211–220 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don’t claim it doesn’t exist, they claim it bears a cost significant to the overall cost of the firearm and is unlikely to meaningfully accomplish its stated goals. Ie prices will go up by 10% or whatever for basically nothing. It’s a useless place to put an identifier. It can be filed off easily, and checking whether it’s present involves a microscope and/or disassembling the firearm (depending on the gun and f…
They do claim it doesn't exist. It's not an argument they emphasize in their public messaging, presumably because it's such obvious nonsense, but it's one of their core arguments in their lawsuit challenging all California handgun restrictions ( https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.85... ). "Microstamping technology does not actually exist in any commercially available application on a handgun" (…
That changes the above quote. It's not a gun manufacturer claiming they can't find anyone to microstamp their guns (though not dispositive of the same), it's a citizen saying that commercially no one sells microstamped guns.
If you expand out your quote, it neatly explains what I would wager is the reason why no one sells microstamped guns:
"AB 2847 also imposes an additional amendment to the UHA: for every semiautomatic handgun that satisfies the new one location microstamping requirement (in addition to havingCLI and MDM) and is therefore added to the Roster, the State must remove three (3) grandfathered semiautomatic handguns from the Roster, in reverse order of addition. However, this has not yet occurred because microstamping technology does not actually exist in any commercially available application on a handgun."
In other words, if a manufacturer decides to make a new microstamped model then 3 models that are likely still in production will become illegal. It's a losing proposition for the manufacturers. There's no money to be made by creating a new production line to build microstamped pistols if it's going to shut down an existing line; it's a bunch of money to re-tool factories to sell to the same people the shut down line was already selling to.
Without getting too into the weeds of politics, it's exacerbated by it being California. Whether you agree or disagree with the goals of the policies, they do change the requirements for guns very frequently relative to other places. I can understand manufacturers being reticent to set up new production lines to comply with policies that will probably change again in the next 5 or 10 years.
My reading of the lawsuit is that they think this was the intended end state of the bill. Require new guns to implement a feature, ensure that implementing that feature will generate financial losses, and now no new guns get made but you can point at gun manufacturers and say you didn't ban them the manufacturers just won't comply. I'm not totally sold on that, but it is a remarkably poorly written bill when the incentives the bill sets up run exactly counter to the intended goals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on the fact that Claude Opus 4.8 decided I needed a cybersecurity exemption to debug a stupid pure virtual call bug (basically virtual method called inside of destructor) that I had already found, oh boy, I sure would love to have my 3D prints analyzed by Anthropic safe guards. We should also ensure that nothing shaped like a dildo can be printed without scanning our face and genitalia and keeping it on file wi…
Frankly who cares about dildos when your personal freedom and private property of you and your family is at stake.You can buy uncountable dildo models in a shop. I recently was in Venezuela, I have been in Cuba. I am a native spaniard. There you have a group of people that took control of the weapons in the country and uses it to basically enslave the rest of the country. When the people in power have automatic weapo…
Don't ask me. I think the focus on sex things is utterly insane. However, even on Hacker News many people definitely seem extremely concerned at least about people under 18 having access to Internet pornography, which to me, clearly isn't even remotely close to the biggest problem adolescents are facing.
In America we're worried about 3D printed ghost guns. Why? Ostensibly it's because ghost guns are showing up more at crime scenes, since 3D printing is just so accessible these days. How many gun deaths do 3D printed guns currently account for? As far as I know, something on the order of magnitude of around 0.01%, at least in America. That number is probably mostly small because we never actually really did anything about regular gun violence.
This is not a new pattern. Nuclear energy has very few fatalities in its track record. Shockingly few when you consider its reputation. Depending on how you count it, it is pretty much a rounding error by any reasonable measure. Meanwhile, we send at least somewhere around 10,000 bodies to the morgue every year as a result of pollution from natural gas power plants. How many from nuclear? Probably less than one on average. Certainly nowhere near 10,000 no matter how you shake it, twist it or bend it. Even the dumbest and least reputable studies couldn't force the number to half as high, which is pretty funny to me. Is nuclear fission still the future? Given the density and reliability of energy production from fission it's hard to entirely count it out even in a mostly solar + battery future... yet here we are, with politicians arguing about the safety of ~0 deaths per year energy production method vs >10,000 deaths per year energy production method.
Does it matter that politicians are so interested in regulating sex when bigger issues are at stake? Well, yeah. It's no less alarming even if it seems trivial. Not everyone has to pick every battle, but to me free expression is my bugbear so I give a fuck when it's in the mouths of politicians. The apparatus for suppressing expression never stops where it starts. Never. It wouldn't be right if it did, but the point of trying to come up with something that sounds like an obvious net good is that it can make people more forgiving to implement a terrible idea and set an awful precedent.
Which, of course, is why it's pretty likely in the near future you will need a driver's license to reply to this comment.
Somehow, it started with Internet pornography.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That does not sound stupid, but safe? I giant truck that has no chance of stopping, controlled by a computer? Just build railways and then there are no issues, no fancy AI to control them.
It’s controlled by hired hands in the Philippines just like all those self driving GoogleRobo taxis.
I tried to photo copy a dollar bill when I was a kid on a dinky inkjet printer. It printed half way then spit out something about counterfeit prevention. I scanned the bill, printed the top half, fed the paper back in, and printed the bottom half. This can only actually stop the completely unmotivated.
Do printers still do that? I wonder if the tracking dots are still there as well, haven’t used a printer in a while
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is there is a lot of garbage about it. Ghost guns are a real issue, but ghost guns are not 3D printed guns. 3D printed is a very niche case. They're only good for one shot ever, they are not reliable even for that. And they're bulky. The one thing they do is make it much harder for a metal detector to find them. Ghost guns made by CNC milling equipment are nearly identical to what you would buy from the m…
There are plenty of 3D printed guns that are good for more than one shot. The classic examples are 3D printed Glock-style frames and AR-15 lower receivers. As far as US gun laws are concerned, those parts are the firearm and the rest of the parts are uncontrolled. So you print those, buy barrels, triggers, magazines, etc to finish the build and voila, ghost gun.
You do not print a lower receiver compatible with standard parts. The threat is a CNC milling machine cutting one from metal.
Ghost gun = key part made by sources other than a legal firearms manufacturer. Typically, this means CNC milling.
Printed guns are ghost guns, but the vast majority of ghost guns are not printed guns. Printing plastic has a very hard time confining the gunpowder. It's possible to print metal, but it's sintered (not nearly as strong) and the printers are still way beyond the home level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long until people get police showing up at their door because they tried to print something harmless but gun-shaped (like a light gun for retro games, or Nerf-style toys) and were flagged by the AI 'firearm detector'?
If you want to have a voice in how the regulation is implemented, perhaps you should offer suggestions for how to implement it better. That's how it works in most industries; legislators propose to enact regulation X, manufacturers respond that X would have undesirable consequences and Y would be better, and then they discuss to figure out how to best balance all the competing interests. For reasons that aren't entir…
Why do you think they would be opposed to this? (I doubt they care.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of 3D printed guns that are good for more than one shot. The classic examples are 3D printed Glock-style frames and AR-15 lower receivers. As far as US gun laws are concerned, those parts are the firearm and the rest of the parts are uncontrolled. So you print those, buy barrels, triggers, magazines, etc to finish the build and voila, ghost gun.
You're making exactly the mistake I'm pointing out! You do not print a lower receiver compatible with standard parts. The threat is a CNC milling machine cutting one from metal. Ghost gun = key part made by sources other than a legal firearms manufacturer. Typically, this means CNC milling. Printed guns are ghost guns, but the vast majority of ghost guns are not printed guns. Printing plastic has a very hard time con…
I've personally seen 3d-printed polymer Glock frames and AR-15 lowers. I've personally seen them stand up to sustained automatic fire. You're not going to be printing with PLA and there's plenty of bad designs out there that can't take the stress, but good designs that are durable when printed with the appropriate filament or resin exist.
> Printing plastic has a very hard time confining the gunpowder.
Which is why printing Glock frames and AR-15 lowers works so well—they're the controlled part and they don't bear the pressure of the gunpowder combustion products.
> Printed guns are ghost guns, but the vast majority of ghost guns are not printed guns
Sure, you're probably seeing way more Polymer80 and aluminum 80% lowers than 3d printed ghost guns... but people aren't CNCing those at home, either. They were milling those out with special jigs and a drill press.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I can imagine it too. And, if such a 'safety nanny' is enacted into law, I'm confident it will A. Refuse to print a significant number of innocent projects, or B. Be trivially circumvented by bad actors. The odds are high that it will manage to do both.
Totally circumvented by everyone, basically. You can hook up an arduino to most consumer 3d printers and throw away the motherboard that comes with them. Aside from being stupid and dangerous, this is going to create some excellent makerscale marketing opportunities.