I've been saying this for years.
Yes, we have a gun violence problem. But notably, we do not have a heavy weapons problem. By and large, gun crimes are committed with guns that can be purchased legally somewhere inside the US.
So if the silver bullet to the gun violence problem is taking away all the guns (please do not misunderstand me, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE CASE), then step 1 is to limit what guns can be purchased anywhere in the US.
But this whole 3d printer farse reveals something we sort of already knew: if people want to have guns (or have weapons in general), they're going to find a way. If you want to address the gun violence problem, you have to find a way to make people not want to kill, nor own guns, that's unrelated to how difficult/expensive it is to get guns. And you're going have to do that in the shadow of the constitution.
I don't know if its still true, but I recall reading once that CEQA had never been used to actually prevent or even slow the building of a dam or a mine or something. It had only ever been used to hobble otherwise neutral development. Its a good idea in theory, but I feel like the plaintiff ought to be able to articulate what environmental impact they are concerned about and maybe require a study from them in support of that claim too.
My number 1 complaint with Ubi games is that they all feel the same. Sure, in this one you stab, and in that one you shoot, and in that one over there you stab AND shoot, but it's all fundamentally the same. You've got a drone or a bird or a droid to tag enemies for you, and there's a straightforward shopping-list style crafting mechanic. There's also some vehicle combat, but its very limited, and its pretty rare that you're part of a larger group of vehicles attacking together - at best its a group of enemy vehicles coming after you (and the comedy of errors of those enemy vehicles crashing into each other trying to get to you, because apparently they didn't turn on pathfinding while in "alert" mode...). The whole thing looks like its chasing the annual-release pattern of Call of Duty, and the major sports franchises.
> Locks do not provide real physical security, they just keep honest and lazy people out.
Really?! I had no idea! I had such a miniscule understanding of what portion of the threat space locks address that the second sentence in the very fucking post you're replying is this:
> Locks are very good at discouraging honest people and lazy, opportunistic people.
I'm so ignorant of the threat space, that the sentence immediately following that one goes:
> They are not very good at discouraging generally skilled and motivated people, or people who are specifically interested in what's behind a specific door.
I guess you're right, the two sentences I wrote 76 characters before the one you're shitting all over as evidence of my ignorance have absolutely no bearing on the context of the statement I made. They just exist entirely disconnected from any other sentences in that same post. I bow to your superior intellect and analytical skills.