Hacker News Reader

Comment by deet | Hacker News Reader

Imagine if you couldn't buy a lathe unless it refused to make a baseball bat (which could be used for hitting people).

Or if you couldn't buy scissors (because they could cut brake lines).

Or if you couldn't buy a car (because it could be used to run someone over).

And if all of those checked with the government before functioning.

It's almost like maybe instead you should just ban the undesirable end action, enforce that law, and create societal conditions that don't nudge or force people into doing undesirable things.

View on HN

In fact, right up front in TFA they point out that California already bans manufacturing firearms without a license. This 3D printer regulation is entirely duplicative and unnecessary.

Which definitely fails Bruen.

You can make all of those things. First you pick up two sticks and rub them together real good (maybe use the inner bark of a hickory tree or similar to make some cordage s.t. you can make a bow drill and rub them even better.. you may find cottonwood to your liking but I did it with green maple when I was 11 so if you can't lmao look inwards). Using the little coal you've created, build a fire. Now pile a bunch of wood on it and starve it for oxygen. Great, you've created charcoal. Now skin a big animal and make bellows from its hide. Now build a big fire and blast it with the bellows to make it rull friggen hot. Put some rocks in it that have iron in them. Collect the iron from the bottom of the fire (exercise left to the reader) into a stone tub. Build a few forms using wood, sand, and wax in the shapes of the various parts a lathe. Melt the iron in the stone tub and pour it into the forms. Scrape the mating surfaces of the lathe parts flat and clean with a hard stone.

They cannot take this shit away. It's futile.

enforce that law

Califoria would not be a sanctuary state if they actually cared about enforcing laws.

Why would a state enforce federal law?

The US legal system never ceases to amaze me. Why indeed should a state enforce a law? Like, one of those anti-discrimination laws?

Why should it enforce a law from a separate sovereign entity, is the question. And the answer is, it shouldn’t. I don’t think states do, or should, enforce federal anti-discrimination laws. The feds do that. The states pass their own anti-discrimination laws if they want something to enforce themselves.

Historically, the states never would have come together to create the United States if they had to give up all of their own sovereignty. The constitution is full of compromises.

https://xcancel.com/MPSRegentsPark/status/974645778558980096

We used to ban the undesirable action! Then DEFCAD got that ban overturned, convincing the federal government that they have a First Amendment right to publish 3D-printable firearm plans. So now our choices are to allow widespread 3D printed firearms (which I and many others won't accept) or restrict the means by which they can be made. I genuinely do wish the DEFCAD folks had made different choices that would not have led us here.

Do you think DEFCAD will get this overturned, too?

Certainly not on First Amendment grounds, and in general I expect powerful AI will quite imminently make people more sympathetic to random manufacturing restrictions on potentially dangerous goods. I can imagine 2A arguments against any regulation that's specifically preventing the use of X for gun manufacturing, but my weakly held best guess is that they wouldn't be persuasive here.

> ...our choices are to allow widespread 3D printed firearms...

Which parts of a firearm can be printed in a consumer-grade 3D printer? Be as specific as your knowledge permits.

Of those that cannot, how much money does one have to spend in order to purchase a 3D printer that is capable of printing those parts that cannot be printed by a consumer-grade printer?

Are you aware of "slam fire" firearms? If you were not, you owe it to yourself to learn how to make a functional "slam fire" shotgun. The tutorials are pretty widespread.

I'm aware of "slam fire" firearms and know why and how it's easy to produce them. They're much less concerning to me because their rate of fire is extremely slow.

I don't know the details of what can be printed in a consumer-grade printer, not having performed firearms manufacturing myself, but I've seen things claiming to be pretty complete kits and it seems to me that most components should be possible. Barrels of any reasonable length might be hard, perhaps firing pins too. (And springs, but of course those are trivial to manufacture by hand.) If it's not actually possible to 3D print an effective gun, perhaps someone should make that argument in detail.

You cannot fully 3d print an effective firearm on a consumer 3d printer. When people talk about 3d printing a gun they are almost always talking about 3d printing a single part—the lower receiver. Federal law considers the lower receiver to be a gun, and it is the part with a serial number.

A lower receiver is not complicated. It essentially just a quirk of the law that the ability to 3d print a lower receiver is useful to people who want to manufacture “untraceable” guns.

You could change the law so that barrels have to have serial numbers and accomplish nearly the exact same thing as completely banning 3d printers.

Also buying a kit, 3d printing a lower receiver, snd assembling an effective firearm is about as difficult as buying a kit to assemble an 3d printer and using existing open source slicers (or modifying a 3d printer to let you use an open source slicer).

And if 3d printers are as dangerous as the proponents of this legislation thinks they are, people would just hop across the border to Nevada and use a 3d printer there.

> They're much less concerning to me because their rate of fire is extremely slow.

Not if you make a multi-barreled one and spend some time practicing. [0] Go check out some youtube videos... some of those kids are kinda nuts. But, okay, I believe you when you say that you're unconcerned about firearms with a low rate of fire.

> I don't know the details of what can be printed in a consumer-grade printer...

I expected this, yeah.

With a consumer-grade 3D printer you can't print the things you need for anything much better in the rate-of-fire department than a "slam fire" firearm. To make a semi-auto firearm, you need springs and a rod that are fairly strong and heat resistant to make the shock absorber that drives the gas-powered mechanism that ejects the empty cartridge after firing. You also need a cylinder that can contain the pressure and heat of the gases from the burning powder in the cartridge, as well as provide a straight guide for the bullet so that you hit what you're aiming at. For reliability, you'll probably want a metal firing pin. Your rate-of-fire concerns mean that you're worried about magazine-fed firearms, so you also want decent springs in the magazine to reliably feed ammunition.

Because you're concerned about firearms that aren't low rate of fire, all of these things need to reliably perform for more than a handful of firings.

> ...but I've seen things claiming to be pretty complete kits...

Looks like you never did the inventory on those kits. For any kit that is actually going to give you what you're scared of, you'll find that the parts of the firearm that actually do the hard work are not going to be 3D printed.

You've professed ignorance of what can be printed in a low-end 3D printer, but do you happen to be familiar with what can be made in a high-end 3D printer? If you are, would you care to tell me how much money you need to pay for a 3D printer that will generate reliable springs, shock-absorption assembly, and barrel that will function for more than a couple of shots?

> If it's not actually possible to 3D print an effective gun, perhaps someone should make that argument in detail.

So, there's the video at [1]. That's the guy's second attempt at a barrel for .22 caliber ammo, and it's... ineffective. I also want to call your attention to this short Popular Science news article from fourteen years ago. [2] Notice the discrepancy between what's described by the headline and the article body "3D printed assault rifle made from ABS!" and the truth exposed by the picture of the actual firearm... the important parts of the firearm are made of metal, rather than ABS.

I mention that Popsci article to demonstrate to you that the "3D printed gun" hysteria is not new, and the folks making the claims that one can just go up and get a fully-functional magazine-fed semiautomatic pistol or rifle straight (and entirely) from one's consumer-grade home printer are just lying.

[0] Anyone who has decided to use "slam fire" firearms to harm someone is clearly unconcerned with safety, so they could even make several to dangle from their belt to increase their effective rate of fire.

[1] <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AA0R11oU90>

[2] <https://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-07/working-as...>

You don't need to print anything, just visit your neighborhood hardware store

Correct! That's why I mentioned "slam fire" firearms.

> We used to ban the undesirable action!

The undesirable action is shooting people, right? That's still banned.

It seems like you think the undesirable action is publishing plans for machines you don't want people to have.

I want to know how on earth restricting the publication of plans could be consistent with the first amendment. That's like prohibiting the publication of books with content you disagree with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com