3D-printed Gun CAD Files Pulled from Web

[hasten]

How in the world is a reasonable comment like "plastic guns could have dire consequences' (paraphrased) getting 10 down votes? This isn't a debate over whether a person can own a firearm, this is a whole different world.
Using simple reasoning you could deduce it does not matter that a 3D printer capable of creating this weapon costs 8k-10k. One person can buy said printer and create thousands of these weapons at minimal cost and distribute firearms capable of bypassing security to whoever wants to purchase them. The end user doesn't need the printer.
I have no problem with people owning firearms (I do myself), although I think that the "protect yourself from tyranny" logic is a bit far fetched in a modern western society, and am not sure what it has to do with this story. Lets be reasonable with what our preferred news outlet is trying to feed us. That said, the possible implications of a working all plastic weapon is a very scary thought and does not belong in the "gun debate."

 

[hfitch]

Once on the internet always on the internet. please. Those files are already in the hands of millions of people. Was does the government think that they will track every ip that has downloaded the file and go to their house and take it. What ever happened to land of the free.

 

[none12345]

You've been able to "print" a gun for a long long time now. Its only in the news because gun control is in the news.
But anyone with a CNC and a model could mill one any time they wanted, and CNC machines have been around a very long time.

 

[blurr91]

There are much cheaper and easier ways to build a gun. This is just a publicity stunt. Look, I can print a gun!!! Maybe the FBI and the ATF should ban the sale of pressure cooker first...

 

[06yfz450ridr]

all these people may have the files to make it but how many people have a decent 3d printer? not many

 

[compa008]

This Libertarian is pretty happy to see Tom's community to stick up for civil liberties which the Fed is trying to crush. Blame the person, not the gun.

 

[chumly]

You can't stop the signal, Mal.

 

[yannigr]

toadboy
.
So, your democracy needs a gun on it's head to continue functioning as a democracy?
Congrats.

 

[toadboy]

@yannigr: No, I live in a republic. It does not need a gun to its head to function -- it needs a government that respects the liberty of its citizens. One of the many roles of the right to keep and bear arms is to help secure that respect.
.
@Hasten: It's a bit naive to assume that because a society is "modern" and "western" that power no longer entices people to pursue and abuse it. Too many people dismiss a systemic weakness as dangerous because they approve of the people currently running the system. If there's one thing history has shown, government power steadily and continually expands at the expense of the liberty of the people.
.
Let's look at a "non-western" society -- North Korea. There is an unarmed people suffering tremendously under the oppression of a brutal government. It's happening today, in a modern age. Lust for power and dominion doesn't fade with modernity. Do you think that if the North Korean people were freely armed that they would continue under such oppression? If only they had the means to rise up and secure their own liberty!
.
There is no "destination" when the federal government will say, "We've arrived at the perfect level of government control of your lives. Carry on." It will ever expand, particularly in the midst of a crisis or tragedy of some kind. As Benjamin Franklin said: He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
.
This all comes down to whether or not you can legislate away every possible misuse of freedom (to be free, one must be able to choose). To eliminate the possible misuse of agency, you have to remove it. The only way to prevent someone from misusing a gun is to remove guns altogether (which also removes the proper use of a gun). That's not a trade-off I'll accept.
.
To quote Samuel Adams: If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!
.
@compa008: Amen!

 

[southernshark]

Our nation has fallen low. People see the police state but just accept it as the way things have to be....... sad really how far down the rabbit hole the US has gone. I don't live there anymore, and probably never will again, and that provides me a perspective on how things look from the outside. It isn't pretty.

 

[fulle]

@yannigr
I suggest you read the book "Death By Gun Control" authored by Richard W. Stevens. Maybe, just maybe, after reading it, you'll understand why you sound like a complete fool.

 

[yannigr]

fulle
You think that if your opinion is the same with an authors opinion the others are fools? Oh my, you are a genius.
I suggest you start thinking for yourself.

 

[hasten]

@toadboy - I have read every word of your comments and hope that this can continue to be civil, everyone is entitled to opinions... Not saying you are going the attack route, but these online conversations quickly unravel.
..
Military conquest of a modern society is not going to happen. In a global economy there is too much at stake for a super power to perform such acts. The United States is not, and will never be, powerful enough to police the entire world. Media would like you to believe that, but it is simply not true. If the US government began to show signs of out right tyranny others that have vested interest in this economy would become involved. Soldiers showing up at your door demanding your weapons is the absolute least of your worries.
..
I appreciate your North Korea anology as it will allow me to build my argument. The only tyrannical act that you have to fear is the control of information. DPNK has succeeded at this and has suppressed thier society extremely well. The new weapons of war are propaganda and control of information.
..
You fear the same tyranny that educated gentlemen feared 200 years ago. It is outdated. The Supreme Court (when highly Republican) acknowledged that the Second Amendment has been completely misinterpreted by mislead public for years.
..
Like I said, I have no problem with civilians owning weapons. And yes I will give you that in the most Fox News insane scenario ever, in which the government tries to march its military on its own people (a volunteer military made up of the literal melting pot which would never do that... I'm in the service), you may need your rifle to prevent it. Reality is that its more likely that aliens invade than your far fetched scenario.
..
Fear information control. That is the only way that government can truely control its people. No, I'm not talking about conspiracy theories from Fox News or CNN, I'm talking about CISPA. Any governing body over the flow of information has much more effect than gun control. Much like a high school education. Propaganda has been one of the most powerful technologies in the last decade.. Just look at the down votes...
..
Lastly, at the current state this weapon is not a major threat. The unfortunate thing is that we are arguing over a technology that has met the consumer market just months ago. It will advance. To try to ignore that is incredible ignorance. Moore's law - imagine 5 years from now what we will be able to "print" in our home office.

 

[hasten]

* Yeah the paragraph break issue sucks. sorry for the huge block. I also meant propaganda over the last century, not decade.

 

[CheesyHotDogPuff]

I still don't get what's with americans and their handguns...

 

[toadboy]

@Hasten: Thanks for the thoughtful tone -- it's refreshing, especially when anonymous discussions are so susceptible to useless flaming.
.
Great points on control of information. I'm totally with you on that. When discussing strategy for shaping society, Raynal once said, "You will secure the second generation by a general system of public education for the children." Things like Common Core, CISPA and others are truly dangerous. Excellent point.
.
I agree that it's difficult to imagine an armed revolution scenario in today's world. Without significant cooperation from factions within the military, I don't think it could happen. Incidentally, the same was true for the American Revolution, not to mention the timely help from the French. Today's world is definitely different. The asymmetrical warfare we see in the middle east is a much more likely scenario if any nation tries to conquer another.
.
My concerns don't center just around the US government but also include the possibility that one day (maybe not soon, maybe even many decades from now) if our country is in financial ruin, a strong Russia or China (or cooperation between such nations) might see an opportunity that doesn't exist today. The system we have must stand the test of time, and if a day like that comes, an armed populace will go a long way to discouraging such an attempt. We can't always count on all the other nations in the world.
.
Another concern is civil unrest in the case of disaster (financial collapse, natural disaster, terrorist attack). Hurricane Katrina was a good example of how quickly society breaks down. When you have roving bands of looters and other dangerous people, being able to protect yourself effectively is imperative. Incidentally, that episode also demonstrated an overreach of government when law enforcement went door-to-door confiscating lawfully possessed firearms. Such an act, while perhaps intended to ensure public safety, simply left law-abiding people unarmed.
.
Anyway, these are topics that take a lot more time to explore. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion. I suspect we'd find a lot that we agree on, had we a chance to chat face-to-face.

 

[hasten]

* Yeah the paragraph break issue sucks. sorry for the huge block. I also meant propaganda over the last century, not decade.

 

[yannigr]

hasten
.
You are going to be able to print the mechanism for bombs like those in Boston. Unfortunately no one is thinking this one. They are waiting for CNN to tell them first.
.
.
toadboy
.
The only thing that will happen in the future, if US loses it's economic and/or military power is fewer wars for oil, gas, opium, or other resources in the name of freedom. But that's in the agenda of every super power, not just US. It is also naive to believe that a society that learn to sleep with a gun under the pillow, and learn to shoot first, ask questions latter, will function better in such a case. It is also funny, not even naive, just laughable to think that armed civilians will stop an.... invasion? LOL. You are watching too many comedies like "Red Dawn".

 

[hetneo]

It's very ironic how American conservatives were very happy to support blanket destruction of civil liberties called PATRIOT Act when Republican was the President, but when Democrats politicians try to make hard for criminals to acquire guns they scream "dictatorship" and such.
Let's first face the real problem with printable guns. Law abiding citizens don't need them. They are ineffective, can shoot single shot which can cause catastrophic failure. They are too expensive to make as price of 3D printers are in $10K range.
Who does need this kind of gun?
Criminals, more specifically terrorists, people for whom getting through metal detectors is number one priority, plane jackers, assassins etc. Law abiding citizens may have means and knowledge to produce these guns, but they have no utility of it. And conservatives need to be aware that utility is important as security factor. This is not 2nd Amendment question, it's should the US give plans for nuclear weapons to Iran type of question.
I can see some conservative people here saying that education is important, I would add to it that understanding arguments of your opposition is also. But unfortunatelly you guys exhibit neither of those.

 

[nebun]

fuck the US government....they want to control everything....are we part of North Korea???