Previous Post
Next Post

Screen Shot 2016-02-18 at 7.27.53 AM

Illicit, black market pistols are commonly available in India for about $10-$15. These pistols show a level of sophistication a bit higher than most. Hand craftsmen have been making semi-autos for as long as they’ve existed, much like Belgian and Spanish semi-autos or those turned out in small Philippine shops . . .

 From newindianexpress.com:

TALCHER: An illegal small arms unit was unearthed here and police seized firearms, including 31 Mauser pistols, 500 live cartridges, gelatin, gun powder, equipment needed for making gun, documents and a list of names and bank accounts. The unit was operating for the last four months.

At least five persons have been arrested in this connection. One of the arrested is a juvenile.

Acting on a tip off, a raid was conducted last night on the unit, operating from a rented house at Champasi here, and arms comprising revolvers and pistols were seized. Police then cracked down on the house of the owner of the illegal unit Tukuna Swain (40) at Paikasahi. Tukuna, however, managed to escape.

Many unsophisticated and ignorant civilian disarmament fans think that firearms will gradually be confiscated and disappear in their gun control dystopias. But when they see the reality of these small clandestine shops, the reality occasionally dawns on them. The gun control laws in India, for example, are severe. Guns, ammunition, tools, parts, components are all under tight legislative control. The result: a thriving black market in clandestine guns, mostly handmade.

Powder is scavenged from ammunition purchased or stolen on the black market. Shotgun and rifle cartridges are converted to handgun ammunition. They make use of relatively crude tools compared to an ordinary American hobbyist shop.

Consider what the shop featured in the linked article could have turned out with a Harbor Freight drill press, a $500 mini-lathe/milling machine and access to a 3D printer or small CNC machine. Then there are the many billions of rounds of ammunition stored in attics, basements, and garages. Remember too that 100 years is a resonable shelf life for modern ammo.

Many years ago, my father, a trained machinist, oversaw a shop full of women making munitions during WWII. He told me that revolvers would be very simple things to make with minimal machine tools. Simple sub-machine guns, even easier.

These are things every American voter should be aware of. The more you know the truth about guns, the less you’ll believe the lies and disinformation spread by gun control advocates.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Gun Watch

Previous Post
Next Post

211 COMMENTS

    • As much as I love ‘Firefly’ and ‘Serenity’, people always seem to forget that…

      “He killed me Mal. Killed me with a sword. How weird is that?”

      The ‘Parliament operative’ killed dozens of people to ‘stop the signal’. Mal eventually got it out, but do you remember what happened after the Parliament was proven to have killed millions on that (now) empty planet alone?

      Not a god-damned thing. They’re power ‘was weakened’ but they weren’t thrown out, tried, or some insurrection happened. The signal means sweet FA, if there is no one who will act when they hear it.

      As Mal said (which is far more important in my mind), “A year from now, ten, they’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running; I aim to misbehave.”

        • Vera requires O2 to fire in the vacuum of space. She’s just fine planetside. How often do you need to fire in space anyhow?????

        • One of those errors that just happen when you make TV, and don’t know guns well. Whedon is light years better than Abrams, but even Joss screws the pooch at times.

          “Vera” was obviously a cartridge fired rifle, and as such, the whole space suit thing really didn’t need to happen – other than for Jayne and Reynolds ‘natch.

          Unless they got very sloppy loading those rounds in the future, there’s still air in that shell, regardless of the vacuum around them. It’ll be there for at least hours, that I’ve tested anyway.

          I’ve taken rounds, put them in the water down to about 100 feet, left them there for hours, pulled them back out. Despite the fact that the external pressure was about 3 atmospheres, they didn’t leak, and all went “bang” when cycled through the guns.

          I’ve also taken rounds, placed them in a vacuum chamber, sucked it down to about 0.1pa (just about as close to space as is readily available to me) and there was 14.7ish PSI inside the rounds trying to leak out. Left there for for an hour (all the chamber time we could sneak in). Pulled out and fired 10 minutes later. Validated they didn’t leak by removing projectiles on controls which were loaded with marshmallows (you know if vacuum hits them).

          Long and the short of it, Vera should have been fine without a suit.

        • The O2 required for a gun to shoot in chemically bonded inside the gunpowder and priming compound. Just like solid and liquid fuel rockets which also can burn in space. Vera is fine.

        • I would have imagined that an AR style direct gas impingement system wouldn’t function reliably in a vacuum. You wouldn’t need oxygen per se just atmospheric pressure.

      • As Mal said (which is far more important in my mind), “A year from now, ten, they’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people…better. I do not hold to that. So no more running; I aim to misbehave.”

        Exactly. And on the regular.

      • And you wrote this, Dean:

        “Powder is scavenged from ammunition purchased or stolen on the black market.”

        Scavenge, Hell.

        Make your own Black Powder. Start by collecting urine…

  1. So, because guns cannot be entirely eliminated from the face of the earth, nothing should be done at all in an attempt to make the US any safer from mass shootings? I believe that the pro-gun, conservative, constitutionalists routinely blast their enemies for objecting to right-wing political moves that cannot be 100% successful. The left and the right always meet, eventually. The gored ox syndrome.

    So, what else should society decide is not worth doing because it will not be 100% effective? Auto safety? Food safety? Hospital safety? Name your favorite….

        • Word for word. The exact same reply that lower case matt, a proud racist, gave when he was challenged as a troll.

          He did at least lie and claim to be a gun owner.

        • I will do my best to not lie and claim to be a gun owner. I am not a racists; I treat everyone as if they were a Texas Aggie.

        • You certainly did, jackass. And that’s unless you have a magic wand that can make all guns in America disappear or can pass a law that melts metal, you will never be able to stop mass shootings. They aren’t an actual problem. More people get killed on a weekend in Chicago than most mass shootings. Nobody gives a crap about them because they are poor people. 11k people die a year from firearms, including negligent discharges. in a country with 300 million people in it, that’s statistically insignificant. Even if every shooting involved a n individual shooter, that would still mean less than .01% of gun owners kill people. And studies have show its mostly criminal shooting at other criminals. So handcuffing the 99.999% of us who haven’t done anything is stupid and wrong. Criminals don’t follow laws. MOLON LABE

        • Please note that it is your side that believes the criminal element cannot be eliminated, or that the guns of the criminal element cannot be confiscated. Other than that, you are making my point for removing guns from the society.

          BTW, if I didn’t care about the needless bloodshed in places like the poor neighborhoods in Chicago, I would not be supporting expanding gun safety efforts beyond what we have today. The pro-gun safety side is culpable for not doing more to put down the gangs and others who terrorize neighborhoods and shoot innocents; we should focus more attention there. The pro-gun recklessness side is culpable for the same deaths because the pro-gun recklessness side wants nothing to do with sending police into the “war zones” to round-up people with illegal guns, wants nothing to do with any measures that might save a few lives every weekend.

        • What you missed, Troll (I am no longer going to sully the 2A by attaching it to any reply to you), is precisely the point – the singer was wandering around, smiling, happy-go-lucky, and not actually saying anything intelligible.

        • Good. Thanks for the explanation. The video did not show on the first comment you made. Went back to look for it, and still cannot get it to run.

          “Trolls” present too difficult a challenge to your thinking?

    • The Argument of course is not that it won’t be 100% effective, nice straw man. The argument is that it will be counterproductive.

      The Argument is that the sheep are afraid of the Wolf… so they ask for the Sheep dog to have his teeth removed to make them feel safer from the wolf.

      • Glad you asked.

        The biggest push-back I get about gun safety is that guns cannot be eliminated entirely, 100% from society. Thus, any attempt to remove guns from the US is futile, because there will always be guns. Thus, if gun removal cannot be perfect, it is not worth trying.

        Another tack is the claim that “disarming” the public (equating being armed to guns only) makes the criminal more likely to do harm. So let’s look at that a moment (claims gathered from TTAG and other pro-gun sources)?:
        – crime is down, trending down, and is at a near-all time low
        – homicides are trending down, and is at a near-all time low
        – gun crimes (I know you hate that term) is trending down
        – gun ownership is greater than ever in history
        – increase in gun ownership and lowered crime correlate, but cannot be proved causal
        – no one knows the number of DGUs, but low estimate is 55,000/yr (with no supporting data because…no one reports using a gun if it is not fired; well, maybe); your guess is as good as mine

        So, if life is safer, why the need for all the guns? “Because it is the widespread ownership of guns that keeps us safe 1” Yeah, well….your side admits there is no firm data that proves the assertion.

        Why the need for all the guns?

        • Since the 1970s, structure fires in the US have been cut in half, as well as civilian deaths from fires. During the same time, population grew by 150 million or so. Why do we need fire extinguishers and smoke detectors? Because there is still a risk. I own a gun (my first of a growing collection,) because I realized that my safety, and the safety of my loved ones, was my responsibility, and not the state’s.

        • Yes !

          With gun crime down, gun sales up, there is still a risk, still a need for hyper vigilance in removing as many opportunities for accidental death by gunfire as possible; even if only 500 lives a year.

          Thank you for your supporting statements.

        • “Need” is subjective and non-falsifiable. To base government regulation on “need” is to submit that the government knows all, decides all, controls all.

          I reject all those arguments as false. Governments are fallible, corruptible, irrational, and often do evil things, just as people do. Governments are made up of people and must be restrained. The best way that has been found is through checks and balances in a federal system that divides power and pits government entities against one another.

          Suggesting that government ascertain individual “need” as a means of undercutting Constitutional rights, is to undermine the entire rule of law.

        • Interesting summary.

          All law, all law is based on “need”. There is no universal, unassailable, immutable, cosmic law from which every other law is directly derived. If there were, we would only need consult the oracle (or the tablets?) to settle matters. Law is an outgrowth of the political process, and the political process can change law.

          As noted in a different response, “need” is at the core of the second amendment; the “need” to be able to overthrow an oppressive government. “Need” is encapsulated in “necessary” in the wording of the second amendment. The sovereign people of this nation have the ability to determine the “need” to overthrow an oppressive government has passed, and will not come again in the future. At that point, a proper majority of the citizens of the states can approve/ratify repeal of the second amendment, or a modification of the amendment such as to virtually eliminate private ownership of guns.

          To your point, yes, via the will of the people, the government can determine what you “need”.

        • It isn’t a question of need. It’s a question of freedom. If we only get to have the things someone else believes we need, aren’t we simply the property of those who control popular opinion?

        • You already are under the control of popular opinion. Every constraint on any constitutional rights is or was a result of popular opinion resulting in new law. If owning a gun is the last of the constitutional rights you have liberty to exercise, you are already lost. Owning a gun does not overcome popular law, it does not cause a government supported by a majority vote to fear you can put a stop to popular opinion by participating in armed revolt. In this country, if the majority of the voting populace wants to do away with all legally held firearms, the majority can make that happen. If the majority of the voting populace wants to completely abolish the constitution, they can do that (amend the document sufficiently, and the effect can be complete neutralization). When the majority of the voting populace decides it is more beneficial to disarm law-abiding citizens, and more acceptable to simply endure a permanent criminal element, then popular opinion can manifest in changes to the constitution to allow that. At that point, all the law-abiding gun owners (a favorite theme of gun owners) will either remain law-abiding, or become part of the criminal element. It doesn’t need to come to that.

        • You’re right it doesn’t have to come to that, but it will so long as people advocate the oppression of their fellow man.

        • Imposing safety measures in not “oppression”, unless on believes they are superior to all others, immune from societal norms.

        • The measures you propose are oppressive.

          They are dependant upon the concept that one can responsible only if they do *blank* that is a facist concept.

        • It would be “oppressive” if there were no way to meet the requirement. Otherwise, meet the (fictional) requirements, and you are good to go. Why is it oppressive that one demonstrate capability to properly handle a firearm, but one is allowed freedom to own and use the firearm after?

        • They are oppressive because your desired results can be achieved through multiple avenues. It is pure hubris to claim that anyone avenue is superior to another.

          It is especially oppressive given that your desired result can be achieved without writing a single new piece of legislation.

        • I ran out of coffee about an hour ago so fog settled in, but I think your reply might be really interesting. Could you elaborate a bit?

        • Say a gun is discharged but no property is damaged, no body is injured… Do you care?
          The correct answer is No.

          If an only if there are no bad consequences to the discharge you should not care that the discharge occured.

          Now, say there is a bad consequence.
          Your window gets broken: Property Damage suit, small claims.
          Your propane tank is pierced and house burns down: Property Damage suit, felony level.
          Your child is killed: Manslaughter or maybe even Murder 2
          You are injured: medical expenses and pain & suffering suit.

          Every possible bad consequence of a discharge is already illegal.

          And if there is no bad consequence, you don’t care about the discharge, so why do you want to criminalize the actions that may or may not result in a discharge that may or may not have a bad consequence?

          If the fact that a gun has been discharged (regardless of the result of said discharge) bothers you, you are the problem.

          So you say the legal punishments are not a deterrent to “negligent” behavior, ok the solution is to increase the severity of said punishments and makes sure the public is aware of the severity.

        • We agree about everything. The point where we might diverge is in prevention. I do not want to be the victim in any of the injury scenarios you noted. I do not want you to be the victim. What measures can we take to reduce further the number of NDs each year, especially the number of NDs that kill and injure? I recommended mandatory (free) initial and ongoing training and certification as one step. It is puzzling that people would not undergo a potentially life-threatening surgery without some assurance the surgeon is qualified, the assurance is necessary because the surgery is not an enumerated “right” under the constitution. The indifferent acceptance of untrained strangers walking around with deadly instruments in their pockets, because it is a “right”, is baffling.

        • Actually not baffling at all. Like myself may of the cringe at the mere concept of outside imposed “prevention” of practical any kind but especially of what could be used against them. We have merely weighed the two sides ajd have deemed the risk of the untrained being armed to be less onerous than our public servants dictating to us what we may and may not do in the privacy of our home.

          I believe it is not government’s or society’s job to prevent crime (extenuating circumstances aside) however it is their job to punish crime so harshly that no one would even consider becoming the next criminal.

        • Do we not have acceptable laws, rules or regulations that prevent us from conducting certain activities in our homes? Can’t run a restaurant in your home without license. Can’t put certain things on/in your house without permit, or maybe not at all. And there are many other areas where we are not totally free to do as we please, all in the name of safety or public preventing adverse impact to our neighbors or others in society.

        • None of those laws come into effect until after or just as another individual becomes affected.

          Building permits are not so you can do the work, it’s so you can later sell the house.

          If you don’t sell the food, you can feed people out of your kitchen all day long no questions asked.

          Laws that limit behavior that doesn’t affect anyone are unneeded.

        • Laws that regulate how one with a gun affects another human are quite necessary, prudent and workable.

    • Disarming the law abiding does not make them safer from the homicidal. You have 2 choices: either the criminals have guns or the criminals and the law abiding have guns. You can stick your head in the sand over this but I would imagine after the Paris attacks that it is getting pretty hard at this point.

      • You underestimate the ability of someone heavily invested in an illusion to acknowledge reality.

        I think of modern liberals as being so afraid of a bad outcome that they opt for a worse one and tie themselves into intellectual knots trying to justify their choice.

        • And another one rides the bus:

          let’s look at that a moment (claims gathered from TTAG and other pro-gun sources)?:
          – crime is down, trending down, and is at a near-all time low
          – homicides are trending down, and is at a near-all time low
          – gun crimes (I know you hate that term) is trending down
          – gun ownership is greater than ever in history
          – increase in gun ownership and lowered crime correlate, but cannot be proved causal
          – no one knows the number of DGUs, but low estimate is 55,000/yr (with no supporting data because…no one reports using a gun if it is not fired; well, maybe); your guess is as good as mine

          So, if life is safer, why the need for all the guns? “Because it is the widespread ownership of guns that keeps us safe 1” Yeah, well….your side admits there is no firm data that proves the assertion.

          Why the need for all the guns?

        • How bout we turn that one around. If crime as a whole is down despite record gun sales, why the need for gun restrictions? More guns does not necessarily equal less crime, but since guns are up and crime is down then by definition more guns cannot equal more crime. So why try to deprive people of guns when there is absolutely no evidence it will help (and at least some evidence it will make things worse)?

          Gun ownership in this country is a right. I don’t have to prove a need to exercise a right.. you have to prove a need to restrict it. So far your case is wanting.