Thingiverse goes down the rabbit hole

Why don't you let science tell you how it is?
[www.youtube.com]

"...Even though 75% of American handgun owners say they own guns for self defense, households with firearms are at three times more risk of experiencing a homicide than homes without guns, and five times more risk of a gun-related suicide. It even found that people who had a gun were four times more likely to get shot in an assault than those who are unarmed..."

Keep in mind that these are facts and not some opinion that someone pulled out of their ass (like the people here who think they need guns).

LOL such FUD running through the can of worms I opened.

Fun to watch.

NewPerfection Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> foshon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The second ammendment was included for
> > one reason, to give our government a reason to
> > fear its citizens. Libertys teeth and all.
>
> This is exactly the reason that AR-15's and such
> should be legal. The 2nd amendment has nothing to
> do with hunting. It has to do with preventing
> tyranny. If you think that nothing like that
> could happen in a developed country today, you are
> just ignorant.

You really think that an armed citizenry would prevent tyranny? More to the point, can the US government ever become a tyranny? It would be extremely difficult and would involve stripping away the Bill of Rights in its entirely. And since that isn't going to happen we cannot have a tyranny in the US.

I have a little more faith in the Constitution. It provides a series of interlocking rights that are expressly designed to prevent tyranny. The second amendment simply provides a last resort defense against the rise of a tyrannical government. Unfortunately it was written in a time when weaponry was simple, easily available and most importantly not very efficient or lethal. The idea of the citizen soldier with no standing army is a nice ideal, but not realistic. It was the basis for the second amendment. m m

But do you think the government fears its citizens? The idea is laughable. How many militia members do you know? How do you think all the militia members in the country compare to the US military? Last I checked when you go into the military you swear to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Do you really think that the possession of firearms by private citizens really matters when faced with such firepower?

The notion that an armed citizen deters the federal government in any way, shape or form childish and self-aggrandizing.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Once we start censoring, where do we stop? I for one am unwilling to trade freedom for a false sense of security.

People kill people, not guns. I work in places where there is a large amount of gun violence in America. If my state had conceal and carry, I would carry a gun with me every day. The fact is that almost none of these crimes are committed by people who are legal gun owners. They are committed by criminals who are able to get guns any day of the week illegally. Gun violence is a symptom of much bigger problems; that as a society we are scared of dealing with. Because of this we have a large number of people who think making laws more laws will stop people who don't follow the laws in the first place. It is stubborn ignorance to think you can legislate behavior.

Every person who can legally own a gun in their home country, should. Everyone should know how they work, what they are for, what they aren't for and how to respect them. You should learn their proper use, care and handling. Then you should decide if you need or want such a tool in your life. If you decided you need or want it, make sure you are careful, responsible and respectful with it. If you don't, get rid of all your ammo and lock away that gun and throw away the key. Keep it as a reminder of all the things that tool symbolizes and everything it has been used for in this world. You cannot truly make a decision on the subject unless you have studied the tool itself first, no matter what side of the discussion you fall on.

My problem with 3d printed guns, is not their existence. Even if we censor them, anybody with a little 3d cad skills will be able to make their own. My problem is that we haven't done all the work preparing ourselves and our families for that eventuality. Humanity as a whole needs to come to terms with it's problems rather then trying to bandage it's symptoms. It is a hard painful process but one that will make us stronger in the end. If we don't mature as a society, very quickly, we will have a lot of problems handling the coming future of technology.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2012 02:54PM by jzatopa.

For the record, i totally agree here that the topic of social and mental problems and how they're dealt with are just as important to these shootings as the guns. The guns is just an easier subject to talk about compared to say, bullying.

The video contains facts but the problem with statistics like that is that people might have a gun because there is gun violence. So the causation can go both ways. (Also they should compare suicides in general.) Nevertheless i suspect the presence guns among people does cause more use of guns by criminals. As criminals are people, they might use guns as criminals because they were accustomed to guns being around when they werent.

Anyway, given the difficulty in changing this, i think Obama(but probably also other politicians) shouldnt waste too much time on it.

About that, considering these people want guns to avoid the possibility of tyranny, why do they fight so hard to keep their guns, but do not fight at all to reduce the size of the military. The idea that they can defend themselves from tyranny is a feeling, not a plan.

@foshon i do think our societies could becomes tyranny, possibly through the surveilance-state. But your slippery-slope argument has a problem; I dont think that slope isnt slippery.(btw 80 year copyrights are already unconstitutional, what does 'limited time' mean to them)

foshon & cameron,
thank you for your input - it is great to talk about this - has confused me from afar for many years,
i think if your government went wacky that you would use the same means to get rid of them as you did to get women the vote, the blacks the vote, the blacks full citizenship (* sorry not sure of your history and if this is true). that is people persuading others that this is a good/bad thing.
aren't there like 250 million of you. surely if you were becoming nazi germany you could all just park you bums on the white house steps and say no.
as pointed out your government believes in free speech and is not likely to shoot you all for protesting (as hitler did). in my memory this seems to be how you protested about the vietnam war, civil rights, wall street, etc. Unfortunately some dick with a high powered rifle then shot the great leaders you had of the time.
"How many people died or were victims in AUS after the ban?". As i said there have been no mass shooting in 15 years. of course there are still murders, etc. and people commit suicide, etc. but it is normally kept to one or two victims. Somebody shot two elderly people in Tasmania the other day. Some bikie dude shot 2 or 3 people in Melbourne CBD a while back, etc, etc. Probably 2 or 3 policeman are killed each year from guns. I have no fear of my government. We pay high taxes to live in a peaceful, well serviced country.
Yes we have crime, drugs, etc. That is what our brave police forces are employed to handle.
What do our politions fear? Being voted out.

As for my family - I feel much, much safer in a society where people do not own military assult rifles. My children would freak out if they saw such as weapons. They also tell me to put my seat belt on, sunscreen on and find people who smoke weird.
All changes made by the govt to help it citizens live a healthier longer life. All of these changes have taken at least one generation to become the norm.
My parents smoked, I use to fry my body under coconut oil and we didn't have seat belts. Is it my right to smoke, fry, squish myself to death anyway i want - yes of course and people still do. But it also costs our country millions of dollars in medical services to chop out cancers (esp skin cancers here in Oz). Money that could be better spent of the mentally ill or even just beating the USA in the 4x100 freestyle.
I think it is going to take a long while (generations) for any change in your gun laws to take place.

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

Quote
Once we start censoring, where do we stop?

Do you consider banning and taking down child pornography and snuff videos censoring?


A big point you gun supporters seem to be forgetting is that the soldiers and police that a corrupt government would allegedly use to beat down opposition are citizen, too. Some of them will follow orders blindly, of course (with peer pressure and all). But some (if not many) will outright refuse to shoot at fellow citizens.
Before comparisons to let's say Syria are being drawn, I would like to remind you that the cultural background is completely different. How long have you been living in a peaceful democracy with all it's implications (as opposed to Syria in this example)?

And the Nazi analogy fails in one point: Hitler got VOTED by the German citizens. He started his tyranny democratically (and even made fun of this fact himself).

So should any guns be banned? I am a little bit ambiguous about this, to be honest. Here in Germany, we have strict rules (which I don't know too well), according to which you have to have a reason to apply for a weapon's license. And even then, you have to keep your weapon locked away at a local shooting club's facility (may only apply for members of shooting clubs - which pose one big part of Germany's gun owners). You are not allowed to bring it outside this facility (or at least, you have to keep it in a locked suitcase when transporting it).
I am fine with these rules because they keep the general populace safe. You have many safeguards preventing illegal weapon ownership (there might even be regular checks by authority after some shooting incidents). And shooting at targets as a recreational activity is also fine with me. After all, archery and fencing for example also have military roots and evolved into a peaceful sport.

About printed guns:
Have fun blowing your face off. Seriously. This whole idea that anyone with a printer should be able to manufacture a gun is plain ridiculous. The print quality varies so much between filaments and printers that it is almost guaranteed that the same gun printed by different users will in one case work fine and in the other fail catastrophically. The original AR-15 receiver might not be the biggest problem here. It is this "me too" mentality that might spark the idea in someone that they could print whatever gun model and part they think off.

anode505,
good to see you are enjoying yourself. can you tell me how you see it all. i am interested to hear you point of view.
roger

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

ever been to Gary, Indiana, Rodger?
I live 10 min from it.
(I know thats not your fault)
they cant disarm the ppl who cant own guns legally anyway.
and not just that, most of the ppl on tv that want to take my firearms
have or have had some kinda armed gaurds protecting them.
the govt cant even run the post office and lies about everything,
and Im supposed to trust my life to them?

hi glrra19,
no sorry have not been to Indiana (although i was in the US during the rodney king riots).
i can see the catch22 (bad pun) situation that you are in although i obviously can't related to your circumstances.
is that the way you want to live your life? with everyone gunned up?
our prime minister stood in front of a gun lobby rally with a bullet proof vest on under his suit and said thats is - hand them in.
he was a weaselily little fellow from the liberal (your republicican ) party but in this case very brave - he heard what the people were saying and changed the laws.
people handed them in truck load after truck load. loop holes were closed and the guns were gone from the street. criminals just don't commit crimes with those kind of weapons any more (it doesn't seem to be organised crims who do these mass shooting anyway - just unstable white men, crims make more money out of selling drugs than good old fashion bank robberies nowadays).
so it can be done if people have the will. your other options is to continue to get bigger and better guns than the bad folk of Gary, Indiana.
seems like there is a long list of problems leading to the gun control - crime, drugs. but at least make some small steps to get on the right track.
background checks, licenses, no guns to mentail ill people, fix loop holes that probably exists.
i think (unlike aust) that any gun control in the usa will be a long process not a quick change. people like yourself will need to feel safe before they are willing to give up there own guns.
good luck to you,
roger.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2012 08:28PM by rogerw.

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

bobc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NewPerfection Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > foshon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The second ammendment was included for
> > > one reason, to give our government a reason
> to
> > > fear its citizens. Libertys teeth and all.
> >
> > This is exactly the reason that AR-15's and
> such
> > should be legal. The 2nd amendment has nothing
> to
> > do with hunting. It has to do with preventing
> > tyranny. If you think that nothing like that
> > could happen in a developed country today, you
> are
> > just ignorant.
>
> That's paranoid and delusional, as well as
> ignorant. The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything
> about overthrowing the government by force, such
> an act would be regarded as treason under Article
> 3. Even with AR15s, you would stand aboslutely no
> chance against the Federal government in the
> unlikely event it went against the people. The
> idea of independent armed citizens fighting evil
> forces is pure Hollywood fantasy.
>
> 146 people in the US have died due to gun violence
> since Newtown. Tyranny is not killing US citizens,
> but an adherence to an outdated and obsolete piece
> of text, written in a completely different age.
>
> The irony is that if you own a gun, you or your
> family are more likely to be the victim of gun
> violence. Guns don't, and can't protect you from
> evil.


Perhaps you should research the words of Americas founders a little more. The fact is that NONE of my firearms have harmed anyone. It is my daily prayer that they never will. Your arguement contsitutes jackassery in its finest form. Take a look at oathkeepers.com, you truely think our sons and duaghters would kill us. You sir are most likely to be the 30% that sits by the sides and does nothing as others fight for you.

akhlut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ Dustin
>
> I think rogerw hit the nail on the head. There is
> a toxic convergence between the Republican party,
> the NRA and the health insurance system. We don't
> treat the economically disadvantaged mentally ill
> in this country. We give them a prescription
> (which they cant afford to fill) and kick them out
> the door. Our healthcare and mental healthcare
> system in this country is fundamentally broken.
> Is it the best in the world? For the rich, yes.
> For the rest it sucks - hard.
>
> Let's talk about the black market. It's where
> supposedly responsible gun owners (those that can
> buy from a licensed dealer) sell guns to those who
> cannot. This is a problem. Want to know how
> criminals get guns? They get them from gun
> owners. Prove me wrong on this one. There is no
> data to dispute my claim. If what I say is untrue
> then how do criminals get guns? But if I am
> correct then gun owners are the root cause of all
> gun violence in the US.
>
> As far as the decline of cities goes there is a
> singular explanation - drugs and drug gangs. Want
> to tamp down on this violence? Legalize
> marijuana. People don't just go around
> willy-nilly shooting one another in gang violence.
> There is a dispute and guns are the way they
> solve it. Do I think gangs will dissolve if we
> legalize marijuana? No. But it will free up an
> insane amount of resources - think about the cone
> of expenses involved with a single marijuana
> possession conviction. Then we can plow some of
> that lost funding into police departments to
> actually take the time to tackle and eliminate the
> gangs in our inner cities.
>
> And let's talk about the totalitarian regimes that
> slaughtered their own people last century. They
> would have happened whether the citizenry was
> armed or not. It's not like these regimes weren't
> brutal. They arrested an killed whomever they
> chose. I think if you owned a gun you'd simply
> get to die in your home instead of a concentration
> camp. Outcome would be the same. What's worse is
> that the authorities would look justified in their
> actions - they eliminated a "threat to society" -
> that's how it'd be spun. So here's a question -
> What makes the US different? We locked up
> Japanese Americans during WWII for their own
> "protection". We didn't massacre them (although
> we mistreated them). Why? The government imposed
> tyranny on a subset of it's own citizens, but the
> outcome was radically different from Stalinist
> Russia or Pol Pot's Cambodia or Hitler's Germany.
> Why? Maybe our government cannot impose tyranny
> as it has political consequences and elections are
> frequent. Maybe, because we have the ballot box
> no one side can muster the votes to impose tyranny
> on the populace.
>
> @ Jasper
>
> I think you are correct. Citizens must organize
> and then express their disgust at the ballot box.
> I fully expect the next election cycle or two to
> be single-issue. Topic:Guns.
>
> @ foshon
>
> Unorganized citizens? You're joking, right?
> Remember the Continental Congress? You know, that
> whole Declaration of Independence thing. The
> fellas who founded the Continental Army, Navy and
> Marines before creating the Declaration of
> Independence? To say that the founding fathers we
> just a bunch of unorganized "folks" is appalling.
> They were organized to the hilt. How do you think
> delegates were selected and sent to the
> Continental Congress? Caprice? No, they were
> elected and sent. Elections require organization.
> They were sent to represent the citizens of their
> state. Imagine the amount of responsibility these
> men shouldered.
>
> I'm not saying we need to remove the second
> amendment. It's just fine the way it is. But
> citizens do not have the right to possess any
> firearm they desire - it's why you can't have a
> machine gun. The second amendment does not grant
> absolute rights.
>
> Besides, it is very difficult to change the US
> Constitution. There has to be a massive consensus
> amongst the states and congress, and we don't have
> it surrounding the gun issue. Maybe if we have a
> couple more school shootings involving
> kindergartners or preschoolers will Americans wake
> up and notice. Until then guns aren't going
> anywhere.
>
> But as a gun owner let me ask you - if they
> stripped the second amendment or toned it down and
> made some of your weapons illegal to possess what
> would you do when the Feds come calling to collect
> them?

Con. congress was pre-revolution??? ok

I can own a machine gun thank you very much. It requires the same exact paperwork required that it took to get my silencer.

If you think the constitution should be amended I recommend you kick that party off. We can't get a consistant FB poll let alone 2/3 majority.

Heinerm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why don't you let science tell you how it is?
> [www.youtube.com]
>
> "...Even though 75% of American handgun owners say
> they own guns for self defense, households with
> firearms are at three times more risk of
> experiencing a homicide than homes without guns,
> and five times more risk of a gun-related suicide.
> It even found that people who had a gun were four
> times more likely to get shot in an assault than
> those who are unarmed..."
>
> Keep in mind that these are facts and not some
> opinion that someone pulled out of their ass (like
> the people here who think they need guns).


Hmmm I'm surprised that 100% of firearm related suicides don't happen in homes that own firearms, do they borrow them?..... what a joke.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2012 09:20PM by foshon.

akhlut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NewPerfection Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > foshon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The second ammendment was included for
> > > one reason, to give our government a reason
> to
> > > fear its citizens. Libertys teeth and all.
> >
> > This is exactly the reason that AR-15's and
> such
> > should be legal. The 2nd amendment has nothing
> to
> > do with hunting. It has to do with preventing
> > tyranny. If you think that nothing like that
> > could happen in a developed country today, you
> are
> > just ignorant.
>
> You really think that an armed citizenry would
> prevent tyranny? More to the point, can the US
> government ever become a tyranny? It would be
> extremely difficult and would involve stripping
> away the Bill of Rights in its entirely. And
> since that isn't going to happen we cannot have a
> tyranny in the US.
>
> I have a little more faith in the Constitution.
> It provides a series of interlocking rights that
> are expressly designed to prevent tyranny. The
> second amendment simply provides a last resort
> defense against the rise of a tyrannical
> government. Unfortunately it was written in a
> time when weaponry was simple, easily available
> and most importantly not very efficient or lethal.
> The idea of the citizen soldier with no standing
> army is a nice ideal, but not realistic. It was
> the basis for the second amendment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> m m
>
> But do you think the government fears its
> citizens? The idea is laughable. How many
> militia members do you know? How do you think all
> the militia members in the country compare to the
> US military? Last I checked when you go into the
> military you swear to support and defend the
> Constitution from all enemies, foreign and
> domestic. Do you really think that the possession
> of firearms by private citizens really matters
> when faced with such firepower?
>
> The notion that an armed citizen deters the
> federal government in any way, shape or form
> childish and self-aggrandizing.


Again I direct you to oathkeepers.com. I think militia's are made of mostly ex-military folk. If the second doesn't provide the fear, tell me then why WE are the last bastion for freedom in the world?

rogerw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> foshon & cameron,
> thank you for your input - it is great to talk
> about this - has confused me from afar for many
> years,
> i think if your government went wacky that you
> would use the same means to get rid of them as you
> did to get women the vote, the blacks the vote,
> the blacks full citizenship (* sorry not sure of
> your history and if this is true). that is people
> persuading others that this is a good/bad thing.
> aren't there like 250 million of you. surely if
> you were becoming nazi germany you could all just
> park you bums on the white house steps and say
> no.
> as pointed out your government believes in free
> speech and is not likely to shoot you all for
> protesting (as hitler did). in my memory this
> seems to be how you protested about the vietnam
> war, civil rights, wall street, etc.
> Unfortunately some dick with a high powered rifle
> then shot the great leaders you had of the time.
> "How many people died or were victims in AUS after
> the ban?". As i said there have been no mass
> shooting in 15 years. of course there are still
> murders, etc. and people commit suicide, etc. but
> it is normally kept to one or two victims.
> Somebody shot two elderly people in Tasmania the
> other day. Some bikie dude shot 2 or 3 people in
> Melbourne CBD a while back, etc, etc. Probably 2
> or 3 policeman are killed each year from guns. I
> have no fear of my government. We pay high taxes
> to live in a peaceful, well serviced country.
> Yes we have crime, drugs, etc. That is what our
> brave police forces are employed to handle.
> What do our politions fear? Being voted out.
>
> As for my family - I feel much, much safer in a
> society where people do not own military assult
> rifles. My children would freak out if they saw
> such as weapons. They also tell me to put my seat
> belt on, sunscreen on and find people who smoke
> weird.
> All changes made by the govt to help it citizens
> live a healthier longer life. All of these changes
> have taken at least one generation to become the
> norm.
> My parents smoked, I use to fry my body under
> coconut oil and we didn't have seat belts. Is it
> my right to smoke, fry, squish myself to death
> anyway i want - yes of course and people still do.
> But it also costs our country millions of dollars
> in medical services to chop out cancers (esp skin
> cancers here in Oz). Money that could be better
> spent of the mentally ill or even just beating the
> USA in the 4x100 freestyle.
> I think it is going to take a long while
> (generations) for any change in your gun laws to
> take place.

If I leave the US, I'm going to AUS, I have felt that way for a long time. I'm a big guy, make rrom for me if ya would.

Wasn't the next year or two after the ban like a 69% rise in homicides, and didn't they have to "invent" a home invasion category? I carry a handgun almost everywhere I go. I have never shot anything living, not even for dinner. But I am not willing to spend the time takes for police to respond crying over my loved ones dead bodies.

My apologies, the correct address for the Oathkeepers is [oathkeepers.org]

ok i'll ask - what possible purpose could there be for someone to own a silencer. this is where in Aust this would make absolutely no common sense. but i'm sure you about to give me a reason .....

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

rogerw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ok i'll ask - what possible purpose could there be
> for someone to own a silencer. this is where in
> Aust this would make absolutely no common sense.
> but i'm sure you about to give me a reason .....


I have neighbors that had a small child at the time. I bought it so I could shoot without disturbing thier family.

i see - well lets hope you stay friend with your neighbors

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

foshon Wrote:

> Again I direct you to oathkeepers.com. I think
> militia's are made of mostly ex-military folk. If
> the second doesn't provide the fear, tell me then
> why WE are the last bastion for freedom in the
> world?

We are a bastion of freedom because of the US Constitution, not because you can own a firearm. Immigrants don't come here so they can buy guns. They come for the opportunity our nation provides.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2012 08:16AM by akhlut.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

i was looking at my Indiana license to carry and online the rules talks about
this term "proper person" and one of things under that it that the person cannot
be emotionally unstable.

i think that could be reworded so that it also includes anyone who is taking or,
has recently been prescribed a SSRI drug Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors.
those are your basic antidepressants. i will be the first person to admit, if you cant
get threw the day without taking your "happy pill" then you don't need a gun.

from what i can see most, if not all of the shooters in recent years are on such meds.
of course, we can debate forever why no one is talking about this. (big-pharma lobby,
tv advertising).

this is the only added restriction i am willing to incur.

Did i mention that gun owners claim to hold weapons against the possibility of tyranny, but do nothing politicallu against the US' oversized army?

Also, really, dont let guns overshadow the social and psychological conditions and problems associated with shooting events. The guns are a currently unfixable problem anyway.

Jasper1984 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did i mention that gun owners claim to hold
> weapons against the possibility of tyranny, but do
> nothing politicallu against the US' oversized
> army?
>
> Also, really, dont let guns overshadow the social
> and psychological conditions and problems
> associated with shooting events. The guns are a
> currently unfixable problem anyway.

You're right and that is what pisses me off about whole "blame the guns" attitude. This boy, like so many others, was troubled. His mother failed those parents/children by thinking she could handle the situation herself. Who gives access to guns to a boy that you can't turn your back on? The issue is the complete taboo surrounding mental health in this country.

The average gun owner locks their firearms up, besides having something "on hand" for family protection. With the head case in the house one would think it would be a priority.

akhlut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> foshon Wrote:
>
> > Again I direct you to oathkeepers.com. I think
> > militia's are made of mostly ex-military folk.
> If
> > the second doesn't provide the fear, tell me
> then
> > why WE are the last bastion for freedom in the
> > world?
>
> We are a bastion of freedom because of the US
> Constitution, not because you can own a firearm.
> Immigrants don't come here so they can buy guns.
> They come for the opportunity our nation provides.

Where was that second amendment again?

akhlut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> foshon Wrote:
>
> > Again I direct you to oathkeepers.com. I think
> > militia's are made of mostly ex-military folk.
> If
> > the second doesn't provide the fear, tell me
> then
> > why WE are the last bastion for freedom in the
> > world?
>
> We are a bastion of freedom because of the US
> Constitution, not because you can own a firearm.
> Immigrants don't come here so they can buy guns.
> They come for the opportunity our nation provides.

Where was that second amendment again?

US Constitution > Second Amendment

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

@ foshon: Where do criminals get guns?

foshon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jasper1984 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Did i mention that gun owners claim to hold
> > weapons against the possibility of tyranny, but
> do
> > nothing politicallu against the US' oversized
> > army?
> >
> > Also, really, dont let guns overshadow the
> social
> > and psychological conditions and problems
> > associated with shooting events. The guns are a
> > currently unfixable problem anyway.
>
> You're right and that is what pisses me off about
> whole "blame the guns" attitude. This boy, like so
> many others, was troubled. His mother failed those
> parents/children by thinking she could handle the
> situation herself. Who gives access to guns to a
> boy that you can't turn your back on? The issue is
> the complete taboo surrounding mental health in
> this country.
>
> The average gun owner locks their firearms up,
> besides having something "on hand" for family
> protection. With the head case in the house one
> would think it would be a priority.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

merry xmas all,
so we have gun owners who want guns:
1. to protect from the government
2. to protect from criminals
3. for hunting, competitions, target shooting, etc
and may i suggest
4. collectors

any other groups?
what about defence against an invading force or do you believe your military would take care of that?

then economical reasons:
USA have industries where you make guns and supply guns to your citizens and other govts
how many semi-auto are sold within the USA?
how many jobs would be lost if this stopped?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2012 07:36PM by rogerw.

---

Prusa 'Explorer' (3dStuffMaker), GEN6, J-head Mk III-B, Bowden Extruder, Marlin 1.0.0 RC2, Repitier-Host V0.84 and Slic3r 0.9.8, PLA. Live at Victoria, Australia.

It's a slippery slope, banning data files (really just a precise drawing) of "bad things". I recently designed and posted restraints to Thingiverse but was careful to label them as "decorative" - the laws concerning the export of handcuffs are quite strict:

Crime Control Items: Revisions to the Commerce Control List
ExportLaw Blog

What about when ceramic printers become more common? Ban condensers that could be used for stills? Or smoking pipes because "drug paraphernalia" is illegal in many places. Like handguns, a double edged dagger type blade is used ONLY for killing. There are "Ninja Stars" up there- illegal in NYC where I live.

I don't like guns particularly, but no "drawings" of legal, but subjectively "bad things" seems like a knee-jerk precedent.

You shouldn't forget that Thingiverse is not just limited to the USA. Most countries have much stricter weapon laws that would probably be applied to printed objects if the jurisdiction sees the need to do so.
What would become of Thingiverse? Possibly, it could get banned in other countries, reducing it to a far smaller user group.
So, Makerbot also did this move to protect itself in my opinion.
Here is the part of the TOS that is important:

Quote
(a) You agree not to use the Site or Services to collect, upload, transmit, display, or distribute any User Content (i) that violates any third-party right, including any copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, moral right, privacy right, right of publicity, or any other intellectual property or proprietary right; (ii) that is unlawful, harassing, abusive, tortious, threatening, harmful, invasive of another's privacy, vulgar, defamatory, false, intentionally misleading, trade libelous, pornographic, sexually explicit, obscene, patently offensive, promotes racism, bigotry, hatred, or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual, promotes illegal activities or contributes to the creation of weapons, illegal materials or is otherwise objectionable; (iii) that is harmful to minors in any way; or (iv) that is in violation of any law, regulation, or obligations or restrictions imposed by any third party.

Again, Thingiverse is international. Many other countries do not have ultra-liberal weapon laws. Even in the USA, trade of firearms seems to be regulated (in some places (?)). Ergo: uploading a file with an instruction how to make a gun for example out of the output of this file so that anyone can create a weapon might be problematic. It's probably just that most jurisdictions did not react to this issue yet because it is still fairly small and governments are sluggish.

Also, if what is uploaded to Thingiverse is clearly in violation of their TOS, they have the right to take it down. This whining about "censorship" by those Defense Distributed guys is plain ridiculous. They should have known beforehand (one of them, Cody Wilson, studies law).

Quote
Welcome to DEFCAD, operated by Defense Distributed. This site is a makeshift response to Makerbot Industries' decision to censor files uploaded in good faith at Thingiverse, specifically firearms-related files. We are hosting as many of the pulled files as we can find.

Quote
***We are aware the reactionaries at Thingiverse, owned by MakerBot Industries, have taken down all STL files related to 3D printing firearms. We are preparing an alternative upload site and mirror for the fugitive files at DEFCAD.ORG. Defense Distributed will no longer develop with the Makerbot in mind***

SERIOUSLY?!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/28/2012 07:45AM by uGen.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that no-one has yet posted any actual gun designs to thingiverse. What has been pulled are add-on modifications that are decorative in nature, nothing more than harmless art, IMO. (Albeit art that can be attached to a gun.) Since what has been pulled has no effect on the function and operation of any gun, I have trouble seeing how thingiverse can justify pulling the designs.

If someone were to post actual gun designs to thingiverse, they may have a good case for pulling it down on a legality standpoint, since the manufacture and distribution of firearms is strictly controlled in most countries in the world, the USA included. But as it stands now, their actions are nothing more than an emotional knee-jerk reaction to a horrific shooting by an evil nutcase... A reaction that sets a very bad precedent in restricting free speech.