Hacker News Reader

Ok, so the reasoning here is that the price is ~equal, and one is more durable (not necessarily a good thing when you're using something in a crime, but I'm willing to entertain the notion) and effective.

This is, reasonably, fair. But the price of a 3D printer has been trending down for, at least, the past decade (and quality improving).

If the price continues to drop, do you see this being a reasonable thing to continue doing? If so, at what price do you think would be the inflection point?

Maybe when SLS printers get down to $200. And/or when the patience required to build one successfully is less than the patience required to steal one.

The advantage of traditional manufacturing techniques is not just durability, it’s that it works at all right out of the box, and criminals care that it’s “real” and intimidating.

Does the amount of money you can make creating these things play into it at all?

For example, meth is pretty difficult/dangerous to make (relative to things the average person makes), but making it for a profit has caused the knowledge to proliferate.

If acceptable printers don't get down to $200, but get down to $400, do you think the ROI gets to the right place? I'm assuming there has to be a market for disposable guns to lower the chances of getting caught (I presume the point would be to melt them down after their use).

Yeah, but meth is illegal. Selling a 3D printed gun in the US is more like trying to sell skunk weed in a place where dispensaries are on every corner.

I think the best evidence that criminals don’t want 3D printed guns is that they already exist, and criminals aren’t using them.

The advantage of 3D printers is ease of retooling compared to traditional methods. This is why they’re good for prototyping, but not good for mass production. Mass production techniques will always produce better quality/cost balance due to the nature of the processes. The advantage of 3D printing provides no utility to a criminal gun dealer.

In places with strict gun control, the guns crimes that happen still rarely use 3D printed guns. Basic metalworking tools are also inexpensive and are a better fit for the purpose.

That’s the official goal, but it’s not necessarily what happens (“while many communities include buybacks in their overall gun violence prevention strategies, most research shows these events are ineffective at reducing homicides and suicides,” https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta... ).

I meant that the type of gun is something that criminals use, not that the specific guns being turned in were destined to become criminal's guns.

i.e. turning away 3D printed derringers is not putting a gun on the streets that is likely to be useful for crime.

If somebody stuck one of those garbage guns in your face and demanded your wallet, you'd be wise to comply. It doesn't even need to actually work to be effective at the sort of crime most handguns are used for.

Yes, but they don't. It's cheaper and more convenient for a criminal to get real guns which are better anyway.

the data, is also of utility. you dont just get guns of the street, you get intelligence regarding traffic, and production.

Why does it warm your heart? Even if you’re pro 2A, why would you want to undermine buy back programs, which even in the least charitable description remove unwanted firearms which could otherwise be stolen or end up in the hands of a child?

Because idiots sell their incredibly valuable inherited antiques, including exceptionally rare legal machine guns, which a) are not used in crime, as a rule, and b) are really cool.

I do not think many people are selling valuable antiques to the government m for pennies on the, and if they are, why do you care?

If you've used the internet archive, you care too.

They absolutely are, and I care because I want them

Indeed, you could probably make good money selling untraceable 3d printed guns to anyone who wants one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com