He's Known as 'Ivan the Troll.' His 3D-Printed Guns Have Gone Viral.
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The "cat is out of the bag" theory is easily disproved by looking at the post-WW2 years, when much of the planet was awash in guns and other weapons. Most places got cleaned up, and there were few mass shootings after that.
Maybe you can 3D-print gun parts, but not the deadliest kinds of ammo.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
Another reason it is not meaningful is that it makes no difference to a member of the public whether they meet their untimely demise at the barrel of a gun or by some other means. What you want to look at, in countries that have implemented firearms restrictions in recent history, is whether there is an effect on the murder rate or suicide rate.
In many cases, it is hard to say there is a clear positive effect. For example, if we consider the UK's 1988 Firearms Act, which banned semi-automatic rifles, we might start with this data for homicide rates from 1970 to 2023:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand...
The homicide rate has been under 2 per 100k since 1970 (it is a much lower rate than in the USA) and actually went up for a few years following the act.
In Japan, I doubt we have statistics that reach back far enough to allow us to do a comparison.
It is in fact quite possible that they would, particularly for the UK. The gun-enabled wild-west culture may well be the single most important root of the crime problem in the US. You're not helping your case here.
> For example, if we consider the UK's 1988 Firearms Act, which banned semi-automatic rifles
You can't extrapolate microscopic data from a country with an 86-fold lower death rate. The way very few gun enthusiasts react to additional UK restrictions teaches us absolutely nothing about what would happen if the US adopted the UK's laws and cleaned up the gun mess.
My expectation would be a 50-fold reduction in the death rate within 20 years.
This isn't easy to support with data either within the USA or across countries. For example, consider Canada, the UK, Finland, and Switzerland. These countries have great differences between them in the gun ownership rate and the types of guns that are allowed to be owned, but they all have rates of violent crime that are much lower than the USA.
Within the USA, two of our safest states -- New Hampshire and Massachusetts -- are right next to each other. While New Hampshire has some of the most permissive gun laws in the country, Massachusetts has among the most restrictive.
It is not reasonable at all to conclude that Japan or the UK would, if gun ownership were more permissible, have the same high rates of murder, armed robbery or related crimes as the USA. In the case of the UK, interestingly enough, we actually have quite a lot to go on, here. The UK had much more permissive gun policies earlier in the 1900s but still had lower rates of murder, &c, than the USA.
My expectation would be a 50-fold reduction in the death rate within 20 years.
But how do you support that? You criticised my data, calling it microscopic -- although millions of people live in the UK, and you earlier offered data about the UK to support your position -- but what would suggest a 50-fold decrease like that following any gun policy change whatsoever, over any length of time whatsoever?
Well, sure, but that is not particularly informative on predicting how much US violence would go down if the US started banning guns: the informative bit of info is how much UK violence went down after the UK started banning guns.
The spillover effect may be smaller for crimes like graffiti. However, police in the UK are less busy with serious crimes, so they can probably police graffiti better too. Then there's the Broken Windows theory.
There is an independent variable (gun ubiquity) and an intuitively-related dependent variable (gun deaths.) The international data fit the association very strongly. You're not going to convince anyone that they're not related. There are other factors at play but they are minute by comparison. The 50-fold decrease is just my spitballing of where the US would fall on the graph, i.e. pretty close to the line where all the other countries are.
Most shooting deaths are due to relatively close range shots from pistols, and not from pistols with particularly unusual ammo. The majority of deaths due to pistols are from guns chambered in 9mm Parabellum; but a there is a significant contribution from lighter calibers like .32 ACP and .380.
Manufacturing high precision bullets or special defensive loads like Critical Duty is indeed more difficult than most people can manage; but this kind of ammunition isn't a factor in most shooting deaths as far as I am aware. It sounds like you have a reason to believe this is an important factor?
Primers would probably be the difficult part for a home manufacturer if they were taken off the market.
In 1911, making a serviceable semi-automatic pistol or small caliber carbine was much harder than it is today. This was in part because the weapons themselves were comparatively complex in design; but also because the requisite manufacturing was harder to do.
In the intervening years, the designs have gotten simpler and simpler. One way to baseline this is to learn about how 1911s are manufactured and how Glock 19s are manufactured. The Glock 19, a later design, is both much simpler to manufacture and more reliable than a 1911.
Another thing that has changed is it is now dramatically easier to make the parts. Cheaper precision manufacturing, better quality and lower cost steel, power tools, 3D printing (useful not just for making frames but also for making jigs) -- all of these contribute to this.
I suspect that a broad survey of countries in the 1800s would show that most of them had relatively widespread ownership of common small arms. It may be hard for us to imagine today, but England was one of those countries! The first act to restrict firearms sales in any way was the 1903 Pistols Act. From roughly 1900 until the 1980s, firearms laws tightened in the UK and many other countries. Now, relatively few countries have relatively ready access to semi-automatic pistols and rifles.
From 1800 until 1950, let's say, we also say a great increase in the comparative complexity of small arms and individual weapons. The restrictions on the sale of firearms were effective because they stood between the manufacturers and the general public. While some of the manufactured parts are common place, hard to identify and even substitutable -- springs and pins and stuff like that -- many of them are not. They are easily identifiable and hard to make: barrels, slides, bolts, frames, release levers, extractors.
In the decades following 1950, and certainly 1980, firearms have gotten easier and easier to make. I don't think this really reached a tipping point to where the restrictions on firearms sales were ineffective, though, with designs like the AR-15 or Glock 17. Changes to manufacturing technology had to occur as well, and many of those are quite recent, so I don't think your question is well posed.
In some ways I agree with you. But we still see true innovation and leaps of improvement in this space. The Laugo Arms Alien handgun is one such leap of innovation, and is much better than a Glock 19. First produced just 5 years ago, Laugo Arms took a "blank slate" approach to designing a new handgun and it is genuinely very different from the designs of the last 50 years of handguns. The primary benefit of the design changes is a massively reduced recoil; this was designed to be the world's best competition shooting gun, but the innovations could also benefit guns designed for other purposes.
I’m only saying that maybe we are not quite as close to the platonic ideal as you’d imagine - not invalidating your overall point at all.
https://mexarmory.pl/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/laugo-alien-...
For example, there are several more cross-pins holding the thing together.
When I called the Glock 19 the Platonic ideal, I did not mean to say it was perfect or better performing guns are not possible. What I meant to communicate, rather, was that it's pretty simple and yet very good.