Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NY Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers

tomshardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: NY Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers

#71

Post by cvccvroomvroom »

oldpersonintx wrote: post #30
elromulous wrote: post #11

Chris Rock solved this ages ago: "We don't have a gun problem, we have a bullet problem." Make bullets very expensive and hard to get. It makes much more sense to control the supply of gunpowder (and bullets) than that of 3d printers (or guns for that matter).

making bullets is even easier...especially if you have old spent brass

You're arguing with the religiously anti-gun costal people who have their minds made up, are afraid of all firearms, and believe no one should have them... except the criminals.

Re: NY Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers

#72

Post by Brian_K_White »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #35
gustavus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of people forget that the word "press" in the phrase "freedom of the press" refers to an actual printing press, not the modern term that people confuse for corporate journalism. That's an ancient document written by people who couldn't even concieve of modern day "assualt" style printers. We need common sense 3D printer control. There is no reason any person would ever need more than 4kg of filament, these hi…

Let us be clear here I'm down voting because that much of dripping sarcasm just gets people emotional and doesn't help anything. Feel free to make a cohesive argument one way or another:). Long sarcasm tirades assume other side is wrong and stupid and aren't helpful. (I'm on your side, btw fwiw! But I still don't like dripping sarcasm insinuating other perspectives are clearly stupid!:)

Search & replace isn't dripping sarcasm, it's the Colbert Report and The Onion, which have rather proven the validity of the practice.

If the result sounds in any way remarkable, then that only illustrates that the original is remarkable in exactly the same way, which is of course the point of the exercise.

Maybe you aren't a fan, but they are certainly in non-trivially good company.

Re: NY Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers

#73

Post by spaceribs »

cvccvroomvroom wrote: post #70
spaceribs wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A majority of people smoked 70 years ago even though smoking was terrible for their health and those around them. I'm not sure we should enforce the "people's will" to defend such a dangerous substance.

That doesn't have anything to do with self-defense. Bullets are usable to defend against an otherwise deadly attack. An air nailer, a hammer, and a box cutter can be misused, should we ban those without solving the human social or policing problems?

Fentanyl and Heroin have legitimate medical uses, but can also be misused to cause bodily harm, so I'm not sure I follow the argument.

Re: NY Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers

#74

Post by williamcotton »

snapplebobapple wrote: post #61
gustavus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we get to the point where we are able to 3D print 20 MT nuclear weapons we've probably got replicators from star trek at that point living in a post scarcity society and then I will be 3D printing me a space ship to "Boldly go where no man has gone before."

Living in a world that is post scarcity on 20 MT nuclear weapons is kind of exciting while being terrifying. I hope we become a multisolar species before that happens because we will need to be able to lose a few when the above happens...

See, now this is where I wanted the conversation to go! Reductio ad absurdum? Dial up the absurdity and it’s at least science fiction!

How far off is a consumer product that has been “locked down” but otherwise capable of printing devices of increasingly larger scales of destruction?

Are we not already on this trajectory?

Re: NY Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers

#75

Post by Brian_K_White »

vasco wrote: post #37
user_7832 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what the HN guidelines are for commenting about other comments but if your earlier comment was in jest/sarcasm, it might help to add an /s

Or you could use your interpreting skills to detect it yourself.

Wait, was THAT sarcasm? Because if you ask me saying that someone should be able to detect the true intent of the original comment MUST be sarcasm. But then I'm not so much detecting as deducing.

Re: NY Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers

#76

Post by madengr »

Spivak wrote: post #56
gruez wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a reference to how a common talking point against gun rights is "there's no way the founding fathers would have imagined modern day assault rifles, therefore the 2nd amendment shouldn't apply to them"

This reasoning is a good live-demo of how politics has wormed its way into the current crop of judges due to the fact that this is a more than valid textualist argument that has been applied in other cases but you'll never see it actually argued by one for 2A. It really ought to be the progressive judges who make the case for 2A being expanded wider than the founder's could reasonably intend but they also won't argue…

[dead]

Re: NY Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers

#77

Post by spaceribs »

cvccvroomvroom wrote: post #71
oldpersonintx wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

making bullets is even easier...especially if you have old spent brass

You're arguing with the religiously anti-gun costal people who have their minds made up, are afraid of all firearms, and believe no one should have them... except the criminals.

Actually, you're arguing with people who consider gun deaths to be an epidemic[1], and are treating it as such.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1184731316/gun-violence-epide...

Re: NY Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers

#78

Post by madengr »

elromulous wrote: post #11

Chris Rock solved this ages ago: "We don't have a gun problem, we have a bullet problem." Make bullets very expensive and hard to get. It makes much more sense to control the supply of gunpowder (and bullets) than that of 3d printers (or guns for that matter).

[dead]

Re: NY Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers

#79

Post by spaceribs »

cvccvroomvroom wrote: post #69
chung8123 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that make it harder to train and safely handle a weapon?

That's how California operates already. Defenseless population who aren't allowed to defend themselves, skyrocketing crime, and police who are borderline worthless.

It seems urban centers are significantly safer than rural counties, by about 37%: https://www.chop.edu/news/study-finds-gun-deaths-more-likely...

Re: NY Bill Would Require Background Checks to Buy 3D Printers

#80

Post by Brian_K_White »

elromulous wrote: post #11

Chris Rock solved this ages ago: "We don't have a gun problem, we have a bullet problem." Make bullets very expensive and hard to get. It makes much more sense to control the supply of gunpowder (and bullets) than that of 3d printers (or guns for that matter).

It doesn't make sense to control any common material or tool.

There is nothing special about a bullet or an entire assembled cartridge. There is nothing in a bullet or a gun that you can control that doesn't also apply to bicycles and pens and teapots.

There are some extra exotic fancy materials that can make merely bigger better bullets and bombs, but no one intending to do harm actually needs them. So you can control depleted uranium to make bullets that work a bit better than others, but plain lead, or steel or copper or iron or tin or nickle or even glass ones work well enough. You can control the main ingredient in a nuke, but no one actually needs that to completely destroy anything with other kinds of bombs that don't need any such special ingredient.

This applies to every part of both a gun and a cartridge. There are no special or controllable in gredients or processes, fundamentally. You can only take a little bit of the shine off. If for example the assembled recognizable cartridge were simply outlawed, so there were no convenient factories producing the polished finished good, then people would just have to make slightly less polished versions, but not materially less effective.

Any ingredient that you might think to target has countless alternatives if ever needed.

Let's say cartridges are illegal, so the home cartridge maker needs brass tubing, so you go "aha! that is a pretty niche product that most people don't need, we can just control that!

The problem is, brass tubing is not actually needed. nor is brass sheet. nor is brass. It's used today because it's a good fit for purpose, but you can use practically anything, especially if you have to design your own gun anyway, you can adjust the gun design to accomodate the needs of some other shell design.

The same goes for every other part. A perfectly functional gun and it's ammunition can be constructed out of whatever is available. It's not limited to the specific design you see on a shelf today.

I'm not a gun owner or lover, and am liberal on pretty much all topics, but these kinds of arguments about guns really are ignorant, which should be fine, it should be fine for most people to be ignorant of most things, but it's really a problem when it is used to forward policy.

Post reply on HN