Friday, 20 July 2018

Americans will soon be able to legally download 3-D printed guns

quote [ Gun-rights activists have reached a settlement with the government that will allow them to post 3-D printable gun plans online starting August 1. ]

What could possibly go wrong?
[SFW] [do it yourSElf] [+7]
[by satanspenis666]
<-- Entry / Comment History

Taxman said @ 8:06pm GMT on 20th July
The disparity we have is you seem to think because people want to regulate an item whose SOLE PURPOSE is to maim/kill that the reasonable jump from that argument is ANYTHING that could otherwise harm or possibly kill should also be banned under that argument. That logic is faulty.

People are not trying to restrict weaponry because death is a possibility. They want to restrict it because that is what it is MEANT for. A car CAN kill, but it is meant to get you from point A to B. A butter knife (to the eye) CAN KILL, but it is meant to spread butter. A garden hose CAN be wrapped around your neck, but that is not it’s intentional use.

For the same reason you cannot posses a nuclear bomb, or a grenade, or a fully automatic weapon (don’t nit pick the ways around that) is because when it’s doing what it is supposed to do, people are dying. Some people want to have the discussion of lowering the bar a little, because the mass-shooting situation is allowing otherwise untrained individuals to cause significant mortal wounds than they otherwise would be able to cause unarmed.

Could they use a car, or a butter knife, or a garden hose to cause the same damage (albeit slower)? Sure! However, banning those items would come with a societal cost. No cars, butter knives, or garden hoses would be tougher to live without.

To some people, lowering the weaponry available to the public comes with no societal cost because those people (civilians) were not participating in the weapons intended use anyways. To them, there would be less death, and all they’d have to give up is something they never intended to use anyways.

It’s not crazy, it’s just a different perspective. Try to understand it without expanding on what you think it leads to.


Taxman said @ 8:07pm GMT on 20th July
The disparity we have is you seem to think because people want to regulate an item whose SOLE PURPOSE is to maim/kill that the reasonable jump from that argument is ANYTHING that could otherwise harm or possibly kill should also be banned under that argument. That logic is faulty.

People are not trying to restrict weaponry because death is a possibility. They want to restrict it because that is what it is MEANT for. A car CAN kill, but it is meant to get you from point A to B. A butter knife (to the eye) CAN KILL, but it is meant to spread butter. A garden hose CAN be wrapped around your neck, but that is not its intentional use.

For the same reason you cannot posses a nuclear bomb, or a grenade, or a fully automatic weapon (don’t nit pick the ways around that) is because when it’s doing what it is supposed to do, people are dying. Some people want to have the discussion of lowering the bar a little, because the mass-shooting situation is allowing otherwise untrained individuals to cause significant mortal wounds than they otherwise would be able to cause unarmed.

Could they use a car, or a butter knife, or a garden hose to cause the same damage (albeit slower)? Sure! However, banning those items would come with a societal cost. No cars, butter knives, or garden hoses would be tougher to live without.

To some people, lowering the weaponry available to the public comes with no societal cost because those people (civilians) were not participating in the weapons intended use anyways. To them, there would be less death, and all they’d have to give up is something they never intended to use anyways.

It’s not crazy, it’s just a different perspective. Try to understand it without expanding on what you think it leads to.


Taxman said @ 8:09pm GMT on 20th July
The disparity we have is you seem to think because people want to regulate an item whose SOLE PURPOSE is to maim/kill that the reasonable jump from that argument is ANYTHING that could otherwise harm or possibly kill should also be banned under that argument. That logic is faulty.

People are not trying to restrict weaponry because death is a possibility. They want to restrict it because that is what it is MEANT for. A car CAN kill, but it is meant to get you from point A to B. A butter knife (to the eye) CAN KILL, but it is meant to spread butter. A garden hose CAN be wrapped around your neck, but that is not its intentional use.

For the same reason you cannot posses a nuclear bomb, or a grenade, or a fully automatic weapon (don’t nit pick the ways around that) is because when it’s doing what it is supposed to do, people are dying. Some people want to have the discussion of lowering the bar a little, because the mass-shooting situation is allowing otherwise untrained individuals to cause significant mortal wounds faster and more efficiently than they could using an improvised weapon.

Could they use a car, or a butter knife, or a garden hose to cause the same damage (albeit slower)? Sure! However, banning those items would come with a societal cost. No cars, butter knives, or garden hoses would be tougher to live without.

To some people, lowering the weaponry available to the public comes with no societal cost because those people (civilians) were not participating in the weapons intended use anyways. To them, there would be less death, and all they’d have to give up is something they never intended to use anyways.

It’s not crazy, it’s just a different perspective. Try to understand it without expanding on what you think it leads to.



<-- Entry / Current Comment
Taxman said @ 8:06pm GMT on 20th July [Score:1 Underrated]
The disparity we have is you seem to think because people want to regulate an item whose SOLE PURPOSE is to maim/kill that the reasonable jump from that argument is ANYTHING that could otherwise harm or possibly kill should also be banned under that argument. That logic is faulty.

People are not trying to restrict weaponry because death is a possibility. They want to restrict it because that is what it is MEANT for. A car CAN kill, but it is meant to get you from point A to B. A butter knife (to the eye) CAN KILL, but it is meant to spread butter. A garden hose CAN be wrapped around your neck, but that is not its intentional use.

For the same reason you cannot posses a nuclear bomb, or a grenade, or a fully automatic weapon (don’t nit pick the ways around that) is because when it’s doing what it is supposed to do, people are dying. Some people want to have the discussion of lowering the bar a little, because the mass-shooting situation is allowing otherwise untrained individuals to cause significant mortal wounds faster and more efficiently than they could using an improvised weapon.

Could they use a car, or a butter knife, or a garden hose to cause the same damage (albeit slower)? Sure! However, banning those items would come with a societal cost. No cars, butter knives, or garden hoses would be tougher to live without.

To some people, lowering the weaponry available to the public comes with no societal cost because those people (civilians) were not participating in the weapons intended use anyways. To them, there would be less death, and all they’d have to give up is something they never intended to use anyways.

It’s not crazy, it’s just a different perspective. Try to understand it without expanding on what you think it leads to.




Posts of Import
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
arrowhen
lilmookieesquire
HoZay
XregnaR