3-D Printed Gun Ban Fails In Senate 414
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Daily Dot:"On Monday evening, a bill aimed at thwarting the production and distribution of plastic 3-D printed weapons was blocked by Senate Republicans. ... The debate over the new legislation centered around the 1988 Undetectable Firearms Act, which bans the production and distribution of weapons that skirt 'walk through metal detectors.' The act has been renewed on two occasions since its passage. It was due to expire again on the 9th of December. The House voted to renew the bill last week. The rise of 3-D printing has made this year's renewal more complicated in the Senate. Many lawmakers, particularly Democrats, feel the current Undetectable Firearms Act inadequately addresses the rising threat posed by printed plastic weapons."
New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe the Senate Democrats wanted to create a new, tougher bill. The bill that started in the house was passed by both the house and senate. President Obama signed the bill.
Re:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (Score:4, Informative)
You might want to try reading that again.
From the summary: "Many lawmakers, particularly Democrats, feel the current Undetectable Firearms Act inadequately addresses the rising threat posed by printed plastic weapons."
From your linked article: "President Obama signed the 10-year extension of the Undetectable Firearms Act "
Re:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (Score:5, Informative)
It's because the summary misrepresents what it's linked article actually said. The important quote is:
On Monday evening, only days before the one-year anniversary of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Senate extended the Undetectable Firearms Act but failed to pass modifications that would address the growing prevelance of plastic firearms.
Basically the original act was extended but a modified version failed to pass.
Re:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (Score:5, Funny)
"On Monday evening, only days before an area man masturbated yet again to 3D images of Bigfoot getting a blowjob, the Senate extended the Undetectable Firearms Act."
Irrelevant bullshit is irrelevant.
Re:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (Score:4, Interesting)
"It has always been possible to make crude weapons quickly and easily. Laws won't stop that."
Not only that. It has always been legal in the U.S. to make your own guns, just not to sell them to others.
But more to the point here: the Feds (Democrats in particular) seem to think that regulating a technology will stop the manufacture of firearms out of synthetics. False. It would just mean that someone else would do it.
They tried this same "let's suppress technology internally" bullshit in the field of cryptography back around the turn of the century. It didn't work then, either.
All suppression of the technology would do is make the U.S. less competitive internationally. IT DOESN'T WORK.
Restricting cryptography exports did not work for its intended purpose.
Restricting attempts to "defeat" DRM did not work for its intended purpose.
Restricting research and development of new firearms manufacturing techniques will not work for its intended purpose.
Re:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (Score:4, Insightful)
We can't stop people from drinking and driving, so let's not regulate that either.
Shooting people is already regulated.
Banning 3-D printed guns would be akin to (in your analogy) either outlawing alcohol (prohibition) or cars.
Or how about the booze angle... alcohol distribution is regulated, right? However, loads of people are legally making alcohol (especially wine and beer) at home, and the kits can be readily purchased all over the place, even in places that have made 99% of firearm ownership illegal (NYC).
Again, it's something anyone can make, just like with booze and an innumerable number of other things. Regulate the part that can be regulated if you must - sale and distribution of the physical product. ...but that's more-or-less already been done, and this is all just fear mongering (how many people have died as a result of printed weapons so far?)
Re: (Score:2)
FTA - "On Monday evening, only days before the one-year anniversary of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Senate extended the Undetectable Firearms Act but failed to pass modifications that would address the growing prevelance of plastic firearms."
Re: (Score:2)
I love that term "growing prevalence".
First someone printed one, then a second one..... OMG the number of 3d printed guns in the US has doubled in 1 day! Just think they went from those two to perhaps 10s of them within....weeks..... why if this growth rate continues, we will be walking to work waist deep on 3d printed guns within a decade!
Re: (Score:3)
I think the point here is that it's rapidly becoming a proven technology that has a less than 50% chance of injuring the wielder. AFAIK there have been 0 operator fatalities of the devices so far. The reason why nobody thought this was a worthwhile technology to pursue previously was because everybody thought it would detonate immediately. Turns out that the number is closer to 10 and greater than 0. Even 1000 or 10,000 is a pretty big number, up from 0 in less than a year.
Re: (Score:3)
Politicians all around love laws that address imaginary problems, they can argue about them in order to pander to their respective bases without having to worry about actual consequences of whatever they pass or do not pass.
Re: (Score:3)
Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3)
...failed to pass modifications that would address the growing prevelance[sic] of plastic firearms
Welcome to Fantasy-Horrorland, where the imagined bogeyman is EVERYWHERE.
Turn left to head towards Tomorrowland, with a full surveillance state.
Re:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (Score:5, Insightful)
It's journalism of today - throw as many unsupported sensationalist statements out there as possible, try to induce fear, anger or any other emotions, any at all, because this is what sells the papers or gets views for the ads.
Not just journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Government works the same way. How else did we get the Patriot Act, NSA funding for all that evil nonsense, more and more draconian "hacking" laws, as well as "terrorist" laws? How else do they justify dragging grammar school children out of their classrooms for pointing a fingers and saying "Bang!"
Welcome to the 21st Century, Comrade.
Re: (Score:2)
comrade?
shit, man; even the russians were not THIS bad, back in the day. they were not afraid of their own shadows like we, now, are.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Stalin killed most of the Soviet army's officers in the days leading up to WWII because he was afraid of shadows.
Please can the hyperbole. It make you look like an even bigger idiot. Hard to do with your posting history.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is actually why it makes it a stupid law.
Its only benefit would be able to charge someone with more fines and problems when they have already performed an illegal act.
People: We have a Gun that is undetectable by normal means.
Government: We can't have that because people who want to hurt people with guns can get past detection. So lets make a law to fix that.
People: So If I wanted to hurt someone with a gun, which is already breaking a bunch of laws, I will just need to break one more.
Government: Thats right, and it will save you money because we will not need to invest into finding ways to track your gun.
Why doesn't the government add an extra $100 fine for performing an illegal activity.
Re:How? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fundamental, if not always stated, purpose of most of these gun laws is to make it harder for law abiding people to own guns. With the goal of reducing the number of guns in circulation. By creating a climate of fear and uncertainty, about compliance with gun laws, gun control advocates are trying to isolate gun owners politically through attrition in their numbers over time.
I do agree that a society with fewer guns will in fact reduce the overall number of gun deaths. My concern is that the trade off between the short term goal of safety which would trade away an enduring Liberty just isn't worth it. And will ultimately lead to a less safe and secure society as the people that control the guns both legally through the government or illegally through criminal gangs will feel more emboldened to oppress and threaten those without effective means of self defense.
My ideal is a society where people don't threaten to take away people's second amendment rights and fewer and fewer people feel the need to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. The only thing that the recent push to further regulate guns (on top of layer upon layer of current gun control laws) has done is increase the number of guns in society. Not only is gun control a failure, it is counter-productive to its own express goals.
People that are willing and able to take on the responsibility of gun ownership should do so and our government should support them with reasonable regulations and laws and not burden them with unnecessary, redundant and conflicting laws as is the case now.
Re: (Score:3)
I was with you righ up until reasonable regulation, that is the problem regulation is not reasonable, as anyone you should try to regulate disregard the law.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm amazed at this caveman way of thinking. "Lets get guns to protect ourselves..."
Gun control isn't about removing guns from law abiding people but to control what guns can be in these peoples hands. I've said this before and will say it again, someone that has an urge to kill due to mental dysfunction will grab the available weapon and go on a rampage. If this guy shows up with a 5 round riffle he will do much less damage than if he shows up with an AK47 he found in his own house.
Then you have the guy who
Re: (Score:3)
Works over seas.
Uh oh. We need laws that work over land too!
Re: (Score:2)
Got to love these carefully reasoned screeds... that completely miss the point.
See, the thing is that it's unlikely that the person who commits the crime is the one that is actually producing the weapons. Thus what the law actually does is make it illegal to own, produce, sell, or distribute guns that would violate the law. Which in turn restricts the supply and makes it harder for a criminal to obtain them.
Without it, you not only have to worry about 3D-print shops mass-producing weapons, but also the poss
Re:How? (Score:4, Informative)
Ummm. It is already completely illegal to sell a gun without being a licenses manufacturer (read "company with deep pockets). Nobody in their right mind would actually sell a plastic gun due to the liability issues involved. Gets smuggled past a metal detector = massive law suits from relatives of victims = no more company.
First, the law was first passed once the first Glocks came out with a polymer frame. All Glocks have been VERY detectible with any metal detector, as the barrel and slide are all solid metal. So this law was passed out of complete ignorance and an irrational fear for something that, quite simply, was not a problem in the first place. Yes, the law makers that want to tightly regulate guns do not actually know much about them -- what a surprise.
Now, this law is trying to be applied to home printers. Really, all you will have to do is buy the printer and set it up. Download the design files, and run them through the printer. Add ammo and shoot. Assuming that your printer is good enough, and that the files are formatted for your particular model of printer, then making your own gun should be pretty easy -- well within the reach of anybody with a few thousand to blow on a printer. Currently, there might be software issues, but I am sure that printing will get easier as time goes on, not harder.
As to there being little public benefit in plastic guns, there is little benefit to the law itself. People who intend to do bad things with guns are not going to be stopped by yet another law. Honest citizens will do anything wrong even with a plastic gun.
Good (Score:4, Interesting)
If we can delay it long enough, 3d printing might get good enough that all gun control is moot. We can defeat it like we defeated the Clipper Chip - by letting the cat out of the bag.
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
You mean, letting the gat out of the bag
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of us don't want to live in a Mad Max style dystopia where every criminal, racist, and nut case can get their hands on whatever gun they want.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't want to admit you already live in this world, it's fine by me. But please stop trying to pull the blanket over everyone's else eyes.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Or move to a sensible country like Iceland, who doesn't have this problem despite having a citizenry that's heavily armed.
The US has a gun problem because the US has a crappy culture where violence and ignorance are celebrated and criminals are given encouragement via press and then given no rehabilitation after they commit crimes.
This has been pointed out many, many times.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, they've all been Jewish.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't work in the long run. Look at Sweden or Canada. Nothing but ethnic violence and conflict in the big cities. Just because the mainstream media likes to pretend it doesn't exist doesn't mean it's not happening.
I don't want to live in your delusional world where we ignore reality.
Already There (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of us don't want to live in a Mad Max style dystopia where every criminal, racist, and nut case can get their hands on whatever gun they want.
You already live in that world. The only question left is if every sane and law abiding citizen should also be able to get a gun to protect themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe you do.
If you live in so much fear you feel the need to protect yourself with a gun you may want to consider moving to a more civilized part of the world.
To many people guns are things you see on television, or occasionally carried by specially trained armed response police.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, if you want guns to be ubiquitious, then the training for how to properly handle it should also be ubiquitious.
I really wouldn't mind living in a society where every individual was a well-trained sharpshooter. In fact, that's one of our founding principles. I would mind a bunch of idiots or uneducated individuals possessing more firepower than they can intellectually be responsible for. That is a scary world, knowing that the chances of your and your kids' death just by being at the wrong place at th
Re: (Score:3)
Individuals are somewhat beside the point. The real threats are armed gangs. You can defend yourself against a teenager with a gun sometimes. When a gang decides that a well-armed citizenry includes their gang as an army, then the real problems start.
Re: (Score:2)
Very few people are killed by criminals carrying seat belts.
So after reading my original post again, and reading this response, I have to ask; is "minus9" your username or your IQ?
Re: Already There (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't seem to understand how the I.Q. scale works either. Oh dear. Perhaps this will help others understand why giving you firearms isn't such a good idea my primitive friend.
I know you're going for an air of intellectual superiority, but at this point your argument has devolved into, essentially, the realm of 'unreasonable dick who can't handle criticism, regardless of how accurate it may be.'
Seriously, dude, all you've brought to the table so far is ad hominem attacks, non sequiturs, and hyperbole. I'd suggest you quit while you're ahead, but we're already too far gone for that.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't carry a gun around with me because I don't live in some fantasy wild-west world where having a shoot out is going to have any kind of good outcome.
The only fantasy is your denial (or lack of awareness) about the indisputable statistics on defensive gun uses. Most of them are brandishing - defensive shootings are exceedingly rare.
Re: (Score:2)
How many 'gun crimes' does WWII equal?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
No you want it so that only criminals can have guns.
Because for some reason you just can not comprehend the absolute fact that criminals and Evil-doers do not obey laws.
Want proof that gun bans do not work? My proof is simple.. Chicago and NYC. The criminals have all the guns they want, some of them are 100% illegal already, like AK-47 fully automatic. Your precious gun bans 'dont stop those from being in the hands of criminals... So why do you think more of them will help?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay folks show of hands how many of you both have N guns and the needed tools to MAKE from base materials rounds in more or less unlimited amounts??
Oh and raise both hands if you can make guns also.
Re: (Score:2)
Raises 1 1/2 hands.
Primers are the problem. Which is why I have few thousand.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a meaningful issue. The guy who sells you the illegal fully-automatic weapon can sell you the ammo for it, which he got in the same place he got the gun - from some government's arsenal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And your precious guns don't stop those criminals from shooting people... So why do you think more of them will help?
You're simply wrong. Do a deep dive into the statistics of defensive gun use. The ratio of defense to offense is tremendously high, 80:1 or more, depending on the study.
You can even get entire large data sets for free if you sign a non-distribution agreement, so put on your R hat and get hacking.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct about the NRA both suppressing research and sponsoring bad research. Nevertheless, when the academic world is almost universally opposed to the idea of firearms to the point of being unable to rationally consider the topic, and commits a series of profound errors without fail that defy all intelligence and logic, I am frankly not concerned about suppressing that. I am sorry the academic world cannot properly research the topic, because there is considerable and important knowledge to be ga
Re: (Score:3)
You may be wrong yourself [ingentaconnect.com]. If you look at the FBI Crime Reports, you will see that there are 37 criminal firearm based homicides [fbi.gov] for every self-defense homicide by a civilian [fbi.gov]. The USA has a much higher gun death rate than other developed countries, and when you look within the USA itself, you find that Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the U.S., where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. [harvard.edu], or put simply more guns, more crime [northwestern.edu]. All of the above citations go to original or academic sources. So what could be going on? Well, firstly, the NRA attempts to stop scientists from studying gun violence [nytimes.com]. (In a similar vein, the junk-food industry tries to limit the study of the health effects of sugar.) Secondly, the NRA keeps its own datasets to do it's own "research" to reach its own conclusions, which (call me crazy), keeps the donors happy. Those would be the gun manufacturers. Most large industries do this. I'm open minded on the issue, and follow it because I have an academic interest in cognitive bubbles. If you are interested learning a different perspective on the issue, then read this [google.com]. You don't have to believe a word of it; however, if you *can* read it, and accurately repeat back the arguments made, then that would indicate enough cognitive flexibility to really be informed about the issue, and be an expert. Ideologues do not have this flexibility, but want to maintain the self-concept of being an expert, which explains most of what is wrong with politics.
You are a liar. Here, let me quote:
If you look at the FBI Crime Reports, you will see that there are 37 criminal firearm based homicides for every self-defense homicide by a civilian.
Homicides are not a good measure of defensive actions. Defensive homicides are what happens when the criminal does not back off when warned, is too violent too fast for a threat backed by a gun to work, etc. The vast majority of defensive gun uses are simply displays. Like the guy up thread with the gun on his lap. The criminals were there, and may have been working themselves up to act, but left because of the gun.
Your assertion that a gun has to kill to do it's job is
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Your precious gun bans 'dont stop those from being in the hands of criminals... So why do you think more of them will help?
And your precious guns don't stop those criminals from shooting people... So why do you think more of them will help?
Why do police carry guns then?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So they can shoot innocent people they do not like and intimidate them. No other reason for police to carry firearms.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In northern Europe guns are heavily regulated and they don't have nearly as much violent gun crime as the U.S.
Yet, look at the UK and Australia where violent crime deaths rose after their gun bans. Or under the Third Reich, for a more poignant example.
Re: (Score:2)
Austrailia? Sorry, been reading too many NRA talking-point bulletins. Try: http://www.gunfaq.org/2013/03/the-misuse-of-our-gun-crime-stats/ [gunfaq.org]
As to the Third Reich, according to the census of June 16, 1933, the Jewish population of Germany was approximately 505,000 people out of a total population of 67 million, or somewhat less than 0.75 percent.
Further, by the time Germany invaded Poland, roughly half of the Jewish population had emigrated out of Germany. At the wars end, 142,000 German Jews were killed in t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your precious gun bans 'dont stop those from being in the hands of criminals... So why do you think more of them will help?
Gun ban and gun regulation isn't the same thing.
In northern Europe guns are heavily regulated and they don't have nearly as much violent gun crime as the U.S.
This might not necessarily be because of gun regulation, not having gun nuts around is probably the big thing but I don't think killing them off is an acceptable solution.
The vast majority of gun crime in the US is related to drugs or gang related. 50% of the gun crime in the US is perpetrated by 4% of the population in the 7 largest major cities (several of which have total gun bans already - New York, Chicago, etc). The gun crime in these areas is similar to that of other countries which have total gun bans, such as Mexico, Russia, Brazil, etc. These countries (and parts of the US) have high gun crime not because of lax gun laws, but because of a degradation of the rule o
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
First, let's assume that we can categorize people into two categories: honest and criminal.
A ban on "plastic" guns from a 3D printer will do exactly what?
1) It will stop the honest people from making their own 3D printed guns. These are the people who obey the law. Since these people are the ones who obey the law, who cares if they have a plastic gun? They will not do anything bad anyways. For the record, the number of guns used in crimes is something like 0.001% of the total guns out there. Similar argument for gun owners.
2) If a criminal wants to commit crimes with a 3D printed gun, do you really think that they will actually obey the law banning plastic guns? If so, you are a special kind of stupid.
So, this law will do absolutely NOTHING to stop crime with "plastic guns" that can be printed in your own home.
I should also like to point out that even a plastic gun will NOT shoot plastic ammunition. Bullets are made of metal -- and should be readily detected by any decent metal detector.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about absolute prevention. Making it illegal keeps it off the books and out of the catalogs. The casual buyers no longer have access. It also deters bigger monied interests from investing in improving the technology enough to make them practical. I don't know much about these 3D weapons, but from the results that activist was getting, it'll take more than a guy tuning a printer in his basement to make them practical. This is a case where prohibition can have a real impact, especially when it's
Re: (Score:2)
Stopping a technology from being created? Yup. That has worked out quite well in the past. Look at the DMCA. Stopped piracy cold, with absolutely no bad effect at all. I sure am glad that nobody has managed to cook up crystal meth in their own home because the laws clearly make trying to do this with, say, an empty soda bottle are illegal. Explosives are also illegal to play with, so nobody has figured out how to use a pressure cooker to make a bomb. I feel safer already.
This law is like trying to st
Re: (Score:2)
As pointed out above, it's unlikely that the person who commits the crime is the one that is actually producing the weapons. Thus what the law actually does is make it illegal to own, produce, sell, or distribute guns that would violate the law. Which in turn restricts the supply and makes it harder for a criminal to obtain them.
Without it, you not only have to worry about 3D-print shops mass-producing weapons, but also the possibility of, say, Glock deciding to make and market a polymer/ceramic "undetectab
Re: (Score:2)
Hey guess what?
Whether the guns are banned or not, whether 3d printable guns are banned or not, we're simply not going to end up in a movie fantasyland scenario, which is what Mad Maxx is. Stop watching movies and predicating reality on them. It's usually the other way around for people who aren't complete morons.
Re: (Score:2)
Then move to some other country where "liv[ing] in a Mad Max style dystopia" isn't a Constitutional right.
Re: (Score:2)
Then move to some other country where "liv[ing] in a Mad Max style dystopia" isn't a Constitutional right.
Which adequately describes the US before the Progressive Era. Oh, wait, no, that's not it. I was promised a steam-powered autogyro!
Re: (Score:3)
Dystopia? (Score:3)
Have you looked at Chicago lately? The dystopia is here already, thanks to gun control nuts.
I trust the gun nuts far more than I trust the gun control nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because its sooo much easier to 3D print a gun than it would be to buy a real gun (that'll fire more than one shot before breaking) on the street.
Stupid useless laws are useless, we should cheer useless laws not being passed.
Re: (Score:2)
huh? not sure what you mean. the police already have all the guns they want.
oh wait, you meant some other bunch of nutcases and criminals.
gotcha.
the ones in badges who break down your door to execute no-knock warrants, shoot your dog and then take you for a 'nickle ride' are the Good Guys.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer to live in the place where guns are so prevalent that they necessitate having a gun rack in ones vehicle. For some odd reason they typically have few problems with guns in places like that.
Not Surprising (Score:2)
I'm going to have to call complete bullshit on this one, now while a 3d printed gun may be able to go through a detector unnoticed don't we currently have police state style pat downs anyway that render a metal detector useless, this isn't even getting into the scanners.
Re: (Score:2)
The fancy scanners are at airports but places like courthouses, schools, nightclubs, government buildings, jails, prisons and such still have the old style metal detectors.
Heck, there are probably still airports out there that dont have body scanners.
No new law needed. There is no problem. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why create a whole new law when the existing one is perfectly adequate?
All of us commit three felonies a day [wsj.com] because those asshats in our legislatures just keep piling the laws on to solve non-existent problems.
This is yet another distraction by the ruling class to keep our minds off of our continually declining standard of living.
Already Banned (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Already Banned (Score:4, Insightful)
The modification would have made the metal component essential to the function of the gun, the idea being that if you remove it to make the gun undetectable, you also end up with a gun that can't fire. This is aimed largely at people who might manufacture and sell such guns and could perhaps be used as a legal tool against those that might design and publish plans for 3D-printable guns. One can debate the enforceability of such a requirement, but it has a purpose. It won't deter individuals, but that's nothing new.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Already Banned (Score:5, Informative)
It's actually a lot more insidious than that. According to the GOA:
Unless it existed before December 10, 1988, the plastic gun ban absolutely bans any gun that is not as detectable in a "walk-through metal detector" as a Security Exemplar (18 U.S.C. 922(p)(1)(A) and (6)).
The “Security Exemplar” is a piece of metal that the ATF uses to calibrate how much steel a manufacturer needs to put in the gun to make it beep in the metal detector. Other than the fact that it has to contain 3.7 ounces of steel and look sort of like a gun, anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder can determine, by regulatory fiat, the characteristics of the Exemplar.
He can determine whether you test guns with a "top flight" metal detector -- or a crummy one. He can determine how many times (or thousands of times) a gun has to pass in order not to be banned.
In addition, every "major component" of every firearm has to pass through an airport x-ray in such a way that its shape is "accurately" depicted (18 U.S.C. 922(p)(1)(B)).
The problem is that the language of the law is so amazingly vague that the BATFE could use it to outlaw just about any gun currently on the market if they so chose.
Re: Already Banned (Score:5, Insightful)
That criminals would be undeterred by a law is a given for all laws and regulations. The key is the law-abiding who won't willfully participate in such activities. That and having a mechanism to punish the ones you do catch.
You will never stop everybody with a law, that is well known. That isn't a requirement for us to have laws though.
Of course not. You have to look at what you're trying to prevent however. Murder is against the law, and rightfully so, but that's because the actual act being outlawed is exactly what you want to prevent. Once a murder has occurred grave harm (literally) has already occurred to another party. Same with theft. Same with rape. Same with assault.
See, all those things are directly harmful to another individual. Making laws against them certainly won't ever stop such crimes from being committed at all, but it will reduce the frequency.
The issue with plastic guns (or gun laws in general) is that the very act of having a gun isn't harmful. You can do harmful things with it, but just having one doesn't cause any harm in and of itself. The people that would use those guns to harm another person are already willing to break laws to do so - laws with much stiffer legal consequences.
Think of the number of guns in the US. There are more guns in this country than there are people. The VAST majority of them are never used in a harmful way, and the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Passing gun laws affects most of them (because most of them actually follow the laws), but it does nothing for the tiny fraction of them that do not adhere to the law anyways, and those were the ones you really needed to worry about.
Its not that laws in general are useless - merely that laws that exist solely as an attempt to keep someone from breaking another law are useless.
Sandy Hook? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does the article bring up Sandy Hook? It has nothing to do with this issue.
Re:Sandy Hook? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trying to provoke emotional response....of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Sandy Hook shooter used an arsenal of only plastic guns and plastic bullets while wearing his military invisibility cloak.
Oh wait.
Not sure why this ban would even be necessary (Score:2)
Bullets are detectable, right? Good luck making plastic casings for those. Oh, and plastic slugs of course.
Re:Not sure why this ban would even be necessary (Score:5, Insightful)
Been done. DAG (German military ammo maker) made/makes plastic training rounds in 762x51 NATO (aka 308 Winchester), they can be lethal under 100 yards.
Or, go muzzle loader (not a gun per federal law then) and use a piezoelectric spark to ignite your powder, use a glass marble or other non-metallic item (ceramic?) as your bullet. Plenty effective at short ranges.
Banning 3D guns like banning anal sex (Score:4)
The stupidity of banning 3D guns is that you are trying to ban something someone does in the privacy of their own home.
Laws that are utterly unenforceable and just exist to make people feel good have no place in our world.
This is really pointless (Score:3)
You can only go so far with setting restrictions on things like this. When a criminal is desperate enough, they will commit crime with so much as a finger-gun in their pocket and a scribbled note. The laws becomes ineffective at some point. There is no point in spending further time/money on legislation that isn't going to prevent more crime.
Printing plastic guns is a novelty. The only people doing it are hobbyists who are enthusiastic enough to buy the equipment and companies who want street cred' in manufacturing. Criminals are just not going to spend the time trying to print a weapon when so many other options are available. The ones who do will be the publicity whores looking to make national news and capitalize off the ridiculous drama currently being created around the issue.
Want to prevent more gun crime? Start with adequate state-sponsored mental health facilities, stiffer penalties for bullying and high school/workplace "terrorism", loss of permit for negligent CCW abuses (along with annual safety courses).
Re:This is really pointless (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
What threat? (Score:2)
Has there been a single documented case of someone using a 3D-printed plastic gun to commit a crime?
evil wins on Newtown anniversary (Score:2)
Yet another useless Act... (Score:5, Informative)
Useless laws (Score:2)
Re:Manufacturing firearms (Score:4, Informative)
Not in the U.S. in most localities.
Any person who is legally able to purchase and own a firearm may manufacture their own, so long as it is not intended for re-sale --- the BATF has been very stringent on that last point of late, so it's pretty much impossible to transfer a personally-manufactured firearm.
Please note that the BATF is only interested in the last 20% or so of a firearm, so one may make and sell partially-finished (up to 80%) receivers w/o any need for an FFL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there are simple majority (51%) and supermajority (60%) rules.
But Bush!! (Score:2)
It's all Bush's fault! BUSH, BUSH, BUSH, BUSH!! It's all Bush's fault, doesn't matter that the house is controlled by the other party!