From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1998 03:38:42 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: Guns: H&K, G3, 7.62 v 5.56 [Guns]
In-Reply-To: <tw7btxwc9qx.fsf@the-great-machine.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <v03102802b0d19c0832e1@[207.167.93.63]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



An interesting message (well, interesting to me and perhaps to some others).


At 10:47 AM -0800 1/1/98, Ryan Lackey wrote:


>Thus, in defending against a raid, Soviet-style weapons are probably better.
>7.62x54R Dra----v rifles are probably a good model -- iirc (I've never
>fired one), they're semi auto bullpups.  [eeek, www.guns.ru is selling them
>with bayonets!  tactical close range sniping, aye!].  Or the SEAL sniper

I've read some reviews of the Dragunov which are very unflattering. The
scope on standard USSR-used rifles was terrible. I could doublecheck what
Plaster says about them, but I haven't seen anyone advocating that
Americans use them. Maybe they'll become the wave of the future...

>weapon -- an accurized M14, which is basically an M1A.  With a good scope
>and better trigger, an M14/M1A can be 1 MOA, and it's a real battle rifle,
>with the ability to engage multiple targets quickly due to the semi-auto
>action.

Actually, I figure that if I'm ever in a situation where I have to engage
multiple targets quickly, I'm probably a goner. If nothing else, they'll
roll an armored vehicle in (and more and more SWAT teams have them) and
burn me out, Waco-style.

("We had to burn the children in order to save the children. Save them from
what? Well, we had reports of something....")

>Also, when you're operating without a spotter/security man, it's nice to
>have the ability to quickly kill anyone in close.  With an M1A, you just move
>from your concealment, kill, and return, wasting a minimum of time.  I guess
>in a home you could just keep an AR-15 next to you for such close-in dealings,
>though.

Yeah, I think an AR-15 (or variant, of course) makes more sense for the
average person than anything else (incl. shotgun) for home defense.
Opinions vary on this, but this is my conclusion.


>you are going to have to move around the house, at least.  A PSG-1 ends
>up being cheaper than 10 match-grade Remington 700s -- besides, the scope
>is much more expensive than the gun anyway (perhaps I just like overly
>expensive scopes)

Well, I could justify buying _one_ Remington 700, for $600, plus another
$400 or so for the Leupold scope (not bought yet). But I sure as hell
couldn't justify buying a $10K PSG-1!!!

>*ObCrypto!*:
>The choice of cryptographic tools is somewhat like the choice of sniper
>weaponry.

...

Nice parallels, though I tend to argue for crypto in terms of speech and
First Amendment grounds, and avoid the (obvious, but dangerous) comparisons
of crypto to firearms.

Dangerous because one immediately runs into the "But we regulate machine
guns, so if crypto is like a machine gun, why shouldn't it be regulated?"
And "We don't let citizens have nuclear weapons, so why let them have
military-grade unbreakable ciphers?"

The speech issues and prior restraint issues are much cleaner.

--Tim May

The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^2,976,221   | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."