Angry Minnesotans Take 3D Printer Away From Gunmaker

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
I have great respect for Stratasys for not allowing these gun-toting loons to make this world an even more dangerous place.

Let the gun control debate now begin!

Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
It would just lead to more violence and blood-shed, if not all-out anarchy. Believe it or not, easy access to guns does not automatically make a place safe.

 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.
Well, of course. No lease could possibly have terms in it dictating use.

Maybe they should print up some single-shot .22s to defend themselves from the tyranny of oppressive leases!
The terms of the lease that they cited upon revocation explicitly required illegal action to have taken place. Since nothing was even built yet, let alone anything illegal, the revocation of the lease was invalid.


Assassin Xaero said:
Do you have anything to back that up, just out of curiosity? From my understanding, you need a license (or maybe it was just the tax stamp) to "manufacture" a weapon. For example, I have one of these:


And it is illegal for me to put a vertical grip on it without getting a tax stamp since it is manufacturing a weapon.
Because the BATFE needs to be slapped upside the head. Basically, putting a foregrip on a pistol makes it an NFA item according to the BATFE. You can thank the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA for that, most of the latter of which was quite literally cribbed from Nazi Germany's gun regulations. It's where the whole line about sporting purposes comes from, among other bullshit.
 

iniudan

New member
Apr 27, 2011
538
0
0
dangoball said:
For those of you saying plastic is not a usable material in gun production, I would like to point out that there are already hardened plastics used to make guns.

Wiki excerpt:
"The Glock's frame, magazine body and several other components are made from a high-strength nylon-based polymer invented by Gaston Glock and called Polymer 2.[31] This plastic was specially formulated to provide increased durability and is more resilient than carbon steel and most steel alloys. Polymer 2 is resistant to shock, caustic liquids and temperature extremes where traditional steel/alloy frames would warp and become brittle.[31] The injection molded frame contains 4 hardened steel guide rails for the slide: two at the rear of the frame, and the remaining pair above and in front of the trigger guard."

Granted, there are still metal parts, but given time and money, I'm sure someone could come up with plastic variants of those.

As for the article?
Yeah, every army in the world is surely thrilled that any civilian and therefore any nutjob would be able to print himself working light support machine gun! Right?

Yes, but 3D printing make thing in layer, plastic in real gun is made by injection or pressure, way more solid.
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
rcs619 said:
Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
Honestly, I have to wonder how much it actually would help. I mean, if we're talking about countries with extremely oppressive regimes, the main issue would be getting the 3D printers in to begin with (since the defense company was just interested in creating freely distributed schematics), and if the oppressed people of said country could get a hold of something like a 3D printer, certainly the regime could as well.

In more backwards areas like central Africa... it could *maybe* help some. Where its just men w/guns against men w/guns. But in a place like Iran, where the regime does have a modern military they'd basically be useless. That's not even getting into the question of just how viable an all-plastic firearm is to begin with and how its performance would stack up to traditional firearms.

Potential good intentions aside, I just don't like the vibe I get from Defense Distributed. I support the right for people to have guns, but I am of the mindset that it should be a more regulated right than it is, not less (limit the number of bullets in a clip, make extended clips and mags illegal and so on). My personal opinion is that the potential risks of letting this particular genie out of the bottle outweigh the benefits. The last thing we need in the US is *more* guns floating around, completely unregulated guns that someone with sufficient funds to get a hold of a digital printer could manufacture en masse and pass out with zero documentation or oversight. Guns that could get past metal detectors as well.
It's worth taking into account the extreme poverty of many oppressed nations, as it's not so much men "w/guns against men w/guns" as it is men w/lots of guns against men w/barely even food. Even in more developed nations like Iran, an boon to the people underfoot is noteworthy

As far as regulation, I'm torn; while regulation has it's reasonably arguable pros and cons, it's essentially a moot debate, because, well... it's not hard to get firearms illegally. At all. It's easier than getting them legally, really. We could put every limit on them we can think of, we could ban them outright, but what would it matter when anyone with cash can get an AK-47 on the street?
(Before anyone jumps on me for that comment, I'm not against the ownership of assault weapons)
 

Kross

World Breaker
Sep 27, 2004
854
0
0
Well, 3d printers are becoming more widely available [https://store.makerbot.com/replicator2.html] as time goes on. So someone is going to have to (have to/want to? It's really just another tool to replace existing tools people can get their hands on already) set a policy when people use them to make weapons. I imagine there's people with private metal shops who can make weapons without any particular oversight as well.

It's not like without the gun you need a weapons license to use common household chemicals to make a bomb/incendiary device, or drive a car (may require an auto license! :p ) into a crowded intersection, or casually walk up to someone and stab them with a sharp anything.

The company that wants to use the printer to make gun parts is already making guns via other methods as well, right?
 

McMullen

New member
Mar 9, 2010
1,334
0
0
Anton P. Nym said:
DD didn't think this through too well. The damned thing is untraceable; it's a perfect disposable weapon suited for criminals. However it's utterly useless for home defense or "militia" stuff.

-- Steve
That's pretty much what I thought, and it's kind of sad that that point seems to be getting lost in this thread.

This technology does nothing for those who want to own guns, but it is a criminal's best friend.
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
The Plunk said:
I have great respect for Stratasys for not allowing these gun-toting loons to make this world an even more dangerous place.

Let the gun control debate now begin!

Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
It would just lead to more violence and blood-shed, if not all-out anarchy. Believe it or not, easy access to guns does not automatically make a place safe.

That image right there is the perfect argument in favor of Defense Distributed. Smart money says the next village that group rolls into will wish it had the means to better arm itself.
For better or worse, guns exist. People, in our species-old tradition of self-destruction, like to kill each other & will do so for fun or profit. All we've done in our history is go from "the biggest caveman gets w/e he wants" to "the best armed guy gets what he wants". Sad but true. While I truly wish it were not so, the only way we as humans have of redressing this is to match it.
What else can I say? Humans are nuts. Gotta do what you gotta do to survive
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
While I agree with the point on innovation, I do NOT agree that firearm rights are human rights. Just...how much bullshit is that statement alone? Guys, I am being forced to live without my human rights. The United Kingdom is an oppressive regime! I can't shoot at police officers, therefore they've created an invincible, tyrannical army that can ARREST us!!!! Open your eyes, people! Everybody should have a gun! Then nobody can be arrested anymore!

THEY MAY TAKE OUR GUNS, BUT THEY'LL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!
 

surg3n

New member
May 16, 2011
709
0
0
A plastic gun, in fact, a printed plastic gun (because it wouldn't even be as strong as plastic) would tear itself to shreds on the first shot.

It's stupid, was stupid then, and it's stupid now, and now the printer manufacturer is absorbing some stupid as well... the guys who should really know better.

Anyone stupid enough to print out a gun, put a bullet in it, and fire it, deserves to have the fingers or hand or face blown off. It's the new natural selection, our evolution as a species requires that those incapable of staying alive should be allowed to die. Anyone with a fraction of a clue could make a more stable and dangerous firearm out of scrap.

It is a shame, that things like custom stocks can't be developed because of a handful of stupidity.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
I've never seen such reckless criminal regard for the consequences of your actions as these people. Forget about the gun debate, he believes he's so right, he honours guns above all else ('"I think it shows they really believe in a future where the gun is inalienable," said Wilson at the time, "a kind of faith in American individualism, the sovereignty of the individual." I mean shouldn't we be trying to sort out inequality, racism, starvation, malnutrition, aren't the things to strive for, safety, freedom, expression, the ability to guide your life and control it, rather than any one means of doing that (or making it worse)) but he wants that so much and he believes he's so right he;s willing to force that on the entirety of the world? What does that say about self expression.

What about Britain, we have 50 gun deaths a year compared to 15 000 in the US. Our police don't even need to carry guns. More people die a year from obscure workplace accidents than guns. Our crime rate is positively comparable with the US, so we don't need guns for self defence. Our whole system and country operates because it's just hard to get hold of a gun in the UK.

And one man wnats to make it so any schmo with access to a digital printer can make guns? He believes in 0 gun control, that giving criminals the chance to produce weaponry is a divine right?

Let him bear the burden of the 3000 lives every year he will take for his arrogance


EDIT: I can't get over him
This tool said:
"This is the legal regime we exist in," said Wilson. "It's what this old world of legal hierarchy requires. I have to go thorough a legal process just to try something."
Oh gee, the government makes you go through a legal process before developing a way to mass produce firearms. Oh no they are so oppressive and old fashioned.


Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
Sorry, you feel the problem of violence in parts of developing nations is the lack of access to weapons??

Okay the sarcasm gose to far, but here is the problem, in a gun fight, the people with the training and the numbers are going to win right? So as long as some Warlord still has his minions and child soldiers, he can still push through a village, kill who he likes take what he likes (this is assuming that the impoverished village has access to a digital printer) because in a gun battle he's going to lose less people, and he doesn't care about preserving the lives of his child soldiers or shooting and torturing people because they stood up to him. Any deaths to his soldiers just make the need greater to create more child soldiers.

So the only way to win is to have an organised trained force counter-acting that, but the proliferation of guns doesn't help with that, because anyone with the knowledge and training can get their hands on guns anyway, we're not exactly starving Africa of AKs. But there's no reason that people with knowledge and training are going to be nice and try to do it nicely, and they'll still probably lose out to the people who are like them, but without morals.


Equally, Iran isn't a destable regime and if the people were persuaded to overthrow their government, they probably would be able to do it. And if we look at places like Syria, it's easy to turn the place into a war, but plastic guns probably wouldn't be able to end the fight much quicker either way when the government has access to planes and tanks.

It's a good idea, but I don't believe it would work and the point still stands that places with access to digital printers are the parts of the civilised world.
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
BrotherRool said:
I've never seen such reckless criminal regard for the consequences of your actions as these people. Forget about the gun debate, he believes he's so right, he honours guns above all else ('"I think it shows they really believe in a future where the gun is inalienable," said Wilson at the time, "a kind of faith in American individualism, the sovereignty of the individual." I mean shouldn't we be trying to sort out inequality, racism, starvation, malnutrition, aren't the things to strive for, safety, freedom, expression, the ability to guide your life and control it, rather than any one means of doing that (or making it worse)) but he wants that so much and he believes he's so right he;s willing to force that on the entirety of the world? What does that say about self expression.

What about Britain, we have 50 gun deaths a year compared to 15 000 in the US. Our police don't even need to carry guns. More people die a year from obscure workplace accidents than guns. Our crime rate is positively comparable with the US, so we don't need guns for self defence. Our whole system and country operates because it's just hard to get hold of a gun in the UK.

And one man wnats to make it so any schmo with access to a digital printer can make guns? He believes in 0 gun control, that giving criminals the chance to produce weaponry is a divine right?

Let him bear the burden of the 3000 lives every year he will take for his arrogance

Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
Sorry, you feel the problem of violence in parts of developing nations is the lack of access to weapons??

Okay the sarcasm gose to far, but here is the problem, in a gun fight, the people with the training and the numbers are going to win right? So as long as some Warlord still has his minions and child soldiers, he can still push through a village, kill who he likes take what he likes (this is assuming that the impoverished village has access to a digital printer) because in a gun battle he's going to lose less people, and he doesn't care about preserving the lives of his child soldiers or shooting and torturing people because they stood up to him. Any deaths to his soldiers just make the need greater to create more child soldiers.

So the only way to win is to have an organised trained force counter-acting that, but the proliferation of guns doesn't help with that, because anyone with the knowledge and training can get their hands on guns anyway, we're not exactly starving Africa of AKs. But there's no reason that people with knowledge and training are going to be nice and try to do it nicely, and they'll still probably lose out to the people who are like them, but without morals.


Equally, Iran isn't a destable regime and if the people were persuaded to overthrow their government, they probably would be able to do it. And if we look at places like Syria, it's easy to turn the place into a war, but plastic guns probably wouldn't be able to end the fight much quicker either way when the government has access to planes and tanks.

It's a good idea, but I don't believe it would work and the point still stands that places with access to digital printers are the parts of the civilised world.
Excellent points, but a few counters for the sake of discussion

African militia groups are well armed & sociopathic, yes; but by no stretch do they outnumber the countries they reside in, or even the population of villages they plunder. They are simply better equipped.
Johannesburg is a modern metropolis & it wouldn't be terribly difficult to set up shop or ship from there, if we're just talking logistic. A stretch perhaps, but plausible.
& I have to disagree with you that Iran is stable. Massive protest within the nation are frequent & met with attacks from horse-mounted government thugs, but that discussion that could fill a thread in & of itself, so I'm reluctant to even bring it up for fear of further fragmenting this thread.

(All in all, great posts in here so far. Much less flaming than I expected :D )
 

rcs619

New member
Mar 26, 2011
627
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
It's worth taking into account the extreme poverty of many oppressed nations, as it's not so much men "w/guns against men w/guns" as it is men w/lots of guns against men w/barely even food. Even in more developed nations like Iran, an boon to the people underfoot is noteworthy

As far as regulation, I'm torn; while regulation has it's reasonably arguable pros and cons, it's essentially a moot debate, because, well... it's not hard to get firearms illegally. At all. It's easier than getting them legally, really. We could put every limit on them we can think of, we could ban them outright, but what would it matter when anyone with cash can get an AK-47 on the street?
(Before anyone jumps on me for that comment, I'm not against the ownership of assault weapons)
What I meant was, in central Africa, the people there wouldn't be going up against an organized, modern military like those in Iran would. Iran has tanks and planes and other modern things, and those severely limit and/or nullify lightly-armed civilian resistance.

The "well it's not hard to get" argument isn't really valid, in my opinion. It isn't hard to get illegal hard-drugs like meth or heroine and current laws certainly don't stop people from making and distributing them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pass laws to attempt to control their spread and make it as difficult as possible to procure them.

Like I said, I'm in favor of gun-ownership, but I do think some things need to happen. We need to make extended clips and magazines illegal, first of all. No one needs a handgun with 30 rounds, or a semi-automatic rifle with 100. The gun-show loophole needs to finally be dealt with, and there needs to be some new regulations to finally catch up with internet gun sales.

I'm torn on assault rifles, and while an assault rifle ban probably wouldn't be a bad thing, such weapons have become so pervasive in the US that I don't know if it isn't already too late for that (Unless the gun show loophole was closed, any kind of assault weapons ban would be laughable weak as well).

Basically, the two reasons anyone needs to own a gun in the US is for self-defense, and for hunting/recreation shooting. You don't need extended mags for either of those (I'd argue that no one needs an assault rifle for either of those either, but that goes back to the above point). Let's not forget the fact that most of the random, massacre style shootings in this country are committed by people using *legally* bought and purchased firearms, magazines and ammo that they owned prior to shooting up a place, or bought legally for the occasion (statistics also show that the vast majority of those instances are done with assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns, both of which would be the most impacted by limitations in clip/magazine capacity).

Not doing something because "It probably wouldn't do anything anyway" is never a good thing. It is complacency, and all it accomplishes is letting the problem get worse. In my opinion of course.
 

Rainforce

New member
Apr 20, 2009
693
0
0
I lost the second I considered posting in a gun thread, but let's do this for the hell of it anyways:
the content of this thread is and always will be:
- >50% of all people from the US talking about freedom, needs more guns, and various absurd "that wouldn't have happened with more guns" scenarios
- reasonable people that get shot down (heh) by the other party.
none of them will ever listen to the other side, leading to a never ending discussion for and against the greatest US stereotype.
Well done people, we once more have proven our superiority through stubbornness and inability to learn.
Maybe one day people will see that those with guns will always shoot first at those who carry guns as well.
Being harmelss and uninteresting is what secures survival, not being a threat to everything around you (especially not other threats).
/rant
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
rcs619 said:
Zombie_Moogle said:
It's worth taking into account the extreme poverty of many oppressed nations, as it's not so much men "w/guns against men w/guns" as it is men w/lots of guns against men w/barely even food. Even in more developed nations like Iran, an boon to the people underfoot is noteworthy

As far as regulation, I'm torn; while regulation has it's reasonably arguable pros and cons, it's essentially a moot debate, because, well... it's not hard to get firearms illegally. At all. It's easier than getting them legally, really. We could put every limit on them we can think of, we could ban them outright, but what would it matter when anyone with cash can get an AK-47 on the street?
(Before anyone jumps on me for that comment, I'm not against the ownership of assault weapons)
What I meant was, in central Africa, the people there wouldn't be going up against an organized, modern military like those in Iran would. Iran has tanks and planes and other modern things, and those severely limit and/or nullify lightly-armed civilian resistance.

The "well it's not hard to get" argument isn't really valid, in my opinion. It isn't hard to get illegal hard-drugs like meth or heroine, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pass laws to attempt to control their spread and make it as difficult as possible to procure them.

Like I said, I'm in favor of gun-ownership, but I do think some things need to happen. We need to make extended clips and magazines illegal, first of all. No one needs a handgun with 30 rounds, or a semi-automatic rifle with 100. The gun-show loophole needs to finally be dealt with, and there needs to be some new regulations to finally catch up with internet gun sales.

I'm torn on assault rifles, and while an assault rifle ban probably wouldn't be a bad thing, such weapons have become so pervasive in the US that I don't know if it isn't already too late for that (Unless the gun show loophole was closed, any kind of assault weapons ban would be laughable weak as well).

Basically, the two reasons anyone needs to own a gun in the US is for self-defense, and for hunting/recreation shooting. You don't need extended mags for either of those (I'd argue that no one needs an assault rifle for either of those either, but that goes back to the above point). Let's not forget the fact that most of the random, massacre style shootings in this country are committed by people using *legally* bought and purchased firearms, magazines and ammo that they owned prior to shooting up a place, or bought legally for the occasion (statistics also show that the vast majority of those instances are done with assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns, both of which would be the most impacted by limitations in clip/magazine capacity).

Not doing something because "It probably wouldn't do anything anyway" is never a good thing. It is complacency, and all it accomplishes is letting the problem get worse. In my opinion of course.

I think we're disagreeing to agree here. My comment about illegal weapons being easy to acquire wasn't an argument for no regulation, as much as an argument for effective regulation. I don't personally think limiting clip size or banning particular types of weapons would solve anything. I do think that controlling the importation and sale of unregistered weapons would.
Now the real question is: how do we go about that without strapping on the jackboots? I'm honestly not sure
 

Zakarath

New member
Mar 23, 2009
1,244
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo
Honestly, I doubt throwing more guns at anything should be considered a valid solution to a problem. Probably just make unstable/violent areas of the world more unstable&violent.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
Excellent points, but a few counters for the sake of discussion

African militia groups are well armed & sociopathic, yes; but by no stretch do they outnumber the countries they reside in, or even the population of villages they plunder. They are simply better equipped.
Johannesburg is a modern metropolis & it wouldn't be terribly difficult to set up shop or ship from there, if we're just talking logistic. A stretch perhaps, but plausible.
& I have to disagree with you that Iran is stable. Massive protest within the nation are frequent & met with attacks from horse-mounted government thugs, but that discussion that could fill a thread in & of itself, so I'm reluctant to even bring it up for fear of further fragmenting this thread.

(All in all, great posts in here so far. Much less flaming than I expected :D )
It would have to be the population of villages that outnumber them, because you can't organise a country to efficiently show up in one place =D Even in villages a lot of people will be out at work or etc. You're definitely making me doubt myself though. Obvious examples would be that the militia would still be equipped with better guns but maybe a village could defend itself better. I don't really know enough about guns, what the range of effectiveness is between people who practise and people who don't. Maybe since the people who want guns already have them there's no harm in distributing more guns. Or maybe we could say that the problem of instability in those countries is that no matter who has the power, they haven't developed ways to force those people with power to act responsibly and it would happen again.

The Iran one though... I more convinced guns would be a bad thing. I'm just having the image of a riot where lots of people are armed and I just can't see that not ending with lots and lots of pointless death. I mean the London riots weren't exactly happy and they weren't well directed at the people the rioters were angry with either. Riots are messy and uncontrollable and if the people in London had guns the situation would have been bad enough. As it was there were casualties but people on both sides generally escaped with their lives, if guns were more numerous in London then more people would have paid with their lives. Rioters would receive the death penalty for civil disobedience from a scared frightened man who would also lose his life and the bystander who got hit by a stray bullet. They were firebombing stuff as it was. And Britain is so much more stable than Iran. At the same time the Iran military is plenty better armed and better equipped not to topple from plastic guns (probably) it might allow a Syria situation to develop more quickly, but as we can see from Syria, lots of people die and we don't even know that it's going to conclude in a positive way.


They're interesting questions, but they're interesting questions with the potential lives of thousands of people in the balance.


Whatever the case, I hope we both agree that some complete tool in Minnesota is not the person to empower with making these decisions. I don't know, but I hope you agree that making the 3D printing of guns itself is not a good solution. It would cause so much damage in countries with good gun control, if distributing weapons to developing nations was a way of stabilising them, maybe we could set up cheap low cost gun factories in Cape Town and subsidise them heavily, but I don't know if anyone could ever feel sure enough to take that risk
 

Zombie_Moogle

New member
Dec 25, 2008
666
0
0
BrotherRool said:
Whatever the case, I hope we both agree that some complete tool in Minnesota is not the person to empower with making these decisions. I don't know, but I hope you agree that making the 3D printing of guns itself is not a good solution. It would cause so much damage in countries with good gun control, if distributing weapons to developing nations was a way of stabilising them, maybe we could set up cheap low cost gun factories in Cape Town and subsidise them heavily, but I don't know if anyone could ever feel sure enough to take that risk
Probably not, but such is the march of technological progress; a march that occasionally takes us barefoot through drywall nails & broken glass :p
 

Karloff

New member
Oct 19, 2009
6,474
0
0
Kross said:
The company that wants to use the printer to make gun parts is already making guns via other methods as well, right?
The point of Distributed Defense was not to make guns. It was to create what were effectively open source blueprints for guns, that anyone could use with a high enough quality 3d printer. If you live in the US it's MUCH cheaper to buy the barrel, metal stock, and time on a CNC machine than to even try to make a crappy plastic gun.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
Zombie_Moogle said:
BrotherRool said:
Whatever the case, I hope we both agree that some complete tool in Minnesota is not the person to empower with making these decisions. I don't know, but I hope you agree that making the 3D printing of guns itself is not a good solution. It would cause so much damage in countries with good gun control, if distributing weapons to developing nations was a way of stabilising them, maybe we could set up cheap low cost gun factories in Cape Town and subsidise them heavily, but I don't know if anyone could ever feel sure enough to take that risk
Probably not, but such is the march of technological progress; a march that occasionally takes us barefoot through drywall nails & broken glass :p
You're right. At some point someone will do it and once the secret is out, there might not be much we can do about it. Maybe in Britain you could put a lot more regulations into the monitoring of 3D printers, but I can't see that lasting or working when they become cheap enough and the process becomes easy enough