A quick search suggests that 3D-printed guns being used in crime is an actual, for-real, and growing problem.
I take it that you wouldn't be OK with somebody building a uranium enrichment facility in their backyard for their hobby reactor. So there is a line to be drawn on where people's freedom to tinker ends; it's just a question of where you draw it.
Personally, I think given there is an actual documented, non-isolated problem with 3D printed guns being used for violent crime, there's a debate to be had that's more sophisticated than "REGULATION BAD".
Once you know how easy it is to make a gun using parts from a hardware store the concept of banning it becomes a joke.
It’s like trying to ban wrenches.
Lever and tube - that’s what it is. People create makeshift ones even when it’s legal to buy them, because it’s cheap and easy to do so.
You can’t ban computers or personal transportation or words either.
You can’t even ban a person from a website. You can ban an account - but you haven’t stopped the person. Any attempt at playing arbitrary authority you’re gonna lose
> A quick search suggests that 3D-printed guns being used in crime is an actual, for-real, and growing problem.
Making actual firearms from steel is trivial. In fact you can look up Kalashnikov designs online and then replicate it with a relatively simple mill/lathe/tapping setup.
To be honest, as someone familiar mostly with computers, I have no idea where to start with this and it sounds a bit intimidating. Buying a 3D printer and using some 3rd party design sound very easy in comparison.
You're certainly right that it's possible for someone determined to make their own firearm, but raising the bar still has immense value.
Tradeoffs between freedom and safety are another, unrelated discussion.
Just watch a few YouTube videos. It’s not hard. Much easier than software development, although it’s dirty/messy (you use lots of oil and fling metal shavings everywhere) and time consuming.
The easier a thing is to do, the more often people will do it. And downloading a file and pressing print is a far, far lower barrier than machining steel.
It’s not 3d printed guns, it’s 3d printed parts. You don’t need the 3d printing at all if you want to make a DIY gun in the US, you can literally just buy the gun parts.
You don’t seem to have a good grasp of the topic but already decided the opposition position is „regulation bad“, but that’s not the case at all. The pushback comes from introducing the government as middleman between your slicer and 3d printer, that’s dystopic af
My position on anything is "REGULATION BAD" when it's against individuals and non commercial/open source projects, "REGULATION GOOD" for massive corporations, and "REGULATION MAYBE GOOD NEEDS NUANCED DEBATE" for anything in between.
Non-commercial projects and individuals can do bad stuff too.
I agree the bar is a lot higher for those projects than massive corporations, but I think it's a pretty arguable case that "people are using 3D printers to make guns with features that would otherwise be illegal, and they are being used in crimes in some number" clears that bar.
Then I missed the public discussion on why making it illegal to possess DIY guns is not enough. Did that actually get debated or just handwaved away? By the time I became aware of this whole technical blocking thing, that was the only proposal on the table.
Ah, I think I know this one. It's because people who make their own guns are nerds. You know, like you or I, except in a different topic. I remember reading a couple of posts on R*dd*t where two folk were discussing fitting accessories to guns and one posted something like "No, you can fit that, all you do is mill a slot on top of the receiver and drill and tap a hole at the end and you can just about screw this thing in place" kind of thing.
I read the discussion and thought "yeah that's nerd talk, just not about analogue synthesizers, old Landrover gearboxes, or Pascal compilers".
I guess the reason for blocking 3D printers from making gun parts is because it's easier than doing it "by hand". All you really need to do is get a copy of the files from someone who has them, print it out in something suitable, and you have viable gun components with very little "real work" involved.
By contrast here in the UK, where it's quite surprising what you're allowed to own and operate if you comply with the laws (here you're allowed fully automatic weapons, if you keep them at a suitable shooting range and don't try to wander around town with them, and you're not oh maybe a convicted violent criminal for example) one of my late father's friends was a gunsmith. My dad was an excellent machinist, and so he made some components for his friend, and I remember standing in the machine shop where they worked while he turned a chamber for a gun his colleague was building in the lathe. "There you go," he said, taking it out of the chuck, "that's legal".
Then he took it over to the mill, and cut a couple of holes and slots that would allow it to actually function as a chamber, "And there - now it's *illegal*."
Then, as he handed it to his friend, who was licensed to have "home made" gun parts, to stamp his initials on, "And now it's legal again."
Of course since people aren't allowed to just walk around with handguns since the school shooting, it's all a little more difficult - but the police will tell you what you need to do to keep it legal.
It's still slightly easier to get a shotgun licence than a motorcycle licence here.
> here you're allowed fully automatic weapons, if you keep them at a suitable shooting range and don't try to wander around town with them, and you're not oh maybe a convicted violent criminal for example
I think you're overstating this. My understanding is that here in GB (unsure about NI) fully automatic firearms are absolutely prohibited with only limited exceptions that the general public are typically ineligible for. Could you elaborate?
If you run a gun club where people can safely fire fully-auto weapons in a controlled environment, you are allowed to own them and supervise people firing them.
This is not an easy or inexpensive thing to set up.
I shot a documentary about a guy doing just that in NE Scotland, about 20 years ago, and while his range is still in business I don't think he has ever cleared the tape for redistribution - it was a "here's what you spent your money on" for the investors.
The obvious answer is to slice up your gun model into a number of sub-parts which individually aren't detected by the algorithm but collectively still form a functioning gun. And there's an unlimited number of ways to slice up a model, so it is impossible to create an algorithm which catches everything.
What's next, keep track of all printed parts and invent the math to recombine them in every way possible to see if it could form a gun? Trivially defeated by using multiple printers. Hmmm, sounds like a good reason to force everyone to register their 3D printer with their real identity, and only allow a print after the model has been uploaded to the Federal Printing Database for verification...
Or ya know, make a gun using a cnc machine, or are they gonna ban those too?
It’s so ridiculously easy to assemble a 3d printer from individually sourced parts, and find some open source firmware to run it. How is this going to stop anyone who’s dishonest and slightly motivated?
What’s next is thinking about guns is a thought crime.
There’s a cynical part of me that sees this as having nothing to do with guns. Technology used to empower people. You can do anything with a computer running Linux, you used to be able to go anywhere on the web and do anything you like. There’s wasn’t a curated experience, a whitelist of apps. This is a bad thing for people who want to control and manipulate. They want us to mindlessly use our closed of devices that only show us what they want us to see and do what they approve. 3d printers can’t be allowed in such a world.
Most sensible explanation to me is that it is getting something that does scanning on the 3d printers. Next step is to make it apply to copyrighted designs. As that is lot more doable. And fascists like to be in control and allow big corporations to exercise their power.
Ah, but don't you see? Something Must Be Done, and "gun part detection" is, indeed, Something. (ignoring that it fails the "thing" part of the definition, because it can't possibly exist)
Fully 3D-printed guns have awful performance, though. You would likely get significantly better results improvising with the stuff available at literally any random hardware store. Yet, despite that kind of gun being around for centuries, we weirdly aren't seeing bans on rigid metal tubes yet.
3D-printed "guns" become a real issue when you combine it with unregulated sale of firearm parts and ammunition. To get a fully-functional gun you just need to 3D print a fairly trivial component which is legally considered the entire gun as it carries the serial number. But that's not a 3D printing problem, because there are also companies selling that same part in a mostly-finished legally-not-a-gun form, together with a drilling jig guiding you how to drill the last few holes with a regular Dremel. And nobody is proposing banning Dremels. Heck, it is totally okay to own a lathe - which you can use to make your own high-quality guns!
And the entire discussion is of course pointless once you realize that this is the USA, so anyone is only a weekend road trip away from legally and fully-anonymously buying a gun two states over. If 3D-printed guns are such a huge problem, why aren't we seeing European countries mass-banning 3D printers?
To extend your analogy: it's like being fine with the sale of ultracentrifuges and uranium hexafluoride, then getting upset at someone selling a screwdriver to attach the plug to the power cord of the ultracentrifuge because "screwdrivers lead to nuclear bombs".
3D printed guns are a nothingburger. There is indeed a non-zero number of violent crimes committed with them - but there is also a non-zero number of violent crimes committed with shoelaces, so that's clearly not enough of a reason to ban them. It only makes sense to regulate them if they are involved in a significant number of crimes and leading to a huge increase in gun violence - and at that point you probably want to crack down on all forms of DIY guns instead of just the 3D printed ones. But that's simply not the case, so the regulation is pointless and doing more harm than good.
> ... why aren't we seeing European countries mass-banning 3D printers?
Dunno, because most europeans are way more responsible with their guns than many people in the US?
For example in the EU (and in Switzerland) before you can buy a gun, you get specific training about safe and responsible handling. And in many countries the cops shall come to your place and verify that you've got a gun safe and a separate safe for the ammo.
And we don't offer AR-15 to our kids when they turn 14 y/o (well I say that but my daughter wants to shoot my weapons and, once she turns 14, she can switch from air rifles to the real thing as long as she's accompanied).
Just to be clear: we have shitloads of guns and ammos in Europe. There's even one EU country with concealed carry. I think it's estimated there are twice as many non-registered weapons as registered ones. We've got big guns factories and gun brands in the EU. And there are millions of illegal full-auto weapons like kalashnikovs (well Zastava M70, which is the same) from the war in Yougoslavia in the hands of criminals. And shitloads of fully functional weapons, including handguns, from WWII circulating.
In my native city (Brussels, Belgium), at the moment there are drug dealers firing kalashnikov on police stations regularly (it's a big issue, it's in the news daily and the authorities don't know what to do).
In addition to people shooting at the range (and, sadly, to drug dealers/criminals ruining our cities), we've got lots of hunters too.
Many people at my shooting range have their official gun transport license full (that is 30 weapons) and some have more than 100 weapons in their collection.
It's a fantasy that europeans don't have guns: we're (mostly) responsible with them.
It's maybe because we're responsible with our guns that the EU hasn't banned 3D printers... Yet (it's the EU, so nothing is unthinkable).
And for people that know their history, the DoD basically built Silicon Valley as we know, funding research and buying essentially 100% of the output of valley fabs for several years for Radars, then ICBMs, and then flight computers (F14 was arguably the first modern microcomputer) from about 1962-1972. Only when silicon companies scaled beyond this demand did the consumer computer revolution begin to take flight.
A single shopping to trip to Walmart or Home Depot can buy items that can be repurposed into bombs and physical and chemical weapons with only a little bit of know-how. Are we going to require mandatory ID and shopping cart analysis to all shopping too?
Taxiing is probably harder to automate than the rest. But you could have pilots on hand to taxi to the runway, and take a shuttle to the other end and hop on a just landed plane to taxi to the gate. Or you could use tugs for ground movement.
I'm not convinced - in a commercial airport taxiways are controlled by a ground control systems, not just pilots looking out the window. If the only airplanes around are also equips with the self taxi system they just report position to the central control and that tells them when to go. There needs to be emergency overrides for when that system fails, or a small plane without it is around, but that can be handled by stopping everyone else in the area until the hazard is gone.
There's also all of the service vehicles when you get closer to the gates. The likely damage from an incident during taxiing is much less than during take off or landing, but I think the risk of having an incident is higher and the situation is trickier to manage. And it's super doable to have a pilot come on to manage that, and drop off after the hard part; you couldn't reasonably have pilots do a takeoff and then jetpack over to an arriving plane to do the landing, but it wouldn't be unreasonable for ground moves... similar to canal pilots taking ships through canals.
Do you have a source for that? As to my knowledge advanced systems (such as lights on the twy directing you) are only present at very few airports. Recent incidents even happened due to RWY incursion without a ground controller noticing under bad visibility. So we are at a level where your runway is not even protected accordingly, let alone your 50+ taxiways.
Yes; I think it would be more accurate to say that the economics of Starship basically require high cadence launches with lots of v3 Starlink satellites (because only the big internet constellations can financially justify launching so much payload to orbit right now).
Not quite, but it's a major milestone. Still quite a bit of work to go on the rapid reusability part (burnt flaps, oxidized body, missing tiles, tile waterproofing). Starship might actually deliver payload to orbit on flight 11.
They mentioned in the stream they were intentionally stressing the ship on reentry.
But yes, “rapid reusability” is a ways off. I expect they’ll be spending weeks inspecting and repairing ship and booster before reflight for a few years, but they’ll drive it down over time.
TBD how “rapid” the reusability ends up being in the end.
The push for rapid reusability seems somewhat at odds with the push for large scale production of ships.
It seems like if they can get boosters to rapid reuse (a much easier goal), and churn out ships at sufficient scale, they can afford to take time inspecting/refurbing each ship as part of a pipelined approach.
The stated goal was always to have a lot of ships, and also to have them be reusable.
Starship is a fuel-hungry beast - it can get to LEO by itself, but it needs a lot of tanker launches to go beyond. And if your goal is a Mars colony, you don't want to be limited to one launch per launch window.
Halfway to anywhere, but the window to anywhere is quite small. For Mars, I think it's only a few weeks every two years or so. So having a lot of mass already halfway there when the window opens would be quite advantageous.
Their scenario is that the ships are mostly going to be "fuel mules" to ferry propellant to the ship that is destined to go somewhere (i.e. Mars) - so if you want an armada to travel to another planet, you need a much larger fleet of supply vehicles to prepare your armada. Hence the need to mass produce them.
> The push for rapid reusability seems somewhat at odds with the push for large scale production of ships.
Elon always talks about a city on Mars but seeing for the first time the gargantuan size of Starfactory it dawned on me that SpaceX are true believers. It is still a big IF, because the dimension of the mission is absolutely bonkers, but IF the goal is to send every two years hundreds of Starships to Mars (everyone needing around 3-4 tanker missions) you need large scale production of ships.
Ten years ago every expert said a hundred launches a year was utterly impossible. Five years ago they said it was unlikely. SpaceX have launched more than a hundred times this year already.
Anyone who thinks they can’t do stuff is not seeing the whole picture.
Not at odds at all. It doesn't matter how fast you can make them if each one costs $5-10 million. Much better to amortize that over 100+ flights and not waste the booster.
Once the tanker version is needed, a ship ship could go up 5+ times a day. The logistics of backfilling a pad with a new ship is much more involved
> rapid reusability seems somewhat at odds with the push for large scale production of ships
As you say, they reïnforce each other by speeding up the learning curve and deployment of learning to the real world, serving as both a bolstering of the product and experimental validation.
I didn't mean this ship and booster, I mean in a year or so when they're done with the test phase and frequently launching Starlink satellites on Starship.
Mildly interesting to be exposed to the world of 'YouTube engineers' who are derisory of the real-world engineering success of SpaceX. Informed criticism is fine but when you're just openly calling a world class engineering company 'stupid' then you deserve to be ignored (except, obviously, by everyone suffering from MDS).
Thunderfoot is a long-time Musk project hater for some reason. That's now his specialty which probably appeals to his audience. There are plenty of equally uninformed youtubers with glowing praise for SpaceX. Just like the real news, people divide themselves into bubbles of whatever reinforces their beliefs.
Provenance kind of matters though because we can't work out all the details of every piece of information and have to put a bit of trust in the source. A way I like it to cite a source with the opposite bias of what you're trying to say. If even the opponents of the general idea agree with some part of it, that's stronger support than it's supporters agreeing.
I very much agree with your comment on an individual level (that of the individual judging the merit of information and opinion they are being presented with). I certainly take provenance into account.
However, I was talking about HN the site. I don't think news websites should (generally) discriminate against sources but the individual readers can (collectively, as with the case of HN and voting) make a judgement call and take provenance into account, including the example you give where an unlikely source makes concessions or gives validity to an argument that they would be usually opposed to.
But the main reason I raised provenance is that the internet has given small individual voices the chance to bring informed insight to the public that previously would have been without a platform. So in this particular case I don't necessarily discount some rando on Youtube making criticisms of SpaceX; they might hold at least some validity. (In this case they obviously didn't.)
