Going to get some popcorn and watch y'all fight each other over who gets to have the most toys to accidentally kill their friends and family with.
No, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Shooting_Sports_Founda...) is the "national trade association for the firearms industry that is based in Newtown, Connecticut in the United States. Formed in 1961, the organization has more than 7,000 members: firearms manufacturers, distributors, retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen's clubs and media."
Here's the most recent thread where I brought this up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5662183
Note also this comment of mine: "[...] no gun or ammo manufactures rather obviously means no guns and ammo for us to shoot. We've very interested in their health, we're in the same boat, attack them, you attack us. And the NSSF does quite a bit for gun owners in a whole range of areas including the political, although their focus is of course on the industry."
Most countries have strict gun laws and the people are fine with that. Banning 3D gun models is still stupid though, especially in a country with such high gun availability.
I hope whoever is a proponent of outlawing guns either has no idea what kind of tyranny that would enable or must be working for the government (whose best interests usually lie in maintaining their power and status quo).
Either way, I'm going to finish by saying you're lucky to have the second amendment.
This didn't start reversing until 1986, through the political process, and it wouldn't have happened if we hadn't kept owning guns at such high rates; right now we're most feared because we vote on this issue to the exclusion of most others. E.g. the Democrats suffered a string of catastrophic defeats 1994-2000 that they correctly blamed on gun control, and mostly gave up on the issue until after Obama won reelection. E.g. compare the reaction to the Aurora, Colorado "Batman" movie theater mass shooting in June during the election to Newtown after, even allowing for the difference in the victims.
As of yet the 2 Supreme Court decisions and all or almost all of the subsequent lower court decisions have made almost no changes "on the ground". That may change real soon, Illinois has a June 9th deadline when their "no citizens who aren't politicians can carry" law goes poof, although they filed for an extension for filing an appeal with the Supreme Court and got it (http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2013/05/supreme-court-g...), June 24th....
Of course, us gun owners always understood the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment, and ultimately it means what serious men with guns say it does. Which would be us, we overwhelmingly outnumber gun grabbers and those who would follow them if they get too out of hand.
And very occasionally they have cause to think about the issues you cite, e.g. a few got a clue during Watergate; gun control was very hot back then, and the idea that Nixon might e.g. have the 82nd Airborne arrest the Congress prompted a few second thoughts.
Yup, that's what these threads inevitably turn into. For some not-so-odd reason, they are really good at making opinionated people come out of the woodwork.
And your evidence for this would be?
Why are even bay area politicians so completely dumb about tech. Why can't we get a Jared Polis?
I'm sorry, I seem to have stumbled into bizarro-reddit. On
that other reddit they want to ban guns completely.
No, what's happening is that the government just made
reddit choose between guns or the internet. Guess which
Hate to interject a fact here, but this is one of many reasons RKBA types don't respect gun grabbers: their gross ignorance, of which Yee is a choice example. There's already a Federal Undetectable Firearms Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undetectable_Firearms_Act_of_19...):
"The Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (Pub.L. 100–649, H.R. 4445, 102 Stat. 3816, enacted November 10, 1988) makes it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, possess, transfer, or receive any firearm that is not detectable by walk-through metal detectors or has major components that do not generate an accurate image when subjected to inspection by airport x-ray machines."
ADDED: and I've read the design includes a metal insert to satisfy this law.
If you think Bay Area people smarter in this regard that any other people, you have to only look up what politicians are doing with budgets, local regulations, pensions, public welfare, public transportation, etc. around Bay Area and you'd see that knowing tech is not the only area politicians are failing.
(edit) I'm not saying that this is the best option. The government is tasked with ensuring public safety and this is an issue with major public safety repercussions. They cannot just sit and watch this unfold, and what this guy said is basically the most obvious way of dealing with the situation.
The idea that any time anything new happens the government should jump in and prohibit it until it is proven safe is exactly why politicians like this thrive. Instead, people should use their brains and let the government intervene only when actual threat is there, not theoretical lets-cover-our-asses invented threat is touted by politicians.
That said, there is nothing the government can do to prevent individuals printing guns and distributing plans, and the first amendment concerns are real. They can make it difficult and unacceptable to profit or engage in commerce related to weapons manufacturing, much like child porn. Without laws, there will be weapons plans widely accessible and the technology will advance more rapidly.
>>> The idea that we should only act when there is an "actual threat" when a threat is clearly on its way is absurd.
No, it is not absurd. Actually, for regular citizen it is the law - you can apply self-defense only when actual threat is clearly on its way. How comes the government - which is much more dangerous and prone to abuse than regular citizen, and can do much more harm if mistaken - is held to a lower standard and is allowed to violate the right of citizens on imaginary "threats" completely invented out of the blue? Where this right comes from - is it from fear or from belief government agents somehow so much more trustworthy than ordinary people and would never abuse their powers?
True. My worry is that this is just the v0.1 and it is the shape of things to come. Desktop CNC milling machines are also getting better rapidly and can make metal parts. ( http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/otherfab/the-othermill-c... ).
Designing this gun was clearly an asshole move, but how do you prohibit it now? Cory Doctrow said something along the lines of DRM is "allowing a general-purpose computer to run any program except for the ones that I don't like". (http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html )
A 3d printer or cnc mill that can make anything "except for the shapes that I don't like" is equally laughable.
I, for one, welcome any asshole moves that make governments afraid of their citizens.
DefDist's Bitcoin: 1Gb5GNxrVGMT8e9uoJ8CmamrdVz9o8fAEa
( http://defdist.org/bitcoin/ )
Advances in and proliferation of 3D guns will only endanger innocent citizens. Thinking that it's any kind of check on government power is a childish fantasy.
Guns are polarizing, but the same goes for the TSA/Security Theater, Online Privacy/Anonymity, and so on. What child pornography is for Internet censorship, terror threats for public security measures, are mass shootings for gun control.
It is a strategy of spotlighting extremely rare exceptions in order to justify the reduction of individual liberties on a large scale.
Therefore I am welcoming any attempts that balance the powergame - no matter how small they are. If you are going to develop an app that allows me encrypt all my mobile phone traffic you deserve the same level of applause as that guy who developed the gun.
Get real. These kinds of justifications are just completely absurd fantasies, for people who want to picture themselves as the heroes of another "Red Dawn" remake.
>>> for people who want to picture themselves as the heroes of another "Red Dawn" remake.
Nobody wants it. But the option is there, and was there from the start. Just as no responsible person wants to kill other people, but if these people break into his house and threaten his life... And yes, this is an unrealistic scenario which never happens to vast majority of people. But if it does, some people want to be prepared. Given how many times defense against completely imaginary scenarios was brought in this topic, as justification for government doing anything, I don't see why this concept is so hard to understand when it's not the government that is doing it.
Unarmed non-consenting populations can and have brought down governments. e.g. in Egypt and in the Czech republic. But if the government is determined not to let go at any cost at all, side-arms won't help you against a decent army. Protesters with guns is nothing more than a good excuse to send in the tanks/drone strikes/etc.
So the presence or absence of civilian guns are not the issue that you make them out to be.
In Egypt, the power was actually taken by the military after Mubarak has resigned. If the military had supported Mubarak, you can look in Libya and Syria how it would play out.
>>> side-arms won't help you against a decent army
Depends what you mean by "help". You can destroy a city with a bomber, but you can not actually govern the city with a bomber.
>>>> So the presence or absence of civilian guns are not the issue that you make them out to be.
It is. If the population is disarmed, the only force who decides if the government is to survive or not is the military. It's good if the military is on your side, if it's not you're in for a long and unpleasant ride.
What I and others are saying above is that with handguns in the population, the situation is much the same.
If it comes to that, it's merely a tool to get better guns.
"General Eisenhower's staff never saw the practicality". And I don't either.
I don't see how 3D printers will be able to make undetectable bullets. There are not many ways to do a bullet that doesn't involve metals. Maybe a two-stage self-propelled plastic bullet could do the trick.
They can't, and I didn't think that was implied. I think it was assumed that bullets would come from the usual sources.
Still, a CNC mill could probably fashion bullets (not undetectable ones) and their casings from metal. Explosives required are still a problem, so you'd probably be better off not doing this.
As a bonus, you redesign it into larger number of smaller pieces and spread them over several bags.
You can stick your head in a sand as much as you want, but this is a game-changing development. If one can print a working gun, one can conceivably print other interesting things that to date were assumed to only exist in metal, the assumption that was the foundation of respective detection technology. The assumption that is no longer valid.
You mean the bag that goes through an X-Ray scanner which detects high density objects?
These are just the ones we hear about, and don't include incidences of undetected contraband carried by passengers, unwittingly and intentionally.
There have been plenty of "practical scenarios" where access to very minimal handguns has been used to gain access to more. E.g. handguns were quite significant in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.
And its certainly concealable; a bit thick for my tastes, but otherwise almost every time I walk out the door I'm carrying concealed a 4" barrel standard length magazine M1911, which is not a whole lot different in the other dimensions, and plenty of people are able to conceal revolvers with thick cylinders or semi-auto handguns with double stack magazines.
Have you ever personally carried concealed?
>>> Have you ever personally carried concealed?
No I have not, but from the dimensions of this one I don't see how you can reasonably keep it concealed on your person without people trained at detecting concealed things easily noticing it. You could of course disassemble it and hope nobody figures it out, but it's nothing new. If you don't need the weapon to survive more than a single shot, there are a lot of things that can be converted to a gun.
The objective of such crude and limited guns is to enable you to procure better ones, although of course this one is also an initial proof of concept, plus I gather intended to work though such issues as this takedown (I've read the guy or people behind this believe they've jumped through the required hoops to allow Internet publication).
Although I'll note conventional ammo needs a metal case; there has been work on caseless ammo but it's not gotten beyond R&D, the G11 probably went the furthest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11.
If you have a plastic "thing" firing a rubber projectile using a plastic spring or similar, then it is more like a crossbow than an actual gun.
Second, the US government does not have to the money or constitutional authority to "fix" all things. It has a budget and income which should start to match.
11,000 people taken over the whole US is not much of a risk. If you look at the CDC stats, it is very far down on a long list.
Exactly. This period of decreasing violent crime is correlated with a massive, near nationwide relaxation of gun controls that go back to the post-Civil war period. Correlation does not suggest let alone prove causation, but desiring a reversal in a trend that correlates with what in theory is your objective should give one pause.
The crime decrease was extensively discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5674263
The most visible and perhaps biggest of the relaxations of gun control is the nationwide sweep of shall issue concealed carry regimes, now around 42 states and 2/3rds of the population, see this for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_S...; the recovery through political means of the fundimental right to bear arms is no small thing. You may laugh about my "filthy obsession", but the facts on the ground are that every time I exit my residence, I can carry a concealed handgun, and almost every time I do. That wasn't true here in my home state before 2004.
As for a study, not only are there plenty, but since you've made up your mind, for what purposes do you desire one?
And yes, I did make up my mind a long time ago. I simply can't wrap my head around two things: guns & death penalty. To me, these are primitive issues that if we're really a civil society, we really shouldn't be discussing them in 2013.
I think we should end the argument. A HN discussion will not stop you from carrying a concealed weapon, nor will it alter my views.
"Where does WISQARS get its data?
"Death data come from a national mortality database compiled by CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. This database contains information from death certificates filed in state vital-statistics offices and includes causes of death reported by attending physicians, medical examiners, and coroners. It also includes demographic information about decedents reported by funeral directors, who obtain that information from family members and other informants. Population data come from the Bureau of the Census. These data are based on information gathered in censuses and on estimation procedures conducted in non-census years."
Similarly, it is a hard fact, based on legislation enacted, that shall issue concealed carry has swept the nation 1987 (Florida) to 2011 (Wisconsin and Iowa).
That you dismiss these as "studies" is about as disturbing as you dismissing the rule of law, which after all is the only thing that stands between you and the barbarians....
1) Once again, if you don't want the dog, drop it off at a no-kill shelter - not out in the country. Dogs will turn feral, group up, and try to kill livestock and people. Life isn't a fairy tale.
"LA pit bull attack shows savage consequences of citizen disarmament"
"What this means is, top LA law enforcement knows perfectly well that savage beasts are preying on peaceable citizens, they are unable to stop it from happening, they know what will give those being attacked a fighting chance, and they deny them that option under force of state arms. Through their mandates, they confirm that they would rather see a 63-year-old woman mauled to death, ripped apart in the most horrible, agonizing and terrifying way conceivable, than simply have the choice to the means of defense."
A month from now here are the measures in place to
reduce the public safety risk of this development:
A month from now here are the measures in place to reduce the public safety risk of this development:
Leland Yee is a heavy, outspoken critic of the ESRB and was one of the most vocal politicians during the "Hot Coffee" debacle. Not a fan of video games.
They should probably ban flash lights as well.
For me, it's like saying "we should not control gunpowder sales because you can make gunpowder at home". Silly example, I know, but you get my point.
It's not like 3d-printed gun does not require design, does not need materials, does not require assembly and is guaranteed to work.
And yes, controlling sale of basic chemicals on the premise that this somehow prevents criminals from using them for their nefarious goals is silly. The US government does it right now with drugs and it is failing spectacularly, only guys they make trouble to are amateur chemists that have nothing to do with drugs. Same will happen with guns.
And I didn't say that I'm for controlled sale of basic chemicals. I said that the idea of not controlling 3d-printer gun designs because "you can also make your gun at home" is silly.
Even if you somehow found a compelling argument, the kind of control you're asking for is impossible. It's like trying to stop piracy with DRM: you're gonna piss off users and someone is just going to break your "controlled environment" in the end.
You can't absolutely stop 3D printing of dangerous artifacts. But you can lower the appeal by increasing penalties, requiring the party to take more steps to avoid being caught, attaching a strong social stigma to the practice.
It's physically impossible to keep someone from barreing their car at 80mph down the wring side of the highway into oncoming traffic, but this is one among countless potential potential disasters we almost never see in practice. It is worth considering why such things happen as rarely as they do.
Really? Is it how it is working out? Last time I looked all those DRM-ed things were still available easily - together with cracks.
>>> But you can lower the appeal by increasing penalties
Really? Is it how it is working out? I remember we have increased penalties for drug offenses, which completely eradicated drugs from the market. Oh wait, it didn't, it is actually worse than ever and increased penalties mostly hurt innocent people with no criminal intent or criminal past, routing them into the vast prison industry.
>>> but this is one among countless potential potential disasters we almost never see in practice.
As opposed to mass shootings with a 3d-printed plastic guns, which we see in practice every day, right? It is fascinating how common sense can be compartmentalized so neatly - here you can distinguish imaginary threat from real one, and here you completely can't.
>>> It is worth considering why such things happen as rarely as they do.
But it's much more worth considering why some things that never happen is OK but some things that never happen require immediate government action and give exception from all the Constitution.
I am not happy that DRM appears to be effective - I would much rather that not be the case - but it does appear to significantly reduce the level of piracy from what it would otherwise be.
You are correct to note the absence of printed-gun crimes. The technology is young, the printers are not widespread, and the initial designs are likely far short of what is possible. As accessibility, knowledge, and affordability increase, I expect those crimes to start occurring. I further expect that the rate of those crimes will be lower with federal intervention than without. I really hope I'm wrong about that, too.
It's physically impossible to keep someone from
barreing their car at 80mph down the wring side of
Because, while it does not cover the "wrong way down a highway" part of your scenario, such a law would certainly save lives. High speed is a significant contributor to fatal car accidents.
The EU already has such a law for large trucks.
But as I understand it, "high speed" WRT to accidents starts at about 35 mph, which is a speed at which, if you come to an immediate stop, wearing the normal shoulder and waist belts, your head will hit the steering wheel with enough force to cause serious injury, unless an airbag prevents it.
Any reasonable governor is going to be way above that. According to a  Wikipedia item (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_(device)#Trucks_.28HGV...), the EU governor speed is 90 or 100 kph, 56 or 62 mph, which sounds plausable. This http://www.usroads.com/journals/aruj/9803/ru980302.htm indicates those speeds are quite lethal.
Keeping people driving for longer periods of time is also going to cost lives....
Now, how can we control it? I don't really know. I'm not for DRM. I'm not for controlling 3D printers, or 3D materials. And making an automated system so 3D printers don't print guns is infeasible, error-prone and a hassle. Maybe the best alternative is leaving those 3D printed guns uncontrolled, because any other option is ineffective.
The fact that 3D printed guns control is infeasible doesn't mean that leaving them uncontrolled is a good idea.
Actually, that is exactly what it means. Infeasibility is a good place to stop, as it means that what you are doing is not reasonably possible.
"The fact that inmortality is infeasible doesn't mean that dying is a good idea".
I didn't realize they had this power, or that they'd exercise it like that... it's just scary to think that the internet is not as free or open as it feels or appears.
PS: Obligatory Enigma reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra
PPS: I'm not saying encryption should regulated by the government.
To view it, download Blender (free and opensource 3d software)- http://download.blender.org/ (it allows you to import stl files if you want to view them; or export them from your designs when you want to 3d-print something).
Also, Github has in-browser STL rendering capability (e.g.: https://github.com/lorennorman/octocat-3d/blob/master/stl/oc... ). It's only a matter of time I guess before we'll all be seeing direct links to individual components.
Remember Athens, Egypt? Try imagining it a few years from now. People will have affordable real-time mesh communication networks, high quality urban mapping, printed guns and home-made explosives. How exactly would you suppress crowd like that? I say with understanding and empathy, because anything else will hurt.
It's a pain, but it is what it is.
1 - http://pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar_official.html
You don't have to register with the State Department anymore and it's been loosened up a bit, but you still have to register with Commerce now and there's still restrictions.
Here's a nice article summarizing the current status
(not that I disagree with you in principle, just that the reality is not so cut and dry)
ITAR is moronic.
No disagreements here.
1. Government does actually know how the Internet works
2. Makes this attempt, knows it will fail
3. Waits until somebody blows themselves - or somebody else - up with a poorly made, 3D printed gun
4. Government points to failed attempt, argues it does not have the necessary power it needs to prevent these tragedies
5. Government passes bill expanding its power
6. Rinse, repeat
Of course my use of "government" here incorrectly suggests a single entity with a plan. Obviously it does really work that way, but bureaucracies sometimes remind me of organisms with memories, immune systems and, above all, a desire to grow.
I don't have a 3D printer, and really, really don't care whether or not you can print a gun using one. But try to censor information about it, and I'll mirror it on my seedbox for as long as I can, just to piss you off.
They can't stop the signal.
You might not be able to stop the signal, but I'm pretty sure Mr. Universe still died at the end of Serenity.
That file didn't exist in 1995, but if it had, distributing it outside the US would also have run afoul of arms control laws.
Technology changes, and laws change with it. The laws, almost without exception, lag several years behind the technology.
So, really, the law makes more sense here.
Also they're not saying the data is illegal, it just may be illegal to "export".
ATF agent: Oh, you got that from a torrent? Did you also seed the file?
You can see where this is going, and it doesn't have a happy ending.
If you do make one of these though, for the love of God embed a chunk of metal. These things wouldn't be legal without it (metal detectors).
Why you have to explain anything? As far as I know, you do not owe anybody to prove that you possess anything you have legally, if they suspect it is illegal they have to prove it.
What they probably do care about is Cody Wilson trying to build up some sort of cult around 3d weapon printing. He's spent quite a bit of effort trying to provoke the government and prove he can't be stopped. Seems he was wrong.
As for cults, the USG just played directly into Cody's hands... the files have now spread father and wider than if the USG had just ignored them in the first place.
I'm actually pretty excited about the plastic gun thing. It is way less fingers that can pull the trigger on guns that are already really easy to get.
Edit: I should that I am for really strict gun laws. My father was killed by a gun that was bought in a pawn shop so if you even save a few people a year it is worth it.
I get the nagging feeling that I had heard of some sort of tracking before but I can't recall any detail to search on. For all I know it might have just been a rumor and that increased our sales and that's what I heard.
Wal-Mart limits sales per customer per day.
Some states have regulations, from one outfit I buy from they would be California, Delaware, D.C., Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio, they warn you to check your state's laws before buying. Which leaves out a few of the worst states like New Jersey and includes one mostly OK state, Ohio (worst thing about it, unique in the nation, is that in a self-defense case the burden of proof is on you, but it otherwise has shall issue CCW et. al.).
(from http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/05/09/technolog... )
That's not especially significant in itself either, only somewhat reassuring for any Canuckois out there wishing to download the models.
The letter references a number of items besides the printable gun, including "125mm BK-14M high-explosive anti-tank warhead" Which sounds rather closer to matching the intent of the munitions export regulations.
You can pick up most of what you need to know about anti-tank warheads from a Tom Clancy book, or any library book about shaped charges.
For most people an anti-tank warhead is going to be useless in the context of how to disable a tank.
Of course, perusing the above link, it would seem the main limitation on proliferation is chemical synthesis of the HE, not 3D printing technology.
As far as I know it's difficult to 3D print 88mm cannons.
This is the same set of regulations Robert Gates famously complained restricted the export of F16 spare parts from the US. This platforms has been widely exported and this regulation applies to non-weapons related components i.e., canopy latches, flaps, etc.
His guns were never locked up, our parents "gun proofed" us, taught us about danger and responsibility. They're from the Silent Generation, it was assumed back then. Heck, my father and many of his classmates would store their hunting guns in their school lockers so they wouldn't have to go back home before hunting after school.