Comment on Want a 3D printer in New York? Get ready for fingerprinting and a 15 day wait

• okamiueru@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨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…”

    source

    • okamiueru@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨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.

      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.

      source

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        stuff you don’t generally like.

        Not your point, but why don’t you like self defense? Or IDPA, USPSA, Skeet (lol), Cowboy Action, Biathlon, Hunting, or any other shooting sports?

        Tbf, even in this country, guns are used far more for those things than harming others (self defense included, as while it harms others it is necessary to do so in those instances to prevent death or great bodily injury to the victim, which is what justifies use of deadly force to begin with.)

        And no I disagree, if the printer allows me to print a hoffman lower at the push of a button, but that same lower would need a background check to be purchased from an FFL, I think they are similar enough to make the comparison. It’s physically impossible to stop the torrents and other ways the .stl files are shared, the only way to do that would be to restrict the device itself. Furthermore a large subsect of 3d printer owners/buyers do so explicitely for the capability to print lowers (And I’m one of them. Of course it is legal for me to do so and I only use them legally, so it’s fine, but still we exist.)

        Of course, I think it’s silly as well, but I’m also not in favor of (at least recently/currently proposed) further gun legislation, so…

        Place X=“cars”, and Y=“car related deaths and injuries”, sure… I can see some hoops there making sense. Americans seem fine with the concept of a driver’s license.

        Yes we have those.

        Place X=“guns”, and Y=“crime / gun violence”, yeah… I can see some level of hoops making some sense.

        Yes we have those too, NICs checks federally. States decide pointless feature bans or if the poors deserve rights too, and some are more permissive than others, but there are many regulations already.

        Place X=“3d printer” and Y=“crime / gun violence”… my argument: It doesn’t make much sense at all..

        Actually “ghost guns,” or “3d printed firearms,” have been making more appearances at crime scenes as of late. The front-runner is still straw purchase but I wouldn’t be surprised to see 3d printed lowers outpacing stolen guns within 10yr without even banning sales to inflate that number. Makes just as much sense to restrict 3d printers due to misuse as it does guns, since they are increasingly directly related. OR we shouldn’t punish good guys with a gun3d printer for the actions of others…

        PS: There’s also a third option of disagreeing with my argument, in which case you would believe the hypothetical that if 3D printing technology was removed from existence, that it would reduce crime,

        There’s a fourth. I don’t believe reducing the number of guns nor 3d printers sold would even reduce crime, as they could instead 3d print a lower, or make a LutySMG, or mill an 80%, or buy a CNC mill, or abandon guns entirely for another weapon like the Boston Marathon. I’m a gun and 3d printer enthusiast. I think the only thing that will actually reduce crime is actually making this country better so less people want or need to commit crimes. Yes it’s harder than just using authoritarian control and violence to make others subject to your will, but also fuck that, I’d rather we do the hard work than take the ineffective “easy way out.”

        I just also think it’s silly to think “we need to ban guns because easy to kill with” but not go the step further to “and 3d printers, cnc mills, and home depot, because easy to make the thing that is easy to kill with.” To me it feels a lot closer to “no further legislation needed for either.”

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Hell, you can order those online, no ID check required. Even as a child assuming you can steal the cash, pop into the store with the cash, buy an amex gift card worth over the total price+tax+ship, boom, gun-to-door. Can easily make your own black powder too (though that bit is time consuming), and cast your own lead balls.

        source