Leading 3D Printing Site Bans Firearm Files (theregister.com) 99
Thingiverse, a popular 3D printing file repository, has agreed to remove downloadable gun designs following pressure from Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, who is pushing for stricter moderation and voluntary cooperation across the 3D printing industry. "However, it's unlikely to slow the proliferation of 3D printed weapons, as many other sites offer downloadable gun designs and parts," reports The Register. From the report: Earlier this year, Bragg wrote to 3D printing companies, asking them to ensure their services can't be used to create firearms. On Saturday, Bragg announced that one such company, Thingiverse, would remove working gun models from its site. The company operates a popular free library of 3D design files and had already banned weapons in its terms of use, but is now promising to improve its moderation procedures and technology. "Following discussions with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office about concerns around untraceable firearms, we are taking additional steps to improve our content moderation efforts," Thingiverse said in a statement. "As always, we encourage our users to report any content that may be harmful." [...]
At any rate, while Thingiverse may be popular among 3D printing mavens, people who like to build their own guns look to other options. [...] Bragg's approach to 3D printing sites and 3D printer manufacturers is to seek voluntary cooperation. Only Thingiverse and YouTube have taken up his call, others may or may not follow. "While law enforcement has a primary role to play in stopping the rise of 3D-printed weapons, this technology is rapidly changing and evolving, and we need the help and expertise of the private sector to aid our efforts," Bragg said. "We will continue to proactively reach out to and collaborate with others in the industry to reduce gun violence throughout Manhattan and keep everyone safe." But it seems doubtful that the sites where Aranda and other 3D gun makers get their files will be rushing to help Bragg voluntarily.
At any rate, while Thingiverse may be popular among 3D printing mavens, people who like to build their own guns look to other options. [...] Bragg's approach to 3D printing sites and 3D printer manufacturers is to seek voluntary cooperation. Only Thingiverse and YouTube have taken up his call, others may or may not follow. "While law enforcement has a primary role to play in stopping the rise of 3D-printed weapons, this technology is rapidly changing and evolving, and we need the help and expertise of the private sector to aid our efforts," Bragg said. "We will continue to proactively reach out to and collaborate with others in the industry to reduce gun violence throughout Manhattan and keep everyone safe." But it seems doubtful that the sites where Aranda and other 3D gun makers get their files will be rushing to help Bragg voluntarily.
Only one problem with this (Score:5, Insightful)
In virtually the entire United States, making firearms for personal use is 100% legal.
Printing (or machining) your own firearms, like purchasing alcohol, is regulated but not inherently illegal.
So why is a DA pressing to censor the entire planets access to something that is only illegal in his city?
We have been down this "community standards" test before, where the DA from the most restrictive village anywhere gets to censor everything for everyone everywhere, and it never turns out well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Only one problem with this (Score:1)
You think that's bad? In the year 2035 they banned teeth in jolly ol' England. Too many drive-by bitings, you see. You will have a government loiscensed tooth-bearer masticate your food for you, and give you the old baby bird treatment. And you will be happy.
Re: (Score:2)
They've banned knives in England already.
No, they haven't.
Some years ago they criminalised the carrying of knives with a blade longer than 3" in public, and last year they criminalised the import, sale and ownership of machetes and "zombie knives."
The thinking was to stop knife-crime by young gang-members. In reality, it just made it easier to arrest them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. right. Go by Sainsbury's on the wsy home and try to by a set of kitchen knives without someone unlocking them and walking you to the cashier.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, unless it's that your experience of supermarkets is in areas with higher levels of gang activity, or just lots of theft in general.
None of the stores near me lock away their kitchen knives - 10" cook's knives are on racks next to spatulas and salad forks... well, except for Sabatiers, and that seems to be more of a marketing exercise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With a little knowledge of anatomy I can give death strikes with a Bic pen. Lets ban those. Oh, and rocks and sticks too.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people doing violent crimes do not know anything about anatomy beyond: if I stab him, he will bleed.
It goes even so far that they claim: oh, I seriously did not know one could die from a stab here.
You only need to go into a martial arts forum, for example on FB etc. and see what nonsense people are writing.
With a little bit of anatomy knowledge, which comes actually more or less automatic, if you do a "real martial art", one can kill one with bare hands, in a single blow.
So: it is not about anatomy. It
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Only one problem with this (Score:2)
Therr are plenty of other, more valid reasons to ban Americans in your country. They could be spies, unvaccinated, or unvaccinated spies with measels.
Re: Only one problem with this (Score:2)
They'd have to figure out how to operate it first. Though if you want to take down airliners, there are far simpler, less costly methods already available, which also happen to be perfectly legal to own.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd have to figure out how to operate it first.
There are instructions [youtube.com] available online.
Re: Only one problem with this (Score:2)
AA gun isn't SAM
Re: Only one problem with this (Score:2)
That's like 60 year old information
https://youtu.be/3uWW71iXA0s?s... [youtu.be]
Re: Only one problem with this (Score:2)
That wouldn't work particularly well against an airliner at cruise altitude and speed . You're better off when it's trying to take off, or even more effectively, while it's trying to land. But why use that when a $400 quadcopter would sufficiently do the job? Sure, that alone may not be enough (though it will certainly wreak havoc even if it doesn't cause a catastrophic failure,) but if you think outside the box a little, you can make it pretty effective.
Re: Only one problem with this (Score:2)
You ever think you're on a watch list? You are now!
Re: (Score:2)
Like a laser pointer. We are so screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, the "Herp-derp...what about nukes? Huh? Huh?" non-argument.
Anyone who has the budget and technical chops to purchase and maintain a nuke (or even a missile) can get one, law or no law. That's not even taking into account the possibility of simply stealing one, or improvising one.
The 9/11 attack (in Manhattan, let us note) was carried out using missiles improvised from hijacked planes.
I have not heard that this idiot Manhattan DA is trying to ban home-built planes.
Is he?
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, the classic dumbshit anti gun control argument. We ban all kinds of stuff because its dangerous and that hasnt resulted in some retarded slippery slope scenario where everything is banned. You're an idiot.
Re:Only one problem with this (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
A few of the more progressive states now have "ghost gun" laws that prevent you from making many gun parts without a valid serial number on it. I doubt that these same progressive states are all that eager to issue valid serial numbers to home builders without a lawsuit, so they basically made home 3D printing of most firearms illegal.
Re: (Score:1)
This, yes.
If you print a gun (or gun parts, depending on the part), it has to be traceable to an individual (not sure how you'd want to handle that), and have a serial number that gets registered to your gun license, complete with rifling pattern (randomly generated for each print)... of course, the file would have to be secured against being modified (maybe SHA or something).
Maybe... the registered gun license (which should be tied to an actual gun) has to be entered on a thing to generate the files for th
Re:Only one problem with this (Score:4, Insightful)
This, yes.
If you print a gun (or gun parts, depending on the part), it has to be traceable to an individual (not sure how you'd want to handle that), and have a serial number that gets registered to your gun license, complete with rifling pattern (randomly generated for each print)... of course, the file would have to be secured against being modified (maybe SHA or something).
Maybe... the registered gun license (which should be tied to an actual gun) has to be entered on a thing to generate the files for the gun (or parts) which has to have it's serial number entered also, and limit each serial/license linked combo to like one or two uses that are permanently tied to the license/serial linked combo.
Of course, one might ask... why would you need a gun (or gun parts) without a serial/identifying characteristics unless you're planning a 'big thing' that you don't want traced to you.
Why? Literally none of this is required for a gun machined from metal, injection molded plastic, or made through any other process.
If a 3D printed gun meets the legal standards required of every other type of firearm, what is the problem?
No other guns have rifling patterns logged, or to be registered in a central database, or require any licenses to own most places, so what is your justification for requiring it of -only- these?
Re: (Score:2)
Every gun has rifling patterns logged.
Maybe you'd be fine if someone shot your kid with a 3D-printed untraceable gun that means you can't ever press charges on that person.
Why would you need to print 3D printed parts for your gun? Or, a whole gun?
The barrel in your 9mm Glock should last longer than you. If you're needing a barrel without rifling, WHY? Same with those adapters to make a gun full auto... WHY?
(Not to mention... what is your 3D printer? Or, what material are you using?)
Re: (Score:2)
"Every gun has rifling patterns logged"
Citations please.
Re: (Score:2)
https://gunmagwarehouse.com/bl... [gunmagwarehouse.com]
And... why would one need an untraceable gun?
Re: (Score:2)
I w nothing about living rifling patterns in that link.
More to your second point, why should I show a need for any firearm? Only the government's 'need' to know I have one, and what sort oit is.
And they need not know of my self-manufactured firearm, unless the create the crime of making my own. Which they ought not do.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... if it's a licensed firearm/sidearm, it shouldn't be a problem.
Again... why do you need an unregistered firearm/sidearm?
I'll overlook all your grammar mistakes... I'm not an ***hole like that.
And, if it's "self manufactured", why do you need it?
Do you live in an environment that is that hostile?
Are there that many 'gators around? Do you need to defend your moonshine still?
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate your patience with my typing. My phone is not the best platform, but using the Selectric is impractical here.
I can only respond that my Constitutional right to bear arms implies a duty, but not a need. A right that is contingent on some need is not a right at all.
And for that purpose, it should not matter if the firearm is purchased, acquired, or made by me. Same thing, same right. The government may have to show why it needs to have a record of my possession. Currently in the US, a purchased f
Re: (Score:2)
I know you're not using a Selectric.
Congrats for actually making a comment that requires reading.
Again... why do you need a gun? Is the local PD that bad?
Why do need an unregistered gun? So you don't charged for gunning someone down?
If everybody could 3D print a gun without a license, what's your estimate of what the shooting deaths in schools might ring up to?
Re: (Score:2)
Literally none of this is required for a gun machined from metal
Huh? Uniquely identifiable and traceable serial numbers are legally required on all firearms. A link to that number connected to a person and filed with the government is legally required for certain classes of firearms
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, one might ask... why would you need a gun (or gun parts) without a serial/identifying characteristics unless you're planning a 'big thing' that you don't want traced to you.
The Second Amendment was written to protect the states from a repeat of what the newly created nation had just gone through, specifically freeing themselves from what they saw as in illegitimate government.
One argument to support most gun control was that the Second Amendment was a "collective right", a right of the states to arm a police force and/or national defense force. That is a police force or defense force that could be considered the "militia" as mentioned in the Second Amendment. The problem wit
Re: (Score:3)
Federally this is NOT true....US citizens have had and still have a right to manufacture their own firearms and you do not have to mark them w
Re: (Score:2)
Some freedom hating states have put laws in place making this illegal....not sure how that would stand up to a lawsuit, but it is what is it now...but these state laws only apply in a very few blue states.
It's funny how we get comments like this but we never hear conservatives complain about the loss of freedom from us banning all kinds of other dangerous stuff. That FDA and their freedom hating right? When will this freedom hating tyranny stop!?
Oh wait, it turns out this isnt an honest argument against gun restrictions after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to argue that the FDA is a constitutionally protected right?
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are arguing that conservatives are hypocrites, and by extension their arguments are invalid.
And by that standard, there's no one left to argue with.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that these same progressive states are all that eager to issue valid serial numbers
States don't issue serial numbers. Manufacturers do. And then they record the transfer of the weapons when they are sold to dealers. No sale or transfer. No record of the serial number.
Serial numbers are pretty useless as a violence prevention tool anyway. Unlike automobile number plates, nobody sees and records the s/n at the scene of a crime. Or can spot a gun without one like a car with no plate (which our cops don't give a rats ass about anyway). They are only useful once the weapon is in police hands
Re: (Score:2)
Cat has been out of the bag for decades. (Score:3)
A few of the more progressive states now have "ghost gun" laws that prevent you from making many gun parts without a valid serial number on it. I doubt that these same progressive states are all that eager to issue valid serial numbers to home builders without a lawsuit, so they basically made home 3D printing of most firearms illegal.
And yet I could probably have an entire machine shop delivered directly to the Manhatten DA office, along with a dozen copies of the anarchists cookbook ordered straight from Amazon, and use it to make all manner of mayhem. Because no one is policing machinists. Or raw aluminum alloys. Or 30-year old design documents and CAD files telling us how to make a full-auto-anything.
Cats been out of the bag. Uninstall the fucking revolving door at the prison if we truly want to address the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Law is not the only thing that constrains people's actions. There are also moral and ethical considerations.
You may be aware that "virtually the entire United States" as you put it, has a serious problem with gun violence?
Given how easy and cheap it is to buy guns there, why would anyone want to 3D print a poor-quality substitute? The fear is that the main reason is to avoid responsibility for their actions. The same reason a person would drive a car without number-plates. Thingiverse chooses not to be a
Re: (Score:3)
You may be aware that "virtually the entire United States" as you put it, has a serious problem with gun violence?
Put as a question like that; no. It's primarily a problem in places where possessing a gun is restricted or prohibited and as a consequence, said possession becomes a status symbol in some communities. And once you've got one, and a propensity for violating the law (also a status symbol), you've got to use it to prove your status.
Defensive gun use more common than criminal use (Score:3)
Law is not the only thing that constrains people's actions. There are also moral and ethical considerations. You may be aware that "virtually the entire United States" as you put it, has a serious problem with gun violence?
Legal defensive gun use occurs far more often than criminal or negligent gun use. Keep in mind that defensive use does not necessarily mean a shot had to be fired. The racking of a 12-guage pump shotgun can convince an intruder to immediately leave with great haste. Also many firearms deaths are suicides, gun bans just lead to other methods of suicide.
Gun bans are security theatre, nothing more than placebos. If you want to talk about proper criminal and mental background checks, mandatory safety trainin
Re: Defensive gun use more common than criminal us (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So killing yourself with a gun is legal. Good to know.
Its a homocide, its just difficult to prosecute.
Re: (Score:2)
So is some teenage girl overdosing herself on acetaminophen and risking dying a horrific death by liver failure, but I see it at least once or twice a month. We need to ban Tylenol right now! Won't someone think of the children?!
Re: (Score:2)
What about all the automotive fatalities?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to talk about proper criminal and mental background checks, mandatory safety training, mandatory safe storage, ... then we are discussing things that will actually save lives.
As a Canadian I have no problem with any of those things, they have been law here forever. Don't ever think it will stop the people who want to ban guns though. It will not.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't ever think it [regulation] will stop the people who want to ban guns though. It will not.
Who are these people? I've not met any. Are they too busy guarding cornfields?
Re: (Score:2)
California tried to confiscate registered guns ... (Score:2, Troll)
Don't ever think it [regulation] will stop the people who want to ban guns though. It will not.
Who are these people? I've not met any. Are they too busy guarding cornfields?
Never been to California? They banned some guns. The let current owners registers them if they were finger printed and background checked.
A few years later the State Legislature tried to revoke the registrations and force the guns to be turned in.
California Bill 2013 AB 174.
Now the funny thing is, if you look up that bill it will appear to be something completely different, unrelated to firearms. Some boring funding bill. When the bill was brought to the floor the smarter Democrats realized what a PR
Re: (Score:2)
Never been to California? They banned some guns.
"some guns" ? You mean assault rifles? sub-machine guns? ... no, apparently in Texas you can buy a 50-cal machine gun, or even a 155mm howitzer.
Surely everywhere bans "some guns"? Googling
However an M982 Excalibur Round is not available for civilian purchase, nor is the W48 nuclear shell. If you do manage to find one, there is a $200 stamp tax. Per round. Congratulations on your liberties.
Meanwhile California is awash with guns. My friends lived in the US for a bit, and their kids told us about the "a
Re: (Score:2)
Never been to California? They banned some guns.
"some guns" ? You mean assault rifles?
No.
sub-machine guns?
No.
Surely everywhere bans "some guns"?
That's not the relevant fact. The relevant fact is the ban was for new transfers only. Per the ban's legislation, existing owners could submit to being fingerprinted and background checked and register the now banned guns. Yet after all that, the CA legislature considered revoking these registrations retroactively and banning the still legal guns in the hands of legally registered background checked and fingerprinted owners. It demonstrated that yes, some elected officials really do see registration a
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to talk about proper criminal and mental background checks, mandatory safety training, mandatory safe storage, ... then we are discussing things that will actually save lives.
I do. Who said "gun bans"? There are plenty of countries where these measures seem to work. Add to this that like cars, guns should be registered, with serial numbers. The primary purpose of 3D printing gun parts seems to be to circumvent such safety measures.
There may however be a partial technological solution. Maybe. Colour printers often put invisible tracking codes on output in order to combat counterfeiting (and help the NSA). Perhaps 3D printers might be require to do something similar?
Most builder will probably comply with the law ... (Score:2)
The primary purpose of 3D printing gun parts seems to be to circumvent such safety measures.
I actually doubt that. I expect if the law required a serial number folks would add one. I have friends that purchased a couple of 80% lower receivers, which are not considered a firearm and have no serial numbers. However when they processed that last 20% they put serial numbers on them. ABC123 and XYZ123. Now they can take these to the range and go plinking and not worry about a passing cop who wants to see a serial number ("in plain view" and all that). They are compliant. The serial number does not need
Re: (Score:1)
Gun bans are security theatre, nothing more than placebos. If you want to talk about proper criminal and mental background checks, mandatory safety training, mandatory safe storage, ... then we are discussing things that will actually save lives.
I'd argue that the suggested means to save lives are as much security theater as gun bans.
Just how much training is "enough" to be considered someone that can be trusted to own a firearm? For many states the required training for a concealed carry permit is having taken a hunter safety course. For some states this is inadequate. Take Illinois as an example, they require 16 hours of training, and this training costs something like $200. That can be a considerable investment for working class people, and
Re:Defensive gun use more common than criminal use (Score:4, Interesting)
Gun bans are security theatre, nothing more than placebos. If you want to talk about proper criminal and mental background checks, mandatory safety training, mandatory safe storage, ... then we are discussing things that will actually save lives.
I'd argue that the suggested means to save lives are as much security theater as gun bans.
History shows otherwise. Consider mandatory hunter safety training. I have only been through hunter safety training in three states, but in all of those the classes were mostly general purpose firearms safety. Including safe handling and safe storage. Google reports that these classes have reduced hunting related incidents and accidents by about 80%. I think it is a safe bet non-hunters would benefit from similar instruction. Google reports that both mandatory and voluntary safety classes have been credited with reducing incidents and injuries by researchers.
Just how much training is "enough" to be considered someone that can be trusted to own a firearm?
I'd say 4-6 hours, which is about how much time the hunter safety classes seemed to spend on general purpose firearms safety.
For many states the required training for a concealed carry permit ...
Totally different level of training in my opinion. Not what I am referring to as mandatory training for ownership. Carry is far far more advanced than ownership.
I'm not opposed to people seeking firearm training, and I'd encourage it even if there's no intent to own a firearm ... ...
I'm not opposed to safe storage of firearms
Then I'm a little confused as to what the problem is with a mandatory hunter safety level sort of class prior to purchase.
... but any mandates on safe storage can be abused to price people out of firearm ownership ...
The Mossberg cable padlock seems to be listed on their website for $24. I have yet to see something I cannot secure with such a lock.
And as I was taught in hunter safety, partial disassembly works too. Take the bolt out of the rifle. Or unload and lock the ammo in a toolbox. I think you get the idea.
There's no one size fits all on safe storage.
I'm not saying the state should mandate the method.
Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't happen in the future, just ask the citizens of so many other nations that were disarmed by their own government.
California. They banned some guns. The let current owners registers them if they were finger printed and background checked. A few years later the State Legislature tried to revoke the registrations and force the guns to be turned in.
California Bill 2013 AB 174.
Now the funny thing is, if you look up that bill it will appear to be something completely different, unrelated to firearms. Some boring funding bill. When the bill was brought to the floor the smarter Democrats realized what a PR gift this bill would be for the NRA and they "amended it" into something completely different. So to see the original attempt to ban legally registered guns owned by folks were finger printed and background checked you have to manually select the original revision of the proposed legislation on the web site. A plain google search will just show you the boring funding bill, the current revision.
Re: (Score:2)
History shows otherwise. Consider mandatory hunter safety training. I have only been through hunter safety training in three states, but in all of those the classes were mostly general purpose firearms safety. Including safe handling and safe storage. Google reports that these classes have reduced hunting related incidents and accidents by about 80%. I think it is a safe bet non-hunters would benefit from similar instruction. Google reports that both mandatory and voluntary safety classes have been credited with reducing incidents and injuries by researchers.
I'd expect a great many laws that could be sown to improve public safety, that doesn't make them constitutional. We could make the world safer by ignoring the right to remain silent under police interrogation. We could have a study showing the world is a safer place if we remove the protections on being free from search and seizure without a warrant or probable cause. Even though a hunter safety course is a very low bar to clear on demonstrating safety there's an inherent problem to placing conditions on
Re: (Score:1)
Law is not the only thing that constrains people's actions. There are also moral and ethical considerations.
That's true but people lacking morals and ethics are not bound by such constraints.
You may be aware that "virtually the entire United States" as you put it, has a serious problem with gun violence?
Can you define "gun violence"? I've seen how the Brady Campaign defines "gun violence" and they had to shoehorn suicide into the definition to make their numbers look like there was a problem of "gun violence" in the USA. Their "logic" was that any action involving a firearm was inherently violent, or some other bullshit.
As most people would define "violence" is use of force against an innocent person. For the Brady Campai
Re: (Score:2)
Can you define "gun violence"? I've seen how the Brady Campaign defines "gun violence" and they had to shoehorn suicide into the definition to make their numbers look like there was a problem of "gun violence" in the USA.
Violence is ... stop playing dumb. Use of force to harm, or more broadly including the threat of force.
Their "logic" was that any action involving a firearm was inherently violent, or some other bullshit.
Why are you getting bogged down in semantics? Is hunting violence? Not in this context. People can refer to an earthquake as violent. Just pick a definition, make it clear, and don't whinge that others use a different one. Yes homicide and suicide should be treated as separate issues.
As most people would define "violence" is use of force against an innocent person.
WTF does "innocent" have to do with it? Aside form innocence being subjective. Are gang wars or Palestine non-violen
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you getting bogged down in semantics?
Because the people that are making claims of problems of "gun violence" in the USA are playing games with words to make their point. It is groups like the Brady Campaign that consider firearms used in self defense as "gun violence". They consider police using a firearm against felony suspects as "gun violence". If there's a problem with "gun violence" then why the need to include lawful use of a firearm in that definition?
There is no problem of "gun violence" in the USA. This can be easily shown with th
Re: (Score:2)
There is no problem of "gun violence" in the USA
Wow. Tens of thousands dead. "no problem". I guess drug overdoses and road deaths are no problem for you either. Until it happens to a loved one. Suicides "no problem" until you find your son with his brains blown out? How do you get so callous to the suffering of others?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Tens of thousands dead. "no problem".
There's more ways to murder someone than with a firearm.
If the murder rate in the USA upsets you then I'd suggest looking for motivations, law enforcement, and all kinds of other places before looking a gun control to lower the murder rate. Also, there's more to violent crime than murder, there's battery, assault, rape, and more. I'd expect a good way to reduce rape is having more armed women. Because the USA is so large and has states with variation in gun laws that it would be enlightening to look at w
Re: (Score:2)
Law is not the only thing that constrains people's actions. There are also moral and ethical considerations.
You may be aware that "virtually the entire United States" as you put it, has a serious problem with gun violence?
How is this relevant?
First, it is a District Attorneys job to deal with criminal law, nothing more. It is not a DA's place to use his offices power enforce his personal moral considerations upon anyone, not in his district and certainly not the world at large. To do that is an abuse of office and both corrupt and arguably a criminal act itself.
Secondly, I do not disagree we have a problem with gun violence. We have tools to deal with that, and we should be using them. Censorship is not a valid, or legal, solution to any problem.
We have many problems in our society. What other topics do you advocate solving through censorship?
By extension, do you believe eliminating the First Amendment would solve all societies problems then?
Re: (Score:2)
First, it is a District Attorneys job to deal with criminal law, nothing more.
Oh I agree. Sorry I was not more clear that with "morality" I was referring to the website choosing not to host gun parts. Not the DA.
The question of whether the government should attempt to censor gun plans is a separate one. It does seem like a bad idea, if it is anything like the "war on drugs" or the DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure the solution is always that someone, somewhere, will host the files.
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty sure the solution is always that someone, somewhere, will host the files.
Is that excusing the actions of a government official because, "you can't stop the signal"? I hope not.
There is some truth to the internet treating censorship as damage and routing around it. While I see this as something the government is unable to stop there should be some kind of punishment, or at least some admonishment, for this DA making an attempt at censorship. If that doesn't happen then that only emboldens government officials to try more censorship.
There's almost certainly going to be a lesson
Re: (Score:2)
Not excusing them. However, of all the awful things happening in the US state and local governments, this one doesn't really rate. Not many people can 3D print, and even fewer will choose to print guns. If those that want to print guns are mildly determined, they'll be able to get the files to do so. So this is a great evil, but microscopic impact. It needs to be fixed, but not at huge cost. if I had to bargain with the other side, I'd give this up in favor of something more important.
By comparison, allowin
Re: (Score:2)
"allowing billionaires to keep breathing"
So, you condone murder for the right reasons...
Re:Only one problem with this (Score:4, Insightful)
So why is a DA pressing to censor the entire planets access to something that is only illegal in his city?
Because the DA sees guns as the problem than anything the DA's office is doing to prevent crime.
This has been litigated before, restricting access to 3D printer files for firearms is a First Amendment issue.
Because this has the impact of restricting access to weapons this is also a Second Amendment issue.
If some office or agent of the government is searching for and removing "papers and effects" without some kind of warrant then this is a Fourth Amendment issue. To be clear, anyone acting upon a request from some government official becomes an agent of the government, as in Thingiverse taking down files from their file servers because the some DA in New York asked them to then the people at Thingiverse become government agents. If Thingiverse is compelled to remove the files because of some warrant, court order, or similar action of the government then they are not government agents. There's a fine line here and I'm no lawyer so there can be room for interpretation. I'm some rando on the internet so don't take my word for it, look to legislation and precedent on where this line is drawn.
Perhaps the Fifth Amendment comes into play as there should be some "due process" (with due process having room for interpretation) for any kind of order coming from the government that denies people property, and digital files are intellectual property. Do I need to mention again that I'm a rando on the internet trying to understand what is written in law?
If there is any kind of punishment for failing to comply with the DA's request then this can be a Sixth, Seventh, and/or Eighth Amendment issue for not having a trial by jury or such.
By the DA claiming to have any authority to make such a request there's a Ninth and/or Tenth Amendment issue.
There's all kinds of wrong with a DA simply asking Thingiverse to take down any files, this gets worse for the DA because Thingiverse complied with the request. With this impacting people's access to digital files throughout the USA there could be standing for the citizens outside New York to take this DA to court. I'd guess this would be foremost argued as a First Amendment issue, not just because this is an infringement on something akin to speaking or publishing but also because anything taken to court on Second Amendment grounds tends to take a beating in the courts because we have too many judges that can't read what is clearly stated in the US Constitution as amended.
If some DA can order the taking down of files that they find offensive then where does this end? What other kinds of files could be taken off the internet, therefore restricting access to people around the world, because some DA asked file sharing services to take these files down?
If people are asking where the slippery slope is on this then I'd suggest looking behind them.
Re: (Score:1)
And as usual there's all kinds of wrong with your post. Thingiverse already had a policy of 'no firearm stuff allowed' before Bragg asked them to work harder at enforcing it.
I'm fine with Thingiverse opting out of hosting firearm files if that's what how they choose to run their business. This is a problem because some agent of the government asked Thingiverse to not host the files. The problem lies with the actions of the DA, just making the request is the problem. Where this gets worse for the DA, and others in government that allowed for the DA to make this request, is if Thingiverse did anything but tell the DA where to go. If Thingiverse believed the DA could somehow p
Re: Only one problem with this (Score:2)
Re:Only one problem with this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Only one problem with this (Score:1)
NY is literally experimenting with socialism, and will basically get it with their next mayor.
Some people are wringing their hands, I sort of look forward to the experiment. It was a human-packed shit hole already, might as well lean into it and make it a full blown Calhounian "universe 26".
Problems with printing fire arms (Score:3)
The problem is not just that it is hard to regulate/stop. The problem is that the people doing it are not being responsible.
You see, you can print the guns out of any color. And multi-colors. It is totally possible to print it out of black plastic. Those look like guns.
But it is also totally possible to print it out of neon colored plastic.
And it is totally possible to add embellishments to the printed gun to make it look like a sci-fi blaster.
And people do this. They have competitions for best printed gun and for most fantastical. So people walk around with real guns that have minimal metal in them and look like a toy gun. You can walk in a comic book convention with these things. You can walk down the street after shooting someone and the cops will ignore you.
I am not saying I have a solution, I am saying that printed guns are a problem. I do not even know if it is possible to solve the problem. But the people that ignore these issues are fools.
Re:Problems with printing fire arms (Score:4, Interesting)
Here is a picture of a real, printed gun with the word "Nerf" printed on it, from: https://defcad.com/library/reb... [defcad.com]
https://media.defcad.com/entityimages/888c94e4dca849148a73fcbf5547ff8b.png [defcad.com]
Re: (Score:3)
For what it's worth, simply painting a normal gun to look like a toy [kold.com] has been attempted before, too. But I agree that conversions like this [wcnc.com] must be pretty spooky if you're in law enforcement. Still, toy gun form factors needn't be the only gimmick; consider the chaos a briefcase gun [popularmechanics.com] could unleash without scrutiny. The sky is the limit for designing concealed weapons if one is sufficiently imaginative and determined.
Re: (Score:2)
Very true.
As long as you can fit a round or a clip of ammo in it along with the mechanisms, you could turn basically anything into a gun... an old foldy phone, a thicker laptop, a computer mouse. Basically, as long as you can fit a suitable barrel and mechanism, it'd work. The plastic ones would only be good for one or two shots, if you use the graphite or metallic extruded material or resins, that'll show up on any scans.
Unfortunately, the plans have been out in the wild for so long that even if Thingive
Here are my replica parts files ... (Score:2)
The problem is not just that it is hard to regulate/stop.
Here are my replica parts files. Intended for gunsmith training with respect to assembly and disassembly. The printed barrel is solid so that a round cannot be chambered.
Re: (Score:2)
The real farking problem are the upcoming lasers.
You have a laser gun with 10 to 20 shots that actually indeed looks like a SciFi gun, or like a simple torch light.
Don't get me wrong: they exist already. The last big trade event when they tried to sell them in big quantities on Temu, Lazada and such got shut down over two nights or so.
Look on youtube, you find videos about them all over ...
Re:Problems with printing fire arms (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is not just that it is hard to regulate/stop. The problem is that the people doing it are not being responsible.
You see, you can print the guns out of any color. And multi-colors. It is totally possible to print it out of black plastic. Those look like guns.
But it is also totally possible to print it out of neon colored plastic. And it is totally possible to add embellishments to the printed gun to make it look like a sci-fi blaster.
And people do this. They have competitions for best printed gun and for most fantastical. So people walk around with real guns that have minimal metal in them and look like a toy gun. You can walk in a comic book convention with these things. You can walk down the street after shooting someone and the cops will ignore you.
I am not saying I have a solution, I am saying that printed guns are a problem. I do not even know if it is possible to solve the problem. But the people that ignore these issues are fools.
Go back 50 years in rural America and you’ll find a high school senior pulling into the school parking lot with a real 12-gauge shotgun hanging in the rear window. With the teacher hanging outside smoking saying ”Hey, you have any luck in the blind this weekend?”
No SWAT team was activated. No parents were admonished and villified in the public square by a rabid gaggle of Karens. No child was kicked out of school and robbed of a future. No child even felt threatened.
You tell me what the hell changed. Because the answer isn’t toy guns are too colorful and popular. Had those as kids too.
Re:Problems with printing fire arms YES (Score:2)
If two people had an issue they would duke it out on the playground. And 2 hours later they would be best of friends. They didn't shoot up the school.
The problem is all the darn drugs they are shoving down kids throats that are making them go psycho. Look up the affects of the drugs they are giving kids these days, it will scare you.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be replying to someone else. You ignored my point entirely and made up a new one, not understanding what I am concerned about at all.
I am not saying toy guns are bad, I am saying real guns designed to look like toy guns are bad.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be replying to someone else. You ignored my point entirely and made up a new one, not understanding what I am concerned about at all.
Fair point and I stand corrected. That said, for the last few hundred years, real guns have generally been made to look like guns. You can get a Glock today in any color you want as long as it’s black.
The good part about more women protecting themselves with firearms, is the confidence of self-defense for themselves and their families.
The bad part about more women protecting themselves with firearms, is hardly any of them wants to do it with an “ugly” gun. Hence the rainbow enema shat al
Re: (Score:1)
The only problem is that not enough people are doing it. Can't stop the signal, baby.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said you could stop it, I said that the people doing it are irresponsible.
You replies that more people should do it... being irresponsible. Without any reason at all.
You appear think saying yay for my side is an argument. It only makes you look foolish.
You want to convince someone, trying making a claim that something is a good idea, not just that you can't stop it.
That could hit against my benign hobby (Score:3)
I'm afraid that that could turn against my hobby: which is the total opposite.
I like movies, and objects in movies (called "props"), and building/collecting my own replicas of them.
And in action and sci-fi movies the most prominent, most recognisable movie props are not always, but often guns. Examples include Deckard's gun from Blade Runner, the Pulse Rifle from Aliens and Han Solo's blaster from Star Wars -- all based on actual real-world fire-arms with embellishments.
And I live in a country with strict gun control. So I have to build them out of plastic: sometimes a mix of a store-bought toy gun, 3D-printed parts and parts scratch-built from pipes and plastic card.
Then I paint them in realistic colour schemes, often trying to replicate the exact rust and wear patterns of the original object.
I often describe it as "model building in scale 1:1", because it is using the same materials and techniques.
I actually really detest guns in real life. What I like is delving deep into research and the build process itself. I don't even have a movie prop gun on display right now.
Will they ban machine shops too? (Score:2, Insightful)
Let liability law handle this (Score:1)
Too many kids use Thingiverse to have firearms (Score:2)
When I was a teenager, I knew someone who paralyzed his friend with a
Nice! (Score:2)
So firearms will get their OWN site.
Gun nuts (Score:2)
None of you are "well-regulated". And NONE of you have risen up to save us from a dictator trying to take control, with his private army of g-ICE-tapo.
You just want to kill anyone not like you - that's your great dream.