If three people all have different terminal medical conditions, which are currently making their state of life excruciating, and will kill them shortly, and there is one healthy person who can be killed and their organs repurposed to restore quality of life and stop the medical condition to all of those people then utilitarianism says it is moral to do that.

Any answer saying that it is wrong to do that shows there must be a factor beyond need in the determination.

You don’t have any problems with it cycling? I’ve heard really big cans on tilt barrel handguns can cause problems with the weight of the can interfering with barrel movement.

What’s the can model? Do you like it?

A paintball filled with capsaicin or something similar. Technically many of the guns are sold purpose made as pepper ball launchers, but they are literally rebranded .68 cal paintball guns and compatible with commercial paintball gun parts.

I see two in the photo. Along with what I presume is a 37mm break open launcher.

Yes, they are repurposed to fire pepperballs.

People are giving answers to your specific hypothetical, but on a higher level, the answer is simple. The government likes having more money. Once a tax is in place, it becomes the new normal. It can be like pulling teeth to make a government roll back a tax. Groups in my local area have tried numerous times to roll back a specific tax where a government spokesperson has even said the tax is no longer fulfilling the original purpose, but removing the tax would now affect the overall budget. That has become the reason they refuse to remove it, and because neither party cares much about removing it, there’s no political leverage by the voters who care about it.

The OP is asking about using portions of copy written works. Therefore if those works were used or not wouldn’t be at issue. What would be issue is if the use is fair use. Which again, goes back to the balancing test which would be decided in court if the rights holder pursues it.

From what I have gathered of the Lemmy zeitgeist, intellectual property doesn’t exist except if AI uses it.

you can in some situations argue that the way you infringed on their copyright should be allowed

That would be an argument made in court, pursuant to the balancing test. You would be arguing that the use wasn’t actually infringement. Thats how fair use is determined.

People can give you their best guesses, but without a court case and a ruling it is impossible to say what the answer will be with iron certainty.

My guess, for US law, would be based of the four factor balancing test used in determining fair use. The four factors are the nature of the use, the nature of the copyrighted material, the amount of the copyrighted material used, and the effect of the use on the value of the material.

If you are using the copyrighted works for a non-profit purpose that helps, if you are remixing them that helps, if you are using works that are not violating right of first publishing that helps.

Importantly copyright does not have to be enforced by the holder for them to retain full legal protection. What that means is even if the holder somehow became aware (which honestly is pretty doubtful for such a small individual use), they can simply choose not to pursue the matter. The resources that could go into pursuing a copyright case for such a use are probably going to be a lot more than any gain they’d get. Big IP holders have endless waves of people using their material, and their resources are better spent going after uses that are clearly trying to make or making a profit or distributing their copyrighted works.

The TLDR is yeah sure, it’s probably fine. If you somehow got the evil eye on you, in practical reality the first thing you’d get would be a C&D letter anyway.

Edit: Here is the relevant text in 17 U.S. Code § 107

I saw the button to fold yours but didn’t see a seam, so didn’t know if it was just fixed with some cosmetics. I really like bringing the stock in both for close quarters and even for being in the woods to very easily get behind the scope while wearing a mask.

I have a friend who got an MP5K and it is even better in close quarters.

It is a CYMA. In retrospect, I think a railed grip like yours would have been more practical than my SD, but I do like being able to fully collapse the stock.

If I can be a spoilsport, please, please don’t use lasers. Lasers introduce real world eye safety hazards, some more than others, but none of them are great. Especially cheapo lasers from aliexpress or wherever can sometimes be stronger than listed because neither the buyers or sellers tend to care. My laserbox is fake and is only an external battery compartment for the gun.

How is the scope working out? I assume it’s a 3x or 4x non-illuminated meant for a .22lr?

I’ve been doing well with a cheapo Monstrum 3x prism sight. It’s got an illuminated reticle making its usable enough at close quarters while being handy for primarily outdoor play.

I think the best solution would be to replace the scope rings with raised Picatinny compatible rings. That removes the need for the intermediate adaptors at all. With new rings you can attach straight to the claw mount. Something like this.

The other solution would be trying to hunt down a non-Picatinny riser which is probably going to be more of a hassle, and the new setup would be better anyway. Costwise I doubt you’ve save much trying to save that broken adaptor, or at least enough not to use the opportunity to streamline the setup.

Locktite on the next set of rings.

If it’s a round ball that’s .68 caliber, sure. I mean it’s a ball being launched.

However, are any waterballs even that size? And why? A waterball that was wet would probably jam up, so you’d end up shooting a dry one and it seems like a lot of effort to reinvent the wheel.

Rule 2. Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.

I’m not getting an image. LW has been weird/slow about attaching images to posts lately.

I don’t know, but I do know copyright and patent are two different kinds of protection, so it might be useful to look into how you think the shape would be protected.

Copyright would be for a creative work, and the enforcement by the right holder is allowed to be loose in selectively pursuing violators without losing protections.

Patent is for useful inventions or designs rather than expressive works. Skimming the Theodore G Brown soap, it seems much more involved than a simple shape and I can see why it was able to be patented.

Just part of a larger example of a historical exhibit, but I like to think this model was imbued with a special personality.