4 ms·

A Landmark Legal Shift Opens Pandora's Box for DIY Guns

53 points by apo 8y ago

DanAndersen 8y ago
I'm glad the story brought up the comparisons to the early days when exporting crypto was similarly restricted under munitions laws. That era was similarly full of calls to ban or regulate or backdoor encryption, saying that only terrorists or evildoers had need of such "military-grade encryption." Putting aside the specifics of the gun control/rights question (if such a thing is possible), it's downright refreshing to see this guy's attitude. It's reminiscent of some of the earlier, more libertarian hacker ethos, of being focused on being able to do something and fighting hard against authority figures wanting (justifiably or no) to step in to suppress it. With the growth of the SV tech industry, it seems a lot of that fire has been stomped out.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  Why on Earth would we want to blindly cultivate that attitude? Sometimes authority figures overreach, but plenty of laws exist for good reason. We wouldn't look at someone trying to make it easier to distribute child pornography and say "putting aside the specifics of the child pornography question, it's refreshing to see this guy's attitude." The outcomes of our actions matter. Fighting for something unethical against authority figures who justifiably want to suppress it isn't praiseworthy, it's shameful.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    Guns can be used for good, and they can be used for bad - exactly the same as cryptography. Child porn is something that relies exclusively on exploiting people who cannot in any way consent to the actions involved. It's in no way comparable. The conversation beyond this depends on your view of the role of government, and opinions there vary. I see the role of the government as maximizing freedom and liberty for people to live and prosper (or fail) in accordance with their own actions. Banning items which the vast majority are completely capable of handling responsibly because of a tiny minuscule of abusers is not something that I think the government should ever do. And really the fundamental problem is not guns, it's people wanting to hurt other people. London is a good example of this issue. As the demographics and state of that city have changed, their crime and murder rates have soared. Even with extremely strict gun control, they managed to briefly surpass New York City in murders. This has now led their government to begin to implement, literally, "knife control" along with "acid control" given a rise in people spraying others with things such as drain cleaner, as a weapon. And when the perpetrators start killing people with steel rods, will we then move to try to ban weights? If people want to kill or hurt each other, they're going to find a way. Looking at the way is missing the actual problem - which is the people that want to kill or hurt other people.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      With regard to the "fundamental issue", number of guns is extremely highly correlated with a high murder rate [1]. General crime rate, on the other hand, is not [2]; London's brief passage of New York in murder rate belies this. More generally, though, OP's statement was explicitly made without regard to whether gun control was right or wrong. It supported standing up to authority figures in the abstract, which is why I used child pornography as an example of something authority figures are (uncontroversially) generally regarded as right in suppressing. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shoot... [2] https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
      - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
        He stated literally that the action was 'reminiscent of the earlier, more libertarian, hacker ethos'. You are straw manning his comment. As for the issue, do you really think news articles are reasonable sources on an issue like this? This [1] is a list of countries by intentional homicide rates. This [2] is a list of countries by gun ownership rates. Here's a sampling of your "extremely high correlation." ------ Top 5 Countries by Gun Ownership -- Intentional Homicide Ranking (lower means more homicides) 1. USA -- 90 2. Serbia -- 170 3. Yemen -- 77 4. Cyprus -- 179 5. Saudi Arabia -- 166 ------ Top 5 countries by Intentional Homicide Ranking -- Gun Ownership Ranking (lower means more guns) 1. El Salvador -- 92 2. Honduras -- 90 3. Venezuela -- 60 4. US Virgin Islands -- unranked 5. Jamaica -- 73 ------ The numbers get even sillier if you do the top 20. You have to remember that some of the gun heaviest nations in the world include Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland, Switzerland, New Zealand, etc.
        jakelazaroff 8y ago
        The full sentence you quoted, and the preceding one: > Putting aside the specifics of the gun control/rights question (if such a thing is possible), it's downright refreshing to see this guy's attitude. It's reminiscent of some of the earlier, more libertarian hacker ethos, of being focused on being able to do something and fighting hard against authority figures wanting (justifiably or no) to step in to suppress it. i.e. it's "refreshing" to see someone fighting against authority figures, whether or not those authority figures are justified. I'm not straw manning his comment; I simply disagree that the "earlier hacker ethos" he describes is something to be revered, and I've explained why. You are cherry-picking the data in your charts to support your conclusion. The US Virgin Islands, for example, has barely 100,000 people; the US has 320,000,000. Just 4 gun homicides per year there would vastly exceed the US's gun homicide rate.
kikoreis 8y ago
You know how everybody is worried about machines taking over human jobs and the resulting unemployment? Well, sort of like Calvin's rant on never being able to die, I think there will be so much demand for staffing in the field of dystopia management and prevention that the chance of that happening is really slim.
- proliferrous 8y ago
  What I don't understand, though, is this upper echelon counterpart of shadowy people, with some imaginary self-sustaining and perpetual deep need to indulge in misanthropic subjugation. Sure, humans have a natural tendency to enjoy a well-rubbed ego stroke, however saccharine the sycophant might play their role, but somewhere along the line, the game's novelty wears off. Sooner or later, it becomes obvious who needs who, and the power dynamic changes. All that glittered is no longer gold. I think technology seems to be demonstrating a precedent that after a phase of childish glory seeking we're all rendered lazy shut-ins, robbed of a will to power by being waited on hand and foot with push-button convenience. The future looks like a place so perfect, we might not need to enslave an entourage of contrived fandom and happy thoughts. If the economics of scarcity change, and all our needs are met, we'll be bored stiff, with nothing to complain about. And then what?
wmeredith 8y ago
I don’t see the story here. You could always make guns. So now you can make them a certain way and it’s a Pandora’s box?
- flyingfences 8y ago
  It's not about making guns. It's about publishing instructions for making guns.
- jsoc815 8y ago
  The story is the perceived loss of control over who can (and will) make guns. The thinking being that by publishing the info on the net a great many people who wouldn't have otherwise bothered to figure out how to do so will now make guns. And of course, since the net isn't limited by geography per se, now the issue becomes one of international concern. For the record, while I expect that there will be an uptick in interested parties, I don't think it will of epic proportions because at the heart of it, people are lazy. I do, however, wonder how the gun manufacturers feel about this.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    Just for an example, this is what happens when people need to make guns on the cheap in field conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten Quoting: "the most basic model, the Mark III, could be produced from five man-hours of work". In any machine shop having as advanced technology as welding and metalworking.
- smsm42 8y ago
  The story is that you can speak and publish information even if the state does not like it. That should be the case anyway, but guns are one of those subjects where logic gets thrown out of the window and replaced by emotions - like "how you can allow people to publish information about fire boomsticks! Think about the children that are going to die, you monster!!!" So, the story is the sanity has, after long and hard struggle, prevailed this time. As for Pandora's box, of course anything that is about guns is scary, especially anything new. So, Pandora's box.
microcolonel 8y ago
> where firearms result in tens of thousands of deaths a year > "I’d call a militia out to defend the server, Bundy-style," Wilson says calmly, in the first overt mention of planned armed violence I've ever heard him make. I don't see why Wired sees fit to defame and misinterpret people, and misrepresent the facts on this topic. If they're so right, why not let the facts speak for themselves? Calling a militia out to defend the server is not planned armed violence, it's planned armed defence: not even the responding militia wants there to be any actual violence, if anything the armed militia decreases the likelihood of violence occurring (nobody's going to serve a forcible no-knock on a room full of armed men defending a mere library, and engaged in the commission of no offence).

53 points by apo 8y ago

I'm glad the story brought up the comparisons to the early days when exporting crypto was similarly restricted under munitions laws. That era was similarly full of calls to ban or regulate or backdoor encryption, saying that only terrorists or evildoers had need of such "military-grade encryption." Putting aside the specifics of the gun control/rights question (if such a thing is possible), it's downright refreshing to see this guy's attitude. It's reminiscent of some of the earlier, more libertarian hacker ethos, of being focused on being able to do something and fighting hard against authority figures wanting (justifiably or no) to step in to suppress it. With the growth of the SV tech industry, it seems a lot of that fire has been stomped out.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
Why on Earth would we want to blindly cultivate that attitude? Sometimes authority figures overreach, but plenty of laws exist for good reason. We wouldn't look at someone trying to make it easier to distribute child pornography and say "putting aside the specifics of the child pornography question, it's refreshing to see this guy's attitude." The outcomes of our actions matter. Fighting for something unethical against authority figures who justifiably want to suppress it isn't praiseworthy, it's shameful.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Guns can be used for good, and they can be used for bad - exactly the same as cryptography. Child porn is something that relies exclusively on exploiting people who cannot in any way consent to the actions involved. It's in no way comparable. The conversation beyond this depends on your view of the role of government, and opinions there vary. I see the role of the government as maximizing freedom and liberty for people to live and prosper (or fail) in accordance with their own actions. Banning items which the vast majority are completely capable of handling responsibly because of a tiny minuscule of abusers is not something that I think the government should ever do. And really the fundamental problem is not guns, it's people wanting to hurt other people. London is a good example of this issue. As the demographics and state of that city have changed, their crime and murder rates have soared. Even with extremely strict gun control, they managed to briefly surpass New York City in murders. This has now led their government to begin to implement, literally, "knife control" along with "acid control" given a rise in people spraying others with things such as drain cleaner, as a weapon. And when the perpetrators start killing people with steel rods, will we then move to try to ban weights? If people want to kill or hurt each other, they're going to find a way. Looking at the way is missing the actual problem - which is the people that want to kill or hurt other people.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    With regard to the "fundamental issue", number of guns is extremely highly correlated with a high murder rate [1]. General crime rate, on the other hand, is not [2]; London's brief passage of New York in murder rate belies this. More generally, though, OP's statement was explicitly made without regard to whether gun control was right or wrong. It supported standing up to authority figures in the abstract, which is why I used child pornography as an example of something authority figures are (uncontroversially) generally regarded as right in suppressing. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shoot... [2] https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe
    - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
      He stated literally that the action was 'reminiscent of the earlier, more libertarian, hacker ethos'. You are straw manning his comment. As for the issue, do you really think news articles are reasonable sources on an issue like this? This [1] is a list of countries by intentional homicide rates. This [2] is a list of countries by gun ownership rates. Here's a sampling of your "extremely high correlation." ------ Top 5 Countries by Gun Ownership -- Intentional Homicide Ranking (lower means more homicides) 1. USA -- 90 2. Serbia -- 170 3. Yemen -- 77 4. Cyprus -- 179 5. Saudi Arabia -- 166 ------ Top 5 countries by Intentional Homicide Ranking -- Gun Ownership Ranking (lower means more guns) 1. El Salvador -- 92 2. Honduras -- 90 3. Venezuela -- 60 4. US Virgin Islands -- unranked 5. Jamaica -- 73 ------ The numbers get even sillier if you do the top 20. You have to remember that some of the gun heaviest nations in the world include Norway, France, Canada, Austria, Iceland, Germany, Finland, Switzerland, New Zealand, etc.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        The full sentence you quoted, and the preceding one: > Putting aside the specifics of the gun control/rights question (if such a thing is possible), it's downright refreshing to see this guy's attitude. It's reminiscent of some of the earlier, more libertarian hacker ethos, of being focused on being able to do something and fighting hard against authority figures wanting (justifiably or no) to step in to suppress it. i.e. it's "refreshing" to see someone fighting against authority figures, whether or not those authority figures are justified. I'm not straw manning his comment; I simply disagree that the "earlier hacker ethos" he describes is something to be revered, and I've explained why. You are cherry-picking the data in your charts to support your conclusion. The US Virgin Islands, for example, has barely 100,000 people; the US has 320,000,000. Just 4 gun homicides per year there would vastly exceed the US's gun homicide rate.

kikoreis 8y ago

You know how everybody is worried about machines taking over human jobs and the resulting unemployment? Well, sort of like Calvin's rant on never being able to die, I think there will be so much demand for staffing in the field of dystopia management and prevention that the chance of that happening is really slim.

proliferrous 8y ago
What I don't understand, though, is this upper echelon counterpart of shadowy people, with some imaginary self-sustaining and perpetual deep need to indulge in misanthropic subjugation. Sure, humans have a natural tendency to enjoy a well-rubbed ego stroke, however saccharine the sycophant might play their role, but somewhere along the line, the game's novelty wears off. Sooner or later, it becomes obvious who needs who, and the power dynamic changes. All that glittered is no longer gold. I think technology seems to be demonstrating a precedent that after a phase of childish glory seeking we're all rendered lazy shut-ins, robbed of a will to power by being waited on hand and foot with push-button convenience. The future looks like a place so perfect, we might not need to enslave an entourage of contrived fandom and happy thoughts. If the economics of scarcity change, and all our needs are met, we'll be bored stiff, with nothing to complain about. And then what?

wmeredith 8y ago

I don’t see the story here. You could always make guns. So now you can make them a certain way and it’s a Pandora’s box?

flyingfences 8y ago
It's not about making guns. It's about publishing instructions for making guns.
jsoc815 8y ago
The story is the perceived loss of control over who can (and will) make guns. The thinking being that by publishing the info on the net a great many people who wouldn't have otherwise bothered to figure out how to do so will now make guns. And of course, since the net isn't limited by geography per se, now the issue becomes one of international concern. For the record, while I expect that there will be an uptick in interested parties, I don't think it will of epic proportions because at the heart of it, people are lazy. I do, however, wonder how the gun manufacturers feel about this.
- smsm42 8y ago
  Just for an example, this is what happens when people need to make guns on the cheap in field conditions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten Quoting: "the most basic model, the Mark III, could be produced from five man-hours of work". In any machine shop having as advanced technology as welding and metalworking.
smsm42 8y ago
The story is that you can speak and publish information even if the state does not like it. That should be the case anyway, but guns are one of those subjects where logic gets thrown out of the window and replaced by emotions - like "how you can allow people to publish information about fire boomsticks! Think about the children that are going to die, you monster!!!" So, the story is the sanity has, after long and hard struggle, prevailed this time. As for Pandora's box, of course anything that is about guns is scary, especially anything new. So, Pandora's box.

microcolonel 8y ago

> where firearms result in tens of thousands of deaths a year > "I’d call a militia out to defend the server, Bundy-style," Wilson says calmly, in the first overt mention of planned armed violence I've ever heard him make. I don't see why Wired sees fit to defame and misinterpret people, and misrepresent the facts on this topic. If they're so right, why not let the facts speak for themselves? Calling a militia out to defend the server is not planned armed violence, it's planned armed defence: not even the responding militia wants there to be any actual violence, if anything the armed militia decreases the likelihood of violence occurring (nobody's going to serve a forcible no-knock on a room full of armed men defending a mere library, and engaged in the commission of no offence).