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

131–140 of 491 posts

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

#131

Post by abtinf »

iwontberude wrote: post #105
favorited wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Why would you buy a pipe at Home Depot? A gun barrel is not a firearm, and is not required to be registered or serialized. You can drive to Arizona or Nevada and buy an actual barrel, with rifling, manufactured to meet well-known specifications, without showing an ID.…

Like everything in the United States, it’s actually gun manufacturers that want to clamp down on this cottage industry which threatens their profits. I don’t buy for a second that this is some gun control attempt.

This is the most likely answer. Just as it was the large grocery chains that have funded all the plastic/paper bag bans.

The gun lobby has a long history of trying to ban low cost market entrants.

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

#132

Post by sunrunner »

pensatoio wrote: post #35
dlev_pika wrote: post #20

AFAIK If I try to scan a dollar bill, both the hardware and the software won’t let me be. How is this different? Edit: I appreciate the responses! Thank you

A dollar bill is exactly the same (roughly) always. Banning models of gun parts (or anything 3D printed, for that matter) is like trying to ban the patterns of dust in the wind. There are millions of permutations and ways to slice the problem.

Having never seriously looked into 3D printing and knowing essentially nothing about firearms, a few mostly-unserious questions come to mind:

1. Is there any value in 3D printing the inverse of the shapes one would need to use as a mold?

2. How many subdivisions of gun-shaped part I wonder are needed before the ultimate intended shape is obscured without impacting the functionality

3. Given 2, is there even any value in 1.

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

#133

Post by jandrewrogers »

nemomarx wrote: post #40
subhobroto wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- can you build bombs to blow up an apartment complex full of 1000s of people? - can you poison the water supply of an apartment complex full of 1000s of people? - can you drop a harmful substance using a $50 drone onto an open area where of 1000s of people have congregated?

We also restrict the components of those pretty heavily, though. Try buying too much fertilizer without a farm and see who shows up. This isn't a judgement on your general point, but I think bombs and bioweapons and etc are very bad examples for you here.

Explosives are a weird case because Americans can just buy industrially manufactured high explosives. Attempting to DIY an explosive that is almost certainly inferior to what you can buy commercially is a red flag.

Before 9/11 caused them to tighten up the rules, buying high explosives in the US was cash-and-carry. You could walk in and select different kinds of high explosives from a giant menu. If you wanted something unusual they could special order it. The only real requirement was that you had a non-sparking container for it (basically, no exposed metal) when you carried it away. Most people aren't familiar with this because most regions of the US don't have much need for these types of stores.

It still isn't difficult today from my understanding, there is just more paperwork. The more practical hurdle is complying with safe storage regulations since they want some distance between where you store it and the neighbors. You can't just stash a few hundred pounds in your suburban garage.

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

#134

Post by noxer »

codedokode wrote: post #112
noxer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Aside form high powered stuff you can get away with pure lead bullet.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47771707 for the rest.

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

#135

Post by caconym_ »

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…

Reminds me of the sUAS legislation crushing the R/C flying hobby. Vague allusions to "safety" are constantly being thrown around, but in fact it seems that big companies are lobbying to claim the airspace for drone delivery and similar autonomous BVLOS operations.

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

#137

Post by cucumber3732842 »

asdff wrote: post #3

Why don't these bills go after ammo or gunpowder access? Seems as long as you have access to a cylinder, and ammunition, you can make a gun.

Because the 2A and related jurisprudence exists and so that will be struck down in court in about 10wk whereas a "novel" convoluted regulation like micro managing printers will take 10yr.

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

#138

Post by WillPostForFood »

mcmcmc wrote: post #103
giancarlostoro wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing you need to make is the "lower" or whichever part the ATF constitutes as "the firearm" I've seen someone take a shovel and turn it into an AK. Once you have the "firearm" part of whatever gun you're building, the rest of the parts can be shipped to you in most of the country (idk about CA, and NY though) and you can easily assemble the rest of the gun. Like you say, you just need to build a key metal p…

Didn’t Luigi Mangione 3D print his gun? There’s definitely an appeal for criminals

He 3d printed the frame, but you need dozens of parts, milled or stamped from steel to complete it and have a working gun. Even the 3d printed frame needs steel inserts. It is like 3d printing a case, then buying a motherboard, CPU and RAM at Best Buy, and claiming your built a 3d printed computer.

There is some appeal to criminals, because the frame is the part that gets the serial number and is regulated. But if you want to attack this problem, the 3d printer is a backwards way to do it.

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

#139

Post by BoneShard »

iwontberude wrote: post #105
favorited wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Why would you buy a pipe at Home Depot? A gun barrel is not a firearm, and is not required to be registered or serialized. You can drive to Arizona or Nevada and buy an actual barrel, with rifling, manufactured to meet well-known specifications, without showing an ID.…

Like everything in the United States, it’s actually gun manufacturers that want to clamp down on this cottage industry which threatens their profits. I don’t buy for a second that this is some gun control attempt.

I think they don't give a shit about 3D printing, especially in CA. It's not like you're competing with a glock19 type hand gun and cornering this market.

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

#140

Post by cucumber3732842 »

themafia wrote: post #128
cultofmetatron wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

guns democratize mass murder. With a gun, I can kill a bunch of people before police can stop me. A knife? At best I can kill one or two in a public place before people run away and eventually a different group is going to stop me pretty quickly.

As a citizen with a gun I can shoot you before the police arrive.

The powers that be are far more concerned with you shooting the police before more police arrive.
Post reply on HN