Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control

[Driskoll]

I watched this documentary today and I can't stop thinking about it. There's definitely a lot I could say about this, but I'd like to hear some other thoughts and opinions first. Now, without further ado...

3D Printed Guns (Documentary)

[gaggedLouise]

Very interesting concept, and very troubling - but can one actually 3D-print in material that would be able to withstand the heat and speed of bullets being fired? That takes solid metal, doesn't it? Compressed sheets of paper or plastic won't do at all, not even if they were glazed or strengthened in some other way. It would be, well, far more useless than even trying to shoot with a cheramical clay gun.

[meikle]

Thingiverse Reinforced AR Lower Test

[Oniya]

Electron Beam Melting is a variant that can produce titanium objects.  It's currently too expensive for home/hobbyist use, but other methods can be used to create molds from polymers which can then be used to craft metal pieces.

I'm fairly sure that I saw one of the shops on either O.C.C. or Sons of Guns use a 3D printer for a custom part.

[gaggedLouise]

But could stuff like the actual barrel, trigger, chamber or repeater mechanism be made by printing? To be practically usable, they'd have to be strong enough not to be distorted or burnt into by the firing or by the (repeated) forward thrust of the bullets. No one would make a gun out of terracotta, even if it could be made to look like the real thing.

Looked around a little for 3D printing tech and I notice that some industrial printers (used for doing quick prototypes) can handle materials like sand, metal powder and so on - mold it and burnish it into a mixed, solid material that has a bit of the strength of metal. But those would be heavy-duty machinery on a quite different scale than a home printer and with much higher resistance to heat near the printing machinery. Or is the idea that only some parts of the weapon would be printed and not e.g. the barrel or the firing mechanism?

[Oniya]

But could stuff like the actual barrel, trigger, chamber or repeater mechanism be made by printing? To be practically usable, they'd have to be strong enough not to be distorted or burnt into by the firing or by the (repeated) forward thrust of the bullets. No one would make a gun out of terracotta, even if it could be made to look like the real thing.

With EBM?  Yes.  They currently use this technology to make turbine blades.  The parts are fully dense, void-free, and extremely strong.

[Callie Del Noire]

I asked my brother, who has messed with industrial modelling on this sort of thing and he said a real 'printed' gun that lasted more than possibly a single shot would require something similar to carbon composites or a new media similar to the media Oniya and others have mentioned earlier. He said that a carbon composite could be 'cooked' up and metal/plastic hybrids MIGHT work.

Of course he said HE wouldn't shoot it.

[Oniya]

I just looked to see if there were any current 3-d printing techniques that used actual metal, rather than plastics, polymers, or other weaker materials.  When I saw 'titanium', I looked closer.  Once you've learned about the 'titanium bathtub', that one word garners a lot of respect.

[gaggedLouise]

Okay, very intriguing, but titanium is very expensive to produce (google "Kroll process") and less resistant to heat and, especially, oxidization (fire) than bulk iron and steel. So not sure if titanium guns (or still less, missile launcher parts fpr example) would be practical. And guns have to take the force of explosive, heated gases in a locked tube space with one small opening in front, that's a different kind of strain than water or steam running around turbine blades.

You can certainly form-press steel, or steel alloys. to a moulded predefined format, but that's not really printing or possible to do at home...

EDIT: saw that printed polymer moulds had been mentioned already and those might be used to, in turn, manufacture real bulk metal objects.

[Driskoll]

Very interesting concept, and very troubling - but can one actually 3D-print in material that would be able to withstand the heat and speed of bullets being fired? That takes solid metal, doesn't it? Compressed sheets of paper or plastic won't do at all, not even if they were glazed or strengthened in some other way. It would be, well, far more useless than even trying to shoot with a cheramical clay gun.

While the technology is still in it's infancy, I am of the opinion that fully functioning 3D print guns could become a reality provided that R&D is continued. Materials currently available for 3D printing obviously leave something to be desired even when dealing with just the lower half of a semi-automatic rifle, but look how durable they've proven to be already.

DefDist Printed AR Lower - Part III

That's 600 rounds passing through a fully printed component. I can only imagine that the durability and number of components that can be printed will increase with time. And the self proclaimed crypto-anarchist at the head of Defense Distributed is interested in doing just that.

So, are we seeing the beginning of the end for any realistic gun control?

[Retribution]

Uh as a long time firearms enthusiast how can I put this gently? Bullshit is the summary that comes to mind as well as a few other choice words. Listen they do wonderful things with technology there days and things that seem impossible can and do become possible. BUT I am of the opinion that once the technology is developed to say achieve this the cost will go up to the point I do not see what you would really gain. The chamber pressures in a firearm are extraordinary and the chamber is where such things tend to fail if there is a failure.....such failures can end up in the shooter getting the bolt through his face.

Enough sheets of paper can stop a bullet a lot depends on the bullet all lead bullets flatten out fast since lead is a soft metal...jacketed bullets are more robust. Myth Busters also did a bit one time showing that an ice bullet would not work. People are not going to be printing firearms off on their home printers for Pete's sake it is just not practical. It all reminds me of a Rube Goldberg Machine.  Just for reference http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233787 chamber pressure of a .22 is 24,000 PSI and that is a baby round. Are we really worried people are going to start printing guns at home? If you can design paper that is going to withstand 24,000 PSI you are more than a basement tinkerer.

[Retribution]

While I am being vexed....the video of the printed lower. The lower means basically trigger mechanism and yes there are people who can make those at home now. Note the bolt and barrel are factory made of metal as that is where failures happen. Uhhh well gee you got to go through legal channels to buy a barrel and bolt. I shoot 4k rounds a year and there is no way I am standing behind a gun with anything made out of paper.

*takes a deep breath and edits* okay my point is there are people in the world right now who can and do build firearm on their own. These are skilled folks and it takes more than a little skill to do such a thing. I feel if say printer technology gets to the point that we are printing firearms then we are still dealing with skilled people. Your average Joe is not going to print his own gun. Anyone who says otherwise is just spewing gun control propaganda or being self aggrandizing.

[Oniya]

No one is talking about paper being used at all.  3D printers are already being used in fabrication shops to create both metal and plastic/polymer parts.  Like most technology, what starts out being specialized and expensive will become more accessible if there is a market for it. 

[Retribution]

"Fabrication shops" there are metal fabrication shops right now that can do the same thing with far less hassle. I know machinists who with the right tools and materials could build you about anything. Unless I am missing something here the whole argument is that this will render gun control obsolete because people will just make firearms at home.

Let look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeport_(machine_tool_brand) a Bridgeport machine is used for milling like say gun barrels and the modern versions of this machine work in accuratecies that make my brain melt. You might note the company was founded in 1938 and is still in operation just it was purchased in 2004. Now that is technology that has had time to age and become cheap. I still do not see a rise in basement gun production.

Look I have said on this forum before I would be willing to give in on gun control to a point. But then when I see hysteria like this it makes me go "okay not giving an inch." And that is how I view stuff like this just plain hysteria. It also reminds me why I prefer to avoid these type talks because they irritate the heck out of me. We can all toss factoids and what ifs at one another, but if we want real reform that actually helps to address gun violence both sides need to get away from this sort of extreme rhetoric.

[Caehlim]

If you can design paper that is going to withstand 24,000 PSI you are more than a basement tinkerer.

The phrase 3d printer may be misleading here. They don't print with paper.

The actual method varies from model to model, but they take either a polymer or metal in powder or liquid form and layer by layer build a real physical object according to a digital blueprint.

The price of this technology is dropping significantly, and while it still remains either a very expensive geek toy with little capacity or a moderately expensive piece of industrial equipment which can do a lot more we are seeing continuous developments in the technology and lowering of costs.

Devices built in this fashion are no weaker than any other method of constructing plastic or metal objects. Sometimes they're stronger because they are fashioned from the inside out and maintain a consistent structure.

The problem isn't that these parts couldn't be built already. Naturally there has been a long history of home or illegally manufactured guns. However previously they required specialized equipment which could be controlled and watched.

Now anyone can legally purchase a 3d printer and use it to construct firearms parts without the messy evidence or specialized equipment that would have previously been required.

[Driskoll]

BUT I am of the opinion that once the technology is developed to say achieve this the cost will go up to the point I do not see what you would really gain.

That's definitely a possibility. I also think that when the first fully printed gun is made the total cost of producing it will make it impractical for most people to actually try and get one.

The problem is I don't necessarily think it will end there. As we see with most technology today, things generally become cheaper over time and therefore more accessible. I do think 3D printers have a lot to offer people, and once they become more affordable I could see why people like Nick Bilton feel as though they'll become a popular item.

If that does happen, and the quality of the print guns is increased by that time, I think this may end up being a real problem. Granted, a problem that won't show up for 20-30 years perhaps.     

Are we really worried people are going to start printing guns at home? If you can design paper that is going to withstand 24,000 PSI you are more than a basement tinkerer.

3D printers can make things out of hard plastics and even types of metal. 

As we can see from the multiple videos here, these printed pieces can withstand that kind of pressure for a time. It's just my opinion that these parts will only get better and better with time.

Let's assume for a minute though that printed weapons will never be able to hold up for more than an a few minutes or even a few seconds. It only takes a small window for a gun to be used, and these weapons will be available to anyone. No background checks, no questions asked.

There's a reason why Cody Wilson is thought to be one of the most dangerous men in the world.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The issue is there will be no hassle at all in the construction of these weapons once 3D printing gets to a better level with better composites.  Currently the person featured in the film is able to print up and manufacture the lower piece of a weapon along with magazines able to fire 30 rounds.  The lower piece can actually fire 600 rounds.  As was pointed out in the video stronger composite materials are being produced and on the horizon for 3D printing.  In the near future people are predicting every hobbyist will have a 3D printer in their home if not every person.  This is amazing simple and easy to manufacture weaponry. 

Machinest tools and items require a significant investment, which 3D printers will not once they become more main stream and their production is streamlined, and require at least some skill to operate.  Once the schematics are uploaded into the 3D printer there is no skill.  The hassle you are seeing is in the design, not in the manufacturing.  Once the design is over, that’s the end of the hassle.  That the younger generation is the one coming into this technology is also frightening because children now will be teenagers then.  Teenagers that are able to go online, download the schematics for a gun and construct one with a simple 3D printer.  Wham, bam, following a book to put it together and a 15 year old now as an assault rifle.  This is not extremist rhetoric, but simple reality.

So the question is how gun control legislation can control that aspect of this debate.  Any discussion of gun control at this point must encompass and consider this future technology of basement mass production.

[Caehlim]

...Unless I am missing something here the whole argument is that this will render gun control obsolete because people will just make firearms at home.... Look I have said on this forum before I would be willing to give in on gun control to a point. But then when I see hysteria like this it makes me go "okay not giving an inch." And that is how I view stuff like this just plain hysteria. It also reminds me why I prefer to avoid these type talks because they irritate the heck out of me. We can all toss factoids and what ifs at one another, but if we want real reform that actually helps to address gun violence both sides need to get away from this sort of extreme rhetoric.

I haven't seen a single person on this thread discussing a change in firearms policy. Where are you getting this from?

People are saying how a technology may prevent the existence of gun control in the future, how does this affect present policy? In what way do we logically go from, "gun control is going to be hard to do in the future" to "ban guns today"?

With respect, I think you may be reading something into this topic that just isn't there.

[Retribution]

The price of this technology is dropping significantly, and while it still remains either a very expensive geek toy with little capacity or a moderately expensive piece of industrial equipment which can do a lot more we are seeing continuous developments in the technology and lowering of costs.

I get you, but my point remains I know a lot of people who have Bridgeports for example in their basements or workshops. I know a very talented 19th century reenactor who builds his own blackpowder guns starting with 4x4 piece of walnut and a metal blank. And yes prices can and do drop on various items. I do not see any of this having become a real big gun control issue. Heck, I have had some of my skilled friends make parts for me when I needed them because it is cheaper, but the point remains gun control issue? I just am not buying it.

The argument is that "in the future" this will all be so cheap and easy to do everyone will do it. Well people have said in the future we will all fly hover crafts that run on water to work that does not mean it is happening.  What I would like to see right now is meaningful background checks on all gun sales, comprehensive mental health care because I think we have a real mental health problem, and while I am wishing a national database that lists people with  violent mental health issues and prevents them from obtaining a butter knife let alone a gun.

Give me those three things then I will be more than happy to talk about basement gun smithing.

[Retribution]

So, are we seeing the beginning of the end for any realistic gun control?

Is the answer to where I get the impression that we need to address this as a gun control issue. And I am out I have said my peace but like I said I would much rather address the three things I listed in my previous post than this. I honestly think those things might save a life. Thing is those things like well this get all bogged down in the other stuff that makes plants grow.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Flying cars are not on a youtube video being successfully flown around on the street.  This 3D printed weapon is being successfully shown on a youtube video firing 600 rounds.  One is the talk of what if, the other is talk of what is. 

Meaningful background checks are useless on guns that do not have serial numbers and are not traceable.  There is nothing to stop someone diagnosed with a mental health disorder, being treated but resistant to care from ordering online from a local basement gunsmith a weapon that fires 600 rounds that is not numbered or registered. 

That is the point of this discussion.  Does this technology and the future presented make things such as a national registry, background checks and so on moot? 

[Retribution]

Flying cars are not on a youtube video being successfully flown around on the street.  This 3D printed weapon is being successfully shown on a youtube video firing 600 rounds.  One is the talk of what if, the other is talk of what is. 

Meaningful background checks are useless on guns that do not have serial numbers and are not traceable.  There is nothing to stop someone diagnosed with a mental health disorder, being treated but resistant to care from ordering online from a local basement gunsmith a weapon that fires 600 rounds that is not numbered or registered. 

That is the point of this discussion.  Does this technology and the future presented make things such as a national registry, background checks and so on moot?

My last comment really. My point is what you are describing can be done right now. I do not see it as being that much of an issue right now aside from odd ball cases for lack of a better way to describe it. It may not be using composites so on, but there are a lot of people out there perfectly capable of making firearms without serial number from scratch within certain costs. They walk the streets all around you they are called skilled laborers and there are a lot of them.

Now I am really out.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Yes, but when everyone can do this without any skill or real effort on their part this becomes a problem.  When someone can, on a whim, google search schematics to 3D print an assault rifle or pistol and then construct one within a couple days without any skill or commitment of time then there comes a problem.

[Callie Del Noire]

Yes, but when everyone can do this without any skill or real effort on their part this becomes a problem.  When someone can, on a whim, google search schematics to 3D print an assault rifle or pistol and then construct one within a couple days without any skill or commitment of time then there comes a problem.

I don't think it's that big a danger yet. This machine isn't like a USB printer. It is still a bit technical to use. I could make more destructive things more easily out of my cleaning chemicals in my kitchen. And there are options to making things traceable.  The addition of taggants into the mix of materials, just like they do with explosives. Adding a signature code to the firmware that makes for a printer 'fingerprint'.

And most of the materials that ARE more resilient have metal content, which means the 'plastic gun' is still not that big a hazard.

And let's be honest, the genie is out of the bottle. You can't put it back in, so all that remains is to find ways to regulate in.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

As i said, not yet.  When things are more streamlined and more user friendly though is not particularly when I want to see people trying find ways to make others safe.  Better to realize the technology is there, see the potential problem and handle this rather than simply sticking the proverbial head in the sand.  Also, not overly afraid of the plastic gun situation.  More afraid of the unsupervised child making a handgun for show-and-tell. 

Taggants in the composite mix is an option.  Once more, the idea I get from this discussion is whether such technology and a future as presented would make gun control obsolete or in what way would gun control have to be altered to accommodate. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Truth be told.. I'm not worried about the 600 round weapon made by them.. I'm willing to bet for a LONG while it will still be cheaper to let the person wanting a gun to buy one.

I'm worried about the clever dick who makes a silenced zip gun with NOT metallic parts. And that will be a simple one person project that will cause trouble. The smart user who doesn't need outside data to make a scary little weapon on his own.

I'm thinking of the little model plastic gun John Malkovich used in one movie. Add in a few gas baffles and you could (conceivably) design a small derringer style pistol that could be fairly quiet at close range.

[Shadow879]

The whole big deal associated with these is the fact that they can print just the lowers. You don't have to go through any legal paperwork to buy an AR upper, as that is not considered a weapon, the lower receiver is considered the weapon. So if people can make their own stripped lower receiver out of plastic with a 3D printer, that could create a spot of trouble. No one is talking about creating entire guns out of the 3D printer. At least not yet. These guys just did the lower because it is a low-stress part. I for one am impressed.

Surely it is less expensive to buy the materials (if you already have the printer) than to buy a lower, fees and all? Not that it's particularly easy to work a 3d Printer, from what I understand.

[Tairis]

Just .02 from another gun enthusiast:

Cost: Not actually that much cheaper if at all. From posts I've seen on gun forums the one guy used approximately half a spool of the ABS plastic to create JUST the stripped lower. He paid 100$ for the full spool so that's 50$ right there. He didn't create the rest of the actual lower (trigger mechanism, etc). You can buy a full lower online for a couple hundred bucks. Add on 20$ for an FFL handling fee you're still only looking at $220.00.

Durability: the plastics used to create these do not hold up to high temperatures extremely well. If you keep the rate of fire low it should be fine but if you really stress them the parts closest to the barrel are going to start to melt most likely

Legality: it is already completely legal in most of the United States to create a firearm at home. The ATF only requires you to register/serial number/etc if a) you're going to sell it b) you're making an automatic weapon. In the case of b) it requires explicit permission from the ATF to do so and they pretty much never, ever give that permission.

[Driskoll]

Given how much attention the first documentary got, Vice decided to have an interview with Cody Wilson.

Cody Wilson on 3D-Printed Guns: VICE Podcast 001

I also have a question about one of the things stated repeatedly in this thread. Is it really that easy to make a gun at home? I know it's possible, and there are tools/equipment that everyone can buy and it obviously hasn't been a big issue. But I always assumed making guns at home required a fair amount of knowledge even with the right tools, while this seems to have the potential to require virtually no knowledge once the technology is out of its infancy.

I think Pumpkin Seeds did a great job of explaining some of my fears, although I still think we're a long way away from seeing any of the potential problems with wiki guns.

If the genie is out of the bottle though, will adding taggants to the mix and/or registering 3D printers to people be enough?       

[Hemingway]

Interesting. I ended up watching the entire thing, even though I initially had no intention of doing so.

It seems to me like this could change a lot of things. To argue about costs, durability and practicality at this point is pretty meaningless, since the technology is obviously still very much in its infancy.

But I'm most interested in this from a geographic point of view. I don't know if the guy in the video, who seems to take some issue with globalized capitalism, let's say, realises that this is exactly the sort of thing that drives flexible mass production. Which in turn is part of what drives economic globalization in the world today. Guns are one thing, and the ability to produce them anywhere as long as you have a 3D printer and the blueprints, that's one thing. But this has implications far beyond that.

These are skilled folks and it takes more than a little skill to do such a thing. I feel if say printer technology gets to the point that we are printing firearms then we are still dealing with skilled people. Your average Joe is not going to print his own gun. Anyone who says otherwise is just spewing gun control propaganda or being self aggrandizing.

You must not have seen the part where they talked about spreading the blueprints over the internet.

Which I think is one of the main points here.

[Retribution]

Blueprints are one thing the ability to do something with those is another. For example, I am well suffice to say a professional environmentalist. Sample results that are perfectly clear to me mean nada to most people. As I said before I am staying out of the whole commentary on this from this point on. But I feel your fellow in the video has an agenda and is spinning things accordingly. Please take with a grain of salt I am not inclined to purchase a used car from him.

[Driskoll]

Blueprints are one thing the ability to do something with those is another.

That's very true, and I'm not convinced that entirely unskilled individuals would be able to put a gun together correctly even if they did manage to print out all the parts.

I hesitate to mention a thought that occurred to me as it is highly theoretical, but I think I'll share it anyway for the sake of discussion. Since a 3D printer prints layer by layer, it could be possible to eventually design a printer that could make a fully functioning and ready to fire gun that would not require assembly. If it ever got to that point, it really would be as easy as Click. Print. Gun.   

As I said before I am staying out of the whole commentary on this from this point on.

Part of the reason I started this thread was to get opinions from people with all different thoughts, feelings and knowledge about guns. So long as the discussion remains civil and relevant to printed weapons, I would love to have your input.

I plan to keep this thread updated with more interesting developments with Cody Wilson and wiki weapons in general, and I do not want anyone to feel as though they cannot weigh in. 

[Healergirl]

Driskoll,

Select the template for the product, press the print/build, button, then use the item fresh from the output bin is the design objective for these printers/fabricators, I think.

[Driskoll]

Yes, but the technology is even further away from that. Even if the all the components could eventually be made with a printer, I still think it would take another large hurdle to get to the point of printing a fully assembled weapon with little to no defect.

To my mind, assembling a weapon made from mostly or completely printed parts might be on the horizon, while printing a complete gun in one go is still very much on the drawing board.   

Edit for grammar.

[Healergirl]

Driskoll,

It might be more useful to think of these printers as fabricators, perhaps.

20 years, maybe?  Less? Perhaps ten?  More?K  Perhaps 30?

This is just so, so useful for all sorts of applications, not just guns.  A lot of very bright people are or will be working very hard on getting the bugs out.

[Dashenka]

Only in the US.. wonder how much more innocent CHILDREN must die because of accidental gunshot accidents before they realize it's barbarian and stupid.

[Oniya]

Changing the legality of something rarely impacts those who would choose to circumvent legal channels to begin with.

[Ephiral]

Changing the legality of something rarely impacts those who would choose to circumvent legal channels to begin with.

I see this a lot in the context of gun control, usually from Americans. And it always makes me look at the illegal weapons market, and how many of them fell off the back of a legal weapons truck, or out of a legitimate owner's safe, and go "Really?"

[Healergirl]

Ephiral,

Part of the attitude is, I think, a blowback from the ineffectiveness of our War On Drugs, despite 40 years of intense effort, the drug trade exists
and prospers. Mmany Americans suspect there will be a similar lack of success with any effort to ban guns- and that perhaps any move to ban guns will trigger a very violent reaction from gun owners.

[Oniya]

Further back than that, Healergirl.  America tried to make alcohol illegal.  Result?  Al Capone and his ilk made millions.  If people are willing to go to illegal means to get what they want, declaring something illegal isn't going to stop them.

What is needed is education on gun safety (I mentioned periodic license renewals and discounts on insurance for owners who are properly trained) so that the inexperienced gun owners who leave dangerous weapons where a child can access it stop doing that.

I mean, when I had the little Oni, we went through the house and child-proofed it.  Hazardous chemicals and tools were put in places where prying fingers couldn't get to them, until she was old enough to be taught how to properly handle (or not handle) them.  What is so incomprehensible about doing the same thing with regards to firearms?

[Healergirl]

Oniya,

You won't get an argument from me.  License renewals, meaningful safety/skill exams, insurance changes would make much of the accidental death problem disappear - but the problem is, the Gun Lobby will likely oppose such measures as an infringement of gun ownership rights - which leads to the blowback effects that raise public pressure to go with more extreme gun restrictions or outright bans.

Too many people with guns see them as just another thing around the house, I very much fear.  How many people don't even do basic anti-household chemical childproofing?  Far too many.

[Ephiral]

Further back than that, Healergirl.  America tried to make alcohol illegal.  Result?  Al Capone and his ilk made millions.  If people are willing to go to illegal means to get what they want, declaring something illegal isn't going to stop them.

What is needed is education on gun safety (I mentioned periodic license renewals and discounts on insurance for owners who are properly trained) so that the inexperienced gun owners who leave dangerous weapons where a child can access it stop doing that.

I mean, when I had the little Oni, we went through the house and child-proofed it.  Hazardous chemicals and tools were put in places where prying fingers couldn't get to them, until she was old enough to be taught how to properly handle (or not handle) them.  What is so incomprehensible about doing the same thing with regards to firearms?

Up here, at least, the overwhelming majority of illegal weapons come from one of two places: Brought through unguarded points at the border, where they can generally be traced back to legitimate sales or shipments in the US, or out of the safe of a legitimate owner at gunpoint. I understand that this is pretty generally the case in the US as well, though I'm open to being shown otherwise. Given that (for now at least) making a gun isn't something you can do in your backyard or bathtub, I don't see how reducing the number of people with legitimate access can do anything but reduce the number of illegitimate weapons.

[Healergirl]

Ephiral,

Oh I do think you are right.

But we are in something of a cultural trap in the US.  Guns are seen as a birthright by many many people, and due to rulings not that long ago, they can point to modern Supreme Court interpretations of the 2nd amendment that yes, in constitutinal terms, they kind of  are.

People tend to stop thinking when guns are discussed, on both sides.  In his book Freakonomics, Steven Levitt pointed out that inground pools were far more likely to accidentally kill children than guns were, comparing group to group.  Comparing the danger of an individual in-ground pool to the individual gun, in-ground pools were far far more dangerous.  In-ground pools are deadly  dangerous, and there is in fact an active but low key movement to ban them which has met with some success.  But despite the greater danger, pools well, are just not as sexy as guns are, because they don't draw on the national ethos of the Minuteman the way guns do.

And the Minuteman ethos is what  the more extreme no-limits-at-all types  gun owners have in mind, live by,  point to.  Using their guns as defense against the tyranny of the government is not just hot air, they mean it.

How many of theses extremists are they?  I suspect enough to make our current death rate by guns look like an oasis of stability if they panic and revolt.

[SinXAzgard21]

Only in the US.. wonder how much more innocent CHILDREN must die because of accidental gunshot accidents before they realize it's barbarian and stupid.

Just keep in mind it isn't the guns fault.

[Ephiral]

Just keep in mind it isn't the guns fault.

And it's not the drug's fault when people OD, or the explosive's fault when someone gets blown up. Those get regulated strictly or banned. What's the difference?

[SinXAzgard21]

And it's not the drug's fault when people OD, or the explosive's fault when someone gets blown up. Those get regulated strictly or banned. What's the difference?

It is the person.  That is the difference.

[Ephiral]

It is the person.  That is the difference.

...what? How do the examples I cited not require a person to pull the trigger?

[The Golden Touch]

I think its more that people with a serious lack of common sense are handling weapons and shooting innocent people, not just children. I'm in the military, and I know how to handle a weapon. It is really a case to case basis on who does and does not need a gun in their hand.

[Ephiral]

I think its more that people with a serious lack of common sense are handling weapons and shooting innocent people, not just children. I'm in the military, and I know how to handle a weapon. It is really a case to case basis on who does and does not need a gun in their hand.

I'd generally trust most (by no means all) of the military people I've met to handle a gun. Mind you, most of them would say that it's a really dumb idea for them to carry a loaded weapon in the middle of a civilian population that isn't part of a warzone.

[The Golden Touch]

Good thing I'm not most of them. If I were stationed in specific places, I would want to be armed. Some people really hate military and look for them. I think civilians should have the right to carry a gun legally. Some people even use them as a living to feed their families. There are proper places to have a weapon, and I don't think gun control is going to do anything for it any more than laws against drugs has done for that.

[Ephiral]

Good thing I'm not most of them. If I were stationed in specific places, I would want to be armed. Some people really hate military and look for them. I think civilians should have the right to carry a gun legally. Some people even use them as a living to feed their families. There are proper places to have a weapon, and I don't think gun control is going to do anything for it any more than laws against drugs has done for that.

People who are feeding their families with guns are generally not in the middle of a dense civilian population. It's worth noting that military and police training tend to focus on very different things when it comes to firearms, for good reason. And... well, I see no real justification for the added danger of guns being a right. What benefit is there to society?

As to guns vs drugs: Did you miss the earlier point about how it's kinda hard to build a pistol in your basement or grow one in your backyard? Therein lies the difference. If most illegal weapons were Sten guns, you might have a point, but they're not. The overwhelming majority originate with legitimate owners.

[The Golden Touch]

Actually, I pointedly ignored that comparison. Guns are as easy to procure as anything else.

[Ephiral]

Actually, I pointedly ignored that comparison. Guns are as easy to procure as anything else.

Not saying they're especially difficult to procure as it stands. What I'm saying is that that procurement almost always involves a legitimate source. So yes, if you want to restrict the number of guns in illegitimate hands, reducing the number of legitimate suppliers and owners is a valid means to approach the problem.

[Dashenka]

Just keep in mind it isn't the guns fault.

No but I cannot think of ANY reason why a gun could be useful for. The things are made to kill. I know some people say that they are for protection but let's be honest, you buy a gun so you can shoot somebody who aggravates you. It's the whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' thing.

I just wonder when those weapon freaks in America wake up and see that it's all BS. People kill people yes but what about a kid bringing one to school to be 'cool' to his friends. Gun accidentally goes off, other kids die.

I'm baffled at why stuff like this is still happening in the US. It can't be stupidity cause America is producing so many smart things, so it has to be ignorance.

[Ephiral]

No but I cannot think of ANY reason why a gun could be useful for. The things are made to kill. I know some people say that they are for protection but let's be honest, you buy a gun so you can shoot somebody who aggravates you. It's the whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' thing.

Food and extremely rural home/self defense. Though that doesn't justify handguns. (Disclaimer: My country has a lot of sparsely populated wilderness. People who live in it can get a longarm as young as 16. I see no issue with this as long as they're trained in responsible use.)

[The Golden Touch]

Not saying they're especially difficult to procure as it stands. What I'm saying is that that procurement almost always involves a legitimate source. So yes, if you want to restrict the number of guns in illegitimate hands, reducing the number of legitimate suppliers and owners is a valid means to approach the problem.

I would much rather see a strict system for legal purchasing/registering guns that attempting to ban them from civilian hands.

No but I cannot think of ANY reason why a gun could be useful for. The things are made to kill. I know some people say that they are for protection but let's be honest, you buy a gun so you can shoot somebody who aggravates you. It's the whole 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' thing.

I just wonder when those weapon freaks in America wake up and see that it's all BS. People kill people yes but what about a kid bringing one to school to be 'cool' to his friends. Gun accidentally goes off, other kids die.

I'm baffled at why stuff like this is still happening in the US. It can't be stupidity cause America is producing so many smart things, so it has to be ignorance.

So I carry a gun so I preemptively plan to hurt someone. >>;; Yikes. I did not know that about myself. The military has trained me so well!

But some reasons why I know my friends have guns are hunting, target shooting, and self defense. My LPO has rifles so he can go out an shoot deer and elk so he doesn't have to spend money at the store for ground beef or steaks. I've even bought some of it off him. Oh shit, there's also an Olympic shooting team that use guns in competition. Not to mention people that have them to protect themselves from people that have hurt them before.

There are some children that are actually informed and not ignorant of firearms kept in their house... Like this kid!. What does cause accidents like this, I will agree with you is ignorance, and a blatant disregard for proper training with firearms. There are ways to prevent these kind of accidents.

[Hemingway]

Two things should be fairly obvious in a meaningful discussion on gun control.

First: Gun control is possible. To say that people who want them will get them no matter what, is an oversimplification - and not necessarily true, guns being a finite resource, as it were. If the supply is limited, it's limited for everyone.

Second: Banning guns outright, when they've been available for a long time, isn't going to fix anything immediately. As much as social scientists dislike talking about culture as a meaningful factor in anything, I don't think anyone can deny that the US gun culture is different from elsewhere.

How this relates to the possibility of easily and cheaply producing your own gun using a 3D printer is another thing, but it seems to me like if there's a real market for this sort of technology, it's not actually with private citizens. I mean, doing anything in secret that relates to the internet ( which, obviously, is a huge part of this ) is difficult. And you know the laws on something like this would be strict, because there's money involved. If private citizens could print their own guns legally, that threatens the arms industry. The beauty of the corporate state, I suppose.

But if it could be done quickly and reliably, then I can see it becoming something of a revolution for militaries and law enforcement. It changes everything in that case.

Obviously, that's a considerable if - who'd want to trust a printed gun over a proven, manufactured one, if their life depended on it? But if, then it's not difficult to imagine it having a huge impact on the economy. Which is, to say, everything.

[Ephiral]

I would much rather see a strict system for legal purchasing/registering guns that attempting to ban them from civilian hands.

As I mentioned above, I'm not necessarily supporting a ban. I just think they're a privilege that must be justified, not a right whose denial needs justification. A restrictive system, whereby a would-be purchaser must prove themselves competent and capable? Good. One that requires a reasonable need? Better.

[SinXAzgard21]

As I mentioned above, I'm not necessarily supporting a ban. I just think they're a privilege that must be justified, not a right whose denial needs justification. A restrictive system, whereby a would-be purchaser must prove themselves competent and capable? Good. One that requires a reasonable need? Better.

Protection is a reasonable need as it is the second amendment. 

[Healergirl]

Dashenka,

Not ignorance, not stupidity.  Culture.  The Minuteman ethos is very real, very powerful.  Not merely in the blatant terms of defending against government tyranny, also in terms of defending one's self.  You disagree as to the utility of firearms?  Well, you didn't take in tales of The Minuteman with your mother's milk, like so very many Americans have.

[Ephiral]

Protection is a reasonable need as it is the second amendment.

Protection is why there's a force of armed personnel with a system of overwatch in place, last I checked. And not only is the US not the world, but the Second Amendment is not a need so much as an attempt at justification. One I don't see standing up on its own.

[SinXAzgard21]

Protection is why there's a force of armed personnel with a system of overwatch in place, last I checked. And not only is the US not the world, but the Second Amendment is not a need so much as an attempt at justification. One I don't see standing up on its own.

Yup, because the 'armed personnel' can stop it all.  That is why we have people breaking into houses still, people getting murdered in their own homes.  I'm done, it is obvious you are not for civilians owning guns.  So this conversation is going to go no where.  I will own a gun if I choose.  I will shoot someone if I need to defend my home and my family because I will damn sure not wait for the cops to get there eventually.  That is all I really have to say.

[Ephiral]

Yup, because the 'armed personnel' can stop it all.  That is why we have people breaking into houses still, people getting murdered in their own homes.  I'm done, it is obvious you are not for civilians owning guns.  So this conversation is going to go no where.  I will own a gun if I choose.  I will shoot someone if I need to defend my home and my family because I will damn sure not wait for the cops to get there eventually.  That is all I really have to say.

...the US and other countries with high civilian gun ownership still have those problems, though. I have no problem with needful, responsible civilians owning guns. (See above re: my complete lack of issue with my country handing rifles to 16-year-old civilians.) I just recognize that they're dangerous, and so the default should not be permissive.

[Tairis]

Protection is why there's a force of armed personnel with a system of overwatch in place, last I checked. And not only is the US not the world, but the Second Amendment is not a need so much as an attempt at justification. One I don't see standing up on its own.

A force of armed personnel... with an average response time of 7 to 8 minutes after an emergency call is made. And it can be considerably more.

http://apbweb.com/featured-articles/1188-response-times-city-to-city.html
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/results/ps/policeresponse

I, and my other US citizens with concealed weapons permits and/or guns at home, prefer not to be helpless for 10 minutes hoping a cop is going to show up. In an emergency situation whatever is going to happen has already happened after 10 minutes. By the time the cops show up its going to be a crime scene, not a rescue.

The idea of 'proving need' is a fallacy. We have numerous states and cities that say you need to 'prove need' for a CC license. Statistically you know what it means? It means they deny that license to hundreds of legitimate people because someone at a courthouse gets to decide whether you're 'worthy' by their biased standards. Background checks are fine. A bureaucrat deciding whether my 'need' is valid is not.

[Ephiral]

You know what? After reflecting on the matter, I just realised how little I care to get into this particular debate any further right now (never mind that it's wildly off-topic for the thread).

[bubby]

The following is the best thing I've seen on gun control:

The Daily Show: John Oliver Investigates Gun Control in Australia - Part 1

The Daily Show: John Oliver Investigates Gun Control in Australia - Part 2

The Daily Show: John Oliver's Australia & Gun Control's Aftermath

[Hemingway]

So, ah. Apparently there's now a fully 3D printed gun out there. I haven't read the article thoroughly, so I might be missing something. Here's one from CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/06/tech/innovation/3d-gun-video/index.html

[Tairis]

@bubby

I do love the hell out of the daily show but I wouldn't exactly call it a fair and balanced review. The actual numbers for aussie land aren't quite so cut and dry :P

So, ah. Apparently there's now a fully 3D printed gun out there. I haven't read the article thoroughly, so I might be missing something. Here's one from CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/06/tech/innovation/3d-gun-video/index.html

Yea, I'm curious to see how it holds up to actual testing. The lowers I could definitely see though I'm not sure how they're going to hold up on the long term. I can't grasp how ABS plastic is supposed to contain the pressures that the barrel and such are subjected to, though.

[Driskoll]

Wow. That happened way faster than I thought possible. I guess it will still be a few years before anything bigger can be made and/or printing a fully assembled weapon. Not really sure how to feel about this though.

[Healergirl]

Mmph.  One round fired, and we can't be sure some of the propellant was emptied out of the cartridge first.

I wouldn't shoot the thing.  Usable home-fabricated guns are coming... but I'm not sure this qualifies.

[Sasquatch421]

Hell, my one issue of Game Informer had advertised a book on making working guns out of legos... Can't remember the name right off hand... I'll see if I can find it even if they wouldn't be 3D printed.

Though I wouldn't fire the thing either...

[Oniya]

Hell, my one issue of Game Informer had advertised a book on making working guns out of legos... Can't remember the name right off hand... I'll see if I can find it even if they wouldn't be 3D printed.

Though I wouldn't fire the thing either...

Not unless it was powered by rubber bands and springs, and used the little '1-bys' as ammo.

Ah, Internet.  I love you so!

http://nostarch.com/legoheavyweapons

[Sasquatch421]

Yeah I just found it as well... They did use the 1-bys for ammo and really nifty looking at them.

[Neysha]

While you are all wasting time with overly pricey wiki guns...

$7 12-Gauge Zip Gun Homemade Shotgun

[MercyfulFate]

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Gun violence is at a 20 year low, yet Americans are convinced it's as bad as it's ever been. That's media driven perceptions for ya!

[Healergirl]

Well, all those privatized prisons need to be fed somehow.

[Neysha]

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

Gun violence is at a 20 year low, yet Americans are convinced it's as bad as it's ever been. That's media driven perceptions for ya!

Most crime rates in the United States have dropped significantly since the nineties IIRC.

[Hemingway]

While you are all wasting time with overly pricey wiki guns...

Slightly missing the point, I'd say. The possible consequences of something like Wiki guns goes way beyond the ability to produce some improvised weapon or another. Or I would hope so, at any rate.

[Neysha]

I'd probably prefer a zip gun made with common materials and a 12 gauge slug then a piece of plastic that required a three thousand dollar printer to create, and has a high chance of misfiring painfully after a second shot... as far as an 'untraceable weapon' goes.

[Hemingway]

I'd probably prefer a zip gun made with common materials and a 12 gauge slug then a piece of plastic that required a three thousand dollar printer to create, and has a high chance of misfiring painfully after a second shot... as far as an 'untraceable weapon' goes.

Yes, and in 1890 you probably would've preferred a horse to a 'car'. Ahh, I'm being facetious, but you're still missing the larger picture.

You're ignoring, for one thing, the possibility of 3D printers becoming common household objects. It may seem like a stretch, but so have a lot of things. I don't think that's quite the point either, though. With a metal pipe and shotgun shells, you're fairly limited in what you can do. Not so when you're building things from the ground up in plastic. You're limited by the material you're making it in, yes. But they've already made the receivers, and now a handgun, and there's no real reason to assume that's some sort of upper limit.

I don't think that's really the big thing here either, though. Because guns are one thing, but then there's everything else. I would say that if you can make guns, that's a fairly good indication you can make more than plastic sporks and cups and whatnot. So now we're talking about a technology that could become a common household thing, which in essence eliminates the need for transportation of a wide range of items. That's big, potentially.

Just to put things into perspective, the only reason our current world economy works is because of containerization. It's because producing something in China, or Taiwan, or wherever you like, and then transporting it to the US and to Europe and elsewhere is practically free compared to the cost of actually producing things in the countries where you want to sell them. Now, at the risk of overstating the potential of 3D printing, it could quite conceivably reconfigure the way certain industries work.

Sorry, I get excited when talking about geography.

[Neysha]

Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument.

So no, I don't feel I'm missing the bigger picture at all. If anything, I feel the bigger picture is out of the scope of this discussion... IMHO. ;)

[Driskoll]

Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument.

So no, I don't feel I'm missing the bigger picture at all. If anything, I feel the bigger picture is out of the scope of this discussion... IMHO. ;)

By this particular discussion, do you mean the thread itself? If so, it's titled "Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control" for a reason.

The scope of this discussion then is what lies ahead, not what is. As others before you have stated, there are much cheaper and much more reliable ways to make a gun at home than wiki weapons as they are now.

If 3d printers became a household commodity as I and I think some others in this thread may believe, and if wiki guns continue to be refined and developed, then these weapons may become the cheapest and easiest way for anyone to arm themselves without any regulation whatsoever.

Please keep this in mind when bringing up modern gun control issues here.

[Neysha]

By this particular discussion, do you mean the thread itself? If so, it's titled "Wiki Weapons and the Future of Gun Control" for a reason.

The scope of this discussion then is what lies ahead, not what is. As others before you have stated, there are much cheaper and much more reliable ways to make a gun at home than wiki weapons as they are now.

If 3d printers became a household commodity as I and I think some others in this thread may believe, and if wiki guns continue to be refined and developed, then these weapons may become the cheapest and easiest way for anyone to arm themselves without any regulation whatsoever.

Please keep this in mind when bringing up modern gun control issues here.

Oh for goodness sake...

I don't think that's really the big thing here either, though. Because guns are one thing, but then there's everything else. I would say that if you can make guns, that's a fairly good indication you can make more than plastic sporks and cups and whatnot. So now we're talking about a technology that could become a common household thing, which in essence eliminates the need for transportation of a wide range of items. That's big, potentially.

Just to put things into perspective, the only reason our current world economy works is because of containerization. It's because producing something in China, or Taiwan, or wherever you like, and then transporting it to the US and to Europe and elsewhere is practically free compared to the cost of actually producing things in the countries where you want to sell them. Now, at the risk of overstating the potential of 3D printing, it could quite conceivably reconfigure the way certain industries work.

Sorry, I get excited when talking about geography.

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with gun control, modern or future beyond very tenuous tangents.

Slightly missing the point, I'd say. The possible consequences of something like Wiki guns goes way beyond the ability to produce some improvised weapon or another. Or I would hope so, at any rate.

I don't see how any of this has anything to do with gun control, modern or future beyond very tenuous tangents.

These were the responses directed towards me, and thus this is what I responded to. If this was Wiki Weapons and the Future of 3D Printer Manufacturing... I'm sure I'd be in error... but last I checked its not. So if people try to counter or respond to my posts with something I feel is clearly off topic, I'll state as much.

Seriously now... are people just looking to find things to dispute for arguments sake?

[Driskoll]

By talking about today's printed guns and modern gun control, you're ignoring the entire focus of this discussion. It's been mentioned by a few different people now (not to mention in the Vice interview with Cody Wilson and the original documentary I think) that 3d printers may become very prevalent. Throw wiki weapons into the mix and that has very serious implications for gun control.

No, "The Future of 3D Printer Manufacturing" is not in the title, but it has been mentioned throughout the conversation of this thread several times now. If you cannot see what that has to do with the future of gun control that's fine. But don't blame others for being off topic when they are not. It's not their fault that you can't be bothered to acquaint yourself with what's been said up until now. 

[Neysha]

I'm not sure how posting a video with a jest filled comment is ignoring the subject at hand. It seems to me that some posters are being excessive into reading meanings behind things.

And considering my responses, I havent been ignorant of anything beyond a desire to point out, correctly it seems, what appears to be two responses to my posts which I feel are off topic. Your ignoring of that fact and admission that the topic isn't on the future of 3D manufacturing applications seems to lend credence to that interpretation.

Furthermore, I've already consented that what Hemingway had already said on 3D printing may very well be true. So again, not ignoring anything.

Stating that a conversation is veering off topic isn't an admission of ignorance on my end. It's merely me pointing out that the topic has been derailed. The fact it has occurred earlier doesn't mitigate the fact its still off topic. If we're discussing wiki weapons and gun control now and in the future,  lets. If we're going to discuss the future of 3d printer manufacturing, fine. But I'd rather not be disparaged for calling an off topic response what it is. If that sort of general conversation is considered on topic, then I won't interfere. I just feel its not IMHO and feel that there is plenty of justification for believing such. And I won't consent to being insulted because of it.

Unless you can tell me what parts of the specific Hemingway posts I quoted earlier are directly related to gun control beyond very tenuous tangents. I've already admitted I can see Hemingways assertion about 3D printer manufacturing being pausible but I guess that's just not enough. :(

[Inkidu]

So, ah. Apparently there's now a fully 3D printed gun out there. I haven't read the article thoroughly, so I might be missing something. Here's one from CNN.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/06/tech/innovation/3d-gun-video/index.html

I wouldn't trust any gun that's not made from sold metal casting. Those printed guns are probably good for one shot at best if they aren't just hand grenades.

[Driskoll]

I'm not sure how posting a video with a jest filled comment is ignoring the subject at hand. It seems to me that some posters are being excessive into reading meanings behind things.

"While you are all wasting time with overly pricey wiki guns..." is a jest? Seemed more like a dig to me, but fine. While the video wasn't necessarily ignoring the subject at hand, it did bring up a point that I feel has already been overstated.

The fact that you posted the video at all would suggest to some that you were not familiar with the conversation of the thread, and that you had inadvertently ignored the point of all this, which is that wiki weapons may become a problem in the future.

Your third post in the thread also did nothing to help the perception that you did not understand the point of this discussion, as you imply that anyone buying a 3d printer to make a gun would be foolish to do so when zip guns are a practical alternative. Again, this ignores much of what has been said here, that wiki weapons may pose a problem in the future, but not as they are now.

And considering my responses, I havent been ignorant of anything beyond a desire to point out, correctly it seems, what appears to be two responses to my posts which I feel are off topic. Your ignoring of that fact and admission that the topic isn't on the future of 3D manufacturing applications seems to lend credence to that interpretation.

If the two responses you are referring to are the ones I believe them to be, then they are in fact on topic for the thread. Let's take another look.

I don't think that's really the big thing here either, though. Because guns are one thing, but then there's everything else. I would say that if you can make guns, that's a fairly good indication you can make more than plastic sporks and cups and whatnot. So now we're talking about a technology that could become a common household thing, which in essence eliminates the need for transportation of a wide range of items. That's big, potentially.

Here we see Hemingway give greater detail to something he said in his first paragraph. The potential for 3d printers to become common household items. Here though, he gives greater detail as to why that may be, by implying that 3d printers have practical uses outside of making firearms. It is these practical uses that will likely make them appealing to the average consumer, and when they are cost effective and mass produced (as I believe they will be), I think many people will effectively have what could be used as a gun printer within their own homes. Here in lies the potential danger and connection to the large theme of future gun control. 

Just to put things into perspective, the only reason our current world economy works is because of containerization. It's because producing something in China, or Taiwan, or wherever you like, and then transporting it to the US and to Europe and elsewhere is practically free compared to the cost of actually producing things in the countries where you want to sell them. Now, at the risk of overstating the potential of 3D printing, it could quite conceivably reconfigure the way certain industries work.

I see this as more of a clarification and expansion of his idea at the end of the last paragraph, but even here I can see some connections to the theme, and I think it's unfair to label it as off topic. Here Hemingway implied how 3d printers may have the potential to eliminate the need for transporting various goods. If that were to happen, business as we know it would change, and vendors would be forced to change along with it. Goods would no longer need to be manufactured and shipped, and it may even become common practice for vendors to simply sell a digital copy of their  3d blueprint of an item instead of the physical object, relying on people at home to use their 3d printer. If this practice extended to gun companies, then we may even see the idea of printing guns at home being promoted or encouraged.   

Yes, there are a lot of "Ifs" in these interpretations, and I think this may be the risk of overstating the potential of 3d printers that Hemingway stated, but my point is that these two responses are very much connected to the overall discussion and are not what I would consider off topic.

Furthermore, I've already consented that what Hemingway had already said on 3D printing may very well be true. So again, not ignoring anything.

Consenting while getting a jibe in there that you didn't actually miss anything.

Stating that a conversation is veering off topic isn't an admission of ignorance on my end. It's merely me pointing out that the topic has been derailed. The fact it has occurred earlier doesn't mitigate the fact its still off topic. If we're discussing wiki weapons and gun control now and in the future,  lets. If we're going to discuss the future of 3d printer manufacturing, fine. But I'd rather not be disparaged for calling an off topic response what it is. If that sort of general conversation is considered on topic, then I won't interfere. I just feel its not IMHO and feel that there is plenty of justification for believing such. And I won't consent to being insulted because of it.

Wiki weapons, the future of gun control, and 3d printer manufacturing are fundamentally connected. It's hard to talk about wiki weapons and the future of gun control without mentioning what wiki weapons will be made on, namely 3d printers. It's logical then to see discussion about 3d printers pop up in the middle of a discussion about wiki weapons.

I feel as though you've been rather insulting since you first posted here, and I find it odd that you would try to accuse others of it now.

Unless you can tell me what parts of the specific Hemingway posts I quoted earlier are directly related to gun control beyond very tenuous tangents.

And so what if they are tenuous tangents? Is that not still related? Remember we're talking about the future here, which I've always believed is uncertain at best. After starting this thread and seeing the progress Cody Wilson had made, I thought it would still take a couple years or so to get a full wiki weapon to work. It took less than two months. So why not talk about all possibilities when discussing the future?   

[Oniya]

Let's all try to remember to keep it civil.

[Healergirl]

What Oniya said.

Discussion of 3D printers cannot be filtered out of this discussion, current and future 3D printer capability is very much the reason for the discussion!

What we call 3d printers, Science Fiction writers referred to as fabricators,   Devices that people  fed raw material in one end of, and got usable things out of the other.  We have lived to see the first-generation practical-use examples of what once was a staple of Science Fiction.

Welcome to the Future!

So... next generation "printers/fabricators", what will their feedstock be?  A less specialized feedstock, not a true raw material, but with broader applications, tougher, more durable for hard use that the ABS feedstock is my guess.  Probably several different feedstocks, the use of which can be combined for assorted parts.

Then not much later.... printer/fabricators that take genuine raw material, whatever you have handy, perhaps.  You might not be able to make exactly what you want, but most people will not let Perfect stand in the way of Good Enough.

Everybody asks "Where are the flying cars?"  Flying cars are toys.  This... this is big, practical, everybody can use it, once it sinks in what the tech can do, everybody will decide they need it.

Look out, world.

[Neysha]

"While you are all wasting time with overly pricey wiki guns..." is a jest? Seemed more like a dig to me, but fine. While the video wasn't necessarily ignoring the subject at hand, it did bring up a point that I feel has already been overstated.

Posting a youtube video with that comment would require extreme exception to be considered insulting IMHO considered the light hearted nature of the video itself. Furthermore it is an extremely common thing to do on forums, make a glib comment (or even no comment) and post a youtube video, regardless of the subject at hand. And the video wasn't ignoring the subject. It still showed a valid point of comparison for contemporary gun control. And since when is an issue 'overstated' in any way forbidden in discussion? I didn't realize zip gun discussion had been overstated already in this thread. Has it? And if so, what is the standard?

The fact that you posted the video at all would suggest to some that you were not familiar with the conversation of the thread, and that you had inadvertently ignored the point of all this, which is that wiki weapons may become a problem in the future.

No, the fact I posted the video only points out I posted a video about zip guns. Anything else would require inference into my personality and judgment that I severely doubt you're capable of making off of a single video post or in my ensuing responses.

Your third post in the thread also did nothing to help the perception that you did not understand the point of this discussion, as you imply that anyone buying a 3d printer to make a gun would be foolish to do so when zip guns are a practical alternative. Again, this ignores much of what has been said here, that wiki weapons may pose a problem in the future, but not as they are now.

And thankfully Hemingway illuminated his point further, though I felt it was straying off topic.

Hence my fourth response of:

Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument

I'm not sure how consenting that what he is saying is plausible, and specifically stating that his comment was 'fair' even though I personally assumed it to be off topic.

Here we see Hemingway give greater detail to something he said in his first paragraph. The potential for 3d printers to become common household items. Here though, he gives greater detail as to why that may be, by implying that 3d printers have practical uses outside of making firearms. It is these practical uses that will likely make them appealing to the average consumer, and when they are cost effective and mass produced (as I believe they will be), I think many people will effectively have what could be used as a gun printer within their own homes. Here in lies the potential danger and connection to the large theme of future gun control.

Hence why I stated:

Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument.

So no, I don't feel I'm missing the bigger picture at all. If anything, I feel the bigger picture is out of the scope of this discussion... IMHO

Note the incredible LACK of blaming him on my part. I merely stated that I felt that I was responding according to the narrow definition of gun control.

I see this as more of a clarification and expansion of his idea at the end of the last paragraph, but even here I can see some connections to the theme, and I think it's unfair to label it as off topic. Here Hemingway implied how 3d printers may have the potential to eliminate the need for transporting various goods. If that were to happen, business as we know it would change, and vendors would be forced to change along with it. Goods would no longer need to be manufactured and shipped, and it may even become common practice for vendors to simply sell a digital copy of their  3d blueprint of an item instead of the physical object, relying on people at home to use their 3d printer. If this practice extended to gun companies, then we may even see the idea of printing guns at home being promoted or encouraged.

Which is all great... and that I feel is off topic... and beyond the scope of this thread:

Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument.

So no, I don't feel I'm missing the bigger picture at all. If anything, I feel the bigger picture is out of the scope of this discussion... IMHO

Yes, there are a lot of "Ifs" in these interpretations, and I think this may be the risk of overstating the potential of 3d printers that Hemingway stated, but my point is that these two responses are very much connected to the overall discussion and are not what I would consider off topic.

Then I guess we will agree to disagree. While we can both agree they are related, I personally feel it shifts beyond the narrow scope of gun control which my contribution was framed for.

Consenting while getting a jibe in there that you didn't actually miss anything.

I'm afraid I don't know what a "jibe" is.

Wiki weapons, the future of gun control, and 3d printer manufacturing are fundamentally connected. It's hard to talk about wiki weapons and the future of gun control without mentioning what wiki weapons will be made on, namely 3d printers. It's logical then to see discussion about 3d printers pop up in the middle of a discussion about wiki weapons.

I never stated 3d Printers shouldn't be discussed, but that it should be focused on the wiki weapons, as is the subject at hand. As can be seen from my third response, I was merely illustrating my point of view, and had already consented to Hemingway's pausible POV and as far as I can tell, didn't even blame him for being off topic, as much as explaining my own POV/opinion of how the discussion should be focused and why I responded the way I did.

I feel as though you've been rather insulting since you first posted here, and I find it odd that you would try to accuse others of it now.

I feel my discussion with Hemingway wasn't insulting in the least. Now do I find my original post in this thread 'insulting' as much as a light hearted jest. In fact, I found my brief conversation with Hemingway to be perfectly normal as it ran its course. And I honestly never saw where I insulted or even BLAMED him for being an off topic poster. AFAIK the disparaging attitude and insults only came when you stumbled into the thread and decided to call me ignorant without any basis, as can be seen now.

And so what if they are tenuous tangents? Is that not still related? Remember we're talking about the future here, which I've always believed is uncertain at best.

Because:

Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument.

However...

If we're going to discuss the future of 3d printer manufacturing, fine. But I'd rather not be disparaged for calling an off topic response what it is. If that sort of general conversation is considered on topic, then I won't interfere. I just feel its not IMHO and feel that there is plenty of justification for believing such. And I won't consent to being insulted because of it.

However, you insulted me. And without reason or cause IMHO. So I naturally reacted defensively.

While you are all wasting time with overly pricey wiki guns...

$7 12-Gauge Zip Gun Homemade Shotgun

If I insulted ANYONE by posting a jestfilled comment and the Zip Gun youtube video above, I apologize. I didn't realize that could cause offense.

Furthermore if I insulted Hemingway by posting:

Fair enough.

What you say about 3D printing maybe true, but I'm merely talking in reference to this particular discussion as it pertains to 3D printed guns and gun control. Thus when I read your response, I naturally felt compelled to justify my position but only within the narrow context of the gun control argument.

So no, I don't feel I'm missing the bigger picture at all. If anything, I feel the bigger picture is out of the scope of this discussion... IMHO. ;)

I apologize again. I thought stating "Fair enough" and trying to explain my initial second response as being to focus on the very narrow discussion of the gun control argument, I was actually attempting to use language to NOT blame him for being off topic, as much as pointing out that my own idea of what was on topic was far more narrow then his. And then to clearly illustrate that I meant no offense, I ended it by stating it was in my humble opinion followed by a smiley. So again, Hemingway, I apologize for insulting you, and the perception that I was blaming you for anything. That wasn't my intention at all.

[Healergirl]

Perhaps Driskoll should remane the thread to "Wiki Weapons, 3D printers, and the Future of Gun Contgrol"

I honestly don't think printers can be stripped from the discussion, they are the fundamental basis, the reason we are discussing this at all.

[Retribution]

I started to list a link to Slate which states the flaws in the current version. But well the information is out there and from the look of this thread people have read it. Also Mr. Wilson's ultimate goals are out there and that is that he wished to pull the tails of gun control advocates and make them scream. I would say he has accomplished that goal and then some just look at this thread.

I am a life long gun owner as I have said before in this thread. I lean right though tend to have a nasty moderate streak. I have also bowed out of this discussion because I found I was falling into Mr. Wilson's trap as well. My point here is both sides of this or any political debate have fallen into the trap of letting the radicals define them. I would not approach things like Mr. Wilson what he is doing is an in your face action to create a stir. Pick your own say liberal cause heck use gun control and you will find the opposite side who stirs the pot the same way. What we end up with is well *smiles and points to posts above* all of us at each other's throats.

This is the problem with the political system we have. There are former friends I refuse to speak to anymore over the gun issue for example. I will not support any further gun control because of fear radical thought will shift "common sense" into something that tries to take my firearms. All of us need to cease falling into the traps laid by the type people who stir pots like the fellow and his Wiki weapon which most agree is as dangerous to the shooter as anyone on the other end.

That includes me so I am trying to simply answer the gun debate one way in the future and leave it at that. The second amendment is part of the constitution, the courts including SCOTUS have upheld and found that it is a valid portion of the constitution and that the "militia" does not impede a private citizen's right to own firearms. So taking that as judicial fact [feel free to look it up] what we are left with is if one does not like 2A there are methods in place to amend the constitution. The energy would be better served in that direction, until that time accept that in the US private firearms ownership is a legal right. Do not fall into the trap of letting someone who made a spiffy plastic gun get you all wound up. In return I will not fall into the trap of say letting the mayor of NYC get me wound up because he thinks he should be able to take my firearms because he has an issue in his back yard when things are just fine in mine.

[Neysha]

Perhaps Driskoll should remane the thread to "Wiki Weapons, 3D printers, and the Future of Gun Contgrol"

I honestly don't think printers can be stripped from the discussion, they are the fundamental basis, the reason we are discussing this at all.

Well it seems besides the point now, as appreciated as that might be. I can see that my opinion on what the subject is seems to be against the consensus. My main issue was being disparaged by Driskoll because I clarified my position.

I honestly didn't want to sound condescending or insulting to Hemingway or anyone else when I made my original post with the video. It was meant as a lighthearted jest, like many of the comments here or to be 'facetious" as Hemingway stated. However I will admit when Driskoll called me ignorant, I feel it was an insult and decided after Driskoll's second response, to respond in kind in a provocative manner. I'm willing to consider the issue finished if he has, since we're basically wasting words at this juncture and are both clearly off topic and derailing the discussion now. :)

[Oniya]

Neither calling someone 'ignorant' nor escalating the matter in thread are appropriate actions.  If you have an issue with another member, the appropriate means of dealing with it is either by taking it to PMs, or to Staff. 

I'm willing to consider the issue finished if he has, since we're basically wasting words at this juncture and are both clearly off topic and derailing the discussion now. :)

The issue is finished with regards to this thread.  Further posts of either disparagement or provocation will result in the thread being locked for at least 24 hours.

[Neysha]

It looks like the government taking its first actions beyond just words in this case.

Looks like the beginning of a long, expensive, ineffectual campaign to prevent the proliferation of the data. :p

Also... barely relevant. :p



Can a 3D printer manufacture a MILK BOTTLE scope?

The answer is... I'm not sure actually... hmmm...

[Oniya]

Shape, probably.  The same type of shape data that goes into rendering could most likely be converted, since that's essentially what the 3-D modeling software is that someone mentioned up-thread - but you'd want to use an opaque material for the milk bottle.  The lens might be an issue, as I'm not sure if optical-grade polycarbonates can be used (although if they start making 3-D printers that can do optical lenses, I am all over that, baby!  I'd make up the cost of the printer in what I'd save on new glasses!)

Edit:  Never mind - I thought someone mentioned 3-D modeling software...

[Neysha]

Yes but to get a true classic milk bottle scope, we would need it to print using glass as a base material.

Would that work?

If not, then clearly we'd need to produce some sort of automated 3D glass blower technology.

And to pull this back on topic of gun control... is there a possibility of control on utilizing these 3D printers for nefarious purposes, such as the installation of DRM on the hardware of the printer... DRM that would be... not sure of the term... below the operating system and other 3d printer software.

While DRM has an entire industry related to evading it, maybe gun control along those lines could inhibit the proliferation of weapons. Much like with the earlier arguments about basement gun builds or my piint about zip guns, even today one coukf concrivably manufacture, and manufacture cheaply, everything from single shot zip guns to Sten SMG analogues but we are not seeimg a proliferation of those weapons.

Obviously there are a lot of reasons for that. For one... illegal use of weapons is... illegal. But also it dors require both tooling and knowledge and desire which many potential interested parties simply lack, and of course, there is a supply of far more reliable and professionally manufactured firearms already.

So when we're exploring the proliferation of wiki weapons, we have to ask, what makes them decidedly different from a zip gun... or a homemade Sten or other firearm. Its been stated several times already that 3d printers may become commonplace. But the Liberator still requires sixteen or so parts for what seems to be a dangerous one shot handgun. To make a proper magazine fed, semi automatic, accurate, ergonomic and reliable handgun? Or a shotgun? Or rifle? Or assault rifle?

A lot of gun owners are negligent in basic maintenence of guns now. Much less assembling them. Or another thing, we all have appliances and cars and there's still a big demand for basic services like oil changes or replacing dryer belts. And with iwners msnuals and the internet, its not like we can't learn how to to these things ourselves. While some criminals wont be deterred, many if us, criminal and otherwise might be like... do I want to print this gun... possibly illegally, or just buy one legitimately?

[Oniya]

Yes but to get a true classic milk bottle scope, we would need it to print using glass as a base material.

Would that work?

If not, then clearly we'd need to produce some sort of automated 3D glass blower technology.

How do you think they make glass bottles now?  ;)  Usually, the molten glass is vacuum-formed to a mold, which is just blowing in reverse (and doesn't require all that fancy twirling and hammering).  It might be possible to 'print' glass using a silica powder as your base - after all, glass is simply melted sand in its most basic form.  Clarity might be impacted, but that was less of an issue with the shell, compared to the lens.  Speaking as someone with < -6.5 diopters in each eye, the poly-carbonate is the way to go with the lenses.

Edit:  Found that reference to software.  It was in another thread about 3-D printing something else complex.

[Zakharra]

I started to list a link to Slate which states the flaws in the current version. But well the information is out there and from the look of this thread people have read it. Also Mr. Wilson's ultimate goals are out there and that is that he wished to pull the tails of gun control advocates and make them scream. I would say he has accomplished that goal and then some just look at this thread.

I am a life long gun owner as I have said before in this thread. I lean right though tend to have a nasty moderate streak. I have also bowed out of this discussion because I found I was falling into Mr. Wilson's trap as well. My point here is both sides of this or any political debate have fallen into the trap of letting the radicals define them. I would not approach things like Mr. Wilson what he is doing is an in your face action to create a stir. Pick your own say liberal cause heck use gun control and you will find the opposite side who stirs the pot the same way. What we end up with is well *smiles and points to posts above* all of us at each other's throats.

This is the problem with the political system we have. There are former friends I refuse to speak to anymore over the gun issue for example. I will not support any further gun control because of fear radical thought will shift "common sense" into something that tries to take my firearms. All of us need to cease falling into the traps laid by the type people who stir pots like the fellow and his Wiki weapon which most agree is as dangerous to the shooter as anyone on the other end.

That includes me so I am trying to simply answer the gun debate one way in the future and leave it at that. The second amendment is part of the constitution, the courts including SCOTUS have upheld and found that it is a valid portion of the constitution and that the "militia" does not impede a private citizen's right to own firearms. So taking that as judicial fact [feel free to look it up] what we are left with is if one does not like 2A there are methods in place to amend the constitution. The energy would be better served in that direction, until that time accept that in the US private firearms ownership is a legal right. Do not fall into the trap of letting someone who made a spiffy plastic gun get you all wound up. In return I will not fall into the trap of say letting the mayor of NYC get me wound up because he thinks he should be able to take my firearms because he has an issue in his back yard when things are just fine in mine.

/claps slowly and approvingly

Well said.

[sleepingferret]

I started to list a link to Slate which states the flaws in the current version. But well the information is out there and from the look of this thread people have read it. Also Mr. Wilson's ultimate goals are out there and that is that he wished to pull the tails of gun control advocates and make them scream. I would say he has accomplished that goal and then some just look at this thread.

I am a life long gun owner as I have said before in this thread. I lean right though tend to have a nasty moderate streak. I have also bowed out of this discussion because I found I was falling into Mr. Wilson's trap as well. My point here is both sides of this or any political debate have fallen into the trap of letting the radicals define them. I would not approach things like Mr. Wilson what he is doing is an in your face action to create a stir. Pick your own say liberal cause heck use gun control and you will find the opposite side who stirs the pot the same way. What we end up with is well *smiles and points to posts above* all of us at each other's throats.

This is the problem with the political system we have. There are former friends I refuse to speak to anymore over the gun issue for example. I will not support any further gun control because of fear radical thought will shift "common sense" into something that tries to take my firearms. All of us need to cease falling into the traps laid by the type people who stir pots like the fellow and his Wiki weapon which most agree is as dangerous to the shooter as anyone on the other end.

That includes me so I am trying to simply answer the gun debate one way in the future and leave it at that. The second amendment is part of the constitution, the courts including SCOTUS have upheld and found that it is a valid portion of the constitution and that the "militia" does not impede a private citizen's right to own firearms. So taking that as judicial fact [feel free to look it up] what we are left with is if one does not like 2A there are methods in place to amend the constitution. The energy would be better served in that direction, until that time accept that in the US private firearms ownership is a legal right. Do not fall into the trap of letting someone who made a spiffy plastic gun get you all wound up. In return I will not fall into the trap of say letting the mayor of NYC get me wound up because he thinks he should be able to take my firearms because he has an issue in his back yard when things are just fine in mine.

People also forget that even though the Constitution was written 200 some years ago, when "times were different"; that the principles of the Constitution remain the same.  We the People of the United States of America, are the "militia".  Because on the one hand, the 2nd Amendment was written to help defend this country from foreign invaders; especially back all those years ago.  On the other, it was also was written to protect the citizens from its own government if absolutely necessary, because of our fight with the British (aka the Revolutionary War).  And then of course, over the years it has evolved into a private citizen's right to bear arms for defense of self, which in all reality can even be traced back to the amendment's first en-statement.  As citizens then, also owned firearms and weren't always "on duty" for the defense of country, because once we defeated the British, they agreed to leave and we moved on with forming our own country.

Now, moving up the timeline have there been tragedies caused by irresponsible, just completely uncaring people, or flat out "lunatics"...sadly yes.  The same could be said for all the "idiots" who cause car wrecks by driving drunk, speeding, texting and driving, or other irresponsible driving habits.  However, I don't really see any serious actions being taken against all of the irresponsible driving.  A law against texting and driving gets passed here or there, new speed limits, or new actions against drunk driving may be "talked about"...but where is the actual enforcement?  Law enforcement budgets aren't there to back up all the "tough talk"...so it doesn't do any good, we can't even enforce the laws we have.

But back to gun control... same thing applies here, we have reasonable laws, they often times aren't being enforced properly.  And why?  The law enforcement agencies backing them, don't have the money and personnel to do so.  They don't even have the personnel to do what we really need to do, which is respond to emergency calls quickly and efficiently.  And people want to either take away our law abiding citizens' right to bear arms or severally restrict them?  That's the wrong answer.  We the law abiding citizens have done nothing to deserve such a response.

While I will say nothing to deny that the recent shootings are nothing but horrible tragedies that the affected communities and families deserve our love and support.  We the people of the United States, must all take a step back and think with our heads not our hearts when making tough choices that affect our people.  Criminals and lunatics, are going to do whatever the heck they want regardless of law, it is just the way of things...they find a way.  Tighter restrictions aren't going to prevent such tragedies.  Better emergency situation planning, better security (be it armed security guards or willing and trained armed teachers/staff), and even properly funded law enforcement agencies can all help to either prevent, stop, or reduce the impact of any future incidents.

We don't go looking for trouble, just because we carry a gun...we don't even want it.  I wish there was no reason for me to carry one anywhere but a firing range or shooting competitions.  But in today's society there are those who think the word "negotiate" means "to get what I want by threatening another, or even killing another".  They think they can get what they want through violence, and the only way they'll back down is if you put a bullet in their damn skull.  It's a sad truth, while we can sit here and debate our stance on different things, without resorting to violent actions...them?  They'd just assume get results by holding a gun to someone's head if you or I didn't agree with their point of view. 

[Hemingway]

I was just reminded of an interview I saw with the rapper Immortal Technique. What he claims, which I find quite compelling, is that gun violence in the US is not an issue of gun control, but an issue of a violent society. Journalist and activist Chris Hedges says essentially the same thing: America is different, America is ... violent.

And I think it's obvious that the solution is not gun control. Unfortunately. Gun control might've worked if there had never been a second amendment in the first place. But you can't just uproot a system and expect everything to be fixed overnight. It should also be patently obvious that, contrary to the common rhetoric of criminals getting guns no matter what, not having guns does not inevitably and immediately lead to a criminal society.

That myth is very easily dismissed, by showing a comparison between two countries like the US and Norway, the ones I'm most familiar with. According to the site gunpolicy.org, there are 31.3 privately owned guns per 100 persons in Norway, and that's about a third of the number they have for the US ( 101.05 per 100 ). You'd expect, if you subscribed to the view that fewer guns leads to more crime, that the rate of gun homicides would be far higher in Norway. Spoiler: They're not. They're about 9 times higher in the US, at 3.6 per 100 000. There is apparently some correlation between number of guns and gun homicides, because the difference is smaller ( US only about 7.7 times larger ) when comparing homicides by any means.

Now, comparing all these numbers, we get the following: roughly 6% of intentional homicides in Norway were by guns ( in 2010 ), while the figure for the US is 70%. That's ... a considerable difference. More considerable, I think, than can be accounted for by the mere presence of guns in the society in question. Now, that's speculation on my part, but the numbers, at least, don't add up in a linear way. If guns led directly to homicides, you'd expect to see about three times as many in the US as in Norway. The actual figure is over 11 times. That, I think, is an important difference. Because either it means that homicides increase exponentially with the presence of guns, or it means that there are other factors involved that aren't directly related to the number of guns. I think the latter is more probable.

I can also tell you that, in my own experience, the missing factor is not security and securitization. It might, which will probably upset some conservatives, be socialism. Or social democracy, and a proper welfare state.

( Numbers for The US here, and for Norway here )

[LordMing]

@Hemingway
I concur with most of what you say here, however, the restriction of guns for legal ownership not leading to an increase in criminals acquiring firearms is flawed.  You would be correct if we did not already have a gun culture.  The problem is that America now has so many firearms in circulation, and a thriving black market, that over used cliche of "Outlawing guns means only outlaws will have guns" does hold a kernel of truth.  That said, I would welcome a, non rhetorical, debate amongst our legislators about firearms laws.  The existing laws are broken, the ones they are trying to pass are partly or wholly unenforceable due to being passed hastily and in reaction, rather than being discussed, debated and balanced.

The fact is that we ARE a violent society.  Our entire history is one of gaining what we wanted through revolution and war.  In reality that does not make America that much different than other countries, but we also have a sort of warrior culture, where Rambo and Harry Callahan are raised to heroic status, and men of intellect like Sherlock Holmes or Hercules Poirot are considered effete curiosities that must be able to do Wing Chun to be considered interesting.  We cannot consider someone truly capable, it seems, unless they can beat, or shoot their way through a small army.  When we originally based our society upon the ancient Spartans and Greeks, I wonder if our founding fathers considered that we would lean more to the warrior ethos rather than the academic?

[Hemingway]

That is more or less the point I was trying to make, though. There's a component to the debate that's largely ignored, namely culture.

Culture is difficult, though, in more ways than one. It's difficult because it's difficult to pinpoint exactly what is meant by "violent society" and "gun culture". I mean, it's possible to point to specific things, like the second amendment, or the government's use of force, or any number of things, but those are just examples. What's needed is a definiton, a framework for discussing the topic. Basically, an answer to the question of "what is a violent society?"

It's also difficult because it's unpopular to suggest that US society is violent. And you can't tackle the problems of a violent society unless you acknowledge that society is violent. Which means that until that becomes something like a mainstream view, there probably can't be any sort of effective solution to the problem.

[Ephiral]

The problem is that America now has so many firearms in circulation, and a thriving black market, that over used cliche of "Outlawing guns means only outlaws will have guns" does hold a kernel of truth.

Something that has always confused me about this stance: Where exactly do its advocates think illegal guns come from? In my country, at least, there are two answers: Either they're smuggled from the US, or they're stolen from legitimate owners. Either way, they're in criminals' hands because they started out as legal weapons. Given that this is the case, a decrease in the number of legal weapons seems to lead pretty inevitably to a decrease in the number of illegal ones.

[Neysha]

What country are you from?

[Retribution]

Something that has always confused me about this stance: Where exactly do its advocates think illegal guns come from? In my country, at least, there are two answers: Either they're smuggled from the US, or they're stolen from legitimate owners. Either way, they're in criminals' hands because they started out as legal weapons. Given that this is the case, a decrease in the number of legal weapons seems to lead pretty inevitably to a decrease in the number of illegal ones.

I have tried -really- hard not to comment on this one because well the reasoning in my way of looking at life and the world is just...flawed. That is like saying we should take all cars because we have drunk drivers, not allow people to fly because planes crash, or as this implies punish law abiding people because of how criminals behave. I just cannot get my mind around that sort of a world view. I am not making fun or anything like that I am just saying I cannot relate to that type thought process in the least.


I will go back to my post that in the US 2a is the law of the land. If there are those who think this is the way to go at things which I really hope there are not many who do, then the way to do it is amend the US constitution. I will fight those of that thought process tooth and nail with all I have in my being.

[Beguile's Mistress]

This thread is being locked at the request of the OP.

Please feel free to start a new thread to continue any current ongoing discussions.