I understand the intent, but feel that there are so many other loopholes that put much worse weapons on the street than a printer. Besides, my prints can barely sustain normal use, much less a bullet being fired from them. I would think that this is more of a risk to the person holding the gun than who it’s pointing at.
I 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:
A surprising enlightening read. Thank you for sharing.
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.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Propane
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
We already do that, with guns. Precendent is set.
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.
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. https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/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.
Isn’t it lucky where that slippery slope starts?
It doesn’t start before guns, with things like 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.
Edit: Oh also, it was the modified rifle that was considered a “machine gun”, or the specific device made from a shoelace designed to convert it to full auto. This is so fuckwits can’t circumvent laws against fully automatic weapons, carrying and selling devices to illegally modify the weapon and then claiming “but its not on the gun so it doesn’t count!”.
That entire linked blog post could be completely undermined by adding the word “part” to the initial letter.
People dismiss the slippery slope as a logical fallacy, but I think that’s a mistake. If there are enough people fighting for whatever is at the bottom of the slope, I think it’s a valid argument. Was repealing Roe the end of the abortion rights debate?
They dismiss it because it’s bullshit. Every stop on the slope is not inevitable.
In this particular case, why is the pro-gun community able to prevent changes to gun laws – despite those laws being deeply flawed and with only a minority of Americans supporting them – but somehow unable to prevent the floodgates after that?
The response the gun lobby wants to hear is “they gubbermint won’t do it because they’re scared we’ll shoot them!” but it’s pure bravado. Grossly negligent gun laws haven’t prevented the American government from doing things to its citizens that would make China blush and the pro-gun crowd didn’t even change their vote, let alone sacrifice their lives to prevent it.
Because everything is a bullshit slippery slope to them. “Oh you want to get rid of the second amendment? What’s next? The first amendment? The fourth?”
Nope. Just the second. It’s repealing an amendment, not dabbling with heroin. They’re not going to say “oh why not, maybe one more”.
Making the “responsible” part of “responsible gun owner” mandatory is not going to cause the collapse of civilisation.