99% of the what I’ve seen is more deadly to the user than to anyone on the receiving end. You’d really be better off with a pipe pistol or shotgun.
But yeah, almost anything could be dangerous depending on how it’s applied.
Comment on New York Bill Would Require a Criminal Background Check to Buy a 3D Printer
HuddaBudda@kbin.social 11 months agoI think some people would say the ability to print a gun is more deadly then a knife.
But I kind of agree with you.
If we start licensing people to own stuff that has the potential to do harm, then eventually you are going to run into a never ending list of household items and laws of natural physics:
- Bleach
- Vinegar
- Salt
- Sugar
- Chlorine
- Gas
- Natural gas
- Methane
- Fertilizers
- Electricity
- Paper
- Fire
- Propane
- Etc.
cryptiod137@lemmy.world 11 months ago
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
If you’ve only seen the liberator and the harlot, the hoffman lowers and FGC9_2 0s? Well…
cryptiod137@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Looked into the ones you mentioned, both require non-printed parts.
Those are better than what I had seen, but aren’t even on the same scale as what someone can make with a mil or a lathe casually in a couple days
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
Of course they do, but the serialized part that is run through NICs is printable, the rest you can order online or get at home depot.
Of course plastic, extruded or otherwise, is less strong than metal. That wasn’t the question. You can get a good few thousand rounds out of those before they crack and when they do, they crack along a layer and are not “more dangerous for the user” by any stretch of the imagination.
PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [bot] 11 months ago
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 11 months ago
We already do that, with guns. Precendent is set.
HuddaBudda@kbin.social 11 months ago
The understandable difference being that a gun has but one purpose: Kill people.
Whereas everything else I have mentioned, including 3d printers are multi-purpose. Not intended to kill, but to serve multiple roles.
Though, it is a good point that few devices could be cobbled together to make infinite guns so long as you had material. So I am not saying it isn't a class of it's own, just where does the logic end with that point?
Is it only legal for a company to print guns? How does a license alone protect people? I don't think that is something I could answer.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 11 months ago
The thing is, banning guns is giving them an inch. NYC is already trying to grab 3d printers. Hell the ATF infamously made showlaces into unregistered machine guns, and a felony. everydaynodaysoff.com/…/shoestring-machine-gun/
And abroad, the UK went after knives.
Never think they’ll stop at guns, because they won’t. Its slippery slope, but that slope is supported by historical evidence.
PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Isn’t it lucky where that slippery slope starts?
It doesn’t start before guns with high explosives, despite them being arguably “arms” and inarguably more useful in a tyrant-overthrowing war.
And it doesn’t start after guns with knives and all the other things you’re sure they’re going to take, even though they could have taken them at any point in the past 20 years.
Nope, the slippery slope starts exactly at the point it cuts into the profits of the gun lobby and the convenience of reactionaries, the moment they “grab guns” by introducing things like “licenses issued at the completion of a background check, safety and operation test and demonstrated ability to store safely”.
The pro-gun community sure hit the jackpot there.
grue@lemmy.world 11 months ago
HuddaBudda@kbin.social 11 months ago
A surprising enlightening read. Thank you for sharing.