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

The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 491 posts

Re: The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing

#111

Post by rolph »

15155 wrote: post #76
trollbridge wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'd argue that shell casings are probably harder to manufacture than a fully working firearm. The equipment needed to manufacture working ammunition end-to-end is pretty serious.

All of these manufacturing equipment and processes existed more than a century ago. If you have a capable VMC, you can make the die and other equipment necessary to stamp shell casings from commonly-available parts and machinery. From there, with a modern Dillon or Hornady reloading press, you can crank out thousands of rounds per day without issue. Primers are a legitimately difficult thing to manufacture, but (good…

[Primers are a legitimately difficult thing to manufacture]

thats a problem that may not endure. if a firearm is reengineered to use an electrode to detonate charge rather than a chemical primer, there is no need for murcury fulminate, just a piezo electric spark generator, and a few square cm of cerebral cortex.

Re: The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing

#112

Post by codedokode »

noxer wrote: post #108
codedokode wrote: post #82

Sorry if it is a dumb question, but why in USA people try to regulate 3D printing instead of banning sale of bullets without a firearm owner license? What stops people from buying Chinese printers or components on AliExpress? Or using an open source printer? At the same time, if you cannot buy bullets, your plastic gun is worthless.

You can make bullets yourself just like you can make the gun. You may remember the assassination of Shinzo Abe. In the US low powerd black powder is super easy to get you don't even have to take fireworks apart or do home lab chemicals stuff.

But you need something better than a 3D printer for bullets. So if bullet sales are regulated, there is no need to regulate 3D printing.

Re: The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing

#113

Post by throwatdem12311 »

bitwize wrote: post #53
throwatdem12311 wrote: post #14

I just laugh whenever I hear “ghost gun”. > On January 13, 2014 a certain State Senator (no reason to name names) held a press conference where he held a modern rifle in his hands and stated, “This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability with a .30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. Thirty magazine clip in half a second.” Anyone that knows even a little bit about guns knows that th…

Hence "assault weapons" which are not a particular type of gun but a list of scary characteristics associated with military weapons—bayonet lugs, folding stocks, and the like—used by legislators to FUD their way into being seen as "doing something" about guns. In the United States we even have a word for an assault weapon on four legs—pitbulls. Most breed-specific legislation, where it exists, targets pitbulls which…

In Canada a gun might be banned as an “assault” weapon when a slightly different version of the same gun is still legal with the only difference being that one of the guns is painted black, and the other (still legal) has a wood coloured stock. One looks like a “military” gun while the other one is a “hunting” rifle when in reality they are exactly the same weapon and the only difference is cosmetic.

I am all for sensible gun regulations but that is almost never the case in practice.

Re: The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing

#114

Post by ginkgotree »

jimbob45 wrote: post #43
nradov wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the inevitable result of having a single-party government which is no longer accountable to regular citizens.

No it’s not. Xi has power as absolute as Newsom and manages just fine. When your country has large, but solvable problems, absolute power works great for quelling unrest by fixing problems quickly and efficiently. Newsom is just generationally incompetent.

With all do respect, I do not want to live in anything remotely close to the Chinese CCP. (laughs in Free Floridian)

Re: The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing

#115

Post by ginkgotree »

dlev_pika wrote: post #18
nradov wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the inevitable result of having a single-party government which is no longer accountable to regular citizens.

[flagged]

yep - an armed Florida man paying low taxes

Re: The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing

#117

Post by mothballed »

bdcravens wrote: post #90
xienze wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've always felt if you really want to impact election fraud, tax the hell out of votes. Like $1,000/vote. You don’t even have to go that far. $10 and a trip to the DMV is apparently an insurmountable barrier.

States that already have a voter ID law haven't had any issues. The bigger objections are to those who say that the ID you can use to drive, board an airplane, buy ammo, etc, aren't good enough for voting.

The states aren't very logically consistent on ID laws. Illinois requires an FOID to bear arms but not an ID to vote. Arizona requires an ID to vote but not one to bear arms. Vermont is probably the most consistent non-ID state, not requiring an ID to vote and also not requiring an ID even to conceal carry a gun.

I can sort of buy the ID argument from places like Vermont but the arguments in many/most states are just complete bullshit where they've worked backwards to rationalize it and that's why there is no consistency for ID gating of rights within even the same state.

Re: The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing

#118

Post by michaelt »

15155 wrote: post #51
tempaccount5050 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I support any of these obviously stupid bills but: > what's special about 3d printers? They can make guns made out of plastic and metal detectors are kind of the primary way we try to find guns on people. You are probably right about the lobbying group, I agree. Edit: I'm not saying it makes sense, but this is the angle the congress folks are taking, sheesh.

> metal detectors are kind of the primary way we try to find guns on people What are bullets and shell casings made out of again?

In the movies, you hide the bullets in a pen or something, and it bypasses the metal detector along with the keys, phones and watches.

Re: The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing

#119

Post by noxer »

codedokode wrote: post #91
rolph wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

blackpowder is just barely chemistry, more like engineering. carbon, sulphur, and potassium nitrate, in a particular ratio. potassium nitrate is watched, and reported in large quantities, or particular form, but can be manufactured by most people that can follow a recipe. regulating the propellant cant stop it from being made. also someone really didnt think it through by regulating "receivers" they regulated what is…

Making a bullet is definitely more difficult than printing a plastic gun handle (you need the bullet itself, and the cartridge fit it perfectly), and you have a non-zero chance to lose some parts of the body if you make a mistake.

Lead melting is not difficult. The brass case you can just collect used ones. The primer would be harder to make (you can buy them online ofc) but with access to fireworks it is possible with no knowledge of chemistry and no realistic risk of losing body parts.

The guy who killed Shinzo Abe didn't need any of these things and still shot him.

Re: The dangers of California's legislation to censor 3D printing

#120

Post by redsocksfan45 »

tempaccount5050 wrote: post #50
horsawlarway wrote: post #38

Personally, I see this as an assault on 3d printing more than any real attempt to regulate guns. I own several 3d printers. If I wanted to make something resembling a firearm I'd go to home depot WAY before I bothered 3d printing parts. You basically just need a metal tube, and well... a pipe from home depot does that much better than trying to 3d print something much less reliable. So given we don't do this regulati…

Not that I support any of these obviously stupid bills but: > what's special about 3d printers? They can make guns made out of plastic and metal detectors are kind of the primary way we try to find guns on people. You are probably right about the lobbying group, I agree. Edit: I'm not saying it makes sense, but this is the angle the congress folks are taking, sheesh.

[dead]
Post reply on HN