posted by jmog

Proof you don't know the technology behind 3D pringint. Most 3D printers use deposition technology like Fusion Deposition Models, CVD (chemical vapor deposition), etc. They basically add a layer at a time. They do NOT etch/cut/laser out the part like a CNC does.

 

Think of sliced bread but in reverse. You cook a slice of bread at a time then stack them on top each other to make a loaf.

 

The only type of 3D printing that even uses a laser is one that only uses a laser to sinter a powder turning it into a solid layer. No 3D printer is precision layer cutting like a CNC does.

 

I actually have worked on and been published years ago on some of these physical processes (chemical vapor deposition and plasma vapor deposition primarily), so I understand the science behind 3D printers. 3D printers and CNC machining are not even close to similar technologies.

Funny thing is, back when we were doing the initial science/math modeling we figured this technology would be HUGE in the formation of miniature microchips...and it has been. We never really thought of the idea of 3D printing.

 

Also, before you say "but you can't deposit things like metal..." while most 3D printers now only work for polymer materials, when we were doing this in a lab back 15 years ago we were doing it with highly conductive metals like gold, silver, and copper to show its applications in the miniature microchip world.

 

So yes, metal can be deposited 1 layer at a time, just not as "easy" on the large scale (firearms) yet.

 

You might be right that most 3d printers the average person will buy isn't using laser to cut.. but I wouldn't really call that an accurate statement overall. We have some 3d printers at work and they vary per application. I can tell you the 3d printers we use for metal and polymers aren't the same machines. Any application we use for steel is using laser. And it's strictly for testing purposes. Anything precision we still machine with a cnc.

also.. you sound like you have a pretty cool job lol. Is it all research?

posted by kizer permanente

You might be right that most 3d printers the average person will buy isn't using laser to cut.. but I wouldn't really call that an accurate statement overall. We have some 3d printers at work and they vary per application. I can tell you the 3d printers we use for metal and polymers aren't the same machines. Any application we use for steel is using laser. And it's strictly for testing purposes. Anything precision we still machine with a cnc.

The 3D printers that use a laser are not using the laser to mill/cut like a CNC, they are using the laser to heat the material up inside the printer to a "plasma" state (not gas, not liquid) and then it can be deposited on the substrate (sorry, terms we used back when I was doing this in a lab).

And you are correct, 3D printers for polymers are different than 3D printers for metals. Typically (going off memory so I can be wrong) the 3D printers that deposit metal use lasers to heat up the metal composite powder that was deposited to cure/cook out the non-metalic part of the "print". They use the Fusion Deposition Process (not much different than CVD and PVD that I mentioned above) to do the original deposition of the composite powder.

Again, CNC and 3D printers are vastly different technologies and don't even compare to each other. Just because they both contain a "laser" doesn't mean they can be compared to the cost of the technology being lowered over the years.

A CNC takes a full piece of material and cuts away the parts that you don't want anymore to get down to what your part is. A 3D printer starts with nothing and builds it up layer by layer.

no ones arguing that fact. I'm saying for steel applications we use a DMLS printer. And its not like the $1000 one you can buy and put in your office. I'm not sure what you're disputing?

nevermind.. You were educating me on the process. You're right.. I have no idea how they work. I'm just an electrician whose had exposure to them. So I do appreciate the info. 

posted by like_that

You can look at many products/services that started as a premium and has made it's way to an average household.  If the market is there it happens.  It might not fathomable to you now, but you most likely will feel dumb in the future. Do you want to make a 10 year bet it will happen with 3D printers lol?

Anyway, whether  you think 3D printers will be in the hands of an average household or not, that wasn't the big picture of my point.  The big picture is gun grabbers can cry for more laws and bans, but more obstacles will be created to get in the way of their gun free fetish.

with jmogs info, I stand corrected. I had a backwards idea of how they worked. I think you're probably right that the technology can bring down the price. I was thinking from a machine aspect. 

posted by kizer permanente

no ones arguing that fact. I'm saying for steel applications we use a DMLS printer. And its not like the $1000 one you can buy and put in your office. I'm not sure what you're disputing?

Oh no doubt, a DMLS or industrial/production 3D printer that can do metalic objects right now is literally 6 figures to obtain one.

However, think about this, 15 years ago the technology didn't exist except in a lab. I literally remember our group being exited when we could get one gold layer on a piece of glass and then one plastic/composite layer on top of it with the same thickness...15 years ago. That was the idea of using gold/silver for microscopic microchips back then.

Now we are talking about using this technology to create full size parts out of "air" (I know, over simplification).

A realistic polymer 3D printer for a "desk" was 6 figures when they first came out...you can now buy them on line for less than $500.

Most metalic 3D printers are 6 figures as this technology is still newer than the polymer ones.

However, Markfroged just came out a year ago with the first one under 6 figures, the Metal X hovers around $60-70k depending on features. 

Compared to $600-750k that most were just a few years ago, that's a 90% reduction in price in a few years...

3D printing will be real and affordable to a normal person inside of a decade.

posted by queencitybuckeye

The number of crimes prevented by others using "carelessly stored firearms" dwarf the number used in crimes. Not even close.

Great! The number of crimes prosecuted by prosecutors greatly outweigh those blown by corrupt prosecutors. Just like prosecutors can bear the incidental burden of having to adhere to codes of conduct and exercise the care that a reasonable, prudent prosecutor would - firearm owners can be held to the standard of reasonable prudence as well. Having standards of conduct for prosecutors does not make prosecutors less likely to solve crime - rather it makes the marketplace work better because there are consequences for negligence. Likewise, expecting those who keep arms to exercise the care that a reasonable & prudent keeper of arms would, would not unduly burden their ability to protect themselves. 

This is the way to let the marketplace solve the negative externalities that we all bear from mass firearm ownership while still preserving natural liberties. 

I'm sorry, your writing is often poor, but your last post is all but illiterate. If you could match your reach with your grasp, please.

posted by like_that

We already have data that proves otherwise.  Tell me why Japan's suicide rate is so high.  Thanks.   If someone has gotten to the point where they have convinced to kill his/herself, access/non-access to a gun isn't going prevent it. 

posted by BoatShoes

A world where we might have to worry about a heavily motivated killer downloading 3-D printer blueprints, purchasing a 3-D printer and manufacturing a firearm is much more desirable than a world where a snowflake can waltz into Daddy's shed on a whim and commit mass murder with ease. 

 

1. LOL, no it is not.

2. The whole point is all of these dumbass "common sense" gun law and gun confiscation fetishes will be obsolete once 3D printer technology gets better. 

3. I am not worried about either and I live in a city.  We are living in the safest era in the history of the world in a otherwise very safe country.  Try going a pair.

4. I still see no justification to punish the mass majority of our country, because we have a small size of people who commit evil acts.

5. It still doesn't change the fact that time and time again "common sense" laws and banning guns do not work.  Despite data agreeing with this statement, we have yahoos like you who still get their panties in a bunch and create arguments out of their ass (i.e. your argument regarding the purpose of the 2A and suicides).

1. Yes it is if we want motivated criminals to turn to less efficient vehicles of crime. You are a conservative or something and have in the past expressed sympathy for work requirements for those who use food stamps. The reasoning of course is that this will lead to otherwise rational SNAP users to engage in more socially optimal behavior i.e. working as greater barriers are placed in the way of being able to consume what you need while being in leisure. The same supply-side logic applies to crime. Barriers that provide obstacles to motivated individuals to committing crime are Constitutional per the Heller decision and don't place undue burdens on the liberties of those who would choose to keep arms creates a better world under Conservative logic just like regulatory burdens would make a life on the dole less desirable do. 

2. They will not be obsolete under a LICENSING AND REGULATION regime. Anybody can create a promissory note on a piece of paper and sell it in violation of the securities laws of our nation and commit fraud and yet they have been incredibly effective at reigning in the massive fraud that pre-dated the securities laws and creating securities markets that were and are the model and envy of the world. Just like you can successfully regulate a world where any yahoo can create unlicensed and unregistered promissory notes in their kitchen, you could regulate unlicensed and unregulated firearms printed in their kitchen. Your belief on this isn't conservatism or libertarianism - it's nihilism. 

3. "Try going a pair" - LoL - I'm not worried about it either in my day to day life and it has nothing to do with "growing a pair" - how about try to have a discussion like an adult? I'm not worried about being defrauded by a cold-calling fraudster selling bullshit oil and gas wells to me either - but it happens every day to elderly people in this country and thankfully we have securities laws and regulations and enforcers of those laws who have been tremendously successful at fighting and reducing that kind of crime. Moreover, it is indeed a desirable end to continue working to prevent and rectify said crime and just because no regulator scheme can snuff out 100% of crime does not mean it is not highly successful or desirable. 

4. Define "Punish"?? I'm not talking about banning any firearm. I'm talking about licensing and registration like we do for any number of types of free expression protected under the first amendment and few people have any qualms about this.

Is it a "punishment" that I as lawyer who has never used my legal speech to commit crime have to pass an intense character and fitness examination, adhere to a professional code of conduct, pay licensing fees, successfully pass a rigorous examination and on and on - just so I can exercise my 1st Amendment Right to Free Expression in the form of drafting a Last Will and Testament? Or is it a compelling and narrowly tailored burden on my first Amendment Rights in order to promote a compelling public interest in a competent and just legal system?

Are you running around complaining that all the multitude of financial advisors out there are "punished" with burdens on their first amendment rights in the form of licensing requirements and examinations of their behavior from securities regulators? It's not a "punishment" We're not saying those who keep arms should be "punished" for the conduct of others. We are saying that those who keep arms should be held to a standard of conduct like the standards countless citizens are held to when they exercise their First Amendment Rights and other Fundamental Liberties. 

5. The National Firearms Act which heavily regulated and licensed fully automatic weapons at the Federal Level virtually eliminated mass shootings or gun violence of any kind committed with fully automatic weapons in the United States in the wake of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and thereafter in comparison to gun violence and mass shootings committed with semi-automatic firearms which are less federally regulated in the United States. Provide credible evidence that the National Firearms Act did not reduce gun violence committed with fully automatic weapons and I'll never post in a gun related thread again. 

And mind you - the suicides comment is an important one in this context because - well gee - not many people committing suicide with Thompson Sub Machine Guns now are there?

posted by BoatShoes

This is the way to let the marketplace solve the negative externalities that we all bear from mass firearm ownership while still preserving natural liberties. 

Your kid is far more likely to be killed by a school bus than by someone with a gun at school.  I guess we should cancel bus service?

posted by like_that

We already have data that proves otherwise.  Tell me why Japan's suicide rate is so high.  Thanks.   If someone has gotten to the point where they have convinced to kill his/herself, access/non-access to a gun isn't going prevent it. 

You should try a little harder. We know the primary cause as to why suicide is high in Japan - because they work themselves to death. The social norms of their society created "motivated criminals" i.e. people who would commit suicide for this purpose under the circumstances and if they had mass firearm ownership the opportunities for suicide would increase dramatically and would be even higher than they are in Japan now. 

Check out the link I provided - most people who commit suicide do not do so rationally and while a good policy in Japan would be to work on the social norms that cause the suicidal motivation - reducing the opportunities for suicide works. Ironically, Japan has invested in their suicide problem and has had encouraging evidence of government intervention reducing the prevalence of suicide. 

posted by BoatShoes

1. Yes it is if we want motivated criminals to turn to less efficient vehicles of crime. You are a conservative or something and have in the past expressed sympathy for work requirements for those who use food stamps. The reasoning of course is that this will lead to otherwise rational SNAP users to engage in more socially optimal behavior i.e. working as greater barriers are placed in the way of being able to consume what you need while being in leisure. The same supply-side logic applies to crime. Barriers that provide obstacles to motivated individuals to committing crime are Constitutional per the Heller decision and don't place undue burdens on the liberties of those who would choose to keep arms creates a better world under Conservative logic just like regulatory burdens would make a life on the dole less desirable do. 

2. They will not be obsolete under a LICENSING AND REGULATION regime. Anybody can create a promissory note on a piece of paper and sell it in violation of the securities laws of our nation and commit fraud and yet they have been incredibly effective at reigning in the massive fraud that pre-dated the securities laws and creating securities markets that were and are the model and envy of the world. Just like you can successfully regulate a world where any yahoo can create unlicensed and unregistered promissory notes in their kitchen, you could regulate unlicensed and unregulated firearms printed in their kitchen. Your belief on this isn't conservatism or libertarianism - it's nihilism. 

3. "Try going a pair" - LoL - I'm not worried about it either in my day to day life and it has nothing to do with "growing a pair" - how about try to have a discussion like an adult? I'm not worried about being defrauded by a cold-calling fraudster selling bullshit oil and gas wells to me either - but it happens every day to elderly people in this country and thankfully we have securities laws and regulations and enforcers of those laws who have been tremendously successful at fighting and reducing that kind of crime. Moreover, it is indeed a desirable end to continue working to prevent and rectify said crime and just because no regulator scheme can snuff out 100% of crime does not mean it is not highly successful or desirable. 

4. Define "Punish"?? I'm not talking about banning any firearm. I'm talking about licensing and registration like we do for any number of types of free expression protected under the first amendment and few people have any qualms about this.

Is it a "punishment" that I as lawyer who has never used my legal speech to commit crime have to pass an intense character and fitness examination, adhere to a professional code of conduct, pay licensing fees, successfully pass a rigorous examination and on and on - just so I can exercise my 1st Amendment Right to Free Expression in the form of drafting a Last Will and Testament? Or is it a compelling and narrowly tailored burden on my first Amendment Rights in order to promote a compelling public interest in a competent and just legal system?

Are you running around complaining that all the multitude of financial advisors out there are "punished" with burdens on their first amendment rights in the form of licensing requirements and examinations of their behavior from securities regulators? It's not a "punishment" We're not saying those who keep arms should be "punished" for the conduct of others. We are saying that those who keep arms should be held to a standard of conduct like the standards countless citizens are held to when they exercise their First Amendment Rights and other Fundamental Liberties. 

5. The National Firearms Act which heavily regulated and licensed fully automatic weapons at the Federal Level virtually eliminated mass shootings or gun violence of any kind committed with fully automatic weapons in the United States in the wake of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and thereafter in comparison to gun violence and mass shootings committed with semi-automatic firearms which are less federally regulated in the United States. Provide credible evidence that the National Firearms Act did not reduce gun violence committed with fully automatic weapons and I'll never post in a gun related thread again. 

And mind you - the suicides comment is an important one in this context because - well gee - not many people committing suicide with Thompson Sub Machine Guns now are there?

 

For fucks suck dude we are on a forum.  You don't need to go into lawyer/otrap mode every post.  Going thru the fluff of your argument.

1. No it definitely is not.  I would be much more concerned about an under aged or young "snowflake" getting his hands on a gun via an easily accessible 3D printer than him going thru daddy's cabinet. One option has multiple barriers, the other is one machine that will at some point be accessible to the average household.

2. Yes, this is so easy.  Why didn't I think about that!  Just like how drugs have been heavily regulated, just like pressure cooker have been regulated to prevent pressure cooker bombers, just like alcohol has been regulated to prevent under age drinking, just like guns have been regulated to prevent underage users, just like.......   You can brush it aside as nihilism all you want, but it doesn't change the fact it is very easy to poke holes into your danger free utopia. 

3. We already have laws in place that have easily been broken and laws that were previously in place proven to not work, yet you propose more laws and regulations.  All this when we are living in the safest time this world has ever seen.   As an adult I grew a pair.  I stand by my recommendation. 

4. Passing more laws to regulate or even ban weapons that the majority of gun owners already follow is the exact definition of a punishment.  You're literally proposing to chip away at the 2nd amendment and somehow you don't think that is punishing every US citizen from his or her basic rights.  Don't give me bullshit that you never proposed banning any guns.  You just tried to delegitimize the purpose of the 2nd amendment by tying it to suicides and your next point is precisely about banning weapons LOL. 

5. What does this have to do with modern day gun crime and what I had to say?   It still doesn't change the fact the majority of gun crime has decreased, despite an increase in ownership. It also doesn't change the fact that certain weapons were banned for a period (Federal Assault Weapons Ban) and there was more gun crime during the ban than after.   Despite the data continuously proving you wrong, you still want to fixate on type of guns and the type of murder (MASS MURDERS!) to move the goal posts in your favor.  In 2018, it is not the gun anymore, sorry to break it to you.  The majority of gun deaths come from gang related activity and suicides.  You still can't tell me why Japan's suicide rate (not to mention other countries with strict gun laws and high suicide rates) is so high, despite banning guns.  You still can't prove to me out of all of these laws in place and your proposed laws, why they haven't stopped gangs from obtaining them illegally and killing each other.    

OMG NIHILISM though!

posted by BoatShoes

You should try a little harder. We know the primary cause as to why suicide is high in Japan - because they work themselves to death. The social norms of their society created "motivated criminals" i.e. people who would commit suicide for this purpose under the circumstances and if they had mass firearm ownership the opportunities for suicide would increase dramatically and would be even higher than they are in Japan now. 

Since you don't consolidate all your thoughts into one post and apparently can't summarize them shortly, I missed this while I was responding.  So even without admitting it, you pretty much agree that they are killing themselves not because they have access to guns.  Whether it is in Japan or in our own country, the primary cause of suicide are not the guns.  It's the person who unfortunately got to the point to his/her life that he/she no longer thinks it is necessary to live. At that point it doesn't matter if they pull a trigger or hang themselves.  I recommend you take your own advice and try harder with another fluff filled winded response. Thanks for playing.

Cell phone video of the Parkland school shooter has been released. Lays out the plot including the obligatory "when you see me on the news...."

posted by BR1986FB

Cell phone video of the Parkland school shooter has been released. Lays out the plot including the obligatory "when you see me on the news...."

At this point I don't see how anyone can believe that the media's coverage doesn't have some type of inspiration for these fucks.

posted by like_that

At this point I don't see how anyone can believe that the media's coverage doesn't have some type of inspiration for these fucks.

That's what I've been saying all along. Obviously, you guys are younger but when I was a kid, you NEVER heard about school shootings. Granted, the media consisted mostly of newspaper and local TV so the coverage wasn't as widespread but if a school shooting happened, you'd know about it. Now, with all of the different media outlets, social media, etc. too many avenues to get yourself "famous."

posted by like_that

At this point I don't see how anyone can believe that the media's coverage doesn't have some type of inspiration for these fucks.

I don't think that's an uncommon opinion, at all.  Of course the media that's making money off school shootings will never acknowledge it.  And the politicians that only see potential votes (on both sides) will never ackowledge it.

posted by like_that

For fucks suck dude we are on a forum.  You don't need to go into lawyer/otrap mode every post.

The family home of David Hogg was "swatted" today (a false call intended to dispatch the local SWAT team).

Strangely, there are calls to make such acts illegal as opposed to some sort of "common sense phone legislation".

So Florida didn't run background checks on CCW applicants for a year because - wait for it - the gubmit worker in charge of it forgot their user password.  But the solution is moar gubmit, right?

https://gizmodo.com/florida-didnt-run-fbi-background-checks-on-gun-buyers-f-1826701317

posted by gut

So Florida didn't run background checks on CCW applicants for a year because - wait for it - the gubmit worker in charge of it forgot their user password.  But the solution is moar gubmit, right?

https://gizmodo.com/florida-didnt-run-fbi-background-checks-on-gun-buyers-f-1826701317

Yeah, an even less localized body like this should force people to let it oversee and control things.

FFS ... A night watchman state looks better and better all the time.
 

Meant to post this awhile ago, but this is relevant to what was discussed.  Good luck banning guns.

https://www.wired.com/story/a-landmark-legal-shift-opens-pandoras-box-for-diy-guns/

posted by queencitybuckeye

I'm sorry, your writing is often poor, but your last post is all but illiterate. If you could match your reach with your grasp, please.

 

Just because the number of crimes prevented with guns is greater than the number of negligent gun deaths does not mean it is not desirable to require firearm owners to adhere to certain standards of prudent conduct so as to moderate the number of negligent gun deaths. Moreover, a negligence standard in essence makes it so that markets themselves are the moderating force without the need for heavy-handed gubmint. 

posted by gut

Your kid is far more likely to be killed by a school bus than by someone with a gun at school.  I guess we should cancel bus service?

True. School Buses provide aggregate utility to society at large that outweigh the risk that my kid might get run over by one. The aggregate utility of mass firearm ownership is negative.