12 ms·

"Gun" "Control"

98 points by japaget 14y ago

DigitalSea 14y ago
The failed drug war has taught us you can regulate and draft laws until it's illegal to even think about making a gun let alone get a hold of one without the appropriate credentials, but it won't change a thing at the end of the day. While it can be argued that we might see people printing their own guns in the future when 3D printing becomes affordable, what's stopping people from printing knives and other sharp pointy objects that could be used to kill or maim someone else? If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that. If someone doesn't get hold of a printed weapon, they'll get their hands on a legitimately made metal one (or whatever material it is they build guns out of these days). The benefit of 3D printing is that at least you have a better chance tracing a home printed weapon than you would an illegally purchased street firearm with no serial number.
- mr-ron 14y ago
  If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that. > Except the lack of guns The benefit of 3D printing is that at least you have a better chance tracing a home printed weapon than you would an illegally purchased street firearm with no serial number. > Except smart filesharers already can't be caught
  - DigitalSea 14y ago
    There will never be a lack of guns. America is too big to police efficiently. The drug war which has well and truly failed is a perfect example of this. Filesharing is different. Printing a gun from a 3D printer requires materials, materials which can easily be traced back to their purchase point of origin. You could argue said materials could be obtained on the black market as well as the printers, but you have a better chance of tracking a created gun back to a particular type of 3D printer. I'm not saying it would be that reliable, but at least law enforcement agencies would stand a better chance than they currently have. Tracking a gun without a serial is like treasure hunting in the pacific ocean without a map.
- shardling 14y ago
  There are plenty of illegal things that are, in fact, hard to get, so clearly this argument is not universal.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  The failed drug war... I find it particularly amusing that many of the people I hear calling for the legalization of all drugs on the grounds that banning them doesn't work, are the same people calling for the outlawing of all guns.
  - DigitalSea 14y ago
    No part of my comment mentioned calling for the legalisation of drugs nor am I calling for the outlawing of guns. Please do not misconstrue my words, and lets not confuse the real issue here. We are talking about people being able to potentially print functional firearms in the comfort of their own home using a 3D printer.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      Sorry, I did not mean to imply anything about you. Just a passing observation tangential to your comment.
  - Daishiman 14y ago
    Except that gun control laws can actually be extremely effective, and the same cannot be said for drug prohibition. And, honestly, there is nontrivial difference the ability to consume certain substances and owning instruments made explicitly to kill.
    - jessedhillon 14y ago
      Additionally, there is a very good argument for being free to take substances which release/alter your voluntary control of self. What are the arguments to own any gun? Imaginary civil war, fantasy home defense, pride of ownership, and practicing marksmanship? For this, we have to suffer the fact that any crazy can buy push-button killing machines, or that any sane owner thereof can subsequently lose his shit and kill the rest of us? There doesn't seem to be much of an upside for the rest of us.
      - sliverstorm 14y ago
- nwienert 14y ago
  I've thought about this one, and I think drug prohibition is an unfair comparison. Drugs bring a immediate and addictive reward, that the user seeks continuously. This drives up their demand. Not to mention they have higher profit margins, and are a temporary good. If gun's were illegal, owning one would be a constant threat to the owner. Drugs can be easily disposed, and are not permanent. Decent guns are made by manufacturer's, which is much easier to regulate than drugs which are made in labs and farms. Finally, gun's are metal and therefore much harder to smuggle... metal detectors and such. Not saying I can prove any of this, but I think the comparison just doesn't work.
  - jkubicek 14y ago
    Also, drugs are designed and sold for personal pleasure. Guns are designed and sold for killing. The comparison between the two doesn't hold.
- brianobush 14y ago
  I always hear the argument "If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that..." In the heat of the moment can you easily get a gun? Especially if you are looking for banned weapons? How many incidents have occurred due to guns being easy to access?
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    How many school shootups have been "in the heat of the moment"? Every time the police follow up, it looks pretty apparent they were planned. I mean, who has full body armor available "in the heat of the moment"? (Aurora and the most recent shooter were both in full body armor)
    - brianobush 14y ago
      Even when these events are planned, there is still a time when you go "I need a big gun" to getting one. If mom has one in the closet, this obviously makes that event happen instantly. If there are more roadblocks to the process of acquiring an assault rifle, wouldn't it be worth it even if it saved a single life?
      - sliverstorm 14y ago
        If there are more roadblocks to the process of acquiring an assault rifle, wouldn't it be worth it even if it saved a single life? How can we know if it would save even a single life? How would we even know if it was worth it? You attempt to simplify far too much. In a country of 300 million, can you say with certainty it would not (for example) cost even a single life?
SparrowOS 14y ago
God is just. We put God on TV, crime goes to zero and we fire all cops. God says... shone presence Forsake fitting Thyself twice substance sharp walked manna pierce etexts pulse everything unlicensed day-break likewise exacted exhort Cup unarranged observes Excellently Please absorb huge need confessions- upward quicken spending profitable false-named worketh rent journey disentangled joined maintainers except Victim lodging reneweth wander healeth action mode boundary see' self-willed bend Apostle hinder associate contemporary immutable password thereupon beholder Romanianus Foundation consistently Sweden gladness profited strength deformity youthfulness impatient Terence smiled intercession prevailing donations storing failure cruelty withering spokest yielded stealth execrate tenor NUMBER forehead are_you_feeling_lucky Holy fulfils mightily joyful members salt right-doing dull born tookest displace Angel congregations hung hay recognises corporeally appearance sounder concupiscences Lay Eat no_more estimated reclaim This simplicity interpose Either solemnise floods beating whiner heardest resolutely Babylon tends repel contentious rejoicing joining thick looks bridle NEGLIGENCE criticising hilarious divide exhortation false-named Refund perceivable robing variation classics compactedst robbery Tajikistan approveth restraining owes If flows ETEXT OF most aptly deliver burning acting wail danger indignant sung omnium Great_Britain borrow stricken
littlegiantcap 14y ago
This just amplifies the fact that the conversation shouldn't be about gun control and should be about mental health.
- DigitalSea 14y ago
  The article is about the impending 3D printing revolution and being able to print your own guns, not gun control in itself. I don't see how mental health relates to printing 3D guns at home.
  - csense 14y ago
    It relates indirectly. Two things were necessary for the latest school tragedy to occur: The shooter had to be mentally ill, and he had to have access to the gun(s) he used. Let's suppose a significant fraction of gun-related crimes contain these two elements, and it would be worthwhile to make a political push for the prevention of this specific subset. (Not to imply that any other subset of gun-related crimes is unworthy of attention.) The obvious way to attack this class of crimes would be to remove either mental illness or access to weapons from the equation. The article seems to be saying that denying people access to guns will become much more difficult in the next few years as new technology will make it much easier to people to manufacture them privately and inexpensively. This implies that policy efforts in that direction will likely end up wasted, and we should instead focus on removing mental illness from the equation (presumably by increasing research to create new treatments, improving access to mental health services to do a better job of bringing existing treatments to people who need them, and reducing bureaucracy and waste).
    - joesb 14y ago
      But the article did not talk about the latest school tragedy. It talked about gun control in general, including using gun to commit crime like, for example, robbing a bank.
      - csense 14y ago
erickhill 14y ago
As found in the NY Times today regarding this subject: "In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands. The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings. In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent". It was legislation, intelligent legislation, that worked. It did not advocate the complete abolishment of firearms, which many pro-gun advocates seem to be making the mental leap towards when any discussion of gun "rights" is brought up. Thinking this problem isn't partially-solvable is ignorant.
- angersock 14y ago
  Tragic as these things are, I cannot endorse such a proposal for the United States. This year alone we've seen how many articles on wiretapping, government databases, executive assassination orders, and drone usage? Any citizen needs to hang on to whatever tools they have.
  - pekk 14y ago
    Please be explicit when making this argument: you want the capacity to wage civil war against the policies of the current administration. This being the case, merely having small arms suitable for sport or ordinary self-defense isn't going to cut it and you should probably be organizing in advance of the civil war that you believe to be necessary. You can't say these things and sit on the fence. Admit what you are saying.
    - icelancer 14y ago
      >This being the case, merely having small arms suitable for sport or ordinary self-defense isn't going to cut it This isn't necessarily true. War simulations have been repeatedly won by poorly-equipped guerilla "red teams" who out-think slow-moving American commanders/generals. Not that I'm advocating civil war.
yk 14y ago
I see two problems with the article: 1. For the foreseeable future there will be no 3D printer which can print explosives. Therefore it seems hard to actually print ammunition. 2. Guns have rather many parts which are under high mechanical stress. Therefore 3D printable gun designs will be rather crappy for quite some time. Both of these points render the problem of 3D printable weapons rather smaller than the control of carbines.
- evan_ 14y ago
  Reloading ammunition is really easy.
- prostoalex 14y ago
  Yeah, you'd have to go to metal shop for some of this. "Download, click, print" model won't work for guns for a bit, but you could get there with some pre-manufactured metal parts, or just manufacture them yourself.
- rdl 14y ago
  The hard part of all of this is primers. Virtually everything else is straightforward (propellant is hard, but not as hard as primers. Reloading from infinite primers and powder is essentially something a one-armed blind person can do with a reloading press. Most of the parts of guns are not under much mechanical stress, and the parts which are, tend to not be the regulated items. A convicted felon could buy commercially made barrels all day long (they're not firearms or in any way controlled), which are probably the firearm part with the greatest difficulty of manufacture, along with springs.
  - jff 14y ago
    3d printed flintlock.
  - yk 14y ago
    Of course, one can manufacture a gun from a 3D printer plus some additional stuff. But there is a qualitative difference between 'click print' and you get everything you need and a project to get everything you need to build a gun, which utilizes a 3D printer ( and some chemistry and some additional metalwork). After all, it is today possible to manufacture a (completely unregistered) gun yourself utilizing a CNC cutter and some craftsmanship.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- angersock 14y ago
  Readers here are likely on the forefront of some of these technologies... we need to stop ignoring these discussions because they're too controversial and start doing our part to improve the discourse.
gioele 14y ago
Fact checking of some assumption of existence. * «MPEG 3»: Yeah, sure. * «We can print working guns right now»: No, you cannot, neither you will be able in the foreseeable. Please prove otherwise.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- andrewflnr 14y ago
  He did. Six shots is merely an unreliable gun, not, fundamentally, a non-functional gun (see also the point about 6-vs-100 shots and 0-vs-1 shot), and frankly, an AR-15 seems unnecessarily ambitious for a proof-of-concept. They probably would have gotten better results with something better suited for printing; I bet AK's print better. AFAICT, it's just a matter of sufficient precision with sufficiently strong materials.
  - angersock 14y ago
    Well, in case anyone's curious: http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm http://www.matbase.com/material/polymers/commodity/abs-general-purpose/properties http://www.matbase.com/material/polymers/commodity/abs-gener... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder_stresses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder_stresses That's a start, anyways.
- doctorpangloss 14y ago
  Here are a few simple methods to make working guns with 3D printers. 1. Print plastic shaped like gun 2. Load bullet. 3. Fire bullet with now destroyed gun. 1. Model gun 2. Print wax cast 3. Make cast 4. Melt and pour steel into cast. 1. Buy everything except a upper receiver without a gun permit. 2. 3D print an upper receiver and attach to normal gun parts. 3. Use like normal gun (for a little bit)
- ampersandy 14y ago
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLlJshR6nvg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLlJshR6nvg One of the major arguments in the article is that instructions exist for printing an Assault Rifle (AR). I doubt that the rounds fired have the same lethal capacity of a "real" firearm; however, I certainly wouldn't want to be hit by the weapon in the video.
DanielN 14y ago
related hn discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019163 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019163
angersock 14y ago
Let me point out some interesting issues that are related to this, just so that we can have something beyond the normal gun/anti-gun rhetoric: 1. If we legislate 3D printing to prevent weapon manufacture, we run directly counter to the idea of "Print anything you need at home!". How do we reconcile these two ideas? 2. If we want to fingerprint, say, a lower receiver and identify which machine made it, how would we do so? (My hunch would be looking for misalignments in the fill pattern, but that's just a first guess). 3. What sort of technology would be required to automatically detect the production of a weapon? Could we identify a pressure container, for example, for use in holding a shotgun shell for firing? Could we distinguish that from something else? 4. Taking (3) a step further--this technology could obviously also have applications in preventing patent infringement. Is it desirable to require that 3D printers can recognize infringing mechanisms? Why or why not?
- majormajor 14y ago
  I think the realization of it is likely to be much simpler: I expect widespread 3d printing (if it ever really becomes a common in-the-home thing, as opposed to stores printing stuff on demand) to be a curated, extremely simple experience, along the app store model. Though I'm not sure that the economics/frequency of use would make it make sense to have one in every home, at all. Being able to get whatever replacement part or tool I might need fabricated on demand at Home Depot would be extremely cool to me; having to purchase all the equipment and consumables to do it in my own home appeals much less. So I don't know that it would really derail a policy designed to greatly reduce the frequency of mass shooting events by making gun acquisition much more difficult. (Focusing strictly on the feasibility of that, and leaving aside for now any questions of whether private citizens need to have the right to have guns for other purposes.)
  - padraigm 14y ago
    I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether there's a 3D printer in every home or not, because there will always be a non-negligible number of people who find the ability to rapidly prototype objects on demand in their homes appealing. You wouldn't argue that the law can ignore the fact that many people have general purpose computers just because most people use iPhones, right?
robomartin 14y ago
CAN SOMONE PLEASE KILL-OFF THIS THREAD BEFORE HN BECOMES ANOTHER HOME FOR LOONIES? JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY. I am an American. I don't own any guns. I have lived in other parts of the world, sometimes under military regimes. I have never --EVER-- felt the need to own firearms in order to feel secure, protect my family or defend myself from a rogue government. I do enjoy an occasional trip to the shooting range where we rent the weapons and have a good time shooting at metal targets or clay pigeons. Then I go home and that crap stays behind. I don't need it. I know with 100% certainty that none of my kids will ever have an accident in my home with a firearm 'cause there isn't one to be found. I don't have any particular issue with the idea of people owning guns. Artillery and mass-killing weapons are a different story. There have to be sensible limits and strict rules. I don't know what these limits and rules might be. There are experts who have studied this far and deep. I'll defer to them. To be sure, there's a mental health issue that must be dealt with as well. Don't know the answers. Still, I think this thread needs to be shut-down before the nut-cases who think they are going to have to defend their homes from hordes of their own neighbors after each power outage take over.
- angersock 14y ago
  Hey, we can avoid the nutcases--see my list. Add stuff. Talk about other interesting ramifications. Give other things for the people to look at that aren't just "NOT MUH GUNS" or "EVIL PUPPY KILLING RIFLES".
- temphn 14y ago
  > I have never felt the need to own firearms in order to feel secure robomartin: I enjoy many of your posts and understand where you're coming from. Regarding this point, however, if you saw videos of Koreatown during the LA Riots, or in New Orleans after Katrina, or of Vancouver or London recently, you saw video of real times - in industrialized society - where the police were absent and law & order broke down. The Koreans with guns defended their stores against rioting looters. That happened in America. It happened to the parents of people I know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmsKGhLdZuQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmsKGhLdZuQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmQW6xLECUU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmQW6xLECUU I hope you'd agree then that you don't have to be a "nut case" to imagine you need to defend your family, property, and loved ones from fellow Americans in the event of riots. It's happened, multiple times, as the clips above show.
georgieporgie 14y ago
[Note: I'm hellbanned, since pg and his mods support authoritarian, passive-aggressive douchebaggery instead of open conversation, but I'll write this anyway] Gun control gets a lot of attention in the US. I see people asserting that it works, and the only evidence I've seen is to point to the United Kingdom. Responses generally revolve around Washington D.C. Well, you can look at the number of gun deaths per capita, by country, on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re... We're #12, but of course, people aren't generally scared by suicides, which is close to double the actual homicide rate in the US. For some reason, that chart is missing Thailand. Despite extremely restrictive gun control, they had 20,032 firearm deaths in 2000 (and I believe it's gone up since then): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/the-us-is-no-in-gun-violence-is-it/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/.... If my quick math is correct, that works out to 28.8 on the Wiki chart, and nearly TEN TIMES the per-capita homicide rate! So, what causes all the gun deaths in Thailand? Given my limited experience with the place (one month of travel), I would say it's due to the tremendous organized crime and drug trade. Anyway, the point is: gun deaths go much, much deeper than gun laws. It's deeply cultural and social. Until the United States recognizes that it has an enormous void where common mental healthcare should be, we'll continue to have this drama. Unless you're wealthy, violent, or suicidal, there are few means to seek mental healthcare. How about catching people before they fall down? How about treating violent sociopaths before they begin acting out against humans? How about not judging people for seeing a professional for help with emotional issues? Between the lack of resources and the stigma attached to seeking mental healthcare, the United States is a mess.
pinaceae 14y ago
guns are not the key here, it is ammunition. chris rock made a great argument about it, no clue if he re-hashed an old saying or came up with it himself: make ammo really expensive. make ammo really regulated. ammo contains explosives. it can be used to build bombs. bombs equal terrorism. so, get the whole wrath of homeland security upon buying, selling, handling live ammo upon it. make it so unbelievably complex that people simply give up. oh, you want to buy 9mm? sure, please apply for a 9mm cartridge license, that's forms 12, 3274234, 423-1836, t5 and 0815. process takes a year, is valid for 5mins and usually ends with you on a no fly list. you don't wanna know what you need for 5.56. and selling? oh boy. no need to ban anything. bureaucracy was invented for exactly this. crowd control. just look at how it was applied in the austro-hungarian monarchy, kafka's process is exactly that. guns don't kill little kids. bullets do.
- gordaco 14y ago
  I once watched that monologue. He argued that bullets should cost 5k$ to make killing unaffordable, IIRC. This raises another point, with regard to the original article: will printing bullets be easy with 3d printing technology? I may not be as easy (you probably need to insert manually the powder at some point), but I think it will eventually happen.
  - pinaceae 14y ago
    this is my point - printing the whole thing does not do anything without adding gunpowder. creating that out of a 3d printer is a bit longer off, re-arranging molecules is a tad hard. the US already regulates handling of explosives. simply expand that regulation to any amount of gunpowder. no need to ban guns, no interference of the constitution. having a right does not mean that it needs to be easy or cheap.
    - learc83 14y ago
      What do you think happens when bullets cost $5000? You've just created a new revenue stream for drug cartels. Manufacturing ammunition isn't any more difficult than running a meth lab.
smsm42 14y ago
Printing guns is curious, but irrelevant for the stated purpose - "gun" "control". Various resistance movements mass-produced guns under Nazi regime. If the regime as brutal as Nazis was unable to prevent it in 1940s, how much chance any modern democracy has to prevent it in 2010s and beyond? Obviously the point is not to completely eliminate guns, that is too stupid even for public politics. The point is to scare the average citizen so much and to distance them so much from the guns that if he wants to commit a crime, he would be too scared of the guns to find one, and others around him would be too scared of the guns too much to provide it for him. We can see that works well because the same works quite well with drugs, which are not available to ordinary citizens and only available to hardened criminals via their underground criminal networks. Oh wait, that's wrong - anybody who cares knows where to get some pot, and anybody who cares enough knows where to get stronger stuff - or knows somebody who does. However, for some reason people think with guns it would work differently. Even though making a primitive gun takes only basic knowledge in material working and basic metalworking tools sold in any hardware shop and all over the internet. Of course, you may go the way of the drugs and severely restrict even basic chemicals and tools under the pretense they could be (and are) used to manufacture drugs. And you'd end up exactly the same place as with drugs - nowhere. With only exception that drugs are consumable and guns can be bought once and remains with you - so you'd need much less production capacity to reach the same level of saturation.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

98 points by japaget 14y ago

The failed drug war has taught us you can regulate and draft laws until it's illegal to even think about making a gun let alone get a hold of one without the appropriate credentials, but it won't change a thing at the end of the day. While it can be argued that we might see people printing their own guns in the future when 3D printing becomes affordable, what's stopping people from printing knives and other sharp pointy objects that could be used to kill or maim someone else? If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that. If someone doesn't get hold of a printed weapon, they'll get their hands on a legitimately made metal one (or whatever material it is they build guns out of these days). The benefit of 3D printing is that at least you have a better chance tracing a home printed weapon than you would an illegally purchased street firearm with no serial number.

mr-ron 14y ago
If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that. > Except the lack of guns The benefit of 3D printing is that at least you have a better chance tracing a home printed weapon than you would an illegally purchased street firearm with no serial number. > Except smart filesharers already can't be caught
- DigitalSea 14y ago
  There will never be a lack of guns. America is too big to police efficiently. The drug war which has well and truly failed is a perfect example of this. Filesharing is different. Printing a gun from a 3D printer requires materials, materials which can easily be traced back to their purchase point of origin. You could argue said materials could be obtained on the black market as well as the printers, but you have a better chance of tracking a created gun back to a particular type of 3D printer. I'm not saying it would be that reliable, but at least law enforcement agencies would stand a better chance than they currently have. Tracking a gun without a serial is like treasure hunting in the pacific ocean without a map.
shardling 14y ago
There are plenty of illegal things that are, in fact, hard to get, so clearly this argument is not universal.
sliverstorm 14y ago
The failed drug war... I find it particularly amusing that many of the people I hear calling for the legalization of all drugs on the grounds that banning them doesn't work, are the same people calling for the outlawing of all guns.
- DigitalSea 14y ago
  No part of my comment mentioned calling for the legalisation of drugs nor am I calling for the outlawing of guns. Please do not misconstrue my words, and lets not confuse the real issue here. We are talking about people being able to potentially print functional firearms in the comfort of their own home using a 3D printer.
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Sorry, I did not mean to imply anything about you. Just a passing observation tangential to your comment.
- Daishiman 14y ago
  Except that gun control laws can actually be extremely effective, and the same cannot be said for drug prohibition. And, honestly, there is nontrivial difference the ability to consume certain substances and owning instruments made explicitly to kill.
  - jessedhillon 14y ago
    Additionally, there is a very good argument for being free to take substances which release/alter your voluntary control of self. What are the arguments to own any gun? Imaginary civil war, fantasy home defense, pride of ownership, and practicing marksmanship? For this, we have to suffer the fact that any crazy can buy push-button killing machines, or that any sane owner thereof can subsequently lose his shit and kill the rest of us? There doesn't seem to be much of an upside for the rest of us.
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
nwienert 14y ago
I've thought about this one, and I think drug prohibition is an unfair comparison. Drugs bring a immediate and addictive reward, that the user seeks continuously. This drives up their demand. Not to mention they have higher profit margins, and are a temporary good. If gun's were illegal, owning one would be a constant threat to the owner. Drugs can be easily disposed, and are not permanent. Decent guns are made by manufacturer's, which is much easier to regulate than drugs which are made in labs and farms. Finally, gun's are metal and therefore much harder to smuggle... metal detectors and such. Not saying I can prove any of this, but I think the comparison just doesn't work.
- jkubicek 14y ago
  Also, drugs are designed and sold for personal pleasure. Guns are designed and sold for killing. The comparison between the two doesn't hold.
brianobush 14y ago
I always hear the argument "If someone wants to get hold of a gun, they will and no amount of laws or enforcement will ever change that..." In the heat of the moment can you easily get a gun? Especially if you are looking for banned weapons? How many incidents have occurred due to guns being easy to access?
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  How many school shootups have been "in the heat of the moment"? Every time the police follow up, it looks pretty apparent they were planned. I mean, who has full body armor available "in the heat of the moment"? (Aurora and the most recent shooter were both in full body armor)
  - brianobush 14y ago
    Even when these events are planned, there is still a time when you go "I need a big gun" to getting one. If mom has one in the closet, this obviously makes that event happen instantly. If there are more roadblocks to the process of acquiring an assault rifle, wouldn't it be worth it even if it saved a single life?
    - sliverstorm 14y ago
      If there are more roadblocks to the process of acquiring an assault rifle, wouldn't it be worth it even if it saved a single life? How can we know if it would save even a single life? How would we even know if it was worth it? You attempt to simplify far too much. In a country of 300 million, can you say with certainty it would not (for example) cost even a single life?

SparrowOS 14y ago

God is just. We put God on TV, crime goes to zero and we fire all cops. God says... shone presence Forsake fitting Thyself twice substance sharp walked manna pierce etexts pulse everything unlicensed day-break likewise exacted exhort Cup unarranged observes Excellently Please absorb huge need confessions- upward quicken spending profitable false-named worketh rent journey disentangled joined maintainers except Victim lodging reneweth wander healeth action mode boundary see' self-willed bend Apostle hinder associate contemporary immutable password thereupon beholder Romanianus Foundation consistently Sweden gladness profited strength deformity youthfulness impatient Terence smiled intercession prevailing donations storing failure cruelty withering spokest yielded stealth execrate tenor NUMBER forehead are_you_feeling_lucky Holy fulfils mightily joyful members salt right-doing dull born tookest displace Angel congregations hung hay recognises corporeally appearance sounder concupiscences Lay Eat no_more estimated reclaim This simplicity interpose Either solemnise floods beating whiner heardest resolutely Babylon tends repel contentious rejoicing joining thick looks bridle NEGLIGENCE criticising hilarious divide exhortation false-named Refund perceivable robing variation classics compactedst robbery Tajikistan approveth restraining owes If flows ETEXT OF most aptly deliver burning acting wail danger indignant sung omnium Great_Britain borrow stricken

littlegiantcap 14y ago

This just amplifies the fact that the conversation shouldn't be about gun control and should be about mental health.

DigitalSea 14y ago
The article is about the impending 3D printing revolution and being able to print your own guns, not gun control in itself. I don't see how mental health relates to printing 3D guns at home.
- csense 14y ago
  It relates indirectly. Two things were necessary for the latest school tragedy to occur: The shooter had to be mentally ill, and he had to have access to the gun(s) he used. Let's suppose a significant fraction of gun-related crimes contain these two elements, and it would be worthwhile to make a political push for the prevention of this specific subset. (Not to imply that any other subset of gun-related crimes is unworthy of attention.) The obvious way to attack this class of crimes would be to remove either mental illness or access to weapons from the equation. The article seems to be saying that denying people access to guns will become much more difficult in the next few years as new technology will make it much easier to people to manufacture them privately and inexpensively. This implies that policy efforts in that direction will likely end up wasted, and we should instead focus on removing mental illness from the equation (presumably by increasing research to create new treatments, improving access to mental health services to do a better job of bringing existing treatments to people who need them, and reducing bureaucracy and waste).
  - joesb 14y ago
    But the article did not talk about the latest school tragedy. It talked about gun control in general, including using gun to commit crime like, for example, robbing a bank.
    - csense 14y ago

erickhill 14y ago

As found in the NY Times today regarding this subject: "In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands. The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings. In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent". It was legislation, intelligent legislation, that worked. It did not advocate the complete abolishment of firearms, which many pro-gun advocates seem to be making the mental leap towards when any discussion of gun "rights" is brought up. Thinking this problem isn't partially-solvable is ignorant.

angersock 14y ago
Tragic as these things are, I cannot endorse such a proposal for the United States. This year alone we've seen how many articles on wiretapping, government databases, executive assassination orders, and drone usage? Any citizen needs to hang on to whatever tools they have.
- pekk 14y ago
  Please be explicit when making this argument: you want the capacity to wage civil war against the policies of the current administration. This being the case, merely having small arms suitable for sport or ordinary self-defense isn't going to cut it and you should probably be organizing in advance of the civil war that you believe to be necessary. You can't say these things and sit on the fence. Admit what you are saying.
  - icelancer 14y ago
    >This being the case, merely having small arms suitable for sport or ordinary self-defense isn't going to cut it This isn't necessarily true. War simulations have been repeatedly won by poorly-equipped guerilla "red teams" who out-think slow-moving American commanders/generals. Not that I'm advocating civil war.

yk 14y ago

I see two problems with the article: 1. For the foreseeable future there will be no 3D printer which can print explosives. Therefore it seems hard to actually print ammunition. 2. Guns have rather many parts which are under high mechanical stress. Therefore 3D printable gun designs will be rather crappy for quite some time. Both of these points render the problem of 3D printable weapons rather smaller than the control of carbines.

evan_ 14y ago
Reloading ammunition is really easy.
prostoalex 14y ago
Yeah, you'd have to go to metal shop for some of this. "Download, click, print" model won't work for guns for a bit, but you could get there with some pre-manufactured metal parts, or just manufacture them yourself.
rdl 14y ago
The hard part of all of this is primers. Virtually everything else is straightforward (propellant is hard, but not as hard as primers. Reloading from infinite primers and powder is essentially something a one-armed blind person can do with a reloading press. Most of the parts of guns are not under much mechanical stress, and the parts which are, tend to not be the regulated items. A convicted felon could buy commercially made barrels all day long (they're not firearms or in any way controlled), which are probably the firearm part with the greatest difficulty of manufacture, along with springs.
- jff 14y ago
  3d printed flintlock.
- yk 14y ago
  Of course, one can manufacture a gun from a 3D printer plus some additional stuff. But there is a qualitative difference between 'click print' and you get everything you need and a project to get everything you need to build a gun, which utilizes a 3D printer ( and some chemistry and some additional metalwork). After all, it is today possible to manufacture a (completely unregistered) gun yourself utilizing a CNC cutter and some craftsmanship.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

angersock 14y ago
Readers here are likely on the forefront of some of these technologies... we need to stop ignoring these discussions because they're too controversial and start doing our part to improve the discourse.

gioele 14y ago

Fact checking of some assumption of existence. * «MPEG 3»: Yeah, sure. * «We can print working guns right now»: No, you cannot, neither you will be able in the foreseeable. Please prove otherwise.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
andrewflnr 14y ago
He did. Six shots is merely an unreliable gun, not, fundamentally, a non-functional gun (see also the point about 6-vs-100 shots and 0-vs-1 shot), and frankly, an AR-15 seems unnecessarily ambitious for a proof-of-concept. They probably would have gotten better results with something better suited for printing; I bet AK's print better. AFAICT, it's just a matter of sufficient precision with sufficiently strong materials.
- angersock 14y ago
  Well, in case anyone's curious: http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm http://www.lasc.us/SAAMIMaxPressure.htm http://www.matbase.com/material/polymers/commodity/abs-general-purpose/properties http://www.matbase.com/material/polymers/commodity/abs-gener... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder_stresses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cylinder_stresses That's a start, anyways.
doctorpangloss 14y ago
Here are a few simple methods to make working guns with 3D printers. 1. Print plastic shaped like gun 2. Load bullet. 3. Fire bullet with now destroyed gun. 1. Model gun 2. Print wax cast 3. Make cast 4. Melt and pour steel into cast. 1. Buy everything except a upper receiver without a gun permit. 2. 3D print an upper receiver and attach to normal gun parts. 3. Use like normal gun (for a little bit)
ampersandy 14y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLlJshR6nvg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLlJshR6nvg One of the major arguments in the article is that instructions exist for printing an Assault Rifle (AR). I doubt that the rounds fired have the same lethal capacity of a "real" firearm; however, I certainly wouldn't want to be hit by the weapon in the video.

DanielN 14y ago

related hn discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019163 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3019163

angersock 14y ago

Let me point out some interesting issues that are related to this, just so that we can have something beyond the normal gun/anti-gun rhetoric: 1. If we legislate 3D printing to prevent weapon manufacture, we run directly counter to the idea of "Print anything you need at home!". How do we reconcile these two ideas? 2. If we want to fingerprint, say, a lower receiver and identify which machine made it, how would we do so? (My hunch would be looking for misalignments in the fill pattern, but that's just a first guess). 3. What sort of technology would be required to automatically detect the production of a weapon? Could we identify a pressure container, for example, for use in holding a shotgun shell for firing? Could we distinguish that from something else? 4. Taking (3) a step further--this technology could obviously also have applications in preventing patent infringement. Is it desirable to require that 3D printers can recognize infringing mechanisms? Why or why not?

majormajor 14y ago
I think the realization of it is likely to be much simpler: I expect widespread 3d printing (if it ever really becomes a common in-the-home thing, as opposed to stores printing stuff on demand) to be a curated, extremely simple experience, along the app store model. Though I'm not sure that the economics/frequency of use would make it make sense to have one in every home, at all. Being able to get whatever replacement part or tool I might need fabricated on demand at Home Depot would be extremely cool to me; having to purchase all the equipment and consumables to do it in my own home appeals much less. So I don't know that it would really derail a policy designed to greatly reduce the frequency of mass shooting events by making gun acquisition much more difficult. (Focusing strictly on the feasibility of that, and leaving aside for now any questions of whether private citizens need to have the right to have guns for other purposes.)
- padraigm 14y ago
  I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether there's a 3D printer in every home or not, because there will always be a non-negligible number of people who find the ability to rapidly prototype objects on demand in their homes appealing. You wouldn't argue that the law can ignore the fact that many people have general purpose computers just because most people use iPhones, right?

robomartin 14y ago

CAN SOMONE PLEASE KILL-OFF THIS THREAD BEFORE HN BECOMES ANOTHER HOME FOR LOONIES? JUST MAKE IT GO AWAY. I am an American. I don't own any guns. I have lived in other parts of the world, sometimes under military regimes. I have never --EVER-- felt the need to own firearms in order to feel secure, protect my family or defend myself from a rogue government. I do enjoy an occasional trip to the shooting range where we rent the weapons and have a good time shooting at metal targets or clay pigeons. Then I go home and that crap stays behind. I don't need it. I know with 100% certainty that none of my kids will ever have an accident in my home with a firearm 'cause there isn't one to be found. I don't have any particular issue with the idea of people owning guns. Artillery and mass-killing weapons are a different story. There have to be sensible limits and strict rules. I don't know what these limits and rules might be. There are experts who have studied this far and deep. I'll defer to them. To be sure, there's a mental health issue that must be dealt with as well. Don't know the answers. Still, I think this thread needs to be shut-down before the nut-cases who think they are going to have to defend their homes from hordes of their own neighbors after each power outage take over.

angersock 14y ago
Hey, we can avoid the nutcases--see my list. Add stuff. Talk about other interesting ramifications. Give other things for the people to look at that aren't just "NOT MUH GUNS" or "EVIL PUPPY KILLING RIFLES".
temphn 14y ago
> I have never felt the need to own firearms in order to feel secure robomartin: I enjoy many of your posts and understand where you're coming from. Regarding this point, however, if you saw videos of Koreatown during the LA Riots, or in New Orleans after Katrina, or of Vancouver or London recently, you saw video of real times - in industrialized society - where the police were absent and law & order broke down. The Koreans with guns defended their stores against rioting looters. That happened in America. It happened to the parents of people I know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmsKGhLdZuQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmsKGhLdZuQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmQW6xLECUU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmQW6xLECUU I hope you'd agree then that you don't have to be a "nut case" to imagine you need to defend your family, property, and loved ones from fellow Americans in the event of riots. It's happened, multiple times, as the clips above show.

georgieporgie 14y ago

[Note: I'm hellbanned, since pg and his mods support authoritarian, passive-aggressive douchebaggery instead of open conversation, but I'll write this anyway] Gun control gets a lot of attention in the US. I see people asserting that it works, and the only evidence I've seen is to point to the United Kingdom. Responses generally revolve around Washington D.C. Well, you can look at the number of gun deaths per capita, by country, on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re... We're #12, but of course, people aren't generally scared by suicides, which is close to double the actual homicide rate in the US. For some reason, that chart is missing Thailand. Despite extremely restrictive gun control, they had 20,032 firearm deaths in 2000 (and I believe it's gone up since then): http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/the-us-is-no-in-gun-violence-is-it/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/.... If my quick math is correct, that works out to 28.8 on the Wiki chart, and nearly TEN TIMES the per-capita homicide rate! So, what causes all the gun deaths in Thailand? Given my limited experience with the place (one month of travel), I would say it's due to the tremendous organized crime and drug trade. Anyway, the point is: gun deaths go much, much deeper than gun laws. It's deeply cultural and social. Until the United States recognizes that it has an enormous void where common mental healthcare should be, we'll continue to have this drama. Unless you're wealthy, violent, or suicidal, there are few means to seek mental healthcare. How about catching people before they fall down? How about treating violent sociopaths before they begin acting out against humans? How about not judging people for seeing a professional for help with emotional issues? Between the lack of resources and the stigma attached to seeking mental healthcare, the United States is a mess.

pinaceae 14y ago

guns are not the key here, it is ammunition. chris rock made a great argument about it, no clue if he re-hashed an old saying or came up with it himself: make ammo really expensive. make ammo really regulated. ammo contains explosives. it can be used to build bombs. bombs equal terrorism. so, get the whole wrath of homeland security upon buying, selling, handling live ammo upon it. make it so unbelievably complex that people simply give up. oh, you want to buy 9mm? sure, please apply for a 9mm cartridge license, that's forms 12, 3274234, 423-1836, t5 and 0815. process takes a year, is valid for 5mins and usually ends with you on a no fly list. you don't wanna know what you need for 5.56. and selling? oh boy. no need to ban anything. bureaucracy was invented for exactly this. crowd control. just look at how it was applied in the austro-hungarian monarchy, kafka's process is exactly that. guns don't kill little kids. bullets do.

gordaco 14y ago
I once watched that monologue. He argued that bullets should cost 5k$ to make killing unaffordable, IIRC. This raises another point, with regard to the original article: will printing bullets be easy with 3d printing technology? I may not be as easy (you probably need to insert manually the powder at some point), but I think it will eventually happen.
- pinaceae 14y ago
  this is my point - printing the whole thing does not do anything without adding gunpowder. creating that out of a 3d printer is a bit longer off, re-arranging molecules is a tad hard. the US already regulates handling of explosives. simply expand that regulation to any amount of gunpowder. no need to ban guns, no interference of the constitution. having a right does not mean that it needs to be easy or cheap.
  - learc83 14y ago
    What do you think happens when bullets cost $5000? You've just created a new revenue stream for drug cartels. Manufacturing ammunition isn't any more difficult than running a meth lab.

smsm42 14y ago

Printing guns is curious, but irrelevant for the stated purpose - "gun" "control". Various resistance movements mass-produced guns under Nazi regime. If the regime as brutal as Nazis was unable to prevent it in 1940s, how much chance any modern democracy has to prevent it in 2010s and beyond? Obviously the point is not to completely eliminate guns, that is too stupid even for public politics. The point is to scare the average citizen so much and to distance them so much from the guns that if he wants to commit a crime, he would be too scared of the guns to find one, and others around him would be too scared of the guns too much to provide it for him. We can see that works well because the same works quite well with drugs, which are not available to ordinary citizens and only available to hardened criminals via their underground criminal networks. Oh wait, that's wrong - anybody who cares knows where to get some pot, and anybody who cares enough knows where to get stronger stuff - or knows somebody who does. However, for some reason people think with guns it would work differently. Even though making a primitive gun takes only basic knowledge in material working and basic metalworking tools sold in any hardware shop and all over the internet. Of course, you may go the way of the drugs and severely restrict even basic chemicals and tools under the pretense they could be (and are) used to manufacture drugs. And you'd end up exactly the same place as with drugs - nowhere. With only exception that drugs are consumable and guns can be bought once and remains with you - so you'd need much less production capacity to reach the same level of saturation.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]