Reporter, Cameraman Shot While On-Air

KI4MVP said:

If phones can be made so they can't be used if they are stolen, shouldn't there be a way to do the same thing for guns?

Click to expand...

I would have absolutely no problem with this at all..

Only problem is that guns are becoming more easily made.

My brother and I started working on one of the cheap AR-15 builds that uses "broken lowers."
http://www.brokenarmory.com/

These weapons aren't even registered, and avoid all sales/transaction laws since you're effectively manufacturing them yourself.

Beyond that, and moving into the future, manufacturing weapons at home is becoming easier and easier. Here's a guy with a 3D printed lower receiver on his AR-15:

So while we are simultaneously moving towards smart guns, we're also (unfortunately) moving towards soon-to-be household 3D printers being able to manufacture hundreds of firearms annually (each).

This is why I say weapons prohibitions really won't work.

We really need to look at the common causes of violent crime and address those issues, which are largely socioeconomic, rather than focusing on what I think is a unrealistic and unattainable goal.

Maybe we can 3D print us some common sense.....

gourimoko said:

I would have absolutely no problem with this at all..

Only problem is that guns are becoming more easily made.

My brother and I started working on one of the cheap AR-15 builds that uses "broken lowers."
http://www.brokenarmory.com/

These weapons aren't even registered, and avoid all sales/transaction laws since you're effectively manufacturing them yourself.

Beyond that, and moving into the future, manufacturing weapons at home is becoming easier and easier. Here's a guy with a 3D printed lower receiver on his AR-15:

So while we are simultaneously moving towards smart guns, we're also (unfortunately) moving towards soon-to-be household 3D printers being able to manufacture hundreds of firearms annually (each).

This is why I say weapons prohibitions really won't work.

We really need to look at the common causes of violent crime and address those issues, which are largely socioeconomic, rather than focusing on what I think is a unrealistic and unattainable goal.

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, but has anyone done anything about making it illegal to share 3d printable gun designs (I assume even you think it's a big problem to have a bunch of untraceable guns flood the market)?

The problem is Spydy, making something illegal isn't going to prevent someone from doing such a thing if they really want to.

How could you even enforce such a thing, let alone think it would be a good idea?

Lord Mar said:

The problem is Spydy, making something illegal isn't going to prevent someone from doing such a thing if they really want to.

How could you even enforce such a thing, let alone think it would be a good idea?

Click to expand...

Nothing we've ever made illegal has ever stopped people from doing that thing. Making it illegal makes it a punishable offense though.

As for enforcement, you could make it so it is illegal to upload it on the various sites that you can upload 3d printable designs to, and the Internet in general. The FBI's cyber crime division could handle looking after it.

spydy13 said:

Just out of curiosity, but has anyone done anything about making it illegal to share 3d printable gun designs (I assume even you think it's a big problem to have a bunch of untraceable guns flood the market)?

Click to expand...

Even me??

Spydy, you realize what you're talking about is a direct violation of the first amendment, right?

You have freedom of speech, that means freedom to disseminate information; including blueprints to firearms.

Bro, I really don't think you understand what it means to be a free society.

spydy13 said:

Nothing we've ever made illegal has ever stopped people from doing that thing. Making it illegal makes it a punishable offense though.

As for enforcement, you could make it so it is illegal to upload it on the various sites that you can upload 3d printable designs to, and the Internet in general. The FBI's cyber crime division could handle looking after it.

Click to expand...

You're talking about criminalizing speech. It's unconstitutional and a violation of our most sacred rights.

spydy13 said:

Just out of curiosity, but has anyone done anything about making it illegal to share 3d printable gun designs (I assume even you think it's a big problem to have a bunch of untraceable guns flood the market)?

Click to expand...

Is this a joke?

gourimoko said:

Even me??

Spydy, you realize what you're talking about is a direct violation of the first amendment, right?

You have freedom of speech, that means freedom to disseminate information; including blueprints to firearms.

Bro, I really don't think you understand what it means to be a free society.

Click to expand...

You said "unfortunately" in your post when your brought it up, so I assumed by that choice of words that despite your firm belief in gun rights that from a public safety stand point it was a bad thing to have those kinds of guns easily produced.

Sorry for apparently misinterpreting your words.

And as for making it illegal to share the designs, I was just curious based on that interpretation what, if anything, had been done to curtail that practice of producing 3d weapons. Based on my own research I see that the govt forced one such designer to stop sharing the designs on their website (although they lived on at the pirate bay and other such places) and have also passed a law making it so you have to place a piece of metal in those devices to ensure that the gun can be detected.

Edit: I fully recognize that the vast majority of people messing around with 3d printed guns are hobbyists who are enjoying tinkering and creating their own weapon. Making it illegal to share those designs is like making it illegal for the New Yankee Workshop to air on PBS.

Again, from the way you framed your whole post, it seemed to me that you were saying that 3d printed guns could potentially become a problem down the road, and I guess we'll have to see if it does before we do anything to limit their production. I don't know if they have said anything on the record, but I imagine the gun manufacturing lobby would be against them as well from a loss of revenue perspective.

The big problem with 3-d guns is that it means you'll never kill the black market.

The theory used to be that if you outlawed guns (and yes, there are plenty of folks for whom that is an end goal), or even just heavily restricted them, you wouldn't see any immediate beneifts. But over time, it would become progressively more difficult to get them until they become truly rare. The "we have to start sometime" approach.

Anyway, once anyone can manufacture guns in their basement, that theory loses validity. As soon as they get scarce, there will be people making new ones on their own. It's kind of like weed. Yes, you can try to stop importation, but people can always grow their own.

As a practical matter, the best way to slow down the growth/effectiveness of 3-d gums is to outlaw/regulate more than just the lower receiver. If you force 3-d printing of those other components as well, it will significantly limit the potential effectiveness of the weapons being built. Or at least slow down the pace of improvent

The Human Q-Tip said:

The big problem with 3-d guns is that it means you'll never kill the black market.

The theory used to be that if you outlawed guns (and yes, there are plenty of folks for whom that is an end goal), or even just heavily restricted them, you wouldn't see any immediate beneifts. But over time, it would become progressively more difficult to get them until they become truly rare. The "we have to start sometime" approach.
BTW, if anyone scoffs at claims that people who want to ban most private ownership of guns, I'd ask why Australia's attempt to do exactly that is so often cited with approval by so many gun control advocates.

Anyway, once anyone can manufacture guns in their basement, that theory loses validity. As soon as they get scarce, there will be people making new ones on their own. It's kind of like weed. Yes, you can try to stop importation, but people can always grow their own.

Anyway, the best way to slow down the growth/effectiveness of 3-d gums is to outlaw/regulate more than just the lower receiver. If you force 3-d printing of those other components as well, it will significantly limit the potential effectiveness of the weapons being built. Or at least slow down the pace of improvent

Click to expand...

I'll leave you with this.....

spydy13 said:

Just out of curiosity, but has anyone done anything about making it illegal to share 3d printable gun designs (I assume even you think it's a big problem to have a bunch of untraceable guns flood the market)?

Click to expand...

Well, there have been some attempts.

You could theoretically pass a law and prosecute someone for providing a 3-d design to someone for the purpose of assisting someone in the illegal production of a weapon. But you'd have to prove that latter point because you can't criminalize the information itself.

Seems like a weird distinction, but that's because of the First Amendment.

spydy13 said:

You said "unfortunately" in your post when your brought it up, so I assumed by that choice of words that despite your firm belief in gun rights that from a public safety stand point it was a bad thing to have those kinds of guns easily produced.

Sorry for apparently misinterpreting your words.

Click to expand...

You didn't misunderstand my words; I think it is unfortunate from a public safety standpoint and I do think people will likely die as a result. It's unfortunate because with such a great invention we've chosen to manufacture lethal weapons instead as one of the very first functional and usable machines. It says a lot about who we are.

spydy13 said:

And as for making it illegal to share the designs, I was just curious based on that interpretation what, if anything, had been done to curtail that practice of producing 3d weapons.

Click to expand...

What you're talking about is an extreme step. Again Spydy, I think you should really step back and consider what it means to live in a free society.

spydy13 said:

Based on my own research I see that the govt forced one such designer to stop sharing the designs on their website (although they lived on at the pirate bay and other such places) and have also passed a law making it so you have to place a piece of metal in those devices to ensure that the gun can be detected.

Click to expand...

None of this is true, Spydy.

You're referring to Defense Distributed vs Dept of State, which is an on-going case where Defense Distributed is suing the Administration for violating their first, second, and fifth amendment rights.

More specifically to your claim, the Dept. of State did not "force" DD to take down their files, they requested DD remove the files from their website pending a State Department review to determine if the practice of distributing CAD files violated several international arms trade laws (which give the President broad authority over arms deals between US dealers and foreign nations, so seemingly inapplicable).

So DD complied voluntarily, yet sued the Dept. of State after 2 years of refusing to rescind their request or providing a reason that they've since not performed their review.

While this process was underway, and to bolster their own cause, DD distributed the files on Thingables. There was a big ruckus there and the administration decided it was in their best interest to remove the files and ban such files from there on out. It was at that point that DD approach The Pirate Bay and asked if they could help disseminate the files; which they were glad to do.

So, while DD isn't hosting the files themselves, TPB is, and that means instead of a few hundred downloads a year, there have been millions of downloads per year.

Lastly, it is disingenuous (or simply misinformed, I don't know which in this case) to state that Congress passed laws regarding 3D printed guns. The law you're referring to was passed in 1988 and signed into law by Pres. Reagan; called, the Undetectable Firearms Act. The proposed changes to said law to address 3D printable guns, by that moron Chuck Schumer, did not make it into the renewal bill in 2013. The original bill was designed to address the Glock 17 since it did not set off metal detectors, and has nothing really to do with 3D printable guns.

One can still manufacture a 3D printable gun, such as the liberator, and simply coat the interior of the handle with 3.7 oz of solder which would make it perfectly legal.

spydy13 said:

Edit: I fully recognize that the vast majority of people messing around with 3d printed guns are hobbyists who are enjoying tinkering and creating their own weapon. Making it illegal to share those designs is like making it illegal for the New Yankee Workshop to air on PBS.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

spydy13 said:

Again, from the way you framed your whole post, it seemed to me that you were saying that 3d printed guns could potentially become a problem down the road, and I guess we'll have to see if it does before we do anything to limit their production.

Click to expand...

Lol. We can't do anything to limit their production, that's the point.

spydy13 said:

I don't know if they have said anything on the record, but I imagine the gun manufacturing lobby would be against them as well from a loss of revenue perspective.

Click to expand...

The gun manufacturing lobby is the NRA, which supports the efforts of Defense Distributed...

Wow, now the outrage is over the News outlets showing the video of the people being murdered on air.

Even though the people questioning the morals of it are the same ones who were showing it all that day.

'Merica.

gourimoko said:

You didn't misunderstand my words; I think it is unfortunate from a public safety standpoint and I do think people will likely die as a result. It's unfortunate because with such a great invention we've chosen to manufacture lethal weapons instead as one of the very first functional and usable machines. It says a lot about who we are.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing things up. I agree that it's sad, and not dissimilar from the way the internet became a great way to share porn (among other things). My former high school has actually invested a ton of money in maker bot machines for their fine arts department to use.

What you're talking about is an extreme step. Again Spydy, I think you should really step back and consider what it means to live in a free society.

Click to expand...

Oh I know that living in a free society means that there are a whole host of things that I disagree with that are protected under the law. Talking about possible change, however extreme, isn't a bad thing in my opinion though. That's how the tide finally turned on gay marriage.

None of this is true, Spydy.

You're referring to Defense Distributed vs Dept of State, which is an on-going case where Defense Distributed is suing the Administration for violating their first, second, and fifth amendment rights.

More specifically to your claim, the Dept. of State did not "force" DD to take down their files, they requested DD remove the files from their website pending a State Department review to determine if the practice of distributing CAD files violated several international arms trade laws (which give the President broad authority over arms deals between US dealers and foreign nations, so seemingly inapplicable).

So DD complied voluntarily, yet sued the Dept. of State after 2 years of refusing to rescind their request or providing a reason that they've since not performed their review.

While this process was underway, and to bolster their own cause, DD distributed the files on Thingables. There was a big ruckus there and the administration decided it was in their best interest to remove the files and ban such files from there on out. It was at that point that DD approach The Pirate Bay and asked if they could help disseminate the files; which they were glad to do.

So, while DD isn't hosting the files themselves, TPB is, and that means instead of a few hundred downloads a year, there have been millions of downloads per year.

Lastly, it is disingenuous (or simply misinformed, I don't know which in this case) to state that Congress passed laws regarding 3D printed guns. The law you're referring to was passed in 1988 and signed into law by Pres. Reagan; called, the Undetectable Firearms Act. The proposed changes to said law to address 3D printable guns, by that moron Chuck Schumer, did not make it into the renewal bill in 2013. The original bill was designed to address the Glock 17 since it did not set off metal detectors, and has nothing really to do with 3D printable guns.

One can still manufacture a 3D printable gun, such as the liberator, and simply coat the interior of the handle with 3.7 oz of solder which would make it perfectly legal.

Click to expand...

I admit, my research on this issue was Wikipedia. That's why I asked you about this originally because you are way more informed on this. Anything about guns in general is about as much gobbledygook to me as half the stuff you talk about with Internet security.

Thanks again for the info.

The gun manufacturing lobby is the NRA, which supports the efforts of Defense Distributed...

Click to expand...

That surprises me, but I guess that figure from a purely economic stand point that there will still be plenty of people that are too lazy to finish building a gun on their own and will keep buying from them.