It’s true that with too many rules, the brain atrophies and it’s guaranteed that the rules won’t solve anything. Switzerland has been without war for 700 years, problems can be solved peacefully. As I mentioned before, almost every Swiss has weapons training and needs to think and deal whit it - actually the more peaceful way than regulating it. If I’m not completely mistaken, the implementation of the US state structure is based on ours. And it was then implemented with a lot of blood - at least when it was introduced in Switzerland…
Don’t think that they are afraid - but everyone only looks after themselves, and if there is no pressure, nothing happens. Like the development of 3D printing. Actually a completely different topic, but the same driving force. But the pressure needs to come from the possibilities of the system and not from a own created solution…
On Netflix, very interesting for me as a Swiss even if it relates more to the USA, parallels are very clearly visible:“The G Word” with Adam Conover The episode: change.
Or the episode Future: Who created GPS, drones, Roomba and you?
I love the referendum right given from the siwss peopels to the the Swiss peoples… after a vote, then what the majority of the population vote is right and nothing else…
It’s always the “lesser of two evils”.
The other options to vote for want to take something else away. So we’re always forced to choose between loosing this or loosing that.
This is similar to what’s happened in the Radio Control hobby community (of which, I am a member). We were flying our quadcopters over video for years. Then the FAA came along and started trying to legislate the hobby. Their first attempt would have basically decimated the hobby completely. We’ve ultimately arrived at something that’s at least workable, but it requires hobbyists who do not fly at a federally recognized flying site to install a device in their model that reports information in-flight about where the model and pilot is located. You also have to register on a FAA website, and you get a registration number you have to affix to your models and have ready to show to any law enforcement representative who demands to see it.
There’s lots of outrage in the community, still, over this legislation. But the risk is quite real, as has been demonstrated very effectively by the Ukrainians, who are building 10Ks of hobby-style “drones” every month which they strap explosives to, and then fly using real-time video feeds to smash in to the enemy and blow them up. I watch the drone videos every once in a while, and I see the exact same information with the same wording on the video feeds from my aircraft. They’re building their suicide drones using the same consumer grade off the shelf parts I can buy.
The legislation is a bit like locks on a door (which only keep honest people out). Someone wants to do harm, the FAA regulations won’t stop them. But politicians generally care more about the appearance of taking action than actual action.
Same deal here. The risk is real, albeit blown way out of proportion. You’re more likely to hurt yourself with a 3D printed firearm, than someone else. But politicians don’t care about actual hard data, they care about emotional appeal, and for everyone except us 3D printers, background checks probably sound like a great idea…
Canada just outlawed a hacking device called a “Flipper Zero” because they decided these devices can be used to unlock or start cars and open garage doors and stuff. The only problem is, they absolutely can’t be used that way (I know, I’ve got one). But Canadian legislators didn’t care about the facts, they only cared about the rumors driving public opinion. Something scary, we better do something about it, doesn’t matter what as long as we do something.
What frustrates me is that people are willing to give up their freedoms in order to have this perceived protection from all these bad things. Politicians are more than happy to take away peoples rights while people are more than happy to serve them up on silver platter. What’s even more frustrating is that logic and reason have no part in it, it’s all about the emotional impact that people have that dictates it for them.
Politicians stay in office by appealing to the majority, regardless of the rationality of that appeal. In fact, the less scrupulous politicians specifically look for issues that they can use to get their supporters really worked up. Emotion can generally be counted on to prevail over logic. So unless or until the majority of voters are also 3D printers, there’s little if anything we can do about these situations.
Frankly, any lawmaker that thinks that doing background checks on anyone buying a 3D printer in a state or using one to prevent ghost gun manufacturing has the same IQ as a rock.
This is a huge waste of time and money, in my opinion. Here are a few points of why this won’t work.
Anyone who passes the test could still print ghost guns.
Anyone that already had a 3D printer would now be under fire and suspicion, even if they are just hobbyists
Like OP said, I don’t see any fire directed at the manufacturers of the guns themselves
Who the hell thinks that they can somehow erase all ghost guns from a state, when you could bring one in? What about the gun laws there already? Who is enforcing them?
Who are these people trying to get privacy infringement on the 3D printing industry? Are they the same dim-witted people out there with the ‘Just Stop Oil’ slogans?
Yep. Basically all the same arguments Radio Control made back to the FAA to little or not effect.
I can assure you, logic is not the answer to this kind of problem. It’s political. That’s not driven by logic. Doesn’t matter how rational your argument. You have to educate the populace. And as has become abundantly obvious in recent years, there is a disturbing significant percentage of the populace that cannot be educated. It’s much easier to just scare people irrationally to get what you want…
I’m an old fart, I used to go with my dad and pick up TONS of bagged Ammonium Nitrate FERTILIZER for our farm use every spring and help him spread it. Nothing to it. Go to the Co-op, pay for it, and load it up. Now you can’t even find more than 5 pound bag sold to individuals. And to buy more you have to fill out forms and PROVE you are a farmer. Again, unintended consequences. And Yep, you can make a gun with not much more than a piece of pipe and a nail.
Places trying to pass silly gun laws like background checks for 3d printers are playing to the ignorance of the public, Largely scare tactics to make people believe that anyone with a 3d printer can just make a gun in a few hours. Places like New York and California do this all of the time. I’m a former licensed firearm dealer and was a licensed manufacturer, So I know a bit about the laws and firearms engineering. Can you print some parts of a firearm? Yes. Can you print all of the parts of a firearm? No, you cant. most of the internal parts and barrel would need to be made of metal. A glock for example consists of metal trigger parts, upper slide, bolt and barrel. These parts are made of metal due to the high pressures created by firing a round. For example: The barrel pressure created by a 9 mm pistol round is somewhere around 35,000 PSI. If you were foolish enough to print the whole gun and managed to actually fire a round, its highly probable that it would blow up in your face. Lots of people have been severely injured doing this. So while you can print basic gun frame (the part you hold with your hand), the other parts that make a gun work and safe to shoot will need to be metal. Guns are highly engineered to function correctly, I know folks who have tried to print just the frame to replace one on an existing gun and the gun jammed or malfunctioned most of the time before the print started to come apart from the stress.
I agree with most of what you brought up, but I’d say its less about fear, and more about hate of the opposition party’s advancement. Politics are a mess. Currently, legislation doesn’t have to make sense, its just retribution over the other party.
Maybe one day, it will become less nuclear in its make up, but I only see it getting more radical.
In California we lost the ability to buy denatured alcohol for absolutely no good reason. Some say it was just a ploy to say “we got a win” after they were forced to pivot on the chemical they initially wanted to ban. As it turned out, banning that chemical would hurt the economy, and their political win, so denatured alcohol was offered up.
Don’t get me started on the FAA/Drone thing. Absolute joke, where you effectively have to pass a large part of the aviation private pilot’s knowledge testing to fly RC drones.
Not sure if this was a lobby from the aviation side (due to the loss of income from helicopter filming), or just a politician that felt some kind of way about people flying over their homes. Either way, the net result was a joke. Unfortunately, the parallels you point out are troublingly close. I fear it will go down the same path. But there is a little hope at the end of the tunnel. This will likely draw 2A advocates’ attention and that will likely send it before the SCOTUS. As such, there isn’t an anti 2A law that stands a chance of surviving with the current make up of the SCOTUS. But note, that hasn’t stopped the opposition from sending illegal laws back up the chain to clog the system in hopes to get a de facto win. Sad state of politics we have when the main goal is to make laws that you know are illegal just to clog up the system you know you can’t beat.
The only logical reason I can think of, is they’re worried about people printing replicas that someone could use to hold up a liquor store or gas station.
But the wording in the bill does not fit with that scenario:
The real trick might be who decides what it means to be “capable of creating firearms”.
Likely it will be kicked to a judge who will have no clue as what the real capabilities are.
I find it almost comical when I read about a local drug bust and they mention they found a 3D printer along with the guns and drugs they confiscated.
This is probably pushing the narrative that the “bad guys” are printing guns.
And this is not a situation where “logic” will prevail, anyway.
You can print actual, functional guns with a 3D printer. Most of the designs are only good for a single shot (if that). You stand a decent chance of blowing your hand off with a printed gun. But it has been possible to print a functional gun for probably the better part of the last decade.
You can also print some larger components of real guns, like “receivers” (the body that the metal gun components are housed in). The receiver is what gets registered when you buy (or make) a gun legally. Most of the other gun components (like barrels) can be purchased without any restrictions. So if you can make receivers, you can make “ghost guns” that are unregistered.
There’s other legislation circulating regarding the definition of “receiver”, since gun manufacturers can sell receivers without restriction/registering the sales if some additional finishing steps are required before it can be functional (like drilling some holes). It’s a loophole that actually should be plugged.
Honestly, that narrative isn’t far from accurate. Criminals are smarter than most people think. They do not want to go to a gun store and buy a gun to use in an illegal activity. They much rather have a disposable firearm.
Even the most popular firearms are plastic, so 3D printing new ones are very viable. No… the 3D printed ones will not last long, and are no where near as reliable, but they will likely get the job done after a little TLC.
So, I understand the idea, the argument I make is, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. People never unlearn things that help them. Put this road block up, and they will shift to the next option, build their own 3D printers (or buy/steal used printers) to continue making their own receivers. Then you’ll start seeing the natural progression in a switch to DIY CNC Mills which are only a little more expensive, but for this purpose, much more useful. Then this legislation will have been for nothing.
I can’t remember the given reason for the ban, but I remember it didn’t make sense. I believe the denatured alcohol thing dates back to a prohibition law. Basically, they poisoned alcohol to avoid taxation of it. And it literally stuck for years, but I can’t say with total confidence. So, I can see why some politician would see banning “poisoned” alcohol as a positive.
If you’re trying to say that people need background checks for a 3d printer how about literally any other machine like perhaps a 3 axis cnc which can produce metal parts. This idea is so flawed not to mention no matter what you try to restrict, criminals are criminals. They will find a way around it. Also just because a product can be used to create weapons doesn’t make it automatically a gun factory. Last I checked America isn’t a dictatorship, and we still have the second amendment. I mean you don’t see kitchen knives being banned even though they are just as capable weapons or how about cars? Several tons of weight on wheels is pretty powerful.
Unfortunately, the CNC’s are also in the crosshairs (so to speak). I can’t remember if NY’s was calling for all CNCs or just the specialized receiver mills, but I’m assuming it encompasses all CNCs. I believe the bill CA is trying to pass is all 3D printers and CNCs, but I can’t say with certainty (been a few months since I first heard about it).
***Correction, there appears to have been changes since I first heard of this one. NY’s doesn’t mention the provision for CNC’s that is in the CA bill. Also CA’s bill now uses language such as the following.
… a three-dimensional printer that has the sole or primary function of manufacturing firearms
This appears to thin out the CA bill’s useful scope. However, there are statements in it that define 3D printers as such.
"Three-dimensional printer” means a computer-aided manufacturing device capable of producing a three-dimensional object from a three-dimensional digital model through an additive manufacturing process that involves the layering of two-dimensional cross sections formed of a resin or similar material that are fused together to form a three-dimensional object.