← Back to context

Comment by estearum

11 hours ago

Uhhh why would they do that when they can just buy them for super cheap at industrial scale from the US?

And yes the solution to things like organized crime is always just a continuous chipping away and adding friction where you can.

Not giving them massive amounts of cheap, high quality firearms seems like a meaningful goal.

32 comments

estearum

Reply
luckylion  10 hours ago

I think the point was: it might be a bit more expensive for them, but it wouldn't stop them from getting guns. Guns are important to their business, they would manufacture them themselves if they could not buy them.

Would it cost them more? yes. would it be the "number 1 priority" because it's so impactful? no, obviously not.

  • JumpCrisscross  10 hours ago

    > it wouldn't stop them from getting guns

    Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of making guns. But I'm aware of zero conflicts in which small arms were manufactured in situ. Even in e.g. Myanmar/Burma. The fact that even remote conflicts go through the trouble of importing arms suggests this might be more difficult than you suggest.

    • 15155  10 hours ago

      > Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of making guns

      These are centuries-old objects. Manufacturing technology and materials science have advanced nearly 100 years since Ma Deuce first rolled off the line. Society didn't get dumber, and manufacturing has only gotten more accessible.

      Just look at the current state of 3D printed firearms: they're completely useful and viable. CNC machining has never been cheaper or easier to do.

      1 reply →

    • mothballed  10 hours ago

      I'm fascinated by your point on Myanmar/Burma since I'm quite sure you used that point since it's common knowledge that is the most commonly cited example of the use of in situ firearms by militia. Maybe you're inviting a debate on why you think the reports on in situ firearms reported there are false, or maybe you just randomly came upon that, but it doesn't seem a coincedence.

      2 replies →

  • estearum  10 hours ago

    It's quite evident their point is that they don't want gun control and have pre-committed to whatever opinions are necessary to prevent it, including an opinion as absurd as "having to manufacture their own firearms would not be a significant impediment to their operations."

    Mass synthesis of the drugs that cartels produce is trivial (that's why they produce them)

    Putting drugs on trucks is trivial (that's why they do that)

    Rudimentary semi-submersible vessels are impressive but you only need a few and they're not that hard to make (again, that's why they make em)

    The telecom stuff they do is legitimately pretty impressive, but this too is just significant capex for long term benefit -- not so with self-made guns which are significant capex and you get out the other side a low volume of low-quality, non-dependable, often-breaking guns.

15155  11 hours ago

This is a popular idea amongst American liberals who rejoice at any possible means to eliminate/curb/add friction to lawful firearms ownership and manufacturing.

Where are they buying firearms in America at an "industrial scale?" An AR-15 receiver can be turned out in tens of minutes on a fast VMC - good luck stopping this.