Senate Republicans block attempt to update firearms rules for 3D guns | Hacker News Reader

Senate Republicans block attempt to update firearms rules for 3D guns

theguardian.com

Some pro-gun organizations were supportive of the bill, including the NSSF (a lobby group of gun retailers and gun manufacturers ... not hard to see why they were pro the bill).

Ultimately, the bill would have significantly increased manufacturing costs, banned many existing products and have done absolutely nothing for national security.

Guns require metal parts. A gun with a polymer barrel is at worst a very inaccurate single shot device, more likely it is a hand grenade.

Currently manufacturers of polymer framed guns dope the polymer with a substance (I forget what it is) that makes them visible in xray scanners.

I can imagine many scenarios where a single shot is entirely sufficient, such as assassinations and airplane hijacking.

Or by flooding an occupied country with so many cheap single shot handguns the enemy can't stop them all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator

> It was originally intended as an insurgency weapon to be mass dropped behind enemy lines to resistance fighters in occupied territory. A resistance fighter was to recover the gun, sneak up on an Axis occupier, kill or incapacitate him, and retrieve his weapons.

Zip guns NYC 1950's ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm

Even in those situations, a typical gun would probably work better, Those can be concealed too. I usually fall quite to the left of a lot of my friends when it comes to gun control issues but in this case I really don't see 3d printed guns making things worse than they already are, given that the right to keep guns around is baked into the constitution as it is.

All thats baked into the constitution is the right of the National Guard to bear arms.

Yeah, yeah don't talk politics:

The 4th amendment was created during a time that had a recent memory of forced quartering of British soldiers. A rifle was seen as part of a citizen's duty and contribution to the national defense when the fledgling country consisted of a few states on the Eastern-most shore. That's a far different time given today's political climate and the electoral college, the scenario for a charismatic dictator is just about nil. Canada is not going to invade and USM won't suddenly disappear. Beyond a rifle in wilderness, a pistol is more of a liability in most practical instances. Someone regularly practiced and cautious may have a tiny marginal benefit in an extreme situation... But how often do those occur? Cities are safer than ever. Worse case the weapon could be used against the owner, or accidentally discharged due to mistake identity: both liabilities. If a person intentionally chooses to keep a weapon where legal, they better be at the range at least twice a month or it's pure irresponsibility.

(I'm both a member of the NRA and SAR.)

Uh, what? The 2nd amendment discusses firearms and the 3rd discusses quartering of soldiers. What does search and seizure (4th) have to do with this discussion?

I agree with you, but religion and populist, libertarian precedent have kind of made that a moot interpretation. 3d printed, single-shot guns aren't relevant when you can get real firepower at Wal-Mart or pawn shops, or cash at a gun show, no questions asked.

Yup. It's a red-herring, fear-driven issue compared to availability of actual weapons.

This is utterly false and has no basis in history.

http://leftbehind.wikia.com/wiki/Saber

> A gun with a polymer barrel is at worst a very inaccurate single shot device, more likely it is a hand grenade.

I'm pretty confident you could build a polymer-barreled single-shot or even a revolver around one of the lower-powered .22 caliber rounds. (no idea how you would get rid of the little springs and so on, though)

Keep in mind, there are weak .22s that are just powered by a primer and no actual powder charge. They're not powerful at all.

One can 3d print springs. There are a number of thermoplastics that can be made elastic enough for such purposes. Though I imagine for simplicity, you'd probably want to go for a .25acp instead. Similar power, but using a centerfire round would be a lot easier to build a firing mechanism that would work given the limited number of shots you could fire.

This would be a stupid and utterly inconsequential law based on fear mongering. There are already laws against unlicensed gun smithery, and already laws against completely polymer or ceramic guns, there's no need to add more. Additionally, if someone wants to make an improvised firearm they can just go to home depot, spend less than $100 and build something that is far more capable than what can be produced from a multi-thousand dollar 3D printer.

Exactly. Zip guns more practical than plastic printed guns can be made in prisons. Access to a hardware store just makes it straight up trivial.

Rational response to things like printed guns is probably a good case for bringing back shop class.

Building firearms for your own personal use is legal in the US if you are not a prohibited person. Technically you can even sell one if you decide you don't want it.

Check out this AK-47 made from a shovel http://bit.ly/1jGxsFu

I don't get why 3D printing is receiving special attention compared to CNC machining or ye olden Bridgeport. If you want to make a Liberator it wouldn't take a hacker much time to figure out a way to do it with a minimum of tools.

Think about it. It's just subtracting material from steel.

Yup. The only part banned from sale or purchase of an AK is the receiver. If you can make one, then it's all good. You can even source all of the other parts except the receiver, if you wish.

What the heck is a '3D gun'? A weapon is a weapon, regardless of the manufacture.

Is the 4D guns that I worry about.

It's about time.

Haha wordplay.

Ahah, wordplay!

It isn't particularly strange to prepend the word with the manufacturing technique. Forged knives, hand carved chess sets, etc.

I honestly don't get why way make such a big issue of what the gun is made off. Accept that guns can now be 100% plastic and you can't do anything about it and just improve the security in places where guns can't enter. Basically metal detectors are obsolete and you need to find an alternate solution. Legislation is not the solution here.

The bill was passed, and the amendment was introduced just before the bill was to be voted on. Passing that amendment could have put the law in jeopardy of not passing as there was already the clean bill from the House. Schumer should have introduced that amendment weeks ago. He and Grassley have agreed to address that problem later, together.

It is important to note that the bill as passed does make it illegal to have an undetectable firearm, so a firearm with a removeable metal pin is still illegal. Schumer's amendment really only adds an additional crime--which is certainly a good thing but.

I believe you are in correct on your last point. The renewed law only says "must be detectable." So the metal can be removable in this law. His amendment was to force a permanent piece of metal.

That worries us because even if the "full firearm" (assembled) might contain metal, the part that contains the serial numbers could no longer be made of polymer (this piece is technically considered the "firearm" for registration in NY, CT, and most likely CA).

I'm happy to let people make these dangerous little handheld explosives; there's no need to ban them. The only people they'll wind up hurting with a crappy 3D-printed gun is themselves.

Is this REALLY what we need to be worrying about?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com