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!

3D Printed Gun Maker Cody Wilson Defends Open Source Freedom

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the comfortable-truths-aren't-the-ones-to-worry-about dept.

Censorship 354

Lucas123 (935744) writes "Cody Wilson, the 26-year-old former law school student who published plans for printing 3D guns online, disputed claims by universities and government agencies that his thermoplastic gun design is unsafe. Wilson claims the agencies that tested the guns did not build them to spec. In a Q&A with Computerworld, he also addressed why he's continuing to press regulatory agencies to allow him to offer the plans again for upload after being ordered to take them down, saying it's less about the Second Amendment and more about the implications of open source and the digital age. "If you want to talk about rights, what does it mean to respect a civil liberty or civil right? Well, it means you understand there are social costs in having that right; that's why it deserves protection in the first place," he said. Wilson is also planning to release other gun-related project, though not necessarily a CAD design."

cancel ×

354 comments

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

Who Cares? (4, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | about 3 months ago | (#47155959)

A first gen product using revolutionary technology and people are whining about it being unsafe? It's like complaining that the Model T didn't have airbags.

I think they are missing the point entirely. 3D printing will only become more sophisticated, using stronger materials and will be faster. People will be able to manufacture devices that are currently controlled or are so specialized that it hasn't occurred to the Feds to control them.

This is not about a plastic guns, this is about a paradigm shift that is no less momentous than VHS and later MP3s.

Re:Who Cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47155973)

Are you looking forward to more Newtowns, Auroras, and Columbines? We need to outlaw 3D printing until they can be made with safeguards to protect against illegal gun manufacture.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 3 months ago | (#47156003)

The only markets in America that are actually doing well are the black markets. Think about that before you Think of the children and Outlaw anything gun shaped including poptarts.

Re:Who Cares? (3, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | about 3 months ago | (#47156017)

logic fails you. It is already legal to make yourself a gun with traditional material by traditional means. Illegal gun manufacture not a relevant issue. Name one massacre (or murder in the past year, for that matter) done with a homemade gun. All gun killers, for all intents and purposes, use a factory made weapon.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156105)

logic fails you. It is already legal to make yourself a gun with traditional material by traditional means. Illegal gun manufacture not a relevant issue. Name one massacre (or murder in the past year, for that matter) done with a homemade gun. All gun killers, for all intents and purposes, use a factory made weapon.

Name one hunter that uses a 3D printed gun. Name one soldier, or police officer.

This is some sideshow from a kid who's made it his life work to worry about something that has no real purpose.

Re:Who Cares? (2)

RevDisk (740008) | about 3 months ago | (#47156385)

Laser sintering, arguably a form of 3D printing, is used to make firearm components. Yes, likely used by hunters, soldiers, police officers or hobbyists. Firearm assemblers source out all the components (with specifications). Some firearm manufacturers do advertise their components (high end custom weapons), others do not (everything not high end or custom). Same with cars.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156143)

A 3D printer-made weapon IS a factory-made weapon. The 3D printer is the factory! There is a big difference between cobbling together a current homemade weapon, and simply pushing a button that says "print my gun".

Re:Who Cares? (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 3 months ago | (#47156795)

What is the "big difference". Ease? That is not a big difference. ALL technology makes something "easier", that is the point of it. At some point, you either become a Luddite or you realize that you can't stop progress.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156027)

Poe's law?

Re:Who Cares? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156053)

Are you looking forward to more Newtowns, Auroras, and Columbines? We need to outlaw 3D printing until they can be made with safeguards to protect against illegal gun manufacture.

How many overbearing, know-what's-best-for-everyone gun-grabbers who want to "outlaw guns" (or in this case 3D printing...) turn right around and mock the 'War on Drugs" because it doesn't fucking work?

A "War on Guns" isn't going to work, either. Just ask the hundreds of people murdered with guns every year in "gun free" zones.

Next, let's ban knives [google.com]

Re:Who Cares? (-1, Offtopic)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156093)

Guns are made for one thing - killing. Your argument is specious, and absurd on its face - because many objects NOT designed for killing result in deaths. Some people die from drinking too much water. Do you suggest banning water?

Re:Who Cares? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156263)

It's interesting to note that many of those things "NOT designed for killing" result in far more deaths than guns.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156413)

No, guns are designed for shooting. They are often used for killing, but I have never shot to kill. Only to put a hole in a target.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156419)

Your argument is specious, and absurd on its face [...] Some people die from drinking too much water. Do you suggest banning water?

Me think you have replied to the wrong post. I'm arguing against the ineffectual banning of guns.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 3 months ago | (#47156421)

turn right around and mock the 'War on Drugs" because it doesn't fucking work?

Last time I checked, you can't make a gun just by planting some seeds and watering them.

Re:Who Cares? (2)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47156515)

You can't make crystal meth that way either. Or heroine, or cocaine, or LSD, or those new bath salts that apparently make people strip naked and then eat other people.

Also, some places do ban weapons that are little more than tree branches, and you do get those by planting trees.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156485)

Naturally Security Advocates, is that you? would have you have us monitored so as to anticipate those with mental illness (and dissenters). Saving us the effort and cost of treating the disease (on the personal and societal level) or mass arrest.
You cannot take away freedom to protect it.

Re:Who Cares? (2)

Threni (635302) | about 3 months ago | (#47156015)

> This is not about a plastic guns, this is about a paradigm shift that is no less
> momentous than VHS and later MP3s.

No, it's about guns. Nobody's talking about other 3d printed objects yet.

Re:Who Cares? (3, Insightful)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | about 3 months ago | (#47156051)

Which has nothing to do with using a 3-D printer to make a gun. No one is outlawing the use of a 3-D printer. However, they are restricting the use of a 3-D printer to make guns. Thanks for missing the point.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

sycodon (149926) | about 3 months ago | (#47156201)

Do you believe guns are the only dangerous and/or regulated device that will be possible to make on a 3D printer?

For instance, how about sometime in the future when internal combustion engines are outlawed...but if you have a 3D printer, then you are good to go (Note that I said the future which assumes far more sophisticated printers).

Re:Who Cares? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156213)

I can legally use tools in my home metal shop to make a firearm. Why should this be different?

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156361)

Making a firearm in a metal shop requires more skills, tools and time. If anybody can buy a 3d printer, download the model and press print, then it's totally different. I can have an illegal gun shop up and running with a little money and time. Not saying it should be banned, but it definitely changes the game.

Re:Who Cares? (2, Insightful)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47156553)

By my reading of the 2nd Amendment, there are no illegal gun shops in the US. Making one illegal would violate the phrase "shall not be infringed".

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156447)

Why? It shouldn't be. The difference is that not everyone owns the equipment to work with metal (like that one guy a few years back who made a working AK-47 out of what he himself described as "an old shit shovel"), nor does everyone have the skill to do so. I certainly don't. However, there's a much larger set of people who have the money to buy a 3D printer, which doesn't require any particular skill to operate. I don't own a 3D printer myself, but I'm told all you need to do to print a gun on it is download the blueprints and print them. It's essentially the gun control equivalent of security by obscurity.

I just long for the day that someone figures out how to 3D print one of those H&K machine guns that fires tiny grenades. Get one of those, never need another tool for yardwork. Trees in the way? Blow 'em up. Need to dig out dead plants? Blow 'em up. Need to plant something? Blow a hole in the ground, insert plant, cover. Lawn need mowing? Couple belts of grenades and the lawn won't be a problem anymore.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

kuhnto (1904624) | about 3 months ago | (#47156287)

This then brings up the important question, how do you "...Restrict the use of a a 3D printer to make guns.."? Is it at the hardware level, with some analysis engine used to determine if the shape matches some predetermined "firearm" pattern? Is it in the 3D CAD software that flags weapon like designs? or does it get so bad that the purchase of any 3D printer (CNC machine, mill, lathe, drill press, sander, dremel, will also eventually fall into this category) will require the purchaser to jump through hoops similar to steps needed to purchase class 3 firearms? Afterward, the operator will have to be licensed to operate the machine and personally verify the design being generated.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#47156535)

Lets move the goalposts a little bit.

Should DNA sequencers contain hashes of the DNA of virulent organisms so they can call the NSA/CIA/SAS/UN/boy scouts when they are being used for possible bioweapon related work? (Hopefully they don't rain hellfires on the CDC.)

Should CNC mills pop up 'It appears you are milling a rifle receiver...' whenever some pattern recognition software sees what it thinks is a rifle part.

These are both real world things, at least theoretically do-able today. I'd go with yes to the first, no to the second. Just on technical and risk management grounds. Then again, I know nothing about constructing hashes on DNA sequences, but assume a group of people has made it their lives and published. I also assume their is a 'database' (hopefully not MySQL/Access/Excel) full of 'DNA sequences that could kill us all' at the CDC.

Re:Who Cares? (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47156615)

However, they are restricting the use of a 3-D printer to make guns.

Nobody has any right to restrict how I use my printer, whether it's guns or even counterfeit money. You have to wait until I use either to commit a crime. Prior restraint is evil. Here's hoping the tech will make enforcement impossible. We should be controlling the authorities, not the other way around.

Re:Who Cares? (0, Flamebait)

Noryungi (70322) | about 3 months ago | (#47156089)

This is not about a plastic guns, this is about a paradigm shift that is no less momentous than VHS and later MP3s.

I am not so sure about that. 3D printing has the potential to become a very important technology, but right now, printing cheap plastic trinkets is not what I would call game-changing. But that's just me: it just strikes me as a seemingly good idea - a little bit like flying cars - that can go both ways. It can be truly revolutionary (Crete your own factory in your garage! Let a thousand entrepreneurs bloom!) or it can be the kind of thing that never really lived up to its promise. Time will tell.

And another thing: whether the printed plastic gun really is unsafe or not, I believe it illustrates the risks of 3D-printing. In other words, if you really know what you are doing and printing to specs, using equivalent or better materials than the original creator, it's great. Or you can make a complete fool of yourself, and just print it, because, well, you can! And find yourself severely maimed - or worse - because you did not check the 3D file or whatnot.

On the other hand, the next time some idiot decides to rob a bank or convenience store with a printed plastic gun, the results could be highly amusing. I can see the TV announcements from here: "Another redneck gun-toting moron gets face full of lead and melted plastic. Film at 11".

As an aside: what's with Americans and their guns? Sheesh, people, grow up. You don't need a plastic-or-metal penis to be a real man. (And let the flame wars begin!)

Re:Who Cares? (4, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 3 months ago | (#47156129)

As an aside: what's with Americans and their guns? Sheesh, people, grow up. You don't need a plastic-or-metal penis to be a real man

Your mistake is that thinking guns have anything to do with a penis or being a "real man". Seriously how often do you think people sit around thinking about the size of their dick?

People like guns because they happen to like guns. Some people like golf, basketball, big trucks, or a whole host of other stuff without worrying about their mainhood.

I swear we need to define a new logical fallacy revolving around this.

Re:Who Cares? (3, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | about 3 months ago | (#47156303)

And the fact of the matter is that I don't even own a gun, nor do I particularly want one, but I fully support gun rights (so the logical fallacy is proven a fallacy in one simple case). I support gun rights because I support freedom, and freedom comes with some costs. In many of the countries with people with attitudes like this, they don't even have the right to free speech.

Disagree. (4, Insightful)

brunes69 (86786) | about 3 months ago | (#47156775)

Disagree. The US got the first amendment right. And you got the second amendment wrong.

Owning a firearm has nothing to do with essential personal freedoms or rights of the individual to exist in a free state. The only justification for it is to protect oneself from infringement on said freedoms, but that can just as easily be done through strong laws and a properly functioning government.

Again, I would point to the US as the prime example of why the second amendment does absolutely nothing to help you secure any of your primary freedoms, since they are being violated ALL THE TIME by your government, but I don't see anyone successfully taking up arms against them.. and I find the concept that citizens with a few guns could hold their own against the american military-industrial complex a bit of a farce to begin with.

All the second amendment gets your country is the highest per-capita gun violence rate in the western world. It hasn't gotten you anything else.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156403)

I grew up in gun country: nearly every male from the age of 12 has a rifle, mostly for hunting, but sometimes for personal protection. I've heard innumerable times men say that the present presidential administration (successive ones down the ages) wants to outlaw gun because it wants a population that is "a bunch of pussies", so sure, guns are indeed a sign of masculinity for my native community.

Re:Who Cares? (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 3 months ago | (#47156247)

I'm sure the same was said of video tape machines that were as large as a small car...no potential to become a very important technology.

Re:Who Cares? (2)

RevDisk (740008) | about 3 months ago | (#47156437)

Of all the women I know well, about 60% own and/or carry firearms. Believing that only men are attached to their firearms says more about your mentality than it does anything else.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156157)

It's a lot easier to make a homemade gun using materials found at the hardware store.

No parts list? (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#47156641)

I'll supply the parts list.

1 drill press.
1 vice, mounted in the drill press.
1 .25 ID black pipe.
1 .25 ID black pipe cap.
1 roofing nail.
1 drill to match the roofing nail diameter.
1 .25 rimfire round.
1 .25 chamber reamer. (optional)
1 hammer.

Maybe someone else will post how to put it together, though if you can't figure it out you might want to stop. To make a legal gun (not an 'other gun') you should add a handle, trigger, mechanical hammer and safety.

Re:Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156527)

"revolutionary"? Where?

Oh noes! Skeery *GUNS*!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47155979)

If guns kill people, forks make people fat.

Ban forks!!!!

Re:Oh noes! Skeery *GUNS*!!! (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47156021)

Yeah, because a little killing is necessary, like a little eating.

Your argument by metaphor totally lacks any crucial flaws that reflect a complete lack of understanding. Good job.

Re:Oh noes! Skeery *GUNS*!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156087)

Yeah, because a little killing is necessary, like a little eating.

Your argument by metaphor totally lacks any crucial flaws that reflect a complete lack of understanding. Good job.

Thomas Jefferson agrees it is necessary: [monticello.org] :

And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Re:Oh noes! Skeery *GUNS*!!! (1)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156297)

What you THINK Jefferson meant doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's quite clear from the entire quotation - in context, that he wasn't talking about guns. http://www.monticello.org/site... [monticello.org]

Re:Oh noes! Skeery *GUNS*!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156531)

What you THINK Jefferson meant doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's quite clear from the entire quotation - in context, that he wasn't talking about guns.
http://www.monticello.org/site... [monticello.org]

Riiight.

"Let them take arms" isn't referring, to, well, arms. Otherwise known as guns. Sure it isn't. I mean, really, it's got to be referring to people ripping the upper limbs off others and brandishing said arms. One wonders if they should hold such arms by the hand end or by the shoulder end. And if they should return any watches, rings, bracelets or other jewelry to the original owners of those arms. I mean, the original owners had their arms taken from them, so they wouldn't have a use for any such items any more.

ROTFLMAO.

What color is the sky on your planet?

Re:Oh noes! Skeery *GUNS*!!! (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 3 months ago | (#47156799)

I believe the confusion here is over the interpretation of "Let them take arms", which you seem to interpret as "let the government disarm people". Whereas, I, and I believe GP, thought "them" refered to the people, as in "let the people take arms". (notice "take arms" or "take up arms" is a common phrase for engaging in fighting)

That makes more sense to me in context... as he seems to be extolling the virtue of occasional civil war.

Re:Oh noes! Skeery *GUNS*!!! (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47156653)

How is it "quite clear"? He clearly does say to let the people have weapons, and attempt to depose a tyrant, even if they are wrong about the tyrant.

I just read the page you referenced, and don't see the argument you are attempting to make.

What if the costs are too great? (1, Interesting)

Albanach (527650) | about 3 months ago | (#47155995)

Can the social costs outweigh the right or privilege? Do other countries where there is broad acceptance of restrictions on gun ownership, such as the UK, have any right 'not to hear' this free information?

Has any analysis been done as to the feasibility of the oppressed in obtaining suitable 3d printers and the 'correct' material for printing, then using these weapons to defeat their oppressor versus the ability of criminals to do likewise and use the weapons in the pursuit of their crimes?

Re:What if the costs are too great? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156257)

If the costs are too great, we can amend the Constitution. In the meantime, the right exists. This is an unusual intersection of both Amendment 1 and 2, the two that are the keys to every other right that we have. Given that, it seems prudent to be extremely cautious in curtailing them. But, yes, the discussion about balance does need to be had.

Re:What if the costs are too great? (2)

Albanach (527650) | about 3 months ago | (#47156431)

We have many rights under the US constitution, but having the right and choosing when and how to exercise that right are two very different things. The constitution permits and protects a great many anti-social activities, yet I don't believe the founding fathers were attempting to promote anti-social behavior. They simply recognized that to fully protect beneficial behavior there was a need to make the safeguard as wide as possible.

It is a mistake to think the impact is restricted to the United States. This is a man who said "We're so dissatisfied in participating in traditional politics, that we're looking for other kinds of projects that are still innately political and contest what can be done in political terms."

There is no meaningful restriction on access to guns in the US. And were any restriction to come into effect, it is likely to be on where guns can be carried not on whether you can own one. The real impact of these weapons will therefore be felt by those in other countries - countries Cody Wilson has likely never visited let alone lived in.

Re:What if the costs are too great? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156685)

There is no meaningful restriction on access to guns in the US.

Citation needed.

Re:What if the costs are too great? (4, Informative)

Albanach (527650) | about 3 months ago | (#47156811)

Seriously? For the most part, someone who is not a convicted felon or diagnosed as suffering from mental illness can buy a gun in a gun shop. The others can (illegally, but apparently with some ease) buy a gun at a gun fair. [thirdway.org]

Here's an NRA guide by state [nraila.org]

Re:What if the costs are too great? (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47156755)

We have many rights under the US constitution, ....

No. Wrong way to consider it.

We, as people, have many rights. The US Constitution recognizes several of them. We don't have them "under the Constitution", we have them regardless of the Constitution. The Constitutional Amendments simply say the government cannot violate or remove those rights we already have.

The alternative is that we, as people, have no rights whatsoever. Only permissions and privileges.

cost of what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156391)

If everyone has 3d printer at home and the material and the design of making guns and bullets, what'd be the cost of banning guns? Wouldn't that also be too great?

Re:What if the costs are too great? (1)

RevDisk (740008) | about 3 months ago | (#47156585)

What other countries do or do not do should not be the basis of American law. Constutional rights have one of three levels of protection. Might as well think of them as high, medium and low.

Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review, so highly protected. Example: race-based classifications.
Intermediate scrutiny requires the government to have a very important interest in infringing upon said right, medium. Examples: free speech, equal protection
Rational basis review is the bare minimum of Constitutional protection, and is regularly infringed upon government interest.

IMHO, all rights should be held to strict scrutiny standards. In reality, only a few rights are held to the highest standard, and even those are subject to infringement.

Re:What if the costs are too great? (1)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about 3 months ago | (#47156619)

Mod parent post up.

The impact to USA society of the ability to make a gun in the privacy of your own home is piddly compared to the impact this technology will have in several other societies.

Here is a newly articulated rule that is proven by several thousand years of history:

The Luddites never win.

Gun control is a product of Luddite thinking. There are other ways of dealing with the crazies who go on rampages, and the criminals who use guns in their crimes. Work out how to handle those bad behaviors rather than wasting efforts trying to stop a technology. It is not the technology that kills. It is the abberant behavior of those who would abuse whatever technology comes easiest to their hand.

Irresponsible (2, Insightful)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47155999)

This is not what the world needs - i.e. an easy way to make an unregulated *weapon* - i.e. an object designed to kill. This is not about open source, or anything else that Cody Wilson claims; it's about the *result* of his actions id these his designs are used to proliferate more *weapons*. America already experiences 33-35,000 gun deaths every year. America is FOURTH in gun deaths, worldwide - after Thailand, Colombia and Nigeria.Isn't that enough? Do we want to make guns even easier to obtain?

Project forward ten years, when 3D printers are far less expensive, and gun designs have been perfected. It's trivial to consider the new kinds of concealable (and undetectable) weapons that could be made via 3D printers.

Instead of arguing this point, we need to make it very clear that anyone making or distributing 3D gun models should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If there isn't a law, make one - make TEN! I don't care.

It's sickening to hear pro-gun people talk about "freedom" and "self-defense", when they seem not one bit to care about the thousands killed by guns, and ironically attempt to make a self-defense argument for their position when it's the nearly unabated spread of weapons in America enabled by the terrorist NRA leadership; their Congressional whores; and, their gun-manufacturing overlords.

If Cody sends out one more 3D plan, jail him for 10 years! People who want to be free of gun deaths have rights, too!

Re: Irresponsible (0)

TerryMathews (57165) | about 3 months ago | (#47156135)

You have the right to move to a gun-free country. Please do so ASAP.

Re: Irresponsible (1, Interesting)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156177)

No, I have a right to lobby my legislators to stop the irresponsible spread of killing weapons in America. Michael Bloomberg also has that right. Little-by-little, America is going to get better on this issue. Remember tobacco? Remember highly unsafe autos prior to Ralph Nader? Watch, and learn.

Re: Irresponsible (2)

Shakrai (717556) | about 3 months ago | (#47156313)

No, I have a right to lobby my legislators to stop the irresponsible spread of killing weapons in America.

And you'd have my support if that's all you wanted to do. Alas, your side of the fence seems to have a problem with firearms in general, not merely with the firearms used by bad actors.

Re: Irresponsible (1, Insightful)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156565)

You are making a hasty generalization about "my side". In recent polling, 90% of Americans (including NRA members) said they wanted better background checks for gun licensing. the NRA fought that, and won. the NRA leadership is a terrorist leadership, completely insensitive to anything but the filthy lucre they take form their gun manufacturing overlords, used to bribe corrupt legislators.

Re: Irresponsible (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156333)

No, I have a right to lobby my legislators to stop the irresponsible spread of killing weapons in America. Michael Bloomberg also has that right. Little-by-little, America is going to get better on this issue. Remember tobacco? Remember highly unsafe autos prior to Ralph Nader? Watch, and learn.

Two points:

First, what are you doing to get all automobiles banned?

Second, your emotional, unthinking characterization of guns aside, you seem to care little about this: [archives.gov]

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And cut out the crap about "well regulated Militia", please. That's nothing more than a supporting clause providing ONE reason for the right to bear arms. It doesn't restrict the right. All the rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights - the history of their creation and adoption makes that clear. Why the hell are you so bent on restricting fundamental rights guaranteed in the US Constitution? Because you don't like it? Tough shit. The rights of others aren't there for YOU to like or not. Just because you don't want to exercise one of your fundamental rights gives you no authority to strip others of their rights.

Re: Irresponsible (1)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156495)

This is America; I have the right to vote and support change, including change to the Constitution. And, the so-called "right" to make 3D weapons is what we are discussing; THAT is NOT a settled right, and it never will be.

Re: Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156465)

No, I have a right to lobby my legislators to stop the irresponsible spread of killing weapons in America.

Please continue with this strategy, we're pleased with its effectiveness to date.

Sincerely,
Gun lobby supporters everywhere

Re: Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156481)

No actually you don't have that right. Because the second amendment guarantees me protection from dictators like you. Go fuck yourself. You want my guns so bad, come and get them bitch

Re: Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156235)

You have the right to move to a gun-free country. Please do so ASAP.

In your answer where you suggest anyone who disagrees with your point of view emigrates, you fail to address whether the country they should move to has a right to remain gun free.

Re:Irresponsible (2)

sycodon (149926) | about 3 months ago | (#47156137)

You are arguing that the Printing Press should be made illegal instead of making Libel a tortious act.

Re:Irresponsible (1, Interesting)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156197)

No, I am arguing that the spread of killing weapons is unhealthy and unsafe - and violates the rights of Americans who have been killed by said weapons.

Re:Irresponsible (2)

pedrop357 (681672) | about 3 months ago | (#47156347)

The person shooting them is violating their rights, that is who needs to be held accountable.

My right to possess a gun doesn't go away because SOMEONE ELSE might use a gun to violate someone's right not to be shot.

Re:Irresponsible (0)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156429)

Yes it does, just like one's right to drive in certain ways is limited because those ways are unsafe for others. Guns are weapons, whose primary purpose is killing. What about the rights of the 100's of thousands of Americans who have been killed by guns. Your "rights" pale in comparison to that.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

gfxguy (98788) | about 3 months ago | (#47156541)

Another invalid comparison... Your right to own a car is like the right to own a gun - it does NOT go away because other people have caused laws to be created punishing those who drive unsafely... and laws apply to people using weapons unsafely, but the right to own and use the gun remains. Please note, I know the knee-jerk reaction from liberals is hard to for them to temper, but he didn't say you can't limit it's use, he said the right doesn't go away.

Re:Irresponsible (0)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156779)

We are talking about the right to print a 3D gun. That "right" will/should be limited, because it removes sensible control of the spread of killing weapons.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47156809)

No. You are claiming my right to own a car should be removed because other people cause traffic accidents that kill innocent people.

Also, the primary purpose of a bow and arrow is killing. As is that of a spear. Are you insisting those be outlawed as well?

Re:Irresponsible (2)

gfxguy (98788) | about 3 months ago | (#47156475)

Good point... one that people often fail to grasp. I support decriminalization of all drugs... yes, ALL drugs, as the individual should have the right to do with their body what they want. The most common come-back I hear is "so then it's OK for them to kill you for money to support their habit?"

Uh... no, it's not OK. Only a moron could conclude that.

I support the decriminalization of prostitution. The most common come-back I hear is "so then it's OK for a pimp to essentially force a woman to sell her body for him?"

Uh... no, it's not OK. Only a moron could conclude that.

Guns are tools, used for entertainment, sport, self defense... as soon as someone uses one to violate your rights, you can go ahead and execute them, as far as I'm concerned. But get rid of the person that violated your rights... "things" don't violate your rights, only other people do.

Re:Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156581)

I wish you could hear yourself right now.

Re:Irresponsible (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 3 months ago | (#47156181)

blah blah blah... You're trying to stop the wind. He's entirely right. This is something that's coming like a freight train and there's no stopping it. I've built guns, from scratch, for years. It's not even remotely difficult. What he's made with his thousand dollar 3D printer you could make by spending $10 at home depot on some pipe fittings and nails. Want it undetectable so you can take it on a plane? Drill a hole in a piece of oak, use a piece of graphite or other semi-hard substance for the firing pin. That's how simple this is. All these years you've been protected by ignorance. You're afraid of a myth.

People don't make this stuff because people aren't generally murders. The ones that are murders can find a lot easier ways to kill you. Your kids are far more likely to die at your own hand in a car accident than they are from any gun, much less a 3D printed gun.

Re:Irresponsible (-1)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156227)

Another "let's ban water because people drown" argument. What more to expect from the NRA? This technology WILL be regulated, and regulated hard. There WILL be severe penalties for spreading the manufacture of weapons via 3D printers.

Re:Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156343)

And I'm sure you have a hard on for the regulations.

Gun Grabbers are all the same.

Re:Irresponsible (0)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156593)

Yes, we want to keep more people alive, contrary to some - like you - who appear to be arguing the opposite position.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 3 months ago | (#47156469)

What more to expect from the NRA?

Vigorous lobbying to restrict 3D printing. If every Joe can print an M1911, they won't need the gun manufacturers, which the NRA is actually run by.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 3 months ago | (#47156763)

There WILL be severe penalties for spreading the manufacture of weapons via 3D printers.

Funny impotent internet tough guy.

What are the penalties for spreading the CNC programs to make m16 receivers? I'm pretty sure I could find those for you.

Re:Irresponsible (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156187)

Your a fucking idiot.

Re:Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156205)

America is FOURTH in gun deaths, worldwide

Only fourth? Come on America, you can do better than that.

Let's make America #1, where it belongs!!

Re:Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156217)

This is not what the world needs - i.e. an easy way to make an unregulated *weapon* ...

You're a tyrant's best friend. Some tyrants have even openly characterized people like you as "useful idiots".

Because guess who does the "regulating"...

Re:Irresponsible (0)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156335)

More inane generalization. Do "tyrants" regulate clean, pathogen free water? Do "tyrants" create safe air-traffic control system. Your on-their-face ridiculous and absurd generalizations about people who make rules indicate a small, weak mind at work.

Re: Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156251)

Except, of course, guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people. Gun by itself is an inanimate object. It, by itself, can cause no harm to anyone.

Re: Irresponsible (-1)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156367)

No, people who have a gun and use it to kill someone kill people. If the gun wasn't available, the killer would not have killed with a gun. The ready and absurdly easy availability of guns in America make it exceedingly easy for people to kill other people with guns. We need to stop that by restricting the number of available guns, and NOT increasing their availability by a bunch of basement-dwelling 3D gun makers.

Re: Irresponsible (1)

gfxguy (98788) | about 3 months ago | (#47156575)

You're right; and our prisons should release all the perpetrators convicted of victimless crimes (like prostitution and drug use), and fill it with people who violate the rights of others, including those who've endangered the lives of other innocent people because of misuse of their right to own a gun.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

FuzzMaster (596994) | about 3 months ago | (#47156417)

Instead of arguing this point, we need to make it very clear that anyone making or distributing 3D gun models should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If there isn't a law, make one - make TEN! I don't care.

Any such law would be blatantly unconstitutional. The right to publish 3D models of anything is guaranteed under the First Amendment. This is not a Second Amendment issue. Would you make publishing a book with the plans to build a gun illegal, too?

Re:Irresponsible (0)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156539)

Pushing a button on a cheap 3D printer (let's say in 10 years, when a printer costs $100) is fundamentally dangerous to the well-being of society. That's a lot different than following a design to cobble together a weapon. It used to be a "right" to shout "fire" in a theater, but that "right" was not permitted under the 1st Amendment. the 2nd doesn't provide for carte blanche creation of guns via 3D printers. Sorry.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

FuzzMaster (596994) | about 3 months ago | (#47156723)

. . . It used to be a "right" to shout "fire" in a theater, but that "right" was not permitted under the 1st Amendment. . .

That is a common misconception. That decision has been overturned and you're free to shout "fire" any time you want. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]

The First Amendment protects us from people like you who would abridge our rights. I'm thankful that SCOTUS agrees with me.

Re:Irresponsible (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 3 months ago | (#47156533)

I still don't see the explanation on how a 3D printed plastic gun is worse than a plastic gun developed by other means. If you want to outlaw a type of gun, just do it. It is monumentally stupid to try to outlaw every manufacturing method that comes along, as it will always be a chase.

For instance. When does a 3d model of a gun become an illegal one? A basic outline? A general but unproven design? Or does it have to be a complete design proven to actually work, with all the detailed instructions for post print processing included? What if it comes in two separate models that someone has to match? What if the model just a part of a gun? What if a feature is included that makes the gun inoperable? What if its a 3D model for a video game?

Lets not be so stupid.

Re:Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156597)

America already experiences 33-35,000 gun deaths every year. America is FOURTH in gun deaths, worldwide - after Thailand, Colombia and Nigeria.Isn't that enough?

Of course, ~19,000 of those gun deaths are suicides, and since the suicide rate in the US is roughly similar to many other developed nations it's not reasonable to think that those people wouldn't manage to kill themselves some other way in the absence of guns.
I still think that ~15,000 gun deaths is too many, but too often people ignore this.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/

This is aside from the fact that there are already plenty of guns in the US which are not going anywhere anytime soon - a Colt 1911 from 100 years ago is still a viable weapon, as is a 50 year old AK. 3d printed guns are not a problem in the US now, and are unlikely to be a problem in my lifetime. Not when you can get a 9mm semi-auto handgun for under $300 legally, and probably under $100 illegally if you know who to talk to. (I'm basing this on a radio report I heard about kids in Chicago; $100 seemed to be the going rate for a handgun on the street.) Banning handgun sales is not likely to be on the political horizon for a long time (if ever), and if it ever did seem likely the buying/hoarding frenzy which was triggered by the talk of new assault-style rifle restrictions after Newtown would probably be dwarfed. And you'll note that all the talk after Newtown was of scary AR types, which actually are used in a very small percent of homicides - most murders are done with handguns.

And really, what people care about more is the overall homicide rate (not just gun deaths) - at 4.8 the US is still way too high, but way down the list (though still the worst developed country, over twice the rate of Norway & Finland):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Even on the gun related homicides, the US is closer to 15th:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Just like to have the facts straight, makes a better starting point.

Re:Irresponsible (0)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156733)

The suicide angle is showing to be pretty lame. It's clearly shown in statistics and epidemiological studies that if one owns a gun, you are more likely to die by gun if one suicides. Guns are far more lethal as suicide weapons than other means. Reducing the number of guns would therefore reduce the number of death attempts by suicide. The fact is that we already have too many guns in America, well over 300 million of them. And like it or not, no matter how you fudge the stats, 33-35,000 Americans DIE by gun, every year. We are FOURTH in the world in that statistic. What gets me is when gun lovers say "we should only care about gun homicides". Really? What about accidental gun deaths? What about the 10's of thousands maimed by guns?

Re:Irresponsible (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156675)

Syria has much more restrictive policies than the USA: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/syria

I am sure you will be much safer there, so please re-locate there where you will be much more comfortable without scary firearms around you (ostensibly due to the increased regulations).

Personally, I find your lack of care for all the thousands of children that die each year from choking on hotdogs and coins appalling. It's hard to take you seriously when you haven't signed our petition to shutdown the evil hotdog industry! Have you seen how they murder pigs, cows and chickens and grind them up to make their murderous weapons? Your continued use of coins also shows your lack of care for the safety of children. I bet you left one just lying around somewhere just yesterday!

Re:Irresponsible (1)

RevDisk (740008) | about 3 months ago | (#47156713)

You do realize that there are basically schematics for virtually every firearm in history available? Around here, we have people that make historic weapons using historic tools (ie essentially blacksmith shops). You could easily build highly lethal firearms with a load of charcoal, some decent wood and a pile of iron. It doesn't require that much skill either.

Before you say "So What?", this is still done every day in the Khyber Pass. Weapons are made using extremely primitive means. It's actually unnerving that they can and do reverse engineer firearms from even just pictures, and then make their own knockoffs.
Any machine shop in America can easily surpass Khyber Pass' charcoal fires and hammers.

Just when we thought we had it under control... (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about 3 months ago | (#47156393)

The problem with 3D printing is that it makes object creation too easy, and weapons are one of the first types of objects people think of creating. "Gun control" is a concept that's been worked on for many years, and this goes right in the face of it. There's many communities where guns are completely banned, or have to cross an area that destroys the ability to fire. This is why we need some interrupt somewhere to say "That's something that isn't allowed here!" in all 3D printer designs.

Re:Just when we thought we had it under control... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47156545)

Then amend the constitution... The 1st Amendment is very explicit. NO LAW!

Open Source Freedom? (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 3 months ago | (#47156471)

I am not entirely sure what the poster means by "Open Source Freedom." I'm sure there's a serious discussion to be had there, but my first reaction was "Freedom is Not Free (as in beer)."

ordered to take them down (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 3 months ago | (#47156517)

Second Amendment? This is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment. And we're going to let this happen just because the info is about guns? Fuck that. Submissiveness will destroy us.

It's a 1A issue, not a 2A issue. (4, Insightful)

dbc (135354) | about 3 months ago | (#47156603)

Look people, this is NOT a 2A issue, this is a 1A issue. When does censorship stop? Why can't gun plans be published?

What if after some future election it became illegal to publish plans for IUD contra-ceptives without a licence after some person posts plans for a 3D printed one. Then for a research physician to get published in a medical journal he'd need permission from the government. How about that? How is that different?

How would you feel about needing to obtain a goverenemt license to publish anything about crytographic code? Where would that stop? Could you teach your kids how to make a Ceasar cipher, or would you go to jail for that under a national security gag-order.

He is publishing plans. This is a 1A issue.

Re:It's a 1A issue, not a 2A issue. (1)

ebusinessmedia1 (561777) | about 3 months ago | (#47156633)

That's right, and SCOTUS will put a stop to it, just like they did about shouting "fire!" in a theater. There are limits to so-called "free speech".

Here we go again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47156677)

Somehow this story will probably get more comments than something about net neutrality or Edward Snowden. Nevermind any new technology story. Seems dice has finally found a way to increase readership: get on the NRA's radar.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>