• BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    Back when 3D printers were brand-new, I was at a college event where the Engineering Club had one on display. I stopped to watch it, and spoke with the kid who had built it. He was a Freshman, and had built it during the previous summer, because he wanted to come to college and make an instant splash in the Engineering Department.

    He certainly succeeded, because he was the one in the booth that everybody wanted to talk to, while the upperclassmen that hadn’t accomplished anything, sat in the back of the booth and glowered at the Freshman upstart.

    So anyway, if they ban them, we’ll just build them.

    • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I believe the entire goal of RepRap was to build a machine that could build all the parts needed to build another machine. Most of the parts for a lot of machines are either 3d printable or bog-standard off-the-shelf parts that could be used for millions of other things. I have a feeling the really scary target would be software, something similar to the draconian age-verification BS being run around.

    • BC_viper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is called the proliferation of technology, its useless to fight it, and also one of humanities greatest existential threats.

      Sooner or later building a nuke in your backyard is going to be just as easy.

      Just FYI, I am full pro 3d printer, love mine. Looking into a second one now.

      • einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sooner or later building a nuke in your backyard is going to be just as easy.

        No. Even if you would get your hands of enough base material (impossible and would also be bigger than your backyard in volume). The energy you need for sorting the isotopes would be more than you could pull out of your power wires.

        This isnt a question about technology but physics and energy, no matter how good consumer tech gets. NO you wont build a nuke in your backyard.

        The same way as you will never build a moon rocket in your backyard, some things just require a fixed amount of energy, and putting that amount of energy in your backyard just wont happen.

  • Taleya@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    jesus fucking christ the kind of person who has a machine dialled in enough to print a functional weapon that will actually work and not come apart in their hands or blow off their face is the sort of person who will also have the means and wherewithal to obtain a conventional weapon. And they will most likely turn to the latter if they want to do harm.

  • Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    It wont stop anyone looking to print a silencer. It will just make it closed source and pay per print. Its a idiots solution.

    • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The lobbying power of tech companies that profit from proprietary technology and feel threatened by open source. The same people who are behind DRM on everything from ebooks and music to printer inks, and legal restrictions on repairing the devices you own.

  • rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    But like… are they going to prohibit all forms of melding materials into a shape? You can make a shank out of a stick rubbed on a rock ffs.

  • somethingDotExe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Is California just gone fucking mad after newscum? What is up with all these fucked up legislations against private freedom?

    • badgermurphy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Its really, really big and populous, and also ethnically, culturally, and socially diverse. I think those combined factors lead to California passing more volume and variety of laws than any of the other American states.

      Many of the laws they pass are regulation on business and consumer protection in excess of those provided by the federal government, but the socially progressive side of politics has its villains, too. Their villainy comes in the form of forced trading of freedom for security–outlawing activities that are dangerous to you, or banning objects and knowledge that have the potential to harm you or others even if they have other practical uses.

      Its the main reason why it is risky to fight for the victory of one’s own political “team” without further consideration. It is easy for people interested in the public good to be overzealous in enforcement of public safety.

      It’s hard to get broad agreement on where to draw that line. For example, I tend to lean in the “natural law” direction, where I think you should be allowed to have and do almost anything you want, so long as it doesn’t materially harm anyone else, even indirectly. Most other people, even on the left, find that relatively extreme and believe in more personal regulation in the name of increased public safety. For example, most Democrats support moderate to strict restrictions on personal firearm, chemical, and encryption ownership, rather than banning the illegal uses of those things themselves. It is more dangerous for people to be able to be able to get dangerous stuff, so it makes sense people would have a lot of differing opinions on where to settle between “Mad Max” and “Minority Report”.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Is the last one you’re referring to the age verification one? If so, you should know that was good legislation that makes it easy to block federal attempts at something far worse.

  • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Do nothing about school shootings. Destroy hobbies and manufacturing instead. America is rotting from the inside.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      America has been rotting from the inside since WW2 (MIC, FBI and CIA terrorism, etc), then supercharged with Reagan. Frankly, it’s surprising it took this long.

  • JelleWho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    So try and ban 3D printing guns, because that’s too dangerous. But still sell guns at wallmarkt to be bought without background checks? I have the feeling something is a little off here…

      • Test_Tickles@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because you can buy guns at Walmart, maybe not in California, but they sell guns in approximately half of their stores in the US.
        You can also go to gun shows and buy guns without a background check.
        But of course you’re correct, he was wrong, It’s not as easy as going to Walmart to get a gun without a background check. It’s actually MUCH EASIER than that in more than half the US. You can just go online and pay for someone to send you a gun without any background check, site unseen, from the comfort of your own home.

        • DisgruntledGorillaGang@reddthat.comdeleted by creator
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m not sure how buying a gun at a gun show sans background check is easier than if Walmart didn’t require a background check, but regardless, the premise of their statement (that Walmart doesn’t require background checks) is factually incorrect. You’re moving the goalpost. And no, you can’t just pay for a gun online and have it shipped to you. That’s not how that works, not legally at least.