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.'"
Funny how the Australian experience says you are full of shit.
The parent should be moderated "insightful" not "funny"...
If Michael Moore hasn't made a documentary about the dangers of 3D printers, but politicians are screaming like it's a TEOTWAWKI level event, it kind of puts things in perspective.
But you know, I can't really blame politicians for being unusually stupid in this situation. I've seen more uninformed posts on Slashdot, that anywhere else on this topic. Building and shooting a gun with a 3D printer is on about the same level as sticking a bullet in a short piece of metal pipe and hitting it with a hammer. Sure, it's possible, but it's not particularly smart and isn't going to be very effective either.
Much of the below discussion has little to do with rational fears. 3D printed gun control has become the latest straw man for the greater agenda of anyone who has a firearm phobia.
As someone who does actually build controlled munitions-list items using 3D printers ( legitimately, with appropriate permits and documentation on export ) I know that there aren't really any threats posed to society caused by 3D printing. Yet, the international restrictions that already exist around what I do with 3D printing on a weekly basis adversely affect amateur participation in scientific fields such as astronomy. These is an area in which 3D printing could significantly benefit society that is significantly affected by ITAR, as low-light equipment is controlled. The same laws that affect me caused DEFCAD's files to be taken offline - not that that wasn't easy to see coming. I'm sure they'll find a way to get most of their stuff back online though if they choose to.
So why is there so little debate on why people should be able to print anything they like? Why aren't people arguing that defence related materials that are 3D printed have little and limited military use? Why are so few people defending DEFCAD's work, when most of what they are doing breaks no laws? At least not what's contained within the US?
In many ways, their video makes a lot of sense. And it should have particular relevance to those who hold high the ideals of open source.
Slashdot used to be a place where the more informed minds came to discuss worthy topics of contemporary news. Lately I'm starting to realize though just how much this is no longer the case.
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
Mr. Yee, what about banning pressure cookers? We've just proved even morons can make effective explosive devices out of pressure cookers!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Guns are equalizers. A 9mm pistol makes a 5 foot tall 100 pound woman the equal of a 6 foot 2 inch 190 pound man. This assumes of course that she is competent with it. He may kill her but trying to rape her is a dicey proposition. Given the banning of guns in the US I have no doubt that violence will explode. Crime in the US is different than Australia. I've heard conflicting things about crime in Australia since the ban although it is certain that gun deaths have decreased. I guess getting stabbed gives you a higher chance of survival than being shot. I admit that guns are more efficient.
"Umm you do realize that bullets have changed in the past 200 years and aren't a simple round ball anymore, right?"
Like this not simple round ball?
http://www.lymanproducts.com/lyman/bullet-casting/mould-details-rifles.php?entryID=53
or this one, for the traditional AK?
http://www.lymanproducts.com/lyman/bullet-casting/mould-details-rifles.php?entryID=45
or this one?
http://www.lymanproducts.com/lyman/bullet-casting/mould-details-rifles.php?entryID=72
Or this classic?
http://www.lymanproducts.com/lyman/bullet-casting/mould-details-rifles.php?entryID=79
But not to fear, they make round ball moulds too:
http://www.lymanproducts.com/lyman/bullet-casting/round-ball-moulds.php
Nice way to twist the facts.
Fact: Gun control is argued as being about making people safer.
Fact: It failed (for whatever reason).
Fact: Violent crime went UP by 40% since the great gun grab in Australia.
I ran the numbers myself a couple of months ago. I have a spreadsheet with my finding HERE. This spreadsheet has links to the sources for all data. It includes homicide (down a little), robbery (down a little), assault (way up), and sexual assault (way up). To put it another way, for every single person NOT murdered, an additional 671 people were assaulted. Those are the FACTS. My spreadsheet lays it all out, with data from the Australian Government.
I invite you to inspect the data sources and my formulas. It is all open-source, so to speak. You can look for traces of deception yourself. Once you are done, you can grab a nice steaming helping of crow.
DISCLOSURE: I used data from 1995 (just before the grab) and 2007 (latest data I found).
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I live in Europe where we don't have school shootings
Oh really?
Too bad your high horse just threw you and then trampled you right in the argument. Ouch!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Words change over time. Regulated in that era meant "well trained and equipped".
The "well regulated means well bureaucratically controlled" meme died with the Heller decision. Try to catch up from 2008.
Let me turn that question around: how many people would you like to have raped for every person you save from death? By my rough calculation (and that's assuming that both homicide decline and rape increase are causally related to the ban in equal proportions), it amounted to something like 40 rapes for each prevented death in Australia.
Nevermind the fact that this gun is impractical for any realistic purpose, all of which have already been gone over elsewhere
Actually, they've gone several steps further with another design, having printed a lower receiver for an AR-15 (the one part that, under BATF regulations, constitutes a gun), and have raised its reliability from the original six rounds before breaking to more than 600 rounds before breaking (they're discovering that the printed part has different design constraints -- where a milled aluminum receiver has sharp corners, a printed part needs to have curves to reduce points where stress concentrates, because the plastic is weaker). However, as assembled, it's hardly a concealable or undetectable weapon, with the sixteen-inch metal barrel, upper receiver, and action. However, as you allude, a wholly 3D-printed firearm has a long way to go before it's as effective as the cheapest 'Saturday Night Special'. But to a politician, that's not important; what's important is that the fear and paranoia be whipped to a frenzy now, so that draconian knee-jerk measures can be put in place while people are feeling about the subject, not thinking about it; it's so much easier to whip up emotion than reason.
To be fair, he didn't call New Yorkers cowards, but referred to a state of mind he called NYC cowardice which seems to be more of a political philosophy that's often promoted by the media.
I don't think that gun laws are easy to enforce anywhere in the world, whether or not somewhere is an island. Stuff has always been smuggled into and out of places for as long as there's been civilisation. The importance of gun laws is to raise the bar on gun ownership and make it easier to prosecute anyone that you catch with a gun. In the USA, you can't just throw someone in prison for carrying a gun whereas gun laws make that a lot easier.
However, if you raise the bar on carrying a gun, that also means that criminals are more likely to use their guns if they deemed it necessary to carry them as the penalties tend to be a lot harsher for armed robbery.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Rwanda.
MInd you, they were big knives. Technically you'd probably class them as swords.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I disagree with the premise. I strongly believe that suicide is a fundamental human right. It's the one decision that is fundamentally yours.
Who should have the right to force me to keep living if I don't want to?
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.