A truly criminal gun

[nalioth]

Zip guns are the closest I can think of.

Really?

So Joe Citizen can't make one to for the express purpose of defending himself or his family?

 

[RS14]

Really?

So Joe Citizen can't make one to for the express purpose of defending himself or his family?

Well that's an interesting leap. Oldskoolfan stated, factually, that zip-guns are often designed and constructed by criminals for criminals, to be used illegally. He also repeated, as most of us agree, that "the gun is just an item." He doesn't seem to believe that this should prevent citizens from possessing them.

You seem to be the only one claiming that the purpose of their construction should restrict them.

Now, I realize that's not the point you're trying to make. But you're still the one making the leap from "designed for criminal use" to "should be illegal."

The only guns designed to kill are the ones with a shoulder thing that goes up.

Absolute nonsense. Many guns are designed to kill, or at least administer lethal force. Can you claim with a straight face that John Garand designed the rifle that bears his name to punch holes in paper? It was designed and constructed from the beginning as a battle rifle--to kill enemy soldiers in war.

Or consider most compact, concealable pistols. Inadequate for most hunting, not accurate enough for serious target shooting, and too lightweight to be pleasantly shot for long periods of time. Many are designed to be carried concealed until the user finds it necessary to administer legal, justified, lethal force in self defense.

Why would you claim otherwise? Do you believe that a gun designed for killing should be unavailable to civilians? Should I be unable to own a Mauser 98k, because it was built to be used to kill Allied soldiers in war? Of course not.

Any gun used responsibly is a threat to nobody. Any gun used irresponsibly is a threat to everybody. It is the actions of the wielder that are relevant, not the intent of a designer who may be long dead. Please don't try to obscure the purpose for which a gun was designed. There is nothing at stake here--nobody is going to claim that a gun designed to kill should be illegal. I cannot imagine the founding fathers could have possibly felt this when they wrote the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court certainly wasn't thinking about pistols for deer hunting when they ruled in DC v. Heller.

So relax. Firearm designers usually do have some purpose in mind when they design their guns. And no, we don't need to pretend otherwise.

 

[Evergreen]

9 out of 10 Terrorists Choose This Gun:

 

[bigfatdave]

Evergreen, so what?
Does that mean the gun itself is a terrorist?

 

[Grassman]

Yeah, but Bin Ladins AK is not nearly that nice....

 

[docnyt]

Love the Homeboy Nytesytes! What about lefties though?

Oh, back on topic, what about the FN FiveseveN the "Cop Killer", now the soldier killer?

 

[gimlet1/21]

Criminal guns? can't think of any, yet my keyboard criminally misspells word on ocasion.

 

[iScream]

I own 6 handguns. I expect to own all 6 for a long time and I can say with almost 100 percent confidence that at least 4 of those 6 will never be fired at anything living. I fired over 500 rounds at the range today, including 9mm, 38 Special and 22LR. I was trying to improve my shooting with every round but not with any self defense purpose at all in mind.

Had nothing to do with "destroying" the paper either. The paper was just there so I could see where the bullet went.

I'm not sure I even agree that firearms were designed in the beginning to kill. They were certainly intended to neutralize an enemy but that doesn't 100 percent mean killing.

-Chris

 

[Zoogster]

Some may argue that the "ring of fire" gun companies did just that. That was not their goal, though. It just happens that criminals like cheap, concealable weapons. And when you consider that a Glock may cost over $1,000 to the gang banger who buys it on the street, it's obvious why the Jennings, Lorcin, Raven, etc. are popular with such characters.

Not exactly. Here is how these firearms actually became common most places:


In general for the purpose of the argument a 'criminal gun' was traditionally a term used for affordable firearms.

The majority of violent crimes are committed by financially desperate individuals. Whether they are financially desperate because of low income, drug habits, or other life choices, they are generally financially desperate.
A significant portion of violent crime such as robberies is committed by the teenage or young adult children of low income parents.

Low income people tend to live around other low income people, because they can afford similar residences. Statistics show those most likely to be victimized by criminals are low income citizens for this same reason. They have more violent (and property crime oriented) criminal neighbors.

Yet they are low income, so what they can afford is limited. As a result these residents concerned about their safety traditionally armed themselves with cheap firearms. Some manufacturers even went out of their way to cut all the corners in creating something really cheap for this market. Often times these cheap firearms could only contain the chamber pressure of rounds like .22s, .25s, .380s, and .38 special.

One final fact fits into this puzzle. Most firearms used in criminal circles are stolen guns. They were not purchased by a criminal because of their affordability. They were stolen from neighbors, most of whom are low income residents and purchase what is in their budget for self defense.


This is especially apparent here in California now. California banned most "Saturday night (derived from racist term) special" and "junk handguns".
The result? Most criminals are now armed with quality firearms. Because now what they steal from their low income neighbors is what are the cheapest legally available firearms. Which is no longer the "ring of fire" guns.



On a related note, most "zip guns" also appeal primarily to lower income (or creative) individuals. Just like a lot of "do it yourself" projects where someone gets more doing their own work or creating their own product for less than paying for work or products created by professionals.
Since most crime is financially motivated, lower income segments of society have higher percentages of criminals.
The two combine to mean you will certainly see a higher percentage of criminal use of cheaper firearms. Including "zip guns" even where legal.
So it is not because such firearms appeal exclusively to criminals, but rather because cheap (and simple) products appeal to those with limited financial means.
A segment of society that has a higher percentage of criminals to misuse such things.

However on a similar note I imagine you could link many cheap products to criminals besides firearms. Affordable cars, affordable homes (like inner city "projects"), etc Almost anything affordable can probably be linked to a higher number of criminal owners for the same reason. Both the criminal and their primary victims (from whom they steal and victimize) who are also low income individuals have those products more often.
It is not a fault of the product.
Choosing to target such products or homemade items because of any association with crime would be choosing to legislatively target lower income citizens, including many good citizens.
Limiting the freedoms of people simply because of their financial means is certainly not very American.

 

[RedLion]

I'm pretty sure firearms were originally invented only for war. I highly doubt that Europeans traded, or stole the legendary recipe from China for gun powder so they could hunt better or shoot beer cans. I have a feeling that many of you either think very highly of the human race or will not logically engage any argument that can darken the reputation of firearms. Necessity is the mother of invention, there wasn't much of a need in the 1300s for a better hunting tool. There was, however, a very important need to win wars.

Many other technologies have their roots deeply entrenched in the dark side of human intentions. Take iron for example, why was iron and steel developed in ancient times? was it because they were getting tired of bronze arrow heads and knives dulling after many uses on animals? Obsidian was sharper and would not dull and worked perfectly fine for millennia, there wasn't any other need than for swords to hold an edge in combat without shattering. Later on, when iron was more available, it was used for other non-military uses, and today it is seen in a large variety of industries and aspects of life. Guns are no different.

Obviously today there are many different uses for firearms. It isn't restricted to military use anymore.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I highly doubt that Europeans traded, or stole the legendary recipe from China for gun powder so they could hunt better or shoot beer cans.

Well it was originally used for medicinal purposes, so does that mean guns are all invented to heal?

 

[ColdCoffeeMug]

Pish posh and hog wash
Everyone knows that guns were invented because man had a need to compensate.... compensate for their inability to throw metal at the speed of sound... It's also the reason man invented the howitzer.

 

[Gungnir]

Erm if there was a truly criminal gun, I would have expected to see one put on trial by now.

If anyone knows of a case where a gun has been tried and found guilty then please feel free to post it so I can read it.

Criminal is defined as an unlawful act, therefore by definition unless the gun is sentient and subject to law, it cannot be criminal. The manufacture of a gun may be criminal, the use of a gun may be criminal, the purchase of a gun may be criminal, but the gun itself is not criminal.

Guns maybe banned, but these again are not criminal, possession of these maybe criminal.

Even visible lasers tested for blinding enemy combatants are not criminal, however their use is prevented under protocol IV the Geneva convention, the weapons themselves are not criminal.

 

[RedLion]

Well it was originally used for medicinal purposes, so does that mean guns are all invented to heal?

Really? I know women used to put lead on their faces as a make-up and copper was used in jewlery, so are we beautifying the Taliban right now?

This is what I found on the history of gunpowder from wikipedia, there were no references to medicinal purposes, except that the Chinese stumbled upon it trying to find an elixir to life. What they used it for was quite the opposite.

"The discovery of gunpowder in the 800s and the subsequent invention of firearms in the 1100s both coincided with long periods of disunity, during which there was some immediate use for infantry and siege weapons"

If you'd like to actually find a credible source for why you think firearms were invented, lay it on us.

And as for a gun that was specifically designed for criminal use, I'd have to go with the umbrella gun.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/06/nickpatonwalsh

Its never actually been found, so its kinda hard to say what they really used.

 

[TexasRifleman]

This is what I found on the history of gunpowder from wikipedia, there were no references to medicinal purposes, except that the Chinese stumbled upon it trying to find an elixir to life

First off, using Wiki as your primary source is kinda funny, second of all if you DO want to use Wiki at least read all of it.

Saltpeter was known to the Chinese by the mid-1st century AD and there is strong evidence of the use of saltpetre and sulfur in various largely medicinal combinations.

And, a search for an "elixir of life" would not be medical usage? Really?

Sorry, your argument that gunpowder was originally developed for weapons simply doesn't work. That use came later. That it eventually became the primary usage doesn't change the fact that it's original use was something else.

 

[KBintheSLC]

Guns made for criminal use...

-Germany made a lot of guns for arming the Nazis to kill citizens under Hitler...

-The Soviet Union made lots of guns for arming the commie mafia under Stalin to kill citizens...

-North Korea made plenty of guns to kill their defiant citizens under decades of rule by the Jong Il dynasty...

The list goes on and on.

 

[Dokkalfar]

Well that umbrella 'gun' doesnt sound like a firearm really... but I dont have the time to fully research it

Besides, firearms were invented to replace less effective items, such as the bow. which was invented as a more effective means than say a javelin. which was a spear, adapted for throwing. which was 'invented' as a more effective weapon than a rock knife, and could more effectively take down a woolly mammoth or other animals. Which were good sources of food, and fur, and bones and such. So, to go back even further, you could possibly say that firearms were ultimately designed as a more effective way to gather meat. (Which, incidentally, does involve killing.)

 

[Gungnir]

And as for a gun that was specifically designed for criminal use, I'd have to go with the umbrella gun.

Nope Georgi Markov was jabbed in the calf with with what he believed to be an umbrella, it wasn't fired, and it left a small pellet of ricin under the skin which later killed him. It's unknown whether this was just a normal umbrella, or a slightly modified umbrellla with an altered tip to facilitate the pellet being injected, however the general consensus is that it used some form of compressed air to "fire" the pellet, it's not known what the range of the umbrella was.

Anyway, back to the fact that this may actually be an complete Umbrella Gun, that still wouldn't make it a criminal gun or solely for criminal use any more than the Serbu 22LR pen gun, or a sword stick. It would make it a curiosity rather than criminal.

 

[jdub3]

The closest thing I can think of are those "zip guns" that look like cell phones found in the UK.

I still don't think there are any truly criminal guns. I think the UK gun laws are criminal however.

 

[Kimber45acp]

Can anyone here in this brain trust give me an example of a truly, specifically, criminal gun? I.E., a weapon intentionally built to break the prevailing law, by the criminal element. Manufacturer, type, caliber and date of manufacture would be helpful.

The question is nonsensical and I will prove it. Suppose someone here came up with a gun and a way to convince you that it is what you think may exist (i.e. a truly "criminal" gun ). Then what? Is it even POSSIBLE that such a gun could even be "bad?" Of course not. Everything is just a tool. Everything can be used for good as well as bad.

Why are you fishing for confirmation of something that logically doesn't exist? How bout a "criminal" letter opener. Good grief.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Prevailing Law

. . . a weapon intentionally built to break the prevailing law . . .

I've gotta go with the Liberator.

Its design and deployment was for the express purpose of acting against an occupying regime which, pretty much by definition, would "break the prevailing law" of that same regime.

The whole "designed to kill" thing is a red herring. Killing falls into three primary categories: a) hunting, b) warfare, c) crime. The fact of killing, per se, has no intrinsic morality. Hunting weapons are pretty much the only ones of which it can be said "all" were designed to kill. Even in warfare, the design of modern small arms is less about killing and more about disabling an enemy. In the venues of crime, the weapon is mostly about obtaining compliance and defense against the statistically likely attacks consequent to that line of work.

The Liberator was designed to "take out" an armed enemy so as to appropriate his arms. While killing might not have been strictly necessary, it was hands-down the most effective application of the tool. It was not designed for confrontations or pitched battles. It was designed as a one-shot stealth weapon. With only one shot available, the luxury of leaving the target alive was one the user could not afford. Lethal application was pretty much the only practical application.

Again, the "killing," in and of itself, isn't the important aspect.

The pistol was designed to permit an occupied population to act directly in violation of what was sure to be "prevailing law" at the time.

And, under the courts of the day, acting against the regime du jour would implicitly be a crime, and the act would, using such a purpose-made arm, have to have been premeditated.

On a bigger stage, with benefit of hindsight, one could argue that overthrowing an oppressive regime cannot be a "crime," but in the context of the day, it could not be otherwise.

My vote goes for the Liberator pistol.

 

[Kimber45acp]

. . a weapon intentionally built to break the prevailing law . . .

Well that's every weapon that violates one of the 20,000 gun control laws. I don't see how that makes it a "criminal" gun though because the phrase "criminal gun" is actually incorrect grammar to start with.

I think some people in this thread are mixing INTENT with the physical reality of the object.

 

[NG VI]

Evergreen that appears to be an airsoft gun. At least I've never heard of a UK legal AK variant.

 

[RedLion]

So why do you think firearms were invented?

In my first post I clearly referred to firearms, not gunpowder. I said I highly doubted the Europeans wanted gunpowder for anything other than war.

The wiki page never states that sulfur and saltpetre were used together as a medicine. It also states, if you care to read on, that gunpowder was discovered in the 800s, which would imply that saltpetre and sulfur by themselves or together are not recipes for gunpowder, since they were being used as early as 100 AD. The article goes on to say that the earliest remaining text with the recipe for gunpowder on it has three uses for it, incendiary bombs and a smoke bomb. I guess you could argue that gunpowder was originally invented to ignite an incendiary device, which would not help any argument that gunpowder was invented to heal people.

Again, as I asked before, if you want to give a reason as to why firearms were invented, or you want to discredit my "comical" source with its relevance to firearms, feel free.

 

[herohog]

Here is a quick data point for y'all, in the US, you can legally build a firearm, be it a rifle, shotgun or a pistol. It can be single shot, multi shot and even Auto-loading, just NOT fully automatic and it can not fire from an open bolt. Zip guns are normally fired from an "open bolt" and THAT is why they are illegal. That and the fact their barrels are un-rifled/smooth bore would also make it illegal.