Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

3-D Printed Gun Ban Fails In Senate

timothy posted about 8 months ago | from the forces-of-indignation dept.

Government 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."

cancel ×

414 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FUCK OFF ASSHOLES!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650059)

Fuck the NSA and its Five Eyes bitches!!!

Here we go... (-1, Offtopic)

sycodon (149926) | about 8 months ago | (#45650337)

...flamebait headline, misleading and inaccurate story.

You know what comes next.

New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (4, Interesting)

jimbouse (2425428) | about 8 months ago | (#45650081)

CBS Says it passed [cbsnews.com]

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 (3, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about 8 months ago | (#45650131)

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 (5, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | about 8 months ago | (#45650153)

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 (5, Funny)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 8 months ago | (#45650797)

"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 (1)

schneidafunk (795759) | about 8 months ago | (#45650155)

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:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650237)

""On Monday evening, only days before the one-year anniversary of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting"... because the Sandy Hook shooting was commited using crappy 3D printed guns...

Who the hell cares what day of the week or year one bill was or wasn't passed. And please expand on 'growing prevelance of plastic firearms'. Don't just put a blanket statement out there.

Re:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (5, Insightful)

Pi1grim (1956208) | about 8 months ago | (#45650385)

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 (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 8 months ago | (#45650917)

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:Not just journalism (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 8 months ago | (#45651169)

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:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 8 months ago | (#45650453)

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:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (2)

Hadlock (143607) | about 8 months ago | (#45650565)

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:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (2)

jythie (914043) | about 8 months ago | (#45650579)

Plus, if I recall correctly, the original act didn't actually do anything anyway since the 'growing prevalence' of metal detector proof guns didn't really exist.

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:New Bill =/= Passing House Approved Bill (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 8 months ago | (#45650607)

Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]

How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650271)

I believe the Senate Democrats wanted to create a new, tougher bill

How do you make a law that bans undetectable guns? It's like trying to make zero more nothing.

New tougher version: "The gun has to be really really really really detectable."
- Sen. Zoolander (D)

Re:How? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 8 months ago | (#45650569)

Basically it says you must have some amount of metal in the gun so it can be detected.

Re:How? (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 months ago | (#45650801)

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? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650943)

This! I really wish I had mod points right now. This is the crux of all these gun related laws. They are presented as a way to prevent specific crimes from happening again. The stupid part is making some of these things illegal wouldn't have changed the crime that happened before. What the politicians and most of the unwashed masses don't get is making one more aspect of the event illegal doesn't magically prevent it from happening. All it does is add on one more charge. Someone who's desperate or crazy enough to commit the crime anyway, isn't going to suddenly stop because now they're violating one more law.

Good (3, Interesting)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about 8 months ago | (#45650127)

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 (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650227)

You mean, letting the gat out of the bag

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650357)

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 (5, Insightful)

Pi1grim (1956208) | about 8 months ago | (#45650417)

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 (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650611)

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:Good (0)

Suiggy (1544213) | about 8 months ago | (#45650807)

How many Black "youth" live in Iceland? Exactly.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651031)

How many recent school shooters have been black? Exactly.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651151)

How many Black "youth" live in Iceland? Exactly.

Again, crappy culture.
The benefit of a socialism like Iceland is that people from problematic groups are brought into a situation where it is easy and beneficial for them to grow up and become productive members of society.
There is the concept of being able to move from a lower economic class into a higher one by hard work. Some call it the American dream.
The ironic thing is that the U.S. have one of the most rigid class structures in the west. The movement from one class to another is rarer than in most other nations. If you want to actually live that dream you are better off living in Iceland or Norway or some other nation that doesn't treat you like a criminal just because you are poor.

Already There (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45650471)

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:Already There (2, Insightful)

minus9 (106327) | about 8 months ago | (#45650617)

"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."

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:Already There (-1, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45650769)

Maybe you do.

Yes, I do. Along with you. The simple truth is any criminal can easily get a gun if he wants one.

If you live in so much fear

I live in zero fear. Do you "live in fear" because you buckle a seatbelt in a car? No, you do so just as a precaution. 99% of the time it does nothing. But that 1% it's a useful tool indeed.

To many people guns are things you see on television

Well the world is indeed a generally ignorant place with people being told to be afraid of something just because, as you demonstrate.

Re:Already There (-1, Troll)

minus9 (106327) | about 8 months ago | (#45650893)

"I live in zero fear. Do you "live in fear" because you buckle a seatbelt in a car? No, you do so just as a precaution."

Very few people are killed by criminals carrying seatbelts.

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.

Re:Already There (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45651233)

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 (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 8 months ago | (#45651269)

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:Already There (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651099)

Don't feed the Eurotrolls.

They're from a continent that has way too many people in way too small a space that hate each other way too much and have hated each other for a thousand years or more. They don't understand how the US works because its, oddly enough, too peaceful here. The "American Dream" wasn't really about prosperity, it was about convincing the masses of immigrants to conform to a local lifestyle and leave their former traditions behind. So, now, the population is largely homogenous. Hell, there's no real political difference anymore, just manufactured, marketing-driven "party lines". So, since everyone is pretty docile, we trust the population to have and use guns and not go on insane rampages. And the fact that it still makes huge national news when someone does go on a rampage tells me that it's not an everyday occurrence, and we are shocked by it.

The US's lax gun laws would not work in Europe. And Europe is not the US, which offends many Europeans' sensibilities. They'll get over it, probably when some thousand-year-old nationalistic grudge is brought to bear on them by one of their neighbors. Meanwhile, we have our guns, and the Eurotrolls have nothing valid to say about it because they just don't understand.

Re:Already There (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651197)

Yes, because the USA has fewer per-capita gun crimes than Western Europe. Oh, no it doesn't.

I think you'll find that centuries of living with (and occasionally fighting with) our neighbours has led us to be more tolerant than the average US citizen.

Re:Already There (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650793)

Fuck you, statist.

Re:Already There (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 8 months ago | (#45650863)

I am not afraid and live in a perfectly calm and safe neighborhood of Vancouver, country side. But I still keep a shotgun and many fixed blade knives within reach.

Re:Already There (-1, Flamebait)

ogdenk (712300) | about 8 months ago | (#45650969)

"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."

Maybe you do.

We all do. Some of us just can't afford to live in gated communities and don't appreciate requiring lazy, armed, undereducated state employees to protect us when seconds count.

You are free to NOT exercise your basic rights. I'll do whatever the hell I want, thank you.

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.

Some of us don't have your bank account there guy. We have to live where we can afford to live. For me, that's out in the country where it takes the cops 45 minutes to arrive. No.... if something is a clear threat to myself or my family out where I live, I'm putting holes in it.

To many people guns are things you see on television, or occasionally carried by specially trained armed response police.

Yeah, and those people are completely dependent and unable to care for themselves should funding dry up. They are also powerless to defend themselves should the system turn on them. Out where I am, the nearest police station is quite literally a half hour drive and they have like 3 cops. And oh yeah.... to get a concealed weapons permit here you have to..... GET FIREARMS TRAINING.

Sometimes you have to grow a sack and stop depending on the system to protect you and your assets. I am not giving up my rights no matter how much you or your kind would like me to. Ever. It's not a privilege. It's a right. And it was set up that way for a reason.

Re:Already There (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650991)

"To many people guns are things you see on television, or occasionally carried by specially trained armed response police." Which is indeed part of the problem with the gun debate, we do live in a generally safer world and are not exposed to violence enough to make rational decisions on the issue. The gun control crowd has zero clue how much restraint a well adjusted human will show if they are put in the situation to use violence, often gun owners don't really understand that on a personal level.

Re:Already There (-1, Flamebait)

atriusofbricia (686672) | about 8 months ago | (#45651049)

"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."

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.

Sorry, you live in that world. The fact that violence hasn't entered your life as yet does not change the nature of the world or alter reality in the slightest. Some people see the world for what it is and reasonably take precautions. Others deny the nature of the world and hide behind "specially trained armed response police". I would never want to deny people their right to self delusion but I draw the line at when they wish to push their delusions on others.

Just because the wolf hasn't come to pound on your door yet doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Count your blessings and be thankful for that, but do not think that simply because it hasn't happened yet that it cannot happen to you.

Re:Already There (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650813)

Exactly!

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#45650529)

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:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651019)

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?

Re:Good (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 8 months ago | (#45651137)

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:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651251)

It's not about having more guns, it's about having more freedoms, which is the key point that is totally lost on anti-gun proponents. If taking our freedoms away fixes nothing, then what is the point? Freedoms lost are extremely hard to get back

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

QuantumPion (805098) | about 8 months ago | (#45651321)

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:Good (1, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 months ago | (#45651361)

So they can shoot innocent people they do not like and intimidate them. No other reason for police to carry firearms.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651343)

Citation please. Oh wait you cant because it's 100% bullshit.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651055)

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.

Re:Good (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 8 months ago | (#45651153)

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:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651063)

Yes, why/how will even more guns fix anything?

Re:Good (1)

internerdj (1319281) | about 8 months ago | (#45651085)

Answer: If they can get to the place there are no legal guns, then there is no legal need for ammunition sales to the public. The guns will never go away, but ammunition has the problem of both being expendable and degradable. While ammunition can also be made, it is a bit more traceable. Now I don't think that would significantly change murder rates but in the gun control utopia we could stop GUN violence.

Re:Good (5, Informative)

harrkev (623093) | about 8 months ago | (#45650625)

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:Good (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 8 months ago | (#45651215)

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 focused on creating some technology from being created.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651291)

The law would also mean that if the police stopped the criminal with a plastic gun, they could arrest him, rather than having to wait for him to use it.

Re:Good (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about 8 months ago | (#45650647)

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:Good (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 8 months ago | (#45650691)

Then move to some other country where "liv[ing] in a Mad Max style dystopia" isn't a Constitutional right.

Re:Good (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 8 months ago | (#45651115)

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:Good (2)

x0ra (1249540) | about 8 months ago | (#45650843)

3D printed firearm is a joke. You can build a perfectly safe shotgun for $30 worth of hardware in every Home Depot...

Dystopia? (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 8 months ago | (#45650935)

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:Good (1)

JWW (79176) | about 8 months ago | (#45650995)

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:Good (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 8 months ago | (#45651201)

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.

Not Surprising (1)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 8 months ago | (#45650137)

Is it just me or does this seem like more double speak from this administration?

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:Not Surprising (0)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 8 months ago | (#45650441)

Depends where the metal detector is. Not all of them are in airports.

I imagine the upshot of this is there will be some court or school shooting with a plastic gun, and then current metal detectors everywhere will be replaced with something more expensive that will detect plastic guns.

Re:Not Surprising (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 8 months ago | (#45650993)

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.

Hey douchenozzles (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650151)

The FUCKING SENATE IS DEMOCRAT MAJORITY.

How the fuck can Republicans BLOCK ANYTHING?

This FAILED TO GET PASSED BY DEMOCRATS.

You people are weapons grade douchebags.

Re:Hey douchenozzles (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 8 months ago | (#45650869)

Because the senate has a sane 60% of the vote rule ? Maybe you should learn how the system work before commenting...

But Bush!! (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 8 months ago | (#45650955)

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!

No new law needed. There is no problem. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650159)

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 (5, Insightful)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 8 months ago | (#45650161)

Undetectable guns are already banned. The failed legislation was a modification to require inclusion of metal components that would be hard to remove. If you think about it, that doesn't make much sense....its either detectable or its not. Those with criminal intent would not likely be deterred by this minor modification.

Re: Already Banned (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650303)

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.

Re: Already Banned (5, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 8 months ago | (#45650585)

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.

Re:Already Banned (1)

Lucas123 (935744) | about 8 months ago | (#45650311)

"Those with criminal intent would not likely be deterred by the minor modification" or the entire undetectable bill itself. FTFY

Re:Already Banned (3, Insightful)

necro81 (917438) | about 8 months ago | (#45650339)

The failed legislation was a modification to require inclusion of metal components that would be hard to remove. If you think about it, that doesn't make much sense....its either detectable or its not. Those with criminal intent would not likely be deterred by this minor modification.

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:Already Banned (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 8 months ago | (#45650435)

I wonder... if you define what constitutes a legal 3D printed gun, might that encourage the design and production of these guns? The result would be more guns out there.

Re:Already Banned (4, Informative)

Scutter (18425) | about 8 months ago | (#45650341)

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.

Who needs 3D guns? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650215)

When we have blatantly inaccurate /. articles to spread fear and panic.

Sandy Hook? (5, Insightful)

myth24601 (893486) | about 8 months ago | (#45650257)

Why does the article bring up Sandy Hook? It has nothing to do with this issue.

Re:Sandy Hook? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650329)

Trying to provoke emotional response....of course.

Re:Sandy Hook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650347)

Emotion tactic. "OMG, the CHILDREN!" is a tactic that does get most politicians on board and voting, even though whatever law being passed likely wouldn't do anything to stop the next shooting.

Re:Sandy Hook? (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45650489)

Because the Sandy Hook shooter used an arsenal of only plastic guns and plastic bullets while wearing his military invisibility cloak.

Oh wait.

Manufacturing firearms (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650353)

Don't you already need a license to manufacture firearms?

Re:Manufacturing firearms (4, Informative)

WillAdams (45638) | about 8 months ago | (#45650463)

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:Manufacturing firearms (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 8 months ago | (#45650927)

No. You can build whatever unregulated firearms, as long as you do not intend to sell them. AFAIK, you are still bound to respect the NFA, and thus cannot manufacture suppressor, SBR, SBS and full-auto without the proper timestamp. I think that full-auto manufacture is further restricted by Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986.

Not sure why this ban would even be necessary (1)

wulfhere (94308) | about 8 months ago | (#45650407)

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 (4, Insightful)

i.r.id10t (595143) | about 8 months ago | (#45650451)

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 (3)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 8 months ago | (#45650503)

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.

Re:Banning 3D guns like banning anal sex (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 8 months ago | (#45651083)

A criminal or terrorist will just not include it anyway during printing. There are no companies manufacuring these to hold to account.

Did submitter RTFA? Or just jump on bashing GOP... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650527)

hashtag justsaying

This is really pointless (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 8 months ago | (#45650599)

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 (3)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 8 months ago | (#45650669)

Yeah, why spent $1000 for a 3D printer when you can spend $100 and get a weapon that is far less likely to blow up and take off your hand?

Re:This is really pointless (1)

x0ra (1249540) | about 8 months ago | (#45650973)

This would not be a rational regulation. It merely intend to address the emotional effect caused by uninformed people freaking out about everybody being able to easily manufacture a lethal device. Well, guess what ? building a firearm is already trivial task !

Blocked by Senate Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45650743)

"On Monday evening, a bill aimed at thwarting the production and distribution of plastic 3-D printed weapons was blocked by Senate Republicans.

Bloody well right it was. Good oh! to the (flawed beyond repair though they may be) protectors of liberty.

3D printers not the issue. (1)

unkbar (693850) | about 8 months ago | (#45650819)

I doubt the bill said anything about 3D printing, it is about plastic guns that are hard to detect with a magnetometer. Could be fabricated with a 3D printer, but also by, say, injection molding, or conventional machining. Let's not demonize 3D printers unnecessarily.

What threat? (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 8 months ago | (#45650923)

Has there been a single documented case of someone using a 3D-printed plastic gun to commit a crime?

Re:What threat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651069)

No but this is a gun debate. We have to consider all theoretical burglar-rapists and such.

Re:What threat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651247)

Don't forget the government's modus operandi:

Create a bogey man out of thin air and then take a bunch of money to do something about him!

Re:What threat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45651159)

No but they know that only ones in power are who it would be worth making one to assassinate them. That is why they're shitting themselves over it and going out of the way to stop a nonexistent threat.

evil wins on Newtown anniversary (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 8 months ago | (#45651067)

Sigh.

Yet another useless Act... (4, Informative)

x0ra (1249540) | about 8 months ago | (#45651119)

The whole Undetectable Firearm Act has always been a piss in the wind . There is no such things as full polymer/plastic undetectable firearms mainstream firearm. Most of this is pure paranoia following the introduction of Glock pistols, but guess what ? There is plenty of metal part in a Glock, unless of course you believe Die Hard 2 is a reliable source of firearm information. The barrel, the action are mostly metal, that is the parts handling most of the stress. Only the frame and other low stress stressed parts are made of polymer. Even without the UFA, there would be no point in a full polymer firearm, the materials just don't have the strength to handle the stress and pressure of a round going off, not to mention the rifling in the barrel would wear out pretty quick...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>