|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 25 2013 05:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 11:52 Wegandi wrote:
Pretty much. They attempt to corner the moral high ground by acting like they're acting selflessly and in the interests of these poor people, but it's only a mask to hide their agenda which is almost always to give more power to the State and take it away from the individual. Saying that the only reason people are in favour of state control of things is because they have a fetish for state control over individual control for unspecified reasons and not because they think it could be a good idea is fucking retarded. The vast majority of people believe things like armies should be state controlled rather than private because they think private armies would be bad for society for example, not because they have a hardon for state control. Think of something you think should be state controlled. There must be something. Then think "why do I think that should be state controlled?". If the answer is anything other than "to increase the ability of the state to strip the freedoms of individuals as part of my long term game plan/conspiracy" then you have now gained understanding of how your political opponents think.
Yeah, let's not strawman people who think differently.
People with statist-leaning views rarely want to strip people of freedoms; they simply don't weigh freedom as highly as other things in their ideal society.
|
Interesting analysis of entry-level "Liberator" 3D printed guns from the police commissioner in New South Wales, Australia:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e6_1369399875
Ignoring the legality of printing the guns, anyone thinking about messing with this must be aware of the actual danger to the user, in addition to the danger to others. Because the manufacturing is not controlled for quality and safety standards in individual homes, the risk for failure is significant -- and the cheaper the printer that is used, the less reliable the device is.
|
On May 25 2013 07:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:Interesting analysis of entry-level "Liberator" 3D printed guns from the police commissioner in New South Wales, Australia: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e6_1369399875Ignoring the legality of printing the guns, anyone thinking about messing with this must be aware of the actual danger to the user, in addition to the danger to others. Because the manufacturing is not controlled for quality and safety standards in individual homes, the risk for failure is significant -- and the cheaper the printer that is used, the less reliable the device is.
It'll be some time to develop the technology required to print an effective firearm.
That said, the video is silly propaganda to discourage people from 3D-printing guns. They constructed handguns form weak plastic (I'm guessing ABS), so of course they can't handle much stress from live firing (that said, I believe the general online consensus is that they can handle at least a few shots provided you use the proper caliber and weak loads). In reality, 3D-printed guns will most likely move towards more durable materials as the technology develops.
|
It's a bit of a stretch to call it silly propaganda... The point they make is clear: 1) It's illegal. 2) Ignoring legality, it's highly dangerous -- especially when lower grade materials and a lower quality printer is used, which are of course more common than better, more expensive ones (which will still have unpredictable failure rates given the lack of quality control in an individual's home).
They emphasize it being illegal because they're police. What I thought was more important, though, was that they clearly demonstrated it's not a safe device to use, period. Some people might not have considered that, so letting people know is a very good thing.
|
On May 25 2013 07:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:
It's a bit of a stretch to call it silly propaganda... The point they make is clear: 1) It's illegal. 2) Ignoring legality, it's highly dangerous -- especially when lower grade materials and a lower quality printer is used, which are of course more common than better, more expensive ones (which will still have unpredictable failure rates given the lack of quality control in an individual's home).
They emphasize it being illegal because they're police. What I thought was more important, though, was that they clearly demonstrated it's not a safe device to use, period. Some people might not have considered that, so letting people know is a very good thing.
Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with discouraging people from using 3D-printed guns.
The problem I have with it is that it's essentially a strawman which exaggerates the situation. It's not all that different from anti-drug programs targeted at children which tell them that trying weed once will destroy their lives. There's a pretty good trope for this called "Scare 'Em Straight.
|
On May 25 2013 07:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:
It's a bit of a stretch to call it silly propaganda... The point they make is clear: 1) It's illegal. 2) Ignoring legality, it's highly dangerous -- especially when lower grade materials and a lower quality printer is used, which are of course more common than better, more expensive ones (which will still have unpredictable failure rates given the lack of quality control in an individual's home).
They emphasize it being illegal because they're police. What I thought was more important, though, was that they clearly demonstrated it's not a safe device to use, period. Some people might not have considered that, so letting people know is a very good thing.
There's no Federal law in the US against making your own firearms.
As always, individual states may say otherwise.
|
On May 25 2013 09:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 07:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:
It's a bit of a stretch to call it silly propaganda... The point they make is clear: 1) It's illegal. 2) Ignoring legality, it's highly dangerous -- especially when lower grade materials and a lower quality printer is used, which are of course more common than better, more expensive ones (which will still have unpredictable failure rates given the lack of quality control in an individual's home).
They emphasize it being illegal because they're police. What I thought was more important, though, was that they clearly demonstrated it's not a safe device to use, period. Some people might not have considered that, so letting people know is a very good thing. There's no Federal law in the US against making your own firearms. As always, individual states may say otherwise.
They're talking about Australia.
|
On May 25 2013 09:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 07:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:
It's a bit of a stretch to call it silly propaganda... The point they make is clear: 1) It's illegal. 2) Ignoring legality, it's highly dangerous -- especially when lower grade materials and a lower quality printer is used, which are of course more common than better, more expensive ones (which will still have unpredictable failure rates given the lack of quality control in an individual's home).
They emphasize it being illegal because they're police. What I thought was more important, though, was that they clearly demonstrated it's not a safe device to use, period. Some people might not have considered that, so letting people know is a very good thing. There's no Federal law in the US against making your own firearms. As always, individual states may say otherwise.
Yes and there is also no New South Wales, Australia, in the US.
edit: Sorry, Jormundr already pointed this out. Didn't see his reply
|
|
|
On May 25 2013 09:45 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 09:42 Millitron wrote:On May 25 2013 07:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:
It's a bit of a stretch to call it silly propaganda... The point they make is clear: 1) It's illegal. 2) Ignoring legality, it's highly dangerous -- especially when lower grade materials and a lower quality printer is used, which are of course more common than better, more expensive ones (which will still have unpredictable failure rates given the lack of quality control in an individual's home).
They emphasize it being illegal because they're police. What I thought was more important, though, was that they clearly demonstrated it's not a safe device to use, period. Some people might not have considered that, so letting people know is a very good thing. There's no Federal law in the US against making your own firearms. As always, individual states may say otherwise. They're talking about Australia.
I know, when I noticed I edited in "in the US".
|
On May 25 2013 07:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:Interesting analysis of entry-level "Liberator" 3D printed guns from the police commissioner in New South Wales, Australia: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e6_1369399875Ignoring the legality of printing the guns, anyone thinking about messing with this must be aware of the actual danger to the user, in addition to the danger to others. Because the manufacturing is not controlled for quality and safety standards in individual homes, the risk for failure is significant -- and the cheaper the printer that is used, the less reliable the device is.
This is very bad. I would hate to have some stupid arms race pollute our society too  . The worst part is how completely untraceable and undetectable they are... airport security for example is becoming a lot less secure.
|
It's sort of funny how people took so much time to make a gun on a 3d printer when they could have just made one out of a brake line...
|
Yes we should be able to. The government's job isn't to interpret the value and worth of a law based on current trends.
If there were no risks in life, it'd be pointless and miserable.
There are going to be accidents and crimes done no matter what (unfortunately); so then compromising the agency of legislative and executive government as a response is the worst thing that can happen upon an already crummy situation. Compromising because they're acting as citizen, and not government when they reach down from the Capital to lend an inappropriate hand like that.
|
On June 04 2013 18:21 Rollin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2013 07:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:Interesting analysis of entry-level "Liberator" 3D printed guns from the police commissioner in New South Wales, Australia: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0e6_1369399875Ignoring the legality of printing the guns, anyone thinking about messing with this must be aware of the actual danger to the user, in addition to the danger to others. Because the manufacturing is not controlled for quality and safety standards in individual homes, the risk for failure is significant -- and the cheaper the printer that is used, the less reliable the device is. This is very bad. I would hate to have some stupid arms race pollute our society too . The worst part is how completely untraceable and undetectable they are... airport security for example is becoming a lot less secure.
You say that as if airport security was effective in the first place...
|
Yes they should be allowed. I'm Swiss and here pretty much every adult man has at least a rifle at home. We also have a huge gun culture. But look at our crime rate, it's very low and there are almost no shootings.
|
On June 05 2013 07:18 WeddingEpisode wrote:
Yes we should be able to. The government's job isn't to interpret the value and worth of a law based on current trends.
If there were no risks in life, it'd be pointless and miserable.
There are going to be accidents and crimes done no matter what (unfortunately); so then compromising the agency of legislative and executive government as a response is the worst thing that can happen upon an already crummy situation. Compromising because they're acting as citizen, and not government when they reach down from the Capital to lend an inappropriate hand like that.
"No risk, no fun" is now an argument against gun control?
|
On June 10 2013 07:07 FliedLice wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2013 07:18 WeddingEpisode wrote:
Yes we should be able to. The government's job isn't to interpret the value and worth of a law based on current trends.
If there were no risks in life, it'd be pointless and miserable.
There are going to be accidents and crimes done no matter what (unfortunately); so then compromising the agency of legislative and executive government as a response is the worst thing that can happen upon an already crummy situation. Compromising because they're acting as citizen, and not government when they reach down from the Capital to lend an inappropriate hand like that. "No risk, no fun" is now an argument against gun control?
Pointless and miserable ≠ no fun.
Automobiles are an example of an extremely high risk technology that nevertheless benefits our quality of life.
It's not an argument against gun control, so much as it's pointing out that merely the existence of risk is insufficient to demonstrate that something should be banned. The real question is whether the harm is great enough to justify imposing restrictions on freedom, and if so, to what degree.
|
It's great to mention automobiles in the context of gun control. Automobile use in the US serves as an excellent example of how implementing changes affecting the agent and environment of a public health problem leads to a greatly improved health outcome.
With changes to the automobile and the environment in which automobile death and injury occurred the numbers associated with automobile death and injury improved significantly.
Some day we will take similar steps toward firearms, once the politically motivated opposition and bipartisan squabbling over the issue dries up in the face of the facts.
|
On May 25 2013 07:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:
It's a bit of a stretch to call it silly propaganda... The point they make is clear: 1) It's illegal. 2) Ignoring legality, it's highly dangerous -- especially when lower grade materials and a lower quality printer is used, which are of course more common than better, more expensive ones (which will still have unpredictable failure rates given the lack of quality control in an individual's home).
They emphasize it being illegal because they're police. What I thought was more important, though, was that they clearly demonstrated it's not a safe device to use, period. Some people might not have considered that, so letting people know is a very good thing.
As you noted, the video is from Australian police; it is NOT illegal for Americans to manufacture firearms for personal use without a license (barring restrictions concerning machine guns, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, etc).
I'd also be interested to see how they went about testing these firearms. Standard firearms testing involves using a cartridge 30% more powerful than intended for said firearm design.
On June 10 2013 07:38 FallDownMarigold wrote:
It's great to mention automobiles in the context of gun control. Automobile use in the US serves as an excellent example of how implementing changes affecting the agent and environment of a public health problem leads to a greatly improved health outcome.
It should be noted that the restrictions and usage requirements for automobiles only apply when driving on public property (or other people's private property).
If you own enough land, you can drive whatever you want on it as long as it isn't powered by nukes or dead babies. Some rich people actually buy T-55s and drive them around their land.
On June 04 2013 18:21 Rollin wrote: our society too . The worst part is how completely untraceable and undetectable they are... airport security for example is becoming a lot less secure.
You could already make an "untraceable" gun before this video, for less money and less time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
