this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023

-2 points (47.8% liked)

Conservative

410 readers

82 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.
We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.
Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-2

NY Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers, Attempts to Target Ghost Guns (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] mrcleanup 15 points 1 year ago

Wait till they learn about machine shops, where they actually make custom stuff out of metal.

[–] PizzaMan 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Even I will admit this one is a stupid one. Maybe I'm biased because I have a 3D printer and am aware how fucking hard it is to keep in working condition, especially for high temp plastics needed for "3D printed" guns. Instead the legislature should target the ownership and sale of receivers.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (20 children)

Or the legislature should stop trampling on our rights.

2A is the only enumerated right with a specific "do not touch" admonition, and yet it's probably the most violated right.

[–] PizzaMan 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (23 children)

Or the legislature should stop trampling on our rights.

Your rights end where my nose begins, and unrestricted gun access impedes the rights of others to live.

The founding fathers built that amendment in a time whith very different technology from today. Nowadays a gun can and frequently does mow down an entire room of innocent people/children.

If you care about the lives of your children you would do something to bring our death rates in line with the low rates of Europe. We have an almost ten times higher firearm death rate than European countries. The solution is not more unfettered gun access.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

https://www.statista.com/chart/27724/gun-deaths-in-europe/

yet it’s probably the most violated right.

The right to vote would like a word.

[+] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Impedes the rights of other to live? Like the right of criminals to live and commit crime? Like rapists to live and rape? Like murderers to live and murder?

Criminals, armed with guns bought legally, or without a background check or stolen from a "responsible gun owner" whose idea of safe storage was in the glovebox of their car.

Rapists, like the domestic abusers who use their legal guns to threaten and intimidate their family, like the prominent Trump support that recently tried to execute his wife in the street.

Murderers, like the 80% of mass shooters using legal firearms or the majority of the remaining 20% using the unsecured guns of a family member.

But don't worry guys, in 3 out of 100 mass shootings, a good guy will kill them after they've only killed 3 or 4 people. That's only slightly worse than unarmed people!

What's really fucked in the head is that you haven't even realised that most people aren't like you and don't throb in anticipation at the idea of killing someone.

"If you don't want to be raped, just use your cool gun to murder them before they murder you with their cool gun, replacing one trauma with another".

What a shithole of a place a pro-gun utopia is.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Of course it was Scalia

[–] PizzaMan 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

These 12 Defensive Uses of Guns Support Student’s Plea for Armed Self-Defense

If I didn't know better, I'd think this was an onion article because of how dumb it is. Children shouldn't need to defend themselves in the first place.

Impedes the rights of other to live?

Yes. The unrestricted access to guns in this country has lead to countless deaths and mass shootings.

It is impeding on people's right to life.

Like the right of criminals to live and commit crime? Like rapists to live and rape? Like murderers to live and murder?

I never alluded to crime being a right. If you can't make an argument without jumping to strawman arguments, then politics may not be for you.

I know the statistics of gun deaths (mass shootings, firearm suicide statistics, general gun deaths in the US), but so what?

People are dying. What do you mean so what? Do you have no empathy?

As Pizza man said:

I think one of us is confused about who is saying/arguing what.

It’s enumerated and says don’t infringe on it.

The constitution was built to be able to be changed. And it can be changed so that firearms are no longer the leading cause of death for children.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If I didn’t know better, I’d think this was an onion article because of how dumb it is. Children shouldn’t need to defend themselves in the first place.

Hey Genius, he means College Students

[–] PizzaMan -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

College students basically are children, though I will I admit I only skimmed the article.

Regardless, nobody shouldn't have to defend themselves in the first place. There shouldn't be any threats at all.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is a Just World Fallacy in which you assume the world is just, thus unsavory actions not be taken and anyone who dies is suspect.

Unfortunately the world is a dangerous place, and big cities, many of which are host to a lot of the universities in the country of United States of America, are typically the most dangerous in the first world.

Although there are many negative stereotypes but americans, especially American gun owners, people are more complicated than stereotypes.

There is a saying amongst responsible gun owners, and that the only good gun owners are the ones who hope that they never have to fire a single shot.

Gun ownership, especially for people who live in cities, is often a case of "Better to have it and not need it.."

Sure you have your gun nuts that masturbate over the idea of getting to legally kill someone who tried breaking into their house, people who may even be tempted to intentionally create an attractive nuisance in order to try to create the scenario which would still count as a murder charge by the way. However just like with every group, there are many sensible people who are gun owners, it's just the craziest tend to be the loudest.

[–] PizzaMan 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Unfortunately the world is a dangerous place

That's by design. The intentionality of that design varies person by person who's in charge. But the design of our society itself is most often to blame.

The design ought to be changed to one in which there is no danger.

However just like with every group, there are many sensible people who are gun owners

And if you are that's great for you. But the reality is that the more a population owns guns, and the more unrestricted, the more untrained, the more deaths there are. Avoidable deaths.

And we should avoid them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

See I agree with you that there need to be more restrictions on guns, where I disagree is the belief that the existence of guns in and of itself is a problem and that people who carry guns for the Judgment self-defense purposes are automatically suspect.

[–] PizzaMan 2 points 1 year ago

where I disagree is the belief that the existence of guns in and of itself is a problem and that people who carry guns for the Judgment self-defense purposes are automatically suspect.

Suspect is not the word I would use.

But regardless, guns objectively are dangerous, and therefore often a problem. Simply owning a gun increases the chance that you will kill yourself or somebody else.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html

https://apnews.com/article/science-health-homicide-d11c8f4ac07888b19309c3e1ff2ae3c9

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

There is a saying amongst responsible gun owner

Ah yes, the mythical "responsible gun owners". How do we know they're responsible? Why, because they promised us on the internet of course! They followed every completely optional safety rule! They loudly tutted at videos of people who didn't!

And the thousands and thousands of former "responsible gun owners" like the Ulvade shooter? They don't count, despite buying the same guns from the same stores with the same checks and same legal requirements.

Gun ownership, especially for people who live in cities, is often a case of "Better to have it and not need it.."

This is a marketing slogan for the gun lobby, not actual wisdom.

Do you know what's even better than "having it and not needing it"? Just not needing it, like everybody living in comparable countries the world over.

Do you know what the crime rate is like in those cities? Basically identical across the board, except with a thousandth the gun violence. So what exactly are all these guns preventing?

If you want your family to be safer, the best thing you could do is move to a country with gun control and the worst thing you could do is buy a gun.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Can't just magically not need it by willing the Second Amendment away buddy

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (22 replies)

load more comments (19 replies)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Don't 3D Printed Guns break after a single use?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

So do some 3d printers.

[–] PizzaMan 3 points 1 year ago

Basically any printer can make a single use 3D printed gun. But not all "3D printed" guns are single use. A lot of them use metal parts from kits online, with the remainder of the parts to be 3D printed.

Generally you need to use high temp plastics for it to last.

Vice had a decent documentary on them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4dBuPJ9p7A

load more comments