8 ms·

Why shouldn't we be afraid of 3D printed guns? I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the safer we are, but what can anyone do about this whe

Why shouldn't we be afraid of 3D printed guns? I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the safer we are, but what can anyone do about this when you can simply buy a 3D printer and download a CAD file and begin mass producing an arsenal in secret?

agildehaus 13y ago
It's an eventuality we're all going to have to accept. The technology juggernaut doesn't care about its own ramifications. Unfortunately the price we pay for having convenience is people with nefarious purposes also have that convenience.
- cinquemb 13y ago
  Speaking of "nefarious purposes": Blythe Masters, the creator of the CDS, is about to be put on the financial chopping block for her influential role in "nefarious purposes" (aforementioned creation of "convenience" and usage) that others also have the same usage of such "convenience". http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/jpmorgan-caught-in-swirl-of-regulatory-woes/?smid=tw-bna http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/jpmorgan-caught-in-sw... Where am i going with this? I'm sure the unemployed youth of spain and greece would long to get their hands on a couple "Liberators" for their "nefarious purposes".
prawks 13y ago
Regulate 3D printers.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  Appoint a Cabinet-level position for the War on "3-D Printers" and fund it.
  - redblacktree 13y ago
    Perfect! I'm sure we can manage something at least as effective as the War on Drugs!
    - reader5000 13y ago
      Drug regulation is incredibly effective and has saved millions of lives.
      - nthj 13y ago
        [citation needed]
exabrial 13y ago
I really appreciate what Cody is doing for exactly that misconception. Reasonable regulations on firearms protect us from criminal lowlifes that want to make an easy dollar. However, when it comes down to it, a crazy person can take a knife and go on a mass stabbing (see recent events Apr 9, 2013). That is the point Cody is trying to make, is that we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend violence is never going to happen. Humans have fought each other since the age of written communication, so it is absurd to think removing weapons will decrease violence. I hate to sound like a hippie but what _will_ decrease violence is being less judgmental, compromise, reaching out to others, tolerance of those who are different, but most importantly: education.
- reader5000 13y ago
  Yeah this is a common misconception. Guns cause violence and less guns correlates with less violent crime. Just remember, people are creatures of opportunity.
  - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
    IMHO, disarmament creates that opportunity for abuse. I've never seen someone take advantage of the strong.
    - reader5000 13y ago
      Every first world civilian population but a small minority of the US is "disarmed", none of them are being "abused".
      - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
        Are you saying Switzerland is not part of the "first world"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gu... Germany invaded surrounding territories in WWII, but left Switzerland alone.
ams6110 13y ago
Don't be afraid of things. Be afraid of people with bad intentions.
- Ives 13y ago
  Isn't it possible to be afraid of more than one thing?
- kybernetikos 13y ago
  Or alternatively don't be afraid of either (after all, your chance of being significantly harmed by a person with bad intentions is nearly negligible in civilized countries if you don't go actively courting trouble - e.g. by being a violent gang member), but support reasonable measures to reduce the likelihood that a person with bad intentions comes into contact with massive force multipliers.
vy8vWJlco 13y ago
> "I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the safer we are" The best case scenario, IMHO, is that everyone has the means to defend themselves against abuse. I value equality. The worst case scenario, IMHO, is a single person or group with a disproportionate ability to abuse those who are defenseless against them - and they know it (your fewer-the-better scenario). IMHO, crime happens because people think they can get away with it. Good fences make good neighbors, IMHO, so I feel safer when everyone has a gun, for example, since disarmament creates an opportunity that wasn't there before. Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own.
- aetimmes 13y ago
  The issue is making sure all actors in such a system is rational - no point in optimizing one constraint while ignoring the other.
  - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
    Actually, I don't see that as a necessary goal either since what is considered reasonable or rational in a society/system boils down to numbers - including what I tend to call useful or objective truths (even science is iterative). Since I also think everyone deserves an equal opportunity ("has the right") to choose what makes sense for his or her self, I don't feel a need/want to control anyone but myself (to make sure he or she chooses according to my morality, or current scientific theory) unless I absolutely have to interact with him or her. I only want to also be treated equally in any and all social interactions (such as having the right to own anything anyone else, government or non-government, may), and to otherwise be left alone wherever possible, since I am only trying to speak for myself.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own." Did it previously say "We don't like guns and we think..."?
  - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
bmelton 13y ago
At the risk of being polarizing, that's already a false assertion. If fewer people have guns, there will arguably be fewer gun crimes, but that depends entirely on which people still have them. If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands. Ignoring that though, I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out that people can already legally produce weapons at their home and amass their own 'secret arsenals' with readily available technology (a drill press, $200 on Harbor Freight). The ATF allows for the purchase of what's referred to as an 80% firearm, which means it's a block of metal in the shape of a gun that simply hasn't had its trigger group milled out. A $200 drill press and a $100 jig allow me to currently manufacture a large number of firearms for personal use, so long as I don't manufacture them with the intent to sell. This might make it somewhat easier, and future generations of it almost certainly will, but at least for the moment you can rest assured that the printed product is vastly inferior to the firearms I can already manufacture in my garage and are not more convenient to make.
- glhaynes 13y ago
  If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands. That seems overly simplistic. How many people that shoot people were — before the shooting — law-abiding citizens? Probably lots.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Of course it's simplistic, as is the notion that less guns make us all safer. For the most part though, while there's no way to prove that a lawful citizen today won't become a criminal tomorrow, crime is largely perpetrated by known criminals. Put more simply, guns are a complicated issue. Eliminating all guns from the planet wouldn't solve all crime, nor would arming everyone on the planet. As a pragmatist, I find it hard to blame the hammer for the actions of the carpenter wielding it, but that seems to be so often the case when guns are involved.
    - 13y ago

agildehaus 13y ago

It's an eventuality we're all going to have to accept. The technology juggernaut doesn't care about its own ramifications. Unfortunately the price we pay for having convenience is people with nefarious purposes also have that convenience.

cinquemb 13y ago
Speaking of "nefarious purposes": Blythe Masters, the creator of the CDS, is about to be put on the financial chopping block for her influential role in "nefarious purposes" (aforementioned creation of "convenience" and usage) that others also have the same usage of such "convenience". http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/jpmorgan-caught-in-swirl-of-regulatory-woes/?smid=tw-bna http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/02/jpmorgan-caught-in-sw... Where am i going with this? I'm sure the unemployed youth of spain and greece would long to get their hands on a couple "Liberators" for their "nefarious purposes".

prawks 13y ago

Regulate 3D printers.

chris_mahan 13y ago
Appoint a Cabinet-level position for the War on "3-D Printers" and fund it.
- redblacktree 13y ago
  Perfect! I'm sure we can manage something at least as effective as the War on Drugs!
  - reader5000 13y ago
    Drug regulation is incredibly effective and has saved millions of lives.
    - nthj 13y ago
      [citation needed]

exabrial 13y ago

I really appreciate what Cody is doing for exactly that misconception. Reasonable regulations on firearms protect us from criminal lowlifes that want to make an easy dollar. However, when it comes down to it, a crazy person can take a knife and go on a mass stabbing (see recent events Apr 9, 2013). That is the point Cody is trying to make, is that we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend violence is never going to happen. Humans have fought each other since the age of written communication, so it is absurd to think removing weapons will decrease violence. I hate to sound like a hippie but what _will_ decrease violence is being less judgmental, compromise, reaching out to others, tolerance of those who are different, but most importantly: education.

reader5000 13y ago
Yeah this is a common misconception. Guns cause violence and less guns correlates with less violent crime. Just remember, people are creatures of opportunity.
- vy8vWJlco 13y ago
  IMHO, disarmament creates that opportunity for abuse. I've never seen someone take advantage of the strong.
  - reader5000 13y ago
    Every first world civilian population but a small minority of the US is "disarmed", none of them are being "abused".
    - vy8vWJlco 13y ago
      Are you saying Switzerland is not part of the "first world"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gun_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland#Gu... Germany invaded surrounding territories in WWII, but left Switzerland alone.

ams6110 13y ago

Don't be afraid of things. Be afraid of people with bad intentions.

Ives 13y ago
Isn't it possible to be afraid of more than one thing?
kybernetikos 13y ago
Or alternatively don't be afraid of either (after all, your chance of being significantly harmed by a person with bad intentions is nearly negligible in civilized countries if you don't go actively courting trouble - e.g. by being a violent gang member), but support reasonable measures to reduce the likelihood that a person with bad intentions comes into contact with massive force multipliers.

vy8vWJlco 13y ago

> "I don't like guns and I think the fewer people have them, the safer we are" The best case scenario, IMHO, is that everyone has the means to defend themselves against abuse. I value equality. The worst case scenario, IMHO, is a single person or group with a disproportionate ability to abuse those who are defenseless against them - and they know it (your fewer-the-better scenario). IMHO, crime happens because people think they can get away with it. Good fences make good neighbors, IMHO, so I feel safer when everyone has a gun, for example, since disarmament creates an opportunity that wasn't there before. Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own.

aetimmes 13y ago
The issue is making sure all actors in such a system is rational - no point in optimizing one constraint while ignoring the other.
- vy8vWJlco 13y ago
  Actually, I don't see that as a necessary goal either since what is considered reasonable or rational in a society/system boils down to numbers - including what I tend to call useful or objective truths (even science is iterative). Since I also think everyone deserves an equal opportunity ("has the right") to choose what makes sense for his or her self, I don't feel a need/want to control anyone but myself (to make sure he or she chooses according to my morality, or current scientific theory) unless I absolutely have to interact with him or her. I only want to also be treated equally in any and all social interactions (such as having the right to own anything anyone else, government or non-government, may), and to otherwise be left alone wherever possible, since I am only trying to speak for myself.
dllthomas 13y ago
"Long story short, please don't say "we," since your ideas are strictly your own." Did it previously say "We don't like guns and we think..."?
- vy8vWJlco 13y ago

bmelton 13y ago

At the risk of being polarizing, that's already a false assertion. If fewer people have guns, there will arguably be fewer gun crimes, but that depends entirely on which people still have them. If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands. Ignoring that though, I'd feel remiss if I didn't point out that people can already legally produce weapons at their home and amass their own 'secret arsenals' with readily available technology (a drill press, $200 on Harbor Freight). The ATF allows for the purchase of what's referred to as an 80% firearm, which means it's a block of metal in the shape of a gun that simply hasn't had its trigger group milled out. A $200 drill press and a $100 jig allow me to currently manufacture a large number of firearms for personal use, so long as I don't manufacture them with the intent to sell. This might make it somewhat easier, and future generations of it almost certainly will, but at least for the moment you can rest assured that the printed product is vastly inferior to the firearms I can already manufacture in my garage and are not more convenient to make.

glhaynes 13y ago
If 100% of law abiding citizens' guns were to evaporate tomorrow, that doesn't make us any safer, as it still leaves possession of guns in the wrong hands. That seems overly simplistic. How many people that shoot people were — before the shooting — law-abiding citizens? Probably lots.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Of course it's simplistic, as is the notion that less guns make us all safer. For the most part though, while there's no way to prove that a lawful citizen today won't become a criminal tomorrow, crime is largely perpetrated by known criminals. Put more simply, guns are a complicated issue. Eliminating all guns from the planet wouldn't solve all crime, nor would arming everyone on the planet. As a pragmatist, I find it hard to blame the hammer for the actions of the carpenter wielding it, but that seems to be so often the case when guns are involved.
  - 13y ago