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.'"
I don't think doing something horrible to an individual qualifies as terrorism. In my day we call those people criminals.
You can have your god back when you are old enough to handle the responsibility.
Why not regulate lathes? They can be used to make a barrel of a high powered rifle.
Why not regulate mills? They can be used to make land mines.
Why not regulate sheet metal? They can be used to make the skin of missiles.
Why not regulate screwdrivers? They can be used to make bombs.
Why not just regulate and put a serial number in each and every bullet manufactured? I doubt that anyone would be able to 3D-print a bullet and its charge for many years to come.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
Why do we have laws at all then? Why do we say don't have sex with children when criminals are just going to do it anyway?
Really bad analogy. Your implication is that we could stop people from having sex with children by banning children.
The analogy you're looking for is that just like we have laws that carry penalties for abusing kids, we have penalties for killing people. Using rifles, or using blunt instruments like pipes and bats (which are used far more often than rifles to murder people, says the FBI).
So yes: we have laws that "ban" murder, by making it really suck to be a murderer that's been caught having murdered someone. Just like it sucks to be someone that's been caught having abused a kid.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
A democracy stops working for the benefit for all as soon as people stop ignoring the constitution.
When the laws are working for the benefit of all, some people will not be happy and some people will not get what they want. I know some of you believe that guns are evil but criminals will always find a way to procure guns. The majority of gun related violence is perpetrated by criminals. When I say gun violence, I am not just talking about deaths but also non-lethal injuries and use of guns for intimidation. The anti-gun people are too focused on individual stats and do not stop to consider armed robberies where nobody gets shot during the robbery. That is still a use of guns as a weapon to intimidate/coerce others into doing something against their will.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
If the only thing keeping you from having sex with children is a law stating so, then you're beyond all help as it is. Laws aren't made for the righteous, they're made so that *when a transgressor is caught* there's a system in place to apply punishment.
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
It depends a lot on culture and government as well. Nothing exists in a vaccume. What works for Australia and Britain won't work for the US. What works in Russia won't work in Mexico. China is different than Chile. All of these are pretty much "no duh" statements when you think about them, but most people try to bottle one statistic inside a glass jar as though the size of the country, population, cultural norms, etc have no effect on the outcome of a law. His point, while you can poke holes in bits and pieces all day long, is essentially correct.
Criminals don't follow laws, and especially in the case of the US, the population is way to large and already well armed enough that it would be impossible to police and secure guns. The better option is to place reasonable limits on them (such as the ones that are already in place and have been in place for decades), punish people who use guns for evil purposes (killing, robbery), and let law abiding citizens protect themselves (gun ownership and carry permits). Basically, what has been going on. Instead politicians decide they can win votes by trying to either
a) Invent a big scary imaginary monster, oh no, it'll eat you. Nevermind the fact that this gun is impractical for any realistic purpose, all of which have already been gone over elsewhere or
b) Convince people that someone in an office somewhere, writing something in a book, will somehow protect them. Nevermind the fact that guns that can't be detected by metal detectors have been outlawed for nearly 30 years (if I remember the date right). Nevermind the fact that people can already make more practical firearms at home. Basically nevermind the fact that this breaks no new ground at all anyway.
I call them feel-good laws. They make lawmakers feel like they've done something, they make people ignorant of what laws are already on the books, or the true capabilities of guns feel safer, but they basically do nothing except try to restrict law abiding citizens. There's no point to them at all and they have no real impact on criminals or crime.
Anyway, I'm off the topic, and if your an Aussie and disagree, then feel free to pass all the gun laws you want. I mean that, in a non-sarcastic way, because that's what your country wants and what your culture wants. As an American, I don't want more (or less really) gun laws, I think things are fairly well balanced as they are, the media just likes to blow things out of proportion. All statistics aside, those are cultural differences.
Way off topic from the original point I was making, but there you go.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
And yet, every day when I look at google news, there is another story about some kind of gun violence/accident in some place thousands of miles from me. It's like a constant drumbeat in the media to get people to think things are so bad, something must be done. And politicians of course, are never hesitant to restrict people's rights or acquire yet ever more power. America's problem with guns is a media conspiracy that makes politicians cum in their pants.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I'd prefer my would-be rapist be dead
Sure we all would.
which is much more likely if I'm armed.
It increases the odds of a lot of things.
It increases the odds he's also carrying a gun. It increases the odds he's had plenty of practice with it, since its legal for him to carry it around.
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. It increases the odds someone irresponsible ends up with a gun in their hands. It increases the odds someone irresponsible ends up with -your- gun in their hands.
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.