Slashdot Mirror
California Lawmaker Wants 3-D Printers To Be Regulated
New submitter phrackthat writes with news that California State Senator Leland Yee (D-S.F.) says he wants regulations to track who owns and uses 3-D printers. Yee's comments come in response to the recent news of Defense Distributed's successful test-firing of a 3-D printed gun.
"He's concerned that just about anyone with access to those cutting-edge printers can arm themselves. 'Terrorists can make these guns and do some horrible things to an individual and then walk away scott-free, and that is something that is really dangerous,' said Yee. He said while this new technology is impressive, it must be regulated when it comes to making guns. He says background checks, requiring serial numbers and even registering them could be part of new legislation that he says will protect the public. Yee added, 'This particular gun has no trace whatsoever.'"
It's the same guy that proposed a ban on videogames to minors.
Leland Yee: using the government to protect you from bogeymen that don't exist.
It should be noted that bullet molds can be acquired quite easily - many reloaders make their own bullets.
The powder charge isn't quite as easy to make, but it's not like you can't find recipes, since "modern" smokeless powder has been in use since the 1880's.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Umm you do realize that soldiers were casting their own lead bullets since BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR, right?
I'd say they're pretty easy to "3d-print".
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
This is the same person that wants:
Senate Bill 47 (Yee) expands the definition of “assault weapons” to BAN the future sale of rifles that have been designed/sold and are equipped to use the “bullet button” or similar device, requires NEW “assault weapon” registration of ALL those semi-auto rifles that are currently possessed to retain legal possession in the future, and subjects these firearms to all other “assault weapons” restrictions.
http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB47/2013
Senate Bill 108 (Yee) requires mandatory locked storage of firearms within a locked house regardless of whether anyone is present.
http://legiscan.com/CA/bill/SB108/2013
My impression of him is that he is a reactionary that responds to any situation in the most forceful way possible to please the pundits who are calling for action that the constituency doesn't actually want. He doesn't actually understand what he's legislating against in many situations, like as mentioned below the ban on video games for minors but because the pundits call for it something needs to be done.
The 3d printer is no different. Damn all the useful things that can be done with it he doesn't understand it and it can do one bad thing so ban it.
The Australian experience of an increase in forcible rape after guns were banned.
Err.. a) Mexico doesn't have a total ban on guns (gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right), it's just been limted to purchasing from a single army-run shop in Mexico City; b) Mexico happens to have this large nation to the immediate north with relatively limited small arms gun control, and the border heading south is only marginally guarded; so unsurprisingly c) The US Justice Department estimates 70% of guns recovered from Mexican cartels were legally purchased in the US. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guv1zxttoSAF-NOJzZkAJV2R93mg
I wouldn't be shocked to hear cartels are also buying abroad, but why bother when you can get most of what you need immediately to the north?
One of those rare times I wish I had mod points... gun violence went down after the ban, as did the murder rate (2-3%, as I recall). The rate of violent crimes went up, though. Does a reduction in murder justify an increase in rapes, assaults, and robberies?
The Australian experience of an increase in forcible rape after guns were banned.
False. There was no appreciable increase in the three years after the ban came into effect. There has been an increase since, however that follows a trend line that started before the gun ban, so there is no correlation between the ban and the incidence of rape.
Blank until
I finally figured out what was causing it after the second one. The good thing is that eventually, if you don't kill your children in a fit of rage, you might get grand children. I find that Grand Children are much better than children. When they aren't fun anymore you can take them back to their parents. I like to fill them up on candy first right before I take them back.
Mark Twain: "If you don't read the newspapers, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you are misinformed."
Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story
Are laws passed on actual data? No, they are passed based on popular support. Obtaining and maintaining popular opinion is what the media do.
I live in Europe where we don't have school shootings or kids blowing themselves up with their father's gun. So yes, gun control works.
I am Australian, and our criminals have guns. Banning guns won't stop criminals or terrorists getting or making them. A full automatic sub-machine gun can be made in any basic machine shop.
Banning guns will massively reduce their use in domestic disputes and suicide, but it won't stop criminals.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
All the liberals seem to ignore the fact that gun crimes have been decreasing over the past couple of decades. That doesn't fit their paranoia, so they seek out singular events to get emotional votes rather than facts based ones.
Why did he get modded down? look at the history of gun laws in this country and like poll taxes a LOT of them were designed to keep them "uppity niggers" from having guns. Look at how the media has demonized the so called "Saturday Night Special"...wanna guess which minority favored those for home protection in the 40s-70s?
I can't remember which black leader said it, i think the head of the rainbow coalition, that "No matter how you feel about gun laws if you look at them, trace them back to their roots, you'll find a lot of them can be summed up as "fear of an armed negro" because an armed negro can fight back, its a lot more risky to try to lynch an armed negro than a defenseless one" and sadly he is right, look up who wrote the gun laws of the 30s-70s and its the same ones that were supporting Jim Crow and separate but equal. No matter how you feel about the gun laws i urge you to read more about it, what you find will probably shock you.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
AAARGH! Correlation is not causation!
Especially when statistics are used like this. You pick several statistics, search for correlation and then "prove" that whatever was done was bad (or good). It does not work that way!
You migh answer some questions first, like how many women did carry a gun and how many rapes did it prevent, before and after. Same with assaults and robberies.
It increases the odds of a shootout. It increases the odds you get shot. (Maybe he's a better shot than you. Maybe he approaches you with it drawn while yours is still holstered. Not much of an edge for you.
It increases the odds an innocent bystander gets short. It increases the odds of an accidental discharge...
I'm Not saying I wouldn't want to have a gun in my hands if I were attacked, but its wrong to oversimplify it so that is the only scenario we look at.
It is evident you don't know the psycology of a rapist, or indeed most criminals.
Most rapists, in particular, seek to exert power and control over their victim. The best way to assure success is to target the most vulnerable, because rapists are cowardly and are afraid of failing to obtain that control and power (often they lack power and control in other aspects of their life and are loathe to face that failure when they don't have to).
Rapes are virtually unheard of in public places--they happen at night or in secluded places--the chance of an innocent bystander being caught in crossfire is basically nil in those cases.
Rapists don't tend to be gun enthusiasts--they may brandish a gun or a weapon when they commit the offense but the purpose is to intimidate and control; they generally lack the courage to discharge the weapon. A dead victim can no longer be threatened or intimidated, and if they've gone and shot their victim they've lost control of the situation. If a potential victim were to pull a gun in the vast majority of cases they would flee, not fire back. If the odds are against the attacker they will flee. Rapists who are armed almost NEVER approach with a gun drawn--they will only brandish the weapon when they are very close.
The studies cited about an increase in violent rapes and assults in Australia is not really surprising at all knowing this--it isn't specific to Australia's society--though different societies would respond differently to changes in criminal laws all rapists share some common traits, and the more confident a rapist can be that a victim is defenceless the more likely they will attempt the crime.
The kind of situations you describe, where victims have their weapons used against them or are bysanders caught in crossfire, mostly happen as a result of organised crime or street gang activity. The target and the perpetrator are both criminals, and both are probably armed with illegally obtained weapons, and the motivation is not control or personal gain (like robbery--motive is to obtain something of value not to kill). Gang members kill each other out of revenge--to settle a score. Such people wouldn't go through the bother of using a 3d printer--they have their sources of illicit weapons already.
The most visible, but most rare as well, victims of gun violence are those of the emotionally disturbed, generally suicidal deviants. They are very rare cases actually, and if a bystander was to fire back the situation is proabably already exceeedingly dangerous already.
Gun control is treating a symtom generally--it is not very effective. Cun-making-control even less so. Treating the causes would work better but is more difficult and less politically expedient. Those causes are many and range from urban blight/decay to public school systems/modern "self-esteem based" teaching philosophies that foster sociopathic behaviour in children to family breakdown to lack of comunity resources to help raise children (and as a result are lured by gangs). Gun violence is a complex problem with no single easy answer. Unfortunately the media advocates quick, easy answers and people demand them, and ultimately laws are crafted on that basis.
Australia is 78% of the size of the United States and has barely seven percent of the population.
Methinks your logic to be a tad flawed, good sir.
Suicide rates aren't effected by firearms control laws. For example, in Japan the suicide rate almost twice that in the US, and in both the UK and Australia the Suisse rate did not decline after gun bans were instituted. And if you really need proof, here's a quote from the NC Juvenile Justice Department:
"Of all children and adolescents, those incarcerated in the juvenile or criminal justice systems are at the highest risk of serious suicide attempts (Gray et al., 2002; Penn et al, 2003). Despite around- the-clock supervision and a lack of access to firearms, the methods for suicides and attempts used in this population tend to be more violent and more successful than those of young people in the general population (Penn et al, 2003)."
Dispondent people find a way, so don't pat yourself on the back that gun control laws will prevent suicides. They won't, suicide isn't a gun control issue, if you really care about suicide prevention drop the political rhetoric.
Python