Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Of 1000 Americans Polled, Most Would Ban Home Printing of Guns

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the top-5-answers-on-the-board dept.

United States 578

An anonymous reader writes "In results that may signal some discomfort with the enormous DIY promise of 3D printing and similar home-manufacturing technologies, a new Reason-Rupe poll finds that an otherwise gun control-weary American public thinks owners of 3D printers ought not be allowed to make their own guns or gun parts. Of course, implementing such a restrictive policy might be tad more difficult than measuring popular preferences." This poll is of only 1000 people, though; your mileage may vary.

cancel ×

578 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761155)

Watch out for the guy printing a pointed stick...

Re:Well... (5, Interesting)

sanman2 (928866) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761211)

If you're one of the 38% who didn't support the ban, the IRS and ATF would like to contact you to request your clarification of your position. Be prepared to submit copies of your Twitter and Facebook postings.

Re:Well... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761287)

Watch out for the guy printing a pointed stick...

Yeah, I know, I hate all those pointed stick killing massacres we've experienced lately. Or all the accidental oops my 6-year old killed her brother with a pointed stick episodes.

Re:Well... (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761323)

Yeah, I know, I hate all those pointed stick killing massacres we've experienced lately. Or all the accidental oops my 6-year old killed her brother with a pointed stick episodes.

Tell that to the 8 year old little girl who was stabbed to death by her 12 year old brother in April. Bare minimum you might point poke someone's eye out. Pointy stick are dangerous and must be registered.

Re:Well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761291)

The issue is, that even though personally I support a ban, I know it wouldn't make any sense or be effective. The only thing it would do is add another criminal charge on top of what ever they used the gun for if they got arrested.

Banning or licensing the printers also would be pointless. It may stop some, but it would not stop the ones that want such a gun. The only good thing about it is the cost. It will likely be cheaper and easier to just grind off the numbers off of a normal gun.

Re:Well... (4, Insightful)

niftydude (1745144) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761357)

Watch out for the guy printing a pointed stick...

Well, according to TFA, 29% of people surveyed didn't think people should be allowed to own 3D printers at all!

There are way too many luddites out there.

Re:Well... (1)

Flozzin (626330) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761421)

Exactly. 29% of people are just idiots. Who cares what they think about 'hot button topics' when they show this level of stupidity. Ladders! We should ban ladders, that's where many accidents at home come from! /s

Re:Well... (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761475)

Although Luddites have an interesting history, along with the clog-throwers (saboteurs), that isn't really germane to this case. However, it is easy enough to understand a reluctance to accept the casual and uncontrolled production of murder weapons. It's just too bad that any injunction would be totally unenforceable.

Incidentally (re. TFS), a survey of 1000 subjects is admissible as a valid statistic, provided that the proper sampling rules are applied.

Machine shop, anyone? (1)

mariox19 (632969) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761157)

I don't know what the law is, whether there is a federal law or if state laws apply, but what's to stop a machinist from making an AK-47 type of gun in his or her shop? That particular style of gun was designed to be simple to manufacture, and that's why you see them all over the world. If making one yourself in a machine shop is currently illegal, how would 3-D printing be legal? If it's not currently illegal, then on what basis do we make 3-D printing illegal?

I'm going to guess manufacturing your own guns are already illegal, and that this is a lot of media attention grabbing.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (4, Informative)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761173)

Manufacturing your own guns is not illegal in the US, as long as you don't sell it nor produce certain forbidden pieces/materials.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761219)

There's a public interest in regulating the right to bear arms, it's not a free for all and it will never be.
It's like asking if we should ban home printing of currency with these newfangled inkjet printers. You can print a billion fake dollars but if there's any suspicion that you want to spend them, you go to jail.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (2, Informative)

XopherMV (575514) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761297)

Printers are sold with an embedded chip that prevents the printing of currency. From what I understand, the chip is typically buried so deep into the printer that they simply can't operate if you could find it and remove it. We could attempt a similar requirement on a 3D printer.

However, gun parts can vary wildly. And, a part for a gun could conceivably be used as a part for a completely different, legal machine. I don't see a practical means of programming such a limitation.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761411)

Printers are sold with an embedded chip that prevents the printing of currency.

I've never heard of that, and it seems unlikely. Anyone have any definite info?

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (4, Informative)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761457)

I know photoshop does that, and that most printers have dots whose stated purpose is to track counterfeiters.

https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots [eff.org]
http://petapixel.com/2011/08/09/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-edit-photos-of-money-in-photoshop/ [petapixel.com]

Who is "we"? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761435)

WHO THE FUCK IS "WE"

Why do you get to control us?
You control what we print, our children (mandatory schooling, cps, etc etc), age of girls we can marry.
Fuck you.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761485)

I don't believe printers have an embedded chip to prevent printing currency. The EU banned embedded chips that prevented you from using a competitor's printer cartridge, but that's all I could find on the matter. So, all of the anti-counterfeiting measures for currency are in the currency itself. US bills, for instance, have a security strip that glows under blacklight, and the bills themselves are made of cotton and linen, not paper. Many countries use plastic bills.

I agree there probably isn't a way to prevent people from printing all of the gun parts. The best they can do is probably to make it illegal to sell or share the blueprints for gun parts, similar to how its illegal to sell or share bomb-making guides.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761329)

Much better idea to draw them yourself [wikipedia.org] on paper napkins instead.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761361)

Manufacturing a full automatic would be illegal without additional licenses however. As long as you are making semi auto or single shot, there are no 'forbidden pieces', as you put it.

You can also sell it later if you get bored with it. The law says you can't make it with an "intent to sell".

There may also be some state laws which restrict your rights ( which i feel are unconstitutional anyway, states don't have any more right to restrict the 2nd on a whim as they do the 1st )

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (1)

Planesdragon (210349) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761363)

Making a zip gun from plastic tubing is, however. And that's what a 3-d printed gun barrel is.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (2)

davmoo (63521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761187)

You're guessing wrong. Provided you are legally able to own a firearm, federal law does not prohibit you from making your own gun. You do, however, require a permit to sell it.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761269)

Unless you hold an AK47 permit (Texas ?), it's illegal to machine or own one, not only sell it. So the GP's point stands.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (4, Interesting)

heypete (60671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761387)

There's no such thing as an AK-47 permit in Texas or elsewhere in the US, assuming you're referring to the semi-auto variant.

Assuming that one is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms (e.g. not a criminal), it's perfectly legal to make any otherwise-legal firearm for personal use in the US. For example, if one wished to build a semi-auto AK-47, that's fine (here's a guy making one from a shovel he bent into the appropriate shape [northeastshooters.com] , while here are the stamped/punched flats [ak-builder.com] that you'd need to bend, drill, and heat-treat to make your own semi-auto AK receiver, the only regulated part). If you wanted to build a full-auto one, that's forbidden. You can make silencers, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, etc., but ONLY after getting the appropriate tax stamp from the ATF.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761307)

Actually, you are not required to have a permit to sell, if you did not mfg with intent to sell.... once you have owned it for a while you can legally sell it as a used gun in most states, without a Federal Firearms License

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (1)

mellon (7048) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761201)

Right, it would be interesting to ask people whether they feel the same way about making guns in a machine shop, or making bullets in a machine shop. I bet the answer changes.

The answer to your question about regulation is that if you're making it for your own use, it's probably legal. The law is carefully worded so that a complete kit wouldn't be legal, but otherwise it's kind of what you'd expect the NRA to support.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761455)

These kind of luddites probably "print a gun" means you can press a button and out pops a fully functioning Glock 9mm.

Making zip guns in a machine shop is waaaay easier/cheaper then trying to get a 3D printer to produce anything more than a misshapen blob of plastic. Even if the printers improve, plastic guns will never be a replacement for the real thing (which are made of metal!)

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761237)

Any modern CNC mill that you buy with Ethernet connections have built-in ATF backdoors.

If you have an old one with components that need replaced (such as a hard drive), you can't just get the hard drive fixed/replaced. The manufacturers require extra boards be installed so there is a back door.

There is very little documentation on this, but if you run wireshark on a CNC mill you'll clearly see there are built-in "trojans" that phone home.

Re:Machine shop, anyone? (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761483)

They can't phone home without a dial tone, though.

Personal Responsibility? (4, Insightful)

iamwhoiamtoday (1177507) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761159)

Whatever happened to the concept of Personal Responsibility? Of being held accountable for your own actions, instead of the knee-jerk reaction of "it's the firearms fault, ban them everywhere we can." This mass punishment, this taking away of people's ability to use their time and money as they see fit, is crazy. If someone proves that they can't handle a level of responsibility, then I can understand rights being taken away, but to punish everything, to take away abilities from everyone? I find it insulting, that I am automatically assumed to not be responsible off the bat.

Re:Personal Responsibility? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761227)

Whatever happened to the concept of Personal Responsibility? Of being held accountable for your own actions, instead of the knee-jerk reaction of "it's the firearms fault, ban them everywhere we can."

That one is already applied. People who use guns on other people are already being punished. (However, not everyone who uses guns irresponsibly are punished. For example it is legal to have an accessible gun in your house and leave your teenager alone with it.)
Now, since we already hold people accountable for their actions and it doesn't work. Why do you think that the best approach is to do nothing?

Re:Personal Responsibility? (2)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761313)

However, not everyone who uses guns irresponsibly are punished. For example it is legal to have an accessible gun in your house and leave your teenager alone with it.

Is that irresponsible? Depends on the kid. There are many examples of kids using guns to defend themselves and their siblings against home intruders.

Re:Personal Responsibility? (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761367)

The age varies but even pre-teens can have access to firearms legally in most States and Teenagers can legally own them. Hell in a lot of states 18 year olds can get concealed weapon permits. So what exactly is your point again?

Re:Personal Responsibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761239)

have you checked the content of the human genepool lately ? I'm not so optimistic as you that most people can act responsibly 100% of the time.

Re:Personal Responsibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761249)

Totally agree - I'm 100% responsible for some nut-job shooting me, and it would be terrible to not allow him to have his gun until after he's shot me.

Re:Personal Responsibility? (1)

XopherMV (575514) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761261)

The problem with printed firearms is that they're plastic. We have no means to detect them. They instantly obsolete our security infrastructure. You can walk onto an airplane with one. You could walk into a courtroom with one. You could walk into the White House, Congress, or the Supreme Court with one. That is a major problem.

Sure, these plastic firearms could have been made previously. However up until now, the people with the means to make such a weapon were smart enough to not make such a weapon given their inherent problems. Now, any idiot who doesn't realize or care about those problems can print off their own gun by simply printing the 3D design.

Re:Personal Responsibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761299)

The issues is not that these are readily available to everyone - zip guns made from plastic or ceramics have been readily available for anyone with the patience to seek the information needed for building them for the better part of a decade now.

3D printing isn't the real devil here, internet (and the people who share information through it) is.

Re:Personal Responsibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761345)

Metal detectors might still go off for the ammunition and any real weapon has to have enough density which effectively means that it can in fact be detected with scanners such as the ones employed by TSA. And ammunition propellent is effectively an explosive and we already have trained dogs and spectrometers to detect those. This is nothing but hype and attempt to cull freedom.

Re:Personal Responsibility? (2, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761347)

OK. So we have a world where people can sneak around with .22 caliber one shot pistols that are not visible to metal detectors. I mean, everyone will want one, no? This changes the entire security dynamic, no?

Lions and tigers and bears. Oh. My.

Plastic gun printing changes absolutely nothing. The current stamping and seizing about this is simply panem et circenses.

Enjoy, citizen.

Re:Personal Responsibility? (1)

swillden (191260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761389)

The problem with printed firearms is that they're plastic. We have no means to detect them. They instantly obsolete our security infrastructure. You can walk onto an airplane with one. You could walk into a courtroom with one. You could walk into the White House, Congress, or the Supreme Court with one. That is a major problem.

And banning them will do exactly nothing to address that problem.

A person who would make a gun with the intention of committing murder with it isn't likely to be deterred by a law banning his gun. Actually, that law already exists... the Defense Distributed guy was careful to epoxy a six ounce block of metal to his before fully assembling it into an operable gun, because it's a federal felony to manufacture an undetectable gun.

Re:Personal Responsibility? (1)

45mm (970995) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761399)

Thanks for the sensationalist tripe.

First of all - we already have military-grade polymer firearms that are "detectable" by modern scanning technology.

Second - a plastic "printable" firearm is pretty worthless without ammunition. This would be the doomsday scenario you describe when they manage to make a plastic bullet, and a plastic casing, that won't fragment/explode in the firearm when the primer ignites the powder.

Finally - if instead of banning firearms from those places, we allowed those with the means and the methods to carry firearms where ever they wanted, this argument wouldn't be happening.

Freedom has its price - and that price is a little risk.

Who is we? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761449)

Who is we? I've never tried to detect a gun. Who the fuck is we?
You are not part of them. You are not part of society, you are a subject of society.
They will regulate you.
Not we. They.

Re:Personal Responsibility? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761479)

The problem with printed firearms is that they're plastic. We have no means to detect them. They instantly obsolete our security infrastructure. You can walk onto an airplane with one. You could walk into a courtroom with one. You could walk into the White House, Congress, or the Supreme Court with one. That is a major problem.

You know how I can tell you've never typed "zip gun" into google?

Re:Personal Responsibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761339)

Whatever happened to the concept of Personal Responsibility? Of being held accountable for your own actions, instead of the knee-jerk reaction of "it's the firearms fault, ban them everywhere we can." This mass punishment, this taking away of people's ability to use their time and money as they see fit, is crazy. If someone proves that they can't handle a level of responsibility, then I can understand rights being taken away, but to punish everything, to take away abilities from everyone? I find it insulting, that I am automatically assumed to not be responsible off the bat.

What happened to it? It became profitable to attack and defend against, that is what happened. One doesn't just sue the victim or the criminal. No, we must attack the home manufacturer the crime took place in, as well as the manufacturer of the weapon, and the bullet manufacturer as well. Maybe we'll sue the maker of the doormat too, just for good measure.

If you want to know what the fuck has happened to Personal Responsibility, then go ask a fucking lawyer. They're the cesspool stripping man of his decision-making capability one pointless greedy lawsuit at a time...

Re:Personal Responsibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761349)

Move along with the times old man. Most laws in existence were written and concieved decades, if not hundreds of years ago. Technology has since changed, and society along with it.

Re:Personal Responsibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761379)

Personal responsibility is fine. I trust me to not print a gun and misuse it.

But I don't trust YOU to not misuse a gun.

And until we invent personal forcefields so that your right to shoot a bullet really DOES stop just short of my nose, well, I'm in favour of you not having guns.

feasibility (1)

MarkWegman (2553338) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761161)

It shouldn't be that hard to have a 3d printer determine if it is making something with a hole the size of a standard bullet. For example, is it drawing a circle that's 9mm or one of the other common sizes. If it were to make the hole say 9.2 mm all the gasses that should be propelling the bullet would escape on the sides.

Re:feasibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761193)

There may be other things which use / need the same size hole. Then there is also the possibility of making your own bullets. It is apparently very easy to do. People have been doing it since the invention of guns.

Re:feasibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761283)

Yes, if you are willing to load the gunpowder separately it is very easy to make bullets.

Re:feasibility (1)

Charcharodon (611187) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761397)

You've obviously never have heard of a bullet press and a lathe. It's easy to make bullets out of any material of any size and fit them into shell casing again of any material and of any size.

Re:feasibility (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761223)

It shouldn't be that hard to have a 3d printer determine if it is making something with a hole the size of a standard bullet. For example, is it drawing a circle that's 9mm or one of the other common sizes. If it were to make the hole say 9.2 mm all the gasses that should be propelling the bullet would escape on the sides.

actually right now it is pretty hard and would kill cheap home printers to some extent. because they would need to be made unmodifiable.
also there's many sized bullets so..

however, it's pretty stupid to even ask the question since the _real_ question to ask should be "should americans be allowed to make guns at home?" because that's perfectly legal.

the bullet gets some good momentum even if it's just the casing acting as the barrel. in the case of the liberator that's pretty much what happens anyways..

Re:feasibility (1)

Zcar (756484) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761233)

There are quite a few such sizes just for nominally 9mm calibers (ranging from 9mm to 9.25mm). You'd effectively be banning printing things with cylindrical holes.

Trying to restrict what can be 3D printed like this is the equivalent of some of the less well-thought out DRM schemes, e.g. those which prevent you from copying your own creations.

Guess what shithead, opensource. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761463)

Guess what piece of shit, there are fully opensource replecatable 3d printers.
You don't get to regulate this you fucking piece of shit.
You allready tell us what items we can and can't have.
You regulate our children (mandatory schooling).
You regulate what age of girls we can marry.
What we can do with them. How much we must obey them.

Fuck you.

Good luck with that. (3, Insightful)

davmoo (63521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761163)

Good for them. I want a unicorn, and I'm not going to get that either.

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761359)

You could make one with a 3D printer.

1000 Americans, which socio political group?? (1)

haruvatu (1005347) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761165)

I sincierly doubt that there is an issue where 1000 Americans can be of one voice. Specially if the theme is guns and right to defend yourself. Seriously? have you covered only liberal and democrats in this survey? What about population where there are mostly prepers , teapartiers, GOPies ....? They also concure that 3d printing of weapons should be banned? What is next, home chemistry labs for kids, home biology labs, open sourced PCRs, home smitheries ? What else should be banned because your fear of other people. People kill, not tools. Well of course you can make an crazy AI with general purpose for depopulatin earth so since we still don't recognise AI rights that would be the only tool which could kill people on its own.

Re:1000 Americans, which socio political group?? (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761209)

have you seen home chem labs recently? they really are garbage compared to when i was a kid.

Re:1000 Americans, which socio political group?? (1)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761425)

Methodology detailed here [reason.com] .

Re:1000 Americans, which socio political group?? (1)

Seraphim_72 (622457) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761441)

"Seriously? have you covered only liberal and democrats in this survey?"
Because there aren't any liberal democrat gun owners, everyone knows that. /s

Re:1000 Americans, which socio political group?? (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761467)

I sincierly doubt that there is an issue where 1000 Americans can be of one voice.

Where did you get the impression that the vote was 100% in favour of a ban?

Big enough sample size (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761169)

1000 is a plenty big sample for the US population if they are chosen randomly... you get 95% confidence level with about 3% confidence interval.

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm#one

Re:Big enough sample size (0)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761277)

1000 people could never be a good sample size. It could hardly cover all walks of life in our 50 states, let alone combinations of political, religious and cultural criteria.
Anyone with an HTML editor can claim to be some professional data gathering business. Frankly /. polls get closer to the truth of things and I wouldn't accept it either.
The only thing this unReasonable-Ruse is good for is producing media talking points from midair in order to sway public opinion in the cattle they are able to affect.
I fart in their general direction and laugh at their lame attempt at reproducing some community college level effort and trying to fob it off as genuine and scientific.
Proof that any moron can call themselves professionals, I am reminded of all the 3 stooges films in which they attempt business endeavors ending in spilled paint, foot in a bucket, BOP! OW! C'mon Moe! Woo Woo Woo Woo! Wise guy huh? I'll teach you to print guns.

Re:Big enough sample size (2)

Dagger2 (1177377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761337)

It doesn't need to cover all walks of life. It only needs to cover a representative sample of them.

Re:Big enough sample size (1)

flyneye (84093) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761377)

OK It can't possibly cover a representative sample of them, thank you Mr.Pedantic.

Re:Big enough sample size (2)

ph0rk (118461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761407)

Wasting mod points to post, but: US Americans are not that heterogenous. What specific groups (with dissenting views relevant to the matter at hand) are systematically excluded from the sample?

They offer up their sampling procedures and methodology here [reason.com] .

A larger sample size is not inherently better. 1000 isn't much different from 10,000 or 10 million. If the sampling method would be unrepresentative with 1000 cases, it wouldn't be any better with more.

Re:Big enough sample size (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761469)

1000 people could never be a good sample size.

If you go on thinking like that, you would never pass my undergraduate statistics course. But let's try a thought experiment. We're going to toss a coin 310 million times, once for every American, and use that to try to determine if the coin is fair or not. After the first 1000 tosses, 600 are heads and 400 are tails. Do you think we need to continue the experiment, or was the sample of 1000 big enough to establish this coin's tendency?

(Correct answer: Such a lopsided result would occur with a probability of less than one in a billion with a fair coin.)

printing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761177)

I wonder how many people would similarly ban printing of 'objectional' pictures on color printers, say 30 years ago ?
Or bible translations in the 15th century ?
(oh wait, that second one was banned!) :)

Rights (5, Insightful)

mwasham (1208930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761181)

Thankfully my rights aren't governed by popular opinion.

Re:Rights (1)

cgimusic (2788705) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761225)

You say that but these are the people who vote for your government so frighteningly they kind of are.

Re:Rights (2)

mwasham (1208930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761369)

The constitution already defines what the Federal Government can do and banning plastic guns is not in that list. Of course the US government ignores the constitution (with or without a popular vote) so there is some truth to what you say.

Re:Rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761355)

It would be interesting to know where you live because that would only be true if you don't live in a democracy.
I suspect that you live in a democracy but somehow think that the rest of the population can't just decide to change your current rights into whatever suits them.
If that is correct then you are very wrong.

Actually it doesn't even have to be a majority.
Take a nation like USA for example, there is pretty much nothing that prevents the government from burning their constitution and say that it no longer applies. There will be some public outrage but not organized or well equipped enough to stand up against the military.
It is however unlikely that the military will be united enough to support a single president during such circumstances and the military will probably split in multiple factions and by that start a new civil war. Personal gun ownership will be irrelevant, if you take sides (voluntary or not) the military faction you join will equip you with assault rifles, grenades, AT's and whatever weapon most people wouldn't even think about getting in times of peace.

The applicable question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761183)

From the poll, this is the actual question they're talking about and its context.

ASK ALL:
Q36 Nextsome Americans own 3-D printers, which can make a variety of plastic objects.
Do you think Americans should or should NOT be allowed to use this technology in
their own homes?
1 Should
2 Should not
9 Don’t know/Refused (VOL.)
ASK IF SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE 3-D PRINTERS

if yes:

Q37 3-D printers can be used to make guns or gun parts. Do you think Americans should
or should NOT be allowed to print their own guns or gun parts in their own homes?
1 Should
2 Should not
9 Don’t know/Refused (VOL.)

N=1000 is big enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761189)

If the poll was properly done, 1000 people is definitely enough people to come to a conclusion, you can't "your mileage may vary" facts.

The actual numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761197)

53% say Americans should not be allowed to print their own gun parts, 44% say they should. With 1003 people the "mileage" may vary by 3.7%.

"most people" (1, Insightful)

argStyopa (232550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761203)

Most Americans wouldn't have joined WW2 (at least until Pearl Harbor).

Most people don't know which came first, the Revolutionary War or the Civil War.

Most states have passed anti-gay, one-man/one-woman marriage laws.

Most people generally fear change of any sort.

There's a reason we're not a democracy, we're a democratic republic. "Most people" are rather dumb.

Re:"most people" (1, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761341)

"Most Americans wouldn't have joined WW2 (at least until Pearl Harbor)."

Most americans weren't alive at the time of WW2

"Most people don't know which came first, the Revolutionary War or the Civil War"

Maybe if it was given the correct title "The War of Independence" people would know it was first

"Most states have passed anti-gay, one-man/one-woman marriage laws."

They had that on the ballot in November (One Man One Woman) - It failed. Then the other day the Governor signed the bill giving gays the right to marry in the State of Minnesota

"Most people generally fear change of any sort."

Only pennies - Quarters and dimes can be used in vending machines

Re:"most people" (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761429)

Most states have passed anti-gay, one-man/one-woman marriage laws.

Isn't this something that was passed by a Democratic Republic? I don't think the politicians that voted asked each individual person in their constituency how to voted.

but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761217)

But... printed guns don't kill people, people kill people... and the only thing that stops a bad guy with a printed gun is a good guy with a printed gun... and we need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that we mean armed security with printed guns... and...

Yeah? (3, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761221)

And after 9/11, you could probably have gotten the same results for warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, etc. This is why we have a republic, not a democracy. The rightness of a public policy is not measured by popular support. The only real reason to go by what is popular is that if you constantly ignore the popular will on things that are neutral or right, you risk delegitimizing the government.

The bullet not the gun (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761235)

The *bullet* is the explosive device here, and it wasn't made with a 3D printer and anyone can make the gun part with a metal tube and nail.

Guns don't kill people bullets kill people.

Fortunately... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761247)

...you can't print the ammo. Just ban that.

Does the right to arm bears even stop ammo from being banned?

So much for the "better educated voter". (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761259)

Sure you can use 3d printers to print something that'll stick a pin in the back of a round. But that doesn't really a gun make. In that sense, this law student's enterprise is a huge troll on the legal system. And it got swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Do I really need to spell out which is which here?

The thing is that most "Average Americans[tm]" still haven't the faintest what you can and cannot do with 3d printers and don't understand how 3d printed guns are or are not [theregister.co.uk] a danger. All they know is there's a lot of smoke, so there has to be fire somewhere, amirite or amirite? Gots to be, mark my words. And sure, if a little thing like banning those weirdos with their fancy thing printer things from making "dangerous parts" to make the ruckus go away, why not?

Except, of course, that preventing 3d printers from printing some "bad" parts but not "good" parts is not a little thing, which ought to be obvious to the informed voter, and that the ruckus is exactly that: Politicians knee-jerking to be seen to be doing something, ie jumping around to the smell of votes.

So it's business as usual, with the reperblican demercrazy machine grinding on, leaving another promising new technology as roadkill. All because a few voters can't be arsed to do their homework.

It doesn't take much to build a gun... (4, Informative)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761273)

Guys and gals, we made zip guns in Jr. high shop in the 1950s. They might not have been very accurate, but guns they were, and shoot they did. Any attempt to keep people from building and owning guns is a waste of time and money. We do have the right, not priviledge, to keep and bear arms. Just how many tax dollars are we going to spend to deny rights?

What about other weapons ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761301)

What if I print bazooka ? Technically it is not a gun.

This is BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761317)

If you ask question properly and pick the right sample of people majority of Americans will demand profiling, will support racism, will deny equal rights to gays.

Printing guns and the future... (1)

wjcofkc (964165) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761327)

I think the whole point of developing a technique to print a working gun in the first place was not specifically to make a weapon, but rather was to demonstrate that the ever increasing rate of technological development and scientific discovery is launching humanity headlong into a realm where we will have to address questions that we as a species are not prepared to answer.

The socialists have won (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761335)

So 1000 people polled don't support constitutional rights.

We have lost.

"Majority" (1)

Dereck1701 (1922824) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761343)

Barely a majority, 52%? Isn't there something in the founding fathers statements regarding "tyranny of the majority" and hence the reason for the Constitution/Bill of Rights? Any technology can be used for good or evil, people are often killed with wine bottles (a 200 year old technology) yet we don't see a mass effort to redesign/restrict them for "safety". As always the focus should be on the INDIVIDUAL committing the act of violence, not the piece of hardware they choose to commit it with.

Re:"Majority" (1)

ph0rk (118461) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761419)

Clearly no such ban is immanent. That said, prop 8 passed in California with only 52.24% of the vote.

You gun nuts are sick and your hobby is deadly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761351)

What next, let kindergarteners print their own guns? The blood of the Sandy Hook children is on your hands. All for a stupid fucking hobby that makes you feel bad ass because that's all it is. There's nothing well-regulated about it. If Lego's were killing kids we'd damn well do something about it.

Re:You gun nuts are sick and your hobby is deadly (1)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761423)

My grandfather, a WWII vet and a hunter, held me upright and helped me to shoot his 12 ga. when I was four years old. It's not a hobby for some of us; it's a tool and a normal aspect of everyday life. From that age, I learned to respect firearms. As a child, I never so much as touched a gun without permission in part because I knew what they could do and I knew I could shoot them with supervision. Contrast this certain of my peers from the suburbs, who would not be allowed to use guns until they were much older, would do things like shoot BB guns at each other. They basically considered guns toys. Do not forget that we live in a country of over 300 million people. There are many different cultures here and ways of life different from your own.

Feasability (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761373)

Does anyone else realize that the materials that these 3D printers are using are not strong enough to reliably make a working gun? It may be possible to get a complete gun out of these printers... but materials are a long way from being viable. You are concerned about plastic guns being capable of getting past security... Have you seen one of these printed guns fired? Have you even seen printed plastic? It is not always the strongest of materials. The process is not suited for something that has to withstand a sudden high force. Do a little research and understand what 3D printing really is and how it works before you make knee-jerk reactions to something you don't understand. Should people be printing guns? No. But the real reason is because they are more dangerous to the wielder of said gun. So everyone needs to do some homework on what they are discussing before they start crying about guns.

The reason they vote that way is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761383)

because most of them don't own a 3D printer. Wait until they do and then ask.

Anybody know how hard it is to build a sten? (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761393)

Since gun reminds me of that one. (Supposedly you could build a sten in a bicycle shop.) Is a sten much harder to build than printing a gun from a 3d printer?

People have been able to do this forever (4, Insightful)

katorga (623930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761395)

A Grizzly gunsmith lathe and mill combo costs around $4000, less than a 3d printer. The steel and aluminum rods and blocks are also cheap and available. Anyone can machine a REAL gun cheaper than they can make a plastic one. You make bullets out of lead/tin tire rim weights. If you use an older cartridge that was originally a block powder round like .45 colt or 45-70 govt. you can make your own powder. The only part that I'm not sure of is how one would make brass shell cases or primers.

identification (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761415)

Every 3D printer could have an identification number that is registered in a database with the owner's information. The printer could be programmed to include this identification number in the layered substrate of whatever it builds with an identifying agent that would show up easily when scanned by an appropriate device. Honestly if people are going to have access to devices that can produce anything they dream up on demand, there needs to be some accountability. People have some messed up dreams.

This just in... (1)

Chelloveck (14643) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761437)

In other news, a majority of those polled responded that the barn door should be closed, despite the horses running free in the pasture.

We have forgotten how to think in this country (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43761439)

Let's make printing our own guns illegal...that should stop the criminals and terrorists for sure, they are groups highly regarded for obeying the laws.

Important Detail (1)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761445)

Some Americans own 3-D printers, which can make a variety of plastic objects. Do you think Americans should or should not be allowed to use this technology in their own homes?

Should 62%
Should not 29%
Don’t Know/Refused (Vol.) 9%

Nearly a third of this sample would not allow you to own a 3d printer at all. I'll take their opinions on guns with a grain of salt.

And in other news... (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761447)

Q.E.D. Most Americans (hell, most people anywhere) lack any sort of philosophy or reality-based worldview of their own and are forced to turn to mainstream media (which is all too eager to hand out their convenient, pre-packaged version with super-sticky adhesive backing).

To quote James Bovard (sorry, folks; this one doesn't get credited to ole' Ben Franklin after all):

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

Poll of 1000 (2)

efitton (144228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43761451)

A well done poll of a 1000 people is actually pretty acurte. The Law of Large Numbers kicks in well shy of that. Apparently a stats class is not necessary to be a Slashdot editor.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?