I understand the intent, but feel that there are so many other loopholes that put much worse weapons on the street than a printer. Besides, my prints can barely sustain normal use, much less a bullet being fired from them. I would think that this is more of a risk to the person holding the gun than who it’s pointing at.

  • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The understandable difference being that a gun has but one purpose: Kill people.

    Whereas everything else I have mentioned, including 3d printers are multi-purpose. Not intended to kill, but to serve multiple roles.

    Though, it is a good point that few devices could be cobbled together to make infinite guns so long as you had material. So I am not saying it isn’t a class of it’s own, just where does the logic end with that point?

    Is it only legal for a company to print guns? How does a license alone protect people? I don’t think that is something I could answer.

    • Throwaway@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The thing is, banning guns is giving them an inch. NYC is already trying to grab 3d printers. Hell the ATF infamously made showlaces into unregistered machine guns, and a felony. https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/

      And abroad, the UK went after knives.

      Never think they’ll stop at guns, because they won’t. Its slippery slope, but that slope is supported by historical evidence.