When File Sharing Can Kill

Originally posted by Oliver North
Sure, I agree with you, but my point is more that, the people who are interested in guns and may be interested in this type of technology are rarely the type of people who commit the vast majority of murders

just how before 1988 the only people with inkjet printers were wealthy eggheads obsessed with all things techy. now our moms and grandmas are able to print out photos while still being too incompetent to avoid downloading dozens of trojans. you cannot apply today's consumer market to when these things become easily and cheaply available and more user friendly

Originally posted by focus4chumps
just how before 1988 the only people with inkjet printers were wealthy eggheads obsessed with all things techy. now our moms and grandmas are able to print out photos while still being too incompetent to avoid downloading dozens of trojans. you cannot apply today's consumer market to when these things become easily and cheaply available and more user friendly

actually, you are still missing my point.

people who want to use guns for violence have few things restricting them, now. Even in Canada, the weapons used in the majority of massacres are totally available for purchase.

The causes of such massacres are not simply access to fire arms. Becoming paranoid about access to guns is avoiding the real issues, which are probably cultural more than anything else. Americans see gun violence as a solution, thus want to use guns to settle things.

im not missing the point. you are avoiding mine while using strawman tactics. "paranoid about access" and "avoiding real issues" for example.

maybe someone else might address my point. /optimistic

I'm sorry, I didn't realize what your point was, if not: "we need to be concerned about greater access to guns"

what am I missing?

EDIT: I know sometimes it is fun to take people's arguments to ridiculous extremes, but I thought I had being addressing this issue fairly seriously. Certainly, saying I think you are "paranoid", or, unreasonably concerned, about 3D printed guns is not out of line with even the OP of the thread (especially given the points I've brought up that you haven't even tried to respond to), or that you are addressing more core issues, or the "real issues", is not unreasonable... Especially given you have no real response to my points...

sorry if my language was so offensive you wont continue debate... [some off the cuff statement about being sensitive to both gun access and offense]

more strawman

you forced me to argue for one side since you have consistently attempted to marginalize it rather than address the actual question.

-negate the other side as paranoid
-suggest that the only true solution is a utopian society, so legislation is a waste of time
-suggest that already existing ease of aquiring firearms make it a non-concern
-negate the topic by insisting that the state of the art is somehow halted and wont become mainstream within a few years our possibly not even our lifetimes.
-attempt to equate a home made musket to an auto-rifle

while i am admittedly concerned, i also feel that restricting digital information of any sort sets a dangerous precedence. for example people having their lives destroyed for downloading a song or movie.

so can we stop with the aggressive strawman campaign?

ok, fair enough, the issue may be mine, what exactly your point?

The copyright holders of the piece they've manufactured should be more litigious?

I'm totally willing to argue any point you may have... but it seems now that you are mostly interested in attacking my intentions... which is strange given I'm a Canadian who supports gun registration and regulation...

i support gun rights and enjoy skeet shooting and target practice. i would also love to have the chance to fire an automatic rifle. this too is irrelevant.

sure, and I think it is ridiculous my country has different laws regarding the transport of a shotgun versus a handgun...

forgot to add: there is also the undiscussed issue of mass-production.

regardless of the ease in which a lone gunman can aquire a single AR15, what of the possibility of instantly arming an extremist militia, cartel, or terrorist group? this also must be a factor in discussion imho. certainly not a non-issue to schoff at considering the semi-recent 'fast and furious' controversy

I honestly think that is less of a threat.

Until there is some force that can equalize the distribution of aircraft carriers, tank and submarines, I don't feel there is any domestic force that can counteract a state army.

That being said, given the intent of the second ammendment seems to be that it should give the citizens a right to form a militia against government power, I think that groups like Anonymous should be given more leaway, given that technological warfare is the only type that might actually cripple the powers of a nation state. Hacker warfare may be the ultimate balance to the modern nation state, though it will be interesting to see how this develops. My personal opinion is that is should be protected, but good luck getting people to vote for that.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
'fast and furious' controversy

you mean the controversy where, because of state and NRA connections, the police couldn't track gun sales into Mexico..?

Originally posted by Oliver North

you mean the controversy where, because of state and NRA connections, the police couldn't track gun sales into Mexico..?

more to the point of weapons tracing becoming irrelevant and pointless to the problem

also the 2nd ammendment arguably supports state militias as opposed to unregulated civilian militias

Originally posted by focus4chumps

also the 2nd ammendment arguably supports state militias as opposed to unregulated civilian militias

Translation. In the future, people who think they need a weapon capable of cover fire for home defense are going to ruin my dream of printing LP's in my own home

oh god not another LP hipster

Sorry, I've loved analog recording since I was two. I'd like to hear the original PVC version of Rock for Light on vinyl. The mix before HR ruined it.

so you were into it before it was cool, then?

Yes, like everyone alive who was born before 1988, I was into it before it was cool.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't think there's anything arguable about it. The 2nd Amendment is clear that the reason that people should be allowed to bear arms is so that they can form well-regulated militias.

A good case can be made that well-regulated means trained or maintained rather than referring to things that have government oversight. Determining what was meant by militia is much more important to reading the 2nd Amendment.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yes, like everyone alive who was born before 1988, I was into it before it was cool.

what a hipster

Shut up. You're distracting me from my attempts to record Revolver onto four palm wax gramophone cylinders using a cutting lathe. I'm also folding down all my stereo MP3's to mono which I will then remix in Duophonic stereo.