5 ms·

This is a very tricky situation. I generally abhor guns in society. However, I'd be more concerned about living in a society where creating and disseminating

This is a very tricky situation. I generally abhor guns in society. However, I'd be more concerned about living in a society where creating and disseminating information, such that no crime is committed, is a crime in and of itself. On a more practical note, I'd be surprised if any 3D printed gun was actually strong enough without metal components/reinforcing. I'm reasonable experienced with 3D printing... and I'd personally expect such a device to at least blow a few fingers off.

mushufasa 8y ago
Society already criminalizes disseminating information, such as national security secrets, and nuclear weapons technology. Though information itself wants to be free, I am very much in favor of increasing friction for world-ending technologies like nuclear weapons. There was a good documentary on 3D printing guns a few years ago where the plastics were essentially good for a few rounds and then wear out. They've improved since then, and will keep improving. Plastics don't need to compete directly with metal to be formidable.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  >Society already criminalizes disseminating information, such as ... nuclear weapons technology Have you ever heard of the Nth Country Experiment? Keep in mind that this was conducted in the 1960s. Suffice to say, designing a nuclear weapon is not a problem. Neither is manufacturing one. The difficulty lies in obtaining sufficient nuclear material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nth_Country_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nth_Country_Experiment
  - GW150914 8y ago
    If all you care about is a low-yield, wasteful, heavy bomb? Yes. If you want an advanced dial-a-yield thermonuclear device capable of leveling a city, and fitting on a missile? Not so much.
- mygo 8y ago
  > information itself wants to be free That never made sense to me. Information desiring something of itself would imply that information is sentient. I think it is people who want information to be free. And not all people want that, at least for not all information.
bb88 8y ago
So certain things, like details of the latest US nuclear weapon designs should probably remain secret as well as the more common approaches to making a nuclear warhead. And it's probably not too far off in the future that DNA strains of viruses like ebola can easily be replicated and constructed in someone's basement. The founding fathers never envisioned free speech as a way to disseminate information that can be used to kill swaths of people. It was a check on the government as well as a way to preserve political speech.
- stale2002 8y ago
  Sure. But you would be hard pressed to argue that "information that could be used to build a gun" is among that category of information that the founders would be opposed to allowing people to have. Pretty much anyone could just buy a gun back then. The founders even made sure to put this right in the Constitution. And before someone goes on and says "but the founders never envisioned that semi automatic rifles would exist!" You should know that you are 100% incorrect. Semi automatic rifles existed for a hundred years prior to the Constitution. Go google the "kalthoth repeater". Not a lot of people owned them, because they were fairly expensive, but they existed, and I'm sure the founders could have envisioned them.
  - bb88 8y ago
    Guns typically kill a few people here and there. I'm talking about the deaths of large swaths of people from technology that wasn't envisioned in the 1700's. But since you mentioned it, that's the problem with taking an originalist view of the constitution. Nuclear weapons didn't exist back then, neither did DNA sequencing. And in your view for any X it must be legal, because the founding fathers were silent about X. I am pretty sure that if you could go back in time and ask whether George Washington whether the common man should be allowed to have and use nuclear weapons, the common sense answer would be a resounding "NO".
    - jfnixon 8y ago
      It is also the answer today for originalists. The standard interpretation is the 2A applies to any weapon which can be carried by a common soldier. It doesn't cover a F22, nor a battleship, nor a tank (although you can buy a tank, but for other reasons).
em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
> "surprised if any 3D printed gun was actually strong enough without metal components/reinforcing" The article fails to mention that the Ghost Gunner is a CNC mill and makes the gun out of 7075 billet aluminum blocks, which is strong enough for multiple shots.
gremlinsinc 8y ago
What if the plans were for home-made dirty bombs or nuclear devices? What's the different between disseminating how to make a gun and a weapon of mass destruction?
- CompanionCuuube 8y ago
  One is a weapon of mass destruction and the other is not. Next question please.

mushufasa 8y ago

Society already criminalizes disseminating information, such as national security secrets, and nuclear weapons technology. Though information itself wants to be free, I am very much in favor of increasing friction for world-ending technologies like nuclear weapons. There was a good documentary on 3D printing guns a few years ago where the plastics were essentially good for a few rounds and then wear out. They've improved since then, and will keep improving. Plastics don't need to compete directly with metal to be formidable.

DuskStar 8y ago
>Society already criminalizes disseminating information, such as ... nuclear weapons technology Have you ever heard of the Nth Country Experiment? Keep in mind that this was conducted in the 1960s. Suffice to say, designing a nuclear weapon is not a problem. Neither is manufacturing one. The difficulty lies in obtaining sufficient nuclear material. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nth_Country_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nth_Country_Experiment
- GW150914 8y ago
  If all you care about is a low-yield, wasteful, heavy bomb? Yes. If you want an advanced dial-a-yield thermonuclear device capable of leveling a city, and fitting on a missile? Not so much.
mygo 8y ago
> information itself wants to be free That never made sense to me. Information desiring something of itself would imply that information is sentient. I think it is people who want information to be free. And not all people want that, at least for not all information.

bb88 8y ago

So certain things, like details of the latest US nuclear weapon designs should probably remain secret as well as the more common approaches to making a nuclear warhead. And it's probably not too far off in the future that DNA strains of viruses like ebola can easily be replicated and constructed in someone's basement. The founding fathers never envisioned free speech as a way to disseminate information that can be used to kill swaths of people. It was a check on the government as well as a way to preserve political speech.

stale2002 8y ago
Sure. But you would be hard pressed to argue that "information that could be used to build a gun" is among that category of information that the founders would be opposed to allowing people to have. Pretty much anyone could just buy a gun back then. The founders even made sure to put this right in the Constitution. And before someone goes on and says "but the founders never envisioned that semi automatic rifles would exist!" You should know that you are 100% incorrect. Semi automatic rifles existed for a hundred years prior to the Constitution. Go google the "kalthoth repeater". Not a lot of people owned them, because they were fairly expensive, but they existed, and I'm sure the founders could have envisioned them.
- bb88 8y ago
  Guns typically kill a few people here and there. I'm talking about the deaths of large swaths of people from technology that wasn't envisioned in the 1700's. But since you mentioned it, that's the problem with taking an originalist view of the constitution. Nuclear weapons didn't exist back then, neither did DNA sequencing. And in your view for any X it must be legal, because the founding fathers were silent about X. I am pretty sure that if you could go back in time and ask whether George Washington whether the common man should be allowed to have and use nuclear weapons, the common sense answer would be a resounding "NO".
  - jfnixon 8y ago
    It is also the answer today for originalists. The standard interpretation is the 2A applies to any weapon which can be carried by a common soldier. It doesn't cover a F22, nor a battleship, nor a tank (although you can buy a tank, but for other reasons).

em3rgent0rdr 8y ago

> "surprised if any 3D printed gun was actually strong enough without metal components/reinforcing" The article fails to mention that the Ghost Gunner is a CNC mill and makes the gun out of 7075 billet aluminum blocks, which is strong enough for multiple shots.

gremlinsinc 8y ago

What if the plans were for home-made dirty bombs or nuclear devices? What's the different between disseminating how to make a gun and a weapon of mass destruction?

CompanionCuuube 8y ago
One is a weapon of mass destruction and the other is not. Next question please.