Let’s just forget the racist, nostalgic diatribe pining over the good ol’ days. Let’s pretend that this isn’t a geriatric rant about how the price of gas is too damn high and that kids need to stay the hell off my lawn.

OK, not really, but that’s how I feel as a naive young adult when I fail to overcome the urge to reminisce about the state of affairs only a few decades ago. Maybe I hate paying $4 for a gallon, and if neighborhood kids are going to hang out directly outside my window when I’m trying to watch TV, they should shut up already.

I totally understand that it’s a bit hypocritical that I choose to rant against this age of technological connectivity on my nearly brand-new laptop, send my words to a cloud server to edit later and murder countless hours reading comments on the internet.

I’ll say that there are things from not so long ago that I dearly miss and things today that I have a serious problem with.

For instance, I’m not the biggest fan of the fact that I spend so much of my own time comparing my life to the highlight reels of the lives of others. I get it — it’s fun to share vacation pictures, and I post things online most people post things online to satisfy their own vanity rather than for the actual benefit of others. Yes, I’m doing this voluntarily, but it’s upsetting how clicking that blue button with an “F” on it has become one of my default actions whenever I sit down at a computer. Additionally, “Likes” mildly terrify me. I get elementary school-type jitters whenever I think about if the other kids won’t Like what I bring to show and tell.

Furthermore, if my spending an inordinate amount of “valuable” computer time on Zuckerberg’s landing page wasn’t enough, I can’t help but check my phone every time I get a push notification to go to so-and-so-who-I-stopped-talking to-years-ago’s event for an organization that has nothing to do with me. Then I’ll check again just in case the newsfeed refreshed in the few seconds when I put my phone to sleep.

On that note, the prevalence of cell phones is another thing that wasn’t a thing back when I was eight. As a kid, since I don’t recall being the sharpest knife in the drawer, I took pride in mundane things like remembering a seven-digit sequence of numbers so I could call my friend’s house and ask if he wanted to come over after school … I’m pretty sure if I attempted this without the numbers written down directly in front of me today, I wouldn’t be able to call anybody.

And the cell phone is a wonderful device: it allows us to communicate whenever we want — and sometimes, more often than that. My inner Henry David Thoreau sometimes wishes I could retreat to some obscure pond and not get flak for shutting off for a while.

Additionally, my beloved Facebook service integrates so seamlessly into my internet phone that I can stalk anybody’s online presence within moments of meeting them. The reverse of this is unfortunately true as well, and it’s only going to become more effortless. We already have the technology to recognize landmarks and give GPS directions to a location just from a photo of the location. I shudder to think what the combined integration of Google’s latest experiment in eyewear will do when integrated with social networking technology.

It’s fun, convenient, easy and it satisfies our natural desire to be voyeurs into the lives of others. The fact that I can access the greatest encyclopedia known to man at the speed of light using a handheld rectangle is nothing short of marvelous. I can learn almost anything, from the distance between the Earth and Alpha Centauri (4.367 light years) to what my neighbor did last Tuesday afternoon (checked in at Jamba Juice after buying a Razzmatazz smoothie) with almost no effort. And I still can’t decide which is more interesting. At least I can “Like” the smoothie…

But what are some of the consequences of this culture of likes and knowing everything? I’m curious to see how mobile applications of internet networking resources will affect the habitual cognitive processes of those without a reference point grounded in answering machines and VHS cassettes.

Would the minds of today’s youth born into cell phones and Wikipedia be able to survive the world of VHS tapes and answering machines? I miss the days when I could call my crush, 36 times in half an hour, without them really knowing who called. Kids these days should be jealous of that. When I do that now it’s just rude … and that glaring red “36” shows up next to my name in the missed calls section.

People these days don’t have to memorize anything. They can look up any piece of human knowledge in an instant. I wonder if this lack of memorization causes the mind to atrophy.

I’m not against social media — like most of my peers, I can’t seem to get enough of it — but every once in a while, I wish we could hit pause. Though that probably won’t happen, I am curious about how our increasingly integrated relationship with online resources might change how we see and interact with the world and with other people.

ALAN LIN can be reached electronically at science@theaggie.org.

We’ve all heard the tragic stories of gun violence. Columbine, Virginia Tech, the shootings in Connecticut … the stories play for weeks, if not months, on the news, showing the possible horrors guns can bring to society. These are only a few infamous events that have brought the attention of loose gun control to the public eye. Our nation’s political parties have debated the issues of gun restrictions over and over again. The basics seem straightforward: People can have guns if they don’t abuse them. If only it were that simple.

To help curb the staggeringly high rates of gun violence, Congress has once again made new propositions to increase gun regulation, making gun laws again an all-important subject.

Constitutional purists believe these newly created laws are a violation of the Constitution’s Second Amendment. But the subject is not as simple as following the Constitution word for word (thank you Elastic Clause), as that would be too simple. Both sides have good intent and views, but the only logical way to figure this issue out is by analyzing data dealing with criminal activity and its correlation to gun violence. From there, we can try and understand the reasoning and credibility behind the the arguments on either side.

The first issue is Congress’ lack of ability in addressing the self-manufacturing of guns. The majority of guns are made under strict regulations, this may change in coming years with the help of a newly emerging technology: 3D printers. 3D printers have been in use for several years now by enthusiasts and hobbyists in designing and printing small parts and toys. The concept is simple; make a design, and input this design into a printer that prints in layers until the object is complete.

Now, the ability to “print” guns has become a real possibility. Cody Wilson, a law student from the University of Texas at Austin, has uploaded the designs and schematics for a variety of weapons onto his website. These designs are available to everyone with access to the internet.

To clarify, not all parts of the gun can be printed. Generally, parts like bolts, springs and barrels are to be bought, as they are all easily attainable, they are unregulated and many do not have identifying serial numbers. The part that can be printed is the lower receiver. This houses the trigger and firing mechanism. By U.S. law, this is the only part that is regulated, and must include a serial number when the part leaves the factory. 3D printing sidesteps this regulatory process by manufacturing parts without their identifying marks.

Some quick Googling came up with hundreds of results for CAD (Computer Aided Design) drawings for gun parts. The files can then be imported to a 3D printer, and within nine to 12 hours, you can have your very own, legal lower receiver. One might question why it is legal to print these, and it’s simple: Congress simply hasn’t addressed the issue yet. As long as you don’t sell these lower receivers, printing and using them is completely legal.

Essentially, to complicate matters, current gun laws do nothing to regulate or restrict individual citizens from manufacturing their own weapons. But maybe there’s hope. Maybe the laws currently on the floor will address all the issues and help make the US a safer place.

One of the first regulations to be debated by the courts is the ban on assault weapons, proposed by California Senator Dianne Feinstein. On the surface, this law seems self-explanatory. The bill proposed would end the sale, production and trade of all assault weapons. The reasoning is simple: Bigger guns are more likely to kill than smaller guns due to bigger rounds, larger magazines and more fire power. Except that isn’t what the data shows. Although assault rifles and other weapons categorized as “assault weapons” are to be banned if this bill passes, it may not reduce the rate of gun-related crimes. This is due to two factors.

The first is that most gun-related crimes are committed via handguns. This is simply because they are more convenient to buy and are easier to conceal. This has been a constant trend since 1974. In fact, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1974 and 2004, most violent crimes were committed with handguns, followed by knives, and finally “other guns” (so not entirely assault weapons).

The second factor is the method used to categorize gun-related crimes. These incidences include both homicides and suicides, and because nearly two-thirds of all gun-related deaths are suicides, the numbers are inflated for the wrong reasons. And since when was the last time anyone thought about committing suicide with an assault weapon rather than a conveniently sized handgun?

While many senators have a complete disconnect with gun culture, others have been directly affected. After Gabrielle Giffords was shot in 2011 while visiting constituents in Arizona, she decided to push for lawmakers in Washington to require stricter background checks for those who wish to legally purchase guns. This could help decrease gun violence, preventing the sale of guns to anyone who doesn’t fit a certain criteria. Unfortunately, research has shown that stricter background checks would not dramatically affect the levels of gun violence.

This method is completely ineffective if it is applied to those who already want to acquire guns legally. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, only 27 percent of guns recovered from crime scenes were obtained legally, and most of those were bought within two years of the crime being committed.

The majority of crimes are performed with illegally obtained guns, so the criminals are already bypassing the background check process. The ones who do obtain the guns legally generally have no history of violent crimes, and therefore would not raise any red flags on the background checks required for gun purchases.

A quick analysis of these gun laws show that they aren’t just ineffective, but they also don’t address another issue which could become more prevalent in coming years. These laws have not been passed yet, but it is still important to know what is going on at Capitol Hill, allowing us to prepare for the worst. It’s understandable that gun laws are necessary to help keep people in line, but the laws that have been proposed don’t seem to have many noteworthy benefits for the average citizen.

ALLEN GUAN can be reached at science@theaggie.org.