NY Congressman Introducing Ban On 3D-Printed High Capacity Gun Magazines
livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com
livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com
In other words, the only thing this has to do with printed magazines is that printed magazines are being used as a talking point to promote the bill.
Printed magazines, when printed with plastic, would still be picked up by a metal detector since they need a large metal spring (yes, there are printed plastic springs. they suck). Printed magazines printed with metal would obviously be unaffected by this law.
The concept of a "plastic gun" is (currently at least) largely an urban legend anyway. Glocks set off metal detectors just fine.
The Glock 7 is a fictional weapon, it doesn't cost as much as John McClane said, and a gun barrel is still made of metal to deal with the explosive pressure of rapidly expanding gases.
In the mid '80s there was a rumor about a Soviet all-plastic 3-shot gun, and there was a guy who patented the idea of an all-plastic gun, and then the media picked up on Glock making guns using plastic frames (but still more than 80% metal by weight). Then someone wrote a breathless story about how Libya was trying to buy Glocks, and this rapidly snowballed into a media fueled freakout about plastic guns and the Glock became a "terrorist special" and so forth.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19860418&...
As an intellectual exercise, see how many mistakes and logical fallacies the author commits.
I think CNC machines probably fall into the same category as 3D printers when it comes to things like this.
The issue isn't that someone with a little money can manufacture a firearm. This has been the case since firearms were invented. The issue is that it's becoming easier and cheaper to do it, and as time passes it seems plausible that object fabrication equipment will become a staple home appliance. Which will make attempts to ban anything that such machines can produce about as effective as trying to stop people downloading pirated movies.
The funny thing is that they think passing a law against it is going to do anything. The whole issue is that the widespread availability of the devices would make such laws unenforceable in practice.
Gun and explosive laws are already unenforceable. Explosives are easy to make - you can get recipes off the internet. And guns are easy to make, too, as I pointed out above. It's not clear to me that 3D printers will be any cheaper or more ubiquitous than milling machines, but in any case milling machines are already ubiquitous.
What keeps people from making machine guns and bombs is the severe penalties associated with doing so. That won't change with the advent of cheap 3D printers, even assuming a printer that could make a gun is ever cheap.
No law can ever prevent crime, but we don't just give up on the idea of the rule of law.
Banning certain classes of firearm won't make them disappear completely, but it gives law enforcement the opportunity to reduce their availability substantially.
Here's the story from the UK. We banned handguns altogether in 1997, after a school shooting that left seventeen dead. We had been slowly restricting gun ownership over the previous decade, but this time we really bloody meant it - there was a major programme of amnesties, ultimately leading to a minimum 5 year sentence for possession of a handgun. Initially it didn't have a huge impact on criminal use of firearms, partly because of the number of guns already in circulation, partly because the IRA were still fairly active and had extensive gun-running apparatus. Bit by bit, the police started to turn the tide.
The headline statistic is 58 firearm fatalities in 2010/11 (<0.1 per 100,000), but that doesn't really tell the story. The great success of British firearm legislation is revealed when serious organised criminals are arrested. More often than not, illegal handguns in the UK are in fact converted replicas and blankfirers - crude and unreliable homemade weapons. Illegal firearms are often seized with half-empty magazines, not because the weapon had recently been used but because the owner couldn't procure enough ammunition to fill it. That's an astonishing success that massively undermines the usefulness of firearms to criminals.
You can't fully control guns, but you can get damned close if you've got an electorate that wills it.
Also, handguns have nothing to do with this. Some areas (Washington, D.C.) already ban handguns. This is about assault rifles.
The problem is, these are all overreactions to a horrible event. In 2010 or 2011, "long guns" (shotguns, rifles, etc.) only accounted for something like 300 homicides in the US. 300 out of about 300,000,000 people.
Way too much effort for the benfit of cutting that by MAYBE 10-20 percent.
Even if what you're saying is true, one could argue that means "some protective effect."
Yes, it's probably true that someone who intends to ignore the law and most moral codes and commit a crime with a firearm will almost certainly ignore a sign and the associated additional legal penalties.
"Gun-free" school zones are not really meant to address that problem. They're an attempt to address the problem of crimes/accidents committed with firearms brought into a zone without intent to commit a crime, but that end up being used criminally anyway in a confrontation or when they end up out of original hands, etc. Given that these things happen, restricting access to firearms in a place like a school probably has some marginal positive effect (you can credibly argue there may be a negative effect too -- not having anyone armed in a school represents a targeting opportunity -- but the intelligent response to this is probably to figure out what reasonable exceptions might be rather than throwing up your hands and letting any student or visitor carry).
Similarly, I think it's possible that making attempts to restrict the legal manufacture of high-capacity clips will have some positive impact -- probably a greater one, since the larger scope makes leaks through neighboring less-restricted zones less likely. It will remain true that where "criminally-motivated" means someone with resources and strong resolve, they will be able to acquire not only high-capacity clips but probably just about any form of contraband they'd like. It's also true that by placing restrictions on the process of making of high-capacity clips, the bar for sufficient resources and resolve will be at least somewhat higher: there will be fewer made, fewer people making/distributing 3D printable designs, introducing scarcity, making it harder to do.
Would this be an absolute deterrent? No. Some people will still do that. Is the lock on a door an absolute deterrent? No. It raises the bar: you need to be more determined and you face additional risk of being conspicuous while breaking in. Seat belts don't protect you from many risks of driving. Sometimes, making improvements in the margins is how you get things better.
Now, that's not to say that there might not be other problems with any given measure. Personally, I think if you're going to ban manufacture of something, focusing on the method is probably a bad choice. There's also the question of tradeoffs -- what does it mean to "ban" 3D printing something? Does it mean every 3D printer gets a regulator or a monitor? That might be too big a cost for the benefit.
This is just grandstanding and fear-mongering; irresponsible nonsense that won't have any effect.
That was true even during the period of time when the national "assault weapons" ban was in place.
Also, when you call a magazine a "clip" you immediately make yourself look like someone who knows very little about firearms. A magazine is a spring loaded device that holds bullets in a gun, and may or may not be detachable. A "clip" is a device which is sometimes used to store bullets for quickly loading into a magazine.
Assuming this is neither pedantry nor an ad hominem attack, I appreciate knowing what terminology communicates to people.
> There are millions, literally hundreds of millions, of full capacity magazines out there in the world right now.
And billions of people. The argument isn't that we can wave a magic policy wand and make anything disappear, or impossible to make or get. The argument is that it may be possible to make it harder for any one of those billions to get their hands on some of the millions of things.
Here's what I'd expect to happen if we were to legally restrict the manufacture and general possession of some magazines (or anything else, for that matter):
1) Owners would split into 3-4 different categories: (a) some who would decide any legal risk isn't worth it, and get rid of theirs through approved channels, (b) some who would keep what they have but stop buying, (c) some would sell or buy on the black market. Overall, though, unless you assume that (a) is completely negligible, we're talking about a reduction in existing general circulation.
2) Regarding additions to general circulation, I'd expect manufacturers would split into different categories as well. Some would (a) comply with regulations and would no longer make or ship through general market channels, some would (b) continue to manufacture and supply the black market. Some (c) new manufacturers would spring up to fill any demand gap left by (a), but remember, some people in (1a) have dropped out of the market, so demand has probably shrunk, and risk is higher, so it's a pretty big presumption to claim supplies to general circulation from b+c are going to be equal or greater than a+b under no restrictions. Overall, we're talking about a reduction in supply coming into the pipe.
3) So at this point, if my assumptions hold up, the bar's up at least three or four notches:
* perhaps we still have many banned magazines in general circulation (US estimates I've heard thrown around are closer in order of magnitude to the tens of millions rather than hundreds, though), but there's nevertheless a reduction in number vs the baseline of no restriction, so that's increased scarcity.
* anyone wishing to buy/sell will need to have contacts willing to run the risk (your average postal worker or 19 year old suffering from socialization problems may or may not meet this bar)
* greater risk to buying/selling means some people will prefer to hold on to what they have and not sell at any price, except perhaps with highly trusted acquaintances. This effect in how magazines circulate would be more powerful the higher their concentration in a small number of hands is.
* cost would go up do to increased scarcity and risk associated with buying/selling, meaning any given individual would need to be prepared to pay more
4) That's not all, though. Remember what I said about door locks raising the bar in terms of conspicuousness? In a world with no door locks, the act of walking up to any door, opening it, and walking through is easy and unsuspicious to most given observers. In our world, you're going to need to batter the door down or spend time fiddling with tools -- both activities that are somewhat likely to draw attention. There are ways to allay the resulting suspicion, but that's another bar to meet. Similarly, someone incidentally observed with contraband is now under scrutiny; secondhand evidence it's possessed/traded at all in the neighborhood may even draw law enforcement on the trail.
> This is just plain silliness.
Based on your username, it looks like you would know. ;)
So... what part of what I've laid out above do you expect would not happen if magazines over a certain capacity were banned, and why?
The Associated Press (AP) finally updated their style book to make this important distinction, and I've noticed their writers are actually following it, so it's not pedantry.
There's a lot of interesting things going on here. But, specifically, I want to comment on the disconnect between legislators and reality caused by isolation from various aspects of everyday life due to the nature of specialization.
A lot of folks complain about lobbyist, but this a critically important role they play. They don't buy their votes as many suspect, they instead educate the congressmen they work with into believing what they believe. Or, a slightly more realistic phrasing is that they provide congressmen with the ideological ammunition they use on the floor and in the press to push their agenda.
In this case it's rather trivial, because currently 3d printed all plastic guns and magazines are mostly non-viable which explains why there are no lobbyist to help correct congress when they go astray. But the next time you call lobbying bad, just remember that lobbying is an important part of having informed legislatures.
HN comments are sorted by age as well as number of votes (and supposedly the reputation of the poster, in some cases), so being in the top spot may not mean that it's the highest voted comment, and may be temporary.
But the next time you call lobbying bad, just remember that lobbying is an important part of having informed legislatures.
Surely there's a better way, like maybe the Congressional Research Service? Or legislators actually -- and I know, this is a radical suggestion -- learning on their own about the topics on which they legislate?
The CRS and CBO do provide a useful service. But, it would be impossible for each congress person to research the effects of a tariff, increasing pre-k funding to the states, chimpanzee sanctuary funding needs at the NIH as well as the changing feelings related to technology, copyright, gun control and how it effects their various constituents who all have their own interests. It's much easier and more practical for lobbyist just to hand them a "fact sheet" that says: "This bill will save 240 lives this year in your district." or "This bill will provide 430 jobs in and increase the tax base 2 million dollars in your district"
Of course, maybe you meant "hand all this off to an LA" which they already do to some extent.
If legislators have too many domains to deal with to understand any of them, maybe we could go further than the committee system and have separate legislatures for separate domains.
But we don't, so instead, we just have "traffic fines double in construction zones." Which makes sense, and presumably people drive more carefully in construction zones.
If you want to double the murder punishment in school zones, there is your deterrence. Preventing law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves & others in the statistically most-likely place for a mass-murder makes no sense whatsoever.
All that aside, I don't trust other parents with handguns around my children, and am perfectly okay with laws preventing people from carrying around my kids. Most of the people I know who are deep enough in their fantasies about their handguns are, and this is just my belief, just as likely to accidentally shoot a child as they are to do any good with a weapon.
You might disagree, but it isn't true that prohibiting weapons around a school has absolutely no sense about it.
You know, this isn't the first time I've heard this sentiment, and -- without meaning offense -- I think it reflects a simple ignorance of the practical realities of handling firearms. I don't know whether you're referring to someone trying to shoot an assailant and missing, or simple failure to follow safe handling, but . . .
I think maybe an analogy will help. From my perspective, it's as if someone said, "I don't want strangers driving cars near schools, because I think there's a significant risk they'll run over children accidentally." From my perspective, I know how much control a driver has over a car, how well they pay attention, the rules pedestrians follow and how well drivers respect them . . . and I'm not really worried about it. Every morning, I see bazillions of children walking to school, passed by bazillions of strangers driving cars right next to them, and I just don't give it a second thought.
The person I'm talking to does, though. He seems to think cars drive up on the sidewalk all on their own, all the time.
Sure, a malicious person could run over a child. Sure, a crazy or drunk or just irresponsible person could get a hold of a car and do a lot of damage. But those are both rare problems and not really specific to cars (or helped by laws). A normal person, in a normal traffic situation, will spend their whole lives driving and absolutely never be danger of accidentally shooting a child.
I hate it when people say, "Your opinion on a topic isn't valid if you haven't done X," but I'm going to say something really similar. Not as a way to invalidate your opinion, but . . . I really do think that folks who claim to have a serious opinion on gun issues should at least spend an afternoon at a range once. Spend $50, take a class, rent a gun, and work through a box of ammo. It's fun, and you'll learn what guns are, how they're safely handled, how dangerous they are (and aren't) when handled responsibly, and . . . well, for lack of a better way to say it, learn how much control even first-time shooters have over them.
I know that comes off as a snarky, "I know more than you" post, and it's not intended that way, really. It's just that I really do think a lot of the fear of guns is fear of the unknown. I honestly wish a firearms safety course was routine, like driver's ed, and then maybe we'd all at least understand the object we're talking about.
"I think it's possible someone carrying may choose to intentionally shoot a child at any moment."
he meant:
"I think that (a) accidents happen in general and (b) should a specific crisis situation emerge and someone carrying uses their gun to respond, they are likely enough to shoot an innocent bystander accidentally vs successfully using it to stop an assailant."
As someone who has spent a few afternoons at the range and even in the hills shooting junk, I certainly don't think someone is a threat just because they've got a gun. But I'm less sanguine when I think about the increased accident/incident rate, and I'm not sure how well most people would do with a gun in a confrontation vs recreational situation.
One of the places I went shooting was a weekly practical skills tournament. Everything we shot at moved or popped up or had something you weren't supposed to shoot next to it; sometimes all three. Most of it was pop-can sized, too! And while a lot of the guys there were pros, they had a deal where first-time shooters were free, so a lot of folks brought friends, and I got to see a lot of amateurs try to handle those situations.
And you know, they did pretty well. Even if you've only been shooting for a week or two, even if you have to run up to where you're shooting from and peek out from cover, even if you're under time pressure and all the targets are in motion . . . most people can hit one paper-plate sized target and not another one at ten yards or so, most of the time. And that's kind of a worst-case scenario!
So now you put a man-sized target in a classroom, probably less than 10 yards away, where he's probably holding still or at most walking, where everyone else is frozen or running away from him (and at any rate, isn't IN FRONT of him), and so on. I'm sure it's emotionally stressful, but . . . that's not a difficult shot.
I'm not trying to pick on the GP in particular -- he just stepped on a pet peeve of mine. I've heard people opine that in that situation, the odds of missing and hitting a kid are something like 50%. I think that's crazy. I think, based on experience, that the odds are close enough to zero as makes no difference. And I don't mean just me, either; I mean anybody could make that shot.
But more than that, think about what the cutoff should be, from a game theoretic perspective. These school shootings generally result in what, ten people dead? More? Wouldn't that mean the shot is a win even if the odds of hitting the wrong person were up around 90%?
They do happen, last I can remember was a worst case where an armed citizen tried to slip out of a pizza joint during a robbery only to find the robbers had locked the door behind them. They noticed and started shooting at him, and one or more of the staff were behind them in line with the citizen. Bad situation, but then again, for all we know he saved the lives of everyone in the joint, based on the criminals' actions.
Really? I've never met a firearm owner like that, and I've been around guns my entire adult life.
There are many people out there who think that guns are cool toys and don't follow safety procedures. I've encountered more than a few of them. Not checking downrange before firing, pointing a gun at people with no intention to fire, not checking the chamber after removing a magazine.
I imagine stronger punishment is supposed to be deterrence. When your only tool is a hammer..
And magazines aren't anything special, definitely something that is perfect for 3D printing. Simple designs punctuated by slight one-offs - depending on cartridge size, cartridge count, and weapon fit.
The same way distilling alcohol is illegal in the US, but owning a still, owning alcohol, and purchasing distilled alcohol is not illegal.
While I understand the intent of the law, it's a totally impractical way to solve the problem. It sounds like the majority of weapons used in violent crimes are obtained illegally so it will do little to deter criminal activities; meanwhile, it increases the liability around owning a 3d printer.
Why are you not immediately distilling a few bottles of moonshine on principle? My feeling is gun-freedom supporters view gun ownership as a proxy for freedom. Why not view alcohol distillation as your symbolic meter-stick instead? Just like illegally produced spirits, owning a gun won't stop the TSA from violating your rights. Nor will it stop the FBI from raiding your home.
In any case, the stand I'd be taking is about the absurdity of trying to ban 3d printing of specific devices, not about gun rights. I can't think of a reasonable excuse for a private citizen to own high-capacity weapons of death, and the theoretical argument about defending ourselves from the government went out the window long ago in my eyes. The second amendment was written well before the days of SWAT teams (on the low end of potential government firepower) and anyone crazy enough to think that stockpiling high-powered weaponry will be sufficient to take on highly-trained professionals is, well, crazy.
I mean, if you threw it perhaps it could hurt, but if it's made of plastic probably not so much.
Newsflash #2: we've had plastic magazines for years already.
Plastic 308 rounds. Those are real projectiles, not dummy rounds.
I do not know if the entire cartridge is plastic, though. That primer definitely looks like metal. And I'm going to assume steel for the cartridge body (wow, it was hard to think of another word than 'brass').
Now, a fully plastic gun is another story...
They are meant for training with outdoors. They are cheaper then normal bullets, less pollution then lead and don't goes so fare (a normal 7.62mm bullets can be deadly for upwards to 3.5 kilometers, making random shouting in a simulated setting outside unsafe).
More info about this bullets are available at http://gunlore.awardspace.info/rifledarms/ammunition/dag762b...
However caseless ammunition also exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition . Thus could probably be made without any metal.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/29/world/us-protesting-israel...
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/29/world/israeli-army-lawyer-...
Of course those rounds don't have enough recoil to cycle a semi-automatic rifle so I'm not sure how much of an advantage having a high-capacity magazine for those would really give anybody.
In any event, the barrel at least has to be metal, so this seems similar to the risk of someone bringing gunpowder into a secure area.
Do distinguished them from other rounds. When I was in the Norwegian military we had at list bullets painted:
Red: Blanks.
Blu: Plastic bullets for training. Cheap and less pollution then lead.
Yellow: Tracer rounds.
Still trying to figure out what on earth these things are used for. Seems too dangerous to be used off a proper firing range. What good are they?
Polymer cased ammunition exists but is very rare and not general purpose (e.g. flechette rounds), but even those rounds would show up quite easily on a magnetometer based metal detector due to the steel content in the flechettes. The idea of a "plastic gun" is a myth that has been advanced due to the extreme ignorance of the media inducing a moral panic in the 1980s after the introduction of the Glock 17, which merely had a plastic frame and still contained over a pound of metal in it.