I understand the intent, but feel that there are so many other loopholes that put much worse weapons on the street than a printer. Besides, my prints can barely sustain normal use, much less a bullet being fired from them. I would think that this is more of a risk to the person holding the gun than who it’s pointing at.
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”.
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.
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?
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.
This is 'murica. we use Webster’s here.
(sorry. couldn’t resist. you are correct. this isn’t a solution.)