Comment on New York Bill Would Require a Criminal Background Check to Buy a 3D Printer

• BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I have two issues with your comment, and the tldr is this “I don’t think the problem warrants the resources needed” and “I don’t think the proposed bill will solve anything, problem or not”.

  These guns are increasingly being found at crime scenes.

  Probably, I don’t have a source for that, but I suspect that you’re not wrong. What I would like to know is the proportions of gun grimes involving 3d-printed guns vs gun crimes in total. I suspect what others have said in this post, about the percentage of gun related crimes that involve 3d-printed guns, to be within a rounding error, to also be correct.

  You may not like NY’s solution, […]

  It’s not that I don’t like the “solution”. It’s that I don’t accept the proposed ban as being a solution in the first place. I don’t want to come off as being snarky, I just wanted to make sure that my understanding of the word “solution” was correct. English not being my first language, I sometime miss the salient details. So, I took a moment and googled “definition solution”. According to “Oxford Languages” a solution is a means of solving a problem or dealing with a difficult situation.

  Can you in all honesty claim, that you believe that limiting acquiring 3d-printing capabilities, in a single state, will reduce the use of 3d-printed parts in gun crimes?

  […] but the problem is growing.

  Again, the occurrence of 3d-printed guns or gun parts may be growing, but is it actually a problem big enough that it has to be dealt with? And with the resources necessary to enforce this proposal? Isn’t gun manufacturing already limited? As others have pointed out, why not limit access to other tools you could use to make guns?

  As OP pointed out, the intent may be noble, but the attempt is futile.

  source

  • Flaky_Fish69@kbin.social ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    This is 'murica. we use Webster's here.

    (sorry. couldn't resist. you are correct. this isn't a solution.)

    source
• aBundleOfFerrets@sh.itjust.works ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Sources please?

  source
• beefcat@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Some things cannot be effectively regulated in this manner. At all.

  There is simply no way to stop people from building their own 3D printers. There are too many open source designs, and they can be built with very simple parts that are readily available at the hardware store. Most hobbyist-level 3D printers basically come as a kit that they have to assemble themselves anyways. What happens next? Background checks to buy stepper motors? Background checks to buy anything containing a stepper motor?

  To me this is like trying to mandate government backdoors in encryption algorithms. There is literally nothing that would stop criminals from just using an open source encryption algorithm that doesn’t have a backdoor, so you end up just making it so all legitimate communications are less secure than they should be.

  source