You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 04:30:04 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control  (Read 3817 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Healergirl

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #75 on: May 08, 2013, 03:42:09 PM »
Well, all those privatized prisons need to be fed somehow.

Online Neysha

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #76 on: May 08, 2013, 04:36:34 PM »
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Gun violence is at a 20 year low, yet Americans are convinced it's as bad as it's ever been. That's media driven perceptions for ya!

Most crime rates in the United States have dropped significantly since the nineties IIRC.

Offline Hemingway

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #77 on: May 08, 2013, 04:44:31 PM »
While you are all wasting time with overly pricey wiki guns...


Slightly missing the point, I'd say. The possible consequences of something like Wiki guns goes way beyond the ability to produce some improvised weapon or another. Or I would hope so, at any rate.

Online Neysha

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #78 on: May 08, 2013, 05:38:18 PM »
I'd probably prefer a zip gun made with common materials and a 12 gauge slug then a piece of plastic that required a three thousand dollar printer to create, and has a high chance of misfiring painfully after a second shot... as far as an 'untraceable weapon' goes.

Offline Hemingway

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #79 on: May 08, 2013, 07:56:11 PM »
I'd probably prefer a zip gun made with common materials and a 12 gauge slug then a piece of plastic that required a three thousand dollar printer to create, and has a high chance of misfiring painfully after a second shot... as far as an 'untraceable weapon' goes.

Yes, and in 1890 you probably would've preferred a horse to a 'car'. Ahh, I'm being facetious, but you're still missing the larger picture.

You're ignoring, for one thing, the possibility of 3D printers becoming common household objects. It may seem like a stretch, but so have a lot of things. I don't think that's quite the point either, though. With a metal pipe and shotgun shells, you're fairly limited in what you can do. Not so when you're building things from the ground up in plastic. You're limited by the material you're making it in, yes. But they've already made the receivers, and now a handgun, and there's no real reason to assume that's some sort of upper limit.

I don't think that's really the big thing here either, though. Because guns are one thing, but then there's everything else. I would say that if you can make guns, that's a fairly good indication you can make more than plastic sporks and cups and whatnot. So now we're talking about a technology that could become a common household thing, which in essence eliminates the need for transportation of a wide range of items. That's big, potentially.

Just to put things into perspective, the only reason our current world economy works is because of containerization. It's because producing something in China, or Taiwan, or wherever you like, and then transporting it to the US and to Europe and elsewhere is practically free compared to the cost of actually producing things in the countries where you want to sell them. Now, at the risk of overstating the potential of 3D printing, it could quite conceivably reconfigure the way certain industries work.

Sorry, I get excited when talking about geography.

Online Neysha

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #80 on: May 08, 2013, 08:09:51 PM »
Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument.

So no, I don't feel I'm missing the bigger picture at all. If anything, I feel the bigger picture is out of the scope of this discussion... IMHO. ;)

Offline DriskollTopic starter

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #81 on: May 08, 2013, 08:26:50 PM »
Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument.

So no, I don't feel I'm missing the bigger picture at all. If anything, I feel the bigger picture is out of the scope of this discussion... IMHO. ;)

By this particular discussion, do you mean the thread itself? If so, it's titled "Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control" for a reason.

The scope of this discussion then is what lies ahead, not what is. As others before you have stated, there are much cheaper and much more reliable ways to make a gun at home than wiki weapons as they are now.

If 3d printers became a household commodity as I and I think some others in this thread may believe, and if wiki guns continue to be refined and developed, then these weapons may become the cheapest and easiest way for anyone to arm themselves without any regulation whatsoever.

Please keep this in mind when bringing up modern gun control issues here.

Online Neysha

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #82 on: May 08, 2013, 09:40:08 PM »
By this particular discussion, do you mean the thread itself? If so, it's titled "Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control" for a reason.

The scope of this discussion then is what lies ahead, not what is. As others before you have stated, there are much cheaper and much more reliable ways to make a gun at home than wiki weapons as they are now.

If 3d printers became a household commodity as I and I think some others in this thread may believe, and if wiki guns continue to be refined and developed, then these weapons may become the cheapest and easiest way for anyone to arm themselves without any regulation whatsoever.

Please keep this in mind when bringing up modern gun control issues here.

Oh for goodness sake...

Quote from: Hewmingway
I don't think that's really the big thing here either, though. Because guns are one thing, but then there's everything else. I would say that if you can make guns, that's a fairly good indication you can make more than plastic sporks and cups and whatnot. So now we're talking about a technology that could become a common household thing, which in essence eliminates the need for transportation of a wide range of items. That's big, potentially.

Just to put things into perspective, the only reason our current world economy works is because of containerization. It's because producing something in China, or Taiwan, or wherever you like, and then transporting it to the US and to Europe and elsewhere is practically free compared to the cost of actually producing things in the countries where you want to sell them. Now, at the risk of overstating the potential of 3D printing, it could quite conceivably reconfigure the way certain industries work.

Sorry, I get excited when talking about geography.

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with gun control, modern or future beyond very tenuous tangents.

Quote from: Hemingway
Slightly missing the point, I'd say. The possible consequences of something like Wiki guns goes way beyond the ability to produce some improvised weapon or another. Or I would hope so, at any rate.

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with gun control, modern or future beyond very tenuous tangents.

These were the responses directed towards me, and thus this is what I responded to. If this was Wiki Weapons and the Future of 3D Printer Manufacturing... I'm sure I'd be in error... but last I checked its not. So if people try to counter or respond to my posts with something I feel is clearly off topic, I'll state as much.

Seriously now... are people just looking to find things to dispute for arguments sake?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 09:42:30 PM by Neysha »

Offline DriskollTopic starter

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #83 on: May 08, 2013, 10:17:32 PM »
By talking about today's printed guns and modern gun control, you're ignoring the entire focus of this discussion. It's been mentioned by a few different people now (not to mention in the Vice interview with Cody Wilson and the original documentary I think) that 3d printers may become very prevalent. Throw wiki weapons into the mix and that has very serious implications for gun control.

No, "The Future of 3D Printer Manufacturing" is not in the title, but it has been mentioned throughout the conversation of this thread several times now. If you cannot see what that has to do with the future of gun control that's fine. But don't blame others for being off topic when they are not. It's not their fault that you can't be bothered to acquaint yourself with what's been said up until now. 


Online Neysha

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #84 on: May 08, 2013, 10:39:11 PM »
I'm not sure how posting a video with a jest filled comment is ignoring the subject at hand. It seems to me that some posters are being excessive into reading meanings behind things.

And considering my responses, I havent been ignorant of anything beyond a desire to point out, correctly it seems, what appears to be two responses to my posts which I feel are off topic. Your ignoring of that fact and admission that the topic isn't on the future of 3D manufacturing applications seems to lend credence to that interpretation.

Furthermore, I've already consented that what Hemingway had already said on 3D printing may very well be true. So again, not ignoring anything.

Stating that a conversation is veering off topic isn't an admission of ignorance on my end. It's merely me pointing out that the topic has been derailed. The fact it has occurred earlier doesn't mitigate the fact its still off topic. If we're discussing wiki weapons and gun control now and in the future,  lets. If we're going to discuss the future of 3d printer manufacturing, fine. But I'd rather not be disparaged for calling an off topic response what it is. If that sort of general conversation is considered on topic, then I won't interfere. I just feel its not IMHO and feel that there is plenty of justification for believing such. And I won't consent to being insulted because of it.

Unless you can tell me what parts of the specific Hemingway posts I quoted earlier are directly related to gun control beyond very tenuous tangents. I've already admitted I can see Hemingways assertion about 3D printer manufacturing being pausible but I guess that's just not enough. :(
« Last Edit: May 08, 2013, 10:41:26 PM by Neysha »

Offline Inkidu

  • E's Resident Girlomancer, Dedicated Philogynist, The Compartive of a Superlative, SLG's Sammich Life-Giver
  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Location: In a staring contest with the Void.
  • Gender: Male
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #85 on: May 08, 2013, 10:59:26 PM »
So, ah. Apparently there's now a fully 3D printed gun out there. I haven't read the article thoroughly, so I might be missing something. Here's one from CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/06/tech/innovation/3d-gun-video/index.html
I wouldn't trust any gun that's not made from sold metal casting. Those printed guns are probably good for one shot at best if they aren't just hand grenades.

Offline DriskollTopic starter

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #86 on: May 09, 2013, 12:15:45 AM »
I'm not sure how posting a video with a jest filled comment is ignoring the subject at hand. It seems to me that some posters are being excessive into reading meanings behind things.

"While you are all wasting time with overly pricey wiki guns..." is a jest? Seemed more like a dig to me, but fine. While the video wasn't necessarily ignoring the subject at hand, it did bring up a point that I feel has already been overstated.

The fact that you posted the video at all would suggest to some that you were not familiar with the conversation of the thread, and that you had inadvertently ignored the point of all this, which is that wiki weapons may become a problem in the future.

Your third post in the thread also did nothing to help the perception that you did not understand the point of this discussion, as you imply that anyone buying a 3d printer to make a gun would be foolish to do so when zip guns are a practical alternative. Again, this ignores much of what has been said here, that wiki weapons may pose a problem in the future, but not as they are now.

And considering my responses, I havent been ignorant of anything beyond a desire to point out, correctly it seems, what appears to be two responses to my posts which I feel are off topic. Your ignoring of that fact and admission that the topic isn't on the future of 3D manufacturing applications seems to lend credence to that interpretation.

If the two responses you are referring to are the ones I believe them to be, then they are in fact on topic for the thread. Let's take another look.

I don't think that's really the big thing here either, though. Because guns are one thing, but then there's everything else. I would say that if you can make guns, that's a fairly good indication you can make more than plastic sporks and cups and whatnot. So now we're talking about a technology that could become a common household thing, which in essence eliminates the need for transportation of a wide range of items. That's big, potentially.

Here we see Hemingway give greater detail to something he said in his first paragraph. The potential for 3d printers to become common household items. Here though, he gives greater detail as to why that may be, by implying that 3d printers have practical uses outside of making firearms. It is these practical uses that will likely make them appealing to the average consumer, and when they are cost effective and mass produced (as I believe they will be), I think many people will effectively have what could be used as a gun printer within their own homes. Here in lies the potential danger and connection to the large theme of future gun control. 

Just to put things into perspective, the only reason our current world economy works is because of containerization. It's because producing something in China, or Taiwan, or wherever you like, and then transporting it to the US and to Europe and elsewhere is practically free compared to the cost of actually producing things in the countries where you want to sell them. Now, at the risk of overstating the potential of 3D printing, it could quite conceivably reconfigure the way certain industries work.


I see this as more of a clarification and expansion of his idea at the end of the last paragraph, but even here I can see some connections to the theme, and I think it's unfair to label it as off topic. Here Hemingway implied how 3d printers may have the potential to eliminate the need for transporting various goods. If that were to happen, business as we know it would change, and vendors would be forced to change along with it. Goods would no longer need to be manufactured and shipped, and it may even become common practice for vendors to simply sell a digital copy of their  3d blueprint of an item instead of the physical object, relying on people at home to use their 3d printer. If this practice extended to gun companies, then we may even see the idea of printing guns at home being promoted or encouraged.   

Yes, there are a lot of "Ifs" in these interpretations, and I think this may be the risk of overstating the potential of 3d printers that Hemingway stated, but my point is that these two responses are very much connected to the overall discussion and are not what I would consider off topic.


Furthermore, I've already consented that what Hemingway had already said on 3D printing may very well be true. So again, not ignoring anything.

Consenting while getting a jibe in there that you didn't actually miss anything.

Stating that a conversation is veering off topic isn't an admission of ignorance on my end. It's merely me pointing out that the topic has been derailed. The fact it has occurred earlier doesn't mitigate the fact its still off topic. If we're discussing wiki weapons and gun control now and in the future,  lets. If we're going to discuss the future of 3d printer manufacturing, fine. But I'd rather not be disparaged for calling an off topic response what it is. If that sort of general conversation is considered on topic, then I won't interfere. I just feel its not IMHO and feel that there is plenty of justification for believing such. And I won't consent to being insulted because of it.

Wiki weapons, the future of gun control, and 3d printer manufacturing are fundamentally connected. It's hard to talk about wiki weapons and the future of gun control without mentioning what wiki weapons will be made on, namely 3d printers. It's logical then to see discussion about 3d printers pop up in the middle of a discussion about wiki weapons.

I feel as though you've been rather insulting since you first posted here, and I find it odd that you would try to accuse others of it now.

Unless you can tell me what parts of the specific Hemingway posts I quoted earlier are directly related to gun control beyond very tenuous tangents.

And so what if they are tenuous tangents? Is that not still related? Remember we're talking about the future here, which I've always believed is uncertain at best. After starting this thread and seeing the progress Cody Wilson had made, I thought it would still take a couple years or so to get a full wiki weapon to work. It took less than two months. So why not talk about all possibilities when discussing the future?   
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 12:19:08 AM by Driskoll »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #87 on: May 09, 2013, 06:22:04 AM »
Let's all try to remember to keep it civil.

Offline Healergirl

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #88 on: May 09, 2013, 07:06:42 AM »
What Oniya said.

Discussion of 3D printers cannot be filtered out of this discussion, current and future 3D printer capability is very much the reason for the discussion!

What we call 3d printers, Science Fiction writers referred to as fabricators,   Devices that people  fed raw material in one end of, and got usable things out of the other.  We have lived to see the first-generation practical-use examples of what once was a staple of Science Fiction.

Welcome to the Future!

So... next generation "printers/fabricators", what will their feedstock be?  A less specialized feedstock, not a true raw material, but with broader applications, tougher, more durable for hard use that the ABS feedstock is my guess.  Probably several different feedstocks, the use of which can be combined for assorted parts.

Then not much later.... printer/fabricators that take genuine raw material, whatever you have handy, perhaps.  You might not be able to make exactly what you want, but most people will not let Perfect stand in the way of Good Enough.

Everybody asks "Where are the flying cars?"  Flying cars are toys.  This... this is big, practical, everybody can use it, once it sinks in what the tech can do, everybody will decide they need it.

Look out, world.

Online Neysha

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #89 on: May 09, 2013, 07:46:02 AM »
"While you are all wasting time with overly pricey wiki guns..." is a jest? Seemed more like a dig to me, but fine. While the video wasn't necessarily ignoring the subject at hand, it did bring up a point that I feel has already been overstated.

Posting a youtube video with that comment would require extreme exception to be considered insulting IMHO considered the light hearted nature of the video itself. Furthermore it is an extremely common thing to do on forums, make a glib comment (or even no comment) and post a youtube video, regardless of the subject at hand. And the video wasn't ignoring the subject. It still showed a valid point of comparison for contemporary gun control. And since when is an issue 'overstated' in any way forbidden in discussion? I didn't realize zip gun discussion had been overstated already in this thread. Has it? And if so, what is the standard?

Quote
The fact that you posted the video at all would suggest to some that you were not familiar with the conversation of the thread, and that you had inadvertently ignored the point of all this, which is that wiki weapons may become a problem in the future.

No, the fact I posted the video only points out I posted a video about zip guns. Anything else would require inference into my personality and judgment that I severely doubt you're capable of making off of a single video post or in my ensuing responses.

Quote
Your third post in the thread also did nothing to help the perception that you did not understand the point of this discussion, as you imply that anyone buying a 3d printer to make a gun would be foolish to do so when zip guns are a practical alternative. Again, this ignores much of what has been said here, that wiki weapons may pose a problem in the future, but not as they are now.

And thankfully Hemingway illuminated his point further, though I felt it was straying off topic.

Hence my fourth response of:

Quote from: Neysha
Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument

I'm not sure how consenting that what he is saying is plausible, and specifically stating that his comment was 'fair' even though I personally assumed it to be off topic.

Quote
Here we see Hemingway give greater detail to something he said in his first paragraph. The potential for 3d printers to become common household items. Here though, he gives greater detail as to why that may be, by implying that 3d printers have practical uses outside of making firearms. It is these practical uses that will likely make them appealing to the average consumer, and when they are cost effective and mass produced (as I believe they will be), I think many people will effectively have what could be used as a gun printer within their own homes. Here in lies the potential danger and connection to the large theme of future gun control.

Hence why I stated:

Quote from: Neysha
Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument.

So no, I don't feel I'm missing the bigger picture at all. If anything, I feel the bigger picture is out of the scope of this discussion... IMHO

Note the incredible LACK of blaming him on my part. I merely stated that I felt that I was responding according to the narrow definition of gun control.
 
Quote
I see this as more of a clarification and expansion of his idea at the end of the last paragraph, but even here I can see some connections to the theme, and I think it's unfair to label it as off topic. Here Hemingway implied how 3d printers may have the potential to eliminate the need for transporting various goods. If that were to happen, business as we know it would change, and vendors would be forced to change along with it. Goods would no longer need to be manufactured and shipped, and it may even become common practice for vendors to simply sell a digital copy of their  3d blueprint of an item instead of the physical object, relying on people at home to use their 3d printer. If this practice extended to gun companies, then we may even see the idea of printing guns at home being promoted or encouraged.

Which is all great... and that I feel is off topic... and beyond the scope of this thread:

Quote from: Neysha
Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument.

So no, I don't feel I'm missing the bigger picture at all. If anything, I feel the bigger picture is out of the scope of this discussion... IMHO

Quote
Yes, there are a lot of "Ifs" in these interpretations, and I think this may be the risk of overstating the potential of 3d printers that Hemingway stated, but my point is that these two responses are very much connected to the overall discussion and are not what I would consider off topic.

Then I guess we will agree to disagree. While we can both agree they are related, I personally feel it shifts beyond the narrow scope of gun control which my contribution was framed for.

Quote
Consenting while getting a jibe in there that you didn't actually miss anything.

I'm afraid I don't know what a "jibe" is.

Quote
Wiki weapons, the future of gun control, and 3d printer manufacturing are fundamentally connected. It's hard to talk about wiki weapons and the future of gun control without mentioning what wiki weapons will be made on, namely 3d printers. It's logical then to see discussion about 3d printers pop up in the middle of a discussion about wiki weapons.

I never stated 3d Printers shouldn't be discussed, but that it should be focused on the wiki weapons, as is the subject at hand. As can be seen from my third response, I was merely illustrating my point of view, and had already consented to Hemingway's pausible POV and as far as I can tell, didn't even blame him for being off topic, as much as explaining my own POV/opinion of how the discussion should be focused and why I responded the way I did.

Quote
I feel as though you've been rather insulting since you first posted here, and I find it odd that you would try to accuse others of it now.

I feel my discussion with Hemingway wasn't insulting in the least. Now do I find my original post in this thread 'insulting' as much as a light hearted jest. In fact, I found my brief conversation with Hemingway to be perfectly normal as it ran its course. And I honestly never saw where I insulted or even BLAMED him for being an off topic poster. AFAIK the disparaging attitude and insults only came when you stumbled into the thread and decided to call me ignorant without any basis, as can be seen now.

Quote
And so what if they are tenuous tangents? Is that not still related? Remember we're talking about the future here, which I've always believed is uncertain at best.

Because:

Quote from: Neysha
Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument.

However...

Quote from: Neysha
If we're going to discuss the future of 3d printer manufacturing, fine. But I'd rather not be disparaged for calling an off topic response what it is. If that sort of general conversation is considered on topic, then I won't interfere. I just feel its not IMHO and feel that there is plenty of justification for believing such. And I won't consent to being insulted because of it.

However, you insulted me. And without reason or cause IMHO. So I naturally reacted defensively.

While you are all wasting time with overly pricey wiki guns...

$7 12-Gauge Zip Gun Homemade Shotgun

If I insulted ANYONE by posting a jestfilled comment and the Zip Gun youtube video above, I apologize. I didn't realize that could cause offense.

Furthermore if I insulted Hemingway by posting:

Quote from: Neysha
Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument.

So no, I don't feel I'm missing the bigger picture at all. If anything, I feel the bigger picture is out of the scope of this discussion... IMHO. ;)

I apologize again. I thought stating "Fair enough" and trying to explain my initial second response as being to focus on the very narrow discussion of the gun control argument, I was actually attempting to use language to NOT blame him for being off topic, as much as pointing out that my own idea of what was on topic was far more narrow then his. And then to clearly illustrate that I meant no offense, I ended it by stating it was in my humble opinion followed by a smiley. So again, Hemingway, I apologize for insulting you, and the perception that I was blaming you for anything. That wasn't my intention at all.

Offline Healergirl

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #90 on: May 09, 2013, 07:50:23 AM »
Perhaps Driskoll should remane the thread to "Wiki Weapons, 3D printers, and the Future of Gun Contgrol"

I honestly don't think printers can be stripped from the discussion, they are the fundamental basis, the reason we are discussing this at all.

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #91 on: May 09, 2013, 08:44:37 AM »
I started to list a link to Slate which states the flaws in the current version. But well the information is out there and from the look of this thread people have read it. Also Mr. Wilson's ultimate goals are out there and that is that he wished to pull the tails of gun control advocates and make them scream. I would say he has accomplished that goal and then some just look at this thread.

I am a life long gun owner as I have said before in this thread. I lean right though tend to have a nasty moderate streak. I have also bowed out of this discussion because I found I was falling into Mr. Wilson's trap as well. My point here is both sides of this or any political debate have fallen into the trap of letting the radicals define them. I would not approach things like Mr. Wilson what he is doing is an in your face action to create a stir. Pick your own say liberal cause heck use gun control and you will find the opposite side who stirs the pot the same way. What we end up with is well *smiles and points to posts above* all of us at each other's throats.

This is the problem with the political system we have. There are former friends I refuse to speak to anymore over the gun issue for example. I will not support any further gun control because of fear radical thought will shift "common sense" into something that tries to take my firearms. All of us need to cease falling into the traps laid by the type people who stir pots like the fellow and his Wiki weapon which most agree is as dangerous to the shooter as anyone on the other end.

That includes me so I am trying to simply answer the gun debate one way in the future and leave it at that. The second amendment is part of the constitution, the courts including SCOTUS have upheld and found that it is a valid portion of the constitution and that the "militia" does not impede a private citizen's right to own firearms. So taking that as judicial fact [feel free to look it up] what we are left with is if one does not like 2A there are methods in place to amend the constitution. The energy would be better served in that direction, until that time accept that in the US private firearms ownership is a legal right. Do not fall into the trap of letting someone who made a spiffy plastic gun get you all wound up. In return I will not fall into the trap of say letting the mayor of NYC get me wound up because he thinks he should be able to take my firearms because he has an issue in his back yard when things are just fine in mine.

Online Neysha

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #92 on: May 09, 2013, 11:21:53 AM »
Perhaps Driskoll should remane the thread to "Wiki Weapons, 3D printers, and the Future of Gun Contgrol"

I honestly don't think printers can be stripped from the discussion, they are the fundamental basis, the reason we are discussing this at all.

Well it seems besides the point now, as appreciated as that might be. I can see that my opinion on what the subject is seems to be against the consensus. My main issue was being disparaged by Driskoll because I clarified my position.

I honestly didn't want to sound condescending or insulting to Hemingway or anyone else when I made my original post with the video. It was meant as a lighthearted jest, like many of the comments here or to be 'facetious" as Hemingway stated. However I will admit when Driskoll called me ignorant, I feel it was an insult and decided after Driskoll's second response, to respond in kind in a provocative manner. I'm willing to consider the issue finished if he has, since we're basically wasting words at this juncture and are both clearly off topic and derailing the discussion now. :)

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #93 on: May 09, 2013, 12:39:52 PM »
Neither calling someone 'ignorant' nor escalating the matter in thread are appropriate actions.  If you have an issue with another member, the appropriate means of dealing with it is either by taking it to PMs, or to Staff. 

I'm willing to consider the issue finished if he has, since we're basically wasting words at this juncture and are both clearly off topic and derailing the discussion now. :)

The issue is finished with regards to this thread.  Further posts of either disparagement or provocation will result in the thread being locked for at least 24 hours.

Online Neysha

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #94 on: May 09, 2013, 02:30:30 PM »
It looks like the government taking its first actions beyond just words in this case.

Looks like the beginning of a long, expensive, ineffectual campaign to prevent the proliferation of the data. :p

Also... barely relevant. :p



Can a 3D printer manufacture a MILK BOTTLE scope?

The answer is... I'm not sure actually... hmmm...
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 02:46:28 PM by Neysha »

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #95 on: May 10, 2013, 07:03:33 AM »
Shape, probably.  The same type of shape data that goes into rendering could most likely be converted, since that's essentially what the 3-D modeling software is that someone mentioned up-thread - but you'd want to use an opaque material for the milk bottle.  The lens might be an issue, as I'm not sure if optical-grade polycarbonates can be used (although if they start making 3-D printers that can do optical lenses, I am all over that, baby!  I'd make up the cost of the printer in what I'd save on new glasses!)

Edit:  Never mind - I thought someone mentioned 3-D modeling software...
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 07:14:45 AM by Oniya »

Online Neysha

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #96 on: May 10, 2013, 10:00:23 AM »
Yes but to get a true classic milk bottle scope, we would need it to print using glass as a base material.

Would that work?

If not, then clearly we'd need to produce some sort of automated 3D glass blower technology.

And to pull this back on topic of gun control... is there a possibility of control on utilizing these 3D printers for nefarious purposes, such as the installation of DRM on the hardware of the printer... DRM that would be... not sure of the term... below the operating system and other 3d printer software.

While DRM has an entire industry related to evading it, maybe gun control along those lines could inhibit the proliferation of weapons. Much like with the earlier arguments about basement gun builds or my piint about zip guns, even today one coukf concrivably manufacture, and manufacture cheaply, everything from single shot zip guns to Sten SMG analogues but we are not seeimg a proliferation of those weapons.

Obviously there are a lot of reasons for that. For one... illegal use of weapons is... illegal. But also it dors require both tooling and knowledge and desire which many potential interested parties simply lack, and of course, there is a supply of far more reliable and professionally manufactured firearms already.

So when we're exploring the proliferation of wiki weapons, we have to ask, what makes them decidedly different from a zip gun... or a homemade Sten or other firearm. Its been stated several times already that 3d printers may become commonplace. But the Liberator still requires sixteen or so parts for what seems to be a dangerous one shot handgun. To make a proper magazine fed, semi automatic, accurate, ergonomic and reliable handgun? Or a shotgun? Or rifle? Or assault rifle?

A lot of gun owners are negligent in basic maintenence of guns now. Much less assembling them. Or another thing, we all have appliances and cars and there's still a big demand for basic services like oil changes or replacing dryer belts. And with iwners msnuals and the internet, its not like we can't learn how to to these things ourselves. While some criminals wont be deterred, many if us, criminal and otherwise might be like... do I want to print this gun... possibly illegally, or just buy one legitimately?


Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #97 on: May 10, 2013, 11:03:06 AM »
Yes but to get a true classic milk bottle scope, we would need it to print using glass as a base material.

Would that work?

If not, then clearly we'd need to produce some sort of automated 3D glass blower technology.

How do you think they make glass bottles now?  ;)  Usually, the molten glass is vacuum-formed to a mold, which is just blowing in reverse (and doesn't require all that fancy twirling and hammering).  It might be possible to 'print' glass using a silica powder as your base - after all, glass is simply melted sand in its most basic form.  Clarity might be impacted, but that was less of an issue with the shell, compared to the lens.  Speaking as someone with < -6.5 diopters in each eye, the poly-carbonate is the way to go with the lenses.

Edit:  Found that reference to software.  It was in another thread about 3-D printing something else complex.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 08:13:05 AM by Oniya »

Offline Zakharra

Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #98 on: May 12, 2013, 08:01:09 AM »
I started to list a link to Slate which states the flaws in the current version. But well the information is out there and from the look of this thread people have read it. Also Mr. Wilson's ultimate goals are out there and that is that he wished to pull the tails of gun control advocates and make them scream. I would say he has accomplished that goal and then some just look at this thread.

I am a life long gun owner as I have said before in this thread. I lean right though tend to have a nasty moderate streak. I have also bowed out of this discussion because I found I was falling into Mr. Wilson's trap as well. My point here is both sides of this or any political debate have fallen into the trap of letting the radicals define them. I would not approach things like Mr. Wilson what he is doing is an in your face action to create a stir. Pick your own say liberal cause heck use gun control and you will find the opposite side who stirs the pot the same way. What we end up with is well *smiles and points to posts above* all of us at each other's throats.

This is the problem with the political system we have. There are former friends I refuse to speak to anymore over the gun issue for example. I will not support any further gun control because of fear radical thought will shift "common sense" into something that tries to take my firearms. All of us need to cease falling into the traps laid by the type people who stir pots like the fellow and his Wiki weapon which most agree is as dangerous to the shooter as anyone on the other end.

That includes me so I am trying to simply answer the gun debate one way in the future and leave it at that. The second amendment is part of the constitution, the courts including SCOTUS have upheld and found that it is a valid portion of the constitution and that the "militia" does not impede a private citizen's right to own firearms. So taking that as judicial fact [feel free to look it up] what we are left with is if one does not like 2A there are methods in place to amend the constitution. The energy would be better served in that direction, until that time accept that in the US private firearms ownership is a legal right. Do not fall into the trap of letting someone who made a spiffy plastic gun get you all wound up. In return I will not fall into the trap of say letting the mayor of NYC get me wound up because he thinks he should be able to take my firearms because he has an issue in his back yard when things are just fine in mine.

 /claps slowly and approvingly

 Well said.

Offline sleepingferret

  • Knight
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Location: Someplace with warm weather and no silly politicians...oh wait, that'd be my dreams
  • Gender: Male
  • Conflict is inevitable...How we solve it, matters.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control
« Reply #99 on: May 24, 2013, 01:51:33 PM »
I started to list a link to Slate which states the flaws in the current version. But well the information is out there and from the look of this thread people have read it. Also Mr. Wilson's ultimate goals are out there and that is that he wished to pull the tails of gun control advocates and make them scream. I would say he has accomplished that goal and then some just look at this thread.

I am a life long gun owner as I have said before in this thread. I lean right though tend to have a nasty moderate streak. I have also bowed out of this discussion because I found I was falling into Mr. Wilson's trap as well. My point here is both sides of this or any political debate have fallen into the trap of letting the radicals define them. I would not approach things like Mr. Wilson what he is doing is an in your face action to create a stir. Pick your own say liberal cause heck use gun control and you will find the opposite side who stirs the pot the same way. What we end up with is well *smiles and points to posts above* all of us at each other's throats.

This is the problem with the political system we have. There are former friends I refuse to speak to anymore over the gun issue for example. I will not support any further gun control because of fear radical thought will shift "common sense" into something that tries to take my firearms. All of us need to cease falling into the traps laid by the type people who stir pots like the fellow and his Wiki weapon which most agree is as dangerous to the shooter as anyone on the other end.

That includes me so I am trying to simply answer the gun debate one way in the future and leave it at that. The second amendment is part of the constitution, the courts including SCOTUS have upheld and found that it is a valid portion of the constitution and that the "militia" does not impede a private citizen's right to own firearms. So taking that as judicial fact [feel free to look it up] what we are left with is if one does not like 2A there are methods in place to amend the constitution. The energy would be better served in that direction, until that time accept that in the US private firearms ownership is a legal right. Do not fall into the trap of letting someone who made a spiffy plastic gun get you all wound up. In return I will not fall into the trap of say letting the mayor of NYC get me wound up because he thinks he should be able to take my firearms because he has an issue in his back yard when things are just fine in mine.

People also forget that even though the Constitution was written 200 some years ago, when "times were different"; that the principles of the Constitution remain the same.  We the People of the United States of America, are the "militia".  Because on the one hand, the 2nd Amendment was written to help defend this country from foreign invaders; especially back all those years ago.  On the other, it was also was written to protect the citizens from its own government if absolutely necessary, because of our fight with the British (aka the Revolutionary War).  And then of course, over the years it has evolved into a private citizen's right to bear arms for defense of self, which in all reality can even be traced back to the amendment's first en-statement.  As citizens then, also owned firearms and weren't always "on duty" for the defense of country, because once we defeated the British, they agreed to leave and we moved on with forming our own country.

Now, moving up the timeline have there been tragedies caused by irresponsible, just completely uncaring people, or flat out "lunatics"...sadly yes.  The same could be said for all the "idiots" who cause car wrecks by driving drunk, speeding, texting and driving, or other irresponsible driving habits.  However, I don't really see any serious actions being taken against all of the irresponsible driving.  A law against texting and driving gets passed here or there, new speed limits, or new actions against drunk driving may be "talked about"...but where is the actual enforcement?  Law enforcement budgets aren't there to back up all the "tough talk"...so it doesn't do any good, we can't even enforce the laws we have.

But back to gun control... same thing applies here, we have reasonable laws, they often times aren't being enforced properly.  And why?  The law enforcement agencies backing them, don't have the money and personnel to do so.  They don't even have the personnel to do what we really need to do, which is respond to emergency calls quickly and efficiently.  And people want to either take away our law abiding citizens' right to bear arms or severally restrict them?  That's the wrong answer.  We the law abiding citizens have done nothing to deserve such a response.

While I will say nothing to deny that the recent shootings are nothing but horrible tragedies that the affected communities and families deserve our love and support.  We the people of the United States, must all take a step back and think with our heads not our hearts when making tough choices that affect our people.  Criminals and lunatics, are going to do whatever the heck they want regardless of law, it is just the way of things...they find a way.  Tighter restrictions aren't going to prevent such tragedies.  Better emergency situation planning, better security (be it armed security guards or willing and trained armed teachers/staff), and even properly funded law enforcement agencies can all help to either prevent, stop, or reduce the impact of any future incidents.

We don't go looking for trouble, just because we carry a gun...we don't even want it.  I wish there was no reason for me to carry one anywhere but a firing range or shooting competitions.  But in today's society there are those who think the word "negotiate" means "to get what I want by threatening another, or even killing another".  They think they can get what they want through violence, and the only way they'll back down is if you put a bullet in their damn skull.  It's a sad truth, while we can sit here and debate our stance on different things, without resorting to violent actions...them?  They'd just assume get results by holding a gun to someone's head if you or I didn't agree with their point of view. 
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 01:54:31 PM by sleepingferret »