Slashdot Mirror
Sen. Chuck Schumer Seeks To Extend Ban On 'Undetectable' 3D-Printed Guns
SonicSpike writes with this snippet from The Guardian: "As the technology to print 3D firearms advances, a federal law that banned the undetectable guns is about to expire. The New York senator Chuck Schumer says he is seeking an extension of the law before it expires on 9 December. Schumer said the technology of so-called 3D printing has advanced to the point where anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can access the plastic parts that can be fitted into a gun. Those firearms cannot be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines. Schumer says that means anyone can download a gun cheaply, then take the weapons anywhere, including high-security areas. The Democrat is pushing the extension along with Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Bill Nelson of Florida. The effort was announced on Sunday."
From those who kill it in the name of defending it.
I understand the apprehension caused by firearms that can't currently be detected, but I don't quite understand what he's trying to accomplish in enacting a law that can't be enforced
the only thing that will get hurt with a plastic gun made on a 1000$ printer is the one trying to fire it, and until you get get bullets and casings made from plastic it will still be detectable by eray and metal detectors
If only there was some way to ensure that the guns contained a large, metal object that would show up on an x-ray. You could make such an object out of a dense metal like lead to ensure that it showed up.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
And the ban is going to stop a crook or terrorist how now?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
One can either laugh or cry at the desperate attempts of our technologically ignorant leaders to hold back the inevitable. There is a spin that suggests that Canute was trying to get his sycophantic courtiers to see sense by showing them that he could not stop the incoming tides; perhaps a similar lesson is needed here.
..lethal at close range, just as undetectable!
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
It's already illegal to conceal carry without a permit, it's illegal to shoot someone else. Why do we need yet another law telling us that it's illegal to possess these weapons? If someone is going to 3D print a gun and use it to commit a crime, they really don't care if it's illegal.
Besides, all the government needs is one story about a poorly constructed 3D printed gun that exploded when fired and injured the would be shooter
I thought that the firing pin and the bullets were still metal and therefore detectable?
If it is made of matter, it is detectable.
Hardly.
While I'm sure there are some businessmen who don't really care about the nature of their business, there's also folks who think that guns should be widespread among responsible people in responsible circumstances - A nutjob with an undetectable pistol is riskier than a responsible person carrying an assault rifle. Then there's the pro-gun-business types who see 3d-printed guns as a boon. Sure, somebody might print a gun instead of buying one, but the businesses make the real thing, ripe for collectors who are willing to pay more to have a metal original, rather than a plastic copy. Of course, we also can't discount the political folks who will support or oppose the law just because it came from the Democrats.
I'm terribly sorry, but people are different and have different opinions. Their response to one idea does not characterize them.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I don't think that controlling the sale of bullets is going to fly in the current political landscape.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I don't know much about firearms, but I feel like plastic based guns are not really new. If you can enter a "high security area" with a plastic gun. Then maybe it is NOT a high security area...
The man is a moron who failed to research his latest publicity gambit.
A New Yorker explained to me that, in NYC, the correct pronunciation is Schmuck Schumer.
That's why it's such a safe country now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Venezuela
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Venezuela enacted a complete gun ban several years ago. First they stopped sales of guns, then ammo, then banned ownership. Yes, people griped, but the results have been worth it. 1/1000 as much violent crime as they had before the ban. The streets are safe there.
Criminals don't need guns when the government is their partner in crime, at least when it comes to looting electronics retailers:
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/13/11/13/009248/venezuela-cheap-television-sets-for-all
Better plastic guns can be built from blocks of plastic and hand tools then can be built using 3D printers. Why are they not freaking out about that. All these laws do is trip up good people exploring the capabilities of new technology. They do not address the issue of people wanting to use guns on others. We need to be addressing the issue of hate not method of gun construction.
The really important thing about this silliness is it gets publicity and shows that the senator is protecting us all from this rather far fetched threat.
"Thank heaven Senator Snort made that law against space alien invasions, else Mars Attacks might have come true!"
The only thing better is if it can be framed as "Think of the children!"
I guess they better make that illegal too. Oh wait...
What are the bullets made of? Are they detectable? Also: Don't we need plastic guns if Magneto attacks?
What's Senator Chuckles going to do when he learns that hobbyists can build armed drones? Crap himself to death out of fear?
First yes the gun may be undetectable but there are a few things it needs to be able to fire that are detectable. There needs to be a spring for the firing pin, the pin itself may be plastic but needs some type of device to make it detonate the primer cap. The bullet casings are also metal and will set off detectors.
So no Senator Idiot, what you have that is undetectable is a useless model of a gun. It would be more dangerous to print a 3d knife and sneak it in somewhere.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
the last thing they want is Americans coming to terms with the futility of patrolling for bears as it would eventually lead to putting the risk (i.e. lack thereof) into proper rational perspective & dramatically reduce the effectiveness of their tactics. the TSA's not their adversary (that's a comical thought), they're their best friends - effectively their marketing department!
Ooh here's an idea! Let's redirect a small percentage of the funds going to the TSA to enforcing safe driving and educating people on the dangers of poking things with sticks while standing on ladders. We'll save far more lives with far less effort. I guess a couple hundred thousand deaths a year isn't a big deal if some 24 hour news network isn't being hysterical about it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Are they 3D printing reliable plastic barrels now?
I guess I can see a very thick barrel surviving a few centerfire pistol rounds and maybe the same surviving many .22LR rounds, but I don't see them being at all accurate as I don't think the rifling would stand up.
Overall I see the barrel deforming from the heat of firing and possibly resulting in the same situation as you would end up with squib loads -- blocked barrel on the squib, detonated chamber/barrel on the second...
Stop relying on metal detectors and X-ray detectors to detect weapons, then.
Because for years there have been ceramic and other weapons that can walk right past them already.
If you want to make sure someone isn't carrying a gun, pat them down. And even that's not a guarantee.
Or maybe you could just outlaw them, and arrest anyone who has them, so you can be 99% sure, when someone approaches you, that they won't have been able to get a gun in the first place. Maybe that ought to be the first line of defence? And then after that, the other checks. And then realising that it's STILL not a guarantee without a full strip-search which is unreasonable and unpractical in all but the most secure areas (e.g. prisons).
Can't we all agree that when certain political figures speak (Chuck Schumer, Sarah Palin, Nancy Palosi, Charlie Rangle, Michele Bachmann, etc) that we should just all collectively plug our ears and say "Nanananananana" as the thing they are about to say is likely an appeal to the citizens of our country with IQ's bellow 90, to reduce our freedoms, increase government power and generally bring ruin to the country in the name of some un-realized threat that sounds scary but could never really cause us much harm?
Chuck Schumer is either:
a. an idiot and does not realize he can not stop home made weapons, they've existed since the country was founded, there's just a slightly new method.
b. fully aware that this legislation is pointless and is just pandering to make headline with whatever made up fear 20/20 came up with for this week.
Francisco Scaramanga wouldn't care.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I predict that this will be about a successful as all other attempts to ban information has been. But don't let that stop you. And just to help out, here's a link to DefDist's DefCAD Mega Pack v4.2 (Saito) again, the file I mirrored when the DOD tried to suppress it.
Liberty in your lifetime
how exactly do you enforce this little law?
1. Criminals aren't going to care since they're going to be SHOOTING people with the 3d printed guns. Adding some extra charge like owning a 3d printed gun on top of murder isn't really going to phase them.
2. The only people that would even vaguely care about this rule would be law abiding citizens that wouldn't use the guns for anything uncivil in the first place.
3. Given that only law abiding citizens are going to be effected by this law, do we care that they have 3d printed guns for the purposes of hunting, protecting themselves, or target practice?
4. Ignoring points 1-3 how will you actually catch anyone with one of these guns? They have no point of sale. No detectable distribution. Possibly they don't even show up on metal detectors. How exactly are you going to stop anyone from having one of these? All this will do is see some goof ball that goes hunting with a 3d printed gun arrested or fined despite not doing anything threatening with it. That's literally the best case this law is going to offer.
So lets recap:
1. Criminals are not effected by this law.
2. Law abiding citizens are effected and really only the ones that are especially deferential to government rules since anyone that is even vaguely disinterested in following them can simply choose not to with almost no risk.
3. No thought is being given to what the intention of the law is or how it will actually work.
4. Indifferent to everything else, you can't catch people with these guns or stop them from having them... so why are you making something illegal that you cannot enforce?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Gee. The bullet is brass copper and lead. The barrel is steel. I guess old school guns with wood stocks would be undetectable as well according to the periodic table in Mr. Schumer's world.
For less than $4000, anyone can get a gunsmiths metal working setup, and build any gun they want. In fact its perfectly legal for anyone to build an firearm with no serial number as long as its not an NFA restricted weapon like a machine gun and it is not for sale or transfer.
The foil on a single stick of gum got me pulled aside at a TSA checkpoint.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
that there was also 3D printable and x-ray invisible ammunition.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
They should just make killing people illegal. Surely that will stop someone from using any weapon to do it because criminals always obey the law.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
People claim they're already doing that, i.e., the government is buying up a lot of ammunition to decrease supply to the people as the factories are producing at full capacity.
Granted, it sounds like a good candidate for conspiracy theory and I have no idea whether it's fact, but hey. That's how we roll here on Slashdot, right? :)
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
A metal detector won't detect plastic. But X-ray machines do, as the plastics used are high density and they show up. The truth is that one can likely defeat most x-ray machines just by developing a firearm that doesn't LOOK like a firearm.
Please note that while they mentioned the main bill sponsor is a Democrat, ALL of the bill sponsors are Democrats.
As we have seen through history the only real fascists have always been liberal.
Do not make the mistake again in thinking just because the Democrats espouse support for popular things you believe in, that you should vote for them - they will just continue to clamp down tighter the longer they are in power!
I support gay marriage and other social issues too, but supporting the Democrats is the wrong way to bring about changes in that arena - in order for the government to make any social change, it means they MUST reduce your rights and ability to make choices in some way.
The better way to bring about social change is the way the gay marriage movement has done so, by winning hearts and minds through the media - NOT through force and telling people what they must support from on-high.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
LOL, as if the Republicans don't love the prison-industrial complex too...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
"A nutjob with an undetectable pistol is riskier than a responsible person carrying an assault rifle.
that would be a fine argument if we could predict who would become a 'nutjob' in advance and automatically.
very person is a small chemical imbalance from being a 'nutjob' of one type or another.
"... a responsible person carrying an assault rifle. "
Except carrying one in civilian use is already a irrational behavior. Doing so means:
A) You think it is likely to be needed(unfounded)
B) That you don't care about bystander casualties. Most rounds miss, which is fine when you just wan't to hit anybody in a group(enemy line) but on the streets its a different matter.
"Their response to one idea does not characterize them."
Maybe not, but the answer to some questions can give a hell of a lot of insight to how they think, or more precisely, don't.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Where are the laws to prohibit this behavior as well?
How will this deter someone intent on trying to sneak something onboard a flight? Answer: it won't. Just like gun free zones prevent people from becoming victims. Someone intent on doing harm will ignore this law like they ignore the others. This law is a movie law, it dates back to Die Hard and the "invisible" glock. Schumer is a moron who thinks he knows what is best for you.
is your strength, not mine.
There's no reason for a law to need to be that long and not in clear English.
Treaties and budgets yes, but not laws.
Nice try Troll
In nearly all of Europe after WWII there were guns, grenades, and explosives all over the place. They seem to have done a good job at makine most (but not all) of them go away and not be widely available
You've never been to Finland, have you?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Which bring us to the question: what constitutes readable by the 'average' person?
To me, readable means short enough that most people are capable of reading all laws that might affect them before leaving high school.
that would be a fine argument...
...which I'm not making. My point is only that people have different perspectives. I'm arguing that it's possible for someone to be in favor of guns in general, but still be concerned enough about plastic ones to warrant a ban.
A) You think it is likely to be needed...
...but if I'm carrying it on the way to the firing range, or to the shop for repair, or on any other gun-related business, it's definitely needed.
B) That you don't care about bystander casualties
or C) that you have any other reason to carry it, like personal comfort. I know a woman who started carrying a pistol openly after being assaulted in an alleyway. She doesn't even own any ammunition for it, but knowing that it's there and visible helps to counter the irrational fear she feels walking down the street. It's a psychological crutch to deal with the fact that an extremely rare event actually happened to her.
...the answer to some questions can give a hell of a lot of insight to how they think
...at this particular time about this particular issue.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I would love to see something like that.
Even in a complex society, what reasonable steps should a citizen take that are sufficient to ensure that he remains a law-abiding citizen?
With caseless ammunition (or muzzleloader-style loose powder) and high density ceramic bullets (with a plastic shell to "grab" the rifling") you could get past a metal detector.
and one can cultivate a layer of adipose tissue to help conceal any oddities
Yeah, but where are you going to find Americans willing to be suicide bombers? ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Did Senator Schumer really get a perfect 1600 SAT score?
Seastead this.
I have no formal legal training whatsoever, and I'm able to understand all of the Federal and State statues I've cared enough to parse. They're written in plain English, in spite of claims to the contrary, the biggest PITA with reading the law is jumping all over the place trying to track down the various definitions. Law A defines what X means, then Laws B, C, D, E, and F all cite X and refer you back to Law A for the actual definition.
Legal statutes are certainly easier to understand without training than the various computer languages we discuss here every day. How many people do you think can sit down and decipher something written in C?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
To summarize the above: Non-metallic guns currently suck, even/especially 3D printed ones. They suck so badly that I actually want criminals to use them, because it'll mean that they've sunk far more resources into the gun for less benefit than nearly every other course of action with the goal of committing violence with intent to harm.
I don't read AC A human right
If carrying a rifle is an irrational behavior (which is a rather silly claim to make, IMHO), why is it okay for police to do it? Because we hire them to keep the peace, sure, but that inherently implies that there is a threat to the peace. They don't protect the peace in real time, they respond to violent events and do their best to eventually track down the perpetrator and remove them from society. That doesn't help you when you happen to be in the path of a nutjob on the rampage, but the police will be sure to remove the nutjob from society after they've finished killing you and a bunch of people around you. Is it also unfounded for the police to believe that a rifle is likely to be needed? Why is their belief valid and other peoples' not? Handgun rounds are more likely to miss than rifle rounds. Do police therefore also not care about bystander casualties? If so, why is it okay for them and not us? Does carrying a gun automatically equal "you don't care about bystander casualties"? Our training involves evaluating backstops and line of travel for any rounds we fire. It's not a decision taken lightly. Let me remind you that, statistically, non-police who've gone through the process to obtain a carry license are less likely to commit a crime than the police, statistically more knowledgeable about local use-of-force laws, and statistically far better shots than the average police officer.
In an related announcement, Sen Schumer's office also wants a new law recalling the 'F word' and all sticks and stones in the US. "People could get hurt" a spokesman for Schumer was quoted as saying.
Organization? You must be joking..
Heck, I'd completely forgotten about that useless fucker.
Like I said somewhere else, it's not causing much terror if people can't even remember it. Not even playing the same game as the 9-11 gang, let alone in the same league.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Any civilian carrying a rifle is much more likely to be properly trained in its use than a LEO discounting actual military.
Do you know that your own source demolishes your claim. You said that that Schumer is "one of the most hardcore authoritarians in the Senate"; however, when you check all the Ds and Rs, Schumer is rated less authoritarian than EVERY R senator except Olympia Snowe, who is a moderate who already left the senate.
One of the grand ironies of Libertarianism, is that these days the right is increasingly dominated by authoritarianism. (Take the above website to see the hugely robust difference between R and D senators. Bear in mind that R senators tend to be more moderate than their house colleagues.)
I'm Libertarian myself, but am not a sucker for the right-wing entertainment complex. As such, the GOP has little to offer me, since it has turned into an apocalyptic cult. Fortunately, the wing-nuts in the left (and they are just as barking mad) do not control their political party.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I think you confuse "ineffectual" with "not completely 100% effective".
And in case someone whines that the wiki has numbers from before the gun ban, murders didn't get better so they extended it this year.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
In case the "Glocks and other plastic firearms" line didn't tip you off, GP was just trolling.
Criminals and The Government. The distinction between the two groups is a bit of a gray area though.
OK, I give: I have been trolled.
In my defense: I couldn't tell ;) The troll was on a level that's sadly hard to distinguish from many people's sincere statements.
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I've a nasty suspicion you are all too right!
a lot of technical and military explosives have metal powder or metal fibers added to make them detectable by x-ray or metal detectors, since it's required by law in many countries.
something like this could also apply to guns, but then it would make sense to apply it to ALL firearms - if they can't be detected by standard methods, they're illegal.
why not? if you're intentions are illegal, you don't care in the first place, otherwise you just pop in the detectable plastic and are done.
i don't see the problem in plastic guns as long as standard-off-the-shelf firearms are carried aboard planes by oblivious passengers checked by lousy trained, ignorant, tired or bored security staff....
Have you ever heard of someone getting in trouble for anything similar?
Some jurisdictions have really oddball laws.
Could it easily harm someone or something if misused?
I guess this is the rationale behind banning circumvention devices and setting the burden of proof in cases involving reverse engineering for interoperability.
Have you ever heard of someone getting in trouble for anything similar?
Yes, just for running a software development business. Every patent is like a separate law banning the public from performing a particular process, and I gather that it's hard to keep up with the flood of patents that the USPTO issues.
Again, step 1: Take a civics course.
Unfortunately, it appears my high school civics course was crap, as it didn't go as far as teaching people how to understand and apply the law to the point where one could defend oneself pro se in small claims court.