Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

3-D Printed Gun Ban Fails In Senate

Posted by timothy on from the forces-of-indignation dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Daily Dot:"On Monday evening, a bill aimed at thwarting the production and distribution of plastic 3-D printed weapons was blocked by Senate Republicans. ... The debate over the new legislation centered around the 1988 Undetectable Firearms Act, which bans the production and distribution of weapons that skirt 'walk through metal detectors.' The act has been renewed on two occasions since its passage. It was due to expire again on the 9th of December. The House voted to renew the bill last week. The rise of 3-D printing has made this year's renewal more complicated in the Senate. Many lawmakers, particularly Democrats, feel the current Undetectable Firearms Act inadequately addresses the rising threat posed by printed plastic weapons."

11 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. No new law needed. There is no problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why create a whole new law when the existing one is perfectly adequate?

    All of us commit three felonies a day because those asshats in our legislatures just keep piling the laws on to solve non-existent problems.

    This is yet another distraction by the ruling class to keep our minds off of our continually declining standard of living.

  2. Already Banned by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Undetectable guns are already banned. The failed legislation was a modification to require inclusion of metal components that would be hard to remove. If you think about it, that doesn't make much sense....its either detectable or its not. Those with criminal intent would not likely be deterred by this minor modification.

    1. Re: Already Banned by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That criminals would be undeterred by a law is a given for all laws and regulations. The key is the law-abiding who won't willfully participate in such activities. That and having a mechanism to punish the ones you do catch.

      You will never stop everybody with a law, that is well known. That isn't a requirement for us to have laws though.

      Of course not. You have to look at what you're trying to prevent however. Murder is against the law, and rightfully so, but that's because the actual act being outlawed is exactly what you want to prevent. Once a murder has occurred grave harm (literally) has already occurred to another party. Same with theft. Same with rape. Same with assault.

      See, all those things are directly harmful to another individual. Making laws against them certainly won't ever stop such crimes from being committed at all, but it will reduce the frequency.

      The issue with plastic guns (or gun laws in general) is that the very act of having a gun isn't harmful. You can do harmful things with it, but just having one doesn't cause any harm in and of itself. The people that would use those guns to harm another person are already willing to break laws to do so - laws with much stiffer legal consequences.

      Think of the number of guns in the US. There are more guns in this country than there are people. The VAST majority of them are never used in a harmful way, and the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Passing gun laws affects most of them (because most of them actually follow the laws), but it does nothing for the tiny fraction of them that do not adhere to the law anyways, and those were the ones you really needed to worry about.

      Its not that laws in general are useless - merely that laws that exist solely as an attempt to keep someone from breaking another law are useless.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  3. Sandy Hook? by myth24601 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does the article bring up Sandy Hook? It has nothing to do with this issue.

    --
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    1. Re:Sandy Hook? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trying to provoke emotional response....of course.

  4. Re:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill by Pi1grim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's journalism of today - throw as many unsupported sensationalist statements out there as possible, try to induce fear, anger or any other emotions, any at all, because this is what sells the papers or gets views for the ads.

  5. Re:Good by Pi1grim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you don't want to admit you already live in this world, it's fine by me. But please stop trying to pull the blanket over everyone's else eyes.

  6. Re:Good by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No you want it so that only criminals can have guns.

    Because for some reason you just can not comprehend the absolute fact that criminals and Evil-doers do not obey laws.

    Want proof that gun bans do not work? My proof is simple.. Chicago and NYC. The criminals have all the guns they want, some of them are 100% illegal already, like AK-47 fully automatic. Your precious gun bans 'dont stop those from being in the hands of criminals... So why do you think more of them will help?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or move to a sensible country like Iceland, who doesn't have this problem despite having a citizenry that's heavily armed.

    The US has a gun problem because the US has a crappy culture where violence and ignorance are celebrated and criminals are given encouragement via press and then given no rehabilitation after they commit crimes.

    This has been pointed out many, many times.

  8. Re:How? by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which is actually why it makes it a stupid law.
    Its only benefit would be able to charge someone with more fines and problems when they have already performed an illegal act.

    People: We have a Gun that is undetectable by normal means.
    Government: We can't have that because people who want to hurt people with guns can get past detection. So lets make a law to fix that.
    People: So If I wanted to hurt someone with a gun, which is already breaking a bunch of laws, I will just need to break one more.
    Government: Thats right, and it will save you money because we will not need to invest into finding ways to track your gun.

    Why doesn't the government add an extra $100 fine for performing an illegal activity.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  9. Re:Good by QuantumPion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Your precious gun bans 'dont stop those from being in the hands of criminals... So why do you think more of them will help?

    And your precious guns don't stop those criminals from shooting people... So why do you think more of them will help?

    Why do police carry guns then?