So... I should ask a question here. I get your story has the guns being cheaper so it's affordable even for poorer people, but there's plenty of people who can spend hundreds of dollars on a weapon that is meant for survival. I say you keep the option of a cheap gun, but don't limit it to just that. I say 3D printing with an automated warehouse is an option. You could also have the government distribute them or put a bounty on kills. Of course not sure how you'd deal with the gun laws, but whatever. What about a tranquilizer pole dart gun? The initial set-up is cheap, just a long tube with a co2 tank and trigger. Can get 5-10 empty darts for $10. I could see the government supplying the chemical to put in it. Easy to mass produce vials for re-fills. Very easy to use, has decent reach, reliable, and allows capture as well.
In the early 19th century a handgun in the USA costed about 6 dollars. Now, I'm not a pro on these kind of things, but I am sure that you can find weapons a lot cheaper at the black market... In a world with less control over these, you could have an entire system of delivering affordable weapons.
I suspect you're not taking into account inflation when looking at those prices. $6 in 1800 would probably be the equivalent of around $150 today. A world with less control over the black market? It's kinda the point of the black market that there aren't any controls. That's why people go to a black market. I would also assume the opposite, that they are much more expensive than legally acquired means, because you are going to the black market for a reason (whether that's because you're buying something illegal, illegally modified, unregistered and impossible to trace, etc. etc.) I think you might be assuming that various taxes, levies, regulations, etc. are driving up the price, and black markets not being subject to those must therefore be cheaper.... but I really, really doubt it works that way. There'd just be no money in it.
The article I read it in was comparing this price to the earnings of a mine worker. While the earnings increased 15 times, the price of a handgun increased almost 50 times. Now it certainly does not take everything into account, but weapons certainly were cheaper when there was a greater need for them.
Simply- No. A company needs to make money to survive. People that start companies don't do so to squeak by, but to profit. This is a massive problem in the US. We can't be profitable by supplying only to those that need something. S$W is the only firearm company in the US to lose a negligence lawsuit, to a woman whose child was shot. She decided not to join any of the class action suits and went on her own. She took their own numbers and used them against S&W by proving they produce more firearms than there are citizens to buy, and that a portion are written off as stolen before being loaded onto trucks and leaving the factory, thus proving they produce firearms for the black market. A judge and jury agreed. If you shift it to another industry and ask the same question, you get the same base answer: Viagra hit the market and was marketed to men over 85. You will go out of business quickly since it is a limited pool, a portion will not buy, a portion cannot buy due to health, a portion cannot buy due to price, etc. What you are left with is a very small pool. The company behind Viagra then started marketing to lower and lower ages, while trying to convince people in their 30s that their ED is now solved. Companies start buying companies when markets are saturated, it's the only way to keep a profit rolling in, but your marketing needs to change. When I was a kid, Coke was marketed as a treat to share with your family. Now, Coke is marketed as solving the world's thirst problems. More people around the world get their fluids from Coke products than any other source.
Although if the country was over run with little carnivorous monsters and literally everyone needed a firearm that much demand could either drive the price up by outstripping supply or drive the price down by creating a mass market for a simple mass produced weapon. chances are the luxury items like Sig and Glock would cost more , but someone like Lorkin or Raven would produce a gun for the masses
This. Most people don't really take it seriously. Most 3D printed guns are toys or will only work once, but the technology as a higher end too. The space station has an advanced on that can literally print rocket parts. Rocket engines are far higher precision than a gun. If you had access to this type of 3D printer, the total cost would be the weight of the material.
I used to run EOS SLS machines, some of the higher end 3D printers. Many different materials/material melds can be used. Amazing things are being done. The actual cheapest guns are what someone kind of pointed out already. There is a huge underground trade of machine shop owners setting up machines and you come in, pay them $40-$100 and push start. The machine cuts all the parts, you open the door and take the parts out and leave. You just bought a bag of pieces made by yourself. This is the cheapest way to buy firearms and is rapidly becoming the preferred way for 'gangstas' to buy guns. No body on it to worry about, no tracing parts, cheap enough to dump after use. The old equivalent of this was going to random gun shows and buying a bag of parts. If you look into the firearm companies you will quickly see that every one of them is lobbying hard to become the standard issue for whatever agency. Standard issue means lucrative contracts. But in order to get those contracts, one of the first things done is examining the company. If the company could have trouble with a downturn, or go out of business if contract is cancelled, you don't get the contract. The way to not be on that line is to stack money, while building bigger and bigger manufacturing, etc, etc, until you are too big to fail from a contract gone bad. This is also how it works if you want to manufacture for a giant like Cisco, Microsoft, etc. Nobody wants the bad press of 'I had a contract and they cancelled it and now my employees are out of work'. My next door neighbor is one of the VPs of manufacturing for Cisco and we have discussed this a lot since mom and pop shops constantly contact him for jobs and he has to explain to them that Cisco is not going to make them a name, they need to be a name before Cisco will talk. The internet changed this type of business. Before the internet only a few would hear your tale of woe, now millions have the potential to hear it.
As I understand the OP, everyone having a gun is a very legitimate and legal need, much like owning a can of gokkijet, which is a potent poison (cockroach killer) is a legitimate, legal, and necessary where I live. I think the question was simply one of "(How) [C]an the price of firearms be reduced to make them available to the law-abiding masses for self-defense?"
You can make a gun from a piece of car antenna and a rubber band. A block of wood would make it easier to handle. The question would be "what makes guns so ... " Never ask "why" of a witness on the stand. You open the door to eternal filibuster. I love how prideful the gun experts jump at the chance to become. One of the reasons things get expensive is good old fashioned supply and demand. One of the reasons it's in the interest of civilization to prevent every Tom, Dick and Harry from owning a gun at will is experience. You've heard of the Old West? Yeah. Civilized people got tired of stepping over bodies in the streets on the way to church Sunday mornings, from the drunken gunfights of the night before. Heroes imagining themselves pulling the guns from their closets, and not just to clean them, admire them then put them back, are going to save the day - rescuing freedom from the ugly evil villains (even if they have to invent them for an excuse.) Every guy thinks he's a gunslinger, even if he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, just as he thinks he's Mario Andretti behind the wheel of his Hundai. Because of this social violence problem, civilizations generally look for other methods to handle problems like the OP's weird little monster infestation. They arrive at a solution, then equip trained, authorized personnel to carry out the solution. The last thing a civilization with the capacity for mass production is going to do is arm every citizen with a pistol for a do-it-yourself urban maintenance problem. (Lord knows how well that works with litter.) If anyone else pointed out this minor fact, sorry to step on your post. For all you other guys jumping in with AK advice and Glock logic...for this? Yeah...right.
It sounds like you're broadening the definition of "gun" far beyond what most people would. Very few people would look at something like this and call it a gun: As for the question "Why," I think that, in context, most people would understand it to be synonymous with "For what reason (are guns so expensive)? This is a writing forum, not a witness stand.
You can make a rail gun with stuff around your house. It may not be Red Faction, Heavy Gear 2, or even Metal Gear Solid levels, but it will get the job done.
Thanks so much for pointing that out. I have to admit I was confused. "Why?" There's all sorts of reasons why. Whim is why. Why the whim? Why? You could go on forever with "why"? "What makes..." usually this has a simple engineering answer. Who's gonna pick that up and aim it?
You could also create a fairly effective directed energy weapon using a magnetron from an old microwave. Certainly enough to be a non-lethal deterrent and easily destroy any electronics that your target is carrying.
Yes, but an EMP device won't be much good fighting monsters. (Trying to keep this somewhat tied to the OP.)
Probably would be, it'd be quite painful to anything made out of water. A magnetron doesn't just create an EMP, it's a specific type of EM radiation that interacts strongly with water molecules.
probably wouldn't be that portable though - so good for home defence but less use against small carnivorous monsters encountered while you are out and about. I still favour a shot gun pistol , but other alternatives could include something like a souped up cattle prod , or a flame weapon powered off a gas cartridge
It's be portable, but not compared to a gun. Is the weapon supposed to kill these creatures, or simply deter them? When hunting deer, it's not unheard of to accidentally run across a black bear and her cubs. I was taught to simply fire the gun in the air if I was charged. Never had to do it myself but seen plenty of videos of the bear turning around and running. Wouldn't capitalism lower the price of guns very quickly? The gun market here mostly like American made guns, so there is no competition from China. In a world where everyone carried, the American gun manufacturers would end up having to compete with other markets.
To an extend those factors are in play today - there are pretty cheap guns available from the likes of Raven, Hi point, and Lorkin. They aren't quite as cheap as the OP desires but I suspect that price could be pushed down if more units were being made (or with government subsidy For example the Hi point 9mm currently sells for $199 - its not the prettiest weapon you'll ever pick up, and doesn't look to be that comfortable in the hand, plus it only carries 8 rounds in the clip as standard, but at reasonably close range in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing it will get the job done (you can also get a .380 model for $20 less).
I had to google them, but from what I can tell, all of those manufacturers still make their products in the United States. That's to appease their current market, not for efficiency. I contend that if suddenly the market exploded to all Americans needed a gun, south Korea, Vietnam, china, would start manufacturing small arms in bulk and drive costs down even faster like they did with electronics.
Norinco (Chinese) already do , but they aren't competitive on price with the cheap american companies - for example the NP58 which is basically a knock off of the Sig P226 goes for $379 - that's significantly less than a real 226 which go for around $1200 - but still a lot more than the Hi Point. Likewise Daewoo (S Korea) make various firearms and their 9mm pistol -which looks to be a close copy of a S&W nine (it can take S&W magazines) -is about $300 Incidentally i'm not sure about the must be american made thing because Sig are Swiss, and Glock are Austrian and both sell well into the US market - I'd suspect its more that people are dubious about the quality control and materials in the asian manufacture - this is true of electronics as well , but the consequences of a knock off smartphone failng are less severe than your pistol exploding when you fire it
And Norinco used to be utter crap. When you can't make an AK that works right, you should not be in the gun business. May have improved in the last ~20 years, I've been out of the country.