stalking horse vs red herring
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| notbob May 19, 2013 5:48 PM EDT |
This is waaay too much ado about nothing. So, someone can make a 3D gun. Big whoop! Ummm.... ppl have been making guns for centuries. Who we consider backward muslim tribesmen can make better guns cast in a hole in the dirt. How is a one shot --maybe to the physical detriment to the shooter-- gun made with an $8K+ digital setup more dangerous? I can make a perfectly viable gun with about $2-3K worth of Harbor Freight machine tools. It's nothing more than blogosphere alarmists running amok and writing bogus Chicken Little scenarios. It's no more honest than that stupid linux powered gun article, which I see has resurfaced in a stupid "10" list. Total nonsense. |
| Bob_Robertson May 20, 2013 12:16 PM EDT |
Sadly, weak people fear firearms. Such fear drives clicks/headlines, and always has. If the regulators had ignored the WikiWeapons thing, it would have passed into irrelevancy quickly enough, as the comparative costs asserted themselves. But no, it had to be blown out of all proportion. Quo bene? |
| linux4567 May 20, 2013 12:38 PM EDT |
Sadly, weak people require the reassurance of owning a firearm to feel strong. Firearms help compensate an inferiority complex. Strong people have no need for firearms. |
| Bob_Robertson May 20, 2013 12:44 PM EDT |
Obviously, you've not read your Freud. Regardless of your (or my) opinions about the people fixated on firearms, the things are a hot-button issue. Few inanimate objects engender such virulent emotions in the people who dwell on them, and "if it bleeds, it leads" which means that such emotions will inspire stories to drive clicks/headlines. If the proof-of-concept printed objects had been cuckoo clocks, it would not have have created such wonderfully profitable controversy. Edit: Added "not" to the last sentence, so that it actually makes sense. |
| jdixon May 20, 2013 2:47 PM EDT |
> But no, it had to be blown out of all proportion. Which I'm sure was the expected result. > Strong people have no need for firearms. Try telling that to any woman facing a rapist. |
| Fettoosh May 20, 2013 3:25 PM EDT |
Weapons are excellent for deterrence. But it is a dangerous race with no agreement on how to end it. |
| linux4567 May 20, 2013 3:27 PM EDT |
> Try telling that to any woman facing a rapist. Ever heard of pepper spray? For a woman to carry a gun in case she meets a rapist is complete overkill and can quite likely escalate into a situation where she dies rather than 'only' gets raped. |
| caitlyn May 20, 2013 3:28 PM EDT |
I agree with linux4657. Let me add that it isn't the gun I'm afraid of. A gun is a tool like any other. It's the fact that any nut can get a gun and use it that scares me. |
| jdixon May 20, 2013 4:01 PM EDT |
> Weapons are excellent for deterrence. But it is a dangerous race with no agreement on how to end it. Agreed. > Ever heard of pepper spray? Yes. Just as with a gun, it was illegal to carry it in DC the last time I was there. I also know which is more effective. But this is TOS territory, so I'll drop this aspect of the conversation. > It's the fact that any nut can get a gun and use it that scares me. Yep. Like it or not, guns are easy to obtain, and if they can't be obtained, easy to make. But again, TOS. |
| gus3 May 20, 2013 5:00 PM EDT |
Quoting: It's the fact that any nut can get a gun and use it that scares me.Yet those nuts still have an amazing self-preservation instinct, witnessed by the tendency to perpetrate their crimes where they know deadly self-defense by their would-be victims is prohibited. Many of those "nuts" suddenly become remarkably sane when they're staring down a barrel. The ones that don't, well, that's when one must be ready to actually use it. |
| Bob_Robertson May 21, 2013 9:18 AM EDT |
Hoplophobia is a sad condition. So much irrational fear. My Greek isn't what it used to be, or I'd try to come up with something for "Irrational Fear of the Command Line". Maybe Google Translate... "Pliktrologisiphobia", fear of typing. Hmmm.... a project to work on. |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 9:26 AM EDT |
@Bob_Robertson: I agree with you, so much irrational fear, which drives people to carry weapons... |
| Bob_Robertson May 21, 2013 10:27 AM EDT |
Ok, 4567, you've had your chance to voice your contempt for me. I get it. However, if I reply to you, it will be a TOS violation. You've already told me not to reply privately, I respect that. Shall we move on? |
| linux4567 May 21, 2013 10:44 AM EDT |
@Bob: no contempt, just disagreement, nothing personal! I agree, let's move on. |
| DrGeoffrey May 21, 2013 11:07 AM EDT |
:-)) |
| caitlyn May 21, 2013 4:02 PM EDT |
I like herring. Matjes herring is in a red sauce so I guess it's red herring. That means I like red herrings. I'm allergic to horses. For me the red herring wins. |
| jdixon May 21, 2013 7:26 PM EDT |
> ...so much irrational fear, which drives people to carry weapons... You know, my entire family tree has had multiple loaded guns in our homes going back at least six generations. You'd think so much irrationality would have been detected sometime during that period. Of course, those guns also put food on the table for most of us, so maybe it's not as irrational as some think. |
| BernardSwiss May 21, 2013 8:03 PM EDT |
Gun control is, in North America, a highly politicized, emotionally-freighted, hot-button issue characterized by an amazing amount of knee-jerk irrationality on both sides. As I am a citizen of two other countries with quite different gun-control regimes than the United States. think I can describe the situation from two different perspectives, that might throw some additional light on the matter. As a Canadian, I am accustomed to -- and have [strike]no[/strike] little problem with -- the gun-control regime in effect here. There are some issues, and it's an occasionally contentious issue, but it mostly works. Most people can own a gun, but there are definite restrictions on who can own a firearm, and on what kind of weapon, and there is far less gun-ownership in Canada than in the US. (And I suspect the NRA would launch an armed rebellion before accepting anything remotely like this in the USA.) I am also Swiss. In Switzerland the government actually supplies every military-service aged male (therefore members of the national militia) a military firearm, and requires that weapon to be kept in well-maintained working condition. The government also supplies ammunition for practice at any local firing range. There are extensive and strictly enforced laws governing the safe storage and transport of these weapons, with strong penalties for non-compliance. (And I suspect the NRA would launch an armed rebellion before accepting anything remotely like that in the USA, too.) Both Canada and Switzerland have far lower rates of gun-related violence than the USA -- and very few would argue that either country is "less free" than the USA. Now -- getting back the the topic at hand -- how does 3-D printing of firearms actually effect the legal regime around firearm use and ownership in any of these countries? And how does 3-D printing of firearms actually effect the realities of gun violence in any of these countries? |
| jdixon May 21, 2013 8:21 PM EDT |
> Both Canada and Switzerland have far lower rates of gun-related violence than the USA The US as a whole, yes. If you eliminate a handful of urban population centers from the statistics, the rest of the US is comparable or lower. The statistics on same are readily available for those who wish to search. > how does 3-D printing of firearms actually effect the legal regime around firearm use and ownership in any of these countries? At the moment, not at all. The gun is not particularly useful as a weapon. Assuming it could be made into one with future advancements: It has no effect on the Swiss model; but barring the banning of 3D printing to the public, it absolutely destroys the government's ability to enforce the Canadian one. > And how does 3-D printing of firearms actually effect the realities of gun violence in any of these countries? Not at all. |
| Fettoosh May 21, 2013 11:11 PM EDT |
@jdixson, You missed mentioning what effect it has on the legal regime in the US? I would say it will be banned just because the NRA lobby wouldn't want. |
| jdixon May 21, 2013 11:15 PM EDT |
> You missed mentioning what effect it has on the legal regime in the US? The legal regime in the US is in such a state of flux that it's impossible to say. Which is sort of the point of the release of the design. |
| Bob_Robertson May 22, 2013 11:01 AM EDT |
Fettoosh, I think you are functioning under a misconception. The NRA is a gun _control_ organization. Nowhere in their efforts will you find anything about actually repealing any regulation or restriction, unless it involves greater _licensing_ of individuals. If restrictions and regulations were repealed, the NRA would lose all that wonderful money, all that power and influence, and return to being nothing more than a shooting club. They do not want that. Seriously. As to the effects of this printing, none at all. There would be greater effect by banning hardware stores, since it's cheaper and easier to make a single-shot pistol out of pipe fittings and rubber bands than by spending thousands of dollars just to shape plastic. To the point I made above, this was a demonstration to make people think, not any kind of revolution. And, as usual, Leviathan has over-reacted. |
| Fettoosh May 22, 2013 11:56 AM EDT |
Quoting:I think you are functioning under a misconception. ... I don't believe so @Bob_R. My point was, if there was no restriction on 3D gun printing, then people will make their own and there won't be much need for gun manufacturers, hence NRA would lose its main sources of income and consequently would lobby very hard to ban it. I consider 3D printing a personal liberty and freedom, but, as you know, Not all regulations have to make sense. And I leave that alone. ;) |
| jdixon May 22, 2013 1:09 PM EDT |
> ...there won't be much need for gun manufacturers, hence NRA would lose its main sources of income ... I'm pretty sure gun manufacturers aren't the main source of income for the NRA. The Wikipedia article on the NRA may prove useful for those who think they are. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 22, 2013 3:43 PM EDT |
Yeah.. I don't think talking about guns is a good thing on LXer ladies and gents. We gotta change the conversation or I will be forced to close the thread I am sorry to say. |
| jdixon May 22, 2013 4:46 PM EDT |
Scott, you might wish to be more careful about the articles you link to in that case. The article in question was specifically about guns and 3D printers. :) It's rather hard to discuss an article without discussing its central subject. Most of us understand the risks, and I think you can see that we've done our best to keep the discussion out of the directly political. Please take that into account in your decision. |
| Bob_Robertson May 22, 2013 5:00 PM EDT |
If I may, it looks like the discussion has pretty much run its course, closing it now would be.... anti-climactic. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 22, 2013 5:28 PM EDT |
You are right jdixon and I am responsible for that. I just did not think the conversation would go in the direction it has. I do apologize. |
| notbob May 22, 2013 6:13 PM EDT |
This why forums and forum TOS'es are unworkable. You think M$ standards aren't political? That adoption of systemd and LSB is not political? Get real. That's why usenet is still viable. One can rant till one is blue and if the masses don't care, they jes walk away. No right. No wrong. No fault or dismissals. Simply, play or walk away. |
| gus3 May 22, 2013 6:18 PM EDT |
NO NO NO NO NO!!!!11one Wait, could you repeat the question? |
| jdixon May 22, 2013 7:30 PM EDT |
> I do apologize. Not necessary Scott. It's a best a minor problem. And I'd always rather have you err on the side of carrying articles than not. And as already noted, the discussion has pretty much run it's course. I think a word to the wise is probably sufficient in this case. However, I'm at a loss on how to handle such such potentially explosive topics myself. You don't want to not carry them, but the resulting conversations can get, hmm, "entertaining". Maybe there's a way to link to an article but block discussion on it? That seems draconian, but it may be the best alternative for subjects which are obvious political landmines. |
| Bob_Robertson May 23, 2013 8:38 AM EDT |
It is a sad fact that so much of life has been usurped by the "political" class that it is practically impossible to discuss anything without its effect. Which distribution, which desktop, which browser, emacs or vi, these remain in the purely voluntary realm, and as such while the discussions may range into the vehement, but no one is compelled thereby. They are not "political". Sadly, no matter how much we all may wish live that way, the political will not leave F/OSS alone. |
| Scott_Ruecker May 26, 2013 11:49 PM EDT |
Quoting:Sadly, no matter how much we all may wish live that way, the political will not leave F/OSS alone. I agree bob, it is something that I have been thinking about for a while and want to address at some point. It is the wording and intent that I feel has to be correct before starting what I believe will be and encompassing long term discourse. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!