electro-chemically machine
3D Printing Enthusiasts and Second Amendment Supporters should’ve been a natural fit, but instead we got CA banning plastic rope and requiring 3D printers to reject building certain designs. I don’t unerstand why they didn’t gel.
It’s not intended as an epic story, rather a story about how a lot of people seem to think there’s a huge moat to creating a firearm, but there really isn’t.
Chilling effects also maintain sundown towns, keep LGBTQ people out of certain places, and the last time I checked nazi symbolism was back in vogue :-(
I think we need to approach gun legislation like we do cars. License to carry in public, strict rules about thier usage, and automatic max penalties and enhanced charges for any crime committed while carrying a gun (legally or otherwise), which can include losing your carry license.
The USA is big, and not every county/town constablulatory has left the good ole’ boy network behind. You can get on the banned list by doing either the right thing or the wrong thing, and a towns full of grey men who can’t speak up isn’t an attractive future, and it’s some people’s realities. Those licenses to carry have to be approved by the locals after all.
I don’t disagree with the spirit of what you said about max penalties or enhanced charges, but there’ve been some serious injustices to lay down at Mandatory Minimum Sentencing’s feet when it’s been put into practice, and I don’t trust the current crop of people not to misuse it. We can’t even get enhanced charges for misuse of public trust positions right.
I would say though that your trainer wouldn’t be thwarted by a bullet ownership limit either, it would just slow down their training.
You took it wrong or I misspoke; I was talking about the ability for someone to go get practice on their own without having to ask for permission. A box of 50 .22 is like $10 and closer to the size of a pack of gum (or half the size of a harmonica, or whatever size comparison the kids are using these days). I couldn’t justify putting my name on a law that gave Keanu Reeves carte blanche to go train for a new John Wick movie when the average American is under greater restrictions. Where I am I learned from my father and there are ample public lands reserved for the purpose, plus any private land you can convince someone to practice at. Not every place in America has that luxury, though, and not every law is going to fit every place well.
OP asked so I tried to game it out the best I could.
Me, too. Good faith questions and answers are good things. As for strict usage, I think we already have that for the most part. Before adding any more laws I’d really like to see a national agreement on terminology as to what open carry, concealed carry, and all the terms really mean from a legal standpoint. I remember reading stories from when COVID was taking off that folks in California decided it might be time to get armed and didn’t realize what the process there really involves. I doubt there’s a real solid understanding of their gun registry system, either, and that’s without getting into the really weird stuff that’s been on the books.
In general I’m pro second amendment. It wasn’t until commenting in this thread that I realized the firearm used to assassinate Shinzo Abe is probably legal in the US now thanks to the recent NFA changes regarding short barreled shotguns1,2. So, pro second amendment enough to be uncomfortable adding a lot of new legislation that doesn’t seem to understand the underlying technology or what the second order effects might be, but not so second amendment that I’m going to lowe’s when they open to prove a point. I expect someone else will get there soon enough for the clicks, though.
Gun owners haaaaaate their names on lists aand fight it tooth an nail on guns, but they don’t have the protection of the 2nd amendment for ammo.
Winds are blowing the other way: short barreled rifles and shotguns, as well as suppressors no longer go through the NFA process as of like two days ago, so details are in short supply.
Gun owners haaaaaate their names on lists
I maintain that lists of all kinds are the bigger threat to the country right now. With all the data that has already been gathered it’s just a matter of time before some upstart company tells a government agency that it can play the Kevin Bacon game with their database and produce a list of <trait> that will result in <adjuctive> results. Company gets to keep a local copy of the database because nobody thought about data privacy/protections when they cut the check.
If you slapped a max limit on ownership, say you can’t have more than 50 rounds of ammo per gun, that wouldn’t have stopped almost any of the mass shooters in the last 10 years who almost all fired less than 50 shots on their rampages.
It would; however, put a damper on anyone funding their own training. I doubt anyone’s going from nothing to being a crack shot in 50 rounds, or even 500.
chilling effect
Those are bad everywhere. I wish that court case in DC that decided a defacto ban (on guns) amounted to a for-realsy ban, and was therefore unconstitutional.
Isn’t the real problem the frickin bullet?
Terminology is going to matter here. Modern ammunition that you’re probably thinking of is sold as a self contained cartridge with a bullet (the projectile part only) at one end, some powder inside a case (brass or steel or aluminum most of the time), and a primer at the other end. You poke the primer in a very specific way which lights the powder which builds up pressure which causes the bullet to leave the case and down a barrel. The terminology matters because in the past there have been attempts to regulate the bullets by giving them each an individual serial number, or by using “microstamping” on the firing pin of the firearm to mark the case. Those proposed technologies won’t work because just standard usage of the firearm would cause any marks or microstamping to become useless very quickly, and very often the first level of argument against such a law is that the person who wrote it didn’t know enough about the technology to be trying to legislate it.
So yeah you can fire a bullet so many different ways, a rusty nail and hammer will do the trick.
Please don’t try this. Firing a cartridge this way without the structure of the firearm around it will cause it to go off in a completely uncontrolled fashion. It’s a recipe for risking losing fingers or an eye, or worse.
ammo is much harder to manufacture and easier to regulate.
The person who assassinated the former PM of Japan assembled all of the gear he had from hardware store level parts, even making his own blackpowder. That’s in Japan where gun ownership isn’t common. Since he accomplished it there it’s unlikely to be able to prevented in the US.
The kinds of laws/regulations you’re proposing are currently being used in California with regards to 3D printers. They were unworkable crap that invited government insight into everyone’s home if that person happens to own a 3D printer, and they’ll create a lot of privacy issues without solving any gun problems (the laws mandated 3D printers reject printing anything that might be a “gun part”).
You’re really proposing mandating a firearms technology level at no better than sometime in the late 1800s which won’t work to solve any societal problems we’re having now, but will hamper people banking on having them around for self defense.
Maybe consider the problem from another perspective when considering firearms regulations? Also consider that the internet just estimated that there are at least several hundred billion rounds of ammunition in the US. You won’t design a process that effectively regulates them all without moving everyone into open air prisons devoid of their possessions, and you’d not be able to pull off something like that without a bunch of said ammo. You didn’t get rid of it; you just took it out of one group’s hands.
you don’t know anything about me
That’s why you can’t be trusted.
Install gnome-tweaks. It’ll be under “Accessories” or you can search for it in their activities travesty. There are some gnome-shell-extension-X things to install as well before you head into the tweaks program. They all used to be part of gnome-tweaks and now they’re not. If I recall a helpful web lookup occurs when you’re messing with that stuff and tells you what package to install.
gnome can be rough until you tailor it to your usage or if you’re in an austere environment with no internet. I think all those settings can be changed via editing dconf directly, but I don’t know how, and at this point in my life I don’t really feel like trying to hack a user experience provided to me into usefulness (no root, admin doesn’t want to use linux at all so he sets up the minimal least risky thing he can and won’t change it). gnome’s interpretation of “minimal” is pretty painful.
I use LXQT when I can. I’ll get around to trying modern KDE at some point.
You can customize gnome pretty far. The code to have normal human minimize/maximize/close buttons is all still there, and the window bar is there as well. You just have to know which programs to pull from dnf that know what registry dconf settings to adjust. I have yet to find a use case for nautilus between Dolphin (KDE) and using a terminal.
Long story short: Microsoft just helped pop an alleged hacker using some windows device ID. I linked to a post in the hackernews thread about d-bus:
Who defines the untrusted applications though?
¯\(ツ)/¯
If GNOME wrote it then they probably trust it. If you’re using GNOME, then you’ve accepted their security model on some level.
At least you know to go look for it. Attackers will only get more sophisticated:
according to their stated security model, untrusted applications must not be allowed to communicate with the secret service.
That won’t be a popular stance to take when someone eventually steals a bunch of cached, unlocked credentials off of D-BUS because of an oversight somewhere in the npm/aur/pip/cargo/whatever ecosystem.
More rabbit hole:
Hm. Had been thinking of it in terms of controlling the local file system.
Thanks.
people then concluded that FROST is harder to exploit in real-world scenarios than in the lab
What happens if there’s an extra 4GB of stuff laying around?
There seems to be some idea that firearm manufacturing is some version of witchcraft when the reality is that it’s closer to the professor with his coconuts on Gilligan’s Island. The arguments tend to go something like: “That’s impossible” when actually it really isn’t. “That’s illegal” when not only is it not, but it’s specifically protected. “You shouldn’t do that” when some people just like to tinker. “That should be banned” without understanding that the regulatory framework to truly ban it would require tracking everything and every one at all times.
That last one is where you get into a lot of very hairy issues. Apps to track women’s periods have been datamined, and some states propose using the data to look for possible pregnancies and termination of pregnancies. You can track every purchase of barstock, milling machines, routers, tampons, router bits, buckets, bags of salt, car batteries, and every web page access, and you’ll still not stop it, but the amount of privacy you lost in trade for the attempt is staggering.
The best comment in this thread, by far, is this one as a proposed solution to the problem, but of course nobody wants to try that. Instead we want to throw regulatory spaghetti against a wall and demand that people accept less durable materials to work with or demand that people be less innovative. History suggests those approaches won’t work.