We're unprepared to deal with world wide 24 hour media. With 350 million people even extremely rare and weird failure modes will happen often enough for the media to fearmonger a big chunk of the population into falsely believing they're significant threat. In reality firearm homicide among teenagers is a fraction of death from auto accidents, half that of suicide, and closer to deaths from drowning. But the latter three don't make for spectacular and fear inducing news coverage.

I didn’t explain well here, so mea culpa, but the meat of my argument is later: regardless of their disagreement with a politician on any other issue, these will vote (or not) on one issue. Very few political opinions are that strong. Party is irrelevant. Other concerns don’t apply. Agree with this person on every else, but they are anti-2A? Not getting a vote.

They learned discipline the hard way. They may not vote for the other guy, but they aren’t showing up for you. Very few blocs work that way, that strongly. The ACLU is a great example of a group that was captured and turned to things that really have nothing to do with the core mission of protecting civil liberties. They protect the ones that a certain class of folk deem worthy. They sometimes defend a Nazi to show that they are balanced, I guess. They promote diversity - which is a fine opinion, but isn’t the mission. The 2A groups have a laser focus. Nothing else intrudes. So hippies and rednecks and rappers can all get along because they only have to agree on one thing, and the organization does not care about anything else.

>You can easily go through a couple hundred rounds in one visit to the range.

Range shooting is not what they're trying to legislate though.

Whoever killed that healthcare CEO didn't need a hundred rounds.

This legislation is insanely, horrendously bad and harmful, but "3D printed gun components are useless" isn't a solid argument against it. They're useful enough.

The real arguments, as others said, are:

1. You can achieve much more already without 3D printers

2. The legislation won't achieve its stated objective as any "blueprint detector" DRM will be trivial to circumvent on many levels (hardware, firmware, software)

3. Any semblance of that DRM being required will kill 3D printing as we know it (the text of the law is so broad that merely having a computer without the antigun spyware would be illegal if it means it can drive a 3D printer)

True. I used to do it regularly.

Depends on what the intended use is. 3DP firearms have proliferated internationally and have been used against conventional militaries. Agreed they aren't a replacement, but practical use cases exist.

Hobbyist or not, this makes it useful for getting guns (and other gear) from other people.

It looks like a Plastikov uses a lot of metal Kalashnikov parts that you'd need to get from a kit or machine yourself or something, so I don't think it's really fair to call that gun a 3D printed gun. It uses printed parts, but the barrel, trigger, etc... aren't printed.

Look, the firearms industry has worked in the past to ban competitors but I really don't think they see 3d printed firearms as competitors. The market there is tiny. Meanwhile Everytown is a gun control organization that wants to ban all guns everywhere and again, is documented to be the one behind this push.

Grocery stores _absolutely_ supported the bag bans, though they weren't the initial groups asking for them. Similar to how the cigarette companies liked the TV ad bans--if nobody could advertise on TV than the playing field would be level and their profits all went up from decreased costs.

People here are talking about two kinds of laws: minimum bag charges and outright bag bans.

In some jurisdictions, a grocery store isn’t allowed to give you a traditional disposable bag at any price. In others, there’s either a bag tax or a minimum price, usually five or ten cents, a store must charge per bag.

How is this damaging to them at all? They literally get to cut one item completely off their expense list.