zlacker

[return to "New York’s budget bill would require “blocking technology” on all 3D printers"]
1. pjc50+Ya[view] [source] 2026-02-03 16:35:13
>>ptorro+(OP)
This is insanely stupid stuff. Even the UK with our weird panic over Incredibly Specific Knives hasn't tried to do this kind of technical restriction to prevent people printing guns. Why not? Because nobody is printing guns! It's an infeasible solution to a non-problem!

Someone should dig into who this is coming from and why. The answers are usually either (a) they got paid to do it by a company selling the tech, which appears not to be the case here, or (b) they went insane on social media.

(can't confirm this personally, but it seems from other comments that it's perfectly feasible to just drive out of New York State and buy a gun somewhere else in the gun-owning US? And this is quite likely where all the guns used in existing NY crime come from?)

I would also note that the Shinzo Abe doohickey wasn't 3D-printed.

◧◩
2. derekd+sd[view] [source] 2026-02-03 16:44:15
>>pjc50+Ya
Actual shootings with 3D printed guns are relatively rare but it’s come up because Luigi Mangione killed the United Healthcare CEO with one.
◧◩◪
3. TehCor+ef[view] [source] 2026-02-03 16:51:02
>>derekd+sd
And they're still doing anything except addressing the grievances that lead to that.

EDIT: I think you mean "allegedly"

◧◩◪◨
4. BobaFl+yi1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 21:26:50
>>TehCor+ef
Right, because most people recognize that the US has become sufficiently polarized and radicalized that "If enough people are mad at you, a complete stranger might shoot you" is not a theory of change we want to encourage. Yes, even for causes we agree with, most adults in the room understand that "people being mad at you" is pretty independent of how righteous your cause is, and even how civil and thoughtful you are in pursuing it.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. cucumb+Wv3[view] [source] 2026-02-04 14:15:53
>>BobaFl+yi1
>because most people recognize that the US has become sufficiently polarized and radicalized that "If enough people are mad at you, a complete stranger might shoot you" is not a theory of change we want to encourage.

God forbid individuals and organizations not choose paths of action that "low level piss off" millions of people such that their chance of being at the business end of some outlier who will actually do violence upon them is non-trivial.

It's not hard to not be "the thing" in any given crazy's life they choose to go out with a bang over, especially if you're not something they deal with every day. If that means that the default amount of screwage your organization applies needs to be dialed back, or that you must clean house a little better or more often then cry me a river.

>most adults in the room understand that "people being mad at you" is pretty independent of how righteous your cause is

Except it's not. The "budget" you have to wrong people and cause despair before people would be apathetic to violence done upon you is pretty directly coupled to the amount of good you do to offset your harm.

[go to top]