
U.S. Legislation Aims to Ban Plastic Guns Metal Detectors Can’t Detect - laurentsabbah
http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/10/u-s-legislation-aims-to-ban-plastic-guns/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29
======
jcromartie
So then the people who would otherwise use plastic guns to get past metal
detectors would say "oh, well those are illegal now, I'd better not."

~~~
RyJones
These "plastic or otherwise undetectable" guns are already illegal and have
been for decades, since GLOCK and some yellow journalism put the fear in
Congress around the time Lethal Weapon came out.

~~~
sandyarmstrong
Did Lethal Weapon have plastic firearms? My first thought was In the Line of
Fire.

~~~
RyJones
I'm sorry, it was Die Hard.
[http://diehard.wikia.com/wiki/Glock_7](http://diehard.wikia.com/wiki/Glock_7)

------
ck2
TSA already misses full metal guns and in some airports guns are completely
legal in the USA.

Why even pretend to have gun laws in this country.

But I'll tell you what, we better make mental health care available like going
to the supermarket and without stigma in our society or one day there is going
to be a mass-murder anniversary for every day of the year.

~~~
mason240
>But I'll tell you what, we better make mental health care available like
going to the supermarket and without stigma in our society or one day there is
going to be a mass-murder anniversary for every day of the year.

Implying that anyone who needs mental health care is going to go on a murder
spree is a great way to break that stigma.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I believe OP is only implying that those who end up going on murder sprees are
in need of mental health care and that it could have prevented them from going
on such sprees.

------
InclinedPlane
I am fairly certain this already exists:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undetectable_Firearms_Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undetectable_Firearms_Act)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Yes, but whether it's covered or not doesn't matter, because just like we have
security theater, we have security politics. The important thing isn't
enacting a new law to address a need; the important thing is to find a cause
that energizes enough of your base to vote and then appear to be _doing
something_.

Bonus points if the thing you're trying to do has no chance of being enacted.
If you get a lot of attention and appear to be doing the right things to the
right folks? You can support actions that you personally believe would be
dangerous to the republic. Your personal feelings or the end result of what
you're supporting don't really matter.

Apologies for the cynicism, but people should know that the political calculus
plays out in this fashion. Perhaps that's the situation in this case, perhaps
not. The political calculus is still what it is and we should acknowledge it.

~~~
Vivtek
The ancient art of bullshitocracy.

~~~
Qwertious
It actually makes sense if you assume two axioms:

1\. Politicians are rational actors with regards to getting into and staying
in office. 2\. Voters are thoroughly ignorant and what sounds good to voters
is not the same as what is actually the best policy.

#1 makes a whole lot of sense because people who don't compete to their
fullest extent will be out-competed by people who do, and the goal of getting
into political office is a necessary part of fixing the government (which most
politicians genuinely want to do).

#2 makes sense when you look at people in the middle ages, and understand that
we haven't fundamentally changed from them, we just have ACCESS to more
information, which most people haven't read. Loads of people don't know jack
shit about economics 101, and yet they have strong opinions on how to fix the
economy.

 __ __ __ __*

We can extend, from these two axioms, that most politicians will not have TOO
much respect for public opinion, and will therefore try to sneak through some
bills that are unpopular, but (in the politician's opinion) will do a better
job of actually fixing whatever they're trying to fix. That suggests that if
you have enough politicians on-board with your way of "improving" the world,
you can fix it in spite of the idiot public.

QED, lobbying.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I don't even think you need #2. Since voters are emotionally predisposed to
certain parties or candidates anyway, regardless of past history, it's easy to
continue this pattern with extremely intelligent and involved voters.

When the politician is posturing yet has no chance of getting anything passed,
they are "Making a bold statement" or "starting a discussion that needs to be
had". i.e., the symbolism is more important than the results.

When the politician is taking direct action, yet action that's at odds with
the voters, it's "politics is all about compromise", "a flawed deal is better
than no deal at all", "a move in the right direction", or "a politician that's
brave enough to make choices other politicians won't"

The trick is just to keep slowly alternating between these two perceptions
over the segments of the electorate that you can turn out come election time.
At the end of the day you can pretty much do whatever you want. So your end
result remains the same regardless of any qualities inherent in the
electorate, sadly. It's just a numbers game.

~~~
hga
_At the end of the day you can pretty much do whatever you want._

Eh, I'd say the history of "gun politics" in the last two decades suggests
that's not true, or a bunch of politicians who passed or supported (Al Gore)
gun control and ended up spending more time with their families just aren't
good at playing this game. Assuming you believe they wanted the office more
than the gun control bills, which in the case of the sunsetting and now sunset
Federal "assault weapons" bill would seem to be particularly pointless.

------
blisterpeanuts
The Techcrunch piece links to the original article[1], which provides more
information. Rep. Steve Israel is a gun control crusader from way back, as is
the Connecticut delegation and a few others. But the ban he proposes,
obviously, won't stop anyone from printing a weapon and smuggling it onto a
flight; it's just more so-called security theater, intended to assuage the
anti-gun segment of the electorate and reassure air travelers that they are
still going to be safe.

In my opinion, the only true way to ensure air security is to arm the pilots
and plant more armed Air Marshals on flights.

Banning particular types of objects from being 3-D printed seems like an
exercise in futility at best, and instills a false sense of security at worst.

1\. [http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/244319-dems-
move-t...](http://thehill.com/regulation/legislation/244319-dems-move-to-ban-
plastic-guns)

~~~
CapitalistCartr
We haven't had a successful hijacking since 9/11, in spite of the TSA being
grossly incompetent and ineffectual. The terrorists aren't chomping at the
bit. The current system of aware passengers, Air Marshals, and reinforced
doors is doing the job. Mostly the passengers. We need regulation of 3-D
printers like we need regulation of flower arrangers. Bureaucracy, the fear
that somewhere someone is doing something without permission.

~~~
hga
We haven't had a really _successful_ hijacking since the passengers on Flight
93 heard what was happened with the other 3 and realized the rules of the game
had been changed. As others have noted, this has to rate as one of the
shortest effective periods for a terrorist gambit, only a couple of hours.

------
escherize
So, would this make 3d-printing files of these plastic guns illegal too?

I guess some orientations of bits are already illegal. Is there a(n automated)
way to check if a file is illegal?

~~~
zero_iq
For a moment there I thought 'n automated' was some kind of obscure complexity
class I'd never heard of :)

------
JonFish85
So if they're going to ban liquids & gels over 3oz, why don't they ban
plastics over a certain volume? At least be consistent. Detecting it might be
a bit tricky and would require a pat-down, probably, but I'm sure in the name
of "safety", that can be dealt with.

~~~
thfuran
Banning plastics over a certain volume is roughly equivalent to banning
objects over that volume. I really don't want a policy adopted simply because
it is consistent with pre-existing asinine policies.

~~~
JonFish85
I completely agree--I was basically trying to illustrate the absurdity of that
method of "security".

------
dylanjermiah
And so begins the underground market for plastic weaponry.

------
x5n1
Since this is such a big problem, I think we should do something about it
immediately. Just like powdered alcohol. /s

------
IanDrake
Aren't bullets still made of metal?

~~~
Shivetya
I doubt they would have to be, even a low powered non metal gun would provide
an attacker with a significant advantage and if used on an airplane it would
not take much to breech the hull. As for encounters on the ground I am pretty
sure drones are past the point of threat that plastic guns have.

I would think resins, ceramics, and some composites, would be sufficient for
creating a projectile. Still like the article states, only those who wish to
obey the law would be affected

~~~
LyndsySimon
> if used on an airplane it would not take much to breech the hull

This is a myth. There are already holes in an aircraft's hull - shooting
through one at altitude would make a hissing sound, and you could plug it with
your finger if it annoyed you too bad.

> I would think resins, ceramics, and some composites, would be sufficient for
> creating a projectile

The problem isn't so much the projectile, as it is the cartridge case, primer,
and the operating components.

> Still like the article states, only those who wish to obey the law would be
> affected

Like all gun laws - or laws in general :)

~~~
hga
All good points, e.g. I seem to remember reading that a 747 can maintain
pressure with up to 6 windows being open (not that you'd want to be next to
any of them!), but I think bullets still wants fairly dense, and that tends to
make them more X-ray opaque, right?

Hmmm, if we're just talking about single shot guns, you don't need to align
cartridges in the characteristic rows of magazines, or the cylinder of a
revolver, making them easier for the TSA to miss. Of course, you could just
load a magazine once on the plane.

~~~
modoc
FWIW you can absolutely pass normal bullets through most airport metal
detectors. The typical threshold meant to not flag basic jewelry/etc... will
let 1-2 9mm rounds pass through.

SOURCE: flying after being at the range with two 9mm rounds forgotten in my
pocket.

