The point is whenever people’s ability to do new things is augmented by technology, it affects existing laws. Some old laws might become obsolete. Other, new laws, will have to come into effect to regulate the new technology. When people invented cars, motor vehicle laws became necessary. When people invented tape recorders, intellectual property laws became important in media. Now, if robust 3D printing became easily available, something else will have to change. It might be gun laws, or bong laws, or something else. We just don’t know yet. I don’t know why people are obsessing about bongs. That was just thrown out there as a joking example.
All this talk has me wondering. Can you put beehives around marijuana trees and produce marijuana honey?
I think you would need to have marijuana pollen/nectar (what do bees eat anyway?), and said pollen or nectar must carry the properties of the marijuana leaves.
Ohai and I are on the same page here.
BS, I wasn’t saying, kids might print guns to blow away their parents, therefore ban everything. I was saying “when people get such easy access to lethal stuff,” then there are a whole range of unthinkables that start to become thinkables. Things like owning-but-registering guns, background checks, age checks, etc. become useless.
Most pro-gun people argue that the key to rational gun policy is to force gun owners to be responsible. Keep guns locked safely away from children, trigger locks, etc. It sounds like you are saying, “well, since there is access to crowbars and stuff, don’t ask parents to behave responsible with their lethal stuff.” 3D printing of guns means that it no longer matters if parents or others are being responsible with guns, since anyone can print one out at any time.
I’m just arguing that this will change things, and I’m not sure what the consequences are, and therefore I don’t know what the right policy is. But I don’t accept that “well, crowbars are all around, as are registered firearms, so littering the place with more of them that don’t have to go through the usual checks isn’t going to make any difference.”
No, my point is that the low probability of manufacture what is essentially a useless firearm (at best) is not worth wasting time over, given higher probability methods. I mean, what’s your point? People have been making home made crap guns for years with relative ease. Just now some technology comes out and everyone gets in a big media tizzy without bothering to really be realistic about it. That’s my point. It’s also my point that unless we think we can effectively regulate use of crowbars, bricks and glue, it’s not worth trying to cover every remote contingency without stopping to contemplate the realistic likelihood of it being an issue. This 3D printer buzz at this stage over this guy and his clip is just mongering.
It just seems like a bunch of silly hypotheticals to be worrying about problems we don’t have when we’ve still got real problems like kids too stupid to read, much less use a 3D printer shooting babies in the face with real guns. Kids aren’t using these phantom 3D guns and plastic bongs in crimes because they’re too busy using assault rifles and real bongs. So why are people getting bent out of shape over cheap replacements that barely function made with technology that in some of these hypotheticals doesn’t exist yet.
It’s not just about guns or dangerous things. We are extending the argument to the universe of laws designed around a world without 3D printers, and this might have legal implications to copyrights, guns, substance abuse, or other things. No one is claiming to know the future - maybe 3D printers will fizzle out after a while. It is a hypothetical argument.
Personally, I think a printer that can print sarin gas molecules when you click on trojan horse email saying “my super system can make you $9000 per month trading FOREX in your pajamas, come to my FREE seminar” is the more serious worry, particularly if the virus waits until just before your birthday to activate.
Well, even with the current tech people could print out LiveStrong wristbands and sell them without actually giving anything to cancer research.
And, assuming these things can print vinyl, I could print out whole albums and sell them from the back of my Honda. Think about how that would completely change the record industry.
Once 3D printers become inexpensive and widely available, sex toys will be the number 1 item made behind closed doors. Fleshlights…fleshlights everywhere.
doesnt work cause when the bees get high they’ll just sit on their ass and do nothing all day. your honey yield will suffer
Non issue. It’s so much cheaper and easier to buy all of that shit illegally. Also, I doubt something I could make on a 3D printer in my garage, assuming I have the right equipment and technical knowledge, would be as reliable as something made in a dedicated firearms manufacturing plant in China/US.
When I was in college, my roommate had an illegal assault rifle. My other roommate had a stash of marijuana. The university police started stopping by and asking whoever was at the door for permission to search. My third roommate had already told the police quite rudely to get lost unless he had a search warrant. The next time I happened to answer the door, and I asked very politely if he had a warrant. I’ve never seen a cop so furious in my life.
No such thing as an illegal assault rifle. It was probably a pre-ban gun owned in the 94-99 federal ban era (AR’s were still made during the ban, but lacked telescoping stocks and bayonette mounts to comply with the law) that he liked to tell everyone was illegal to feel cool. And your other college roommate had a “stash of marijuana”…
What does this mean? Like, in the US you are permitted to own any assault rifle in the world? Excuse my ignorance, only own a shotgun.
More or less.
The only guns with restrictions are pretty much fully automatics which vary by state (some have a complete ban), others such as PA where I live has a very strict licensing process. But the assault rifles used in crimes and being discussed are all the semi-automatic variety as fully autos are restricted to gun collectors and tracked to the extent that they haven’t been used in any of these shootings. My dad has the full auto license so that he has as silenced full auto M4 (what you would call an M16), but most people dont’ bother with them because full auto on a light assault rifle has no real tactical advantage in the real world (the military has stopped using full auto on M4’s). Under the current working definition of an “assault rifle”, as a semi-auto, there really aren’t any major restrictions throughout the US until these recent state laws banning future sales of new weapons. Even those grandfather in existing AR’s, so they wouldn’t really be “illegal” AR’s.
I mean, he could technically be referring to a full auto and he may even say as much, but I’m confident enough from my experience with firearms and ownership as well as general common sense that his roommate did not have an illegal full auto trafficked in via south america. At that point you’re basically talking king pin status.
I’ve heard that full auto is sloppy and no good. A marine buddy of mine told me that. Thoughts?
It seems like full auto mode would drain your gun in like 1.5 seconds. You only have like 30 bullets and fire many of those bullets per second. Plus, each bullet kicks your gun back, so you probably end up shooting all over the place. In other words, it’s probably impossible to have a scenario like when Arnold mows down 50 guys by shooting a machine gun non stop for 10 minutes.
I 100% agree. The military has removed the full auto from most M4’s. You’ll never see a SEAL or other special forces (and I know and have shot with several) using full auto on a light assault rifle. That’s why I said it has no tactical purpose. Full auto is exclusively useful these days on mid to heavy machine guns like saws, 50’s, miniguns, etc. Ammo is heavy as hell, I don’t know if you’ve ever lugged a case, but it’s crazy even in small doses,and full auto is just throwing a half a clip away every time you fire. It’s basically impossible to hit crap while the gun’s jumping all over. Probably the greatest advantages our armed forces have over 3rd world hostiles in gun fights is 1) body armor and 2) the fact that enemy combatants use full auto far too often on old Ak’s out of fear or poor training, or bravado, causing the hit rate to be much much higher for our guys.
Well, in that case, we ne need to promote and sell more full auto guns to the third world.
I mean as a rule of thumb if you look at a gun fight in progress, the man behind a full auto AK is often scared and clinging or hiding behind the noise (even if they’re posturing it as bravado) engaging their emotional process, whereas the man behind an M4 choosing his shots is often engaging in an active, controlled thought process.