Sen. Chuck Schumer Seeks To Extend Ban On 'Undetectable' 3D-Printed Guns 550
SonicSpike writes with this snippet from The Guardian: "As the technology to print 3D firearms advances, a federal law that banned the undetectable guns is about to expire. The New York senator Chuck Schumer says he is seeking an extension of the law before it expires on 9 December. Schumer said the technology of so-called 3D printing has advanced to the point where anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can access the plastic parts that can be fitted into a gun. Those firearms cannot be detected by metal detectors or x-ray machines. Schumer says that means anyone can download a gun cheaply, then take the weapons anywhere, including high-security areas. The Democrat is pushing the extension along with Senators Patrick Leahy of Vermont and Bill Nelson of Florida. The effort was announced on Sunday."
Re:Futility of certain laws (Score:4, Informative)
+1 - wtf is the point?
Anybody that really wants to can already manufacturer their own weapons in the airport: Terminal Cornucopia [youtube.com].
A 3D printed knife would probably be a much better weapon than a 3D printed gun that can only fire one shot.
Re:Response to this will be interesting (Score:3, Informative)
Hardly.
While I'm sure there are some businessmen who don't really care about the nature of their business, there's also folks who think that guns should be widespread among responsible people in responsible circumstances - A nutjob with an undetectable pistol is riskier than a responsible person carrying an assault rifle. Then there's the pro-gun-business types who see 3d-printed guns as a boon. Sure, somebody might print a gun instead of buying one, but the businesses make the real thing, ripe for collectors who are willing to pay more to have a metal original, rather than a plastic copy. Of course, we also can't discount the political folks who will support or oppose the law just because it came from the Democrats.
I'm terribly sorry, but people are different and have different opinions. Their response to one idea does not characterize them.
Re:huh? (Score:4, Informative)
They have been but one of the reasons for that was to comply with this law, which has now expired.
Trouble is if you are a criminal with the facility to print a weapon you what incentive do you have for not breaking one more law when you already are intent on committing a serious felony?
This is a prefect case of if you criminalize guns that undetectable by metal detectors than only criminals will have undetectable guns. Now mind you I can't think of to many reasons a non criminal *needs* a completely metal free gun; but as a practical matter I don't see what this really accomplishes. When the law was originally conceived it was to prevent the legitimate mass manufacture of such weapons which would have reduced the availability of them and that might have been societally useful; now that we are talking about a weapon the user is likely to produce themselves I am not sure what the point is.
I suppose its an extra change a prosecutor might be able to hang someone on, who has been able to evade other serious charges on technicalities though.
Re:Futility of certain laws (Score:4, Informative)
These politicos don't read the classics. You can't stuff Pandora (or William Shatner) into the box again....
Re:Futility of certain laws (Score:4, Informative)
When the TSA is rooting through your panties looking for cash and drugs to steal, maybe they'll find it. Blind pig, acorn and all.
Number of terrorists caught by TSA: 0
Number of TSA screeners arrested for rape: > 0
Number of TSA screeners arrested for drug smuggling: > 0
Number of TSA screeners arrested for child porn: > 0
Number of TSA screeners arrested for stealing: > 0
Re:Remind me why this is needed? (Score:5, Informative)
Allow me to rephrase that for you:
1 - I don't understand law
2 - We shouldn't make stuff I don't understand
3 - Let's just get rid of stuff I don't understand
The majority of every long legal text is there to be explicitly precise about every detail of how it's supposed to work. As new loopholes are found in existing terms, new language is used in future texts to avoid them.
For example, a hundred years ago, it might have been fine to say "buy" in a contract to refer to someone getting something, but thanks to the last hundred years of legal cases, there are many ways to avoid that particular term. You could trade for goods other than money. You could arrange a sequence of gifts. The exchange could be interrupted by a sudden death. Part of the exchange could be specified in a will. Once the trade is made, the items bought could come with attached expectations or conditions, or it could be part of a package deal.
Consider law as a program for illogical machines. Just as any other programming language requires verbosity (or a significant amount of definitions) to achieve precision, so must law. Humans are just particularly good at exploiting bugs.
Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here. (Score:5, Informative)
No American jurisdiction that I'm aware of (even the anti-gun New York State, where I currently reside) bans firearms within movie theaters or malls. Those are private property, and private property owners are free to allow or prohibit firearms. A prohibition by the property owner may or may not have force of law, depending on the jurisdiction. Here in New York, "no guns allowed" signs have no force of law, outside of trespassing, i.e., if they ask you to leave and you refuse you've committed a crime. They're effectively in the same league as the sign that says "shirts and shoes required". Other jurisdictions (Ohio, Texas, Tennessee, to name a few) give such signs the force of law, and you can lose your concealed carry license and face criminal charges if you ignore them.
Re:Liberty is the only thing in danger here. (Score:3, Informative)
And note it is the Democrats threatening it (Score:3, Informative)
Please note that while they mentioned the main bill sponsor is a Democrat, ALL of the bill sponsors are Democrats.
As we have seen through history the only real fascists have always been liberal [amazon.com].
Do not make the mistake again in thinking just because the Democrats espouse support for popular things you believe in, that you should vote for them - they will just continue to clamp down tighter the longer they are in power!
I support gay marriage and other social issues too, but supporting the Democrats is the wrong way to bring about changes in that arena - in order for the government to make any social change, it means they MUST reduce your rights and ability to make choices in some way.
The better way to bring about social change is the way the gay marriage movement has done so, by winning hearts and minds through the media - NOT through force and telling people what they must support from on-high.
Re:Futility of certain laws (Score:4, Informative)
Re:And note it is the Democrats threatening it (Score:5, Informative)
As we have seen through history the only real fascists have always been liberal
This is just partisan nonsense. If you actually, you know, read about fascism [wikipedia.org], you'll learn that it doesn't fit into the current left/right political divide.
People generally think of fascism as far-right because:
These are all defining qualities of facism that you see on the political right *today*
But facism is also leftist in that:
Furthermore, both the Dems and the GOP (in practice) have an overlapping facist trait: the belief in the states role in monitoring its citizens. This is a true 3rd rail in US politics, since as many Rs/Ds are for it as against it.
Fascism has traits not seen in either the Dems or the GOP, such as endorsing terror to gain political power, and the notion that the entire population should be permanently and emotionally engaged in the political process.
Stop reading just right-wing books, and broaden your horizon a little. Just because you read it doesnt mean you have to believe it. And just because something is written down doesn't make it true. Real scholarship starts when you seek out differing views, and try to understand them.