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

471–480 of 491 posts

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

#471

Post by tekknik »

clarionbell wrote: post #353
leptons wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be proud of having so many guns and the highest rate of gun deaths by far in the developed world (except maybe countries currently at war). "Guns are amazing"? Really? Nevermind, I know someone just like you. He refuses to fly on an airplane because he can't bring his precious guns with him on the plane . So he's really never been anywhere outside of the midwest. He has no idea how other countries are. And…

You may be surprised, but there are countries in Europe where gun ownership is relatively wide spread and it just works. Czech Republic for example has it access to guns guaranteed in Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms[1]. One of the reasons why it works, is that there are reasonable conditions. For example, regular health checks, strict registration, passing gun safety examination and, last but not least, no…

I wouldn’t call a ban on assault weapons reasonable when you can get the same “scary black rifle” in different trim and they have no issue with it.

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

#472

Post by tekknik »

some_random wrote: post #438
master-lincoln wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that law would also diminish the glorification of weapons in pop culture then. I guess that would be seen as positive side effect for the people supporting this ban.

I really want to highlight this comment to everyone who's on the fence on gun rights or still believes that compromise is possible. This is the position of hardline anti-gun people, their billionaire funded NGOs, and the politicians they finance. It's not about reducing excess death, it's not about gun violence, it's about abolishing all civilian firearms ownership and removing any positive association of firearms or…

I firmly believe it’s a disinformation campaign run by Russia to make a potential invasion easier, and anybody peddling “gun control” is really just a useful idiot.

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

#473

Post by tekknik »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #157
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.

California already has background checks for bullets, you typically can't buy ammo if you haven't bought a gun at your current address.

Thankfully that was recently overturned.

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

#474

Post by Eisenstein »

remarkEon wrote: post #469
Eisenstein wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there are people who would have a use for a high powered rifle with limited durability. > 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. The fact that no one was ca…

>You stated that there are people out there who would use it, so your statement that "no one" would want to is untrue. Huh? There is no evidence that anyone is using a 3D printed 7.62 weapon system to do crimes. Of the existing evidence, criminals overwhelmingly use conventional firearms. I'm not understanding your point. The would-be and successful assassins in the news the last couple years used standard rifles, ra…

You are arguing against a point I am not defending. I am giving a retort against your statement that you can't imagine why anyone would want a high powered rifle that had a limited reliability window. You admitted that there was a use case for it, and I called that out. That's it. I am not defending nor opposing the ability to 3D print firearms.

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

#475

Post by Orygin »

nine_k wrote: post #453
Orygin wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> has not been overrun by the many wars in Europe for last 200 years is that every citizen is expected to fight back Lol this is so gun-brained, even for an American. Switzerland has not been "overrun" because they are in the freaking mountains. Gun or not, good luck invading mountain cliffs.

Napoleon somehow did not have very much trouble doing just that back in the day. But it's of course not limited to small arms distributed among the population. There are many more preparations done in advance, like rocks prepared to block roads if an explosive charge is detonated. Same with various bridges and railroad choke points. There's a large network of shelters and bunkers, kept in a good shape. Etc, etc. The…

You proved my point. Doesn't really have to do with the gun owning population but to the unique geography of the country giving them a massive advantage.

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

#476

Post by pfannkuchen »

daveguy wrote: post #225
tehjoker wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed that the grocers would want to offer bags. Making it more easy to drop in and buy something is going to be significantly more money than the cost of bags per a customer.

Maybe they want you to spend an extra 10 cents every time you drop in and buy something? And they get to be pro environment. Win win.

What percent of the overall purchase profit is 10 cents, and how much does it reduce in sales by adding friction? Surely there must be data on this, has nobody looked into it in public?

Also, it’s been awhile but don’t plastic bags make it easier to carry more things at once because the handles are so thin and flexible? And I don’t remember handles ever ripping on plastic grocery bags.

If the math works out in favor of charging for bags it would imply that the margin is incredibly thin in the literal sense of the word incredible. Like the average purchase has so little profit that 10 cents per bag is meaningful? What is the average profit on a bag of items or on an average purchase? Surely more than 10 cents, no? Like I know grocery stores are notoriously low margin, but that’s among businesses it’s not almost 0 in an absolute sense.

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

#477

Post by qurren »

Teever wrote: post #222
qurren wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 3D printer, at least of the Prusa variety, is really just a bunch of stepper motors and a dumb motor driver executing a series of effectively "rotate by X steps" commands, which is what the gcode file is. It doesn't know what it's printing. It doesn't even know that it's a printer. If they wanted a gate on designs it would have to happen in slicing software, not the actual printer.

They'll still need some DRM in the printer so it will only accept signed gcode that came from the the slicer. Otherwise it's pretty trivial for someone to just bypass the slicer and hand write the gcode.

If you put the DRM in the printer I can hard wire the stepper motors to some H-bridges and an Arduino and run the unsigned gcode.

I have no intention to print weapons, but just saying that this law does nothing.

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

#478

Post by abeyer »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #465
abeyer wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, it's a bit of a silly cliché, but a true one, that guns don't kill people, people kill people. The way you've phrased it, even aside from the facts, makes it feel like FUD implying that someone's gun is going to creep up on them in the night. Second, you can just take it from the horse's mouth, since papers give you an abstract stating their findings. An even briefer snippet of what they say themselves there i…

Right, but the basic point - that people who have guns are more likely to die by guns is true, right? The sophistry about whose gun killed them is kinda moot. They don't actually track whether the gun-owners died by their own gun or not, as you say. But it's likely, isn't it? We're talking about people who either kill themselves, or kill their family members. It's likely using the gun that's already in the house, rat…

They demonstrate a correlation, but not causation. In fact they point out the reverse is likely true, too, that people more likely to die by gun might want to keep a gun at home.

What you call "sophistry" others might consider "not misrepresenting what research says to fit an agenda." There's value in using precise language to communicate what the numbers actually show.

And I don't even understand how the fact that a gun isn't a guarantee in any way contradicts that it _can_ be used in self defense.

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

#479

Post by remarkEon »

Eisenstein wrote: post #474
remarkEon wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You stated that there are people out there who would use it, so your statement that "no one" would want to is untrue. Huh? There is no evidence that anyone is using a 3D printed 7.62 weapon system to do crimes. Of the existing evidence, criminals overwhelmingly use conventional firearms. I'm not understanding your point. The would-be and successful assassins in the news the last couple years used standard rifles, ra…

You are arguing against a point I am not defending. I am giving a retort against your statement that you can't imagine why anyone would want a high powered rifle that had a limited reliability window. You admitted that there was a use case for it, and I called that out. That's it. I am not defending nor opposing the ability to 3D print firearms.

I don't think I actually did admit that, and I think the confusion lies in your assumption that someone who wants to do a crime is willing to accept the reliability issues. Perhaps it's worth pointing out that these reliability issues aren't simply lower n-cycles before failure. The weapon could explode on you on the first shot. The probability of this happening is lower for the less powerful cartridges (as I implied earlier but perhaps should've been more explicit). This concept of a "reliability window" is not the right way to think about this. In other words, if someone handed me a 3D printed 7.62 weapon system I would refuse to fire it, and call the person who made it an idiot.

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

#480

Post by ProllyInfamous »

lrvick wrote: post #386

To any legislators watching, if you successfully pass this I am going to give public workshops teaching people how to make 3D printers from parts found at Home Depot out of pure spite, and separately, how to make a 12 gauge shotgun with almost 0 effort from basic parts also found at Home Depot without even using the 3D printer. Put DRM on plumbing pipes, I dare you.

>Put DRM on plumbing pipes

While I generally agree, we've already reached a point where an ID is required to purchase pseudoephidine and/or facemasks.

And all the copper is already locked up, requiring an associate to help you while you loiter minutes lazenly under dozens of facial-recognition cameræ.

We live in worlds of parallel constructions.

Post reply on HN