[luckylion]

I think the point was: it might be a bit more expensive for them, but it wouldn't stop them from getting guns. Guns are important to their business, they would manufacture them themselves if they could not buy them.

Would it cost them more? yes. would it be the "number 1 priority" because it's so impactful? no, obviously not.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it wouldn't stop them from getting guns

Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of making guns. But I'm aware of zero conflicts in which small arms were manufactured in situ. Even in e.g. Myanmar/Burma. The fact that even remote conflicts go through the trouble of importing arms suggests this might be more difficult than you suggest.

[luckylion]

They would be if it wasn't easy to import them. It's not like modern mass production has made gun violence possible because up until then it was too hard to manufacture guns.

It's similar to services: you can your own email server, but it's much more efficient to use some vendor and let them do it for you. But if all vendors cut you off, it won't be impossible for you to host your down email, it'll just be less efficient.

[mothballed]

I'm fascinated by your point on Myanmar/Burma since I'm quite sure you used that point since it's common knowledge that is the most commonly cited example of the use of in situ firearms by militia. Maybe you're inviting a debate on why you think the reports on in situ firearms reported there are false, or maybe you just randomly came upon that, but it doesn't seem a coincedence.

[estearum]

Myanmar/Burma the strategy was build-to-capture: make improvised, unreliable firearms that could be used to ambush security forces and take their firearms.

Evidence against the point above that it's trivial to replace professionally manufactured small arms.

[mothballed]

There are examples of all the above. Kachine state "army" for instance was making Chinese and AKM clones. Others were making FGC-9 for purpose of taking other firearms. Some were using FGC-9 for driveby without any goal to take firearms. And others were using "professionally" manufactured arms to take other arms.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it's common knowledge that is the most commonly cited example of the use of in situ firearms by militia

I wasn’t aware of this. Do you have a good source where I might learn more?

[thatcat]

There was some model named FGC2000 which was used with short unrifled 9mm tubes, meaning the range was low and could only be used as parent described. Saw this on a YouTube video but can't find it now.

[15155]

> Maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty of making guns

These are centuries-old objects. Manufacturing technology and materials science have advanced nearly 100 years since Ma Deuce first rolled off the line. Society didn't get dumber, and manufacturing has only gotten more accessible.

Just look at the current state of 3D printed firearms: they're completely useful and viable. CNC machining has never been cheaper or easier to do.

[estearum]

You're not addressing the argument before you, once again

[estearum]

It's quite evident their point is that they don't want gun control and have pre-committed to whatever opinions are necessary to prevent it, including an opinion as absurd as "having to manufacture their own firearms would not be a significant impediment to their operations."

Mass synthesis of the drugs that cartels produce is trivial (that's why they produce them)

Putting drugs on trucks is trivial (that's why they do that)

Rudimentary semi-submersible vessels are impressive but you only need a few and they're not that hard to make (again, that's why they make em)

The telecom stuff they do is legitimately pretty impressive, but this too is just significant capex for long term benefit -- not so with self-made guns which are significant capex and you get out the other side a low volume of low-quality, non-dependable, often-breaking guns.