Nearly every law or bill in the last 40 years is crusted with bullshit no matter what the original intent or final result is.
Political posturing, like the fucking straws.
Comment on Want a 3D printer in New York? Get ready for fingerprinting and a 15 day wait
fidodo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Man I want actual gun control not this bullshit.
mods_are_assholes@lemmy.world 10 months ago
GooseFinger@lemmy.world 10 months ago
What exactly do you have in mind?
ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
Armed rebellion against the ruling class of billionaires
Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Is there like a sign-up sheet, or…
SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
This is the crap your average gun owners have to deal with all the time. And with similar results for crime prevention. Welcome to the shitshow, I’m sorry you’re here.
okamiueru@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Not entirely a fair comparison. Gun owners might have to deal with some extra process in the acquisition of a tool explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds. There is a good reason why some of those hoops might be tied to “crime prevention”. Because it is a tool remarkably well suited for it…
Adding such loops for 3D printers would make as much sense as for a bag of sand, because you could drop it on someone… But that’s not what it’s used for… and the extra hoops should be in proportion.
ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 months ago
By this logic, you should also have to jump through those same hoops to get things that can be used to create with minimal experience said tools explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds, or: this bill.
Sure, guns were “designed to kill people,” but A) so were swords and bows/arrows but those are legal and B) self defense is not morally wrong. Just like your bag of sand, guns can be misused to kill people illegally, but that is still a misuse. Of course, nobody is even advocating for NICs checks for other weapons, nor harder-than-NICs measures like quiver size restrictions or “ban assault (compound) bows…”
okamiueru@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Nope. Not my argument in the slightest? Guns are made for it, have hoops for what it’s made for, especially when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like. Have those be in proportion to that. Conceptually, this should be easy enough to understand, and it just describes the foundation for the argument of what is a “reasonable hoop”, when it comes to “crime prevention”. That’s what’s being discussed here no? I responded to someone arguing that gun owners need to go through “similar hoops”. To which I only called BS on it being in the same ballpark.
Simplified… “What is a reasonable measure, regarding purchase of X, when it comes to what that measure, can help with problem Y.”
Place X=“guns”, and Y=“gun violence”, yeah… I can see some level of hoops making some sense.
Place X=“cards”, and Y=“car deaths”, sure… I can see some hoops there too. But you already have driver’s license.
Place X=“3d printer” and Y=“gun violence”… well… it makes about as much sense as what you’re suggesting. Which is my exact argument. It doesn’t make much sense at all.
So, either you are arguing the same point as me, or you didn’t get my point.
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 10 months ago
And you don’t even need a background check to buy a black powder firearm. Walk into your local Cabela’s with a couple of hundred bucks, walk out with one ready to shoot. If you’re old enough to grow a beard they probably won’t even ask to check your ID to see if you’re over 18.
The ATF has repeatedly stated they’re not interested in regulating these “historical” items. Never mind swords and bows, a lot of men have been put in pine boxes by a sloppily cast ball of lead coming out of a Patterson or a Remington. Just, probably mostly between the years of 1836 and 1901.