cross-posted from: https://ttrpg.network/post/4222671
Want a 3D printer in New York? Get ready for fingerprinting and a 15 day wait
Assembly Bill A8132 has been assigned a “Same As” bill in the Senate: S8586 [NYSenate.gov] [A8132 - 2023]
I don’t own a gun, I never have and I don’t plan to at any time in the future. But if these pass in the NYS Senate and Congress, it would be required to submit fingerprints for a background check then wait 15 days, before you could own any “COMPUTER OR COMPUTER-DRIVEN MACHINE OR DEVICE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT FROM A DIGITAL MODEL.”
This isn’t even going to stop any crimes from happening, for pity sakes regular guns end up in criminal charges all the time, regardless of background check laws. How about some real change and effective measures, rather then virtue-signaling and theater illusion for a constituency?
As usual, I have to wonder first if anyone actually put any thought into this, and further if anyone thought how the fuck they’re going to enforce it. This is just manufacturing one step removed… Anyone willing to make a gun with a 3D printer is certainly capable and willing of building their own 3D printer as well.
Or buying/building a milling machine. Or a lathe. Or a drill, a hacksaw, and some files.
Down this road lies madness.
If they cared more about making our society safer, they’d pay teachers more, build more homes, quintuple minimum wage, make education cheaper or free, actually tax the rich, reign in corpos, reform the police, abolish for profit prisons, make healthcare affordable and accessible, remove money from politics, just to start.
But nah, virtue signaling is way easier and is clearly enough to get them re elected, so let’s ban 3D printers baby!
Damn it’s good to see this list. I’ve been preaching it for years now. Gun control is virtue signaling bullshit, it will not solve the problem because guns aren’t the issue. Our society is deeply troubled and we need to fix the why’s, and not the what tool was used.
I’d wager UBI and single payer safety nets alone would have violence over all drop by 50+%
*Nods from other side of Pacific bathtub*
I know one European country with a lot of guns that does not have problems with gun violence. Although gun violence had spiked in last few years due to uhh… external actors. Obviously I’m talking about Ukraine.
Yep, and what do these euro counter parts have? Safety nets and logical shit that helps their people when they’re down on their luck. Here in the USA everyone is to busy fighting over the scraps that are thrown our way.
build more homes, quintuple minimum wage, make education cheaper or free, actually tax the rich, reign in corpos, reform the police, abolish for profit prisons, make healthcare affordable and accessible, remove money from politics, just to start.
Even rightwingers here demand more: build homes for everyone, tenfold minimum wage, more funding for universal education, more funding for UHC.
Well said.
Or buying/building a milling machine. Or a lathe. Or a drill, a hacksaw, and some files.
Can you imagine world where working class can’t own means of production? But you don’t need to, it already exists.
Man I want actual gun control not this bullshit.
This is the crap your average gun owners have to deal with all the time. And with similar results for crime prevention, which leads to more and more hoops as legislators try more of the same.
All because they genuinely don’t understand the subject matter or don’t care but want to appeal to people who also don’t know. Remember the “this is a ghost gun” speech?
Welcome to the shitshow, I’m truly sorry you’re here. I just want to enjoy 3D printed doodads and neat non-printed range toys in peace.
Not entirely a fair comparison. Gun owners might have to deal with some extra process in the acquisition of a tool explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds. There is a good reason why some of those hoops might be tied to “crime prevention”. Because it is a tool remarkably well suited for it…
Adding such loops for 3D printers would make as much sense as for a bag of sand, because you could drop it on someone… But that’s not what it’s used for… and the extra hoops should be in proportion.
edit: Have I stumbled on some gun-loving easily offended part of lemmy? Let’s see some congruent argument against anything I wrote. I encourage it. Be a brave snowflake.
By this logic, you should also have to jump through those same hoops to get things that can be used to create with minimal experience said tools explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds, or: this bill.
Sure, guns were “designed to kill people,” but A) so were swords and bows/arrows but those are legal and B) self defense is not morally wrong. Just like your bag of sand, guns can be misused to kill people illegally, but that is still a misuse. Of course, nobody is even advocating for NICs checks for other weapons, nor harder-than-NICs measures like quiver size restrictions or “ban assault (compound) bows…”
By this logic, you should also have to jump through those same hoops to get things that can be used to create with minimal experience said tools explicitly capable of sending projectiles at lethal speeds, or: this bill.
Nope. Not my argument in the slightest? Guns are made for it, have hoops for what it’s made for, especially when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like. Have those be in proportion to that. Conceptually, this should be easy enough to understand, and it just describes the foundation for the argument of what is a “reasonable hoop”, when it comes to “crime prevention”. That’s what’s being discussed here no? I responded to someone arguing that gun owners need to go through “similar hoops”. To which I only called BS on it being in the same ballpark.
Simplified… “What is a reasonable measure, regarding purchase of X, when it comes to what that measure, can help with problem Y.”
Place X=“cars”, and Y=“car related deaths and injuries”, sure… I can see some hoops there making sense. Americans seem fine with the concept of a driver’s license.
Place X=“guns”, and Y=“crime / gun violence”, yeah… I can see some level of hoops making some sense. (I’d suggest a lot more,… but that would offend too many over there)
Place X=“3d printer” and Y=“crime / gun violence”… my argument: It doesn’t make much sense at all..
You seem to think that my argument was to suggests hoops on X, based on the maximum capability of X, when it comes to Y. I don’t know why you would think that, because I said that it must be in the correct proportion to the problem at hand. A bag of sand can be used to cause injury. But if what you want is to “reduce injuries”, you don’t restrict access to bags of sand. You can revisit that once you start having a bag-of-sand-causing-injury-problem. Similarly, if you want to reduce “gun violence / crime”, you don’t restrict “access to 3d printers”. I have a hunch that normal guns outnumber 3d printed guns, in crimes, at least at a generous 10000000:1. And you can make a better one with a metal tube and some welding. Hence… “not in the same ballpark”. Which is why you also don’t need any hoops to buy a kitchen knife.
So, either you are arguing the same point as me, or you didn’t get my point.
(PS: There’s also a third option of disagreeing with my argument, in which case you would believe the hypothetical that if 3D printing technology was removed from existence, that it would reduce crime, or whichever Y is in question. That’s the loosest possible hypothetical, which would be in your favor to argue.).
stuff you don’t generally like.
Not your point, but why don’t you like self defense? Or IDPA, USPSA, Skeet (lol), Cowboy Action, Biathlon, Hunting, or any other shooting sports?
Tbf, even in this country, guns are used far more for those things than harming others (self defense included, as while it harms others it is necessary to do so in those instances to prevent death or great bodily injury to the victim, which is what justifies use of deadly force to begin with.)
And no I disagree, if the printer allows me to print a hoffman lower at the push of a button, but that same lower would need a background check to be purchased from an FFL, I think they are similar enough to make the comparison. It’s physically impossible to stop the torrents and other ways the .stl files are shared, the only way to do that would be to restrict the device itself. Furthermore a large subsect of 3d printer owners/buyers do so explicitely for the capability to print lowers (And I’m one of them. Of course it is legal for me to do so and I only use them legally, so it’s fine, but still we exist.)
Of course, I think it’s silly as well, but I’m also not in favor of (at least recently/currently proposed) further gun legislation, so…
Place X=“cars”, and Y=“car related deaths and injuries”, sure… I can see some hoops there making sense. Americans seem fine with the concept of a driver’s license.
Yes we have those.
Place X=“guns”, and Y=“crime / gun violence”, yeah… I can see some level of hoops making some sense.
Yes we have those too, NICs checks federally. States decide pointless feature bans or if the poors deserve rights too, and some are more permissive than others, but there are many regulations already.
Place X=“3d printer” and Y=“crime / gun violence”… my argument: It doesn’t make much sense at all..
Actually “ghost guns,” or “3d printed firearms,” have been making more appearances at crime scenes as of late. The front-runner is still straw purchase but I wouldn’t be surprised to see 3d printed lowers outpacing stolen guns within 10yr without even banning sales to inflate that number. Makes just as much sense to restrict 3d printers due to misuse as it does guns, since they are increasingly directly related. OR we shouldn’t punish good guys with a
gun3d printer for the actions of others…PS: There’s also a third option of disagreeing with my argument, in which case you would believe the hypothetical that if 3D printing technology was removed from existence, that it would reduce crime,
There’s a fourth. I don’t believe reducing the number of guns nor 3d printers sold would even reduce crime, as they could instead 3d print a lower, or make a LutySMG, or mill an 80%, or buy a CNC mill, or abandon guns entirely for another weapon like the Boston Marathon. I’m a gun and 3d printer enthusiast. I think the only thing that will actually reduce crime is actually making this country better so less people want or need to commit crimes. Yes it’s harder than just using authoritarian control and violence to make others subject to your will, but also fuck that, I’d rather we do the hard work than take the ineffective “easy way out.”
I just also think it’s silly to think “we need to ban guns because easy to kill with” but not go the step further to “and 3d printers, cnc mills, and home depot, because easy to make the thing that is easy to kill with.” To me it feels a lot closer to “no further legislation needed for either.”
Not your point, but why don’t you like self defense? Or IDPA, USPSA, Skeet (lol), Cowboy Action, Biathlon, Hunting, or any other shooting sports?
Two logical fallacies here. Red herring, in that it’s not not relevant to the argument, and a straw-man, because the supposition of me not liking self defense is not stated by me, or implied.
There’s a fourth. I don’t believe reducing the number of guns nor 3d printers sold would even reduce crime, as they could instead 3d print a lower, or make a LutySMG, or mill an 80%, or buy a CNC mill, or abandon guns entirely for another weapon like the Boston Marathon. I’m a gun and 3d printer enthusiast. I think the only thing that will actually reduce crime is actually making this country better so less people want or need to commit crimes.
You’d… be surprised to find that this is in part the first one, and clearly the still the second, with yet another straw-man argument, this time only implied. Perhaps go through my argument again. It isn’t saying a single thing on the restriction on guns. There is a tiny commentary as to that effect, but please don’t confuse that with the argument presented.
Other than that, I don’t see anything else that I need to comment on. Happy to oblige if you do relate it to my argument. The only relevant part, if I understood correctly, you suggest that for X=“3d printer” and Y=“gun crime” that… there might be a basis for some restrictions? But then you say you don’t believe there should be restrictions there… so, I’m confused why you would argue both sides there. I assume your point is therefore: “neither should be restricted, because if one should be, so should the other”… something like that?
So, a clarification… for your sake here, so please to take this with good intentions. These are the relevant points I was making:
- 3d printers shouldn’t be restricted with any hoops motivated by “crime mitigation”
- If it is desirable to reduce “gun violence”, hoops that deal with “guns” vs “3d printers” are not in the same ballpark when it comes to what makes sense.
The first one of those is clearly also your point. So, we agree on that one. But it seems you disagree with the second one. Is that the gist of what you’re saying? You object to the second point, in that if one should be restricted, the other makes similar sense, as to be in the same ballpark?
Because if so… I find that strange.
- No 3d printers => approx the exact same amount of gun violence.
- No guns => approx. no gun violence.
I don’t see how you could disagree with me, without also disagreeing with one or both of these. They seem like pretty obviously true statements to me.
Guns are made for it, have hoops for what it’s made for, especially when it’s used for stuff you don’t generally like.
This was the part in the comment I responded to where you implied you don’t like what guns are used for by outright stating it. Guns are used for murder in some instances, about 12,000 per year if we’re talking US, but they’re used 100,000 per year here according to harvard for self defense, and while I don’t have a figure of how many times shooting sports happen within the country’s borders I have to assume it’s even higher than that.
So again, now that I’ve pointed out exactly where the “implication” you outright stated is, why don’t you like those things?
It isn’t saying a single thing on the restriction on guns. There is a tiny commentary as to that effect,
Your “tiny commentary” is part of your argument, not only is it there but it informs your argument from the outset. Those not in favor of further legislation on firearms don’t often talk about further restricting firearms, nor how something that can very easily make firearms is “actually different.” In fact, most pro gun people use 3d printers as an example of partly why further restrictions would be ineffective at best or abused for maximum bans at worst.
Other than that, I don’t see anything else that I need to comment on. Happy to oblige if you do relate it to my argument.
Just keeeep moving those goalposts and avoiding my argument.
But then you say you don’t believe there should be restrictions there… so, I’m confused why you would argue both sides there.
You’ll still continue ignoring it, but my point is if restrictions make sense for one they make sense for the other, as “the other” can be used to create the “one.” Just as guns can be used for murder but shouldn’t be, 3d printers can be used to make guns that can be used to murder, but shouldn’t be.
Rather than restrict the items we should make the misuse itself illegal, like how we don’t ban booze but we do ban driving drunk or beating your wife because you’re drunk.
And you don’t even need a background check to buy a black powder firearm. Walk into your local Cabela’s with a couple of hundred bucks, walk out with one ready to shoot. If you’re old enough to grow a beard they probably won’t even ask to check your ID to see if you’re over 18.
The ATF has repeatedly stated they’re not interested in regulating these “historical” items. Never mind swords and bows, a lot of men have been put in pine boxes by a sloppily cast ball of lead coming out of a Patterson or a Remington. Just, probably mostly between the years of 1836 and 1901.
Hell, you can order those online, no ID check required. Even as a child assuming you can steal the cash, pop into the store with the cash, buy an amex gift card worth over the total price+tax+ship, boom, gun-to-door. Can easily make your own black powder too (though that bit is time consuming), and cast your own lead balls.
Nearly every law or bill in the last 40 years is crusted with bullshit no matter what the original intent or final result is.
Political posturing, like the fucking straws.
What exactly do you have in mind?
Armed rebellion against the ruling class of billionaires
Is there like a sign-up sheet, or…
3d printed plastic guns are real in a sense but not in any practical way. I am not sure why so many people think this is a concern. If I have a box of ammo, I can probably go into my shop and come up with a way to fire it. I doubt I would use my 3d printer in that project though. There are better ways to makeshift a weapon.
While I majorly disagree with this legislation, its not about plastic guns.
They only regulate the part of a gun that has the serial number, not the other parts. For “repairability.” Guess what that one part is easily made of? Yup, plastic.
People are printing the easy part, and buying all the rest in metal. Proper control would be to regulate the sale of commercially manufactured replacement parts, not a tool.
Maybe start regulating normal guns more first… 3D printed guns are not a problem anywhere in the world.
Well, yes, but I was specifically going down the replacement part road because the intent of the legislation is to limit ghost guns (unregistered firearms), not guns overall. IMO it’s just a play to say “we are cracking down on guns!” without actually doing it. And since it only hurts a niche audience, who cares, right?
So the point isn’t 3d printers making guns, it’s 3d printers enabling people to escape registration of guns, especially for unregulated sale of guns.
The lower receiver of an AR15 is legally considered the firearm. You can buy all other parts straight up, but you have to go through federal background checks on that one. Even with private sales, at least the first buyer would have to have gone through the process.
On its own, it’s just a chunk of plastic or metal. It’s not pressure bearing and isn’t even all that mechanically stressed in typical use. Therefore, you can print that one part off, buy all other parts, bypass all checks, and have a completely unregistered AR15. It’s not especially difficult to do, though it does involve a few specialized tools.
In the UK, regulation tends to be around pressure bearing parts, and this is a lot more sensible.
y. I am not sure why so many people think this is a concern.
Movies, they fear a gun that can’t be detected in a metal detector.
And you can still get one shot out of a plastic gun, and accuracy doesn’t matter if you are close.
After Jan6 NO ONE in office is free from the fear of being a target of violence, not even the politicians that instigated it.
Fear beats every other emotion. Nearly always
Edit: Ok so I guess lemmy is just as bad as reddit for not wanting to hear the truth.
At least have the balls to say why you disagree.
To drive the point home a little further. No one, at least in this context, is making an all plastic gun with a 3D printer. It simply doesn’t happen. Even the memeworthy and incredibly janky Harlot 22LR uses steel barrel liners. It is also difficult (read: impossible) to have strong enough springs to fire a primer without using steel. Plus cartridges and bullets themselves are famously made out of… metals.
The notion of a 3D printed plastic gun sailing through a metal detector are pure fantasy. Completely fictional. Bogus, bunk, absolute bullshit.
But legislators believe it, because politicians are not actually experts in anything except playing politics. Which in general does not equip you with knowledge or experience from the real world.
“COMPUTER OR COMPUTER-DRIVEN MACHINE OR DEVICE CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A THREE-DIMENSIONAL OBJECT FROM A DIGITAL MODEL.”
I can print an origami pattern on my inkjet using my cell phone…
People can produce 3D objects from digital models. It’s called, checks notes, sculpting!
Oh shit… My mother was actually a computer… There was a time when that was an actual job title in certain fields.
Gonna have to register my mom now…
This bill would require literally every single commercial machinist in the state to also register as they qualify under such broad wording. That’s fucking retarded and every single manufacturing company left (what few there may be) will fight this tooth and nail.
Me in aus realising i can be arrested for clicking many of the links in this thread lol.
What kind of dystopian hellhole do you live in where you can be arrested for clicking on a 3D model of a gun?
Its called australia but i would classify it as a nanny state
Reminds about Schulman’s Iron Nanny lecture.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
one where we don’t need to apply to buy a 3d printer
True that hahahah
don’t worry they can just edit the database even if you don’t
Why bother with that they can just forfully take over any online account and do whatever they want. I dont think they even need a warrant to do so either.
What law affects this?
lol
And just imagine, you can make a shitty gun for 20 bucks using parts from the local hardware store.
MacGyver was doing it before it was cool.
No he wasn’t. MacGyver didn’t like guns. This trope actually carried through to SG1.
Luckily, MacGyver did like explosives.
Regardless, this bill is stupid no matter how you look at it. Speaking as a 3d printer related business in NY. I will fight this lunacy.
Damn you’re right. I actually forgot that. He did blow some stuff up though.
He was exceptionally good at blowing things up! I loved the shit out of that show.
That won’t make it through a metal detector
Neither will 99% of 3D printed guns. Most 3D printed guns use metal parts, and ammo will likely be detected as well. Only single shot, entirely 3D printed guns with plastic ammo have any chance.
99% of 3D printed guns
100% of 3D printed guns.
Barrels and chambers are quite difficult to 3D print. But springs strong enough to set off primers, cartridge casings, and bullets must be made of metal. You can get clever with all of the above, but a plastic bullet would be laughably ineffective and even if you’re going to go with electrical rather than mechanical ignition to eliminate the springs you’re going to need metal batteries, metal wires, metal switches…
It is functionally impossible to make an all-plastic firearm. You’d be better off making a Jörg Sprave style crossbow or something.
The Liberator is a completely 3D printed single-shot pistol that can shoot 9mm.
The Washbearis a completely 3D printed revolver.
3D printed ammo is currently in development.
They aren’t very practical, but can likely go through metal detectors.
Except for the firing pins. And the ammo. So it’s likely that they actually can’t, unless the detectors at the facility in question are so detuned that they’d also allow through razors and small pocketknives.
Printed bullets would be like firing frozen paintballs at people. Injurious, yes. Deadly, most likely not.
.
“piped” lmao
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/KptCCbTcq_o
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
ITT: Many people make the incorrect assumption that, aside from some specific state- and city-level ordinances, there is such a thing as “firearm registration” in the US.
This is a myth largely promulgated by TV shows about cops. There is no nationwide firearms registry in the United States.
Regulation != Registration.
What does happen is that when a firearm is legally purchased from a dealer (FFL), the buyer must submit to and pass a federal background check. Records of these are not retained centrally, but each FFL dealer must maintain their own records of their own sales, indefinitely, as long as they remain in business. Ready to be reviewed at any time by the cops or ATF. Failure to do so can land the dealer in very deep shit. Centralized collection of firearm transaction records is prohibited by federal law, under the assumption that such a central record would be used to target, harass, and confiscate arms from their owners whenever the government felt like it (which is probably about a 50/50 mix of paranoia and accurate prediction).
Some states also require their own more strict background checks. States also vary in how strict or lax they are in requiring background checks for transfers between private individuals, and not a dealer. There is no federal requirement for private sellers to conduct a background check to transfer ownership of a firearm except across state lines, but many states themselves do have such a requirement. Further, transfers and sales of handguns often have stricter state level requirements vs. long guns (rifles and shotguns).
3D printing a firearm (receiver) does not allow any individual to “evade” any type of mythical “registration,” which by and large does not exist – as above. It does, however, allow a suitably motivated individual who could not pass a federal or state background check to get their hands on a presumably functional firearm.
It is perfectly legal for a person who is not prohibited from possessing a firearm to begin with to manufacture their own firearm, via 3D printer or otherwise, on a federal level. Some states have already enacted restrictions on this, however.
It is already illegal for a person prohibited from possessing a firearm to A) manufacture a firearm, B) possess any firearm (duh), or C) possess ammunition for any firearm, whether they are found to have a firearm to put it in or not.
It is already illegal for a person to manufacture firearm(s) for the purposes of selling, trading, giving away, or otherwise putting into the possession of others, if they are not a federally licensed firearms manufacturer.
It is already illegal to provide access to a firearm to a person prohibited.
It is already illegal to use any manufacturing method (even a 3D printer) to produce a firearm or component that is otherwise illegal or restricted NFA item such as a machine gun, suppressor, short barreled rifle, etc., etc.
I think the reason is because legislators are looking for gun restrictions that can pass, and the combination of legislative obstruction and the Supreme Courts recent ruling against pretty much any gun law written after 1860 or something has basically made it impossible to regulate the purchase of actual guns. So now they’re looking for whatever law they can pass regardless of whether it makes sense.
It’s fucked up.
Illinois has the foid system. You get a card that basically says that you’re legally allowed to own a gun. You need this card to buy ammunition and guns and to possess a gun. It’s not a bad system, problem is that Indiana and Wisconsin are so close to Chicago.
Just to clarify, the FOID approval process is effectively performed in every state for any gun purchase. It’s not like the FOID background check carries more scrutiny or anything. If a Texan resident can buy guns in Texas, they could get a FOID card if they lived in Illinois.
And it’s federally illegal to sell guns to non-residents of the state the sale is made in, so Chicago residents can’t buy guns in neighboring states. Indiana and Wisconsin residents could bring guns into Chicago, but that alone is highly illegal too.
Correct, but you cannot buy ammo without a foid, which stops people from using an illegal gun.
It is federally illegal to buy a handgun outside your home state, and many states include rifles in this. They can be purchased technically, but they have to be shipped to an FFL dealer in your state for the NICs check. Even in states that will sell rifles to out of state IDs, the rifle still has to be legal in their home state and they have to follow all the laws of that state. IL specifically, if you go into any FFL in the country, you’ll be told “we’re sorry, can’t help you” because of their laws.
I know the news pretends that none of that is true, but it is. Not likely people will know that though unless they have either tried it as a customer or worked in an FFL, I’m just informing not talking shit (sometimes intent gets lost through text, just clarifying.)
Sounds like chicago needs to do something about how close those other states are.
We wish.
That sounds very reasonable.
basically made it impossible to regulate the purchase of actual guns.
Currently, the purchase of actual guns is still federally regulated, so it seems possible. What they keep striking down is meaningless feature bans and the states that want to lock carrying only to the rich and famous, which imo is also fucked up.
What I’m talking about specifically is NY v. Bruen. The supreme Court ruled that states can’t pass gun restrictions that aren’t reflective of historical tradition.
As you can imagine, that makes drafting gun restrictions that are permitted under this reading of the construction nearly impossible.
This kind of ban on 3d printers is an terrible but not unsurprising consequence of this really batshit ruling.
Ehhhh tbh the pointless feature bans and denial of the ability to carry through “will only issue if you’re rich” permits ala CA and NY were in turn responsible for Bruen even being a case. The anti self defense crowd played with fire and got burned, and they still continue attempting the same thing. If there was proposed legislation that would:
A) Actually make a meaningful impact,
AND
B) Not be easily (or by design) abused to deny rights to as many people as humanly possible because “gun bad,”
AND
C) Come from a place of understanding about guns rather than always sounding like Kevin De Leon, or Rep. Diana DeGette who believes magazines aren’t reloadable. If anyone proposing legislation had any credibility beyond “guns scary,” it’d probably be easier to convince those who do have guns and some knowledge about how they function.
AND
D) Don’t just go after “assault weapons” which are responsible for 500/60,000 gun deaths/yr. We’re smart enough to do the math on it. We don’t believe “all we want to do is ban the scary black rifles, the wooden ones that function identically are fine, because they’re slightly less comfortable to hold and have a harder time taking flashlights.”
Unfortunately the literal opposite of that is happening, just pointless feature bans and “only the rich can carry” taxes or extra approval because “the poor don’t need to protect themselves as much as the rich.” (Which we can see by the 1% being the largest economic section victimized in violent crimes, definitely not the poor. /s)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Don’t 3d printed guns crack after like 2 shots? Next they’re going to require ID to buy pipe and nails in order to guard everyone from modern improvised muskets.
depends on the design, as well as the capability of the printer.
DMLS is capable of producing basically anything you can think of in metal. FDM or resin, or whatever… you’re printing the frame.
the DEFCAD design, specifically, you’re printing the AR lower receiver- which for some stupid reasons is designated as the “firearm” as far as laws and regulations go. So you can print the lower and buy the rest in cash as parts.that said, the only real function the lower serves in an AR is holding the magazine in place, so it’s not really subjected to anything that’s going to break it.
Incidentally, $40 at a big box store and a lot of TLC with a dremmel can produce a passable SMG. in fact… many of the ww2 era machine guns were designed to be made in factories that used to turn out plumbing parts. (because this reduced the amount of time and materials spent on retooling the production lines.)
Incidentally, $40 at a big box store and a lot of TLC with a dremmel can produce a passable SMG.
Anyone interested should look up the Luty submachine gun.
Fully 3d printed ones, yes. But you can print all the plastic parts of a Glock, buy a kit of parts that don’t require any verification at all and assemble a fully working one that is about as good as a genuine glock.
Or go a bit further with the FGC-9 or countless other similar things. The fewest actual gun parts used in successful firearms are in .22lr pepperboxes which use only barrel liners.Here in Finland, I couldn’t do any of that, because barrels, liners, trigger assemblies, magazines, ammo, they all require a background check and having a license to own a firearm. As would those printed Glock upper/lower parts, if I had access to the kits making them illegal to own.
Instead of, you know, the 3d printer?If it’s only 3d printed plastic, yes. Most “3d printed guns” are like Glocks. Metal for the important bits, plastic for everything else.
Hypothetically you could 3d sinter print a chamber but I doubt it would survive more than 3 shots, and would more likely just become high velocity shrapnel through your hand.
Even in one shot the 3d printed gun will explode. The cartridge is just a container for the gun powder, not the explosion. Real guns have a chamber that contains this explosive pressure.
3d printed guns are nowhere near strong enough to contain this pressure and when the gun fires the bullet is flung harmlessly in some random direction. Since there is almost no energy imparted into the bullet it doesn’t have any power or lethality, heck the shrapnel from the casing is literally more deadly for the shooter than any bullet towards the shootee.
Heck a 3d printed gun can even fire a bullet at all. Plastic is not rigid enough to detonate the primer and set the round off. You can literally fry bullets in a cheap metal pot and when they explode they won’t even go through the pot.
The only way you could make a 3d printed gun work is by incorporating tons of other metal parts, at which point it isn’t a “3d printed gun”. Search up pipe shotguns. They can be made with a handful parts from home Depot and only require 1 or 2 tools at home (only 1 if you get them cut at home Depot). Far more effective and actually deadly, even used by guerilla forces against imperial Japan in the Philippines.
embedded spark plug fragments, the ceramic, at least that’s what I overheard while minding my own law abiding business having breakfast at Shoney’s.
The real difficult part, or so I overheard, is the spring needed to generate the force needed to set off the primer, I did not hear of the other obviously dastardly people who were not related to me in any way by blood or association, apart from sharing the same species you see, had come up with a metal detector evading solution.
What people are doing with “3D printed” guns is printing the receiver or frame components that are otherwise serial numbered and federally regulated, and populating those with metal barrels, slides, upper receivers, trigger assemblies, pins, springs, etc., as appropriate from the genuine item. These can be quite functional and durable, because the majority of the gun is, in fact, still made from “real” gun parts.
Clever individuals have gotten quite far in managing to print most of the required components, but several critical parts simply can’t be made with consumer level printing technology. At present it is impossible to fully print a gun out of plastic and actually have it work.
The way federal law works, the ATF has identified and decided what constitutes the minimum identifiable major “gun part” of a given model of firearm, which is the part that must bear the serial number and is the component that cannot be sold without a background check through an FFL. For the Armalite platform, for instance, it is the lower receiver which is a component that can be 3D printed. The upper receiver is not a regulated part. For many polymer framed pistols like Glocks, the grip housing and frame is the FFL component. These can typically be 3D printed as well. But some guns, like the PTR/HK 91 and Sig P250 it’s not the frame, it’s the trigger assembly that’s the FFL item. You can’t effectively 3D print one of those – although you could probably manufacture one with a milling machine pretty easily.
I was watching some videos, they look pretty sturdy.
Apparently rebels in Myanmar are even using them.
Don’t they still use metal parts? Or was it 100% 3D printed?
The ones used in Myanmar are variants of the FGC-9 which indeed contain metal parts.
Currently the most common method of creating 3D printed guns are buying parts kit and printing the reciver (housing) for it. But the FGC-9 is specifically designed to be able to be made without any controlled parts, including the barrel. Any metal parts used can be bought in a hardware store.
There are probably makerspaces in NY where people can drop in and print stuff. No waiting or fingerprinting there, even when you want to print gun parts
Time to make reprap.
“Any 3d printer capable of printing a gun” seems pretty broad but wouldn’t 3d print kits get around this easily. Like if I buy a prusa MK4 it can print gun parts out of the box but a pile of prusa mk4 parts ain’t printing shit.
I don’t really think anyone expects this political theater law to be effective in anything except suppressing the growing 3d printing community in one of the world’s largest tech centers.
Shooting themselves in the foot with a good old fashioned normal gun, it seems.
From a digital model
Get ready for analog printing, boys.
Also, if I move to New York, what then? I have to keep it in PA for two weeks?
Think of all the sweet arcs and Bezier curves you could pull off with analog, though…
