The ATF can barely even define what a gun is. Todays platforms are modular so essentially they choose the largest, non-ware part and put the serial number there. That one part then becomes the "gun". In some cases that part doest even resemble a gun at all.
Will the restriction apply to addative manufacturing as well? will they also limit subtractive manufacturing like CNC? CNC is older, and capable of producing actual high quality firearms. Why not start there?
Are they going to limit highend commercial 3d printers? There exist farms of very high end printers that create parts on demand out of plastic and metal. whats going to happen to their business if parts get randomly flagged as a "gun" because some AI halucinates?
Are they going to ban producing toy guns and props?
Ill stop now, i feel like ive already put more thought into this than the legislators have.
To actually implement firearm detection your 3d printer would need to have the ability to reverse engineer the 3d solid model from g-code, then compare that solid model to a list of banned objects.
It bothers me a lot that our elected representatives are wasting time and money on pointless nonsense like this.
The people sponsoring this law certainly have no idea how to implement this gun manufacturing restriction and America’s gun problem isn’t coming from 3D printers anyway. I would like to believe that these 26 representatives aren’t incompetent so I have to assume this bill is entirely performative.
Funny, I always assumed that incompetence was a prerequisite for political representatives. Competent people always seem to find more productive uses for their time.
I think in a state with a single boomtown(Seattle) this goes doubly true. Productive and competent people with agency opt for tech or tech adjacent vs local/county/state government. Seems it will continue provided the cost/benefit ratio of policies in Olympia don't begin to diminish the perceived return on big tech work in Seattle.
For such a tech and adv. manufacturing dependent state, WA certainly has pushed some conspicuous and myopic regulations since 2016. With the coming income tax creep, seems we’re marching towards the bloat of California sans any of the benefits(consumer data laws, digital/real ID, etc).
Washington isn't really known for a 3D printer industry. So it doesn't hurt the local economy. But lobbying is effective regardless of how invested a state is. Not to mention it adds another bullet point to their "accomplishments". Seems like gun manufacturers getting ahead of a future cut into their profits.
* Gun ownership should be much more tightly regulated in the US.
* Requiring 3D printers to block production of firearms is worse than useless.
How would that even work from a technological perspective? If it did work, why would 3d printer jailbreaks not be the immediate result? I would use jailbroken firmware on principal.
I hard disagree on the tightly regulated stance. We are in the middle of a facist coup and you want to disarm every one? I have to question your motives, and I wonder if you have ever read a history book.
I think Roosevelt had it right when he said talk soflty and carry a big stick.
There's a huge spectrum between "nobody should ever own any gun" and "your local corner store should have an 'assault rifle and two sixpacks of beer' combo special".
I completely your point, but unless you're willing to actually start a civil war they aren't going to be very helpful. They are, at best, a mild deterrent against indiscriminate use of lethal force.
At the same time the US is still the only country in the world which regularly sees school shootings. This was the case before Trump, and I see no reason to believe it'll be any different after Trump.
I agree that the timing probably isn't the best right now, but after fixing the completely broken democratic system gun control should probably be placed somewhere near the top of the agenda.
It seems pretty clear that the populace is not going to use guns to oppose the fascists. Since that was a major (if not the most important) reason for the second amendment, it appears vestigial.
Also, as others rightly pointed out "much more tightly regulated" ≠ "banned entirely".
None of the points or sentiment I have raised here are new in anyway. There are many millions of people who feel the same as I do.
Why does wanting to own a tool for self defense make "us people" the reason for this mess?
I'm pretty certain this mess is due to the on going class war and our racist president that suffers from early onset dementia. Rome is on fire, but i had nothing to do with it.
So does the one it's in reply to. But you skipped that one to complain about this one.
It's absurd that anyone could pretend to believe that more people having guns is a "deterrent" mild or otherwise to lethal use of force? In every interview about why american cops shoot and kill orders of magnitude more people than most civilized countries, americans always argue it's because their citizenry is armed so the police need to be prepared to make life or death decisions in a split second at every moment on the job.
Nobody suggested that more guns were a solution to anything.
Guns have been more accessible and readily available for the entire history of the United States. School shootings are a relatively new development.
Access to and availability of guns has been more greatly restricted over that time. With virtually no impact.
Perhaps the desperation and miserable mental health of our population are bigger factors?
Every country you would point to likely has better access to healthcare, education, and much better social safety net than the US. As well as law enforcement and prison systems less focused on restitution/justice and more focused on education and rehabilitation. Other countries also see less recidivism and lower violent crime rates in general.
All available evidence indicates we should be spending much less time and energy focusing on guns and far more focusing on the failures and motivations of our government.
> They are, at best, a mild deterrent against indiscriminate use of lethal force.
Is a quote from a sibiling comment to the one I replied to.
It seems that at the very least an extraordinarily loud minority of americans believe that arming the general population should somehow result in fewer gun deaths. On the big social media platforms, the larger news networks, and right here on HN, I am always surprised that such an obviously incorrect idea can be so pervasive.
> All available evidence indicates we should be spending much less time and energy focusing on guns and far more focusing on the failures and motivations of our government.
No, it doesn't. You can't just assert that because it's what you think. Societal issues do play a part, but just as you need oxygen and fuel for a fire, removing either one stops the flames. So if changing the individual minds and morals of seemingly half your country seems easier than enacting legislation restricting access to guns... well I don't think you should hold your breath.
You're misquoting me. That was in the context of a hostile government, not guns in general for civilian-against-civilian "self-defense".
Also, the "at best" and mild" are quite important there. I believe that armed civilians might prevent someone like the National Guard from firing on groups of protestors when it gets hairy, out of fear of being shot in response. They aren't suicidal: you don't escalate when you are in a disadvantaged position!
Reminder that in most US states it's perfectly legal to manufacture firearms at home for personal use as long as you're not a prohibited person, or making a controlled item like a machine gun.
You don't even need to register it.
Though you can't manufacture it with intent to sell.
Also, check your state laws first, some states have different laws.
This is primarily an article about restrictions that all makers are going to have to deal with. Gun control is just the casus belli.
The comments here have already turned into a spirited discussion about gun control itself. This is a valid discussion, but may be a distraction in this context.
This doesn't bode well for defeating legislation like this. It's directly adjacent to an emotional issue that will drive a wedge between people who otherwise agree on the bill.
If I was more conspiracy minded, I'd even suggest this is intentional.
I can agree with the clinically ill, but when you consider the disproportionately high conviction rate of people of color, then the felony restriction becomes a racist stance.
You didnt mention this, but I am also against restricting service members with a dishonorable discharge. For many people, gun ownership is a large part of thier community and thier lives. These folks would have to choose between following every order (legal or not), or going home and being left out of their community and culture for the rest of thier lives. It's a huge amount of leverage to make soldiers shut up and comply.
That is the root of most arguments I have seen, both pro and anti gun.
If people fundamentally disagree about whether the government should have a total monopoly on violence they are unlikely to come to agreement on the issue of gun control.
I'd rather recognize a fundamental values difference with someone than try to argue a bunch of rational points in bad faith, though. No sense raising blood pressure in a discussion that is doomed to be unproductive for both people.
Full disclosure: I am personally on the "Belt fed machine guns should be dispensed from vending machines in elementary schools" end of the spectrum. My views probably don't matter to my point above, but more openness about bias is better.
The ATF can barely even define what a gun is. Todays platforms are modular so essentially they choose the largest, non-ware part and put the serial number there. That one part then becomes the "gun". In some cases that part doest even resemble a gun at all.
Will the restriction apply to addative manufacturing as well? will they also limit subtractive manufacturing like CNC? CNC is older, and capable of producing actual high quality firearms. Why not start there?
Are they going to limit highend commercial 3d printers? There exist farms of very high end printers that create parts on demand out of plastic and metal. whats going to happen to their business if parts get randomly flagged as a "gun" because some AI halucinates?
Are they going to ban producing toy guns and props?
Ill stop now, i feel like ive already put more thought into this than the legislators have.
Probably best to just ban all manufacturing. Drills, files, lathes? All illegal now, unless they have magic gun-shape-detecting AI.
To actually implement firearm detection your 3d printer would need to have the ability to reverse engineer the 3d solid model from g-code, then compare that solid model to a list of banned objects.
It bothers me a lot that our elected representatives are wasting time and money on pointless nonsense like this.
The people sponsoring this law certainly have no idea how to implement this gun manufacturing restriction and America’s gun problem isn’t coming from 3D printers anyway. I would like to believe that these 26 representatives aren’t incompetent so I have to assume this bill is entirely performative.
Funny, I always assumed that incompetence was a prerequisite for political representatives. Competent people always seem to find more productive uses for their time.
I think in a state with a single boomtown(Seattle) this goes doubly true. Productive and competent people with agency opt for tech or tech adjacent vs local/county/state government. Seems it will continue provided the cost/benefit ratio of policies in Olympia don't begin to diminish the perceived return on big tech work in Seattle.
I think the incompetence is built into the system more than the individuals.
For such a tech and adv. manufacturing dependent state, WA certainly has pushed some conspicuous and myopic regulations since 2016. With the coming income tax creep, seems we’re marching towards the bloat of California sans any of the benefits(consumer data laws, digital/real ID, etc).
Washington isn't really known for a 3D printer industry. So it doesn't hurt the local economy. But lobbying is effective regardless of how invested a state is. Not to mention it adds another bullet point to their "accomplishments". Seems like gun manufacturers getting ahead of a future cut into their profits.
Two things that I simultaneously believe:
* Gun ownership should be much more tightly regulated in the US.
* Requiring 3D printers to block production of firearms is worse than useless.
How would that even work from a technological perspective? If it did work, why would 3d printer jailbreaks not be the immediate result? I would use jailbroken firmware on principal.
I hard disagree on the tightly regulated stance. We are in the middle of a facist coup and you want to disarm every one? I have to question your motives, and I wonder if you have ever read a history book.
I think Roosevelt had it right when he said talk soflty and carry a big stick.
There's a huge spectrum between "nobody should ever own any gun" and "your local corner store should have an 'assault rifle and two sixpacks of beer' combo special".
I completely your point, but unless you're willing to actually start a civil war they aren't going to be very helpful. They are, at best, a mild deterrent against indiscriminate use of lethal force.
At the same time the US is still the only country in the world which regularly sees school shootings. This was the case before Trump, and I see no reason to believe it'll be any different after Trump.
I agree that the timing probably isn't the best right now, but after fixing the completely broken democratic system gun control should probably be placed somewhere near the top of the agenda.
It seems pretty clear that the populace is not going to use guns to oppose the fascists. Since that was a major (if not the most important) reason for the second amendment, it appears vestigial.
Also, as others rightly pointed out "much more tightly regulated" ≠ "banned entirely".
America already has more guns than people. How many more do you think it would take to solve our current problems?
It’s also very disingenuous to pretend that tighter regulation implies disarming everyone.
Shut up. You're inventing an argument out of small-minded indignation. People like you are the reason our country is in this mess.
None of the points or sentiment I have raised here are new in anyway. There are many millions of people who feel the same as I do.
Why does wanting to own a tool for self defense make "us people" the reason for this mess?
I'm pretty certain this mess is due to the on going class war and our racist president that suffers from early onset dementia. Rome is on fire, but i had nothing to do with it.
This comment violates several HN guidelines. Take your anger elsewhere.
So does the one it's in reply to. But you skipped that one to complain about this one.
It's absurd that anyone could pretend to believe that more people having guns is a "deterrent" mild or otherwise to lethal use of force? In every interview about why american cops shoot and kill orders of magnitude more people than most civilized countries, americans always argue it's because their citizenry is armed so the police need to be prepared to make life or death decisions in a split second at every moment on the job.
Nobody suggested that more guns were a solution to anything.
Guns have been more accessible and readily available for the entire history of the United States. School shootings are a relatively new development.
Access to and availability of guns has been more greatly restricted over that time. With virtually no impact.
Perhaps the desperation and miserable mental health of our population are bigger factors?
Every country you would point to likely has better access to healthcare, education, and much better social safety net than the US. As well as law enforcement and prison systems less focused on restitution/justice and more focused on education and rehabilitation. Other countries also see less recidivism and lower violent crime rates in general.
All available evidence indicates we should be spending much less time and energy focusing on guns and far more focusing on the failures and motivations of our government.
> They are, at best, a mild deterrent against indiscriminate use of lethal force.
Is a quote from a sibiling comment to the one I replied to.
It seems that at the very least an extraordinarily loud minority of americans believe that arming the general population should somehow result in fewer gun deaths. On the big social media platforms, the larger news networks, and right here on HN, I am always surprised that such an obviously incorrect idea can be so pervasive.
> All available evidence indicates we should be spending much less time and energy focusing on guns and far more focusing on the failures and motivations of our government.
No, it doesn't. You can't just assert that because it's what you think. Societal issues do play a part, but just as you need oxygen and fuel for a fire, removing either one stops the flames. So if changing the individual minds and morals of seemingly half your country seems easier than enacting legislation restricting access to guns... well I don't think you should hold your breath.
You're misquoting me. That was in the context of a hostile government, not guns in general for civilian-against-civilian "self-defense".
Also, the "at best" and mild" are quite important there. I believe that armed civilians might prevent someone like the National Guard from firing on groups of protestors when it gets hairy, out of fear of being shot in response. They aren't suicidal: you don't escalate when you are in a disadvantaged position!
Gonna have to dust off some good ol' honor system stuff here.
[X] I AFFIRM this screw I am printing will not go in a gun under penalty of perjury
If you click the checkbox, It's Legal!(tm)
This seems like an actually impossible goal
Reminder that in most US states it's perfectly legal to manufacture firearms at home for personal use as long as you're not a prohibited person, or making a controlled item like a machine gun.
You don't even need to register it.
Though you can't manufacture it with intent to sell.
Also, check your state laws first, some states have different laws.
I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
This is primarily an article about restrictions that all makers are going to have to deal with. Gun control is just the casus belli.
The comments here have already turned into a spirited discussion about gun control itself. This is a valid discussion, but may be a distraction in this context.
This doesn't bode well for defeating legislation like this. It's directly adjacent to an emotional issue that will drive a wedge between people who otherwise agree on the bill.
If I was more conspiracy minded, I'd even suggest this is intentional.
Felons and certified-insaned should be banned from firearms for life. OK, ex-felon can still have a muzzle-loading musket, here in USA.
3-D firmware restriction? Good luck with that. Open-source 3-D printer software makes this next to impossible.
I can agree with the clinically ill, but when you consider the disproportionately high conviction rate of people of color, then the felony restriction becomes a racist stance.
You didnt mention this, but I am also against restricting service members with a dishonorable discharge. For many people, gun ownership is a large part of thier community and thier lives. These folks would have to choose between following every order (legal or not), or going home and being left out of their community and culture for the rest of thier lives. It's a huge amount of leverage to make soldiers shut up and comply.
> Felons and certified-insaned should be banned from firearms for life.
And government.
You’ve stumbled into a stance by pro-2A folks: The government should not have a monopoly on violence.
That is the root of most arguments I have seen, both pro and anti gun.
If people fundamentally disagree about whether the government should have a total monopoly on violence they are unlikely to come to agreement on the issue of gun control.
I'd rather recognize a fundamental values difference with someone than try to argue a bunch of rational points in bad faith, though. No sense raising blood pressure in a discussion that is doomed to be unproductive for both people.
Full disclosure: I am personally on the "Belt fed machine guns should be dispensed from vending machines in elementary schools" end of the spectrum. My views probably don't matter to my point above, but more openness about bias is better.