
NY Congressman Introducing Ban On 3D-Printed High Capacity Gun Magazines - ldayley
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ny-congressman-introducing-ban-on-3d-printed-high
======
jlgreco
> _announced he would be introducing legislation to renew a ban on firearms
> and magazines that can't be picked up by standard metal detectors. The
> current ban on plastic firearms expires this year._

In other words, the only thing this has to do with printed magazines is that
printed magazines are being used as a talking point to promote the bill.

Printed magazines, when printed with plastic, would still be picked up by a
metal detector since they need a large metal spring (yes, there are printed
plastic springs. they suck). Printed magazines printed with metal would
obviously be unaffected by this law.

The concept of a "plastic gun" is (currently at least) largely an urban legend
anyway. Glocks set off metal detectors just fine.

~~~
pjungwir
The idea of a plastic Glock appeared in one of the Die Hards. For all I know
that's where it originated.

~~~
InclinedPlane
It didn't originate in the Die Hard movie. There was a media fueled rumor
about the Glock 17 containing so little metal that it wouldn't show up on
metal detectors, and Die Hard 2 merely perpetuated that idea. However, none of
it was ever true.

In the mid '80s there was a rumor about a Soviet all-plastic 3-shot gun, and
there was a guy who patented the idea of an all-plastic gun, and then the
media picked up on Glock making guns using plastic frames (but still more than
80% metal by weight). Then someone wrote a breathless story about how Libya
was trying to buy Glocks, and this rapidly snowballed into a media fueled
freakout about plastic guns and the Glock became a "terrorist special" and so
forth.

~~~
InclinedPlane
P.S. Here's an article from 1986 which was one of the major sources for the
"plastic gun" scare:

[http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19860418&...](http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19860418&id=Ol4eAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2cgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3270,4275428)

As an intellectual exercise, see how many mistakes and logical fallacies the
author commits.

------
tsotha
Honestly, I don't understand the hysteria over 3-D printers when it comes to
guns. For less than ten grand you can buy a 3-axis CNC machine and mill
yourself a heavy machine gun in your garage. This has been possible for
decades now. Hell, you can see youtube videos of CNC projects where someone
takes a manual lathe and puts together his own computer control for a grand
total of $600.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>For less than ten grand you can buy a 3-axis CNC machine and mill yourself a
heavy machine gun in your garage.

I think CNC machines probably fall into the same category as 3D printers when
it comes to things like this.

The issue isn't that someone with a little money can manufacture a firearm.
This has been the case since firearms were invented. The issue is that it's
becoming easier and cheaper to do it, and as time passes it seems plausible
that object fabrication equipment will become a staple home appliance. Which
will make attempts to ban anything that such machines can produce about as
effective as trying to stop people downloading pirated movies.

The funny thing is that they think passing a law against it is going to do
anything. The whole issue is that the widespread availability of the devices
would make such laws unenforceable in practice.

~~~
tsotha
>The whole issue is that the widespread availability of the devices would make
such laws unenforceable in practice.

Gun and explosive laws are already unenforceable. Explosives are easy to make
- you can get recipes off the internet. And guns are easy to make, too, as I
pointed out above. It's not clear to me that 3D printers will be any cheaper
or more ubiquitous than milling machines, but in any case milling machines are
_already_ ubiquitous.

What keeps people from making machine guns and bombs is the severe penalties
associated with doing so. That won't change with the advent of cheap 3D
printers, even assuming a printer that could make a gun is ever cheap.

------
gojomo
This will have about as much protective effect against the criminally-
motivated as putting up "gun-free school zone" signs.

~~~
wwweston
> This will have about as much protective effect against the criminally-
> motivated as putting up "gun-free school zone" signs.

Even if what you're saying is true, one could argue that means "some
protective effect."

Yes, it's probably true that someone who intends to ignore the law and most
moral codes and commit a crime with a firearm will almost certainly ignore a
sign and the associated additional legal penalties.

"Gun-free" school zones are not really meant to address that problem. They're
an attempt to address the problem of crimes/accidents committed with firearms
brought into a zone _without_ intent to commit a crime, but that end up being
used criminally anyway in a confrontation or when they end up out of original
hands, etc. Given that these things happen, restricting access to firearms in
a place like a school probably has some marginal positive effect (you can
credibly argue there may be a negative effect too -- not having _anyone_ armed
in a school represents a targeting opportunity -- but the intelligent response
to this is probably to figure out what reasonable exceptions might be rather
than throwing up your hands and letting any student or visitor carry).

Similarly, I think it's possible that making attempts to restrict the legal
manufacture of high-capacity clips will have some positive impact -- probably
a greater one, since the larger scope makes leaks through neighboring less-
restricted zones less likely. It will remain true that where "criminally-
motivated" means someone with resources and strong resolve, they will be able
to acquire not only high-capacity clips but probably just about any form of
contraband they'd like. It's also true that by placing restrictions on the
process of making of high-capacity clips, the bar for sufficient resources and
resolve will be at least somewhat higher: there will be fewer made, fewer
people making/distributing 3D printable designs, introducing scarcity, making
it harder to do.

Would this be an absolute deterrent? No. Some people will still do that. Is
the lock on a door an absolute deterrent? No. It raises the bar: you need to
be more determined and you face additional risk of being conspicuous while
breaking in. Seat belts don't protect you from many risks of driving.
Sometimes, making improvements in the margins is how you get things better.

Now, that's not to say that there might not be other problems with any given
measure. Personally, I think if you're going to ban manufacture of something,
focusing on the method is probably a bad choice. There's also the question of
tradeoffs -- what does it mean to "ban" 3D printing something? Does it mean
every 3D printer gets a regulator or a monitor? That might be too big a cost
for the benefit.

~~~
InclinedPlane
This is just plain silliness. There are millions, literally hundreds of
millions, of full capacity magazines out there in the world right now. If a
criminal can manage to get their hands on an illegal gun they can certainly
manage to get their hands on a full capacity magazine just as easily and for
far less money. They are too easy to make, too easy to store, too easy to
transport for it to be otherwise.

That was true even during the period of time when the national "assault
weapons" ban was in place.

Also, when you call a magazine a "clip" you immediately make yourself look
like someone who knows very little about firearms. A magazine is a spring
loaded device that holds bullets in a gun, and may or may not be detachable. A
"clip" is a device which is sometimes used to store bullets for quickly
loading into a magazine.

~~~
wwweston
> Also, when you call a magazine a "clip" you immediately make yourself look
> like someone who knows very little about firearms.

Assuming this is neither pedantry nor an ad hominem attack, I appreciate
knowing what terminology communicates to people.

> There are millions, literally hundreds of millions, of full capacity
> magazines out there in the world right now.

And billions of people. The argument isn't that we can wave a magic policy
wand and make _anything_ disappear, or impossible to make or get. The argument
is that it may be possible to make it harder for any one of those billions to
get their hands on some of the millions of things.

Here's what I'd expect to happen if we were to legally restrict the
manufacture and general possession of some magazines (or anything else, for
that matter):

1) Owners would split into 3-4 different categories: (a) some who would decide
any legal risk isn't worth it, and get rid of theirs through approved
channels, (b) some who would keep what they have but stop buying, (c) some
would sell or buy on the black market. Overall, though, unless you assume that
(a) is completely negligible, we're talking about a reduction in existing
general circulation.

2) Regarding additions to general circulation, I'd expect manufacturers would
split into different categories as well. Some would (a) comply with
regulations and would no longer make or ship through general market channels,
some would (b) continue to manufacture and supply the black market. Some (c)
new manufacturers would spring up to fill any demand gap left by (a), but
remember, some people in (1a) have dropped out of the market, so demand has
probably shrunk, and risk is higher, so it's a pretty big presumption to claim
supplies to general circulation from b+c are going to be equal or greater than
a+b under no restrictions. Overall, we're talking about a reduction in supply
coming into the pipe.

3) So at this point, if my assumptions hold up, the bar's up at least three or
four notches:

* perhaps we still have many banned magazines in general circulation (US estimates I've heard thrown around are closer in order of magnitude to the tens of millions rather than hundreds, though), but there's nevertheless a reduction in number vs the baseline of no restriction, so that's increased scarcity.

* anyone wishing to buy/sell will need to have contacts willing to run the risk (your average postal worker or 19 year old suffering from socialization problems may or may not meet this bar)

* greater risk to buying/selling means some people will prefer to hold on to what they have and not sell at any price, except perhaps with highly trusted acquaintances. This effect in how magazines circulate would be more powerful the higher their concentration in a small number of hands is.

* cost would go up do to increased scarcity and risk associated with buying/selling, meaning any given individual would need to be prepared to pay more

4) That's not all, though. Remember what I said about door locks raising the
bar in terms of conspicuousness? In a world with no door locks, the act of
walking up to any door, opening it, and walking through is easy and
unsuspicious to most given observers. In our world, you're going to need to
batter the door down or spend time fiddling with tools -- both activities that
are somewhat likely to draw attention. There are ways to allay the resulting
suspicion, but that's another bar to meet. Similarly, someone incidentally
observed with contraband is now under scrutiny; secondhand evidence it's
possessed/traded at all in the neighborhood may even draw law enforcement on
the trail.

> This is just plain silliness.

Based on your username, it looks like you would know. ;)

So... what part of what I've laid out above do you expect would _not_ happen
if magazines over a certain capacity were banned, and why?

~~~
hga
" _Assuming this is neither pedantry nor an ad hominem attack..._ "

The Associated Press (AP) _finally_ updated their style book to make this
important distinction, and I've noticed their writers are actually following
it, so it's not pedantry.

------
pejoculant
This headline is pretty misleading. He just introduced a bill to renew an
already existing ban on non-metallic guns and magazines.

~~~
rflrob
My read is that while non-metallic guns are currently illegal, the existing
ban doesn't cover the magazines themselves.

------
emeraldd
If you ban plastic, someone will figure out a way to do it with metal.
Besides, the only way a plastic magazine would be undetectable is if it were
empty, which make it effectively useless anyhow.

~~~
CWilliams1013
Even then, plastic magazines (such as those for Glocks, "Pmags" for AR-15s,
any many others) still have metal components, most notably the spring.

------
Zimahl
It does bring up an interesting ethical scenario with respect to 3D printing.
You can ban the sale of high-capacity magazines all you want, but if it's
simple to just make one with a 3D printer the point of the law is completely
moot. Since the law won't ban making these magazines (to not conflict with US
manufacturers exporting these) and the law won't outlaw the existing
magazines, this is a huge loophole.

And magazines aren't anything special, definitely something that is perfect
for 3D printing. Simple designs punctuated by slight one-offs - depending on
cartridge size, cartridge count, and weapon fit.

~~~
kennywinker
It would be fairly trivial to outlaw non-licensed manufacturing of high-
capacity magazines.

The same way distilling alcohol is illegal in the US, but owning a still,
owning alcohol, and purchasing distilled alcohol is not illegal.

~~~
Firehed
When that happens, I'm immediately printing off several high-capacity mags out
of principle, and I don't even own a firearm (thought about it, but I don't
have time to go to a range so the liability isn't worth it for me).

While I understand the intent of the law, it's a totally impractical way to
solve the problem. It sounds like the majority of weapons used in violent
crimes are obtained illegally so it will do little to deter criminal
activities; meanwhile, it increases the liability around owning a 3d printer.

~~~
kennywinker
I believe that the majority of weapons used in non-gang-related mass shootings
were purchased legally.

Why are you not immediately distilling a few bottles of moonshine on
principle? My feeling is gun-freedom supporters view gun ownership as a proxy
for freedom. Why not view alcohol distillation as your symbolic meter-stick
instead? Just like illegally produced spirits, owning a gun won't stop the TSA
from violating your rights. Nor will it stop the FBI from raiding your home.

~~~
Firehed
Ironically, I'd be much more likely to harm someone with moonshine than with
an XL magazine.

In any case, the stand I'd be taking is about the absurdity of trying to ban
3d printing of specific devices, not about gun rights. I can't think of a
reasonable excuse for a private citizen to own high-capacity weapons of death,
and the theoretical argument about defending ourselves from the government
went out the window long ago in my eyes. The second amendment was written well
before the days of SWAT teams (on the low end of potential government
firepower) and anyone crazy enough to think that stockpiling high-powered
weaponry will be sufficient to take on highly-trained professionals is, well,
crazy.

~~~
hga
You're failing to exercise your imagination; perhaps look at the recent
difficulties the US military has had in the Middle East with adversaries who
had no interest in playing by the former's rules.

------
defilade
Who cares if a magazine can be picked up by a metal detector?

~~~
el33tel33t
Let's see: Everyone who does screening. Everyone who poses a natural target
(judges, DAs, federal officers, etc) whose protection depends on screening.
Everyone who works in a federal building where they are not allowed to carry
guns, and therefore relies on a metal detector to keep gun carrying people
out. Everyone who flies. One could go on.

~~~
cdjk
Until someone figures out a way to make plastic bullets (pedantic edit: and
cartridges) I'm not going to worry too much about it.

~~~
travisby
<http://wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=8699>

Plastic 308 rounds. Those are real projectiles, not dummy rounds.

I do not know if the entire cartridge is plastic, though. That primer
definitely looks like metal. And I'm going to assume steel for the cartridge
body (wow, it was hard to think of another word than 'brass').

Now, a fully plastic gun is another story...

~~~
runarb
Thus are military training rounds. The bullet are plastic, but the cartridge
is brass. They are generally not deadly, and are sometimes used to fire at
people with (as a form of paintball, but that is ill advised).

They are meant for training with outdoors. They are cheaper then normal
bullets, less pollution then lead and don't goes so fare (a normal 7.62mm
bullets can be deadly for upwards to 3.5 kilometers, making random shouting in
a simulated setting outside unsafe).

More info about this bullets are available at
[http://gunlore.awardspace.info/rifledarms/ammunition/dag762b...](http://gunlore.awardspace.info/rifledarms/ammunition/dag762by51.htm)

However caseless ammunition also exist:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition> . Thus could probably be
made without any metal.

~~~
rdl
The IDF uses rubber bullets extensively as a non-lethal form of ammunition. I
think during the Nth intifada there was a story about plastic bullets being
used, with them being actually worse than metal since they wouldn't show up on
x-ray, although they would shed energy and momentum really fast compared to
metal.

[http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/29/world/us-protesting-
israel...](http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/29/world/us-protesting-israelis-use-
of-plastic-bullets.html)

[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/29/world/israeli-army-
lawyer-...](http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/29/world/israeli-army-lawyer-
defends-use-of-plastic-bullets.html)

------
Spooky23
Wow. I'm surprised that Rep. Israel beat Sen. Schumer... Usually he wins the
race for getting this type of vapid thing out on a weekly basis.

------
ISL
It begins!

