Is this why Ian McCollum’s videos are getting altered? Over the years, he’s had many historical deep-dives featuring firearms from the Murphy’s auction house. In recent months, he’s been re-uploading those videos to cover their logo with the word “Morphy’s”. Even though the auctions are long over, I suppose Google counts them as promoting sales.
He fucked himself over with some of the auction houses by trying to set up backroom deal to buy a gun outside of the auction. Understandingly they don’t appreciate that sort of thing. Ian has a history of not being a great person, but he’s good at hiding it from the public eye.
Have you ever seen Hashinshin and Ian in the same room?
I’m just sayin’
Third most popular video on the guy’s channel - a million views. A handgun that can shoot all its bullets in the blink of an eye.
30 years from now if 3D printers are unrestricted, will there be any point to gun control?
Why 30 years from now?
That seemed random, and it kinda was: uneducated(!) guess on how long it will take the technology to both develop and popularize to the point the average kindergarten massacre* is committed with a 3D printed gun.
@Voyajer@lemmy.world @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Is 30 years long enough for there to be a decent likelihood we’ll be able to print the switch and firearm from that video? Thanks for your responses, I can tell you know your stuff.
* to be clear, being forever upset about Sandy Hook has no bearing on my respect for responsible gun owners, presumably the vast majority
You can already print those switches, the stls are already out there.
It’s still illegal to do, of course, without the proper licensing.
“So guys getting blown up in trenches in Ukraine by drones? Ha, totally not age-restricted,” the creator said. “ Me firing a 3D printed pink glock that I made? Age-restricted. We don’t need kids watching that. We want kids watching people getting blown up by mines. Love it. Awesome.”
Guys missing the corpo bottom line.
Gun manufacturers have gotten sued by families of school shooting victims. Youtube runs the risk of getting dragged into court because little Billy sees the 3D printed pink glock, decides that he can make that, that its time to fuck up some bullies, and then after that those bullies parents shoot lawyers in every direction (which includes Youtube, even if the odds of getting anything are minimal) like mushroom spores. That risk assessment doesn’t exist for Ukraine war vids.
More generally “gun control” is never about controlling the cops, military, MIC, etc. There’s bi-partisan support for the state maintaining its monopoly on violence.
There’s bi-partisan support for the state maintaining its monopoly on violence.
as if this is a bad thing.
oh, sorry, were you still dreaming of starting a civil war with you widdle rifles against, I DUNNO, ARMOR DIVISIONS AND AIR FORCES AND CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
because that seems pitifully stupid.
A private company restricting what videos I can see is AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION when those videos involve GUNS! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! NO REGULATIONS!
