[ygjb]

I mean, it's not perfect, but is graded poorly (32%, right, mixed quality, low quality sources, and moderately opinionated) by The Factual using their isthiscredible.com service.

Part of do better should at least be coming with a basis for your argument instead of just pointing at political leanings.

The epidemic of gun violence in the United States is blatantly obvious to every one of its allies, and 2nd Amendment rights one of the major political brain worms that is undermining US standing around the world (and don't get me started on Canadians and UK folks who argue about gun rights trying to use an American framing of the position).

[Turing_Machine]

There is no "epidemic" of "gun violence".

While the U.S. murder rate did increase somewhat in the COVID years, it is still significantly below its peak in the early '90s. Pre-COVID, it was only about half what it was.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/murd...

[ygjb]

Sure, perhaps I shouldn't have been so figurative. The level of endemic gun violence in the United States is deeply alarming to basically all of it's other peer nations and allies. The fact that the level of gun violence is "on the decline" doesn't change the fact that there is still a shocking amount of gun violence in the United States, or the fact that an increasing number of Americans want restrictions or some form of gun control.

[Turing_Machine]

> the fact that an increasing number of Americans want restrictions or some form of gun control.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Right_to...

Doesn't look like it to me.

[torstenvl]

Many very intelligent people disagree with your policy position on this, and HN is not for ideological warfare.

[ygjb]

The comment I replied to dismissed another users comment as politically motivated with a call to "do better"; I made the essentially the same argument and at least presented data to back up my argument.

If an opposition to gun control and voicing that opposition is ideological warfare inappropriate for this site, I would expect to see this entire submission flagged.

That said, to bring it into context, HN is a tech focused website; the nature of this regulation is rooted in the fact that there is no practical way to regulate how a 3d-printer might be used, since they are trivial to build using off-the-shelf components and software, in many cases, for a skilled engineer, just using components salvaged from common household electronics and appliances.

This legislation is highly relevant to HN since it exemplifies how such an "unregulatable" technology might be regulated by imposing specific requirements on the outputs of that technology, and explicitly criminalizes the use of that technology to manufacture specific devices. A good example of how this contrasts with other technical regulations and laws, and their impacts on technology, consider modern printers - they are easily capable of scanning and printing at sufficient quality and low cost, paper currency that would pass at least casual inspection by observers, provided you can get the appropriate print medium for the currency in question (for some currencies). In response to this, there are several varieties of regulation that extend deeply into print and scan technologies as part of counterfeit deterrence.

This outcome for the manufacture of firearms is actually more desirable than more intrusive legislation that would mandate that 3d-printer firmware or other fabrication technologies attempt to discern what could be a firearm or munitions component, and refuse to print it. Strictly from a technologist perspective, without ideology, I would support this legislation on that front. In other words, as long as you don't use this tech to do crimes, you are ok. More restrictions on the proliferation of firearms is just a bonus :)

[torstenvl]

The entire submission is flagged, exactly because threads like this result in ideological warfare comments.

Please stop.