Would you rather...

From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 17:33
To: koswix 47 of 104
Good points and true. But at the speed technology is moving I can't imagine not being able to print most things within 10 years or so.  And really, you don't need more than a couple shots to do what you intend to do, or if you do you print a bag full 'o guns and go Matrix style.
From: milko23 May 2013 17:46
To: ANT_THOMAS 48 of 104
quote:
One of the two people involved in the incident apparently had a gun.

Albeit not a very good one, it blew his own finger off didn't it? Which just goes to show, gun control might be working quite well if the illegal ones can be so shit they're more dangerous to the shooter.

From: milko23 May 2013 17:47
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 49 of 104
Maybe he wants to use the big sword to chop up bbq meat! It is a man's free choice to do that and you can take my burger-choppin' spadroon from my cold dead hands :)
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 17:49
To: milko 50 of 104
That might be entertaining! OK, I'll allow it!
From: koswix23 May 2013 17:51
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 51 of 104
You said 5 years in your last post!

Never mind, Guess we'll just have to wait and see. *adds google calendar reminder for 23rd of May 2023*
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 17:53
To: koswix 52 of 104
Yeah, I think we will have a printable, usable gun within 5 years. I think we will be printing a lot/most of the household things we use within 10 years. We will just hit Walmart/Target/Sears/Lowes/Whatever.com and download the plan for the item we want and it will start printing.
From: koswix23 May 2013 18:06
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 53 of 104
:'D
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)23 May 2013 18:31
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 54 of 104
Absolutely it's cultural and I accept that the historical context explains the situation, but it doesn't for a minute make it okay in my mind. I just accept that there's only so far rational arguments go when something is so culturally embedded.

But no, that doesn't make it ok or beyond criticism. I think it represents and imbalance between the rights of the individual and collective rights. I think the right to live in a country where people aren't routinely walking around with weapons is far more important than an individual's right to 'protect themselves'.

The second amendment is a collective right. The right, as you say, of the citizenry to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. But it talks specifically about a militia being well armed.

It does not talk about people carrying guns to protect themselves against eachother. Nor does it talk about people carrying guns because guns are fun. Nor because guns make them feel powerful. Which I would think, if you're honest, covers the main reasons why the vast majority of people own guns.

There's no rational argument for the carrying of guns that stands up to scrutiny. They clearly don't work as a deterrant since your rates of homocide, homocide with a gun and armed robbery are all higher. They don't work for self defence for the aforementioned reason and also because if you carry a gun then you're more likely to die should a violent situation ensue than if you don't. They wouldn't work for the overthrow of a tyrannical government because while you have, at best, AKs and AR-15s and so on, the government has tanks, f-22s, helicopter gunships, artillery and guided missiles.

You carry guns because you enjoy carrying, owning and using guns. That's fine, I understand that. It can't be rationalised though and I don't think it's worth the price.
From: ANT_THOMAS23 May 2013 18:34
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 55 of 104
And it will be shit compared to the mass produced stuff we currently buy!
From: ANT_THOMAS23 May 2013 18:35
To: milko 56 of 104
Ha, yeah if it's a case of the guns that are sourceable being shit and converted so poorly that they're very dangerous to the user than that's fine by me!
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 18:40
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 57 of 104
I agree with all your points, pretty much. Where I get angry is the government telling me I can or can't do anything, I don't care what it is. As long as I'm not harming anyone they shouldn't have a say in what I do. I think that's the view of most Americans and I think with that view it makes guns one of those things that we should be allowed to own and use as long as we don't harm anyone.
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 18:41
To: ANT_THOMAS 58 of 104
Yeah at first it will be. But can you picture the day where you can play that anti-piracy ad about downloading a car while you're downloading a car? It will be glorious! 
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)23 May 2013 18:44
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 59 of 104
But people with legally-owned guns are harming people. Guns are weapons. They are for harming people. While they can be used for target shooting that is not what they are for, that is not their designed purpose (in the vast majority of cases).

That's like saying: I should be allowed to walk around strapped with C4. So long as I don't flick the switch then I'm not harming anyone so why not?
From: ANT_THOMAS23 May 2013 18:45
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 60 of 104
Do you think there should be no laws at all? or just the ones you like?
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)23 May 2013 18:46
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 61 of 104
(tangent: You're pro gay marriage then?)
From: ANT_THOMAS23 May 2013 18:48
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 62 of 104
I may be well off with this view (and in years to come you're welcome to rub it in my face) but I think mass-produced products will still be of a better quality and much cheaper no matter how good 3D printing gets.

I certainly wouldn't consider driving a 3D printed car.

I do love the idea of 3D printing. I think it will be great for DIY, projects, building small stuff. But not for anything with many many parts, especially something that needs to be incredibly safe.
From: Drew (X3N0PH0N)23 May 2013 18:52
To: ANT_THOMAS 63 of 104
I agree. 3D printing in its current form (i..e polymers done layer by layer mainly) is pretty shit. It'll have some limited specific uses but broadly speaking it won't change much.

I'd get very excited about proper nano-printing. And the stuff Ben was talking about was very interesting (using bacteria to fabricate stuff on mars and that).
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 18:55
To: Drew (X3N0PH0N) 64 of 104
Why are guns only for killing people? I own lots of guns and have never killed anyone.  We use guns for hunting here. The only way you'd get killed by me is if you dressed up as a deer.  I do have pistols that /could/ be used for hunting but I use mine to make my dick larger.
From: Ken (SHIELDSIT)23 May 2013 18:56
To: ANT_THOMAS 65 of 104
There should only be laws against things that harm other people.
From: ANT_THOMAS23 May 2013 18:57
To: Ken (SHIELDSIT) 66 of 104
You don't need to carry a gun then. Unless you think you're going bump into an angry deer on your trip to the shops?