What have we learnt?

[dimreepr]

Rather than send this (Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% Die)) off topic, I'll start anew, but after 41 pages of, essentially, just gainsay in the face of a moral/ethical imperative, I have to ask.

 

Is it culture?

 

Is it cognitive dissonance?

 

Is it belligerence?

 

Is it self interest?

[swansont]

Could you be a little more specific of what "it" refers to? Multiple issue have been raised in that thread (as you might expect of any discussion with a few hundred posts, and that one is >800)

[dimreepr]

Multiple issues have indeed been raised but the argument seems polarised, so for me ‘it’ refers to why a moral/ethical issue could be ignored in favour of keeping, things.

[Phi for All]

Multiple issues have indeed been raised but the argument seems polarised, so for me ‘it’ refers to why a moral/ethical issue could be ignored in favour of keeping, things.

 

It seems to boil down to the choice between removing guns to keep the majority of children safe, or allowing people to keep their guns so they can keep their own children safe. Many aren't willing to take the chance, some don't think any but their own are worthy of such protection.

 

I have to say it seems that the former has more historic success than the latter in terms of modern first world societies. And it's hard not to correlate US gun laws with our high murder rate, our disproportionate prison population, excessive force used by police, and other crime-industry related aberrations.

[Gilga-flesh]

As a resident from a country in which firearms are NOT allowed, I have to say.. I think it's fear. I have scoured republican/conservative fora and it's pretty clear that they expect the enemy to lurk everywhere. Their discussions seem drenched in fear and an equal need to feel secure again. Here in my country people use other means to feel safe. Most aren't healthy either. People with fear will just clamp to whatever symbol they think will keep them save and never let go.

 

Guns give them that feeling of safety. It's like a lucky charm keeping ghosts away. Telling them that it actually makes society more dangerous and increases their own chances of death won't score brownie points with them. I think gun violence could be best addressed by focussing on the unchecked sales of fire-arms to possible maniacs. If you can make people not only aware but AFRAID of such occurences, then perhaps they will agree on tighter gun control. I don't like shifting fears but it's the best strategy.

 

At least untill the human race gets over its anxiety disorder.

[studiot]

 

And it's hard not to correlate US gun laws with our high murder rate, our disproportionate prison population, excessive force used by police, and other crime-industry related aberrations.

 

 

The First Law (of Statistics) says

 

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

I think you need to look much more deeply than this.

[MigL]

Don't think it has anything to do with fear.

Morals/ethics are very subjective.

People have different opinions on how to best achieve the kind of life they want to have.

 

It would be a very dull world if all people thought the same.

( although I sometimes wish for a little more dullness )

[cladking]

This is a lie perpetuated by the quisling media.

 

These aren't children being "caught in the crossfire". Most of them are gang members battling for turf and the lucrative drug trade. They aren't only murdering oner another but they are shooting little brothers of people who refuse to join as well as older relatives. These crimes are being forgiven in advance by the media who have other axes to grind and papers to sell.

[TheGeckomancer]

I think this whole topic implies a false choice. I actually do not like guns, do not own a gun, and do not care about guns. But saying guns are dangerous so people shouldn't have them is upsetting on a lot of levels.

Fire is dangerous should we remove stoves from people's houses? I would wager more children die every year in house fires than shootings.

And if you then say it's a weapon okay so? Knives are too, and again, more children injured with those then guns.

And finally, why does it always come down to "the children"? This is a massive twisting of society that has allowed for some pretty horrible repercussions. Or as George Carlin described it "The fetishizing of children". The implication that every single aspect of society exists for them.

And if your argument then becomes "what if it was your child"? If it was my child and you so much as look at him/her wrong (I have no kids) and this causes him/her to cry I would want to kill you. But should society be governed by the wants of a person when talking about their most irrational topic?

[swansont]

I think this whole topic implies a false choice. I actually do not like guns, do not own a gun, and do not care about guns. But saying guns are dangerous so people shouldn't have them is upsetting on a lot of levels.

Fire is dangerous should we remove stoves from people's houses? I would wager more children die every year in house fires than shootings.

 

You would lose. Off by about a factor of six. Overall fire deaths are smaller by a factor of ten.

[TheGeckomancer]

So maybe I should have said swimming pool accidents. Even more mundane than fire. Should we also take away containers that can hold enough water to immerse yourself in? But I can also inhale water from a cup......

[swansont]

So maybe I should have said swimming pool accidents. Even more mundane than fire. Should we also take away containers that can hold enough water to immerse yourself in? But I can also inhale water from a cup......

Drownings are only slightly larger than fire deaths for children. 1/5 as many as gun deaths.

[TheGeckomancer]

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, between 2006 and 2010 a total of 303 children under age 5 years old drown in just bathtubs (see page 8). If you include bathtubs used in conjunction with other products (infant bath seats placed in bathtubs), there is a total of 346 children under age 5 years old who drown. Since these deaths wouldn’t have occurred without a full-size bathtub, it seems as if they should also be included in the total.

By contrast, over that same period, the Centers for Disease Control finds that there were 291 children under age 15 and 94 children under 5 who died from accidental gun shots. Unfortunately, the CPSC doesn’t break down deaths by age for those 5 and above.

Since both of these mortality rates are negligible you would have to convince me gun mortality was something like 20 times that to even merit worth looking at. Chldren get intentionally murdered through non gun means all the time. Suffocation being most common.

Also. I know my figures only showed accidental shootings. But there is not a lot of logic for the argument to take away guns to prevent intentional shootings. Firstly, this is a darwinian process, people lacking impulse control remove themselves from the gene pool. Taking away guns does not fix the problem it hides it, and in the future this becomes a HUGE problem. See technology empowers, what do we do when everyone has 3d printers and we develop more lethal more compact weapons? Make laws against it? What good does that do?

 

Secondly, limiting a method of violence does NOTHING to treat the underlying desire for violence. If no one wanted to hurt someone else intentionally there would be no intentional shootings.

 

Frankly guns are not even a symptom of the disease.

Edited November 27, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[swansont]

According to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, between 2006 and 2010 a total of 303 children under age 5 years old drown in just bathtubs (see page 8). If you include bathtubs used in conjunction with other products (infant bath seats placed in bathtubs), there is a total of 346 children under age 5 years old who drown. Since these deaths wouldn’t have occurred without a full-size bathtub, it seems as if they should also be included in the total.

By contrast, over that same period, the Centers for Disease Control finds that there were 291 children under age 15 and 94 children under 5 who died from accidental gun shots. Unfortunately, the CPSC doesn’t break down deaths by age for those 5 and above.

Your original claim was "shootings", not accidental gun shots.

 

estimated 3000 gun deaths per year are children

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/27/3206581/kids-gun-violence-killed-injuries/

 

~3500 drownings a year, with ~1/5 being children

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

[Strange]

Fire is dangerous should we remove stoves from people's houses? I would wager more children die every year in house fires than shootings.

And if you then say it's a weapon okay so? Knives are too, and again, more children injured with those then guns.

 

There are regulations regarding fire safety in houses, children's clothes and toys, etc. I don't know about the US but over here the sale and ownership of knives by children (and others) is very strongly regulated. And you mention water: there are regulations about safety barriers around bodies of water, about the need for rescue equipment and trained staff, etc.

 

So your argument seems to be: we can make efforts to make all these other things safe but we should leave guns alone because ... GUNS!

[TheGeckomancer]

I never said don't make effort to keep people safe from guns. But removing them isn't an option. Every single generation has the responsibility and burden of living with it's own technological capabilities. If we conclude humans are too irresponsible for guns what happens when a MUCH more dangerous technology rolls around we can't control or limit?

 

Another way of putting this is you would never say say lets ban trashbags if a child accidentally suffocated. But if a kid accidentally shoots themself (which is entirely the fault of the parent). We say ban guns. I already explained why the intentional gun violence part doesn't even matter but I will repeat it. Guns kill things, that is the express purpose. You don't get shocked when a rake collects leaves. I hate guns, I think they are one of the only actually evil inventions. I think being able to take life that easily is evil because it takes away most natural opportunities for a bad impulse to wear itself out. But, some humans have bad impulse control, and 3d printers can make unregistered guns on the fly already. Again I ask what happens when weapons more dangerous than guns are something you can print out at home? We gonna institute more bans? Again, I hate guns, but we have to approach this logically.

Edited November 27, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Gilga-flesh]

OK another penny in the hat:

 

As mentioned I'm not from the USA. In MY country there have almost never been shootings. It does occasionally happen that some crazed person tries to stab people. Crucial difference is that there are few if any victims and almost none of the victims die. The knife-man (basically always male) usually gets knocked out by some bystander, with a fist or chair or the like, before real damage is done.

 

So here's my point: many pro-gunnies in the USA claim that criminals would get hold of guns despite a ban. So why exactly is the fact that the USA is the only (industrialized) country in the world with regular shootings ignored? This is a pretty big piece of freaking evidence that a nation does just fine without equipping its citizenry with firearms.

 

Most of the weapons on the US black market started as legal firearms, till they were sold by irresponsible owners or stolen (possible from equally irresponsible owners). Here in my country we have, ofcourse, a few firearms on the black market. Last police report I read stated that most are adapted flareguns. They are small firearms with poor range and accuracy and cost thousands. Even ammo is difficult to get. Virtually no criminal sees the point in owning one, assuming they even have the connections or finances to get one. Why exactly would a gun ban not work for the USA if it worked for most of the civilized world?

Edited November 27, 2015 by Gilga-flesh

[TheGeckomancer]

OK another penny in the hat:

 

As mentioned I'm not from the USA. In MY country there have almost never been shootings. It does occasionally happen that some crazed person tries to stab people. Crucial difference is that there are few if any victims and almost none of the victims die. The knife-man (basically always male) usually gets knocked out by some bystander, with a fist or chair or the like, before real damage is done.

 

So here's my point: many pro-gunnies in the USA claim that criminals would get hold of guns despite a ban. So why exactly is the fact that the USA is the only (industrialized) country in the world with regular shootings ignored? This is a pretty big piece of freaking evidence that a nation does just fine without equipping its citizenry with firearms.

 

Most of the weapons on the US black market started as legal firearms, till they were sold by irresponsible owners or stolen (possible from equally irresponsible owners). Here in my country we have, ofcourse, a few firearms on the black market. Last police report I read stated that most are adapted flareguns. They are small firearms with poor range and accuracy and cost thousands. Even ammo is difficult to get. Virtually no criminal sees the point in owning one, assuming they even have the connections or finances to get one. Why exactly would a gun ban not work for the USA if it worked for most of the civilized world?

 

 

Because we are the worlds largest manufacturer of civilian and military firearms. We make them. We don't need to smuggle them from anywhere like you do in your country. Mexico has much more gun violence than the United States. They have ONE gun store in the entire country and it is INSANELY regulated. They get their guns from us. If we can't stop them from being illegally taken and smuggled out of country how would we stop criminals IN country with access to the manufacturing facilities and people? And again. That doesn't work going forward because now your neighbor could have a printer in his house that makes guns.

 

As shocking and terrifying as it is to everybody we have to learn to......Trust *gasp!* humanity and each other. You simply will not be able to stop people from having lethal concealable weapons going forward. Making a society of people responsible and capable of impulse control is the only solution for everybody woldwide.

Edited November 27, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Strange]

I never said don't make effort to keep people safe from guns. But removing them isn't an option.

 

Why not? Other countries have done it.

 

 

If we conclude humans are too irresponsible for guns what happens when a MUCH more dangerous technology rolls around we can't control or limit?

 

There are more dangerous technologies. And guess what? People aren't allowed to own them. Or are you also suggesting we should also allow unrestricted access to plutonium, for example?

 

 

Another way of putting this is you would never say say lets ban trashbags if a child accidentally suffocated. But if a kid accidentally shoots themself (which is entirely the fault of the parent). We say ban guns.

 

If one child suffocated or was accidentally shot, I doubt anyone would say this things should be controlled. But if several children were killed every day by trashbags, then I suspect something would be done to control their use.

 

 

Again, I hate guns, but we have to approach this logically.

 

You are being completely illogical, and I find the first part of that sentence quite implausible.

[TheGeckomancer]

 

Why not? Other countries have done it.

 

 

There are more dangerous technologies. And guess what? People aren't allowed to own them. Or are you also suggesting we should also allow unrestricted access to plutonium, for example?

 

 

If one child suffocated or was accidentally shot, I doubt anyone would say this things should be controlled. But if several children were killed every day by trashbags, then I suspect something would be done to control their use.

 

 

You are being completely illogical, and I find the first part of that sentence quite implausible.

 

 

No I am not. You are cherry picking my argument and avoiding all of the key points. How do you answer the 3d printer problem and future lethal weapons that people will be able to make in their home?

 

Or let me put it this way. You get your wish. They ban guns tomorrow. I go home, print one out, and shoot a school full of children. Whats your answer? Ban 3d printing? Thats not a thing, 3d printing IS all next gen technology. We can no more remove 3d printing from the picture and PERSONAL landscape than we can televisions.

 

Also, the weapons more dangerous than guns are not concealable for the most part. I can't hide a nuclear bomb in my pocket and radioactive materials are exotic. Metal and a printer aren't. I am saying that some things are easily restricted and others are not. Restricting guns in a country that doesn't have guns is simple, restricting guns in a country that manufactures and sells more of them than anyone everyone else in the world combined is MUCH less simple.

 

Also saying other countries can successfully ban guns (pre 3d printing advent) does not say anything about the US. We could not tell China they are allowed to sell bamboo but not have it. IT COMES FROM THERE. It's not a logical statement. You'd have to say america needs to stop manufacturing guns. Which will literally not happen.

 

So to reiterate my real point. "As shocking and terrifying as it is to everybody we have to learn to......Trust *gasp!* humanity and each other. You simply will not be able to stop people from having lethal concealable weapons going forward. Making a society of people responsible and capable of impulse control is the only solution for everybody woldwide."

Edited November 27, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Gilga-flesh]

We aren't #1 in firearm manufacturing but we are in the top 5 of millitary hardware/weapons export. None of that is available in the shop around the corner or ends up in the hands of street thugs.

 

3D printers is an interesting argument. It seems as if it is being used before it has really become relevant. You can make your own firearm without a 3D printer. It's rather difficult and the end result might just take your own arm off. For everyone but a few experts with very good printers the same will be true. Amateurish junk that, yes, might kill people but just aren't as effective and reliable as a professional weapon.

 

Give it a few decades and I'm sure we all have a 3D printer in our home that could *potentially* make very effective firearms. But in that future we might have security protocols build into every 3D printer to prevent the manufacture of such parts. Or maybe we'll be able to produce dirt cheap clothing made from spidersilk that stop bullets from simple handguns and they'll become all the rage. Or maybe special scanners will be placed everywhere that can detect any type of conceiled firearm and call in authorities.

 

If that doesn't convince you: think about bio-weapons. It is becoming easier every moment to gene-splice at home. Just order the reagents and there you go. I know I'm a cellbiologist, a lab is optional. One day people might become capable of designing viruses and bacteria at home. Does that mean it doesn't make sense to outlaw the sale of commercial pathogens? Should I be able to buy the bubonic plague in ye little disease shop because one day someone might be able to produce it anyway?

 

That's the problem with 'in the future we will' arguments. We live now and legislation is made for the world we live in and not the world that might be there some day.

 

 

 

Because we are the worlds largest manufacturer of civilian and military firearms. We make them. We don't need to smuggle them from anywhere like you do in your country. Mexico has much more gun violence than the United States. They have ONE gun store in the entire country and it is INSANELY regulated. They get their guns from us. If we can't stop them from being illegally taken and smuggled out of country how would we stop criminals IN country with access to the manufacturing facilities and people? And again. That doesn't work going forward because now your neighbor could have a printer in his house that makes guns.

 

As shocking and terrifying as it is to everybody we have to learn to......Trust *gasp!* humanity and each other. You simply will not be able to stop people from having lethal concealable weapons going forward. Making a society of people responsible and capable of impulse control is the only solution for everybody woldwide.

[TheGeckomancer]

We aren't #1 in firearm manufacturing but we are in the top 5 of millitary hardware/weapons export. None of that is available in the shop around the corner or ends up in the hands of street thugs.

 

3D printers is an interesting argument. It seems as if it is being used before it has really become relevant. You can make your own firearm without a 3D printer. It's rather difficult and the end result might just take your own arm off. For everyone but a few experts with very good printers the same will be true. Amateurish junk that, yes, might kill people but just aren't as effective and reliable as a professional weapon.

 

Give it a few decades and I'm sure we all have a 3D printer in our home that could *potentially* make very effective firearms. But in that future we might have security protocols build into every 3D printer to prevent the manufacture of such parts. Or maybe we'll be able to produce dirt cheap clothing made from spidersilk that stop bullets from simple handguns and they'll become all the rage. Or maybe special scanners will be placed everywhere that can detect any type of conceiled firearm and call in authorities.

 

If that doesn't convince you: think about bio-weapons. It is becoming easier every moment to gene-splice at home. Just order the reagents and there you go. I know I'm a cellbiologist, a lab is optional. One day people might become capable of designing viruses and bacteria at home. Does that mean it doesn't make sense to outlaw the sale of commercial pathogens? Should I be able to buy the bubonic plague in ye little disease shop because one day someone might be able to produce it anyway?

 

That's the problem with 'in the future we will' arguments. We live now and legislation is made for the world we live in and not the world that might be there some day.

 

 

 

I am only making a not even 5 year future prediction. There are already 3d printers that can make have made reliable reuseable firearms. And if you know anything about computer engineering or programming, there is no restriction you can put on a device that cannot be removed. Technology is ALWAYS a double edged sword, there is no way to not make it be one. The 3d printer would have to inherently be incapable of making guns, by default. Which is already not the case, and you could not engineer one without that capability without seriously gimping it's other capabilities. Additionally, even if you could, I could still print out the parts and assemble it myself. Are you going to have a software protocol restricting my ability to print metal cylinders 9mm in diameter? What about 8? See it's easy to ban parts on guns cause they are prebuilt by size. If I can make it at home you not only have to program the printer to not make any existing gun parts, but any part that can be USED as a gun part scaled to any size.

 

And assuming you did all of that. I can print out the parts to a 3d printer that doesn't have those hardware or software limitations.

 

Also. You export military hardware. We make military and (like all of the) civilian weapons.

Beyond that. Your argument about disease is solid, because most of the most lethal viruses are exotic. Meaning easily kept out of every day hands. The problem is a lot of biologists expect that by the year 2040 your average 1st world citizen will be able to bio engineer life ending plagues in their home. Nothing will stop joe blow though from taking a circulating strain of h1n1 or something and mutating it up to the MUCH more lethal one I think h5n1 they did in labs. So again, crazy as it is, we have to trust humanity to not want to kill each other. Since JUST trusting seems like a bad idea, how about lots of education and social reform promoting mental health and happiness? Or is that a bad idea compared to banning a tool capable of violence without treating the fact that WE ARE violent?

Many people thought humanity as a species was too immature for nuclear weapons. That we would destroy ourselves. I am not saying they are not right. I am saying we haven't done it yet. And understanding the trend of technology to grant more power to impact the world through less and less human effort means INDIVIDUALS WILL become more dangerous. Maybe we will blow ourselves up one day. Seems a lot more likely that we will if our goal is not to educate people, train ourselves to not react brashly, and develop level headedness.

Finally something was gnawing at me about your post and it took me till now to realize what it was. You seem to assume that the quality of printed gun will vary from one person to another? There are no more craftsman, I feed the printer a set of mathematically precise instructions and it prints EXACTLY what was specified. There are ALREADY downloadable 3d printable gun softwares. Push this out half a decade.

Edited November 27, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Gilga-flesh]

Progress goes very fast. Bulletproof material and scanners like the ones I mention won't be far behind. And indeed it will be difficult to built inhibitions into a 3D that can't be hacked. Nothing is 100% foolproof but it doesn't have to be. Rather the question is: can inhibitions be placed, one way or another, that will significantly limit illegitimate use not to produce anything harmfull? I look at all the equipment and programs that can potentially be hacked and how incredibly few people would actually be capable of doing so, and say yes. I'm sure you wouldn't want to get rid of airport security just because sometimes someone still sneaks a bomb onboard?

 

We also produce ofcourse, I think every industrialized country does. But whether you export or produce, you are going to have it on your soil. What would be the difficulty for isolating them from the public? Is it that difficult to prevent theft? Again nothing is 100% foolproof but an incidental theft is not quite the same as throwing them out on the open market.

 

As for trusting.. you gave a 5 year prediction. I personally doubt the more advanced 3D printers are going to be common in 5 years, but that aside. You can't really tell me that there is going to be a utopia in 5 years were all of humankind will embrace each other like brothers and live in peace eternal?

 

Even if I trusted in the nature of humans, that will still leave MANY mentally imbalanced individuals that hardly know what they are doing. Yet in the states they can easily get a gun. I know they aren't supposed to, but we both know they can. I would be a lot less confused by the gun policy of the states if at least gun enthusiasts themselves would insist that sales were properly regulated. But you can get your gun from a car boot sale and nobody even cares about your ID. So much for MY trust in people!

 

As for the bio-weapons, there are already proto-types of small bio-weapon scanners that will one day be used to permanently scan cities for possible threats. Any government that will make it policy to trust in the inner goodness of the likes of Daesh is not going to get my vote I can tell you. Will they get yours?

 

 

 

 

 

I am only making a not even 5 year future prediction. There are already 3d printers that can make reliable reuseable firearms. And if you know anything about computer engineering or programming, there is no restriction you can put on a device that cannot be removed. Technology is ALWAYS a double edged sword, there is no way to not make it be one. The 3d printer would have to inherently be incapable of making guns, by default. Which is already not the case, and you could not engineer one without that capability without seriously gimping it's other capabilities. Additionally, even if you could, I could still print out the parts and assemble it myself. Are you going to have a software protocol restricting my ability to print metal cylinders 9mm in diameter? What about 8? See it's easy to ban parts on guns cause they are prebuilt by size. If I can make it at home you not only have to program the printer to not make any existing gun parts, but any part that can be USED as a gun part scaled to any size.

 

And assuming you did all of that. I can print out the parts to a 3d printer that doesn't have those hardware or software limitations.

 

Also. You export military hardware. We make military and (like all of the) civilian weapons.

Beyond that. Your argument about disease is solid, because most of the most lethal viruses are exotic. Meaning easily kept out of every day hands. The problem is a lot of biologists expect that by the year 2040 your average 1st world citizen will be able to bio engineer life ending plagues in their home. Nothing will stop joe blow though from taking a circulating strain of h1n1 or something and mutating it up to the MUCH more lethal one I think h5n1 they did in labs. So again, crazy as it is, we have to trust humanity to not want to kill each other. Since JUST trusting seems like a bad idea, how about lots of education and social reform promoting mental health and happiness? Or is that a bad idea compared to banning a tool capable of violence without treating the fact that WE ARE violent?

[TheGeckomancer]

Progress goes very fast. Bulletproof material and scanners like the ones I mention won't be far behind. And indeed it will be difficult to built inhibitions into a 3D that can't be hacked. Nothing is 100% foolproof but it doesn't have to be. Rather the question is: can inhibitions be placed, one way or another, that will significantly limit illegitimate use not to produce anything harmfull? I look at all the equipment and programs that can potentially be hacked and how incredibly few people would actually be capable of doing so, and say yes. I'm sure you wouldn't want to get rid of airport security just because sometimes someone still sneaks a bomb onboard?

 

We also produce ofcourse, I think every industrialized country does. But whether you export or produce, you are going to have it on your soil. What would be the difficulty for isolating them from the public? Is it that difficult to prevent theft? Again nothing is 100% foolproof but an incidental theft is not quite the same as throwing them out on the open market.

 

As for trusting.. you gave a 5 year prediction. I personally doubt the more advanced 3D printers are going to be common in 5 years, but that aside. You can't really tell me that there is going to be a utopia in 5 years were all of humankind will embrace each other like brothers and live in peace eternal?

 

Even if I trusted in the nature of humans, that will still leave MANY mentally imbalanced individuals that hardly know what they are doing. Yet in the states they can easily get a gun. I know they aren't supposed to, but we both know they can. I would be a lot less confused by the gun policy of the states if at least gun enthusiasts themselves would insist that sales were properly regulated. But you can get your gun from a car boot sale and nobody even cares about your ID. So much for MY trust in people!

 

As for the bio-weapons, there are already proto-types of small bio-weapon scanners that will one day be used to permanently scan cities for possible threats. Any government that will make it policy to trust in the inner goodness of the likes of Daesh is not going to get my vote I can tell you. Will they get yours?

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry it's not your fault, I make edits for a while after I say something, refining my idea on the go. I know that's not the best method but I get impatient to post a response.

 

The problem is not the difficulty to break the security that prevents you from using a 3d printer that way. Once ANYONE does it EVERYONE DOES IT that's the way it works. Everybody individually who modded their PS2 did not figure it out themselves, 1 guy did it and everyone copied. That's all it takes is one person, and there WILL be one person the first day of release, every time, guaranteed, this is part of the hacker community.

 

In response to the idea of having scanners everywhere. They have already 3d printed single shot plastic guns, no metal parts. Yes they kind of suck, but this is early early prototyping.

 

In response to the air plane security comment please check this out. A series called Adam Ruins.

not only is it worthless, it's damaging because it provides the illusion of safety where it isn't.

 

Am I insane or did you not have a comment in there about how we needed the tsa to protect us from terrorists because peace and love won't work? Maybe you took it out? I don't know. I am going to leave this up here because either way the argument applies. Banning guns here and now in the US is the illusion of safety because you won't get rid of them, and you won't stop people from printing them.

 

Additionally, 3d printers don't have real limits on what they can make. Blocking the ability to make guns (which is basically impossible for the points I laid out earlier, if you knew programming and I am not being insulting you would know you cant specify variables as broad as I defined without making the device unuseable) it would not prevent the 3d printer from making any newer deadlier, more sophisticated more concealable weapon. Which again is the real concern because guns overall are not that dangerous. You as an individual can't kill more than a couple dozen people before being stopped. Not saying thats a good thing but it is nothing compared to ANY improvised explosive, or the weapons capabilities of 3d printers in the next 5 years.

 

Or crap, I could go buy a drone at radio shack and put a bomb on it.... Which is another thing I will not actually have to go to the store and buy, if I want to be a domestic terrorist I don't even have to get up. I can print up the drone and bomb, control it remotely and go take out a school all in a recliner and bunny slippers. You are missing the point of my argument, individual METHODS are irrelevant, if someone wants to cause harm they will. We have to mitigate the desire to cause harm as a society. No other solution works.

 

3d printed drone, video is over a year old.

 

 

3d printed metal gun, video is 2 years old

 

 

Wow didn't know this one, 3d printed plastic gun that can actually handle firing a whole clip

 

 

Drone firing a gun

 

 

Civilian Video of Drone wielding automatic weapon with equipped self destruct payload this last one may be fake but it's certainly not unfeasible

 

 

 

 

Is my point made yet?

 

Banning weapons will do NOTHING to the availability or lethality of weapons, which WILL CONTINUE TO RISE. This is not something laws will stop. We need a change in mind set. Period.

 

Which is why in one of my very first posts about this topic I said that guns are not even a symptom of the disease.

Edited November 27, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[TheGeckomancer]

Everyone wants to cherry pick my arguments. Ignore the reality. I don't get why people don't understand that while gun nuts are a thing, so are anti gun nuts, and they are both as illogical. Even assuming the ban did work, which again, completely impossible for all the reasons listed above. We would still not be addressing the core of the issue at all. Why do people want to lash out and commit these acts of violence? What are we not doing as a society that we should be? Because guns have been a thing in the US for over a hundred years, more common than cars, but EITHER mass shootings were not a problem in the past, OR we only just started caring about them. Which is it and why?

 

I know it's a TERRIFYING idea, especially to security minded that we can't stop people from causing harm but if you step back and just look at your own life you know it's true. You could google right now, how to whip up a bathtub chemical bomb and just go have a night on the town. But you don't, why? And if your argument then becomes what about the mentally ill? What about them? You never cared before they could get a gun and shoot you why care now? Is it okay to limit the suffering they can cause others without dealing with the suffering they are experiencing? We like to act like mental health and poverty are not our problems, but they are, they are societal problems. It's an insane double standard. We want to limit your ability to lash out at society, but society wants NONE of the responsibility for your happiness or well being.

 

And Strange this is just for you. Have you once, in ALL of these posts hear me glorify guns? Again, I don't own one and I think they are evil. Unfortunately they are an evil to stay. You do not have to be "pro gun" to realize that "anti gun" is not logical. I hope I have made it abundantly clear why.

Edited November 28, 2015 by TheGeckomancer