249
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
249 points (97.7% liked)
3DPrinting
15629 readers
236 users here now
3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.
The r/functionalprint community is now located at: [email protected] or [email protected]
There are CAD communities available at: [email protected] or [email protected]
Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
-
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
-
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
-
Do not create links to reddit
-
If you see an issue please flag it
-
No guns
-
No injury gore posts
If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe/ may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is 
Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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="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.
Place X="guns", and Y="crime / gun violence", yeah.. I can see some level of hoops making some sense. (I'd suggest a lot more,... but that would offend too many over there)
Place X="3d printer" and Y="crime / gun violence"... my argument: It doesn't make much sense at all..
You seem to think that my argument was to suggests hoops on X, based on the maximum capability of X, when it comes to Y. I don't know why you would think that, because I said that it must be in the correct proportion to the problem at hand. A bag of sand can be used to cause injury. But if what you want is to "reduce injuries", you don't restrict access to bags of sand. You can revisit that once you start having a bag-of-sand-causing-injury-problem. Similarly, if you want to reduce "gun violence / crime", you don't restrict "access to 3d printers". I have a hunch that normal guns outnumber 3d printed guns, in crimes, at least at a generous 10000000:1. And you can make a better one with a metal tube and some welding. Hence... "not in the same ballpark". Which is why you also don't need any hoops to buy a kitchen knife.
So, either you are arguing the same point as me, or you didn't get my point.
(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, or whichever Y is in question. That's the loosest possible hypothetical, which would be in your favor to argue.).
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..
Yes we have those.
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.
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 ~~gun~~3d printer for the actions of others..
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."
Two logical fallacies here. Red herring, in that it's not not relevant to the argument, and a straw-man, because the supposition of me not liking self defense is not stated by me, or implied.
You'd... be surprised to find that this is in part the first one, and clearly the still the second, with yet another straw-man argument, this time only implied. Perhaps go through my argument again. It isn't saying a single thing on the restriction on guns. There is a tiny commentary as to that effect, but please don't confuse that with the argument presented.
Other than that, I don't see anything else that I need to comment on. Happy to oblige if you do relate it to my argument. The only relevant part, if I understood correctly, you suggest that for X="3d printer" and Y="gun crime" that... there might be a basis for some restrictions? But then you say you don't believe there should be restrictions there... so, I'm confused why you would argue both sides there. I assume your point is therefore: "neither should be restricted, because if one should be, so should the other"... something like that?
So, a clarification... for your sake here, so please to take this with good intentions. These are the relevant points I was making:
The first one of those is clearly also your point. So, we agree on that one. But it seems you disagree with the second one. Is that the gist of what you're saying? You object to the second point, in that if one should be restricted, the other makes similar sense, as to be in the same ballpark?
Because if so... I find that strange.
I don't see how you could disagree with me, without also disagreeing with one or both of these. They seem like pretty obviously true statements to me.
This was the part in the comment I responded to where you implied you don't like what guns are used for by outright stating it. Guns are used for murder in some instances, about 12,000 per year if we're talking US, but they're used 100,000 per year here according to harvard for self defense, and while I don't have a figure of how many times shooting sports happen within the country's borders I have to assume it's even higher than that.
So again, now that I've pointed out exactly where the "implication" you outright stated is, why don't you like those things?
Your "tiny commentary" is part of your argument, not only is it there but it informs your argument from the outset. Those not in favor of further legislation on firearms don't often talk about further restricting firearms, nor how something that can very easily make firearms is "actually different." In fact, most pro gun people use 3d printers as an example of partly why further restrictions would be ineffective at best or abused for maximum bans at worst.
Just keeeep moving those goalposts and avoiding my argument.
You'll still continue ignoring it, but my point is if restrictions make sense for one they make sense for the other, as "the other" can be used to create the "one." Just as guns can be used for murder but shouldn't be, 3d printers can be used to make guns that can be used to murder, but shouldn't be.
Rather than restrict the items we should make the misuse itself illegal, like how we don't ban booze but we do ban driving drunk or beating your wife because you're drunk.
I see. I should have been clearer. You went from seeing this statement by me:
To then this next reply by me:
And then reading that the it in "Guns are made for it" is referring to crime... and not "sending projectiles at lethal speeds", and that "when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like" is something other than "crimes / gun violence"? I might be wrong here. It's hard to understand how it is you are reading it, that is different from what is clarified so many times.
In any case, I don't think we think sufficiently in the same way in order to have any hopes of a productive conversation. The stuff I've written is congruent enough that you should be able to get my point, if you either read it enough times, or ask a friend. To help you along: this doesn't mean that I expect you to agree with me, but at least you know what it is you would be disagreeing with.
You have to state your arguments in a way that are relevant to my arguments. Which requires you to first understand my arguments. I'm not avoiding your arguments, I'm just ignoring them because they are not relevant to my arguments. I hope you see the difference. Not addressing a red herring is ignoring something irrelevant to the original premise.
I will not reply to anything beyond this. (Again, this is meant as a courtesy. I don't want to waste your time). Have a good one.
By all means don't respond, but it's adorable that you act so high and mighty while also throwing jabs you perceive as intelligent enough to not be rude as hell, (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not intentionally a dick.)
Though, implications abound, I likely shouldn't give you that benefit, as it would track with the rest of your imply-then-deny strategy.
It reached the point of being very much intentional. But hey, your reading comprehension is better than I gave you credit for. Good on you.
"Reached the point" mmhmm.