Guy Creates Handheld Railgun With a 3D-Printer (engadget.com) 276
turkeydance writes: Using a combination of 3D printing and widely available components, David Wirth built a functioning handheld railgun that houses six capacitors and delivers more than 1,800 joules of energy per shot. So far he has tested the gun using metal rods made of graphite, aluminum and copper-coated tungsten. David has shot projectiles at over 250 meters per second in tests.
Hand-held? (Score:2)
For values of "hand-held", obviously.
I'd like to see the holster for that.
Misleading title.. But omg 3d printing. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most 3d printing metal services online actually due a variant of lost-wax casting. The resulting prints are basically just cast objects, and have the same material properties of any other cast objects. But beyond that, since when is laser-sintered metal not capable of being strong? There's a sort of "in-between" method that sacrifices some strength (but is still quite strong) wherein you print out metal powder with a binder, sinter the part as a whole while burning out the binder, then fill in the pore sp
muzzle velocity comparison with firearms (Score:5, Informative)
AK-47: 715 m/s
.44 Magnum: 360 - 450 m/s
Black powder musket: 120 - 370 m/s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Heckler and Koch MP7: 735 m/s
It will turn your Kevlar vest into confetti. This is why the authorities everywhere in the world do not want to see fully automatic versions getting into the hands of private citizens and the black market.
Re:muzzle velocity comparison with firearms (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, interesting, that's the gun that our government (Iceland) was secretly smuggling into the country (bypassing all customs processes and parliament) with the intent to have one in every police car. And then when caught claimed that it was a "gift" from Norway. And when Norway said that no, it's not a gift, you deliberately sought them out and offered to purchase them from us, they "clarified" that Norway marks things as sales for billing purposes, but they never send the bill, it's just a little wink-wink nudge-nudge game between friends. And when Norway said no, we promise you, we're sending the bill.... half a year later they eventually sent the guns back.
But I guess we have to do something about our one-of-the-lowest-on-Earth murder rates**, and the threat that ISIS wants to take over our rock in the North Atlantic (yes, these are the actual arguments made by proponents...)
** In its entire history, our equivalent of SWAT (Víkingasveitin / The Viking Squad) has had to kill a grand total of one person. And they issued an apology to his family for it (the guy was mentally disturbed and shooting at them with a shotgun in a densely populated area, hitting one officer before they decided to try tear gas, hit another after they tried to get him out with gas, and finally hitting another while they went in after him, before they finally had to shoot him).
Re: (Score:2)
Thank goodness the guys in the U.S. did not go for a catchy name, or we'd probably have "Team America, World Police".
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with it? We use viking-related terms a lot. For example, what you call "banksters" we call "útrásarvíkingar" - that is, "outvasion vikings" ;) That is to say, they went on "útrásir" to plunder and brought home the spoils to enrich themselves. Names from the viking era (both names of people and old norse deities) are popular here, Reykjavík has number of streets named after Norse gods [ja.is] and famous vikings (also, coast guard ships do the same thing), and there's even
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the insights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most police don't have lethal weaponry, so one shouldn't expect a difference between those two numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Heckler and Koch MP7: 735 m/s
It will turn your Kevlar vest into confetti. This is why the authorities everywhere in the world do not want to see fully automatic versions getting into the hands of private citizens and the black market.
Yer granddad's .30-06: 890 m/s. And, more importantly, 3820 J muzzle energy, as compared to 506 J for the MP7.
Or, if you want to get a little more modern, the 7mm Remington Magnum: 1100 m/s and 4057 J. Or there's the .338 Lapua: 1050 m/s and nearly 5000 J. Or... we could keep going up here.
Standard hunting rifles are dramatically more powerful than standard military small arms, because they're designed for shooting larger animals and because rapid fire is less important, so recoil can be much greater. A
Re: (Score:2)
My MP7 fits nicely in a backpack . . . how about your elephant guns . . . ? I'm not concerned about some terrorist trying to navigate a Nitro Express rifle in the aisle of a train from Amsterdam to Paris. The terrorist would probably break his shoulder on the first shot.
With an MP7, you can empty the clip before you say "boo!" to yourself, and take out a bunch of innocent folks, without feeling a thing.
Speaking about serious weapons, that will fit in your backpack . . . look no further than the McMillia
Re: (Score:2)
um (Score:2)
have you ever used a fully automatic weapon? hint, they are worthless for hitting anything after the first round, we'd be better off having them easier to get, as anyone not in the know would gravitate to them and use up their ammo faster.
currently they are not worth the paper work(tax stamp) to obtain.
Re: (Score:2)
"have you ever used a fully automatic weapon? hint, they are worthless for hitting anything after the first round,"
Yea, maybe 50 fucking years ago.
Even today's fully-automatic AA-12 can be accurate ONE HANDED because it's got very little recoil. A 5-year old can maintain control over the gun whilst unloading 12-gauge slugs with near-reckless abandon.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the spring/gas system in the stock eats up the recoil. Learn how yours guns are constructed.
Re: (Score:2)
Full auto weapons or selective fire ones in full auto mode are often used specifically for suppressive fire. Keep the enemy down with volume of fire while your guys with more accurate weapons maneuver. Then someone with a more accurate weapon can take people out. Of course, if you're firing at a hostile crowd sometimes volume of fire is better than hitting one target precisely for that.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to look into what the MP7 is designed for before offering better weapons. The MP7's round is made from steel, it is designed to penetrate body armor. It isn't meant for spray and pray.
Re: (Score:2)
My groundhog rifle (.22-250 at 4000fps): 1220 m/s or Mach 3.55
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does it compare to a well-made crossbow or normal bow?
That depends on draw weight, draw length and projectile weight of the bow but as a general rule of thumb a medieval longbow would fire an arrow at between 50 m/s for a hunting bow to perhaps a bit more than 100 m/s for a monster of a warbow. This is comparable to modern high-tech recurve bows. Crossbows are a different story. They have shorter limbs in order to make the weapon more compact which shortens the draw length and they made up for that by making the draw weight much greater than that of a longbow.
Re: (Score:2)
Historical crossbows (arbalests) had a drawing power of 400kg - 800kg (a bit more than 800lbs - 1600lbs).
No idea how that translates into energy for the projectile (at it depends on mass and distance of acceleration)
Hm, here they talk about 5000lbf (note the f): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Modern crossbows often are compound bows. Did not find (quickly) references about their power.
Re: (Score:3)
How is he failing forever?
He made a muzzle velocity comparison, then cited velocities. Comparing with the "gun" from the article which gives only a velocity. Then you respond with "but you're forgetting mass." WTF?
Am I the only one... (Score:2)
who thinks this story sounds like a Plague, Inc. in-game headline?
Where is the order form? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which raises an interesting question: How would existing gun laws around the world deal with a rail gun . . . ? It doesn't use gunpowder to deliver the projectile, like a gun does . . . and it doesn't use a bow either, like a crossbow or regular bow.
Will politician be forced to make new laws, when these thing become common . . . ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK bows aren't regulated, although various landowners impose restrictions (including the governmental body responsible for the national forests). The restrictions tend to be around crossbows rather than other bows, primarily due to relative ease of use.
What is defined in law is hunting with bows. It's illegal. What's also clear is that walking through the streets with a cocked bow, or releasing arrows on a crowded thoroughfare will get you arrested whether you hit anybody or not.
So a rail gun could w
Re: Where is the order form? (Score:2)
InB4 (Score:2)
Gremlin Gun (Score:2)
There are already handheld units over 5 joules (Score:2, Insightful)
This thing is less powerful than other youtube handheld rail guns... and the design while funny is not especially practical. Obviously the capacitors need to be mounted on your back or something to distribute the weight more effectively on the user.
*drops mic and walks*
Re: (Score:2)
"This thing is less powerful than other youtube handheld rail guns"
Your 5 joules PALES IN COMPARISON to 1800 joules this does.
So, no, you're wrong. Try again when you can actually read the fucking article and do the math yourself.
*drops mic and walks off*
Re: (Score:2)
misspoke... i mean 5k joules... look them up.
Re: (Score:2)
5k joules... mistyped it.
"railgun with a 3D printer" (Score:2)
The next version will support e-mail too.
Casual headlines (Score:3)
Guy Creates Handheld Railgun With a 3D-Printer
His name's David, not Guy.
Only some components were 3D printed (Score:3)
Only some components were 3D printed. But, you know, #3DPrinting is trending so...
Re: (Score:2)
Name (Score:2)
I dunno who this "David Wirth" is, but he should definitely rearrange his name to be "Darth Wivid". (Which is kinda what my brain saw anyway when I scanned the description...)
Performance is irrelevant (Score:3)
Co2 canister on the back. (Score:2)
So its co2 boosted?
Fake Fake Fake! (Score:5, Informative)
This is 100% fake.
http://o.aolcdn.com/hss/storag... [aolcdn.com]
1: That's not handheld.
2: That's a CO2 tank.
He's built a paintball gun and put a bunch of shit on it, then added sparks at the end of it.
1800 Joules is way over a fucking 44 magnum (1300-1500). Yet if you look at the videos posted, you can see that when he fires at some particle boards nothing fucking happens. The "article" original claimed it was 3,000,000 Joules. LOL!
If you read the video descriptions on Youtube, he claims:
WXPR Test 3 - 1" long 0.25" aluminum sabot (1.1g total mass). 1.6kJ caps, 500 psi injector. 36" distance to target: angled 3/4" plywood board with 1/4" mild steel backplate. Made a 1/2" deep indent in target and bounced off. Speed was above 250m/s.
Successful proof of concept for repeatable shots on the same set of rails.
So, 1600 J, not 1800. And that tank at 500 PSI is an "injector"? LOL! It's an air gun with some capacitors for no reason!!
His latest video involves shooting a cantaloupe, because everyone laughed when he couldn't penetrate plywood. He claimed they were "steel backed" plywood boards, but he still barely put a dent in them.
Here's the cantaloupe: https://youtu.be/t0vCiafjUy8 [youtu.be] He allegedly fires at around 1300 J according to his own LCD display. There's an odd cut at 1:51 in the video as well, so I have no idea what he's actually doing. (Watch from 1:49 to 1:52 at 0.25 speed to see the cut). You can watch the shot in slow mo too.
Here's a 44 magnum shooting a watermelon: https://youtu.be/dYtfq8KdlnE [youtu.be] A 44 magnums runs at 1300 J to 1500 J. Do they seem at all comparable?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1.1g sabot
300 m/s (above 250 m/s, so let's be generous).
E = 0.5*M*V^2, so
E = 0.5*1.1*300*300 = 49,500mJ = 49.5J. So, the muzzle energy is about 1/30th of the energy it appears to be using.
Poking around a bit, I found a variety of velocities and masses for paintballs, so I'll posit that the muzzle energy of a paintball pellet varies between 12J-20J. So, assuming the pressure system is imparting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, railguns suffer a lot of wear in the rails.They get a lot of friction and need to be replaced. The heat generated damages the metal too (bends or cracks, so you want high quality rails), and you want to keep the rails perfectly straight.
Re:Smokeless powder (Score:4, Informative)
Your ideal rail/projectile interface would be a frictionless superconductor; a flavor of unobtanium that is in short supply at present. By throwing enough power at the problem, and treating much of the rail assembly as sacrificial, you can get pretty impressive results; but if you thought that barrel erosion sucked in gunpowder weapons...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That, by definition isn't a railgun, though they're often mixed up in reporting.
What you're thinking of is some sort of linear induction motor. The simplest sort is a gauss gun. Those are easier to build than railguns. Basically you take some sort of iron core, i.e. an iron pole and build a biggish electromagnet on one end with an emphasis of a small number of turns of relatively thick wire. Drop an aluminium ring on to the pole and use a big capacitor bank to dump current into the electromagnet.
The easiest
Re: (Score:3)
This part has always bothered me. Why do the rails have to be straight? Would rails spiraled to match the Lorenz force work better? Think DNA. Bonus the round would leave the barrel with rotation adding accuracy and trajectory stablization. Also it would work better for exterior force pushing agonist the rails as round shapes deal with pressure better.
Centrifugal force (Score:2)
Re:Smokeless powder (Score:5, Informative)
Yes - though not at the level of the one in TFA and probably, for the foreseeable future, only in the realm of large naval guns (and possibly - slightly further down the line - guns mounted on tanks or large aircraft).
With a traditional naval or tank shell, much of the damage comes from the explosive contents of the shell (which tend to be quite sophisticated in their design these days). The downside of this is that the ship or tank ends up carrying a substantial quantity of explosive material, just waiting to be set off. Magazine explosion is a particular danger for ships.
Railguns, by contrast, fire inert slugs. The damage comes from the (much) higher velocity at which the slug is fired, which translates into much higher kinetic energy transfer on impact. This means that the ammunition tends to be smaller (so you can carry more of it) and safer. The higher velocity also has significant potential benefits in terms of accuracy.
The US Navy is currently conducting real-world tests of railguns on ships and there has been a lot of progress over the last few years. The challenges include the high power requirement and the need to replace rails regularly (due to the extreme stresses associated with each firing), which can substantially harm rate of fire.
Practical handheld railguns which offer significant benefits over existing firearms are still a long way off (if, indeed, they ever happen). The one in TFA has a muzzle velocity which is at the low end of the range for a "traditional" firearm, with significantly lower convenience (and some quite worrying looking safety issues).
Re:Smokeless powder (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, the primary round shot from a tank gun is APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot). It's a big dart. No explosive at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Apologies - you're correct. I allowed myself to get stuck back at the WW2-level for tanks there. Warships, however, do still fire explosive shells, as do land-based ballistic artillery pieces.
Re: (Score:3)
Facts which surprise most people:
1) Not just today, but even in WW2, generally or very often armor piercing tank rounds were solid shot.
2) The amount of explosive in one of the shells of old battleship big guns was rather ludicrously small. The Mark 8 AP armor-piercing projectile for the 16 inch gun had a complete weight of 1225 kg, of which 18.55 kg was the explosive charge. Even the Mark 13 HC "high capacity" non-armor-piercing projectile intended for purely explosive effect, which weighed 861.8 kg, had
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, the majority of the OMG factor from those guns was the kinetic energy involved. They were firing Volkswagen weights that were the size of an 8 year old (I have a picture of my son when he was 8 standing next to one of the "shells" on the New Jersey). These shells would fire for quite a range, and impact the target, usually just totally demolishing the target in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, the primary round shot from a tank gun is APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot). It's a big dart. No explosive at all.
It seems to me that tank vs tank combat is very rare these days and most of the time tanks aren't going to want an armor piercing round at all, they are going to want anti-personnel or anti-structure rounds.
One day, when the USA is at war with a country that can fight back like for like, then those AP rounds will come in handy but surely not in Afghanistan, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
There were several tank battles in both Iraq wars. In both wars the Iraqis got curb stomped by American tanks and aircraft.
However tanks are expensive to operate and terrorists can't afford to keep tanks when a Toyota with a machine gun and load of RPGs can do triple duty as troop transport, and mobile attack platform. Survivability isn't high but Isis doesn't care how of its troops get wounded.
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem with magazine explosions in warships or tanks is the propellant charge, not the shell filling. Shells are generally pretty insensitive and the bursting charge of an armour piercing shell is comparatively small.
Obviously rail guns remove the risk of propellant and warhead explosions, but the price is no indirect fire. Naval gunnery is mosty used for shore bombardment these days, firing at targets behind a hill isn't going to happen with a railgun.
While "traditional" tanks rounds were explosi
Re: (Score:2)
Rail guns have much better uses as deterrents.
If I'm firing a chunk of metal at mach 1+, the ability of the target to both see it and respond is almost zero ( the navy tests had a projectile at >2500 m/s (hypersonic or about a mile every 2 seconds) ). The sheer transfer of kinetic energy is so absolutely massive, even if the speed of the projectile decreases massively, the round will essentially punch through almost any type of armor.
Also depending on distance from target, say it's hypersonic and we're only 5 miles away, the projectile will hit at something like 2k m/s -> anything near the target will also be greatly compromised.
Good job someone is developing laser weapons then, to shoot down the railgun projectiles.
Re: (Score:2)
"Shoot it down" how? It's a thrown rod. It has no engines, wings or electronics. What are you going to do - flash-vaporize several kilograms of iron in a second with a laser small enough to be ship-mounted from miles away? Congratulations on having a death ray; but why are you playing tag with the US navy rather than building a Star Destroyer?
Re: (Score:2)
With a traditional [naval or] tank shell, much of the damage comes from the explosive contents of the shell
For anti personel or soft Targets perhaps.
Anti Tank shells are usually full metal/kinetic Shells made from depleted Uranium or in Europe mostly from Wolfram or Tungston.
Re: (Score:2)
Do railguns have any potential benefits over traditional powder-based guns?
Lots of potential benefits...
No muzzle flash, probably less noise, a potentially faster reload cycle, and the ammunition is safer, i.e. more inert.
The velocity of the round could be varied easily, and lots of different types of projectiles could be used more easily.
Re: (Score:2)
But in turn the gun is WAY less inert. I mean, you can pretty much maim and abuse a conventional gun in most any way you could imagine and at worst it won't shoot anymore (or at least would not be safe to shoot anymore).
I wouldn't want to hold a railgun that gets hit by something, though. Even if unloaded.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For proof and pudding, look to the US Navy's Railgun program. They have successfully shot test projectiles at Mach 8, the end-game is a reliable system to fire 10KG round at Mach 7.
Keep in mind the speed drops dramatically after exiting the barrel/rail assembly.
Re:Smokeless powder (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, the "Mach 8" version is ridiculously long and only works once. It needs rebuilding between shots, and is ridiculously expensive. It's easier, and more aimable, to fire an ICBM. The allegedly more practical versions can be safer on a nuclear vessel, which has a prodigious and stable and well well armored power supply, as opposed to having an armory filled with chemical propellant powered munitions that have to actually be loaded, full of chemicals, into the weapons on deck.
They've also really not perfected projectiles without electrical contact with leads on the railgun's launching rail. Those leads tend to wear out *really fast*, much faster than the rail gun builders like to admit: it's been a limiting factor since the first designs, once that keeps being "solved" with a lot of handwaving that has never worked well. Kind of like garbage collecting in Java, actually....
Re:Smokeless powder (Score:5, Funny)
Unfortunately, the "Mach 8" version is ridiculously long and only works once. It needs rebuilding between shots, and is ridiculously expensive
So its perfect for the US navy.
Re:Smokeless powder (Score:5, Interesting)
Posting anon since I work with the Dahlgren EMLF (Electro-Magnetic Launch Facility)
I'm not going to comment on specs, but the current test launchers (to my knowledge) does not require rebuilding every shot (even with higher MJ launches). They did about 6 years ago. The navy's final launcher also is going to fire at rates over 9 / min, which puts a lot more load on the rails and power supply system (and other things). This is part of why it's taking awhile to develop. Compressing a building's worth of equipment down to fit in a ship is also non-trivial.
It's not particularly expensive to shoot. I have been told there are some times we do shots as opposed to using modeling because it's quicker, cheaper, and is better data. The missile development people would kill for something like that.
There are some issues with rail wear, but a round only ever gets fired once, so the electrical destruction of the round that occurs only has to not affect the aerodynamics of the round for that shot.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what sort of projectiles they're using? It seems one could hybridize simple projectiles with rockets. The latter would not only be a range extender due to simple propulsion alone, but it'd also fill in the low pressure wake behind the shell (even a small rocket could do that).
These sorts of velocities are comparable to the best achieved by the HARP gun. If the payload was greater they could literally shoot things into orbit via staged rocket projectile.
Re: (Score:3)
... or, for that matter, shoot things *out* of orbit (much harder from an aiming perspective, much easier from an energy perspective; the "warhead" would be sand scattered like buckshot by explosives)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't add much to a Mach 7 tungsten bolt that already caught fire from friction with the air by adding explosive rocket fuel to it. Well, maybe if you intend to fire it from space you could since there's no atmosphere, but the Navy is still mainly water-based.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no amount of atmospheric friction that cannot be withstood in any practical circumstance. Worst case, one uses ablatives. HARP shot projectiles at those speeds without destroying their contents - even electronics.
Good guess, but no for four reasons (Score:5, Informative)
That's not a bad guess, but not really true, for four reasons.
First, there is no "moment of detonation", powder doesn't detonate*, it burns quickly, producing gas. It's a lot of gas in a small space, so it's under pressure and that pressure pushes the bullet out. The powder continues to burn as the bullet moves down the barrel and even -after- the bullet leaves the barrel, producing muzzle flash. In pictures you may have seen the "fire" coming out of the muzzle. That fire is burning powder, meaning it's still burning after the bullet is gone.
To look at it from another perspective, imagine a firecracker on a stick. When the cracker blows, the stick doesn't get shot "backward" toward whoever lit it. The recoil exists because (and while) the bullet and gas is being propelled down the barrel. So the duration of recoil force to the slide is the same as the duration of pushing the bullet down the barrel, equal and opposite at any given instant.
Third, slide -momentum-. The mass of the slide means that the recoil force increases the momentum of the slide, and the hand feels the force as you resist the slide's recoil - meaning the hand or other mount feels the recoil until the slide stops, after the bullet has hit the target.
Lastly, the slide -move- relative to the frame (and hand or other mounts) against a spring. Since the slide is pushing on the spring, and the spring pushing on the frame, it's actually the pressure of the -spring- that pushes on the frame. Therefore the mount experiences only as much recoil as the resitance of the spring at that portion of its travel.
* Some powders contain ingredients that -could- detonate if they were pure, but they are mixed with much slower burning components in order to slow them to a conflagration.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, as I'm sure you are aware, recoil has nothing to do with any slide or spring. A revolver has no slide or spring. A mortar has no slide or spring. A gun on an old sailing ship has no slide or spring. Recoil is simply momentum imparted to the gun, which exactly equals the momentum imparted to the projectile plus other gaseous and particulate ejecta.
If there is a slide and spring, it has nothing whatever to do with the momentum imparted by the recoil to the weapon. It for a time makes the weapon a co
"except" is precisely the question (Score:2)
>it modifies the time profile of the impartation of the momentum to the mount or the person holding the weapon.
and the topic of this thread is precisely the time profile. Quoting: ... (although the recoil is felt longer)
>> detonation time, whereas in a railgun the energy is spent continuously during the time the projectile travels the length of the barrel.
So whether or not the recoil is spread over time is precisely what I was responding to.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that whole "war on drugs going"?
It should be simple. Just find anyone with drugs and lock them up.
Re:So when's "gun control" going to stop guys with (Score:5, Insightful)
If only criminals have guns it will be damn easy to identify them and lock them up.
True-ish, but the devil is in the details... you'd probably need a lot more law enforcers to be able to do that. AKA a "police state".
Sweden respectfully disagrees.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sweden actually has a pretty high gun rate per capita due to our big hunting community.
However, with gang shootings becoming an every day occurance in our ghettos and our tiny police force strained from uncontrolled immigration things are about to get ugly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please! Do no obscure the debate with facts!
Re: (Score:2)
That has less to do with gun ownership than with people actually having something to lose.
In Sweden you can actually survive if you're poor. There is no need to ponder "Hmm... if I'm in jail, at least I have food and shelter..."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, you and your appalling ghetto murders unconstrained by your tiny police force - all 0,7 murders per 100k population per year. How do any of you survive? (US = 4,7 murders per 100k per year)
What are you doing on the net - don't you have a Sverigedemokraterna party meeting to attend?
Re: (Score:2)
Even ignoring that, Sweden's rate is very low - 14th lowest in the world. So hearing someone from Sweden talk about how horrid their murderous "ghettos" are just reeks of "First World Problems". Norway, which has a small fraction as many immigrants as Sweden (both on a percentage and absolute basis) has three times the murder rate (2,2 per 100k).
Re:So when's "gun control" going to stop guys with (Score:5, Insightful)
"Uncontrolled immigration", yeah... Another one that has drunk the cool-aid of the now-said-to-be-reformed-racist extremists. The likes of you are more a part of the problem than the solution.
I used to live in one of the said "ghettos" for the first 25 years of my life, and believe me, the crime rate there isn't higher than in the central parts of the big cities, quite the contrary. Also ghetto is a very strong word, so I guess that you have never set foot in one of these areas, nor seen a real ghetto, or else your retorics would be quite different.
The problems in Sweden are with criminals, not immigrants per se. Anyone alienated from society have to find new ways to get by and most does in peaceful and meaning ful ways, forming their own groups within society (sad to see competence wasted this way because we are too stupid and stubborn to let good people find good work). A few turn to crime, but from the criminals I have met more have had "pure" swedish background than being first or second generation immigrants.
But making up "facts" to support one's twisted world view is standard practice within these extremist circles, so I am not surprised at all.
Re: (Score:3)
The US murder rate in certain cities is higher than the entirety of the rest of the nation. When you look at where the murder rate is high, you might be suprised to find out that they are not places with high gun ownership.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
tiny police force strained from uncontrolled immigration things are about to get ugly.
It's nice to be able to hide one's racist views behind the anonymous moniker, isn't it?
With a fascist government you wouldn't be able to.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.westernjournalism.c... [westernjournalism.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It also ignores the fact that 30-44% of homicides are committed without a gun.
Plus Sweden has it's own police state crime and commitment issues.
Re:So when's "gun control" going to stop guys with (Score:5, Interesting)
If only criminals have guns it will be damn easy to identify them and lock them up.
True-ish, but the devil is in the details... you'd probably need a lot more law enforcers to be able to do that. AKA a "police state".
I, for one, prefer a society were it is generally acceptable that individual members take some responsibility for their own well-being. I always thought the liberal mindset is all about the individual and his liberties.
The rest of the developed world with its massively lower murder rates disagrees as well as Sweden.
Re: (Score:2)
Define developed?
Mexico is widely considered to be a developed country, it has more restrictive gun laws than the US, and much higher murder rate. You might try to claim that Mexico is going through a drug war, but then I would have to ask, why is the drug war such a problem in Mexico, but it is considered part of the figures in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As someone not in America, fuck yes.
Re: (Score:3)
1,000 fps + pellet guns are quite common
Re: (Score:2)