GR-1 Anvil – world’s first handheld Gauss Rifle
arcflashlabs.com
arcflashlabs.com
The idea that the ATF is gonna shrug their shoulders and go "welp, not a firearm" seems... iffy.
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 have no idea if it's been tested in court, though.
0: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-muzzleloading-cannons-co...
The answer at your link doesn't seem to apply here.
I fully expect the ATF to be able to find some definition to work with, though, as with bump stocks.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun_laws#United_States
[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.
> 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/)
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.
Edit: 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
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?
(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.)
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'.
Maybe I just played too much Instagib and have impossible expectations when I see gauss rifles or railguns?
https://web.archive.org/web/20210727051112/https://arcflashl...
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.
Woof. America...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.