{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Seggi:
5/10/2013 12:00:48 AM
9
It's obviously in the public interest to prevent the information necessary to freely print guns from being disseminated, just as it is with instructions on how to make explosives.
English
-
Explosives are only used for offensive and booby traps. A citizen wouldn't defend themselves by pulling out a stick of dynamite or pressure because it would be impractical and cause lots of damage to anything near by and injure innocents.
-
actually construction and demolition workers annually use more explosives than the US military. they're mostly used for productive purposes.
-
We were talking about allowing free public access to the information.
-
Edited by Seggi: 5/10/2013 12:16:22 AMThe instrument's defensive capabilities aren't relevant...
-
You were saying it was necessary to prevent the public from getting this information no? A gun can be used for defense where as letting people know how to make explosions which can level buildings and be remote detonated are a completely different story.
-
Edited by Seggi: 5/10/2013 12:57:35 AMThere are alternative channels through which people seeking guns for legitimate reasons can go, so the only relevant factor here is the information's potential for harm.
-
Not many criminals have 3D printers, so it's not really a viable way for them to get guns.
-
3D printers only cost a few thousand dollars - it's not like these kinds of things are only within the price range of large corporate enterprises.
-
Most of the mentally ill and gang bangers couldn't afford it. Those that could would probably buy a real gun anyways.
