The Wiki Weapon project is an initiative undertaken by Defense Distributed, a non-profit headed by University of Texas law student Cody Wilson aimed at generating a freely-distributed, open source design for a 3-D printed firearm--an idea that has come under serious fire from proponents of increased gun control in the U.S., particularly in light of last week's tragic shooting of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The idea behind the project--embraced by some, absolutely detested by others--is that technology will soon make regulating firearms virtually impossible. That is a very polarizing idea. But to say the very least Wiki Weapons is also a technologically intriguing project, one that forces us to examine some very relevant--some might say ominous--questions about new technological capabilities and where they are taking us, as well as what happens when technology gets way out in front of the law. We spoke with Wilson briefly this week hoping to address some of these questions. Below is an edited transcript of that conversation.
Popular Science: It would be pointless for us to ignore the context in which we're speaking today, given the tragedy that unfolded in Connecticut last week. Defense Distributed has committed to creating a shareable, freely-distributed design for a working 3-D printed firearm--a way for anyone with a 3-D printer to quickly produce a working gun. Does an incident like this one in any way alter your conviction that this is the right thing to do?
Cody Wilson: No, not at all. If it did change what we thought you'd be right to recognize that we're not serious. I don't want to be confrontational about it, but I will say it this way: understanding that rights and civil liberties are something that we protect is also understanding that they have consequences that are also protected, or tolerated. The exercise of civil liberties is antithetical to the idea of an completely totalizing state. That's just the way it is.
I heard Joe Scarborough say this, and this is a flagrant example. He said "I was a Second Amendment supporter but this has made me change my mind." Well, then you never really were serious about it.
You know, the jurisprudence of the Second Amendment has only just begun. The results that Second Amendment supporters have received from the courts are probably as good as they could've ever hoped for, but we're already off on the wrong foot. The court treats this civil liberty differently than every other right. It's amazing. Even the Supreme Court majority has displayed this weird calculus about social cost that assumes from the beginning that gun ownership is a nuisance that can be safe every now and then and has to be tolerated. This isn't how we treat any other right in the Bill of Rights--as a nuisance first. I've been thinking about this a lot lately. The presumption that it's just a bad idea to own a gun, that we have to subject ourselves to all of these things and jump through all of these hoops to own a firearm--it doesn't work that way with speech, it doesn't work that way for the Fifth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment.
This project is, as much as anything else, an immanent critique of Second Amendment-ism. We're demonstrating the difference between the promise and the practice of the access to firearms.
Where do you feel this project fits into the "gun control" conversation? What you're doing fits more into the maker movement than the traditional firearms industry paradigm. So when people talk gun control to you, do you see this project fitting into the same conversation?
Right, it doesn't fit into the regulatory framework for gun manufacturing. But of course it fits into the larger discussion. A reporter will ask me "what are you going to do to restrict access to the files?" Well look, you don't have to get a background check to check out a book from the library. We're not going to do anything to restrict access to the files. That's the whole point. The control would have to happen at the point of access to the information, and I just don't have that attitude about the restraint and censorship of information that the prohibitionists do.
Here's how the discussion demonstrates the difference in the argument. So-called "progressives," their only response is "ban it. Ban it, ban it, ban it--ban it here, ban it there, ban the future." It just seems so conservative all of a sudden. How are these people committed to civil liberties? I'm saying: "Look, of course this can be abused. But it's preferable to the available alternative."
Gun control is a policy question with assumptions about how traditional guns are distributed. We're saying "Look, as a consequence of this technology the way we do things is altered. We've stepped outside of your program. So pass your law." I was reading a piece about us in The Australian today and they kept mentioning that "this is illegal here." They mentioned it like four times. You could hear the nervousness, because it's no longer possible to just withhold things from people.
But this project does raise many interesting legal issues. Do you feel like Defense Distributed is navigating these legal waters--waters that are almost completely uncharted--in a way that respects the spirit of the law?
Of course we've been careful not to break the law. But who is to say what the spirit of the law is. Perhaps I've entered a new cynical phase after going through a couple of years of law school, but the spirit of the law is up to anyone's interpretation. So that leaves a bad taste in my mouth when we talk about the spirit of the law. It's a huge discussion that I don't even want to get into.
If there's some kind of natural law, if you will, I think we're in the spirit of that. I guess to answer your question more pointedly: no. The point isn't to match the spirit of the law. If the law was to say today that you shouldn't have a firearm, we would still say "yes you should." If you want to, of course, the idea isn't "you must have a gun," but that you're not free unless you have the choice.
I think what bothers a lot of people about this isn't necessarily gun ownership, but the access. For example, at Popular Science we've written a lot about young people--high school students and younger--who are amazingly deft with this technology. They have access to it and they get it, in many cases better than adults. So what's to stop a kid from printing a firearm? I mean, what you're doing is essentially lowering the barrier to entry for firearm possession.
The goal is to completely lower the barrier. I do see the distinction that needs to be made sometimes. People say "well, you're providing access to firearms." Okay, yes, in that the information is there, and that the technology itself assembles the component in a way that is an advantage for the non-expert. You've always been able to make a gun in this country. This just allows you to do it without knowing how--software and a machine does it for you, as opposed to other machines like a CNC mill, which no kid is going to have in his bedroom. But he might have a 3-D printer. I'll give you the entire hypothetical situation, sure. Is it much more possible now? Of course.
But the question to me is phrased in such a way--that is the point, to evoke an emotional response. "Now a kid can do this." This is what so many people say--"well, the mentally ill, felons, and children will all have printable guns." Well, yeah, sorry, but this is one of the negative dimensions when you lower the barriers to entry for certain things. It just is. So you must have a culture that is prepared to accept and adapt to these kind of realities, instead of pretending with these regulationist ideas that we're still stuck in. We still just pretend that things are going to keep going the way they're going--that somehow we're going to have the resources and the state power to watch everyone's 3-D printer. That's absurd. So let's accommodate.
But owning a firearm is a huge, huge responsibility. So isn't lowering the barrier to entry to that responsibility detrimental to responsible firearm ownership?
I agree with you in an abstract sense. It should be this way, sure. But how can you exact some kind of legal regime that enforces that without infringing on the rights of countless people.
To bring in a legal analogy, the First Amendment is often compared to the Second. And you know, people should say nice things to each other. But how much state power are you willing to cede and use to pretend that you can control that at the expense of vast numbers of people.
In the broader context of 3-D printing, this project has the potential to jar legislators and regulators out of their bureaucratic malaise for a moment and actually pull our regulatory framework into the 21st century--I'm not talking about firearms regulations here, but about general acknowledgment at the government level of the serious disruptions this technology is going to cause in intellectual property law and in other areas. Would you consider that a success?
If the government were to regulate this, would we consider that a success?
Perhaps it's better asked this way: Is this about creating firearms with 3-D printers, or about pushing a new technology and the mindset associated with it as far as you can push it?
I don't even have the wherewithal, ultimately, to do anything about this [bureaucratic malaise]. So we're just ignoring it. We're developing this in a way that keeps us out of a correctional institution, but honestly it's about how many free spheres of action can you expand and create. We picked the low-hanging fruit at the time. We thought it was cool as well, it was 3-D printing. And we thought: how many edges of this technology can we press--let's take it to the limit, let's see what we can do with this. And it's amazing how many people are trying to stop us.
So this is less about the Second Amendment and more about stretching this technology into a place where it's bending both its physical limits but also the limits of where the technology can go. And the limits of people's comfort zones, perhaps.
It's the second thing. It's the futurism, it's expanding free spheres of action. And if it does that it will only do so marginally. Our contribution will be here and there marginal. Vast amounts of effort and money have gone into what? Three or four custom mods, a reinforced AR plastic receiver? These are marginal. But the idea is to expand the sphere of action, because we believe in this kind of decentralized planning as an alternative to central planning.
There's so much to say about this, and it seems every other week there are new terms about gun control and all of that. I'm just sort of an enthusiast of the Second Amendment, and so yeah--I'm willing to talk about it. But we see a global thing here. I tell people sometimes "we're not making a Second Amendment argument." The basic idea is to take a technology, play futurist, and surprise people. What can you do?
But what if what you can do is something unequivocally bad? I'm sure you've thought this through extensively. What if at some point in the future an unmitigated tragedy like the one that played out in Connecticut were to occur, and the weapon used to perpetrate it turned out to be either derivative of or even directly sourced from a Defense Distributed design, would you feel any kind of responsibility or accountability? Do you worry that, regardless of how you feel, that something might come back on you legally speaking?
Oh yeah. Not in regard to personal responsibility, but to the legal question. That's one of the biggest things we're thinking about right now. How we license some of this stuff is going to be really important--this is basically the second phase for us. Once you start approaching usability, this becomes really important. There could be liability claims. Other countries might start making claims against you, saying you are in contempt of their laws. There could be all kinds of overreaction.
And I'm not saying that some of these claims might not be valid. It's inevitable. There are so many factors involved in this technology--somebody is going to do a bad build. Someone is going to hurt themselves. And as technology advances, someone will be injured, someone will be killed. We should all admit: these are possibilities and are in fact inevitabilities. But what do we want to say? Are these reasons not to be serious about the right, or about the technology? To say that it's better that some things not happen? Or that some ideas not be had?
While Cody may want to use technology to push his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the extreme he obviously doesn't care about the collateral damage from the exercise of this "liberty." No right is boundless even free speech. I can be offensive in my speech but if I yell "Fire" in a crowded theater I will be arrested even though it was speech. Our rights end where they encroach on the rights of others. The government and courts are in the unenviable position of trying to find the rational balance between liberty and the rule of law to protect the citizens of this country. Only a radical, ahistorical, out of context reading of the 2nd Amendment would lead a person to claim it guarantees the unfettered access of weapons. In history we look at the Context, Intention and Consequences of an issue based on the time in which the event occurred. When you read what the Founders intended with the 2nd Amendment you quickly realize it had to do with avoiding having a standing army abusing the populace. You had their version of the National Guard where citizens soldiers would be called up by their states in times of crisis. The world has greatly evolved since the 18th Century. The Constitution used to apply only to landholding white men including the right to bear arms. Surely Mr. Wilson doesn't want us to take such a literal reading of what is a living, evolving document in our Constitution and Bill of Rights... does he? I'd like to see technology help save us from our rabid gun culture. Having a weapon that uses tech to ID the individual owner and will only function for said owner would go a long way in ameliorating our gun violence epidemic. The Newtown shooter would have been unable to use his mother's handguns and Bushmaster if they were locked with ID technology. No system is perfect but as a rational, civilized society surely we can find ways to bring our casualties from the use of guns down to the levels seen in other Western nations. The print a gun world Cody Wilson dreams of is a nightmare for the vast majority of us who don't want to be looking down the barrel of a gun in the hands of someone who should have never had access to one. I have my 9mm handgun under lock in my bedroom, my 20 gauge shotgun & .22 rifle are in the closet. I use my weapons in a responsible manner and they were purchased legally after a background check. Not being able to print a gun in my home didn't unduly hinder my 2nd Amendment right.
Live Long and Prosper - Spock of Vulcan
Excellent interview. I am glad Cody has good debating ability as well.
3d printing could turn out to be the biggest advancement in the last 50 years. Lets just give it a better name though - Personalized Manufacturing - maybe. Sounds a little more professional.
And to any popsci reader that doesn't agree with this, they need only look back at the last 100 years of advancements to see that they were all derived from some defense department (military) project.
Hey, who wants to be the first to open your corner 'Print Shop' printing all your household needs. I'll invest!
Great job Cody, don't let them sway your thoughts, because when the person complaining realizes the internet they love to use for Facebook was a DARPA project - then they will shut their mouth.
Cody should be in jail. The second amendment is so that americans can protect themselves. Not so that any criminal, insane person or suicidal one has access to cheap untraceable guns. This gives any tech savvy person the ability to print weapons, and we all know how easy it is to buy ammunition in the states.
He's only right about one thing, he's picking the low hanging fruit. This puts cheap weapons in the hands of terrorists, homegrown and foreign. That means more deaths, squarely on the heads of anyone releasing those blueprints. Not to mention all the deaths of legitimate people trying to use inferior materials for firearms. Plastics dont make durable weapons, they will break faster, and have higher rates of misfires.
3D printing is a fantastic technology, it has tremendous promise for space exploration, and in building infrastructure once it can be scaled up.
Cody is a tremendous risk to the advancement of 3D printing simply because he could goad the authorities into excessively restrictive laws after a tragedy from his blueprints. For all his "vision" he could be the catalyst that hinders the availability of 3D printing. Its not much of a stretch to see it become law (for the restricted sale of 3D printers) under the overly protective and far-encompassing terrorist laws.
Hopefully im wrong.
You say this will allow criminals, insane people, and suicidal people to own guns, which is 100% true. But those same criminals and crazy people also have unlimited access free speech, right to fair trial, etc, as long as they don't infringe on others' rights. This is the point of any right, especially those in the Bill of Rights; that we should have those freedoms until we start to do harm to others, which is where the law should and does come in.
Similarly, you argue against your own point when you say "Our rights end where they encroach on the rights of others." Just because crazy people or criminals have access to guns doesn't automatically mean they are going to encroach on others rights, and we already have laws in place against the encroachment of others' rights with guns, such as laws against murder.
Once we decide to preemptively take away people's rights because of ways they could possibly infringe on others' rights in the future is when the Freedom America was built on disappears. This freedom is the idea that we allow each other more rights and in doing so put ourselves at risk of harm, but we use civic virtue and moral reasoning to keep each other and society in check, rather than authoritative laws.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I have to assume this is not ordinary printer. I don't think I would want to have my life depend on the working of a gun I printed. It might work but I imagine we have a way to go before it is a reliable product.
It does not really matter any more what our attitude is towards the manufacture of arms by 3D. If Mr. Wilson would not have picked up the idea, (I am sure he was not even the first one anyway) a 1000 others would have. Computer literacy is taught at schools the world over. With the 3 D printer going mainstream, CAD will probably become as popular as MS Word. The trickle of gun designs on the net will become a flood. Printers and especially the materials used in them will become better and stronger. Pandoras box has been opened, you can not close it any more. I can not quite see yet how to print ammunition, but it will always be available from not dishonest legal arms owners, e.g. the security establishment itself.
Sorry I meant "from dishonest legal arms owners"
I live in a country with the right to bear arms my only hope is that i never need too.
"...is that technology will soon make regulating firearms virtually impossible."
So if you got 20 years in prison for printing a weapon that wouldn't stop people from doing it? Only in the States I guess.
No person should have any kind of power without being able to understand it.
The laws for being able to make your own gun were perfectly reasonable, because only those who knew how were able to make their own firearms. Even people who purchase guns have to be able to provide maintenance and such.
Being able to print a gun on a whim will lead to a flood of guns printed by people who have entirely no idea what to do with the gun once they have it in their hands. Sure there will be those who know what to do with it, but for the vast majority, this will be their first gun. They probably won't own a safe for their new gun. This technology would effectively remove the responsibility from gun ownership.
As spacehistorian said, you have rights, but responsibilities associated with those rights. If you are irresponsible with those rights, they can be revoked.
It would be perfectly reasonable if someone with knowledge and experience could design and print their own gun, but if you do everything but press print for people, what would the consequences be? Not necessarily gunmen on a rampage, but some kid getting shot because he didn't know how to handle a gun safely. Providing guns this easily for people would be the equivalent of a parent leaving a loaded gun in his bedside drawer, and then leaving his children alone at home.
Cody is taking a completely irresponsible position here. What's worse, he's thought through the consequences and has basically threw his hands up and decided, "Oh well". I'm typically pretty optimistic about humanity's future, but given the pace of technological advances and our inability to recognize our sociological and spiritual immaturity, my current theory is we're screwed. Individual liberty is not as important as the welfare of the whole, period. And that's coming from a responsible gun owner.
Cody Wilson, you are an idiot, and I hope someone shoots you in the stomach with your own invention.
Have you really thought about what you are trying to spearhead? Beyond "We thought it was cool as well, it was 3-D printing. And we thought: how many edges of this technology can we press--let’s take it to the limit, let’s see what we can do with this. And it’s amazing how many people are trying to stop us."
You think its cool? Do you think the children of Newtown would think what you are doing is cool?
Stop. Just stop. People are trying to stop you because you are attempting to take irresponsible to a new level. Can't you think of an alternative? A way to 3D print food, or drinking water, or medical supplies?
Just f*cking think about what you are doing! Its evil. It's wrong, and it will someday be illegal, so just stop. Please.
Cody Wilson, you are an idiot, and I hope someone shoots you in the stomach with your own invention.
The questions are almost more revealing of the questioner, than the answers were of Cody. Never mind the fearful and suspicious comments! What a collection of sheep!
I am reminded of Robert Heinlein's comment:
"Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled, and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
Come on, people, don't get your panties in a bind about nothing, and stop believing that government religion. Government has ALWAYS, all through history, been much more murderous than any local criminals or crazies. Even now they are killing innocents in your name, over in Afghanistan.
With the home 3D printer and the ability to print an home weapon, comes the ability for a home user to make a unregistered gun with no recorded ballistics, shoot someone and burn and melt the gun down.
These weapons from past PoPSCi articles showed to only shoot 8 or a few shots. It only takes one shot to kill.
A bad guy would then shoot someone, burn and melt the gun to hide it.
Even if new laws make this 100% illegal to make a home weapon, how will the law stop the bad guy who is planning to break the law and do harm anyways?
@ DoogsNova: Since you seem to be a fan of limitations on fundamental personal liberties (the Supreme Court's words, not mine; see District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008), allow me to point out the limits of the liberty you choose to exercise: free speech.
Since a complete discussion of the first amendment, or even the free speech clause, would far exceed anyone's interest in reading, let it be sufficient to state that it is not absolute, as pointed out by others above. Among the recognized limitations are "fighting words". See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (SCOTUS, 9-0 decision, 1942). By any standard, what you have posted is personally directed at Cody Wilson and by its "very utterance inflict[s] injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." (quoted from the Chaplinsky decision). Your statement may also be construed as issuing a "hit," which falls under the "incitement doctrine." This is probably a violation of criminal statutes in whatever state you reside. Also, because you probably don't live in the same state as Cody and because you're using the internet (an instrumentality of interstate commerce) to convey this threat, you are in federal waters too.
For your sake, I certainly hope that nobody follows your desire to shoot this guy in the stomach. You might just find yourself sharing a room with the shooter for a very long time.
ignorantia legis non excusat
Its a numbers game. Given a million sampling,
1. How many good parents who do their best to raise responsible kids still end up with their kids 'trying' stuff they shouldn't during moments of weakness/peer pressure? We're all human.
2. How many bad/absent parents raise troubled kids who would embrace being a rebel?
3. How many kids have either diagnosed/undiagnosed urge-control issues?
4. How many adults have these issues as well?
5. How many of them can use a computer and print?
6. How many people can the above harm in a singular moment of weakness?
Do the above weigh more than below:
1. How many kids/adults out there can invent, print and test an earthquake proof building brick shape from their garage? Or any other life-altering invention as a result of enabling someone with 3D Printing Technology.
2. How many people can break the poverty cycle for their families if they are innovative and entrepreneurial enough to use 3D Printing?
3. How much faster research and development will be if people don't have to wait for custom parts?
4. How many new works of art will be created?
When you get right down to it. This technology is no different than a hammer. Both good and bad can come out of the use of it. No Hammer Control = No 3D Printing Control
Balloonattack, the problem i see with cody is that under terrorist laws (which are far reaching and in most cases an over-reaction) he could be the catalyst that puts 3d printers out of reach of honest people, stifling the growth of a very beneficial technology. I agree that there will be others that try to distribute designs and it could potentially become a weapon of choice for murder.
Robot is right, fire a shot and melt it down, that would become common.
A common sense reaction would be a law that prohibits the possession of the designs (and a printer) without a valid gun license. (as well as stricter laws on purchasing ammunition) But as soon as the designs are out there, there will be a torrent, and torrents are very difficult to track.
Responsible people should be able to own guns, but look at the model in japan. People can own guns there but the assumption is that you are a criminal if you own a gun, and you have to jump through hoops to possess one, and pass a check every 6 months, and your home can be checked randomly. Guess what their murder rate fell to? 0. (by guns) Japan is not a country with a tiny population either.
I object to the comparison of the 2nd Ammendment to the 1st and how the right of free speech functions in our society. I've never heard of a man walking into a school or movie theater and killing dozens of innocent people by shouting. They are not the same and arguing as if they are is sophistry. They should not enjoy equal treatment under the law.
So maybe an emotionally unstable person wont have the resources to print his own gun but that doesn't mean he can't buy one from some guy looking to make a few bucks from his new 3D printer.
Ok, since no-one is going to point this out: You are all being trolled by a nerdy kid who figured out how to do something that would totally gross a lot of people out. He isn't fighting for freedom of expression, or anything else, but attention. The things he advocates are not going to be as feasible as he or, apparently, many other people believe.
As of this moment, the machines used to print these lower receivers are very expensive. So, already, that puts them out of the hands of many people.
Then, where is the rest of the gun? Springs? They print those yet? Did we develop a machine that can print with high tensile steel? Think about it, the magazine, the BARREL? Lol, I am dying to see someone fire an assault rifle with a plastic breech and barrel, PLEASE Cody, make one of those and post a video of you maiming yourself with it. If so, it is cheap enough for any random disgruntled kid to get? Nope, and until it exists, his whole troll is moot.
News flash, there are ALREADY people out there who can manufacture high quality arms, in their shops, and quickly, with mostly automated processes. Nearly every high level competition weapon AND a LOT of the ammo are all handmade. So until we have a 'printer' capable of printing a rifled barrel, springs, and other similar items, and until this technology is ubiquitous, he is just blowing smoke up everyone's chimneys.
He is a troll playing the oldest troll in the book: 'Let's you and him go fight'. He knows how high emotions run on this issue, and uses his little fantasy crusade to get people stirred up. I may as well begin 'advocating' relocating mentally ill people to the moon. Regardless of whether it is morally correct, it is irrelevant in ANY case.
@beyond9 you have to be some kind of stupid to think that preventing the sales and production of weapons will make anyone safer. alcohol wasn't even a weapon and crime rates soared when it was prohibited. either way you are missing the point that he was trying to get across, the regulatory stance that America and other nations have on it's problems doesn't work in a world where you can literally make your own effective gun without the expertise, knowledge and skill to do it normally. the problem isn't in the access of the weapon it's the person behind the weapon. lack of thought, lack of experience, lack of integrity, lack of morality and honor, these are the things that our nation and culture are self admittedly lacking. we praise the individual who sacrifices their own integrity for the sake of being liberated, we have an entire city devoted to the sins you can get away with, we have entire cultures BUILT by America dedicated to defining honor and morality then doing the opposite of it. the simple fact of the matter is that these are more effective at preventing violence than simply taking away the weapon.
it's not time to deny the sale and production of guns, it is time for the population to wake up and smell the ashes. it's time that we became responsible for our own actions and honorable in our ways. our government is blind, justice is literally what we make it, we cannot allow these automatons be our moral guardians.
power does not corrupt, contrary to popular belief, it's the reasons and the excuses that corrupt. a politician will be corrupt because all that s/he has ever known to get to his position is corruption.
the technology is unstoppable, the problem is not in the tool, the people have always been the lowest common denominator and lately it's been exceptionally low.
to mars or bust!
Most of the killing in the world, comes from calculating people in calm rooms planning, leaders.
Random acts of violence are prevalent throughout the world, no matter how much you limit the weapons. With no weapons at all these same people would still commit the same acts of crime, because it comes from their emotional unstable minds.
Meanwhile, governments and leaders use great acts of violence and fear to control large segments of people. With 9/11 and control of the media, our freedoms are being slowly removed, by scared peoples.
The new 9/11 anti terrorist laws allows monitoring of everyone if you have a history of crime or NOT. The new NSA in UTAH complete and open in 2013 and another being built and open in 2016 will watch, listen to all communications of any type of all people in the world. These are absolute facts and the current laws allow this.
We are becoming a complete government run state, controlled like sheep and cattle.
@Joshua: I was wondering if someone was going to point this out. All Mr. Wilson has done is allow people to make a really fancy plastic toy handle and trigger. It's like giving someone access to the frame of a car and nothing else and saying "here you go this could be a functioning car at some point." Sure there are a few people who would have the knowledge of finding the right pieces and correctly assembling it, but I would have to assume that the vast majority doesn't have the knowledge, resources, or desire to learn how to build a gun from start to finish.
Now if Defense Distributed begins selling a complete DIY gun kit with all the necessary parts, then that would be a different story and something that garners all this attention, but so far I don't see
1. Anyone with metalworking experience and some tools can already build a gun with traditional techniques. And they can build one that will actually function, not a plastic toy that will fall apart after (or during) a couple of firings. It wasn't rocket science BEFORE 3d printing, and 3d printing won't magically make it kid's play. 3d printing is being hyped up way too much.
2. Many individuals can (and have) build cars from scratch. It doesn't mean they have somehow circumvented the requirement to register them in order to put them on the road. Anyone can take a cannabis seed and grow it into a plant. It requires virtually no technical knowledge and is thousands of times less costly than printing a gun. But it's still illegal and ease of doing something illegal doesn't mean millions of people are flocking to doing it. The whole "gun printing" business is hyped up.
To sum it up, it's just a bunch of wanna be nerds stirring something in order to get their 15 minutes of fame.
Your ultimate online portal to the future. Reporting on what's new and what's next in technology, science, gadgets, space, green tech and more.<a href="http://www.caninecancerdiet.com/fibrosarcoma-in-dogs">fibrosarcoma in dogs</a>
You're a damn fool. You are suggesting the government completely ignore the 1st amendment, the 2nd amendment, the 9th amendment, and the 10th amendment... and I probably missed a few.
If you believe the government should control who we marry of the same sex, I can't possibly imagine your views on same sex marriage.
Take a government class and find out what exactly the government is for. By the way, it's not for providing your every need and enforcing morals on society. When it tries to do things similar to this, we end up 16 trillion dollars in debt, which is proof that our current state of government is not natural.
Robot is right, our federal government is slowly creeping in on our lives and our rights, and it is the morons like you that allow it happen.
in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone
│ ● ● │—☆—
│○ ╰┬┬┬╯ ○│／｜＼
│ ╰—╯ ／
"This is what we can do to prevent massacres of innocent children
A) Prohibit the sale of automatic weapons."
And there is a good example of the problem throughout the entire comments -- simple lack of knowledge.
Just FYI, automatic weapons have required a Federal license, with a background check since 1934. If you want a legal one now, it will cost you something north of 30,000 dollars, and will cost more than 300 dollars per minute to shoot it. Crimes committed with legally registered automatic weapons are very rare.
Also, I hate to spoil all the excitement but nobody is going to print a complete weapon any time soon. Even if they manage to print a receiver (one piece of the weapon), they would still need a barrel, a bolt carrier group, and a number of other pieces. Because of the stresses on these pieces, it is unlikely that 3D printers will be able to make viable parts any time soon.
Great job Cody!
May I point out something which is not obvious to many. The word "bear" in the Second Amendment is very powerful:
To bring forth
Keep up the good work!
this is the future of firearms in America:
Putting these DEFENSIVE weapons in the most hands to do good--such as schools, theaters, etc. would drastically reduce the number of mass-murders because then we would have a way to quickly INCAPACITATE the fiends.
For all of these reasons they would be the MOST effective way to lower the risks of mass murderers accomplishing their objective:
1) These 'defensive only' guns are designed to incapacitate bad people--not kill them. This allows schools to paralyze the offending fiends and disarm them before they do further harm.
2) Disarming the fiends allows society to pick the brains of captured mass-murderers instead of being in the dark why the fiends did it and then later commit suicide as they usually do before being captured.
3) The guns won't kill innocent bystanders (our children in the schools) in the CROSSFIRE. Everyone knows crossfire can kill as many innocents as the fiend(s) who sought to kill in the first place. These will prevent that. Of course there is always the potential for harm but it's dramatically lowered.
4) The guns -- if stolen--CANNOT be used as a mass murderer weapon by those that would steal the 'defensive' weapons--unlike typical 'offense' guns (especially large clip semi-automatics) which CAN be used against others (especially on the black market). The TASER clips (5) are not sold to the general public so once discharged cannot be used again--basically making them a disposable defensive weapon only.
5) Having trained school personnel that are familiar with guns trained to use them and having 3 or 4 of these per school would allow multiple SIMULTANEOUS defenses against an assailant and a better chance of stopping them compared to just ONE securuity personnel . Most security personnel are uniformed and are usually the FIRST target of any would be mass-murderer.
6) The costs would be lower than hiring a full-time security personnel and the response by properly trained and equipped school personnel would be FASTER than the local police responses and Swat teams.
7) The impementation of a nationwide program utilizing these defensive weapons would provide a substantial check on fiends thinking of committing mass-murders. And this not only includes at our schools--but at theaters, stadiums, churches, etc.
8) These also would be a deterrence to terrorists because if they are everywhere then they know they can be stopped just like the good Americans who stopped the terrorists on flight 91.