Want a 3D printer in New York? Get ready for fingerprinting and a 15 day wait
Want a 3D printer in New York? Get ready for fingerprinting and a 15 day wait
Requires a criminal history background check for the purchase of a three-dimensional printer capable of creating firearms; prohibits sale to a person who would be disqualified on the basis of criminal history from being granted a license to possess a firearm.
cross-posted from: https://ttrpg.network/post/4222671
Want a 3D printer in New York? Get ready for fingerprinting and a 15 day wait
Assembly Bill A8132 has been assigned a "Same As" bill in the Senate: S8586 [NYSenate.gov] [A8132 - 2023]
I don't own a gun, I never have and I don't plan to at any time in the future. But if these pass in the NYS Senate and Congress, it would be required to submit fingerprints for a background check then wait 15 days, before you could own any "COMPUTER OR COMPUTER-DRIVEN MACHINE OR DEVICE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT FROM A DIGITAL MODEL."
This isn't even going to stop any crimes from happening, for pity sakes regular guns end up in criminal charges all the time, regardless of background check laws. How about some real change and effective measures, rather then virtue-signaling and theater illusion for a constituency?
You're viewing part of a thread.
Not your point, but why don’t you like self defense? Or IDPA, USPSA, Skeet (lol), Cowboy Action, Biathlon, Hunting, or any other shooting sports?
Two logical fallacies here. Red herring, in that it's not not relevant to the argument, and a straw-man, because the supposition of me not liking self defense is not stated by me, or implied.
There’s a fourth. I don’t believe reducing the number of guns nor 3d printers sold would even reduce crime, as they could instead 3d print a lower, or make a LutySMG, or mill an 80%, or buy a CNC mill, or abandon guns entirely for another weapon like the Boston Marathon. I’m a gun and 3d printer enthusiast. I think the only thing that will actually reduce crime is actually making this country better so less people want or need to commit crimes.
You'd... be surprised to find that this is in part the first one, and clearly the still the second, with yet another straw-man argument, this time only implied. Perhaps go through my argument again. It isn't saying a single thing on the restriction on guns. There is a tiny commentary as to that effect, but please don't confuse that with the argument presented.
Other than that, I don't see anything else that I need to comment on. Happy to oblige if you do relate it to my argument. The only relevant part, if I understood correctly, you suggest that for X="3d printer" and Y="gun crime" that... there might be a basis for some restrictions? But then you say you don't believe there should be restrictions there... so, I'm confused why you would argue both sides there. I assume your point is therefore: "neither should be restricted, because if one should be, so should the other"... something like that?
So, a clarification... for your sake here, so please to take this with good intentions. These are the relevant points I was making:
- 3d printers shouldn't be restricted with any hoops motivated by "crime mitigation"
- If it is desirable to reduce "gun violence", hoops that deal with "guns" vs "3d printers" are not in the same ballpark when it comes to what makes sense.
The first one of those is clearly also your point. So, we agree on that one. But it seems you disagree with the second one. Is that the gist of what you're saying? You object to the second point, in that if one should be restricted, the other makes similar sense, as to be in the same ballpark?
Because if so... I find that strange.
- No 3d printers => approx the exact same amount of gun violence.
- No guns => approx. no gun violence.
I don't see how you could disagree with me, without also disagreeing with one or both of these. They seem like pretty obviously true statements to me.
Guns are made for it, have hoops for what it's made for, especially when it's used for stuff you don't generally like.
This was the part in the comment I responded to where you implied you don't like what guns are used for by outright stating it. Guns are used for murder in some instances, about 12,000 per year if we're talking US, but they're used 100,000 per year here according to harvard for self defense, and while I don't have a figure of how many times shooting sports happen within the country's borders I have to assume it's even higher than that.
So again, now that I've pointed out exactly where the "implication" you outright stated is, why don't you like those things?
It isn't saying a single thing on the restriction on guns. There is a tiny commentary as to that effect,
Your "tiny commentary" is part of your argument, not only is it there but it informs your argument from the outset. Those not in favor of further legislation on firearms don't often talk about further restricting firearms, nor how something that can very easily make firearms is "actually different." In fact, most pro gun people use 3d printers as an example of partly why further restrictions would be ineffective at best or abused for maximum bans at worst.
Other than that, I don't see anything else that I need to comment on. Happy to oblige if you do relate it to my argument.
Just keeeep moving those goalposts and avoiding my argument.
But then you say you don't believe there should be restrictions there... so, I'm confused why you would argue both sides there.
You'll still continue ignoring it, but my point is if restrictions make sense for one they make sense for the other, as "the other" can be used to create the "one." Just as guns can be used for murder but shouldn't be, 3d printers can be used to make guns that can be used to murder, but shouldn't be.
Rather than restrict the items we should make the misuse itself illegal, like how we don't ban booze but we do ban driving drunk or beating your wife because you're drunk.
I see. I should have been clearer. You went from seeing this statement by me:
Gun owners might have to deal with some extra process in the acquisition of a tool explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds
To then this next reply by me:
By this logic, you should also have to jump through those same hoops to get things that can be used to create with minimal experience said tools explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds
Nope. Not my argument in the slightest? Guns are made for it, have hoops for what it’s made for, especially when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like.
And then reading that the it in "Guns are made for it" is referring to crime... and not "sending projectiles at lethal speeds", and that "when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like" is something other than "crimes / gun violence"? I might be wrong here. It's hard to understand how it is you are reading it, that is different from what is clarified so many times.
In any case, I don't think we think sufficiently in the same way in order to have any hopes of a productive conversation. The stuff I've written is congruent enough that you should be able to get my point, if you either read it enough times, or ask a friend. To help you along: this doesn't mean that I expect you to agree with me, but at least you know what it is you would be disagreeing with.
Just keeeep moving those goalposts and avoiding my argument.
You have to state your arguments in a way that are relevant to my arguments. Which requires you to first understand my arguments. I'm not avoiding your arguments, I'm just ignoring them because they are not relevant to my arguments. I hope you see the difference. Not addressing a red herring is ignoring something irrelevant to the original premise.
I will not reply to anything beyond this. (Again, this is meant as a courtesy. I don't want to waste your time). Have a good one.
By all means don't respond, but it's adorable that you act so high and mighty while also throwing jabs you perceive as intelligent enough to not be rude as hell, (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not intentionally a dick.)
Though, implications abound, I likely shouldn't give you that benefit, as it would track with the rest of your imply-then-deny strategy.
It reached the point of being very much intentional. But hey, your reading comprehension is better than I gave you credit for. Good on you.
"Reached the point" mmhmm.