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

341–350 of 491 posts

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

#341

Post by abeyer »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #320
scarecrowbob wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you seem genuinely curious I will say this: Yeah, it scares the crap out of me too. I'm queer and very far to the left politically, and my neighbors all have a lot of guns and if you listen to what they say they think that queer leftists deserve to be murdered just out of principle. I am not under any illusion that firearms make any situation with the government better; I have been assaulted by DHS (pepp…

Hey, my sympathies on your plight :( I don't know what I'd do in a similar situation. Again, I don't see how carrying a gun could improve the situation, except possibly that if everyone on the left was also carrying then the folks on the right might get scared and begin to think more rationally about gun control. Statistically, though, you're safer than they are. Guns are much more likely to kill their owners than an…

> Guns are much more likely to kill their owners than anyone else [0]

That article says no such thing, despite people often claiming it does.

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

#342

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

dlev_pika wrote: post #182
ginkgotree wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yep - an armed Florida man paying low taxes

I’m sorry you feel the need to be armed in the streets - that sucks :(

Need? Get to.

I get to carry and make sure that I’m not a useless decoration if I or my family is ever in trouble because of someone that shouldn’t be in general population.

Need :) Ya, I see how you sell it to yourself as a negative.

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

#343

Post by saltyoldman »

kube-system wrote: post #92
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.

There was a panic about plastic guns back in the 80s too when the Glock came out, and Congress passed the Undetectable Firearms Act. But it was just as misinformed as it is today -- practically speaking, only metal is suitable for the high pressure components of a gun. A common 9mm cartridge produces upwards of 35,000 psi.

Aren't there metals that are undetectable/less detectable, like titanium or even stainless steel?

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

#344

Post by Eisenstein »

remarkEon wrote: post #318
Supermancho wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hobbyist or not, this makes it useful for getting guns (and other gear) from other people.

What I'm saying is that no one is going to build a lower in this manner for a firearm chambered in 7.62 and do anything useful/important with it. Maybe the cartridge size here is a distraction, idk, but this isn't a specification that I would consider common and/or useful for 3D printing a firearm. Even if your nominal intent is just to "finish" a gun with parts you have laying around, it's not going to be something…

Can you not imagine any motives that a person could have for printing a gun where they don't care about long term reliability?

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

#345

Post by alterom »

max51 wrote: post #154
alterom wrote: post #2

It's ridiculous that this is even being discussed. The people proposing the bill must have zero understanding of how a 3D printer works. It makes as much sense as requiring saw manufacturers to implement protections that restrict what can be cut out with a saw. Or pen manufacturers being required to enforce copyright. Any form of this bill will 100% fail to attain its stated objective, while having horrendous not-qui…

>And in the end, what's to stop someone from assembling an unlicensed 3D printer to make unlicensed prints? You really don't have to go that far. A very high quality control board (eg. an original Prusa) is like 90$ and cheap ones go for 25$. You could buy the licensed printer and swap the board. Or maybe even just flash the firmware on the licensed printer

>Or maybe even just flash the firmware on the licensed printer

Yeah, that would also be a crime under this proposal.

Which is one of the big reasons it's problematic.

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

#346

Post by jdougan »

remarkEon wrote: post #318
Supermancho wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hobbyist or not, this makes it useful for getting guns (and other gear) from other people.

What I'm saying is that no one is going to build a lower in this manner for a firearm chambered in 7.62 and do anything useful/important with it. Maybe the cartridge size here is a distraction, idk, but this isn't a specification that I would consider common and/or useful for 3D printing a firearm. Even if your nominal intent is just to "finish" a gun with parts you have laying around, it's not going to be something…

Look up the WW2 FP-45 Liberator. A bad gun you could use to get a better gun. Theoretically you only need to use it once.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

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

#347

Post by alterom »

DennisP wrote: post #249
sheikhnbake wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3D gun printing has come a long way in a short amount of time. 3D printed lower receivers can weather several hundred rounds of 7.62 at this point

You can easily go through a couple hundred rounds in one visit to the range.

>You can easily go through a couple hundred rounds in one visit to the range.

Range shooting is not what they're trying to legislate though.

Whoever killed that healthcare CEO didn't need a hundred rounds.

This legislation is insanely, horrendously bad and harmful, but "3D printed gun components are useless" isn't a solid argument against it. They're useful enough.

The real arguments, as others said, are:

1. You can achieve much more already without 3D printers

2. The legislation won't achieve its stated objective as any "blueprint detector" DRM will be trivial to circumvent on many levels (hardware, firmware, software)

3. Any semblance of that DRM being required will kill 3D printing as we know it (the text of the law is so broad that merely having a computer without the antigun spyware would be illegal if it means it can drive a 3D printer)

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

#348

Post by fasterik »

raven12345 wrote: post #285
fasterik wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America is just as bad The Human Rights Index for the United States dropped from 0.93 to 0.83 in 2025, which is concerning. Meanwhile, China scores 0.18, which is significantly worse. For comparison, countries that score higher than China include Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. Globally, China is 6th percentile on the Human Rights Index. The United States is 65th percentile. That puts the U.S. well below most develope…

So this index is just a joke, how Iran, Russia, and Venezuela higher than China?

- The detention of 1.8 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities, forced labor, and mass surveillance in Xinjiang. The destruction of Tibetan society and culture. The only comparable violation of human rights on this scale in the other countries is potentially Russia's war in Ukraine.

- China does not have competitive elections or an independent judiciary. The other countries do have these institutions to some extent, though deeply flawed and authoritarian.

- There is no freedom of religion in China or Iran. Russia persecutes some religious minorities, but tolerates different religions. Venezuela has constitutional protections for freedom of religion.

- There is no freedom of association in China. Independent trade unions, NGOs, and professional organizations are heavily suppressed and censored. These exist to a greater extent in the other countries.

- There is no freedom of speech in China. Political dissent is forbidden. All major media outlets are state-owned. Large parts of the internet are censored. Private conversations are monitored proactively. The other countries persecute speech, but in a less comprehensive, more retroactive way.

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

#349

Post by alterom »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #209
mjmas wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was a thing Still a thing in Australia.

I never understood banning nunchucks. They kind of ban themselves. If you've ever been a kid copying TMNT Michelangelo with home made nunchucks you've almost certainly smacked yourself in the face. Y'know what's martially better than two sticks with a string between them? A single big stick.

>I never understood banning nunchucks. They kind of ban themselves.

I mean, that's a solid reason to ban them :-)

In countries where healthcare is socialized at least. As a cost-saving measure.

They're melee equivalents of footguns.

>If you've ever been a kid copying TMNT Michelangelo with home made nunchucks you've almost certainly smacked yourself in the face.

I've seen qualified users train with metal nunchucks as a kid in the early 90s.

Even then I thought, if I had those, I'd knock my own brains out so fast ಠ , _ ಠ

>Y'know what's martially better than two sticks with a string between them? A single big stick.

Also an order of magnitude safer for the user.

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

#350

Post by jandrewrogers »

saltyoldman wrote: post #343
kube-system wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a panic about plastic guns back in the 80s too when the Glock came out, and Congress passed the Undetectable Firearms Act. But it was just as misinformed as it is today -- practically speaking, only metal is suitable for the high pressure components of a gun. A common 9mm cartridge produces upwards of 35,000 psi.

Aren't there metals that are undetectable/less detectable, like titanium or even stainless steel?

No, it doesn’t work like that in the modern world. The nature of the materials are pretty obvious to a remotely competent sensor.
Post reply on HN