Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Government Politics

Sen. Chuck Schumer Seeks To Extend Ban On 'Undetectable' 3D-Printed Guns 550

Posted by timothy
from the reliable-chuck-grinds-his-axes-on-guns dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sen. Chuck Schumer Seeks To Extend Ban On 'Undetectable' 3D-Printed Guns

Comments Filter:
  • by landofcleve (1959610) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:10AM (#45453437)
    From those who kill it in the name of defending it.
    • by Jhon (241832) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:03AM (#45453813) Homepage Journal

      I would like to see a ban against completely ineffectual laws. How effective were the "bans" on guns in movie theaters, malls and schools?

      • by Shakrai (717556) * on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:24AM (#45453985) Journal

        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.

        • by Jhon (241832) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:46AM (#45454213) Homepage Journal

          Ok. Lets have that conversation. I notice you don't mention schools. How effective have those bans been for schools?

          Many of the mass shootings were in "gun free zones". Ok, lets suppose there was no 'force of law' behind that. Would that have made a difference if there were? If so, why hasn't it with schools?

          Banning guns will not work in our culture. Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely. Remember, with a modest amount of care, guns can last centuries. "Attrition" just isn't an option.

          Find another solution.

        • by operagost (62405) on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:01AM (#45454373) Homepage Journal

          Those are private property, and private property owners are free to allow or prohibit firearms.

          How long is that going to last when property owners aren't allowed to sell 16 ounce sodas or allow smoking?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by GodInHell (258915)
            Smoking is different, when used properly and as intended, your smoking harms the person next to you. The ban on sodas was ruled unconstitutional. Try to keep up.
            • Informative? Really?

              "Smoking is different, when used properly and as intended, your smoking harms the person next to you" - Not proven, if you want to take it on faith you can believe what you want but studies have failed to prove this conclusively

              Secondly, when used properly and as intended, firearms harm something, somewhere, maybe not a person, maybe not next to you, but their uses are somewhat limited.

              While I am posting on this topic I would also like to point out that this has nothing to do wi
              • by Obfuscant (592200)

                "Smoking is different, when used properly and as intended, your smoking harms the person next to you"

                I'm standing on the street corner on my college campus, during classes, and there is nobody within a block of me in any direction. I light up. I'm violating the law. Who is this "person next to me" I'm harming?

                Secondly, when used properly and as intended, firearms harm something, somewhere, maybe not a person, maybe not next to you,

                Are you a member of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Paper and Clay Targets?

                If anything, 3d gun printing makes the second amendment obsolete.

                If anything, printable guns makes the 2nd amendment even more critical. The more things the government gets pushed by hysterical scaredy-cats to ban, the more we need the enumerated rights to keep them from being ba

              • "Smoking is different, when used properly and as intended, your smoking harms the person next to you" - Not proven, if you want to take it on faith you can believe what you want but studies have failed to prove this conclusively

                Maybe I haven't kept up with 2nd hand smoking studies, but what studies are you referring to? I thought studies had shown that it was harmful. The 1st 3 pages of google results so far show that 2nd hand smoke is still harmful, including some journals that were in the results.

        • by Entropius (188861) on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:11AM (#45454507)

          Washington DC has a de facto ban on guns in these places, since it has a de facto ban on handguns. At the university where I work, there was a "CAMPUS ALERT!" that went out about a year ago saying "a MAN with a GUN was spotted near campus, everyone be careful, the police are looking for him". My reaction was "wait, has he actually shot or threatened anyone?" Nope, was just a dude with a gun, but that's not allowed here.

          Arizona (a place with very liberal gun laws) incidentally gives property owners a strong right to prohibit firearms: the assumption is that guns are allowed if they're not forbidden, and many bars and restaurants have "no guns allowed" signs by their doors. You don't lose your concealed carry license because no such license is required there, of course.

        • by ravenshrike (808508) on Monday November 18, 2013 @12:26PM (#45455729)

          OTOH, the ONLY movie theater within 20 miles witrh a ban on guns that had the force of law behind it in Colorado was the exact movie theater that the Aurora shooter chose. It was not the biggest, closest, or most popular. Instead it was the only one that banned guns.

      • Gun battles in schools are quite rare compared to the huge number of fist fights, so apparently it's pretty effective.
      • by Dareth (47614) on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:38AM (#45454785)

        They should just make killing people illegal. Surely that will stop someone from using any weapon to do it because criminals always obey the law.

      • by MachineShedFred (621896) on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:38AM (#45454795) Journal

        I love the quote of "anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can access the plastic parts that can be fitted into a gun."

        Anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can get a gun made of good 'ol steel, which would perform massively better. In fact, you don't even need the $1,000. $500 would get you a very nice handgun in a private party sale.

        • by girlintraining (1395911) on Monday November 18, 2013 @11:56AM (#45455499)

          Anyone with $1,000 and an internet connection can get a gun made of good 'ol steel, which would perform massively better. In fact, you don't even need the $1,000. $500 would get you a very nice handgun in a private party sale.

          $500? Try about $200 [firearmspriceguide.com] for an older six-shot revolver. And as far as 'untraceable' goes... this senator clearly is a total retard when it comes to understanding forensics. First, ballistics analysis becomes significantly more inaccurate with each shot; So unless you fire the gun during a crime, and then don't fire it again until they recover it, ballistics won't be of much help in a prosecution. They'll be able to throw up a lot of circumstantial evidence, but a good lawyer can put a pin in that easily enough. Secondly, most guns sold today do have serial numbers, and that's probably what he was referring to. Unfortunately, not all manufacturers put that serial number on in a way that is forensically recoverable after it is filed off or removed. If it is stamped; that is, imprinted, then it likely is. But if the serial number is raised/embossed, then forget it. Many are stamped, but not all are. Especially not older guns. As well, it's typically only the receiver that is stamped with a serial number, as this is what the law considers the actual 'firearm' part of the gun. However, depending again on make and model, a receiver is not difficult to construct from equipment available at your hardware store -- and yes, for less than $1000 too.

          His argument doesn't hold water. The problem with 3D printers is that it would put a lot of businesses, well, out of business. And the biggest potential buyers of 3D printers is actually your local hardware and auto stores that right now have to pay a small fortune (which then you get to as well) ordering specialty parts out of a catalog. The entire after-market auto parts empire would deflate to maybe half its size if people could just bring in the broken part, and the store scans it in, or finds a match in a database, and then fires up the printer. 1 hour later, viola -- you have yourself a new plastic part for your car. And it doesn't cost you $60, but maybe $15 instead.

          This, right here, is why this senator is pushing it. Lending credence to this theory -- look at some of his other proposals: backup cams [senate.gov] in all cars, a bill to ban rental cars [senate.gov], extensive markings and ID on parts [sunycnse.com], and the list goes on. A quick look at his campaign contributors is all the more proof you need .. he's a paid shill for the auto industry.

          Oh yes, firearms bad. 3d printers, terrorism, blah blah. The truth: It would put a big dent in the profits of the people writing his paycheck -- auto parts manufacturers.

    • by cffrost (885375) on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:36AM (#45454759) Homepage

      From those who kill [liberty] in the name of defending it.

      Schumer has no interest in liberty; he's one of the most hardcore authoritarians in the Senate [politicalcompass.org]. Why these assholes don't have term limits is beyond my comprehension — Feinstein (with her spy-fetishist "oversight") is good example of how too much time in office results in power-madness and opportunities to become corrupt.

      I'm not just picking on Democrats here; (I'm further left/libertarian than Jill Stein;) Ds and Rs are all right-authoritarians in my eyes. Amongst them, though, Schumer takes the cake when it comes to pissing on the Bill of Rights (and not just the Second Amendment). I remember some years back, he voted for a "Juvenile Justice" bill to prosecute more kids as adults in order to extend their sentences, yet with no provisions to grant kids greater liberty in exchange for this added responsibility.

    • 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 wro

      • by chihowa (366380) *

        Please note that while they mentioned the main bill sponsor is a Democrat, ALL of the bill sponsors are Democrats.

        Absolutely, because gun ownership is one of the authoritarian policies that is largely supported by people who self-identify as Democrats. Just like banning abortion and gay marriage, and enforcing Christian mores are popular authoritarian policies with the Republicans.

        Don't make the mistake of extrapolating this one data point into the assumption that all authoritarians wear a (D), though. Both the Democrats and Republicans are highly authoritarian. The end of this game is a highly authoritarian US. If the

        • And yet the subversives in the republican party are the only ones who have even attempted to get serious about replacing the status quo, for good or ill. Where are all the radicals in the left wishing to take out the likes of Schumer and Feinstein and making a serious attempt at it even if they fail?

          • The fringe in the Republican party is more visible and prominent then that in the Democratic party (actually electing representatives etc), because mainstream Republican strategy has been a massive trainwreck for a long time now, and the party is desperately looking for alternatives, with one side saying that they need to be more moderate, especially on social issues, and the other (far more vocal) side screaming that they are not conservative enough. Dems, OTOH, are doing pretty well with their voter base

      • by microbox (704317) on Monday November 18, 2013 @06:44PM (#45459135)

        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:

        • The emphasis on militarism
        • The emphasis on nationalism. (Do you here that America was exceptional?)
        • The emphasis on colonialism [wikipedia.org]
        • The emphasis on mysticism and the state [wikipedia.org]
        • The emphasis on warriorship [iiicitadel.com]
        • Suppression of trade unions
        • Foreign policy based on the myth of national power and greatness
        • Skepticism [politicususa.com] in democracy [thehill.com].

        These are all defining qualities of facism that you see on the political right *today*

        But facism is also leftist in that:

        • It broadens the mandate for government intervention in the economy
        • It is anti-materialist. (I suppose people in facists states seek spiritual sustenance.)

        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.

    • by krygny (473134)

      Politicians like this are the reason we have guns.

  • by John Christopher (2998003) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:13AM (#45453443)
    I understand the apprehension caused by firearms that can't currently be detected, but I don't quite understand what he's trying to accomplish in enacting a law that can't be enforced
    • by Sockatume (732728) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:18AM (#45453459)

      You mean, as soon as the gun is detected, it no longer falls under the "undetectable gun" rule? That is indeed a conundrum.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:19AM (#45453467)
      The bullet can be detected. Politicians lying as always.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SJHillman (1966756)

        It always seemed to me that controlling the ammunition would be easier than controlling the weapon itself. Making a gun is relatively easy compared to making your own gunpowder, especially if you only need the gun to be able to fire a few shots, as is the case with the majority of guns made on the current stock low-end 3D printers that he's concerned about. I'm not in favor of controlling the distribution of gunpowder to the degree they try to control guns, but I do think it would make more sense from an en

        • by Thanshin (1188877) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:53AM (#45453729)

          Making a bullet is relatively simple. If the control fell mostly on bullets "cheap" home made bullets would be soon sold.

          Making gunpowder, as most of what could be made in the 9th century, isn't very hard. If the control fell mostly on gunpowder we'd be able to buy in online "cheap".

          Anyway, it's moot. You can't stop people from making medium range weapons with laws.

        • by kaladorn (514293) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:53AM (#45453731) Homepage Journal
          Apparently even more effective: The primers used in modern ammunition. They are even harder to manufacture than good, clean gunpowder.

          These politicos don't read the classics. You can't stuff Pandora (or William Shatner) into the box again....
        • The thing that I'm not seeing take hold yet, but I think it will, is going beyond the concept of gun and ammunition for 3D printed weapons.

          For example, I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to make a 3D printed mould for a small shaped charge, a 'stick' of some sort to attach the shaped charge to plus 'firing mechanism'. One would then take a disk of copper, not in itself likely to attract attention, fit the copper disk to the shaped charge, point it, fire it and the slug of molten copper could go through tank

        • by CrimsonAvenger (580665) on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:05AM (#45454423)

          Making a gun is relatively easy compared to making your own gunpowder

          Says someone who has never made either.

          Making either gunpowder or smokeless powder is dangerous. You could easily kill yourself being careless while doing so.

          That said, it's not really all that hard - don't make a spark and/or use the usual handling precautions for nitric and sulfuric acid, and you're golden.

          As to primers, it should be noted that they were mass-produced with 1850's technology - it's just not that difficult, if you know how.

      • But what if someone hides them in his lucky rabbit foot keyring!?!?

    • by somersault (912633) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:19AM (#45453469) Homepage Journal

      +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.

      • by Joce640k (829181) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:27AM (#45453527) Homepage

        +1 - wtf is the point?

        Anybody that really wants to can already manufacturer their own weapons in the airport: Terminal Cornucopia [youtube.com].

        No need. C4 fits in rectums, along with detonators, etc.

        • We've had the shoebomber and the pantsbomber, so it's only a matter of time before there's a buttbomber.

          BRB, door. Or rather several large men where it used to be.

          • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:53AM (#45453721) Journal

            We've had the shoebomber and the pantsbomber, so it's only a matter of time before there's a buttbomber.

            There's already been one. He tried to assassinate (heh heh heh) a Saudi royal IIRC. Trouble is he kept it up his ass and almost all of the energy went in to blowing him apart. It made a godawful mess, but failed to do much physical damage beyond a rather large cleaning bill.

          • by Joce640k (829181) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:14AM (#45453895) Homepage

            If I was a boss at Al-Qaeda I'd be getting people to stuff things up their ass and sending them to airports all day long. The chaos that follows when sheeple figure out that the TSA cannot protect them would be priceless. Chaos would ensue, the economy would tank overnight. That's real terrorism, I'd sleep soundly afterwards knowing I was doing my job.

            The fact that they aren't doing this is just more proof that there's no real organized terrorists out there, just occasional lunatics (Boston).

            All the security, all the gropings and inconvenience is just theater for the masses.

            (And a way for a few people to get richer - the head of the TSA owns shares in the company that make the scanners ... surprise!)

            • If I was a boss at Al-Qaeda I'd be getting people to stuff things up their ass and sending them to airports all day long. The chaos that follows when sheeple figure out that the TSA cannot protect them would be priceless.

              Why stick to airports and explosives? Remember how long the 'Beltway Sniper' had that area freaking the hell out, all over some sort of cryptic, dubiously well planned and almost entirely unfunded, scheme to shoot some people because something or other? Two guys, a cheap gun(stolen in their case; but equivalent gear is widely legal, it was just one of the zillion civilianized AR-15s and variants), and a shitty car, basically zero money, and the place was shitting itself for a couple of weeks.

              If 'terroris

      • Or just buy a ceramic knife... will probably be more capable than a 3D printed knife. However, many ceramic knives have a metal rod embedded in them for either sturdiness or detectability, so you'd want to avoid those.

    • He's not even trying to "enact" a law - he's trying to get an extension to a law that's already on the books, and was made specifically to prevent people from having all-plastic guns that could evade detectors.

      The horse is kind of out of the barn on this one since anyone with access with a decent 3D printer can make an un-registered gun, but making them legal means what little regulation we have on the gun industry falls apart because none of those plastic guns will need to be registered before they leave
    • by larry bagina (561269) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:57AM (#45453759) Journal

      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

  • by Sockatume (732728) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:16AM (#45453453)

    If only there was some way to ensure that the guns contained a large, metal object that would show up on an x-ray. You could make such an object out of a dense metal like lead to ensure that it showed up.

    • by berryjw (1071694)
      Right. Or perhaps several of these objects. Has anyone seen my paper-weight??
  • by Bruce66423 (1678196) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:17AM (#45453457)
    One can either laugh or cry at the desperate attempts of our technologically ignorant leaders to hold back the inevitable. There is a spin that suggests that Canute was trying to get his sycophantic courtiers to see sense by showing them that he could not stop the incoming tides; perhaps a similar lesson is needed here.
    • by Sockatume (732728)

      That's the the original story, not that the story is necessarily anything more than a nice fable dressed up with a real historical figure. The hubris version is much more modern.

  • ..lethal at close range, just as undetectable!
  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's already illegal to conceal carry without a permit, it's illegal to shoot someone else. Why do we need yet another law telling us that it's illegal to possess these weapons? If someone is going to 3D print a gun and use it to commit a crime, they really don't care if it's illegal.

    Besides, all the government needs is one story about a poorly constructed 3D printed gun that exploded when fired and injured the would be shooter

    • by jythie (914043)
      While the law is technologically pointless, the idea is to have an little prevention in place by making it difficult to obtain fire arms that would be able to bypass security in places that do not want guns present. If I recall correctly the fear at the time was of mass produced plastic guns that anyone could wander down to the local shop and pick up, thus presenting a very low barrier to bypassing metal detectors. The fear was not valid, but if it had been the law would have made sense even though actual
    • by lxs (131946)

      So I'm still allowed to shoot myself?
      Good to know.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MitchDev (2526834)

      Agreed.
      No new law should be allowed to be passed unless:

      1 - Written in plain English, no legalese, the layman MUST be able to parse it and understand it
      AND
      2 - No more that 2 pages at most.
      AND
      3 - Two or more existing laws are repealed for each new law passed (This can be revised down to one-for-one once the current lawbooks are cut to 1/4 their cu

      • by Hognoxious (631665) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:51AM (#45453711) Homepage Journal

        Because of course it's been scientifically proven that having 0.25000000 times the current number of laws is the optimum.

      • by Sarten-X (1102295) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:02AM (#45453803) Homepage

        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.

        • by Voyager529 (1363959) <voyager529 AT yahoo DOT com> on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:01AM (#45454367)

          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.

          See, that's why I figure that the best way to address the situation is to divide up a bill like this:

          Paragraph 1: The mission statement. What is the essence of the bill, and what is it ultimately trying to accomplish in broadest terms?
          Paragraph 2: The general rules. State what the bill says is or is not acceptable, as it would apply to the overwhelming majority of cases. Rules that do not directly reflect the mission statement are dismissed from the bill (no more riders or earmarks).
          Paragraph 3: Funding and enforcement. Who is paying for it, and who is ensuring that the rule is enforced?
          Paragraph 4: Duration. How long will this bill last before it needs to be renewed? 15 years, tops.
          Pages 2-10: Exceptions and legal speak. These are the pages intended to close loopholes, answer for as many exotic cases as possible, and be the part that is referenced if a court case needs examining. All statements made here must explicitly clarify and apply to Paragraph 2, and are subject to Paragraphs 3 and 4.

          This way, the bill is divided up into the parts that are legible by any reasonable person, and the parts that ensure that define the rules of the court cases involving more unique situations.

        • by Arker (91948)

          I think you are missing his point here.

          A critical element for any just set of laws is that the people who are subject to them get fair warning of what those laws are. When the law grows so enormous that even the law makers and the law arguers cannot possibly know and understand them all, it is no longer a system of justice and demands reform.

  • I thought that the firing pin and the bullets were still metal and therefore detectable?
    • by jythie (914043)
      Even at the time, the plastic guns they were trying to prevent from gaining wider acceptance still had quite a bit of metal in them beyond the firing pin and bullets and were thus easily detected.
    • Re:huh? (Score:4, Informative)

      by DarkOx (621550) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:33AM (#45453573) Journal

      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.

    • I thought that the firing pin and the bullets were still metal and therefore detectable?

      You are correct, sir. That's why this hysteria is a little silly. The bullet casing would not only set off a metal detector it would show up in x-ray or body scanning machines as well. There is no place to hide the most dangerous part of a gun, the ammunition, so why worry about secured areas. The worst thing this bypasses is the background check and waiting period. Not to say that's not a concern, but a plastic gun that may fire one to eight bullets before being inert is no AK-47 or AR-15. In the grand sch

  • If it is made of matter, it is detectable.

  • I don't know much about firearms, but I feel like plastic based guns are not really new. If you can enter a "high security area" with a plastic gun. Then maybe it is NOT a high security area...

    • Do you want them to add strip-searches to concerts and courthouses in addition to the metal detector?
  • The man is a moron who failed to research his latest publicity gambit.

  • by McGruber (1417641) on Monday November 18, 2013 @08:48AM (#45453681)
    A New Yorker explained to me that, in NYC, the correct pronunciation is Schmuck Schumer.
  • Better plastic guns can be built from blocks of plastic and hand tools then can be built using 3D printers. Why are they not freaking out about that. All these laws do is trip up good people exploring the capabilities of new technology. They do not address the issue of people wanting to use guns on others. We need to be addressing the issue of hate not method of gun construction.
  • Gun question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:06AM (#45453833) Homepage

    What are the bullets made of? Are they detectable? Also: Don't we need plastic guns if Magneto attacks?

  • by g0bshiTe (596213) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:41AM (#45454143)
    First yes the gun may be undetectable but there are a few things it needs to be able to fire that are detectable. There needs to be a spring for the firing pin, the pin itself may be plastic but needs some type of device to make it detonate the primer cap. The bullet casings are also metal and will set off detectors.

    So no Senator Idiot, what you have that is undetectable is a useless model of a gun. It would be more dangerous to print a 3d knife and sneak it in somewhere.
  • Number of terrorists caught by the TSA. Number of people killed by plastic guns in the last 10 years. Number of people killed on 9/11. Number of people killed by gun violence last year. Number of people killed in auto accidents last year. Number of people killed in household accidents last year.

    Ooh here's an idea! Let's redirect a small percentage of the funds going to the TSA to enforcing safe driving and educating people on the dangers of poking things with sticks while standing on ladders. We'll save far more lives with far less effort. I guess a couple hundred thousand deaths a year isn't a big deal if some 24 hour news network isn't being hysterical about it.

  • Chuck Schumer (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Charliemopps (1157495) on Monday November 18, 2013 @09:52AM (#45454275)

    Can't we all agree that when certain political figures speak (Chuck Schumer, Sarah Palin, Nancy Palosi, Charlie Rangle, Michele Bachmann, etc) that we should just all collectively plug our ears and say "Nanananananana" as the thing they are about to say is likely an appeal to the citizens of our country with IQ's bellow 90, to reduce our freedoms, increase government power and generally bring ruin to the country in the name of some un-realized threat that sounds scary but could never really cause us much harm?

    Chuck Schumer is either:
    a. an idiot and does not realize he can not stop home made weapons, they've existed since the country was founded, there's just a slightly new method.
    b. fully aware that this legislation is pointless and is just pandering to make headline with whatever made up fear 20/20 came up with for this week.

  • by J'raxis (248192) on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:02AM (#45454391) Homepage

    I predict that this will be about a successful as all other attempts to ban information has been. But don't let that stop you. And just to help out, here's a link to DefDist's DefCAD Mega Pack v4.2 (Saito) [eprci.net] again, the file I mirrored when the DOD tried to suppress it [slashdot.org].

  • by katorga (623930) on Monday November 18, 2013 @10:13AM (#45454525)

    Gee. The bullet is brass copper and lead. The barrel is steel. I guess old school guns with wood stocks would be undetectable as well according to the periodic table in Mr. Schumer's world.

    For less than $4000, anyone can get a gunsmiths metal working setup, and build any gun they want. In fact its perfectly legal for anyone to build an firearm with no serial number as long as its not an NFA restricted weapon like a machine gun and it is not for sale or transfer.

* * * * * THIS TERMINAL IS IN USE * * * * *

Working...