their departments prove that, employ rifles rather than handguns to defend their lives and the lives of the people they are defending, I'm under the assumption that it is the best tool for self-defense.
As far as accuracy goes, a rifle’s size might be an issue in close quarters. And once you’ve fired off a few rounds, even if you missed, the intruder now knows you have a loaded gun, you might land the next shot, and the neighbors are allready calling the police.
Do you think a defender, under heavy stress, will be more accurate and effective with a handgun or a rifle?
> As far as accuracy goes, a rifle’s size might be an issue in close quarters.
That's precisely why I mentioned CQB. Short-barreled rifles are extremely effective in close quarters. 10.3 and 11.5 are popular lengths. For 300 BLK and 7.62x39, 8.3 and 8.5 are also very effective.
> And once you’ve fired off a few rounds, even if you missed, the intruder now knows you have a loaded gun, you might land the next shot, and the neighbors are allready calling the police.
Not sure what the point of this statement is. Can you elaborate?
It turns out that person (visible later in the video) had what appeared to be a AK-47 with a drum magazine on it. Both illegal in this state.
The couple luckily checked the camera and called the police, and the police actually showed up (though the two people had already left), and those people didn’t try to break the door down or force their way in before the police showed up.
Because criminals tend to not follow laws, and these things are not that hard to get ahold of if someone wants one - and doesn’t care if it is legal or not.
And if those two people had been a bit more aggressive, the only thing that would have been useful is something like an AK-47 with a drum mag or better, or a ton of luck.
Of course, it'd be a dark day when a sufficiently large portion of the population feels the need for revolution against the standing government -- but that's the point. The government can't get that bad (as say, a violent dictatorship), because the population is itself armed and able to take back control as necessary. The US in general operates on a distrust of centralized government -- a necessary evil -- and even today it's visible on both fronts of politics; both the defunding of the police on the left, and the populism of the right.
And in that respect, it's important for the population to be equivalently armed as the armed forces that may one day turn inwards -- though by order of numbers, equivalently armed doesn't necessarily require equivalent capability to reign death and destruction -- a thousand men with a pistol will eventually defeat a single man with a nuclear bomb (assuming they're smart enough not to cluster..) -- but to do so, the population must bear arms.
The other side of the problem however is that the US military is becoming continuously more effective at waging war against native populations and poorly armed/trained militia. They may not have succeeded in many of their goals in the Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq, etc wars, but they're definitely getting better at it -- and they're getting a lot of practice.
Kind of, though not in the way its usually sold.
> It's essentially the right to revolt.
No, its supposed to be a guarantee against needing to revolt by providing a preventative against the situation where the government is able to use the unreadiness of the citizenry as an excuse to establish a large standing armed force for internal and/or external security (the latter being a problem because it, historically, often gets used for the former; purpose built forces for the former purpose were rare at the time of the founding, but the Founders had first-hand experience with external security forces turned to internal security use) with the distinct and separate culture and loyalties from the general population that such standing forces always entail.
Since the people as the militia are then expected to be the security services, with only a minimal permanent cadre, there is nothing to have to revolt against.
It kind of miserably failed, obviously.
Weapons exist for one reason: easier application of violence. That is their only purpose.
As mentioned in a sibling comment, force multipliers like firearms allow relatively equal footing for people that would otherwise just be victims in a violent encounter.
I don't think everyone has to agree on what is a reasonable amount of freedom wrt firearms.
I think the self-defense and defense of the people against a tyrannical government is a worthwhile tradeoff, tho. And, apart from anything else, the 2A is the law, and even if the law is not always comprehensible to people, as long as it remains the law I believe it should be respected and protected. So there's that, too.
I think there's an argument to be made, too, for guns as a tool of true political feminism, in the sense that, if there is violence against women happening, guns 'correct the imbalance' of asymmetrical physical strength, giving women ability to defend themselves.
I have one extreme idea, tho. I think if a society allows guns, then every citizen of age, whether or not they own a gun, must undergo a gun training course. I don't think we should mandate everyone must own a gun...while that could work in theory, it seems too extreme, but I think everyone should be trained to understand and respect what guns can do.
as a tech demonstrator is great, but we're a few technology generation away from replacing the good old rifle, both because of power density (40+ shots per charge so you're going to ferry a few of these and battery pack are heavy) and capacitor (2 seconds/round isn't stellar)
given the coil/power constraint I think the natural evolution of this tech is probably going to remain a niche application for slow firing and high powered applications, not a tout-court gunpowder replacement; railguns seems to be a better candidate for rifle replacement.
https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/navy-electromagneti...
but i feel that with higher power density battery tech, warmer superconductors, stronger magnets, and metamaterials with exotic electrical properties, maybe this category isn't something we should totally write off for not just niche 'artillery' applications but something like this hand-held category but gamechanging?
20lb. ouch
Stick a couple prongs off the front hooked tot he capacitor bank, and it could be dangerous.
Huh?
EDIT: Aha, I thought it meant battery power, but this is more likely the applied power for 'slinging' each 'bullet'.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210727051112/https://arcflashl...
Maybe I just played too much Instagib and have impossible expectations when I see gauss rifles or railguns?
But in general I think that incorrect conflation of 'real manly men' and guns is wrong, because, first you got the stereotype of 'real manly men' you shouldn't pigeonhole people like that, and second, if anything guns are much more feminine because of how relatively asymmetrically they can empower women. So paradoxically, a really feminine man can benefit more from a bun (edit: heh, 'bun', ie, man bun?--typo, meant gun, but leaving it ;p ;)) than a 'manly man', which makes it quite weird the association we have in the discourse.
Also, we might be able to establish guns' femininity from a purely cis-hetero point of view: the gun is a phallic metaphor, priapic and ejaculatory, so it's "natural" that all these women want to run around clutching them, as that's what they do in heterosexual life anyway, but it's funny that all these cis-hetero men want to do so, unless we either consider it is an "acceptable" expression of "latent homosexual desires" (maybe we're pushing it too far, here), or if we view the gun as only superficially masculine, but somehow deeply feminine, which would explain man's loving care, attention and desire to run around clutching them under their arms. How might a gun be deeply feminine? In the same way that you can see all weapons as deeply feminine from the point of view of feminine being openness, vulnerability (in the true strength sense), permeability and being receptive. A gun, or any weapon, acts as a propagator of these "permeability values" by perforating its targets making them more perforated, permeable, and vulnerable and open, if not in the "psychological" sense, then definitely in the gross anatomy sense. So a weapon is nothing more than a physical manifestation of the enforcement of feminine values, an instrument to aggressively spread feminine values around the world: turning otherwise obdurate and resistant flesh into flesh which is permeable, vulnerable, perforated and open. Pretty fucking weird when you think of it like that, but I think there's something to it, especially if you want to take other critical and sociological theory ideas seriously, then there's something to this, too.