cross-posted from: https://ttrpg.network/post/4222671
Want a 3D printer in New York? Get ready for fingerprinting and a 15 day wait
Assembly Bill A8132 has been assigned a āSame Asā bill in the Senate: S8586 [NYSenate.gov] [A8132 - 2023]
I donāt own a gun, I never have and I donāt plan to at any time in the future. But if these pass in the NYS Senate and Congress, it would be required to submit fingerprints for a background check then wait 15 days, before you could own any āCOMPUTER OR COMPUTER-DRIVEN MACHINE OR DEVICE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT FROM A DIGITAL MODEL.ā
This isnāt even going to stop any crimes from happening, for pity sakes regular guns end up in criminal charges all the time, regardless of background check laws. How about some real change and effective measures, rather then virtue-signaling and theater illusion for a constituency?
This is the crap your average gun owners have to deal with all the time. And with similar results for crime prevention, which leads to more and more hoops as legislators try more of the same.
All because they genuinely donāt understand the subject matter or donāt care but want to appeal to people who also donāt know. Remember the āthis is a ghost gunā speech?
Welcome to the shitshow, Iām truly sorry youāre here. I just want to enjoy 3D printed doodads and neat non-printed range toys in peace.
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 ācrime preventionā. Because it is a tool remarkably well suited for itā¦
Adding such loops for 3D printers would make as much sense as for a bag of sand, because you could drop it on someoneā¦ But thatās not what itās used forā¦ and the extra hoops should be in proportion.
edit: Have I stumbled on some gun-loving easily offended part of lemmy? Letās see some congruent argument against anything I wrote. I encourage it. Be a brave snowflake.
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 ādesigned to kill people,ā 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 āban assault (compound) bowsā¦ā
Nope. Not my argument in the slightest? Guns are made for it, have hoops for what itās made for, especially when itās used for stuff you donāt 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 āreasonable hoopā, when it comes to ācrime preventionā. Thatās whatās being discussed here no? I responded to someone arguing that gun owners need to go through āsimilar hoopsā. To which I only called BS on it being in the same ballpark.
Simplifiedā¦ āWhat is a reasonable measure, regarding purchase of X, when it comes to what that measure, can help with problem Y.ā
Place X=ācarsā, and Y=ācar related deaths and injuriesā, sureā¦ I can see some hoops there making sense. Americans seem fine with the concept of a driverās license.
Place X=āgunsā, and Y=ācrime / gun violenceā, yeahā¦ I can see some level of hoops making some sense. (Iād suggest a lot more,ā¦ but that would offend too many over there)
Place X=ā3d printerā and Y=ācrime / gun violenceāā¦ my argument: It doesnāt 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 donāt 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 āreduce injuriesā, you donāt 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 āgun violence / crimeā, you donāt restrict āaccess to 3d printersā. 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. Henceā¦ ānot in the same ballparkā. Which is why you also donāt need any hoops to buy a kitchen knife.
So, either you are arguing the same point as me, or you didnāt get my point.
(PS: Thereās 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. Thatās the loosest possible hypothetical, which would be in your favor to argue.).
Not your point, but why donāt 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. Itās 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 Iām one of them. Of course it is legal for me to do so and I only use them legally, so itās fine, but still we exist.)
Of course, I think itās silly as well, but Iām also not in favor of (at least recently/currently proposed) further gun legislation, soā¦
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 āghost guns,ā or ā3d printed firearms,ā have been making more appearances at crime scenes as of late. The front-runner is still straw purchase but I wouldnāt 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 shouldnāt punish good guys with a
gun3d printer for the actions of othersā¦Thereās a fourth. I donāt 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. Iām 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 itās harder than just using authoritarian control and violence to make others subject to your will, but also fuck that, Iād rather we do the hard work than take the ineffective āeasy way out.ā
I just also think itās silly to think āwe need to ban guns because easy to kill withā but not go the step further to āand 3d printers, cnc mills, and home depot, because easy to make the thing that is easy to kill with.ā To me it feels a lot closer to āno further legislation needed for either.ā
Two logical fallacies here. Red herring, in that itās 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.
Youādā¦ 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 isnāt saying a single thing on the restriction on guns. There is a tiny commentary as to that effect, but please donāt confuse that with the argument presented.
Other than that, I donāt 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=ā3d printerā and Y=āgun crimeā thatā¦ there might be a basis for some restrictions? But then you say you donāt believe there should be restrictions thereā¦ so, Iām confused why you would argue both sides there. I assume your point is therefore: āneither should be restricted, because if one should be, so should the otherāā¦ something like that?
So, a clarificationā¦ 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 youāre 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 soā¦ I find that strange.
I donāt 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 donāt like what guns are used for by outright stating it. Guns are used for murder in some instances, about 12,000 per year if weāre talking US, but theyāre used 100,000 per year here according to harvard for self defense, and while I donāt have a figure of how many times shooting sports happen within the countryās borders I have to assume itās even higher than that.
So again, now that Iāve pointed out exactly where the āimplicationā you outright stated is, why donāt you like those things?
Your ātiny commentaryā 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 donāt often talk about further restricting firearms, nor how something that can very easily make firearms is āactually different.ā 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.
Youāll still continue ignoring it, but my point is if restrictions make sense for one they make sense for the other, as āthe otherā can be used to create the āone.ā Just as guns can be used for murder but shouldnāt be, 3d printers can be used to make guns that can be used to murder, but shouldnāt be.
Rather than restrict the items we should make the misuse itself illegal, like how we donāt ban booze but we do ban driving drunk or beating your wife because youāre 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 āGuns are made for itā is referring to crimeā¦ and not āsending projectiles at lethal speedsā, and that āwhen itās used for stuff you donāt generally likeā is something other than ācrimes / gun violenceā? I might be wrong here. Itās hard to understand how it is you are reading it, that is different from what is clarified so many times.
In any case, I donāt think we think sufficiently in the same way in order to have any hopes of a productive conversation. The stuff Iāve 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 doesnāt 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. Iām not avoiding your arguments, Iām 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 donāt want to waste your time). Have a good one.
By all means donāt respond, but itās adorable that you act so high and mighty while also throwing jabs you perceive as intelligent enough to not be rude as hell, (Iām giving you the benefit of the doubt that youāre not intentionally a dick.)
Though, implications abound, I likely shouldnāt give you that benefit, as it would track with the rest of your imply-then-deny strategy.
And you donāt even need a background check to buy a black powder firearm. Walk into your local Cabelaās with a couple of hundred bucks, walk out with one ready to shoot. If youāre old enough to grow a beard they probably wonāt even ask to check your ID to see if youāre over 18.
The ATF has repeatedly stated theyāre not interested in regulating these āhistoricalā 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.
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.