I think the 3D printed gun is one of the best examples we have of law being years behind technology. It's clear that people shouldn't be able to get guns in a method that circumvents protections...
I think the 3D printed gun is one of the best examples we have of law being years behind technology. It's clear that people shouldn't be able to get guns in a method that circumvents protections and laws in place, but how do we ban a file like this? I really don't have an answer other than doing what we can to ban printing guns for now.
As a side note, I'm a hobby 3D printer, and one of my fears is that 3d printing companies will refuse to print guns (for very good reason) and people will try to make a gun with a desktop printer. I think people will hurt themselves trying to make their guns at home, as desktop printers just aren't nearly as good as the gun industry's machines, and ABS and PLA materials aren't really intended for guns. Maybe this 'free speech' could be thrown out as a danger to oneself and others.
The 3D printed gun controversy is manufactured (pun not intended, I think). It is already perfectly legal to manufacture guns in your own home. That being said, I personally think that guns...
The 3D printed gun controversy is manufactured (pun not intended, I think). It is already perfectly legal to manufacture guns in your own home.
That being said, I personally think that guns require dramatically stricter control than they do in the US right now. That CSI trope of finding a gun's owner is incredibly rare. The only real tracking we have on guns is who bought it originally; simply buying a gun secondhand is usually enough to make it untraceable. The records of sale that gun shops are required to turn in are not even computerized, last time I heard.
Beyond that, I think it's incredibly stupid to have an explosive device made out of plastic you only can use if you have it in your hand.
I respect anyone’s desire to have stricter gun laws while I personally am strongly against them (not a gun owner myself) Don’t be surprised when people fight back strongly against them though....
I respect anyone’s desire to have stricter gun laws while I personally am strongly against them (not a gun owner myself)
Don’t be surprised when people fight back strongly against them though. Things like the gun show “loophole” and no federal gun registry were compromises from the gun control act from the 60’s (or 80’s I forget which) When people try to close the gun show loophole and/or enact a federal registry it just shows gun owners that if you compromise today they will try to take more tomorrow.
If you compromise today you might have to reevaluate the compromise in a few decades. I think that seems pretty fair. Laws should change as society changes, they aren't supposed to be permanent....
if you compromise today they will try to take more tomorrow.
If you compromise today you might have to reevaluate the compromise in a few decades. I think that seems pretty fair. Laws should change as society changes, they aren't supposed to be permanent. Many laws have expiration dates built in, so that they have to be discussed again after some period of time.
This is a very... American opinion. Let's put it that way. I live in New Zealand, and this is not really a common view at all, although I will admit it's certainly growing. I think some assumed...
My argument is that we can all agree that the State is a corrupt, violent beast, and your process of harm reduction involves cedeing even more power to an already lamentable institution.
This is a very... American opinion. Let's put it that way. I live in New Zealand, and this is not really a common view at all, although I will admit it's certainly growing. I think some assumed skepticism is always good, but why not instead of "making your own way" through life without the state's intervention, get involved and exercise civic duties to instead constructively make "the state" better?
This isn't circumventing a law. It's legal to build your own gun without registering it -- it always has been. More, people can make far deadlier firearms trivially. See pipe guns and zip guns....
This isn't circumventing a law. It's legal to build your own gun without registering it -- it always has been. More, people can make far deadlier firearms trivially. See pipe guns and zip guns. (Not to mention that nobody is 3d printing a fully plastic firearm of any substantial quality -- they just aren't practical.)
Ultimately what we're talking about is freedom of speech, more than the 2nd amendment (since the 2nd amendment on home-made weapons is already settled law.) And I don't believe this is one case that the supreme court will use to weaken the 1st amendment. After all we're talking about criminalizing information -- a set of instructions in the form of a sequence of numbers representing a shape (and for no discernible valid reason.)
To me this all seems like a distraction from the real issues we are currently facing. Pandering. Fear mongering.
Money is a very distinct design, and there are features built-in (little yellow flecks) that the printers recognize, facilitating the prevention of printing it. A gun can be of almost any design,...
Money is a very distinct design, and there are features built-in (little yellow flecks) that the printers recognize, facilitating the prevention of printing it. A gun can be of almost any design, and you could print it piece-by-piece, use metal parts with it, etc. There's no practical way to prevent someone from making a gun with hardware store parts already, so using some printed plastic isn't going to change anything.
It seems to me that the ban was from the beginning a political twisting of facts. They were banned under the gun export law even though the reason the for the ban was a domestic one. Spurious...
It seems to me that the ban was from the beginning a political twisting of facts. They were banned under the gun export law even though the reason the for the ban was a domestic one.
Publicly accessible gun code may pose the same level of safety risk as terrorist organizations.
Spurious claim when manufacturing weapons for personal use is already legal, and the creation of far deadlier and more reliable firearms is trivially easy in comparison. Plus, anyone in the world can easily acquire an AR-15 (or a far better or more common rifle like the mass produced ak-47) much more easily than cnc milling or printing one.
We need to think beyond our concerns about dissemination of unregistered guns to the larger rule of law principles and the First .
Indeed. I wish the author spoke more about the theoretical dangers of a supreme court decision that upheld a ban on the information representing a weapon. To me, that danger is a far greater threat than a plastic gun which we already know is hardly a threat to anyone but the bearer.
Is it illegal to manufacture your own unregistered AR-15 lower receiver today? Is this 3D printing debate just a matter of restricting distribution of the files - or is it a matter of finally...
Is it illegal to manufacture your own unregistered AR-15 lower receiver today? Is this 3D printing debate just a matter of restricting distribution of the files - or is it a matter of finally preventing homebrew assault rifles?
Well then it seems to me that only banning 3D printed guns would be the wrong solution here. The discussion should be about "ghost guns". If it's illegal to purchase a certain type of gun it makes...
Well then it seems to me that only banning 3D printed guns would be the wrong solution here. The discussion should be about "ghost guns". If it's illegal to purchase a certain type of gun it makes sense that it would be illegal to make it yourself. IMO the actual files shouldn't be illegal, just the act of printing out the guns. Otherwise the blueprints/patent-paperwork should also be illegal (which wouldn't make sense IMO).
I think the 3D printed gun is one of the best examples we have of law being years behind technology. It's clear that people shouldn't be able to get guns in a method that circumvents protections and laws in place, but how do we ban a file like this? I really don't have an answer other than doing what we can to ban printing guns for now.
As a side note, I'm a hobby 3D printer, and one of my fears is that 3d printing companies will refuse to print guns (for very good reason) and people will try to make a gun with a desktop printer. I think people will hurt themselves trying to make their guns at home, as desktop printers just aren't nearly as good as the gun industry's machines, and ABS and PLA materials aren't really intended for guns. Maybe this 'free speech' could be thrown out as a danger to oneself and others.
The 3D printed gun controversy is manufactured (pun not intended, I think). It is already perfectly legal to manufacture guns in your own home.
That being said, I personally think that guns require dramatically stricter control than they do in the US right now. That CSI trope of finding a gun's owner is incredibly rare. The only real tracking we have on guns is who bought it originally; simply buying a gun secondhand is usually enough to make it untraceable. The records of sale that gun shops are required to turn in are not even computerized, last time I heard.
Beyond that, I think it's incredibly stupid to have an explosive device made out of plastic you only can use if you have it in your hand.
Yeah, I think this will end up being a bit of a non-issue once the first few rounds of people blowing their hands off makes the news cycle.
I respect anyone’s desire to have stricter gun laws while I personally am strongly against them (not a gun owner myself)
Don’t be surprised when people fight back strongly against them though. Things like the gun show “loophole” and no federal gun registry were compromises from the gun control act from the 60’s (or 80’s I forget which) When people try to close the gun show loophole and/or enact a federal registry it just shows gun owners that if you compromise today they will try to take more tomorrow.
If you compromise today you might have to reevaluate the compromise in a few decades. I think that seems pretty fair. Laws should change as society changes, they aren't supposed to be permanent. Many laws have expiration dates built in, so that they have to be discussed again after some period of time.
Not everyone is going to agree with that and it's somewhat presumptuous of you to state it as a cast iron fact.
This is a very... American opinion. Let's put it that way. I live in New Zealand, and this is not really a common view at all, although I will admit it's certainly growing. I think some assumed skepticism is always good, but why not instead of "making your own way" through life without the state's intervention, get involved and exercise civic duties to instead constructively make "the state" better?
This isn't circumventing a law. It's legal to build your own gun without registering it -- it always has been. More, people can make far deadlier firearms trivially. See pipe guns and zip guns. (Not to mention that nobody is 3d printing a fully plastic firearm of any substantial quality -- they just aren't practical.)
Ultimately what we're talking about is freedom of speech, more than the 2nd amendment (since the 2nd amendment on home-made weapons is already settled law.) And I don't believe this is one case that the supreme court will use to weaken the 1st amendment. After all we're talking about criminalizing information -- a set of instructions in the form of a sequence of numbers representing a shape (and for no discernible valid reason.)
To me this all seems like a distraction from the real issues we are currently facing. Pandering. Fear mongering.
Money is a very distinct design, and there are features built-in (little yellow flecks) that the printers recognize, facilitating the prevention of printing it. A gun can be of almost any design, and you could print it piece-by-piece, use metal parts with it, etc. There's no practical way to prevent someone from making a gun with hardware store parts already, so using some printed plastic isn't going to change anything.
It seems to me that the ban was from the beginning a political twisting of facts. They were banned under the gun export law even though the reason the for the ban was a domestic one.
Spurious claim when manufacturing weapons for personal use is already legal, and the creation of far deadlier and more reliable firearms is trivially easy in comparison. Plus, anyone in the world can easily acquire an AR-15 (or a far better or more common rifle like the mass produced ak-47) much more easily than cnc milling or printing one.
Indeed. I wish the author spoke more about the theoretical dangers of a supreme court decision that upheld a ban on the information representing a weapon. To me, that danger is a far greater threat than a plastic gun which we already know is hardly a threat to anyone but the bearer.
Is it illegal to manufacture your own unregistered AR-15 lower receiver today? Is this 3D printing debate just a matter of restricting distribution of the files - or is it a matter of finally preventing homebrew assault rifles?
Well then it seems to me that only banning 3D printed guns would be the wrong solution here. The discussion should be about "ghost guns". If it's illegal to purchase a certain type of gun it makes sense that it would be illegal to make it yourself. IMO the actual files shouldn't be illegal, just the act of printing out the guns. Otherwise the blueprints/patent-paperwork should also be illegal (which wouldn't make sense IMO).