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

291–300 of 491 posts

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

#291

Post by cindyllm »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #283
engineer_22 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you went through a difficult time of your life, I can relate. I would like to point out a gun doesn't make destroying oneself any easier. They are heavy and cold and they have a particular smell, they taste like metal, and the hole in the end of the barrel so strongly implies destruction that even pointing it at oneself carries incredible gravity. Many people that purchase a gun for this purpose abandon the…

Well said, I will also add that the source of all fear is ignorance, and that includes everything, from guns to disease to imaginary monsters. You do not cure it through avoidance, quite the opposite.

[dead]

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

#292

Post by 9rx »

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…

> what's special about 3d printers?

They are typically stocked with material and ready to deploy at a moment's notice. When the time comes that you need a weapon, casually walking into Home Depot won't be an option.

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

#293

Post by Aurornis »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #138
mcmcmc wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 yo…

I’m not in favor of 3D printer controls but I feel like most of this comment section is out of touch with how far the 3D printed gun nuts have come along.

It was 13 years ago that the first major fully 3D printed firearm was released and even the ATF admitted that most of their reproduction attempts were capable of firing bullets at lethal velocities https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/feds-get-in-on-3...

I’m not an expert but even back then they could supposedly get 8-10 shots out of them.

So the claim that dozens of milled metal parts are necessary doesn’t appear to be factual

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

#294

Post by jandrewrogers »

Teever wrote: post #176
jandrewrogers wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electronic primers are a thing that already exists commercially. In the early 2000s, Remington sold electronically primed hunting rifles next to their non-electronic equivalent (see: "EtronX"). It is a mature technology. The main issue is cost and simplicity, since it often requires adding electronics to weapons that normally would not require them. The military uses electronically primed cartridges for things like c…

What advantage do they have over chemical primers?

It completely eliminates the physics and durability considerations of firing pin design.

For chemical primers there is a non-trivial lag between the trigger breaking and the firing pin being accelerated to sufficient velocity such that it ignites the primer. The mechanics of maximizing acceleration of the firing pin is adversarial to durability, reliability, and precision in a number of respects. In automatic weapons it is made worse because the same physics must run in reverse to support the desired rate of fire.

With electronic primers, you mostly only need to worry about switching electric power fast enough (trivial). The relatively fragile firing pin mechanics don't need to exist. But you do need electronics, which has its own issues.

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

#295

Post by Aurornis »

horsawlarway wrote: post #93
aidenn0 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not on top of the current SOTA in 3d-printed guns, but the way it typically was done in the past is that you don't actually 3d-print all of what you or I would call a complete gun. The barrel will be metal. In designs made for the US market, it will almost certainly be an actual manufactured gun barrel, since gun parts other than the receiver are not closely tracked in the US. In designs for Western Europe, the m…

yeah, but at some point you're just banning "manufacturing". if someone wants to make a gun... they can. It's not complex to manufacturer simple firearms - we managed it as far back as the freaking 10th century. So why freak out over this, for example, and not CNCs? Or Power tools? Or forges (CHF barrels are a thing too!)?

> yeah, but at some point you're just banning "manufacturing".

I mean I’m not in favor of this 3D printing law but manufacturing guns without appropriate licenses is illegal already. They’re trying to target consumer 3D printers for the same reason your paper printer refuses to print currency. Anyone with any engineering knowledge can see why the 3D printing analogy doesn’t work because there isn’t a fixed set of models being banned.

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

#296

Post by ActorNightly »

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.

Every argument against California can be easily disproven by the fact that people aren't moving out in droves like everyone says, and house prices are still very high because people want to live there.

Covid should have dropper the house prices drastically in Cali since people had the option to do remote work in a cheaper cost of living state, but all it did was just move the rate negative for like one year - everyone who couldn't afford it was able to get out, only to be replaced by people who can afford to live there.

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

#297

Post by sleepybrett »

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…

Most of the '3d printed' guns out there in the 2a community, and all the ones that actually work, require some kind of metal barrel, which might be a pipe, rifled or not.

What they actually hate is people who buy bags of glock parts from ebay (contains everything but the frame) and then print the frame. The frame being the handle part, everything below the slide but none of the internals. That's the legal 'gun' when it comes to most glocks and clones. The new ruger rmx, a newer glock clone, is different, the firing group (trigger and all the associated bits there) is the serialized part. The frame is, of course, very easy to print.

All the regulations around firearms are super fucking stupid, the way they classify different parts and try and make them illegal. Like.. in a lot of states if you have a rifle (ar or otherwise), you are not allowed to have a vertical foregrip for stabalization. However if your foregrip is like 5 degrees off pure vertical... legal.

This 3d printer 'ban' is unenforcable, it's a fucking tool, you can build anything with tools. Sure it's easier and takes less skill to download a glock 19 frame model off the internet and hit print, but there is, apparently, a lot of work that goes into making the gun work with that frame well enough for the gun to actually cycle.

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

#298

Post by Aurornis »

mvrekic wrote: post #166
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.

I don't care how good you are, you cannot 3D print a barrel that will withstand the pressure forces generated by a centerfire round.

Kind of interesting how many of these comments are confidently denying what the 3D printed gun nuts already pulled off 13 years ago. I would never in a million years want to be around one being fired, but there have been big internet communities pulling this off going back a long time https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/11/feds-get-in-on-3...

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

#299

Post by ActorNightly »

ginkgotree wrote: post #114
jimbob45 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

The issue is that you don't know what free actually means. You rely on a lot of government support for your perceived notion of freedom, its just invisible to you because its never been taken away. And if you ever get to experience a life where its been taken away, you sure as shit will be in favor of more authoritarian government.

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

#300

Post by giancarlostoro »

remarkEon wrote: post #237
giancarlostoro wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially with "80%" gun frames out there, which aren't too hard to get, and don't require any sort of background check in many jurisdictions, since its technically not a firearm, just a block of polymer you dremel down to spec.

While this is technically possible, it is not that easy. In other words, someone who is technical and experienced enough to manually create a lower like that is very likely to have extensive experience with firearms anyway (and likely owns many).

You'd be surprised how motivated someone in a gang could get watching a ton of videos on youtube just to get access to a gun police cannot "trace" in a meaningful way.
Post reply on HN